Judge says convicted molester can hunt


PDA






Dave Davis
October 16, 2006, 12:13 PM
NORRISTOWN -- A convicted child molester can possess a gun so he can go hunting while on probation, a Montgomery County judge has ruled.


David Raymond Giese, 47, formerly of Lower Providence, shall be permitted to engage in hunting activities and possess hunting weapons, Judge William J. Furber Jr. ruled, according to a court order filed Wednesday.



"This permission is subject to revocation by the Montgomery County Adult Probation and Parole Department in its sole discretion at any time," Furber wrote in the order. Giese sought the judge’s permission while he completes the probationary part of a sentence he received in 2004 for having indecent contact with a 14-year-old girl.

"Prior to (Giese’s) apprehension ... defendant was an avid hunter of game," defense lawyer Peter E. Bort previously wrote in a court document requesting that Giese be permitted to carry weapons solely for the purpose of hunting. Bort said county probation officers do not oppose Giese’s request.

Furber, who imposed Giese’s punishment, had to address the issue because it involved an exception to Giese’s probation conditions.

On Feb. 5, 2004, Giese, formerly of Pawlings Road, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of indecent assault and corruption of a minor in connection with inappropriate contact he had with a 14-year-old girl in the township in July 2003. Giese touched and fondled the girl’s body in an inappropriate manner when she was in his company at a township residence on July 27, 2003, according to a criminal complaint.

As part of a plea agreement, Furber sentenced Giese to six to 23 months in jail to be followed by three years’ probation. Giese, who also listed an address in the 1800 block of West Marshall Street, Norristown, was paroled after serving his minimum sentence and is currently serving the remainder of his probation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge says convicted molester can hunt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DRMMR02
October 16, 2006, 12:33 PM
I'm gonna go out a limb and say, so what? His crimes really have nothing to do with guns or any weapons. And if he did feel like killing someone, whether they be another 47 year old man, or a 14 year old girl, he doesn't need a gun to do it. He can buy a knife for a few bucks. This article seems to going by the antis' playbook of "emotion a + emotion b = guns are bad". You take the emotional response that a child molestor triggers, add "now he has a gun" and you get "will someone PLEASE think about the CHILDREN?!?!?!"

I think he should be in prison for molesting children. But I really don't see where hunting or guns have anything to do with that.

gego
October 16, 2006, 12:41 PM
If the punishment for the crime does not include the death sentence, then once the punishment is over and he is released, the offender should have the same right as anyone else to defend his life.

As a practical matter, if the bad guy is not going to respect the law once he is released, then it really does not matter what the law about gun ownership is as he is not likely to respect the gun law any more than any other law, so exconvicts owning guns same as anyone else does not bother me.

If the law prevented crime, then there would be no cirme.

22-rimfire
October 16, 2006, 12:45 PM
I tend to agree with the ruling. This was not a felony charge. I feel sure they did pyschological testing and probably determined that he did not have violent tendancies. We also do not know all the circumstances of the charge to which he pleaded guilty. I guess this a another social experiment.

...pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of indecent assault and corruption of a minor in connection with inappropriate contact he had with a 14-year-old girl

LanEvo`
October 16, 2006, 12:46 PM
I'm not particularly disturbed by the notion that he'll have access to hunting rifles. You don't need hunting rifles to molest kids. I don't really see a connection here.

Jim Watson
October 16, 2006, 12:51 PM
I am more concerned that the girl did not have a father or big brother who would make sure Mr Giese was completely out of the picture.

Manedwolf
October 16, 2006, 01:34 PM
Of course, I personally feel that convicted child molestation should be a capital offense, as they literally kill a kid's childhood innocence, and it's gone forever. The kid will be in counseling the rest of their lives. It will affect any relationship they might have, likely.

To me, that's worthy of at least a life sentence, if not death by hanging.

I'd also not charge a parent who killed someone who molested their child with anything at all.

LoveMyCountry
October 16, 2006, 01:57 PM
mp510 said - It is a federal offense for a felon to possess a firearm, whether be it for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose.His maximum sentence could have been more than 1 year so he's cooked, unless he wants to go BP hunting...or use a pre-1899

From the article - pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges

Did I miss something?:confused:

LoveMyCountry

mp510
October 16, 2006, 02:06 PM
Thanks. My error. Misread with the 6-23 month term.:)

Phenom
October 16, 2006, 02:15 PM
The guy is a flat out pervert. Someone needs to smack that judge upside the head.

TallPine
October 16, 2006, 02:17 PM
We have no idea of the exact nature of the original charge. It could have been something as innocent as a friendly hug which was somehow resented later for some reason. It is a paradox that while real felonious child molesters are released on parole or probation (or never even prosecuted), our society has such a phobia that innocent actions are sometimes construed as molestation.

And that comes from someone who thinks that actual child molesters should be hunted :evil:


Regardless... IMO the firearms possesion/use issue is a non-sequitar. Either an individual is dangerous and should be in prison (or executed) or they should have a chance to start their lives over like everyone else (acknowledging that while still on probation/parole the rules can be different).

Tommygunn
October 16, 2006, 02:42 PM
We have no idea of the exact nature of the original charge. It could have been something as innocent as a friendly hug which was somehow resented later for some reason. It is a paradox that while real felonious child molesters are released on parole or probation (or never even prosecuted), our society has such a phobia that innocent actions are sometimes construed as molestation.

There was a case (I have forgotten where) in which a man driving down a street jammed on his brakes and stopped because a local girl had run out into the road. He got out of the car, and as I recall, grabbed the girl's shoulders as he yelled at her about running out into the road. She complained to her father, who called the police, and the man was arrested.
The short of it is that he was convicted of sexually molesting the kid. Now, perhaps grabbing the kid was wrong even though her running into the road scarred him. But the idea he's a "pervert" is balogna!
There, but for the "Grace of God," goes any of us.

Listen, real perverts who sexually molest kids should be imprisoned until the sun turns into a burned out husk, for sure...but can't we atleast GET IT RIGHT?????

NineseveN
October 16, 2006, 03:24 PM
I agree with the majority of sentiment thus far. This is a good call, though hard for some to swallow I imagine.

Ben Shepherd
October 16, 2006, 03:34 PM
No free man shall ever be barred from the use of arms....

Thomas Jefferson, IIRC.

The exact charges, regardless of our personal feelings towards them, are irrelivant at this point.

Sean Dempsey
October 16, 2006, 03:39 PM
This wouldn't be an issue if sexual offenders and child molesters were dealt with properly by the legal system.

And by properly, I mean executed.

My wife was raped and/or sexually abused pretty much ever day by her step-dad from the time she was 3, til she was 11. She finally called the cops, but her mom refused to let her take the stand.

He did 4 months since without the girls testimony (my wife), they didn't have enough hard evidence to convict.

but yeah, he should have all his rights and privledges. :barf: He did his time and paid his debt to society, give him whatever he wants and a parade.

(also, I know there are people here who will say "well how can we trust what your wife says?", so don't bother even posting.)

razorburn
October 16, 2006, 07:11 PM
^I'm with you. Child molestation and rape should be an offense deserving of execution. Regardless of law, I know if I had a wife or daughter molested, if the rapist was released so quickly I would hunt him down and execute him myself. Any time served in jail or other punishment I would receive would be worth it to me.

Thin Black Line
October 17, 2006, 09:33 AM
I've done 100s of child sexual abuse investigations and interviewed 1000s
of victims over the years. The judge's ruling was in accordance with our
society's pendulum swing to the other direction over the last few years in
which children are now less valued and sex crimes in general are down-played
as a "real" crime.

The people who are posting here about the perp's "rights" need to get a
clue. I could really give a cr@p that he was an "avid hunter" before his
crime. He did wrong, he loses out on those things in life that he found
happiness in. He should've thought of that before his 47 year old hands
began fondling a 14 y-o. He has been convicted of a crime and he
is not a free man. There are supposed to be consequences when a
person does something wrong. What's next? Are you guys going to argue
that a probation officer is violating his 4A rights when they check his
computer from time to time for child porn (as is often required for perps
under probation for sex crimes)? However, I doubt the probation officers
in this case are even doing that given that they sound asleep at the wheel.

