If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Morning Call)   Upset about the sex offender next door? Can't sell your house? Then screw him   (mcall.com) divider line 181
    More: Interesting, sex offenders, child sexual abuse, Eighth Amendment, Megan's Law, Lehigh County, Douglas Laycock  
•       •       •

24225 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Mar 2013 at 1:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 02:54:42 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.


No, I'm with kiwimoogle84 on this one. If I see a kid or teenager in need of help or stranded by themselves or what-have-you, too bad, so sad, but I ain't helping. I don't even want to be near a potential situation where I might possibly have to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
 
2013-03-17 02:54:49 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

My grandfather was the sort to do things like that, and he wasn't a freak of any sort.  It wasn't uncommon for him to take 3-4 of the neighborhood kids with him when he went fishing on the creek.  The only problem we had was when he got drunk, he liked to push the little buggers into the water to watch them squawk at the cold water and laugh his ass off.  Only one kid ever got upset by that.

We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.

Ok, 3-4 kids at once out to a public place? Not so creepy. A single child TO YOUR BASEMENT? Surely you can't overlook what that screams to the public.

Is there something inherently evil about basements?

My god, stop being so scared and simply teach your kids not to be stupid.  Not all old men are perverts and not all situations are dangerous.

Or not.  Honestly, I'm just glad that my kids are grown and I don't have any kids in my neighborhood.  You people are farking insane when it comes to kids, thinking that anyone/everyone is a threat.

Protip: Most molestations are committed by family members on family members.  Not strangers.


*has no children.

Is there something inherently dangerous about CANDY? No, but we still repeat the old adage don't take candy from strangers, don't we?

Regardless, I even as an adult don't like basements, and I just don't think neighbor men should take a kid alone somewhere unless he's trusted.

You are right about the family member point though.
 
2013-03-17 02:56:33 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: We've just gotten so damned terrified of 'what if' that we simply assume that every stranger is a pedofile/rapist/mugger and we live our lives in our bunker/fortress/homes in complete and utter terror of an unexpected knock at the door.

Yeah, for many this is true, but considering how common sexual assault of children is, it is most reasonable to require that people, oh, not try to get 7 year old children into our basements, alone and without their parents knowledge. If one of my friends dis such a thing, I'd slap them in the head for being so goddamned stupid, and if they got in trouble I'd have no sympathy. It's akin to hanging out with a serious drug dealer, and when they get raided you get charged for being there. You are stupid if you do it, and deserve no sympathy.

omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.


Offering to show a child a bear's head in a basement is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Hanging out with a drug dealer is not a crime and should not be treated as a crime.

Neither of them are 'smart' ideas, but they're not criminal, either.  And that 'common' assault on children is mostly being perpetrated by family members, not strangers.

But, that's not quite as scary as the concept of the ooga-booga stranger at the door.
 
2013-03-17 02:57:03 PM

Glancing Blow: There is a growing movement to force registered sex offenders from neighborhoods; build a small park.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id= 90 29894
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-se x- offenders-away.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22756779/communities-use-po ck et-parks-force-out-sex-offenders?source=rss


I like it.  The city ought to take his house to build one.
 
2013-03-17 02:57:54 PM

PaLarkin: cman: Jon iz teh kewl: it's not HIS fault. it's the governments fault for MAKING a sex offender list in the FIRST PLACe

what did he do? urinate in public?

Molested a child

Still, this is a bit extreme.

It's extreme because the pervert is still alive.  He molested a child and got a couple of years for it.  He should have been put to death for what he did.  Child molesters don't care about their victims.  All they're concerned about is a few minutes of pleasure.  It's common knowledge that child molesters can't be cured.  They don't want to stop what they're doing.  The only way to ensure they can't cause any more trouble is to put them to death.


Please read the articles.  No touching was involved, it degenerated down to a 'he said/she said' case with no physical evidence of anything happening and the DA offered a plea bargain.
 
2013-03-17 02:58:27 PM

reillan: I don't think it's merely "upset about the sex offender next door"... the dude got in trouble in the first place because he *molested their daughter*.

