NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.

If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.

What would you do?

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

Was this a fair sentence?

Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

On the bare facts given, it's no different than if I thought you were a shifty looking character and I jumped you in your house before caving in your skull with a sledgehammer my anti-social Darwinianist.

Fairly illegal I imagine.

Vigilantes like these want any sex offender killed on conviction, thereby negating any sort of moral standing they have for an anti-death penalty stance, or they simply want to do the deed themselves the moment it becomes convenient.

as much as a sympathizes with her, you cant just go bashing people.

Why the offender doesn't have a parole condition of Do not talk to anyone under the age of 18 ??
http://ml.waspc.org/offender.aspx?pid=935945&name=Baldwin,%20William%20Allen&address=12xx%20Everett%20Ave%20-&city=Everett%20&zip=98201 state info on him.

Very fair for an unprovoked attack.

Very fair for an unprovoked attack.

The person's reasoning for provocation was that the ex-convict was engaging in legal acts, talking to someone.

It's interesting to see how conveniently people toss out the law for moral outrage and violence to get their ways, even those who profess to be law abiding people who believe in due process and all that.

Very fair for an unprovoked attack.

also curious about the exact nature of his crime...
he is 25 now. so before conviction he might have been 20ish and got caught making out with a 17yr Gf or something.

I can understand why the mother was concerned, but just going & bashing someone with a baseball bat is illegal. I'm not surprised she got a jail sentence.

The person's reasoning for provocation was that the ex-convict was engaging in legal acts, talking to someone.

It's interesting to see how conveniently people toss out the law for moral outrage and violence to get their ways, even those who profess to be law abiding people who believe in due process and all that.
To be fair of course, when one's children are involved, reasoning tends to go out the window. Still no excuse, but it is a reason.

also curious about the exact nature of his crime...
he is 25 now. so before conviction he might have been 20ish and got caught making out with a 17yr Gf or something.
No idea, the site lists him as a cat III through, which is pretty serious and a conviction for child molestation I.

If I ever have children, one of the values I will hope to instill in them is that it's wrong to attack people with baseball bats.

To be fair of course, when one's children are involved, reasoning tends to go out the window. Still no excuse, but it is a reason.

It's the same sort of 'reason out the window' mentality that parents use to let their children die of medically treatable problems, or starve them to death because they believe in some invisible man in the sky will do their jobs or some new age trash about nutrition. They all thought they were doing something 'good' for their children. This person isn't any different.

To be fair of course, when one's children are involved, reasoning tends to go out the window. Still no excuse, but it is a reason.


No idea, the site lists him as a cat III through, which is pretty serious and a conviction for child molestation I.

i am looking up Washington child molestation criteria. the issue is you can become Cat 3 for refusing therapy, pretty easy to cop and attitude and refuse to play their games if you were tossed away for hooking up with a 16 or 17 year old.

also curious about the exact nature of his crime...he is 25 now. so before conviction he might have been 20ish and got caught making out with a 17yr Gf or something.

Given that he's registered as a Level III sex offender, it's unlikely it was something like him being six months early for some girl's 18th birthday party.

As far as the mother beating the ever-loving hell out of him wiith a bat, it might not be the appropriate response, but it is, I think, an understandable one. Personally, I have no sympathy for him.

i am looking up Washington child molestation criteria. the issue is you can become Cat 3 for refusing therapy, pretty easy to cop and attitude and refuse to play their games if you were tossed away for hooking up with a 16 or 17 year old.

Except that the age of consent is 16 in most cases.

Given that he's registered as a Level III sex offender, it's unlikely it was something like him being six months early for some girl's 18th birthday party.

As far as the mother beating the ever-loving hell out of him wiith a bat, it might not be the appropriate response, but it is, I think, an understandable one. Personally, I have no sympathy for him.