The short of it is that he was convicted of sexually molesting the kid.

Please post the state, county and cause number because I'd be interested in
the details from the investigative reports that are not known here. It would
help us all here if you could go down to the courthouse get a copy, scan it
and post it here. After all, it is a public record.

Quite frankly, I can tell you that there are far more cases of people not
going to trial than the rumored so-called miscarriages of justice in these
kind of incidents. And sadly, it's often the third time around investigating
the same guy before you catch him slipping up one way or another and
getting enough to go to trial (copious physical evidence). At that point,
we still have to contend with a county prosecutor worried about his batting
average and the possible 70 year-old juror who doesn't even believe child
sexual abuse is possible in this world. They, too, don't have a clue either.

Vitamin G
October 17, 2006, 09:41 AM
Sometime in 2008...

"Your Honor,
I know I was convicted of that horrible crime with that 8 year old girl, for which I am geniunely sorry, and will face my punishment in the next life, even after the sentence I faced in front of you X months ago. But I have done my time, and I was wondering if you would be okay with granting a CCW/handgun licence, because child predators are so stigmatized that I fear for my safety..."




Now, I'm all for the intent of the founding fathers, but I'm not sure child molestation was as much an issue in the 1700's as it is today. And by "issue" i mean, "We will not discuss that".
100, 200, 300 years ago it would have been taken care of with rope and/or a shovel. You wouldn't even need a jury. That would require discussion of the problem in a public way.

Thin Black Line
October 17, 2006, 09:47 AM
No free man shall ever be barred from the use of arms....

Thomas Jefferson, IIRC.

The exact charges, regardless of our personal feelings towards them, are irrelivant at this point.

His probation is relevant --he is NOT a free man. This means he is still serving
out time on a sentence for a crime. Probation is prevalent due to restricted
jail space and our "kinder and gentler" culture.

BTW, I need to leave for work now. Just got a report of a daughter being
molested by her father......

Rich K
October 17, 2006, 09:48 AM
Sean, I am sorry for what your wife had to endure. My oledr sister had to deal with that, and I took the physical beatings. I came out of it okay, but she is a mental basket case to this day. Razor, I agree with you completely, child molestation should be a capital offense, punishable by death. Only way to end the molester's cycle.

glummer
October 17, 2006, 09:48 AM
I could really give a cr@p that he was an "avid hunter" before his
crime. He did wrong, he loses out on those things in life that he found
happiness in.The problem with that, is we live in a country where we have enemies dedicated to stigmatizing us, and our activities, as inherently deserving of punishment.
Imagine that the law was, "convicted felons not allowed to practice Judaism." Any other religion, OK; but no Judaism. In a country where there existed large, well financed political movements dedicated to destroying Judaism.
Any Jew who would support such a law would be endorsing cultural suicide.

I think we have to be very wary of supporting anything that sets gun-ownership up as different, and deserving different laws.

22-rimfire
October 17, 2006, 09:48 AM
I thought this thread was about a convicted child molester's right to hunt being restored. I have heard all these rants or ones like them on the subject before.

ilbob
October 17, 2006, 09:53 AM
Bort said county probation officers do not oppose Giese’s request.


I suspect that the courts generally go along with what the probation department agrees to. If they do not feel it is a problem, I guess I don't either.

None of us know the circumstances of what he was convicted of. Could be a lot of things. Some much worse than others. If he is not a threat to anyone else, I don't see the harm in letting him hunt. He will be able to in a few years anyway when he completes his sentence. An argument can be made that it is better he start now while there is some supervision rather than later on when there is none.

Lonestar
October 17, 2006, 09:58 AM
I'm all for 2nd admendment rights, however there are a few crimes that I think a person should be harrassed FOR LIFE and child molestation is one of them. He is already on the Megan's law list, and a felon cannot purchase or possess a firearms in the state of PA, so every felon will say they hunt to get around the law. He can still legally bowhunt, but just no firearms. Why should we bend over backward for this pervert. You want to hunt, STOP TOUCHING KIDS! :neener:

ilbob
October 17, 2006, 10:02 AM
I've done 100s of child sexual abuse investigations and interviewed 1000s of victims over the years. The judge's ruling was in accordance with our society's pendulum swing to the other direction over the last few years in
which children are now less valued and sex crimes in general are down-played
as a "real" crime.

I think you are seeing the pendulum returning to center after a whole series of cases of people being convicted of very serious crimes on little more than suspicion. When you have high profile cases where people have been convicted solely on the testimony of children who have been interrogated at length by professional interrogators, some of the children are drugged and hypnotized, it is not surprising that people are stepping back and wondering if maybe we went too far.

IMO, child molesters deserve to have the book thrown at them. they are about as low as you get. But they do deserve a fair trial. I am not convinced it is possible to get a fair trial when the primary witness is a young child and there is little in the way of physical evidence. It is just too easy for the child to have a story implanted in his or her little brain either intentionally or otherwise. Children often cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality for normal every day things. How can you expect to get a straight story after they have been abused. Even older rape victims have a very difficult time with it and it is not unheard of for the wrong person to be charged.

WayneConrad
October 17, 2006, 10:36 AM
Why in the world are y'all not as afraid of government as you are of child molesters?

The right to keep and bear arms is ultimately the last thing standing between you and tyrany. You should tolerate no infringement, for no purpose, no matter how good. Because in the end, you may find that a pedophile going hunting is less distasteful than the chains of slavery.

LoveMyCountry
October 17, 2006, 11:11 AM
The right to keep and bear arms is ultimately the last thing standing between you and tyranny. You should tolerate no infringement, for no purpose, no matter how good. Because in the end, you may find that a pedophile going hunting is less distasteful than the chains of slavery.
Amen brother! Preach it.

Why in the world are y'all not as afraid of government as you are of child molesters?
I think it's because we can put a face on the that kind of monster and the potential victims - our kids. While a tyrannical government is likely, it is also an unknown monster that is bigger than we can comprehend and therefore don't want to think about trying to fight.

LoveMyCountry

strambo
October 17, 2006, 11:30 AM
Well it was a misdemeanor. He's on probation so not a "free" man yet. Why on earth can't he hunt after his probation is over? This also establishes "hunting" as a valid reason for getting rules bent to have a gun.

You should either be totally free to own guns for any reason or not. Current law; Felon=not. Misdemeanor (not "domestic violence", lets not go there) conviction and no longer on probation=yes.

ilbob
October 17, 2006, 11:47 AM
The OP says gun. It may be that the gun in question is a muzzle loader, somthing not classified as a firearm by the feds.

I am a bit suspicous of the story since the length of the sentence imposed makes me wonder if he was convicted of a felony, which would make firearms ownership a no-no, hunting or not.

22-rimfire
October 17, 2006, 12:19 PM
Child molestation is a terrible thing and the crime should be punished to the full extent of the law. We do not know the circumstances of this particular case, and like has been said, I have to accept the court's ruling both on punishment and restoration of full hunting rights. This man is not a felon in case you didn't notice. He would have been charged and convicted of a felony count if it was justified based on the evidence.

I'm also a bit hesitant to accept the word of a minor as being completely factual without any other physical evidence.

Have you ever had a child threaten you with calling 911 and making terrible accusations about you? Insolent and insubordinate children do this frequently to their parents and adults who have power over them. This is all because of the lack of discipline that is instilled into our children. Parents and adults set the example even if they don't know it, and the kids do a +1 to it. Success at any price. The end justifies the means. Lie, cheat, steal to achieve the goal.... count the money later. It all starts at home.

Hunting involves ethics and we need more people with ethics and a moral compass to guide their lives. Yes, child molesters need to be punished.

Thin Black Line
October 17, 2006, 04:50 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is ultimately the last thing standing between you and tyrany. You should tolerate no infringement, for no purpose, no matter how good. Because in the end, you may find that a pedophile going hunting is less distasteful than the chains of slavery.

