Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
I mean the person who beats up a sex offender when he's done nothing to her children.
Mom Beats Up sex-Offender
- Thread starter jessiej920
- Start date
I mean the person who beats up a sex offender when he's done nothing to her children.
My guess would be that she realized she was in big trouble (what's the penalty for assault with a deadly weapon these days?) and decided to lie, but then realized that she was only going to dig her hole deeper and backed off.
In any case, I'd be seriously skeptical that she was able to recognize someone after a year based on a picture from a flier. But of course, if she has a hyper-active protective maternal instinct and is slightly nuts besides, I could easily imagine her convincing her self that it was the same person. Who knows, it certainly might have been the same guy.
I meant I'm skeptical about how sure she could be that this particular sex offender is the same person who she saw trying to chat up her daughter a year ago. Apparently she saw someone very tall talking to her daughter, then a year later got a flier about this guy and decided it was the same person. It certainly could have been, but who knows? I wouldn't be at all surprised if the guy who she saw talking to her daughter was "only" 6'6" or something, and she just assumed it had to be the same person based on the "really tall" factor.
Of course, this assumes she was even telling the truth about seeing someone try to chat up her daughter. We already know she tried to lie once about it, who knows if she's lying about this too?
Can someone explain why I cannot convince myself that, if it really was him, what she did was wrong?
because your not looking at the big piture, ok so we say fine whatever go beat up and potentually kill pediopiles, then it becomes rapists, then murders, then theives, then drink drivers, then speeders, then j-walking gives people a licence to shoot you on site. We are a sociaty of LAWS, not a collective of people who are free to bash up anyone who looks at you wrong. This person was convicted, served his sentance and was releaced, that means he has the right to live FREE FROM ATACK by random people wanting to let out there anger.
Personally i find the whole story a crock, i think its INFINITLY more plausable to say that either a) she saw him on this flyer, thought he would be an easy target and beat the crap out of him or b) his cat pissed on her lawn and she went postal and happened to find out latter he was on the sex offenders list and made up the story
Personally i find the whole story a crock, i think its INFINITLY more plausable to say that either a) she saw him on this flyer, thought he would be an easy target and beat the crap out of him or b) his cat pissed on her lawn and she went postal and happened to find out latter he was on the sex offenders list and made up the story
You are right...I guess I'm called visceral instinct for a reason.
I think there are certain people who shouldn't be let back into society, though. I would draw a line between them and the regular criminals. Drunk drivers/speeders for example can learn to be responsible. But someone who is only sexually attracted to children...that instinct isn't gonna die. I think they should be kept away from the rest of us.
maybe your right and maybe your wrong. However that is a political debate to be had by sociaty as a whole, the medical proffession and legislators. It doesnt give a person the right to go postal on someone who was just living there life no matter what they have done in the past. Living doesnt pose an IMINATE THREAT to self or others.
Oh I know that.
I know logically that she had no right to just beat the shit out of someone who may or may not have done anything wrong.
Living doesn't pose an imminent threat, but...for example, I was out with a friend and he pointed out an old man to me and told me how when he was in his early teens this guy tried to get him to go see him at his place. He refused, of course. This old guy is a convicted pedophile who served his time.
What if my friend had been stupid and trusting instead of streetwise? The guy did his time, but he was still obviously a threat.
thats up to the police, the courts, sociaty as a whole and the mental health system to work out.
Lets look at what the guy is aleged to have done to "provoke" this atack, he sold her fireworks. Ok YES this is a crime, and i dont have an answer as to why he wasnt charged with distributing explosives to an unlicenced person but anyway lets just move on.
Lets say that person x is a sex offender, they are relaced and they get a job at Big W in order to surport themselves post prision. Person a walks up to counter of person x with there child and buys whatever from them. They then leave and 1 year latter find out person x was convicted of whatever so they go around to there house and go postal. Ie this persons "crime" was that they were actually doing there job
Now lets say that the actual crime commited which got them onto this list was when they were 18 they slept with a 16 year old, does this deserve death?
how about the group of people who are on the sex ofenders registry because they striped naked, painted themselves gold and chained themselves to parliment house in protest, do they deserve death?
no they dont, and nither did this guy, no matter what his crimes, the courts releaced him. They did so under the rules that the legislators had set in place
Lets look at what the guy is aleged to have done to "provoke" this atack, he sold her fireworks. Ok YES this is a crime, and i dont have an answer as to why he wasnt charged with distributing explosives to an unlicenced person but anyway lets just move on.