I totally agree, he should have to pay for their house - that or move away himself.  It's cruel and highly unusual to make the little girl live next to this guy.


You're right.  However the government's only concern these days is the rights of the criminal.  To hell with the  victim.
 
2013-03-17 02:58:49 PM

Dead for Tax Reasons: "Any time a property owner engaged in an activity that ostensibly reduced surrounding property values, liability would attach,"Can the opposite be then argued as well?I improved my property, raising adjacent property values, therefore you must compensate me for increase


Exactly. The minute somebody comes to me about what I am doing is reducing his property values, I'll tell him that the only two times property values come into play is taxes and selling.  If he ain't selling, then I'd ask him to kindly thank me for keeping his tax bill low. If he was selling, I'd ask him to bring me the signed documents on what he sold it for and then I'd show him how to take the lower price and offset it with all the years of lower tax bills to see how much ahead he actually was because of me.
 
2013-03-17 03:01:43 PM
Infernalist:


Offering to show a child a bear's head in a basement is not a crime and shouldn't be treated as a crime.

Hanging out with a drug dealer is not a crime and should not be treated as a crime.



Perhaps not, but when you get arrested and charged with child molestation/drug possession, don't look to me for sympathy. It's literally criminally stupid at this point.

Neither of them are 'smart' ideas, but they're not criminal, either.  And that 'common' assault on children is mostly being perpetrated by family members...

...And people known to the child, like, oh, a next door neighbor? He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

 
2013-03-17 03:07:58 PM

FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.


Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...

I've got a video tape of you farking a chicken.  That's "talk".  That goes a bit more past he said/she said.  It's now "reasonable to believe" you did indeed fark a chicken.

Also, a plea of guilt is not the same as actual guilt.  I covered this in other posts. It can be, and often is, a sort of coercion of a confession.  It was meant to be a shortcut so that court not be held needlessly, but is now more commonly a process of legal threats and badgering.

GTFO chicken farker!
 
2013-03-17 03:09:07 PM
FarkinHostile:

...And people known to the child, like, oh, a next door neighbor? He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

This is why the entire country is retarded.  Do you know why sex offenders just so happen to be relatives or someone that they know?

HERE IS THE ANSWER:

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE VICTIM.

fin
 
2013-03-17 03:11:49 PM

FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.


It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.
 
2013-03-17 03:14:03 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: "X people moving into the neighborhood drives down property values", we've heard that one before.Trolling
Although, seriously, how much money does an ex-con have that this isn't blood from a stone?


Same amount as most home buyers... but not to worry!  The government will back a loan for him.
 
2013-03-17 03:19:13 PM
RacySmurff:

 I think the sex offender should be hung, but the family's been through enough.

Who cares if he's hung or not? He should be castrated, then drawn and quartered.
 
2013-03-17 03:20:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.

Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...

I've got a video tape of you farking a chicken.  That's "talk".  That goes a bit more past he said/she said.  It's now "reasonable to believe" you did indeed fark a chicken.

Also, a plea of guilt is not the same as actual guilt.  I covered this in other posts. It can be, and often is, a sort of coercion of a confession.  It was meant to be a shortcut so that court not be held needlessly, but is now more commonly a process of legal threats and badgering.

GTFO chicken farker!



Meow, I'd at least had a chance to see the evidence for his innocence. Taking a plea is saying "You have enough evidence to convict me, but I don't want to admit I did it or it looks so bad I can't win." In a case where I was accused of being a farking child molester, you better believe I'd plead not guilty. As little faith as I have in the Justice System meow, I'd still take a chance of telling my side and being found not guilty over a conviction unless I was, you know, guilty or close enough that I had to take a plea. Like if they had a videotape. That is not something you take a plea on. Not meow, not ever.
 
2013-03-17 03:24:30 PM
I don't like sex offenders but being unable to sell your house is your problem. Lower your price if no body is buying. Thats how the market works

There is no constitutional right to a specific property value. The whole concept of property values is bullshiat a made up excuse to discriminate against undesirables. (usually tend to be a different skin color but don't call them racists)
 
2013-03-17 03:26:38 PM
MBrady:

Actually downloading child porn IS a crime idiot.