So conviction and probation are meaningless and those still servingtheir
sentences still deserve to retain and use their firearms --no matter their
crime. Pffft....who cares.....in fact why bother enforcing any laws nowadays.
I mean, darn it, it's such an infringement on that "former" meth cooker out
on probation who's still failing his drug tests for anyone to tell him he needs
to submit to any kind of "infringement" on his lifestyle, right? After
all drugs shouldn't be regulated in any way and it's just a lifestyle choice...
and sex, whether it's with adults, kids, or animals, is just a lifestyle choice,
too....darn that government....they shouldn't be regulating anything
since all of us are a law unto ourselves when it comes to stopping
the real enemy among us --goverment tyranny :rolleyes:

Ilbob, I'm not even going to get into the two paragraphs of mythology you
spouted that could have come directly from a False Memory Syndrome
Foundation brochure.

Basically, for you guys, the conviction is irrelevant and how dare anyone
question his "right" to access weapons for hunting.....fine, great, why don't
you ask him to babysit your little girl if you're so sure he's fine. Oh,
wait, now that's entirely different now isn't it. Suddenly the hypocrisy
serves you in a healthy way :neener:

LoveMyCountry
October 17, 2006, 05:31 PM
Thin Black Line said:
Basically, for you guys, the conviction is irrelevant and how dare anyone
question his "right" to access weapons for hunting.....fine, great, why don't
you ask him to babysit your little girl if you're so sure he's fine. Oh,
wait, now that's entirely different now isn't it. Suddenly the hypocrisy
serves you in a healthy way

:confused:

How do you go from whether or not a person should have access to a weapon to allowing a sex offender to babysit your little girl? That's the kind of illogical leaps of reason that anti's often make.

Concern over the government's ability to take away a God given right does not mean a lack of concern and outrage over people attacking our children.

LoveMyCountry

WayneConrad
October 17, 2006, 06:18 PM
I do not accept probation with restriction of rights as a legitimate state of incarceration. If we cannot trust you, you should be behind bars. If we can trust you, you should be out of prison with full rights.

The reason is this: Incarceration as a way of restricting a man's rights is severe, obvious, and expensive. To permit the government to restrict the rights of man in a gentle, unobtrusive, and relatively inexpensive manner removes those impediments and permits government to restrict the rights of large numbers of people without outcry and without notice.

SoCalShooter
October 17, 2006, 06:27 PM
I too agree with the ruling considering the crime has nothing to do with weapons. But I do believe that child molesters should not be allowed to live once convicted of the crime.

MartinBrody
October 17, 2006, 10:42 PM
Furber sentenced Giese to six to 23 months in jail to be followed by three years’ probation. Giese ... was paroled after serving his minimum sentence and is currently serving the remainder of his probation.

He only served 6 months in prison, something isn't adding up.

davec
October 18, 2006, 02:22 AM
PLEASE LINK YOUR SOURCES!

AF_INT1N0
October 18, 2006, 02:53 AM
Sorry no one wants to here this but I hate barring ex-felons from owning firearms.

Either you are a danger and you're locked in prison..

Or you have paid your debt to society and you are a citizen.

This half in half out crap is just begging to be abused.

This is especially true in the times where anything and everything can be a felony if the prosecutor says so.

NineseveN
October 18, 2006, 02:56 AM
This half in half out crap is just begging to be abused.

I refer to this legal dillema as claiming one is "sorta' pregnant".

AF_INT1N0
October 18, 2006, 03:08 AM
Nine Seven

It's just a slippery slope. Ok First its felons on probation, then Ex-Felons(for life), then misdimeanors (for abuse), next it'll be for non violent hate crimes.

Oh wait! It says here on your NICS report that you said that you don't think that Children should have to go to the mandatory gay rights week!! You are openly speaking out against gays!! You are guilting of being no PC in public! You can't be trusted with a gun!!

LIke I said (and has been said before on this board) Barring people from owning firearms because of past troubles with the law is just bad news...

Remember every one of our founding fathers was a "Violent Felon" in his time..

sicario103
October 18, 2006, 03:43 AM
My 2 cents..... People say criminals have rights too... Alright then.... But what about the little girl's right when he killed her after he forced her legs opened and raped her? He just took all her rights aways thus he forfeited his rights IMHO.

The judge's ruling about the guy's right to own a gun for whatever the reason does not concern me at all. What really bothers me is the fact that we as a society and the laws that governs us allows the release of such human garbage. In my opinion all child molesters found guilty should just be executed or rot in prison........

LAK
October 18, 2006, 10:05 AM
He's a free man - so why not? If this man is some kind of ongoing threat to public safety he should be under lock and key or six feet under; not holding a list of "restrictions" on what he can do or own.

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

TallPine
October 18, 2006, 12:00 PM
It's just a slippery slope. Ok First its felons on probation, then Ex-Felons(for life), then misdimeanors (for abuse), next it'll be for non violent hate crimes.

Oh wait! It says here on your NICS report that you said that you don't think that Children should have to go to the mandatory gay rights week!! You are openly speaking out against gays!! You are guilting of being no PC in public! You can't be trusted with a gun!!

LIke I said (and has been said before on this board) Barring people from owning firearms because of past troubles with the law is just bad news...

Remember every one of our founding fathers was a "Violent Felon" in his time..


Yep, that's the way it will be ... :(

But then, you had it coming - you shouldn't have parked in the no-parking zone if you want to own firearms :p

Sean Dempsey
October 18, 2006, 12:55 PM
This guy is non-violent.

100% false.

Sean Dempsey
October 18, 2006, 01:20 PM
A sex crime against a child is a violent crime. There are more type of violence than the standard gunshot/knifewound.

This person inflicted mental violence and caused lasting damage to his victim. To say otherwise is misguided.

A non-violent molestation... what was it then, a loving molestation? a gentle molestation?

"Your honor, this man is not a violent criminal, he was a gentle molester. Gentle as a lamb."

NineseveN
October 18, 2006, 01:26 PM
My 2 cents..... People say criminals have rights too... Alright then.... But what about the little girl's right when he killed her after he forced her legs opened and raped her? He just took all her rights aways thus he forfeited his rights IMHO.

The judge's ruling about the guy's right to own a gun for whatever the reason does not concern me at all. What really bothers me is the fact that we as a society and the laws that governs us allows the release of such human garbage. In my opinion all child molesters found guilty should just be executed or rot in prison........

Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on here for a minute. Are we reading the same story and report? Nobody died here; this girl was not raped and murdered in cold blood. You can't run away from the specifics of this story and go on a monstrous tangent and then apply those extremes to the arguments being made by others, that's ridiculous.

If a guy did what you outlined, he should either be put into the system; it's up to society to decide what the correct sentence is (whether it be life, 30 years, the death penalty) and once that sentence is served, that's it, debt repaid.

It seems to me that society wants to have it both ways. They don't want to foot the bill to pay for these inmates, a large percentage of folks don't agree with the death penalty, so the solution is to let them out of prison on lighter sentences than the crime deserves and then simply strip them of their rights while they walk around society. That's just not good policy. If you want people like that to be permanently stripped of their rights, imprison them indefinitely or invoke the death penalty. Trying to have it both ways, as has already been said in this thread, can only lead to bad things...


...like felons, who don't obey the law anyway, hence the prior felonious conduct which makes them felons, being subjected to more laws, which they'll ignore and are thus a danger and should be locked up or deceased instead of out walking round on parole or after release due to good behavior.

...like stupid laws that say that if a person gets hit with a misdemeanor of domestic violence or so-called sex-crimes like we see in this story, he should never be allowed access to firearms.

...like stupid laws in the same vein as PA's Section 302, where a police officer can decide that you need to be committed to a mental hospital, so they cuff you and take you there, where a doctor types up a one page note stating that they're keeping you for observation...which will remove your right to own a firearm in Pennsylvania (despite the fact that the ATF and the Feds have stated that Act 302 has no due process and therefore they will not acknowledge it on the federal level as it is unconstitutional).

sicario103
October 18, 2006, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by NineseveN
and once that sentence is served, that's it, debt repaid.

The law is the law. I understand what you mean but tell that to the girl and her parent that he fondled.