Except that the age of consent is 16 in most cases.

after researching WA. Child molest I means the child was 12 or under.

the guy is a sick fuck. The mom over reacted, but he needs a parole condition of avoiding talking to anyone underage. If so the mother would ahve more effective recourse to call this fuck on a parole violation.

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.

If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.

What would you do?

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

Was this a fair sentence?

Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

There's a difference between attacking someone with a bat because they talked to your children, and telling them sternly that you don't want they to do that, possibly with a threat of violence or police action with it. To actually carry out an attack, she deserves everything she got.

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.
If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.
What would you do?
Probabily I wouldn't attack him, but I would call the police for sure. I could be even resort to threatening him right away, if I saw that happening (not that it would be the right thing to do, mind you).


She was sentenced to three months in jail. Was this a fair sentence?

Depending on the severity of the injuries she inflicted (if there has been permanent damage, harsher measures should be taken). By the way, the "later on" is the issue. If she had attacked him right away when she saw him talking to a kid, it would have been an excessive, unjustified, yet understandable, overreaction of a scared mother. The assault happening "later on" means that this has been a premeditated assault - hence totally wrong.
Vigilantism is totally unacceptable by the law - if vigilantism is allowed the law becomes meaningless, and a lawless society is rule-by-strength.


Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

Who says the police can't?
By the way, was the child being molested? No, he wasn't. So?



Oy, after a bit of additional reading following the linkies

Gibson said she has no remorse for the June 19 assault but pleaded no contest Friday to assault charges. She could have received as much as eight months in jail, but the judge sentenced her to three.

"No, I'd do it again if not better," she told ABC News Seattle affiliate KOMO-TV. "I don't care if it hurts me, I don't regret it. It got him away from my kids and all the other kids in the neighborhood."

According to police documents, Level-3 sex offender William A. Baldwin had moved into his uncle's home in Tacoma in early June. Following his move, county deputies distributed flyers around the neighborhood to alert residents of his presence.

Hence:
1.Assaulter and homebreaker unrepentant. Three months aren't enough. One year + community service, and temporary trust of her children to someone else (? unsure of the legal term here) should do the trick.
2.Looks like the police was quite able to "defend her children", because it was the police who distributed flyers around alerting of the presence of the guy.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

we might jsut be anti violence. Or anti Vigilantism.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.
For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

I think that's a bit excessive.

we might jsut be anti violence. Or anti Vigilantism.

Nevermind, Rusty is just being in one of his oxydation states, as usual.

NSG: "You can't go around assaulting people in their homes and beating them when they aren't doing nothing wrong..."
Rusty: "4Y333! Z0MG! N5G |$ T3H P3D0PH1L3Z!!! |<1LL !1!!!11!"

:rolleyes:

That's just mhh... somewhat lacking in-depth thought about law and society, I guess. Here we were talking about law, fear, difference between understanding and justifying... and in he cuts like a Panzer on the battlefield.

I don't think it was fair at all. She should have received 2-3 years.

I don't give damn what he's previously been convicted of. That's irrelevant. What she did cannot ever be construed as defensive - she hunted him down and attacked him.

The biggest threat to the community here is the fuckwit with the baseball bat.

Yes it was excessive and 3 months is definitly deserved. As others have said it would have been different if she's assaulted him right then (still excessive but more understandable) - ideally she should have verbally warned him away, removed her kids from the area and if his behaviour continued to concern her, call the police.

Nonetheless, premeditated housebreaking and assault is not only excessive and very illegal it's also incredibly counter-productive in terms of child protection for the same reason Megan's law is: if you have sex offenders believing (quite rightly in this case) that they are going be immediately attacked if people know where they are, they are going to drop off the radar. This makes it MORE difficult for police/probation to monitor them (if they don't know where they are) and thus more difficult to protect kids.

The sentence seems somewhat strange, causing injuries counts as battery, not mere assault.

Apparently it's a result of a plea bargain.

On the other hand, a misdemeanor sentence seems understandable, since her actions were impulsive. But she got off lightly.

