"We're All Just One Accusation Away From The Sex Offender Registry"
That's a quote from a mother whose two apparently innocent sons are guilty of "sex offenses."
My pet peeve this week is overlegislating -- passing too many laws, and using the laws to trap innocent people. Just because. Chomp, chomp, chomp...people's lives get eaten. Like the woman's two sons, both of whom Lenore Skenazy reports got accused at 18 of "sex offenses." Lenore blogs at Parent Dish:
Let's say your son turns 18. He gets a job at the local carnival, running the ride where the kids lie face down and spin around till they shriek with delight (or puke). Before each ride he has to buckle the kids in so they don't fly out. But then -- tragedy strikes.Oh, don't worry. Nobody goes flying. They're buckled just fine. But one girl does tell her mother, "He touched my bottom!"
The mom alerts the police.
The police come over and ask, "Is that true?" Your son replies, "Maybe. I have to lock the bar around their waists and between their legs. They squirm. It could have happened."
The next day the police take him in for questioning. They ask him the same thing, this time with the videotape running. He gives them the same answer.
It is considered his confession. He is convicted of "Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child." He goes to jail for nine months. He is put on the Sex Offender Registry -- for life.
The second son was in the bathroom -- the one for males -- when a young girl walked in on him. He yelled to her to get out:
She starts crying and leaves. Her mom is concerned. The police are called. Was he in the men's room with a girl?Well, yes. Since everyone agrees the girl was not touched, he is convicted of "Visual Sexual Aggression Against a Child" -- the crime of having a child see his genitals. He does six months in jail. He's placed on the Sex Offender Registry for the next 10 years.
Let us remember this when we look up our local sex offender maps and see two convicts: One who ostensibly exposes himself to children and one who ostensibly assaults them.
Those poor boys, this seems so f-ing insane and a perversion of the laws. This doesn't make kids more safe, this gives parents with munchausen by proxy a chance to come up with new and better ways to get attention. 2 lives ruined for something so stupid.
My 4 year old nephew recently decided to lick my arm during a picnic. Thank goodness his mother isn't insane or I could've been arrested for lewd acts with a minor!
Lia at May 12, 2010 12:54 AM
Her mom is concerned.
But apparently not about the fact that her daughter wandered into the men's room unattended. I'm imagining my mother's response if I had run off and come back crying because a man in the men's room yelled at me. It would have been something along the lines of "You were somewhere you shouldn't have been, and that's what happens."
I wasn't there and this entry doesn't get into it, but I'm betting the girl was crying because the young man dared tell her to get out, not because she saw his genitals. I'm again imagining my mother's response had I come crying to her that I saw a strange man's genitals. "Where? In the men's room? Why were you in the men's room? Well, honey, that's how men go to the bathroom, but you shouldn't have been in there in the first place." A punishment of some sort would have followed. Because my mom was cool like that and recognized that it was within the realm of possibility that I was the one who actually did something wrong there.
The carnival case is a clear example of why the laws need to be amended. Within the current laws, he did do what he was accused of, even though it wasn't sexual in nature. But right now just coming in contact with a child is an offense if the child decides it is. Or, really, if the parent decides it is. Never mind the fact that the man was required to have his hands near the bottoms and genitals of young children. The fact that he did caused a kerfluffle with the very people who would have thrown him under the bus had a child been hurt because he didn't check to see that they buckled themselves in. They can't not have someone check, and if the buckles aren't secure, what is he supposed to do?
I believe the guy was just doing his job and buckling the kids in. Had he not, there surely would have been a parent whining that little Emily got hurt because he didn't check to see if she had buckled herself in properly. That's what those people do with kids on rides. It's a safety thing. Did anyone who supervised him speak on his behalf? I'd be interested to see if anyone at the carnival said it was odd that that was the only complaint they had gotten about this guy (I'm assuming).
NumberSix at May 12, 2010 1:07 AM
F*ck this pisses me off. What the f*ck use is the sex registry??? Everyone is on it for stupid bullshit. DUMB DUMB DUMB
Why the f*ck are these people breeding??? Any man that works near small children is eventually going to be accused. It's not necessarily because men that like to diddle kids go after these jobs (indeed they do) but there aren't enough kiddie diddlers to fill these jobs (insert jab toward the priesthood here)...I keep my life simple, I never interact with small children that I don't know the parents (not because of deep entrenched attraction) because I spend time each day hating children. They are noisy, rambunctious, and speak jibberish...
Main point: What use is the sex offender registry when it's watered down like this?
Toungue in cheek warning: Ron White had a good idea, require (by law) sex offenders to put a large sign in their front yards proclaiming that they are sex offenders. Tell me where I can buy a sign like that, I want to keep kids away from my yard...