Originally Posted by Medula Oblongata
Im a LEO who's seen rediculous prosecution for crap like that... But if you are accused, I expect you to submit to hanging without argument...
This guy is non-violent.

Was he convicted for touching the little girl?
I love how the law frames it non-violent, violent etc. But OK. That time wasn't "violent" but what about the next time? You know lots of sex offenders are or will be repeat offenders. And that's how it starts touch here and there, after it's a little penetration till he graduates to a full rapist and probably a killer. Would you like somone like that living next to your daughter? I don't think.....

22-rimfire
October 18, 2006, 06:03 PM
Was he convicted for touching the little girl?
I love how the law frames it non-violent, violent etc. But OK. That time wasn't "violent" but what about the next time? You know lots of sex offenders are or will be repeat offenders. And that's how it starts touch here and there, after it's a little penetration till he graduates to a full rapist and probably a killer.

He pleaded guilty of the crime he was charged with. So you want to put people in jail for crimes that they have not committed and may never commit. How do you know how it starts? Would you prefer a killer living next to you that served his 5 years?

LoveMyCountry
October 18, 2006, 06:12 PM
And that's how it starts touch here and there, after it's a little penetration till he graduates to a full rapist and probably a killer. Would you like somone like that living next to your daughter? I don't think.....
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Based on what I did as a kid, I should have been robbing banks by now. I'm falling behind.:evil:

To presume that someone will not learn from the bad choices they have made is just wrong. Have you continued doing worse and worse things?

LoveMyCountry

WayneConrad
October 18, 2006, 06:18 PM
I'm pretty sure that at least one of you are going to commit a felony soon. For the sake of the children, it's only reasonable that we not take that chance. Will you all please report to your jailer by noon tomorrow? Thank you.

gezzer
October 18, 2006, 11:12 PM
He was sentenced for over 12 months? that is considered a felony by the Feds, REF: read a 4473 next time you fill one out.

Next, if it was my 14 yr old daughter or son he would not have petitioned to have a fire arm to hunt. leaving it at that.

FTF
October 18, 2006, 11:17 PM
It's only a felony if that state that the conviction was in classifies it as such. If it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to TWO YEARS, it's not prohibitive... unless it's Domestic Violence.

SoCalShooter
October 18, 2006, 11:19 PM
Medula Oblangata, molestation is not cool and I think we can agree on that had it been my kid that bugger would have met with the wood chipper. I take it very seriously, if he intentionally molested the child repeatedly or even once then yes. Even if it was the first time its not excuseable no matter how petty or heinous.

cassandrasdaddy
October 19, 2006, 12:39 AM
is what most of us are doing. without all the facts here, the facts the judge did have, we are somewhat worse than monday morning quarter backs. i'm a guy with a pretty daughter and all the fear and protectiveness that goes with that. i'm also a guy who's first wife looked(and acted ) 21 when she was 14.Id hesitate to judge this with the paucity of info we have. I'm in my late 40's and do a lil spiel at local schools a couple times a year about wht too much booze and dope is not a good life plan and regularly have girls hit on me there, and not cause i'm looking i make a point outa featuring wife and family as a reward for sucking my head outa my tail. I had a 15 year old girl try to pick me up at a dancei was chaperoning rfecently and be very aggresive.Its strange world out there

Orthonym
October 19, 2006, 04:58 AM
Methinks some folks doth protest too much. I think of Congressman Foley, who (I think) was instrumental in passing laws forbidding what he was later thought to have done.

She was 14? That was the age of consent in Georgia, back when I used to live there. Being over 50 myself, and my main squeeze being over 40, I kinda yawn at this, but I see the point of gals of that age being at their most sexually attractive. HOWEVER, they are not grown-up enough to have a complete set of wits about them. The kid's parents should say yes or no about this kind of thing, as used to be the case. Loretta Lynn got married at 14 and she seems to have turned out OK.

LAK
October 19, 2006, 07:44 AM
I think there is some misdirected fear around people like the thread subject and other "convicted felons" etc.

I say misdirected because some of these people are dangerous - or might be dangerous. But not because they have some genetic or racial difference from anyone else. They have simply succumbed to some evil impulses for one reason or another - made an irrational and immoral choice for one reason or another.

Anyone who lives in a medium to large city should consider that in any one given period on the street, day or night, in a supermarket, public toilet - they may have stood in close proximity to, talked with, exchanged money for goods with, joked with, a "convicted felon" - perhaps a great number of times in a day. A "convicted rapist", "convicted murderer", "armed robber" etc etc.

The idea that these people - roaming freely in our midst - are all some kind of ever present peril, inherently so because of a past conviction and prison term, is lunacy. Of course there are a great number of loonies who should be under lock and key, and this is the task of the judiciary; to isolate the loonies. Keep them locked up - or bury them. One or the other.

The public at large is no safer from the real loonies whether the real loonies are legally permitted to own firearms or not. What does impact the general public safety is the access of the loonies to the public domain. Anything else is a distraction from that issue.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Thin Black Line
October 19, 2006, 10:51 AM
I do not accept probation with restriction of rights as a legitimate state of incarceration. If we cannot trust you, you should be behind bars. If we can trust you, you should be out of prison with full rights.
....
He's a free man - so why not?

These statements are reflective of people who do not understand how the
probation system works. 1) If you are on probation, you are not a "free
man." You are under court orders and the probation dept is in effect the
instrument for carrying out the judge's orders. 2) If you want more jail
space, you have to pay for it. Depending on your location, this may mean
quadrupling or more the cell space in your county. Imagine the millage rate
that would be on the ballot at your next election to expand the jail space
that would then be needed? From my experience with lesser rates, property
owners usually do not approve this for even the initial costs of construction
alone. Year to year expenses for running the facility and housing prisoners
are another matter entirely. The increase in county/city employees to staff
the facilities with their accumulated health and pension plans would also be
a significant budget issue as pensions were tapped over the coming decades.
The gradated LEO retirement system in Detroit immediately comes to mind
in that respect --the older guys have far better benefits coming to them
than the new guys ever will in the future. This was due to projections
showing major problems in a place that already had financial issues. However,
this would be true anywhere over time.

Bottom line is, people won't pay for it and probation (court supervision within
the community) is the only option. Again, my premise is that consequences
and punishment require the continued restriction of rights for someone who
has shown they are not currently capable of handling themselves around
other human beings.

Once again, I am also amazed how people get bent into a pretzel when an
actual bad guy who has not finished completing his criminal sentence
is somehow denied a "right" that he would not have access to had there been
enough jail space in the first place. So again, learn how things work out
in the world.

I would love to approve the millage for just about everything that ever got
proposed in my county, but quite frankly I and the other property owners
can't pay for all of it. We're carrying enough (including a lot of new "residents")
on our backs as it is.

NineseveN
October 19, 2006, 12:38 PM
These statements are reflective of people who do not understand how the probation system works. 1) If you are on probation, you are not a "free
man." You are under court orders and the probation dept is in effect the
instrument for carrying out the judge's orders.

Law Dictionary Entry:
probation
n. a chance to remain free (or serve only a short time) given by a judge to a person convicted of a crime instead of being sent to jail or prison, provided the person can be good. Probation is only given under specific court-ordered terms, such as performing public service work, staying away from liquor, paying a fine, maintaining good behavior, getting mental therapy and reporting regularly to a probation officer. Violation of probation terms will usually result in the person being sent to jail for the normal term. Repeat criminals are normally not eligible for probation. Probation is not the same as "parole," which is freedom under certain restrictions given to convicts at the end of their imprisonment.

Law Dictionary Entry
parole
n. 1) the release of a convicted criminal defendant after he/she has completed part of his/her prison sentence, based on the concept that during the period of parole, the released criminal can prove he/she is rehabilitated and can "make good" in society. A parole generally has a specific period and terms such as reporting to a parole officer, not associating with other ex-convicts, and staying out of trouble. Violation of the terms may result in revocation of parole and a return to prison to complete his/her sentence. 2) a promise by a prisoner of war that if released he will not take up arms again.