Nevermind, Rusty is just being in one of his oxydation states, as usual.

NSG: "You can't go around assaulting people in their homes and beating them when they aren't doing nothing wrong..."
Rusty: "4Y333! Z0MG! N5G |$ T3H P3D0PH1L3Z!!! |<1LL !1!!!11!"

:rolleyes:

That's just mhh... somewhat lacking in-depth thought about law and society, I guess. Here we were talking about law, fear, difference between understanding and justifying... and in he cuts like a Panzer on the battlefield.

i get in those from time to time. normally alcohol is involved. I debate on making another account jsut for when i am sober.

i get in those from time to time. normally alcohol is involved. I debate on making another account jsut for when i am sober.

What kind of alcohol are you having right now? I might join for the sake (or for the sakè) of company. (nevermind that it's just 12.22 here!)

What kind of alcohol are you having right now? I might join for the sake (or for the sakè) of company. (nevermind that it's just 12.22 here!)

nothing too heavy just shochu. cause i got class in a few hours. 5:30 am here.

What kind of alcohol are you having right now? I might join for the sake (or for the sakè) of company. (nevermind that it's just 12.22 here!)

It's five o'clock somewhere. Plus, if you don't drink at odd times of the day, how are you going to know why people say that's how you know if you're an alcoholic or not?

nothing too heavy just shochu. cause i got class in a few hours. 5:30 am here.

Shochu? What's that?
Meh, I guess I'll have a vodka Martini before lunch.

It's five o'clock somewhere. Plus, if you don't drink at odd times of the day, how are you going to know why people say that's how you know if you're an alcoholic or not?

...uhh... the last clause is too complicated. Let's cut it short: I'll drink only at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24 o'clock. So it's not an odd time. It's an even time.

The media bear much blame for the continued vilification of rehabilitated criminals. You'd swear that people convicted for sexual offenses are terrible, worthless things who can never hope to be anything more than a rap sheet, no matter how long ago the offenses were. In Florida, regulations about sex offenders having to live so far away from schools and parks and other places frequented by children have resulted in many becoming homeless, living in makeshift colonies under bridges. This is shameful. They are full human beings, as much as children!

One consequence of this fear-mongering is that parents are no longer comfortable with their children interacting with any adult. These children are being isolated and the consequence will be impaired socialization and an erosion of community. Many won't even trust neighbors who aren't sex offenders!

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.

If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.

What would you do?

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

Was this a fair sentence?

Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

Sex offender is too broad a category to go claiming all of them are pedos. You can be flagged a sex offender for taking a drunken piss in public.

It shouldn't be treated any different then if she would have attacked any other human in their home. That he is a convicted sex offender might give her a reason but it is no excuse.

After some one has served a sentence that person has paid their dept to society, if vigilantes gonna go after people we might just as well stop having police, courts and jails and just have a mob that do what ever they want.

Of course, the man in question might have broken some restrictions due to his crime (eg talk to a child of a certain age) but then it is a thing for the justice system to take care of. If we start to have a mob mentality like this (and we have it in Sweden to, were there is a non-government homepage that has sex convicts on them with locations and pictures) we will not be able to rehabilitate convicts, which should be the goal of society.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

Consider yourself fortunate that I place the rule of law and due process on far greater importance than permanently disfiguring or murdering people who I find odious. Else I likely would hunt you down and nobody would ever find your body.

Two wrongs don't make a right; three lefts make a right.

What she did was a crime. She deserves the punishment for it.

It's not her job to continually punish him for his crime. He's already been punished under the law. As far as dealing violence against him, he's the same as any other citizen.

She deserved to be punished, and judging by her utter lack of remorse, probably even more harshly.

Depending on the severity of the injuries she inflicted (if there has been permanent damage, harsher measures should be taken). By the way, the "later on" is the issue. If she had attacked him right away when she saw him talking to a kid, it would have been an excessive, unjustified, yet understandable, overreaction of a scared mother. The assault happening "later on" means that this has been a premeditated assault - hence totally wrong.
Vigilantism is totally unacceptable by the law - if vigilantism is allowed the law becomes meaningless, and a lawless society is rule-by-strength.