Lets say that person x is a sex offender, they are relaced and they get a job at Big W in order to surport themselves post prision. Person a walks up to counter of person x with there child and buys whatever from them. They then leave and 1 year latter find out person x was convicted of whatever so they go around to there house and go postal. Ie this persons "crime" was that they were actually doing there job
Now lets say that the actual crime commited which got them onto this list was when they were 18 they slept with a 16 year old, does this deserve death?
how about the group of people who are on the sex ofenders registry because they striped naked, painted themselves gold and chained themselves to parliment house in protest, do they deserve death?
no they dont, and nither did this guy, no matter what his crimes, the courts releaced him. They did so under the rules that the legislators had set in place
Unfortunately what someone might do isn't a crime until they have actually done it. I live down the hall from a pedophile, a registered sex offender. I looked him up because I didn't believe him when he told me. It would be terrible of me to take one of my boyfriend's guns and shoot him. He's a weirdo and a sicko rapist, but he hasn't broken the law since. That doesn't stop other people from harassing him all of the time for no reason though. I think criminal records like medical records should be known by you, whoever you tell or want to know, and the authority that it concerns. The public (at least around here) is too impulsive and stupid to be trusted to leave these people (ex-cons) alone. It's more than just keeping your kids away, it's people verbally and physically abusing them for "sneezing toward their child" (yes that really happened). Mr. Pedophile got a black eye and lost a tooth for that one. I don't condone what he did, but according to the law he served his time.
Actually, in the US, on almost every job app they ask the questions 'Have you been charged with a crime?', 'Have you been convicted of a crime? If so, what is it?', 'Have you been convicted of a felony?'. That's the way it is.
You can lie of course, but if they do a background check it is almost gauranteed that they will catch you in your lie. I work as a PI intern and the information that is available on people, their crimes, their divorces, their convictions, their residences, etc. is amazing and at the same time, almost appalling. Of course it makes my job easier, but believe me, sex offenders are not the only ones on the chopping block so to speak. In the US, if you commit a crime, are charged, and serve time, IT WILL BE KNOWN. It is a matter of public record! I can go down to the court house, type in someone's name and birthdate and get all the dirt.
The only things that do not have public access without a court subpoena are adoption records, medical records, and, I believe, credit reports. Also cell phone records. Usually you need a subpoena for those as well.
Everything else is fair game. If I'm investigating you and you beat your wife four years ago and received a restraining order, I will find out. If you owe child support, I will find out. If you got a speeding ticket two months ago, I will find out. It's that simple. If you commit a crime it is on record and that doesn't just go for sex offenders.
If you have committed a crime, you are on record. People just have to know where to look for it.
thank god im not a stupid yank, why you are all worrying about the little infomation your goverment knows about you god only knows.
No this infomation is not publicly avaliable in australia, in fact your free to lie about convictions in any but specific jobs, even CENTERLINK (social securites) cant compell you to give that sort of infomation. The only places where you must not lie (or anyway would be a moron to lie) are jobs which require (by goverment legislation) a police clearances. These are any job working with children, the health sector, working with the elderly, emergency services, and possably working with money. However no one can seek this without your signed authorisation, in fact the police in most circumstances wont even give it to someone other than yourself. The examples where they can directly send it to someone are where the goverment is paying the costs involved because your going to be working with vulnerable groups and they are worried about people saying they are going to join these organisations only to get a free police clearance. Even then they are required by law to give it back to you once checked.
No this infomation is not publicly avaliable in australia, in fact your free to lie about convictions in any but specific jobs, even CENTERLINK (social securites) cant compell you to give that sort of infomation. The only places where you must not lie (or anyway would be a moron to lie) are jobs which require (by goverment legislation) a police clearances. These are any job working with children, the health sector, working with the elderly, emergency services, and possably working with money. However no one can seek this without your signed authorisation, in fact the police in most circumstances wont even give it to someone other than yourself. The examples where they can directly send it to someone are where the goverment is paying the costs involved because your going to be working with vulnerable groups and they are worried about people saying they are going to join these organisations only to get a free police clearance. Even then they are required by law to give it back to you once checked.
Um, I resent that. First of all, I'm not a stupid yank. Secondly, you shouldn't be criticizing sex-offender registration in a country that makes public all known crimes of US citizens. How does this concern you anyway??? And this 'stupid yank' isn't criticizing the little info. my government knows on me. I'm not a criminal so I have nothing to hide. In the US, if you are a criminal, you lose your rights to privacy and anonymity. Why? Because it protects the populace at large and hopefully prevents you from becoming a criminal again. I don't give a shit what my government knows about me because it isn't anything important. That is obviously why I am a PI and work within the investigative field. It's also why I believe in Sex offender registration for child molesters. If you rape a little child you LOSE YOUR RIGHTS. Why? You broke the law and tore apart other peoples lives AND victimized a child. It's disgraceful.