I think you're the one that has the misunderstanding. When a convict is on Parole, they are still part of the system, and have some pretty strict requirements placed upon them on top of anything that is placed on them by being a convicted felon (i.e. owning firearms). When someone is on probation, they're on probation in lieu of being incarcerated (i.e. felons rarely get probation, and if they do it's under some type of plan like ARD). I think you need to understand the difference between "probation" and "parole", because your arguments would hold water under parole, under probation you're just not cutting it.

Note: Parole is not the same as being released; I doubt many of the people arguing that once one is "released" from prison that they should be afforded their rights back mean to include people on parole because of the differences between parole, incarceration, probation and freedom.




2) If you want more jail
space, you have to pay for it. Depending on your location, this may mean
quadrupling or more the cell space in your county…

Actually, that’s not quite correct. Part of the issue is that we have people being made into criminals when they do no harm to anyone but maybe themselves. I’m talking about drug users. I don’t do drugs, never have, never will, I despise them, but, someone that gets tossed into the system on drug use charges when they’ve committed no crime against anyone else is a waste of time, space and money; all of which could be reserved for criminals that have harmed another in some form. That would go a long way towards taking care of the issue.

Further from that, making prisons profitable while keeping them secure can help as well. No more cable TV, weight benches basketball time…put them to work. Instead of WalMart buying sweatshop goods from China, they could buy them from the penal systems. There was a prison not too long ago that had a program making denim jeans, if the states were to hire a few top-notch consultants in business and security, I am willing to be that some ingenuity could really make a difference. Will it cover the entire cost? Of course not, but between that and getting rid of ridiculous jail sentences for ridiculous crimes, it’s a huge start in the positive towards this particular problem.




Bottom line is, people won't pay for it and probation (court supervision within
the community) is the only option. Again, my premise is that consequences
and punishment require the continued restriction of rights for someone who
has shown they are not currently capable of handling themselves around
other human beings.

Probation is usually reserved for misdemeanors, (i.e. relatively minor offenses).


Once again, I am also amazed how people get bent into a pretzel when an
actual bad guy who has not finished completing his criminal sentence
is somehow denied a "right" that he would not have access to had there been
enough jail space in the first place. So again, learn how things work out
in the world.

Probation is not the same parole, get it through your head please before you start making snarky comments like “learn how things work in the real world”. Parole is a solution to the limited space in jails, probation is a way for someone that has committed a minor crime to make restitution or be taught a lesson. Probation is not given to violent felons or anyone that is normally categorized as a high-risk criminal as they’re usually guilty of misdemeanors and petty crimes. Probation is not meant as a mechanism to remove one’s rights the way incineration is. But thanks for the rant, I enjoyed it.

ilbob
October 19, 2006, 12:47 PM
Ilbob, I'm not even going to get into the two paragraphs of mythology you spouted that could have come directly from a False Memory Syndrome Foundation brochure.

So you are suggesting that you can tank up a child with psychoactive drugs, interrogate him/her at length asking incredibly leading questions, and at the end of it all you won't occasionally get a statement out of the child that has only a passing resemblance to the truth?

Malone LaVeigh
October 19, 2006, 01:46 PM
A lot of the emotion that surrounds this issue comes from the feeling we all get when we hear the phrase "child molester." But I think there needs to be some distinction between those who molest preadolescents and those who molest the underage. As disgusting as it may seem to most of us, a 14-year-old was marrying material in most of the world till the 20th century. I don't think you can really say she was irreparably damaged as a younger child would be. I'm not trying to minimize the trauma she might have experienced, but calling for the DP is barbaric.

That being said, a year is still too lenient IMO. Ten years would have been more appropriate.

Lonestar
October 19, 2006, 04:06 PM
WOW you guys are hard core. I can't believe THR members are so into the RBKA that they would look the other way for a guy that molested a minor.

WayneConrad
October 19, 2006, 04:26 PM
"WOW you guys are hard core. I can't believe THR members are so into the RBKA that they would look the other way for a guy that molested a minor."

I think you're amazed that we will look the other way when the man bears arms. Am i right? I don't think even that is true of all of us here: Many here abide by laws they disagree with, and prefer that others do, too. It's part of being... well, law abiding.

I don't think anyone here is saying that they would look the other way over the molestation itself. I hope that's not what you mean, because if it is, I think you've misread us.

In any case, all you gotta do is convince me of two things: That restricting the man's right to keep and bear arms will prevent him from molesting a child, and that restricting that man's right to keep and bear arms will lead to a decrease in the power of government rather than an increase. Can you do that?

Sean Dempsey
October 19, 2006, 04:49 PM
I predict this thread gets locked soon, but at any rate...

I don't know this guy or what he did exactly, other than what the report says, but I am of the opinion that if you are a pedophile, you are neither a "man" nor entirely "human" - you are a pedophile.

And I don't recall the constitution or bill of rights giving rights to pedophiles. Alot of criminals can be rehabilitated, and I don't think that all criminals should be dened their 2A rights. But pedophiles are not criminals - it's almost a sub-species of humanity. Recidivism rates for pedophiles and child molesters is fairly high, and treatment and rehabilitation is mostly about control of behaviors, meaning they still WANT to have sex with children, they just learn not to.

And if you want to have sex with children, even IF you control it and don't do it, means you are pretty mentally ill. Is an adult who is sexually attracted and wants to act on those attractions in their right mind? Are they mentally stable? I'd say it's pretty clear they are not.

If you find that 9 year old sexually attractive - I don't want you having guns because obviously your brain and judgement is compromised. It's not because I think you'll use hunting guns against kids to have sex with them... the sexual attraction is reason enough.

This could be argued all day, there are more than a few organizations that stand up for and support the rights of pedophiles and pederasts. I do not belong to these groups.

And to all the people who are posting about how you'd injure or kill the guy who molested your daughter - no you wouldn't. You wouldn't do jack, just like everyone else. You'd call the cops, they'd drag their heels, and some judge would rule that this guy is not a threat because he "only fondled your 12 year olds breasts" and that he isn't voilent. He'd be released after 4 months and then your daughter would run into him at walmart, and that'd just make her traumatization worse.

But hey, therapists gotta make money somehow. Go go rights for pedophiles!

NineseveN
October 19, 2006, 04:50 PM
In any case, all you gotta do is convince me of two things: That restricting the man's right to keep and bear arms will prevent him from molesting a child, and that restricting that man's right to keep and bear arms will lead to a decrease in the power of government rather than an increase. Can you do that?

In all my years as a Bulls fan, I'd never seen Jordan sink one as beautiful as the one you just did, you nailed it. Good job!

miko
October 19, 2006, 04:55 PM
Unless we are talking in legalese here, a normal 14-year old female is not a girl but a woman - capable of procreation and posessing all the instincts towards that end, courtesy of natural selection or Creator, take your pick.

miko

Sean Dempsey
October 19, 2006, 05:11 PM
In any case, all you gotta do is convince me of two things: That restricting the man's right to keep and bear arms will prevent him from molesting a child, and that restricting that man's right to keep and bear arms will lead to a decrease in the power of government rather than an increase. Can you do that?

Nice strawman.

You don't restrict his right to keep and bear arms to keep him from molesting a child. Restricting ANYONES right to keep and bear arms doesn't "prevent" anything. Even convicted felons guilty of violent assaults can't be "prevented", no matter what you do, "keep and bear arms" or not.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There you go, pedophiles are not people, and thereby not protected by the 2nd amendment.

As for your second statement, I don't think the purpose of restricting a pedophiles access to guns is to increase/decreaste the power of government, so it's irrelevent.

How many people have actually dealt with pedophiles in clinical situations, heard their motives, watched their rehab (or lack thereof)? I am not a licensed psychologist, but I do have my degree in psych, and interned about 2000 hours in a psycholgists clinic where I dealt with pedophiles and sexual predators on a weekly basis. And 1 fact remains - they are MENTALLY ILL, usually permanently.