This.

Very fair for an unprovoked attack.

Shes damn lucky she didn't get the normal five years. Had I been in the jury I would've recommended it. You can't just go around bashing people's heads in for your SUSPICION that they're going to do something illegal. Thats what we have a police force for.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

For someone who routinely advocates leveling the country, you seem to strangely support Iranian style justice.

unless she went to the police and they refused to intervene, she deserved far more than a 3 month sentence for this crime.

You can't just go around bashing people's heads in for your SUSPICION that they're going to do something illegal. Thats what we have a police force for.

Sigged.:D

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.

"You understand the commie so you must be a Red!"

Come on man. Use your brain. When is it EVER okay to use violence, at least in America? Only when your own life and safety is threatened, and usually its questionable at that. In some places its even illegal to defend your own home against invasion: technically you're supposed to flee or whatever...other states have the castle law but I'm getting off topic. Vigiliantism is ILLEGAL. We have rule of law in our society, thank god. The man, truth be told, did nothing wrong. I wasn't aware that talking to people was against the law. Now if he had been enticing the child to come over to his big white van for candy and funny stories then that would be different: I would consier it self defense despite believing still that she should have called the police.

My verdict on the situation: shes guilty of premeditated assault with a deadly weapon and possibly attempted murder (depending on how viciously she womped him).

(secretly though, I give her a big thumbs up and a good job! :tongue: )

She committed a crime. The man wasn't in her home and wasn't actually threatening them in any way.

Sigged.:D

:tongue:

Well...I was reading this guys profile and he is one sick puppy. He's a Level 3 guy, which technically means that he's a "hunter", i.e he's very likely to seek out children to make contact with them and later snag 'em or something. Maybe she was morally right afterall and I've made a fool of myself with my unusually pacifistic rant :(

Well...I was reading this guys profile and he is one sick puppy. He's a Level 3 guy, which technically means that he's a "hunter", i.e he's very likely to seek out children to make contact with them and later snag 'em or something. Maybe she was morally right afterall and I've made a fool of myself with my unusually pacifistic rant :(

No I believe the correct course would of been to tell her children of the danger and threaten the kiddy diddler. Beating him with a bat is excessive.

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

For god's sake, the man is a child molester! He should consider himself lucky that he isn't still in jail or hasn't been lynched already.
The woman is guilty of assault. She should consider herself lucky that someone hasn't already burnt down her house and stolen all her sheep. Or pigs. Whatever it is that reactionary bitches rut with in Washington.
I don't think it was fair at all. She should have received 2-3 years.
According to the article, the highest she could get for what she was charged with is 8 months.
I don't give damn what he's previously been convicted of. That's irrelevant. What she did cannot ever be construed as defensive - she hunted him down and attacked him.

The biggest threat to the community here is the fuckwit with the baseball bat.
Exactly. Especially since given her attitude (she says she'd do it again, or "better"), she'd qualify for Class III as well.
People like her need to be shamed and chastised as publicly as possible.
The media bear much blame for the continued vilification of rehabilitated criminals. You'd swear that people convicted for sexual offenses are terrible, worthless things who can never hope to be anything more than a rap sheet, no matter how long ago the offenses were. In Florida, regulations about sex offenders having to live so far away from schools and parks and other places frequented by children have resulted in many becoming homeless, living in makeshift colonies under bridges. This is shameful. They are full human beings, as much as children!
Ironically, it also makes them impossible to keep track of.
"I live down around the bridge, you know." Doesn't give parole officers a whole lot to go on when a kid goes missing and the police are trying to check on the usual suspects (not that I advocate harassment).

It was assault. Considering that she hunted him down and entered his home, after the incident of him talking to the child, in order to attack him, I would have thought that would make the charge more serious. If the state of Washington allows for up to 8 months, she should have gotten the max.