Don't many jobs people apply for fall within this general category on a more then average basis? Working with money? That's pretty general isn't it? You work with money if you work the register at the local McDonalds! And, also, in the US, you sign all job apps stating that any and all above statements made are true. Do you not sign job apps in the good ol' down-under? By signing are you not giving employers and authorities your permission to do what they will with your personal info?
What if you worked for a company that didn't do background checks on their employees? Would you feel comfortable working next to a child rapist? What if he knew you had a little daughter or son and followed you home and abducted one of your children? What about a felon who stole identities? Would you feel comfortable leaving your wallet on your desk? Your personal info. on your work computer that anyone well-versed in fraud could hack into?
You seem to be making victims of criminals who have given up their rights by breaking the law. I don't agree with vigilantism. I don't agree with racism or sexism. I don't agree with persecuting ex-criminals who have served their time over and over again. But I also don't believe that they get a clean lease on life just like that. That clean slate has to be earned. When you break the law you lose your rights. When you break someone's trust you lose that trust. Those are things that cannot just be wiped clean.
There is a reason for the way my country runs things and while I don't always agree with it, I do agree that child molesters must have tabs kept on them and that the minute they are convicted of raping or molesting a child, they lose the right to anonymity. They are a threat to innocents and those innocents DESERVE the right to be protected because they cannot protect themselves.
i was talk about working with LARGE sums of money (ie working for a bank) and didnt you just say you regually look up divorces? so having a divorce or being married is now a crime?
lets say a company doesnt want to hire women (or men for that matter) who have children because they tend to take more personal leave to look after children. You get sent in to find out if a potentual employee has children or not. In australia thats illegal, they are a protected group. What about someones sexuality, there HIV statice ect They criminals too?
How about someones religion, again something which is protected under antidiscrimination legislation.
We are WAY behond sex offenders now with what YOU ADMITED YOU DO FOR A LIVING.
How about union statice, criminal again?
political affiliation?
race?
parents?
finatial statice? (after all you can squeze people in debt so wouldnt it be better to hire people in more debt)
ect ect.
Im sorry i find the whole idea highly distasteful and if you dont like it well thats tough. A person, ANY person has a right to privacy, something that oviously isnt the case in the US. Again, thank god i live in a country where you would be unemployed for the most part. Hell there are only a couple of industries i have ever herd with investigation branches, insurance to investigate wether a claim is dogy (and thats strictly controled) and the ATO who for the most part no one gives a shit about anyway (because tax tends to be taken out as you earn the money for most people so they get money back rather than paying tax at the end of the year)
lets say a company doesnt want to hire women (or men for that matter) who have children because they tend to take more personal leave to look after children. You get sent in to find out if a potentual employee has children or not. In australia thats illegal, they are a protected group. What about someones sexuality, there HIV statice ect They criminals too?
How about someones religion, again something which is protected under antidiscrimination legislation.
We are WAY behond sex offenders now with what YOU ADMITED YOU DO FOR A LIVING.
How about union statice, criminal again?
political affiliation?
race?
parents?
finatial statice? (after all you can squeze people in debt so wouldnt it be better to hire people in more debt)
ect ect.
Im sorry i find the whole idea highly distasteful and if you dont like it well thats tough. A person, ANY person has a right to privacy, something that oviously isnt the case in the US. Again, thank god i live in a country where you would be unemployed for the most part. Hell there are only a couple of industries i have ever herd with investigation branches, insurance to investigate wether a claim is dogy (and thats strictly controled) and the ATO who for the most part no one gives a shit about anyway (because tax tends to be taken out as you earn the money for most people so they get money back rather than paying tax at the end of the year)
Well you did not specify the sums of money you were speaking of. Either way, many people want to know if they are hiring someone who has a criminal record of stealing before they allow them into their business. I'm not saying that people can't change, but what if it was your personal business? Would you want to unknowingly hire a professional thief or scammer? :shrug:
Of course being married or getting a divorce is not a crime. Just because information on people is available does not make them criminals. As a PI, we might look up someone to see if they have a history of divorce and possibly trying to scam their spouses for money. The same thing would go for people who have a habit of marrying countless times and then divorce and walk away with large sums of money based on similar reasons for each marriage and divorce. It's on a client to client basis. I never said divorce or marriage was a crime, but in the US it is public information whether people like it or not. Still, it doesn't make it illegal.