Be careful not to cast your net too wide. I remember the bad old days before pop-up blocking was built into mainstream browsers and it was not uncommon to run without a plug in. Even Fark would occasionally get bait-and-switched by a shady advertiser and suddenly you would be looking at a NSFW image.

Point is, there are lots of ways to passively get an illegal image transferred to your IP address and into your mail or browser cache with no intent on your part. The case could be made by a prosecutor, and has, that this constitutes downloading and is a federal crime.

Before broadband and 4chan, usenet was how people passed around media. Files were posted as MIME-text, often split into multiple messages. You had to download, reassemble and decode files before knowing if the content matched the description. Due to relatively slow speeds and the cumbersome process, it was common to run a batch program to fill your bandwidth by continuously download a given forum in the background. The proto-chaners would troll the boards with the most offensive and illegal images they could get their hands on, the more innocent the topic the better. After a few days you might have a few hundred photography-enthusiast images and unknowingly be a child pornographer to boot.
 
2013-03-17 03:28:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.



To believe that 65 year old men shouldn't try to get 7 year old girls alone in their basement, and if they do they are likely up to no good?  Do you know it's not 1950 anymore and putting yourself in that situation is asking for it? THAT'S stupid, criminally so, just as hanging out in a house where you know there are 3 kilos of coke.

Pffft. That is the very least of what has corrupted our justice system. You're not a stupid guy, and you know it, too.
 
2013-03-17 03:30:24 PM

JohnnyRebel88: Easton defense attorney Gary Asteak said the request would be a tough sell to a jury.

He has quite the ego in a courtroom.  He wears nice cowboy hats.  Seriously.  If there are any Farkers from the Lehigh Valley that have anything to do with the legal system, they will know his name as well.  They should have retained his services in his prime, not 25 yrs later.


Does he still send out Christmas cards with his picture on them to everyone in the bar association?
 
2013-03-17 03:38:26 PM
Now you're just being obtuse.

FarkinHostile: Taking a plea is saying "You have enough evidence to convict me, but I don't want to admit I did it or it looks so bad I can't win."


Not necessarily.  As I outlined above, you can believe you'll get convicted, despite personal knowledge that you're innocent. If you had little faith in the justice system, as you claim, you'd recognize that as a possibility.

Instead, you choose to believe in guilt despite lacking any real facts.

That's why you're either a legit dipshiat, or a troll.  Despite your attempts to be cute with the Super Troopers reference, Poe's Law stands. that's the curiousity with poe's law.  Even zealots can back off and attempt to make nice or save face, so now, even an actual admission cannot be trusted.  At this point I'd need further review of your behavior elsewhere, though backing from others may suffice, for example.

Makes me wonder though, about user names.  FarkinHostile is relatively akin to letrole...That may bend poe's law, but doesn't break it I suppose. Some people just happen to pick a username that can be taken wrong.  Also, as is common, many trolls are also zealots.  They will instigate and make fallicious arguments knowingly, desperate to get you on their side even if they have to lie to do it.  You know, like politicians.

That is relevant, the difference between belief and being convinced, and the direct interplay of the two, how it's difficult, if not impossible(more common), to convince a character that their belief is wrong.
 
2013-03-17 03:42:10 PM

Eddie Ate Dynamite: Others have mentioned it, I'll reiterate. If they're a threat they should be in prison. If they're not a threat then there's no need for the list. If we're going to straight up admit the justice system is flawed and there are unfixable cracks in it thus necessitating such a list, then...well, I don't know, start setting up colonies for undesirables? How dystopian do you guys wanna get with this society?


The "amusing" part is the rate of recidivism, it's opposite what most people seem to think.
 
2013-03-17 03:42:44 PM

FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: That actually adds weight to his being guilty.

It's irrational belief like this that has corrupted our justice system and why juries are so open to manipulation, because the unwashed masses are actually this stupid.


To believe that 65 year old men shouldn't try to get 7 year old girls alone in their basement, and if they do they are likely up to no good?  Do you know it's not 1950 anymore and putting yourself in that situation is asking for it? THAT'S stupid, criminally so, just as hanging out in a house where you know there are 3 kilos of coke.