If you see a known offender doing something that may be a violation of his parole or registration rules, you verbally warn him off and report him to the authorities. And you warn your child against him for the future. You do not hunt down another person and physically attack him. There is no justification for that.

It was assault. Considering that she hunted him down and entered his home, after the incident of him talking to the child, in order to attack him, I would have thought that would make the charge more serious. If the state of Washington allows for up to 8 months, she should have gotten the max.

Oh it's more than that. It's battery, potentially aggrevated battery or battery with a dangerous weapon. It's also trespassing, possibly burglary, and, depending on if he tried to escape and she stopped him, false imprisonment as well.

Three months is a joke for someone who entered another's house and beat him with a bat.

Oh it's more than that. It's battery, potentially aggrevated battery or battery with a dangerous weapon. It's also trespassing, possibly burglary, and, depending on if he tried to escape and she stopped him, false imprisonment as well.

Three months is a joke for someone who entered another's house and beat him with a bat.
so is 8 months, the maximum she could have received. she was severely undercharged for this crime.

Her concern is understandable, but I fear her reaction was simply illegal, and betrays a lack of faith in the judicial system.

I'm surprised that 8 months is the maximum sentence for what she did? Is that only because of the plea to the lesser charge?

Oh it's more than that. It's battery, potentially aggrevated battery or battery with a dangerous weapon. It's also trespassing, possibly burglary, and, depending on if he tried to escape and she stopped him, false imprisonment as well.

Three months is a joke for someone who entered another's house and beat him with a bat.
Thanks, Magical Exposition Fairy. I thought it would be all that, but I didn't want to risk saying so on nothing but my "legal secretary who watches L&O reruns" understanding of criminal law. ;)

And now we know. NSG: pro-pedophilia.

That's trolling and I'm reporting you with pleasure for it.

That's trolling and I'm reporting you with pleasure for it.

That's using mods as a weapon.

That's using mods as a weapon.

Do you have a problem with that?

That's using mods as a weapon.

No, that's pointing out the fact that the guy called THE WHOLE NSG pro-pedophilia. That I'm taking pleasure in it doesn't speak to that fact.

Don't have enough info to make a definite opinion but from what I do know she was definitely in the wrong.

I'm surprised that 8 months is the maximum sentence for what she did? Is that only because of the plea to the lesser charge?

that's my guess, pled down to simple assault. Shameful.

Do you have a problem with that?
It's against forum rules.

It's against forum rules.

For crying out loud! The guy is calling the whole NSG pro-pedophilia! How the hell is that not trolling?

that's my guess, pled down to simple assault. Shameful.

It just occurred to me that now the perv might REALLY want to fuck her kid for revenge.

Hell, he could even send her a printed letter with a fake return address claiming, falsely, to have done so. He'd scare her shitless and get revenge, and there'd be hardly a thing she could do to him if he managed to prove he didn't do anything - the printed letter might be a fake made by the mom and sent to herself after all.

For crying out loud! The guy is calling the whole NSG pro-pedophilia! How the hell is that not trolling?

How is gloating that you reported him to mods not also trolling?

How is gloating that you reported him to mods not also trolling?

I wasn't, I said I was taking pleasure in it. Or is it news to you that I dislike him?

Edit: Besides, that's a nice moving of the goalposts. People accused me first of using mods as weapons, then, realizing that wouldn't fly - as the guy called the entire NSG pro-pedophilia - it's "oh, you're trolling".

For crying out loud! The guy is calling the whole NSG pro-pedophilia! How the hell is that not trolling?
Keep your anger in check; I'm merely noting that using mods-as-weapons (whether or not you're doing it) is against forum rules.

Shochu? What's that?
Meh, I guess I'll have a vodka Martini before lunch.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shochu


also have a different kind made in Korea called Soju

I wasn't, I said I was taking pleasure in it. Or is it news to you that I dislike him?

