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…
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.
.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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Restricting ANYONES right to keep and bear arms doesn't "prevent" anything.
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.
Sean Dempsey said: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.
__________________
Sean Dempsey said:I predict this thread gets locked soon, but at any rate...
Sean Dempsey said:There you go, pedophiles are not people, and thereby not protected by the 2nd amendment.
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.
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.