First off, not many people hire PI's to do general background checks on employees. Some people do, but not usually. Secondly, it is illegal to discriminate based on marital status, religion, race, etc. not to mention the number of children someone has. If someone thinks they are not being hired because of such issues they have the right to sue or file a formal complaint. I'm not saying employers don't discriminate, but it is illegal. An employer might ask if there are any restrictions a future employee might have that might hinder them in their work, but that information is on a volunteer basis usually. An applicant might say 'I am a mother of two', but they don't legally have to say that.
And, like I said before, a PI would not be able to find out if a person has HIV. They cannot obtain medical records without a court subpoena. The only reason someone might be able to subpoena medical records might be for a criminal case. For example, if a person is accused of knowingly infecting someone with HIV (which is illegal), the court might order subpoenas for medical records to prove the defendent knew they were infected and knowingly passed it on to their partner without telling them (which is illegal).
A job app, on the other hand, cannot demand info. about religion or HIV (or any other medical affliction for that matter) and background checks would not reveal it anyway.
Again, not something a background check would show unless they commited crimes that had something to do with religion. Maybe a person was convicted for stealing from churches or maybe a lawyer was known for convincing his dying, elderly clients to give to religious sects or affiliations. Still, unless they are convicted of a crime within a religious arena (whether it is their religion or not) it is not going to pop up on a background check. I'm Pagan and there is nothing on me in the system that says I am Pagan and affiliated with such and such religion or church or worship group.
How? My OP is about a mother who illegally beat up a sex offender. I simply stated I believe in sex offender registration for child molesters. I also, simply stated, the facts about what info is available to the PUBLIC (not just PI's) in the US. It has nothing to do with what I do for a living.
Race is obviously available in some situations, but many job apps ask what race you are anyway. You are not required to answer. As for parents, well they are people too and if they have committed crimes they will be in the system, but it's not as easy to find people and to distinguish one person from another within the system. Let's say you are trying to hire Jane Doe Smith. You do a background check and see that 5 out of 6 Jane Doe Smiths have criminal records ranging between misdemeanors to felonies. You look the Jane Doe Smith you are trying to hire up by her birthdate and realize that she is the 1 out 6 that doesn't have a criminal history other then maybe a speeding ticket or maybe she was a victim in a hit and run accident. End of story. You don't know what her parents names are and at that point it probably doesn't matter. You are not hiring her parents.
As for financial status, like I said, creidt reports are not available. Bank statements can be fished out of the trash once they are on the curb, but the only way you might be able to estimate financial status is by trying to see any previous properties owned or sold. Still, if we are talking about employers and background checks, most don't go this far. It really depends on the seriousness of the position.
Yeesh. You are taking this to a whole different level then I was aiming for. I was simply stating what info was available to the public in the US and why. I never said I agreed with all of it. I said it was amazing and appalling at the same time. And weren't you the one who said and I quote "thank god im not a stupid yank, why you are all worrying about the little infomation your goverment knows about you god only knows" :shrug:
Again, it's not just sex offenders who are made public for their crimes and most of the people in the US have info on file. But it has to go through the legal system. If you went to court for a divorce it will be on file. If you got a speeding ticket it will be on file. If you committed a felony it will be on file.
May people have info on them readily available to the public as well as future employers and yet many people still have jobs and get hired every day. Even people with a criminal history. Just because someone committed a crime doesn't always mean they are a terrible person who doesn't deserve privacy and should never be hired again.
But back to the Sex Offender register. I still believe it is rational to do so for child predators.
Yes, being a stupid australian is much better.What about truck drivers? Who wants to hire a felony for drunk driving?
What about morticians? Who wants to hire someone who has been convicted of necrophelia?
There are reasons the question is on the application.
Well obviously! Duh.
Sheesh, tell me about it. I guess in the good ol down under they're not worried about their morticians screwing the dead bodies. Shhh. It's a secret!
It is public record, but it isn't required for someone who has been convicted of grand theft or even assault that their neighbors be told. I know exactly what would happen too, if anything went missing people would go and harass them or if someone had a blackeye they didn't want to explain same thing. If you're bent enough on someone to dig stuff up on them then that's one thing, but telling people who otherwise, would care enough about you to give you a second thought, who like to stir up trouble for no reason, that seems to me like it might be pretty bad for rehabilitation and/or recovery.
What about truck drivers? Who wants to hire a felony for drunk driving?
What about morticians? Who wants to hire someone who has been convicted of necrophelia?
There are reasons the question is on the application.
You don't have to tell anyone if you've been convicted of possession of marijuana (in California) though.