Pffft. That is the very least of what has corrupted our justice system. You're not a stupid guy, and you know it, too.


To believe that simply being known to the victim adds weight to "guilt".  As per your actual quote.

FarkinHostile: He was no stranger. That actually adds weight to his being guilty.


Yeah, I'm leaning on intentional troll now, zealot still being  a possibility.

Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.
 
2013-03-17 03:52:56 PM

omeganuepsilon: Now you're just being obtuse.


No, you are, friend. You know how farking stupid it is to put yourself in that situation in this day and age.


Not necessarily.  As I outlined above, you can believe you'll get convicted, despite personal knowledge that you're innocent. If you had little faith in the justice system, as you claim, you'd recognize that as a possibility.

Sure, when the state has enough evidence that you look guilty, you might take a plea. I might, if it were the drug house situation, but child molestation? No, I'll have my day in court, on the stand, and let the chips lie where they will. Of course, since I don't lure....I mean invite, 7 year old girls into my basement to "look at bear heads", I'm pretty sure I won't have to worry about it.

 That's why you're either a legit dipshiat, or a troll.


Wow. Name calling? I actually expected better of you. You usually don't don't suck like this. Humph. Guess I'll have to change your farky.


Despite your attempts to be cute with the Super Troopers reference, Poe's Law stands.

(Laughing) Uh, didn't you call me a chickenfarker? I thought we were playing, having a little fun during this, but I see I must have hit a nerve. Probably because you got nothing.

 Makes me wonder though, about user names.

I have a little blurb about that in my profile.


FarkinHostile is relatively akin to letrole.

Uh, no. Not even close. I may not suffer fools gladly, but I say what I mean. Bluntly.


That is relevant, the difference between belief and being convinced, and the direct interplay of the two, how it's difficult, if not impossible(more common), to convince a character that their belief is wrong.

Physician, heal thyself.
 
2013-03-17 03:53:36 PM

omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.


That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>
 
2013-03-17 03:54:22 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>


I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.
 
2013-03-17 03:54:49 PM

omeganuepsilon: Yeah, I'm leaning on intentional troll now, zealot still being a possibility.

Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.


So someone having a different opinion is beyond your ability to comprehend? I have been giving you WAY too much credit.

Shame.
 
2013-03-17 03:55:19 PM

kiwimoogle84: With him living next door, it's impossible to sell their house. I get that. I'm not sure if forcing him to buy it is the right answer- moving him might be easier- but I can understand it.


"Two economics professors at Columbia Business School in 2008 studied the effect, finding that the value of homes within one-tenth of a mile * of a sex offender dropped by an average of 4 percent.  Jonah Rockoff, one of the study's authors, said the decrease was about 12 percent for properties next door to sex offenders. He said subsequent studies have shown similar results."

Evidently, it's not impossible to sell a house next door to a sex offender, if you'll just be realistic about  the price.  Then sue the sex offender for your net loss.   It's called "mitigating damages" and aggrieved parties have an obligation to do it.

* Kind of surprising how localized the fear factor is.
 
2013-03-17 04:02:14 PM

Nem Wan: Meghan's Law is the prerequisite for sex offenders having an effect on property values. Without the law there would not be that effect. Given the lack of proof that Meghan's Law has saved anyone from being molested, it's questionable whether it has any positive effects at all.


Well, apparently Meghan's Law has helped to keep homes affordable.  I'm sure young families just starting out appreciate that.  Even childless homeowners might benefit in the form of lower property taxes.

Yin Yang, baby.
 
2013-03-17 04:05:44 PM

Infernalist: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>

I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.


I don't think he is a troll, and I certainly am not, I just think he's got a stupid opinion of how this type of thing should go. He apparently thinks that 65 year old men should be able to freely and without consequence lure 7 year old girls alone to their basements. Nevermind what we all know about putting yourself in such situations, nevermind the other numerous accusations, nevermind the plea he took, nevermind the conviction, all of it means nothing. He could still be totally innocent, and that is the only thing that matters.
img.photobucket.com


"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "
 
2013-03-17 04:06:34 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>

I abandoned the thread once the obvious trolls came out.  It's SOP.