Edit: Besides, that's a nice moving of the goalposts. People accused me first of using mods as weapons, then, realizing that wouldn't fly - as the guy called the entire NSG pro-pedophilia - it's "oh, you're trolling".


Its because of the statement that you're delighting in it. It turns it away from a simple reporting into a personal vendetta, i.e: you're flame baiting him whether its your intention or not (though I highly think it is).

And additionally you're being heavily off topic and thread derailing, so I'd suggest taking it to the moderation forum or I'm going to report YOU for thread hijacking.


Anyway back to the original topic...

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.

If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.

What would you do?

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

Was this a fair sentence?

Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/

the neighbor behind us had a pit-bull mix that got loose a few times. One of those times our dog happened to be out. The pit-bull mix started to get into it w/ our dog. My husband and I grabbed our staffs, and headed out the door full tilt. the dog left as soon as she saw us.

the neighbor came by and quite decently apologized - I told her I appreciated her actions, but also warned her: if her dog ever tangled w/ ours in our yard, I would not hesitate to beat her dog w/ a stick.

The dog NEVER got loose again while they lived there.

That's how I would have handled the situation. I would have marched over there, and informed the man if I ever saw him even TALKING to my kids, I would assume he meant no good, and would immediately engage in whatever form of painful for him intervention I had handy. I would make sure my kids knew what he looked like, where he lived, and what his car looked like. And if I ever so much as saw him look at my kids sideways, I'd be in his face.

That's how I would have handled the situation. I would have marched over there, and informed the man if I ever saw him even TALKING to my kids, I would assume he meant no good, and would immediately engage in whatever form of painful for him intervention I had handy. I would make sure my kids knew what he looked like, where he lived, and what his car looked like. And if I ever so much as saw him look at my kids sideways, I'd be in his face.

ahh, I see. So you're a criminal then eh?

My husband and I grabbed our staffs...
Wizards?

EDIT: And, to be pedantic, shouldn't that be 'grabbed our staves'?

ahh, I see. So you're a criminal then eh?
out of curiosity, what would Theocratic Wisdom's crime be?

RE: op.

It sounds fair. and no, I don't count it as defending her children.

Wizards?

worse... Managers.

ouch... the poor interns!

Wizards?

And they cast Magic Missiles!

out of curiosity, what would Theocratic Wisdom's crime be?

Assualt.

That's trolling and I'm reporting you with pleasure for it.

Do not use the mods as a weapon. It's fine to report, but this goes over the line. I'm letting it slide this time, but not next time.

That's using mods as a weapon.

I'm glad some people do recognise that.

Do you have a problem with that?

I know I do. I don't appreciate being used as a weapon. Informing someone that you're reporting it is one thing, but taking pleasure in it is another.

out of curiosity, what would Theocratic Wisdom's crime be?

welll.....

and would immediately engage in whatever form of painful for him intervention I had handy

Assault and battery seems like the most obvious.

That's how I would have handled the situation. I would have marched over there, and informed the man if I ever saw him even TALKING to my kids, I would assume he meant no good, and would immediately engage in whatever form of painful for him intervention I had handy. I would make sure my kids knew what he looked like, where he lived, and what his car looked like. And if I ever so much as saw him look at my kids sideways, I'd be in his face.

Assualt.

Assault and battery seems like the most obvious.

sounded like TW would inform the person of his intent to do bodily harm should TW find that sex offender talking to his kids. then inform his/her children to stay away from that person.

I can see him being a criminal after he attacks the person (for talking to his/her kids that is) but not for making the threats.

that's why I asked. ;)

sounded like TW would inform the person of his intent to do bodily harm should TW find that sex offender talking to his kids. then inform his/her children to stay away from that person.

I can see him being a criminal after he attacks the person (for talking to his/her kids that is) but not for making the threats.

that's why I asked. ;)

Threats are assualt.