I'd let Charles Manson attend my barbacue before I'd let a pedophile, and I'd sooner let someone with advanced, severe, highly delusional schizophrenia go shooting with me before I'd let a pedophile.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

NineseveN
October 19, 2006, 05:13 PM
I don't know this guy or what he did exactly, other than what the report says, but I am of the opinion that if you are a pedophile, you are neither a "man" nor entirely "human" - you are a pedophile.


Sean Dempsey, you mean like this guy?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45104

Man grabs girl's arm –
now he's a sex offender
Driver's chastisement of 14-year-old
who walked in front of car earns stigma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 2, 2005
5:00 p.m. Eastern

A man who grabbed a 14-year-old girl's arm to chastise her after she walked in front of his car, causing him to swerve to avoid hitting her, must register as a "sex offender," the Appellate Court of Illinois has ruled.

Fitzroy Barnaby, a 28-year-old Evanston, Illinois, man was prosecuted for attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges following a November 2002 incident in which he nearly hit the teen with his vehicle.

The girl testified Barnaby yelled, "Come here, little girl," when he jumped out of his car and grabbed her arm. She broke away and called authorities. Barnaby says he was merely trying to lecture her for her carelessness.


The trial jury accepted Barnaby's version of the story, but found him guilty of unlawful restraint of a minor – a sex offense under Illinois law.

As a convicted sex offender, Barnaby is required to be listed on the state's sex offender registry and must keep authorities informed of his place of residency. He also isn't allowed to live near schools or parks. The Illinois Sex Offender Information website, operated by the Illinois State Police, lists those in the registry, along with their photographs and home addresses.

Trial Judge Patrick Morse ordered registration reluctantly, acknowledging it was "more likely than not" Barnaby only intended to chastise the girl. "I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute."

Barnaby was not listed on the registry during his appeal, but following the recent ruling by the appellate court, he soon will be.

"This is the most stupid ruling the appellate court has rendered in years," Frederick Cohn, Barnaby's attorney, told the Chicago Sun-Times. "If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"

The appellate court agreed it was "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," however it sided with the state's attorney who argued it is "the proclivity of offenders who restrain children to also commit sex acts or other crimes against them."

"It is [Barnaby's] actions which have caused him to be stigmatized, not the courts," reads the decision.




What does a gun have to do with this exactly? Is sex with a 16-year old okay? The law says so in many states, so long as they're consenting. Is there a real difference? What real difference is there between 14 and 16? Because the law says there is one? Is that good enough? You're going to cite the law making the guy in this thread, the above story and others sex offenders and support it saying they should not own a gun or have the right to protect themselves in the best manner possible, are you also going to support a 29-year old man having sex with a Sophomore in High School? Because the law says it's okay, so it must be, right? Or is the law only right when it suits your argument?

A 14-year old girl says a grown man touched her (no kid’s ever lied about that right? Get real). What evidence did they have that he truly did so? Basically, in these kinds of touching cases, you have the word of a person that is deemed too young to make their own decisions (a minor) against the word of an adult and you’re going to take their word about what happened? Hey, the guy was convicted by a jury of his peers right, so the case must’ve been airtight, right?

I’m not even sure what the guy in the original story did given the relatively small sentence, but folks want to rush off and condemn him? Maybe most of you are way older or don’t get out much. I’ve bounced a number of bars and I’m young enough that before my current relationship with a 26-year old (that looks like she’s 18 at best), I dated girls in their lowers 20’s (I’m 29) and I’ve had experiences almost being roped in by minors, way younger than most would believe unless it’s happened to them. When I bounced, before the ID scanners came out, I’d see girls get in that were later found out to be as young as 12, only built like college strippers (they used to get into bars with fake ID’s) and I’d see them hit on all kinds of guys while they were in the bar getting free drinks and whatever.

Some kids are not as innocent as their protectors would make them out to be. Now with the ID scanners and some new tricks (and the right to refuse being prominent in most bars these days) it’s not such a big deal…but out in the real world where folks aren’t carded for walking around? Different story. Now, we don’t know what this guy did, but judging by the sentence, he’s either the Mayor’s son or it was relatively minor. Yeah, he’s a sex offender, take his arms away…but you remember that the next time you grab a kid that’s on your property stomping your mailbox or getting ready to run out into traffic. Don’t worry, we’ll feel sorry for you, promise we will Mr. Sex Offender.


In any case, WayneConrad summed it up the best, so maybe I should have left it at that...

NineseveN
October 19, 2006, 05:19 PM
Nice strawman.

You don't restrict his right to keep and bear arms to keep him from molesting a child. Restricting ANYONES right to keep and bear arms doesn't "prevent" anything. Even convicted felons guilty of violent assaults can't be "prevented", no matter what you do, "keep and bear arms" or not.

Well, you did a wonderful job of telling us why you don't restrict their right to keep and bear arms, but you haven't told us why you should, which, as I understand it, is your point anyway. Thanks for the help, but let's hear your reason why, other than your personal feelings.


There you go, pedophiles are not people, and thereby not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Please source this legal opinion. if this is not a legal opinion, but your own personal one, well, we don't make law based on how Sean Dempsey feels, sorry pal, them’s the breaks kid.


As for your second statement, I don't think the purpose of restricting a pedophiles access to guns is to increase/decreaste the power of government, so it's irrelevent.

Again, you're telling what the purpose isn't, not what the purpose is. Care to clarify on what you hope to accomplish by restricting their rights in that manner?

WayneConrad
October 19, 2006, 05:20 PM
Restricting ANYONES right to keep and bear arms doesn't "prevent" anything.

Why, if it prevents nothing, should we restrict the right to keep and bear arms?

As for your second statement, I don't think the purpose of restricting a pedophiles access to guns is to increase/decreaste the power of government, so it's irrelevent.

Hardly. The purpose -- the stated intent -- is what's irrelevent. The actual effect of the law is what matters. If a robber relieves you of your wallet but tells you that he wishes to ease your burden in carrying it, does that make it alright? Or is it the actual taking of your wallet, and not his reasons for taking it, that matter?

Sean Dempsey
October 19, 2006, 05:20 PM
You didn't address anything in my post, you set up a argument that a guy stopping a girl running into the street is now required to register as a sex offender.

You then said that kids lie, and that maybe most sexual crimes really aren't that bad.

You then told a story about how you used to pick up young women at bars, and that the 12 year olds were built like strippers. Is that the beginning of a "she wanted it" defense, or a "if she didn't want to be raped, why was she dressed so sexy!" defense?

You then implied that if I were to ever touch a child who was "stomping my mailbox", that'd I'd be convicted of a sex crime, and you wouldn't feel bad because I got what I deserved? No judge would take away my rights because I am a sex offender, haven't you been reading this thread? Like they say around Utah, if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed (according to natural selection and/or a Creator, right?).

Nice debate skills.

NineseveN
October 19, 2006, 05:33 PM
You didn't address anything in my post, you set up a argument that a guy stopping a girl running into the street is now required to register as a sex offender.

You then said that kids lie, and that maybe most sexual crimes really aren't that bad.

You then told a story about how you used to pick up young women at bars, and that the 12 year olds were built like strippers. Is that the beginning of a "she wanted it" defense, or a "if she didn't want to be raped, why was she dressed so sexy!" defense?

You then implied that if I were to ever touch a child who was "stomping my mailbox", that'd I'd be convicted of a sex crime, and you wouldn't feel bad because I got what I deserved? No judge would take away my rights because I am a sex offender, haven't you been reading this thread? Like they say around Utah, if she's old enough to bleed, she's old enough to breed (according to natural selection and/or a Creator, right?).

Nice debate skills.
__________________

Inferring that I copulate with or am attracted to 12-year old girls was a great debate tactic as well. Perhaps you could read it again and show me where I said "I" was the subject of those thoughts.

Then you equated me with a rapist.

That’s rather despicable of you to do, I think I'm done with you, I don’t associate with your kind if I can help it.

I made it perfectly clear the age of the girls I dated (low 20's sometimes, if you read the post), and I made it perfectly clear that the young girls were bar patrons that looked older and got in with fake ID that we later had to bounce out with the police after the discovery of their age or enough suspicion to warrant it.