I don't think he is a troll, and I certainly am not, I just think he's got a stupid opinion of how this type of thing should go. He apparently thinks that 65 year old men should be able to freely and without consequence lure 7 year old girls alone to their basements. Nevermind what we all know about putting yourself in such situations, nevermind the other numerous accusations, nevermind the plea he took, nevermind the conviction, all of it means nothing. He could still be totally innocent, and that is the only thing that matters.
[img.photobucket.com image 600x324]


"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "


You're adorable.  Retarded, but adorable.
 
2013-03-17 04:08:25 PM
Infernalist:

You're adorable.  Retarded, but adorable.

That's why chicks dig me. I got the Corky vibe going.
 
2013-03-17 04:14:28 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Either way, you're getting annotated as someone to not be taken with any credulity.

That's pretty funny coming from someone I've annotated as a global warming denier. >_>


If that's the case.
Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

The warming is undeniable, just looking at our polar regions.  If you want, there is an AGW thread up and running if you wish to discuss it further.  Or just continue to threadshiat and use an appeal to spite trick to make me look bad here, instead of you know, discussing the actual topic.
 
2013-03-17 04:14:34 PM

Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.


I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.
 
2013-03-17 04:16:21 PM

big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.


How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.
 
2013-03-17 04:17:03 PM

FarkinHostile: Infernalist: The only thing that makes any sense to me is if he's honestly not guilty and refuses to be run out by the situation. If he's got his hackles up and refuses to let them chase him out, then I can see him stubbornly refusing to move. This is all, naturally, based on the premise that he's an innocent man who took a plea bargain.

Why take a plea if you are honestly not guilty and refuse to be run out by the situation. Why would you roll over before when your actual guilt/innocence was on the line, but dig in after conviction? If your gonna fight, THAT is when you fight.


Guy is 65, has a mother as well as a wife.  They may have stayed in the house and have a lot to do with his unwillingness to move.
 
2013-03-17 04:29:02 PM

omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.


If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.
 
2013-03-17 04:30:04 PM

omeganuepsilon: FarkinHostile: omeganuepsilon: Because 7 year olds are reliable, as well as helicopter parents and priests(who were the first party the parents went to, not the police).

Belief is almost never reasonable.

He took the plea. He's guilty. At this point it's reasonable to believe he did it. If he fought it and lost, I'd have more doubt. He didn't. There is talk of videotape in the article. That goes a bit more past he said/she said and explains taking the plea.

Wow, you'd have more doubt if he was convicted via hard evidence but plead not guilty?

That's rational...


Such nonsense is spouted only by people who have never faced anything more serious than a parking ticket.
 
2013-03-17 04:31:36 PM

Infernalist: big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.

How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.


You do what worls for you, we'll do what works for us. It's not like we are running around branding people as molesters just BECAUSE of their behavior, but erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing.
 
2013-03-17 04:32:40 PM

kiwimoogle84: Infernalist: big pig peaches: Infernalist: kiwimoogle84: FarkinHostile: ha-ha-guy: Well just hypothetically, imagine this, you try to be nice to the weird kid across the street because you're a good neighbor and suddenly you're up on molestation charges.

Dude....a 65 year old man luring a 7 year old girl to a basement all alone in the year 2013 goes well beyond "being nice". At the absolute very least, It's criminally stupid and deserves punishment. No one is that ignorant anymore, and it's quite reasonable to believe he was up to no good, especially considering what the little girl said he did.

Especially not "to see a teddy bear." He can bring the damn thing upstairs and to the neighbors house if he has no nefarious intentions.

I've had conversations with Mr. Kiwi about this. He goes, if I see a child crying in a mall or in a park with no parents nearby, I'm gonna keep walking. You know why? No good deed goes unpunished, and every mother thinks every man wants to fark their kid. Some woman will come along to help the kid, but I'm not going to jail because I tried to help and instead got labeled a sex offender.

This is no way to run a society.

I was in that situation a few years ago. My first thought was the same. So I called over to an older lady and asked her to stay with the girl while i found someone in security. The lady understood exactly why I did it that way without another word exchanged between us. The girls mom showed up before I was ten feet away.