Threats are assualt.

technically making threats is the crime of...making threats.

technically making threats is the crime of...making threats.

So, what is the difference between a threat, a warning and a promise?

So, what is the difference between a threat, a warning and a promise?

legally? Not much of any really. Words used to convey a likelihood of physical harm is considered making threats.

She was let off too easy.

legally? Not much of any really. Words used to convey a likelihood of physical harm is considered making threats.

Does it have to do with intent of physical harm, if not how do they differentiate between "I'm going to kill you" and "if you stick your hand in that blender if will not likely remain intact."?

She was let off too easy.

Please give us your reasoning.

Please give us your reasoning.

She beat up a man with a baseball bat.

She beat up a man with a baseball bat.

You're forgetting the premediated bit.

Does it have to do with intent of physical harm, if not how do they differentiate between "I'm going to kill you" and "if you stick your hand in that blender if will not likely remain intact."?

well, not so much "intent" as direction. It's more the threat that I will cause you harm through my actions, not that the blender will.

You're forgetting the premediated bit.

And the whole trespassing bit.

And the whole trespassing bit.

and the deadly weapon bit

I'm not sure what to think about this. He's a convicted child molester who lives in a neighborhood full of kids. Mom saw him talking to one of her kids and, later on, went to his house with a baseball bat and attacked him.

If I saw someone I knew to be a pedophile approach my kids, I'd probably go after him then and there.

What would you do?

She was sentenced to three months in jail.

Was this a fair sentence?

Is this vigilantism or protecting your kids when the police can't and the government won't?

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/02/mother-sentenced-for-attacking-sex-offender/
I vote for the pedophile on this one. Was he about to abduct or molest this child? The mother could have been just as successful, had she introduced herself and her baseball bat before any kind of funny business occurred.

But when does a pedophile actually fulfill his debt to society? We arrest, try, convict, sentence, imprison, and release these felons like any other, unlike any other, we monitor them far more closely and restrict their movements far more, even after their sentences have been completely served.

Why do we treat sex-offenders so much differently than any other felon?

I vote for the pedophile on this one. Was he about to abduct or molest this child? The mother could have been just as successful, had she introduced herself and her baseball bat before any kind of funny business occurred.

But when does a pedophile actually fulfill his debt to society? We arrest, try, convict, sentence, imprison, and release these felons like any other, unlike any other, we monitor them far more closely and restrict their movements far more, even after their sentences have been completely served.

Why do we treat sex-offenders so much differently than any other felon?

Probably because of the nature of the crime. Murderers kill, thieves take things that don't belong to them. Sex offenders destroy souls. They don't acknowledge that another person has the basic right to ownership of their own body. They violate self-hood. When someone takes your life, it's over. When someone takes your money, it's traumatic, but not devastatingly so. When someone violates your body, they're dehumanizing you. Bad enough for an adult woman or man. Horrifyingly destructive for a child who is only just realizing that his/her identity as a separate individual.

Probably because of the nature of the crime. Murderers kill, thieves take things that don't belong to them. Sex offenders destroy souls. They don't acknowledge that another person has the basic right to ownership of their own body. They violate self-hood. When someone takes your life, it's over. When someone takes your money, it's traumatic, but not devastatingly so. When someone violates your body, they're dehumanizing you. Bad enough for an adult woman or man. Horrifyingly destructive for a child who is only just realizing that his/her identity as a separate individual.

OK, fine, then punish them for that. What's that have to do with how we treat them once their punishment is over?

technically making threats is the crime of...making threats.

In IL they often treat threats of violence in the same catagory as verbal assualt. Sorry, my brain is still in state law mode.

She beat up a man with a baseball bat.
You're forgetting the premediated bit.
And the whole trespassing bit.
and the deadly weapon bit

"but... but officer... I only wanted to show him my son's bat, I didn't know the bat was loaded... "
(altered from an RPG I played in once. the officer believed it :p )

OK, fine, then punish them for that. What's that have to do with how we treat them once their punishment is over?