I used this example not to give the "she wanted it defense", but to illustrate that not all minors are innocent, sometimes they get in over their heads and witless adults do get brought down by it. I never said most or many sex crimes are exaggerated or made up as you so ineloquently attributed to me, only that yes, it does happen, which is why we need to look at each individual case and dole out adequate punishment (which would not be probation if the person was really a danger or committed a really terrible crime under vile circumstances).

I brought up Barnaby to again illustrate that the label of "sex offender" or even "pedophile" is also not always so black and white, but I think that point is largely lost on you. So be it.


I really think that some people, once they start losing the argument, they try to get the thread locked by tossing about ad hominem attacks (such as remarks insinuating someone is a rapist or child molester when they clearly said nothing even remotely close to that) as a way to shut the thread down. You must be precognitive Mr. Dempsey...

I predict this thread gets locked soon, but at any rate...


Or was that perhaps just a warning?

miko
October 19, 2006, 07:16 PM
There you go, pedophiles are not people, and thereby not protected by the 2nd amendment.

At the time of 2nd amendment adoption, having consentual sex with a 14-year old woman was not considered "pedophilia." In fact many 14-year olds were likely already married.

If the government can re-define a 14-year old woman into a child and "nothing but gold and silver" into "anything but gold and silver", it can certainly re-define arms into something like rubber-band pistols and outlaw everything else.

miko

WickedXD
October 20, 2006, 01:01 AM
Child Molestors: " Thats what .45's are good for! " anyone that lets a child molestor have a gun is no better...and anyone that agrees....is sick!:mad:

WayneConrad
October 20, 2006, 03:23 AM
WickedXD said, "...anyone that lets a child molestor have a gun is no better...and anyone that agrees....is sick!"

Please, let's discuss the issue, and not resort to personal attacks. I can understand how emotionally charged this issue is, but ad hominum attacks aren't really going to get us anywhere.

If my arguments revolt you, that's worth discussing. If you explain why, then I can learn something.

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 08:17 AM
WOW you guys are hard core. I can't believe THR members are so into the RBKA that they would look the other way for a guy that molested a minor.


+1. In fact, let's issue him a weapon and set him up as a security guard in
front of one of their kid's schools....:rolleyes: Again, it would be good
to see some of their hypocrisy kick in and work in a healthy way.

At the time of 2nd amendment adoption, having consentual sex with a 14-year old woman was not considered "pedophilia." In fact many 14-year olds were likely already married.


It would be an interesting tangental issue to debate that sentence. Suffice
to say "times were different" for a dispersed, decentralised, agrarian society
who had a very basic education to meet the skills required for jobs at that
time. Keep in mind at the time of the 2A's adoption that the educated
members of society also waited until they were older for marriage.

Jefferson's daughter would be a good example: married at 18 to a man
about 4 years older than herself after both received the equivalent of
today's college education. She had her first child at 19. Do you honestly
believe Jefferson would have had his daughter marry at 14 when he placed
such an emphasis on education? The poor and lesser educated were getting
married (or common-law) and having babies at early ages --nowadays, they
just have babies....and look how our society is reversing itself over the gains
it made in the last 100 years.

NineseveN, "freedom" as meant in your law dictionary is in the sense that
they are not incarcerated in a state facility. It certainly does not mean
"freedom" in the sense that you would have. Someone under a probationary
order can not do what a "free" person can do. If they violate a part of a
probationary order (something which may in fact be legal for someone to do
who is not under such an order), then the court has the option, without
another jury hearing involved, to send them immediately and directly to jail.
I would hope most counties are still noting this condition and consequence on
their probationary orders. Most probationary orders also restrict access to
weapons which is what this guy was petitionting to modify.

The story would go that probation was a nice creation out of our feelings of
humanity and mercy to punish/correct a person without resorting to an
immediate lock-up for that period of time.

Cost was still a major factor --probation is cheaper than jail.

I for one would like to see probation include a longer list of restrictions. And,
my version of incarceration would not include facilities with single rooms,
flush toilets, TV, exercise rooms, and three hot meals --far better accomodations
than what I and the average soldier at FOB Dog Cr@p had in Iraq.

Here's something cost-effective: you violate probation you go to tent city
surrounded by barbed wire and some MREs and bottles of water get tossed in
a couple times/day. I wouldn't keep people there for months --just a cpuple
weeks to remind them they were under a court order and to use that wonderful
opportunity society gave them to use community resources for personal and
spiritual growth :D

But, fine, I understand some of you guys want to go soft.....:evil:

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 08:52 AM
Since we don't really know what happened, only having a snippet from a news report that really says very little, it is hard for me to condemn this guy as a pedophile, and someone who is forever worthless.

IMO, true pedophiles can never be cured. It is a permanent situation that can at best be controlled, and even that is dicey.

These days, a lot of 14 YO girls are very forward, and quite brazen. Many of them dress, act, and look older. It would not excuse his behavior if she were an active participant, but it might give some insight. The people closest to the case, the judge and probation department, probably have a much better handle on this than anyone here that knows almost nothing about it. I have a hard time believing they would have gone along with his request if they thought he was even remotely a threat to anyone.

Keep in mind the guy did not go to court and demand his "rights". He went and asked to have a privilege restored to him, recognizing that in his current status, he no longer had that right.

I just do not see the harm in allowing him to partake of his hobby again.

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 09:28 AM
Sadly, the way our society has been marketing inappropriate items, most
notably clothing, to children and the pervasive use of sex in such advertising
is a subject for a different debate. This is a relatively recent phenomenom
in our society and many have stated, as will I, that it is part of a larger scheme
of social engineering. One thing I hope we all should know is that such
marketing and advertising would not have been acceptable in the past.
This also leads to a different debate about censorship which would intersect
with pornography. I suspect a certain amount of absolutism would pervade
that as well here.

Again, I would maintain that this convicted person be under a strict set of
rules. That he is living in his own home is light enough as it is. One of my
main questions would be how is he doing in treatment? BTW, did you know
that not everyone receives treatment? Guess what --it's due to program
space which boils down to cost.

I could care less about his hobby interests. Anyone here interested in how
his victim is doing? What long-term effects is she going to suffer as a
result of his actions?

We could talk about victims of sexual abuse/assault being more likely to abuse
drugs, suffer from PTSD, and commit suicide, but that would be reality slapping
the faces of those who believe

These days, a lot of 14 YO girls are very forward, and quite brazen.

wouldn't it?

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 09:43 AM
Hey, MO, thanks for making my argument that similar living accomodations
for convicts and soldiers would not be inhumane punishment under
the Constitution of this country.

Likewise, if you're going to harken back to the past of our founding times,
or 10,000 years earlier, as a support for any of your future arguments, then
you would be in favor of using the village stocks again for those who
transgressed what was accepted as modest behavior for that time? After
all back in the Colonial days, the village would not have tolerated the groping
of unmarried females......;)

.......BOOM!

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 09:46 AM
Not to bust your nuts, but your arguments have no bearing on what we're discussing.


Yeah, keep repeating that to yourself. Better yet :banghead:

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 10:07 AM
Sigh......no, not my fingers.......however, I sense a mod will soon apply a
tourniquet to this thread.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 10:51 AM
Sigh......no, not my fingers.......however, I sense a mod will soon apply a
tourniquet to this thread.

I refer back to post # 74 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2786206&postcount=74). :scrutiny:

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 11:12 AM
Well, it appears some poster clotting is beginning to take place instead.

I think one of the main stumbling blocks is this type of offender/crime. I
doubt many people here would have difficulty with saying the getaway
driver for an armed robbery or home invasion should have his access to
weapons remain restricted.

Whether it's a gang in which (some) members use weapons against unarmed
adults or an adult taking advantage of a child, the similarity is the position
of power and the weakness of the intended victim(s).

But, yes, nineseven, it would be good to back off of getting angry at
each and adjust fire to where it's needed.

miko
October 20, 2006, 12:22 PM
It would be an interesting tangental issue to debate that sentence. Suffice
to say "times were different" for a dispersed, decentralised, agrarian society
who had a very basic education to meet the skills required for jobs at that
time.
That’s not a correct picture of education in America of those times. The rates of literacy and level of literature read were considerably higher than those we have today.