If I was someplace deserted, I'm not sure what i would have done.

How farked up is that?  Worst still, we accept it.

You do what worls for you, we'll do what works for us. It's not like we are running around branding people as molesters just BECAUSE of their behavior, but erring on the side of caution is never a bad thing.


Yes, it is.
 
2013-03-17 04:33:10 PM
At least he didn't get all shooty over it.  I'd keep a loaded 45 handy and if he even came on my property.....

I probably would already have done it if he molested my kid.
 
2013-03-17 04:33:38 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.


How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*
 
2013-03-17 04:35:25 PM
Wanna find out if there are any sex offenders in your neighborhood?  Go here.
 
2013-03-17 04:36:05 PM

omeganuepsilon: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.

How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*


We both know what you are: a pseudo-sophist, someone who argues with everyone while simultaneously defending no position. It's not original, it's not impressive, and nobody cares except you.
 
2013-03-17 04:39:44 PM
All they have to do is open up a child care center in their home and he's forced to move. Problem solved.
 
2013-03-17 04:39:56 PM
Lets do this........ Classify the offenders..

Piss in Public? Who cares Level 1 - free to live everywhere.
Watch kittie porn? Level 2 - computer and such watched, no living restriction.
20 yr old Kid who bangs 16 yr old? level 2 other words - who cares

molester? Level 5 - Fark em - kids are going to grow up messed in the head
Rapist? Level 5 - fark em too, people who get raped change - their entire outlook on life change

Big difference between a "I gotta take a leak" and "hide yo kids hide yo wives".
 
2013-03-17 04:43:44 PM

Infernalist: Yes, it is.


This.

In this general discussion.

We have parent's that live in perpetual fear, and that begets fear in random strangers of being seen with their kids, or any kids.  Now, often, kids wandering an and do get hurt or injured, because we're caused to live in fear.  Assuredly lives have been ruined by false accusations, even without conviction.

Similar to the CPR argument.  People, and even businesses are now making it policy to not provide CPR out of fear of liability. Then people die when they didn't have to.  Lawsuits are held, etc, and strife is added to the lives of everyone involved.

A bit ridiculous, the things that living in fear of that magnitude can perpetuate.  That's why we have the term Nanny State, and it carries such derision.
 
2013-03-17 04:49:21 PM
Nothing a gallon of gas and a Bic wouldn't solve, huh?
 
2013-03-17 04:49:55 PM

James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: James F. Campbell: omeganuepsilon: Your observational/reading comprehension/deductional reasoning skills are very poor.

If it helps you sleep at night, I'm OK with letting you pretend you're smarter than me.

How clever!  Absolutely scathing!
*feigns applause*

We both know what you are: a pseudo-sophist, someone who argues with everyone while simultaneously defending no position. It's not original, it's not impressive, and nobody cares except you.


Well, atleast it's creative, the pseudo sophist bit, even if not true.  You clearly care enough to comment on it.

Defending no position though?  I thought I was prettly plainly talking about how our justice system has problems, though it was created under a great principle, "innocent until proven guilty".
I also stated how attempting to make someone buy your house was a bit irrational.

It'd help if you actually read the threads, no wonder you have me marked with something that's simply not true.
 
2013-03-17 04:57:03 PM
"This is taking our litigious society to the most absurd extremes," he said. "Certainly, I think a jury in our community would treat [the suit] with skepticism."

Not in this sort of case. With this guy, the jury may ask the judge to order the Pedofork to buy not just the house next door but to buy out the whole damn block if the other owners want to sell too.
 
2013-03-17 04:58:10 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: what did he do? urinate in public?


RTFA. He raped their kid.
 
2013-03-17 04:59:24 PM

Glancing Blow: There is a growing movement to force registered sex offenders from neighborhoods; build a small park.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id= 90 29894
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/building-tiny-parks-to-drive-se x- offenders-away.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22756779/communities-use-po ck et-parks-force-out-sex-offenders?source=rss


Came to mention this. Though the result is often homeless sex offenders. Kinda hard to track them when they don't have anywhere to live.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report