Because, it's generally assumed that they will do it again. I'm not certain of the statistics, but the recidivism rate among pedophiles is relatively high and they're considered poor risks for rehabilitation. That said, I don't support vigilantism and assault; I do support monitoring the actions of the convicted pedophile, who has served his time, for several years following release (depending on the severity of the crime). I also support changing the law so that someone who gets drunk and pisses in public or someone who jumps the gun by a few months doesn't get saddled with the name of child molester.

I vote for the pedophile on this one. Was he about to abduct or molest this child? The mother could have been just as successful, had she introduced herself and her baseball bat before any kind of funny business occurred.

But when does a pedophile actually fulfill his debt to society? We arrest, try, convict, sentence, imprison, and release these felons like any other, unlike any other, we monitor them far more closely and restrict their movements far more, even after their sentences have been completely served.

Why do we treat sex-offenders so much differently than any other felon?

Emotionalism. "Think of the children!"

And because politicians trot them out every election cycle to get elected by pushing tougher laws to further punish those who have already served their sentence.

Because, it's generally assumed that they will do it again. I'm not certain of the statistics, but the recidivism rate among pedophiles is relatively high and they're considered poor risks for rehabilitation. That said, I don't support vigilantism and assault; I do support monitoring the actions of the convicted pedophile, who has served his time, for several years following release (depending on the severity of the crime). I also support changing the law so that someone who gets drunk and pisses in public or someone who jumps the gun by a few months doesn't get saddled with the name of child molester.

Just a note: The recidivism rate used to be the highest, but ever since treatment became mandated as a condition pf parole/probation the recidivism rate has actually dropped to second lowest (behind murder), according to a DOJ report in 2004.

Probably because of the nature of the crime. Murderers kill, thieves take things that don't belong to them. Sex offenders destroy souls. They don't acknowledge that another person has the basic right to ownership of their own body. They violate self-hood. When someone takes your life, it's over. When someone takes your money, it's traumatic, but not devastatingly so. When someone violates your body, they're dehumanizing you. Bad enough for an adult woman or man. Horrifyingly destructive for a child who is only just realizing that his/her identity as a separate individual.

Bullshit.

If a man gouged off a kid's eyes they'd not be treated as badly as sex offenders are, and I don't know you, but I'd rather have a guy force me to play hide-the-carrot once than permanent blindness.

Bullshit.

If a man gouged off a kid's eyes they'd not be treated as badly as sex offenders are, and I don't know you, but I'd rather have a guy force me to play hide-the-carrot once than permanent blindness.

.........hide the carrot?....I'll never be able to look at that vegetable the same way again...

legally? Not much of any really. Words used to convey a likelihood of physical harm is considered making threats.
How about, "Stay the hell away from my kids or I'll call the cops so fast your head will spin?"

Just a note: The recidivism rate used to be the highest, but ever since treatment became mandated as a condition pf parole/probation the recidivism rate has actually dropped to second lowest (behind murder), according to a DOJ report in 2004.
And the recidivism for the general class of sex offender is, IIRC, the lowest, period, by category. Pedophilia != sex offender. As someone else pointed out, you can wind up on a sex offender registry for being a dumbass with a 17 year old girlfriend, some places.

She got off very light for making a premeditated attack with a baseball bat, IMO. This attack is doubtless the result of years of scaremongering by pols and media.

And the recidivism for the general class of sex offender is, IIRC, the lowest, period, by category. Pedophilia != sex offender. As someone else pointed out, you can wind up on a sex offender registry for being a dumbass with a 17 year old girlfriend, some places.

She got off very light for making a premeditated attack with a baseball bat, IMO. This attack is doubtless the result of years of scaremongering by pols and media.

Hey, Neo, what would be the legal problems with him sending the mom a printed letter with no return address claiming, falsely, to have molested her kid?

"Printed" to make it impossible to prove...