Jefferson's daughter would be a good example…
That’s not a relevant example. In modern US women get married (if at all) later –on average in their early twenties. The educated women marry in their late twenties, early thirties. According to your logic, we might say that “times are different” and outlaw sex with women under 30. That would be quite silly.

....and look how our society is reversing itself over the gains
it made in the last 100 years.
Wrong. The society has been reversing for over 100 years the gains it has made in the previous few hundred - as the decisive shift or this country towards the corrupting socialism has really started with 1890s Progressives’ politics.

miko

Joe Demko
October 20, 2006, 12:31 PM
That’s not a correct picture of education in America of those times. The rates of literacy and level of literature read were considerably higher than those we have today.

Cite?

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 01:00 PM
Cite?

+1.

miko
October 20, 2006, 02:16 PM
Pierre Samuel DuPont de Nemours (of those DuPonts) published in 1812 (at the request of his friend, Vice President Thomas Jefferson) a treatise “National Education in the United States”. He was simply amazed by rate of literacy and numeracy in the United States as compared to Europe. DuPont said that less then 4 people out of every thousand in the new nation could not read and do numbers well.

http://www.udel.edu/PR/duPontFamily/internal_pages/intro_index.html

According to Regna Lee Wood, Director of Statistical Research for The National Right to Read Foundation who wrote the article "That's Right – They're Wrong" National Review, 9/14/92

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n18_v44/ai_12777149
AFQT scores indicated that illiteracy (defined by the War Department as inability to read 4th-grade lessons, or today's 5th-grade lessons) among millions of prospective recruits with at least four years of schooling soared from almost zero [4/1000 !] during World War II to an unbelievable 17 percent during the Korean War

Now, the recruits in US undergo intelligence tests and those at or below borderline retarded are screened out, but I doubt that DuPont included retarded individuals into his estimate.
The 4/1000 number probably reflects the ratio or individuals with natural handicaps making literacy impossible.

Alexis de Tocqueville has also commented on high level of literacy in America – I am not close to my copy now but I believe he says somewhere that an American farmer tills his field with a plow in one hand and a book on philosophy in the other.


According to other sources (Richman, Sheldon. 1994. Separating School and State. Fairfax: Future of Freedom Foundation.), male literacy in America was estimated 60% in 1650! According to him, between 1800 and 1840, literacy in the Northern States increased from 75% to 90%, and in Southern States from 60% to 81%.
Massachusetts had alledgedely reached a level of 98% literacy in 1850 - before the state's compulsory education law of 1852.

I am not even sure today's 4th-grade reading level would have been considered literacy in those times:
Thomas Paine's Common Sense sold 120,000 copies to a population of three million—the equivalent of ten million copies in the 1990s. Noah Webster's Spelling Bee sold five million copies to a population of less than twenty million in 1818. Walter Scott's novels sold the same number between 1813 and 1823—the equivalent of sixty million copies in the 1990s. James Fenimore Cooper's The Last of the Mohicans also sold millions of copies. Scott and Cooper are certainly not written on today's fourth-grade level.

The culture of early US put high value on literacy – regardless of practical applicability and/or need of it for earning a living. That is not in itself special or exceptional – the colonies of Germans established in Russia on invitation of Russian Tsars by refugees of 30-year war devastation (1612-1642) has been 100% literate ever since, despite totally agrarian lifestyle. The emphasis on literacy regardless of practical application has been common to Germans and German Diaspora – see Thomas Sowell “Culture” trilogy for good info.

miko

miko
October 20, 2006, 02:32 PM
P.S. Have any of you read The Federalist papers? As false and subversive they are, they - and the "Anti-Federalist Papers" were published in newspapers - the mass-media of the time, not philosophical treatises.

The level of discourse in FP and even more so in AFP is simple amazing - we do not have anything even remotely close to that not only in mass media but even more exclusive publications intended for a general audience.
That gives some indication what people were reading then.

miko

pictoblu
October 20, 2006, 02:38 PM
Quote: Cite? +1.

+2

And I'd like to see a link to the original article.

If I missed it while scanning thru all the posts in this thread, disregard my request..

ilbob
October 20, 2006, 02:56 PM
I don't recall just where I read it, and I don't recall the exact numbers, but there is a federal government (I think) study from back in the 60s maybe that I read some highlights from one time.

I had always thought that literacy in America before the times of mandatory public schooling had to have been very high. It turns out that a very large percentage of Americans could read a bible, something that cannot easily be done without a reasonably high degree of reading ability.

spelling was very poor, but that was in large part because there was a lot of regional variability in spelling and many people did not consider it all that important.

Arithmetic skills were also pretty common, although much of it was basically 4 function type math. maybe 4th grade level was considered quite adequate.

The amazing thing is that a lot of these people somehow taught themselves. Others learned from the parents, and some in one room schools, although I got the impression that the one room schoolhouse was more of an anomaly than the norm.

I would caution that the military entrance test scores are probably not a reliable indicator between the two periods of time. The draft boards at the different times probably had different standards by which they chose to not send candidates off to war. WWII was pretty popular, as wars go, and there was not a lot of resistance to being drafted, so very poor candidates could be excused. The Korean War was far less popular, so I suspect the draft boards were more likely to send any warm body. But, I could be wrong. i don't have any hard data to back up such a suggestion.

WickedXD
October 20, 2006, 03:06 PM
<Insult removed by Art>

Well you want the truth? I believe people covicted of molesting kids should be shot! "Shall not be infringed" does not apply to to child molestors" I'm sure the Four Fathers would agree.

Anyone who agrees a child molestor should be allowed a gun...is either a child molestor himself or need serious phycalogical treatment!

miko
October 20, 2006, 03:06 PM
US military uses IQ tests to screen out the unsuitable candidates - and the treshhold is pretty low, basically borderline retarded. Such people are not expected to be literate in any case - even when they can read perfectly, they have trouble with reading comprehension.

The big problem with modern education system is the number of educatable children it fail.

miko

WickedXD
October 20, 2006, 03:08 PM
ohh your from Omaha....that explains it:D

crunker
October 20, 2006, 03:11 PM
Allowing the man to hunt would be okay, but I personally would not allow him to carry weapons on his person, or own small, concealable handguns at all.

NineseveN
October 20, 2006, 03:20 PM
Anyone who agrees a child molestor should be allowed a gun...is either a child molestor himself or need serious phycalogical treatment!

Please try not to make such silly statements, it hardly encourages civil discourse. :rolleyes:

I won't bother making fun of the grammar, that's silly as well.

Thin Black Line
October 20, 2006, 05:45 PM
Looks like this is heading south again....

In any case:

male literacy in America

Exactly, white male literacy --mostly in the northern states. Speaking of
the South, white male literacy was lower. I guess we shouldn't even
bother bringing up women, African slaves, and the misnomered Indians
as part of the whole population of that time as compared to ours now? I
certainly wouldn't want to confuse anyone about populations and sampling.

Back to:

That’s not a relevant example.

How is stating a wealthy, educated man that we all know from the time
period having his daughter wait until an age that we in this day would
also consider an adult age for child bearning not be an example for
the merits of waiting a few years past the age of 14? My point was to
show that older ages are optimal from a practical point, not just a moral or
criminal one. The reason we have morals, ethics, laws, etc is to regulate
behaviors for the good of society. Again, times are, were, will be different.
I know that's a hard concept for most people living in the here and now
to comprehend.

One thing you and I will certainly agree upon is that literacy, reading
comprehension, and extrapolation of examples to make a point are all
different things. The second two become increasingly difficult for most
people.

I try to remain as concrete as possible in my writings here, but I admit
there are many times that my concepts require a certain amount of
abstract thought. I'll take full responsibility for that error on my part.

Art Eatman
October 20, 2006, 06:08 PM
"Heading" south? You're kidding, right?

This pasture is just way too full of meadow muffins, not to mention too many insults.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Judge says convicted molester can hunt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!