Red at May 12, 2010 1:27 AM
People dont realize it but laws like this do have a body count
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html
lujlp at May 12, 2010 3:26 AM
As far as the carnivals go, the only logical result of all this is to eliminate rides for young children altogether. If you can't buckle yourself in without help, you can't ride. No more merry-go-round. No more little beep-beep cars (whatever they're called). Way to go, guys.
Or, maybe, have the mommies and daddies buckle the kids in themselves, underneath a prominently-placed sign declaring, "Since everyone seems to think carnies are skeevy perverts anyway, carnival management assumes no responsibility for the safety of your child on this ride." As if that would work.
old rpm daddy at May 12, 2010 4:48 AM
I have mixed feelings. These cases both sound like a travesty. On the other hand, I found another rather lewd note in my home Sunday morning. Luckily, it had an e-mail address on it. I used a website to find the name and asked if it meant anything to our housekeeper. It was her son. She thought my husband must be messing with me. She couldn't understand why people keep picking on her son. Just last year, he had to go on trail for rape. According to her, he was proven totally innocent and the woman recanted her story. Sometimes moms can't believe that their babies would do anything wrong.
Jen at May 12, 2010 4:52 AM
It's the idiots who are applying these laws, not necessarily the laws, that are wrong. It gets down to intent. If you're in the men's room, you're obviously not intending to expose yourself to a female. Also, as in the article Luj links, if you're grabbing a girl you almost hit with your car by the arm, it's not sexual abuse, especially if she acknowledges that nothing more happened.
The carnival case is tough because, on the one hand, there could be some pervert carnie using that as a way to grope girls. But common sense would dictate that if he was truly guilty, he wouldn't have innocently "admitted" touching her.
This really gets down to overzealous police and prosecuters not exercising common sense.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 5:21 AM
Also, I think parents have completely lost any sense of measuring real harm. If, theoretically, my 16 yr old daughter was at a carnival, and a boy she probably knows from school is buckling her into the ride, and maybe he kind of likes her, so he gives her a playful pinch or swat on the bottom, and she tells me about this, I'm going to ask myself, "Did this causing her any lasting harm?"
Real sexual abuse is traumatic. Even if it was a carnie copping a feel, I would probably have to weigh whatever actions I would take against the actual harm done to my daughter, which would probably be none. Am I going to risk ruining someone's life based on a possible misinterpretation?
Yet, many parents today think, "OMG, somebody TOUCHED my child!" Doesn't matter how or in what way or what the lasting effect was.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 5:38 AM
Every religion of the world has a standard that says "what goes around, comes around". There is some reason to believe in that...the cosmic backlash toward these dumbasses will never be more deserved...
It takes a village to raise a child...provided that none of those men so much as look at our children!
Red at May 12, 2010 5:46 AM
Another thing the authorities due is they investigate someone like they are a juvenile and get them to cooperate under the belief that they are a juvenile. Then they use the evidence collected under juvenile methods to prosecute them as an adult.
I think sexual abuse and assault has been cheapened like rape was before it. It used to be that if you heard someone was raped, you should recoil in horror at the thought of someone violently forced to have sex against her will. Now, you have to ask "what happened" because it may just be ex post facto regrets. Same with the sex offender registry, a severe label has been placed on petty incidents, and the label loses its meaning.
Besides, what kind of society continues to punish 50, 60, 70, 80+ year old man because he did something stupid at 18 years and 1 day old with someone who lied about her age when she was 16 years 364 days old.
Trust at May 12, 2010 5:46 AM
I really don't think we need a sex offender registry. Any proven sexual predator should be kept in jail for life. The standard for proof would need to be very high, but certainly anyone who has ever sxually assaulted a young child should never be released because they cannot be cured.
Let all the pot smokers out of jail and keep the pedophiles. Maybe if we did this, parents would calm down over these silly, minor incidents.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 5:59 AM
"I spend time each day hating children. They are noisy, rambunctious, and speak jibberish..."
*SNORK!!!* My sentiments exactly. I saw a T-shirt online that said 'Evil Child Hater' on the front. I am tempted to buy one and wear it during Ragbrai.
Pirate Jo at May 12, 2010 6:33 AM
I searched a bit, but couldn't come up with the original articles for these incidents. Are these actually real incidents? It would be nice to be able to read the original facts rather than blog articles about blog articles that give no sources.
Assuming they are real: "The next day the police take him in for questioning. They ask him the same thing, this time with the videotape running. He gives them the same answer. It is considered his confession."
Never talk to the police. Just...never. It's sad - the police are supposed to be the good guys - but this is a prime example of why this advice is right in today's mucked up world.
bradley13 at May 12, 2010 6:35 AM
This doesn't just happen to men:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37103062#37103478
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 6:43 AM
Is there more to this story? Yeah, maybe it's an example of our justice system gone horribly awry. Or maybe, with 2 different boys in the SAME family being accused, there's something going on in that family. Were the boys abused? I'd be looking into that. We just can't know off nothing more than the mom's statement.
momof4 at May 12, 2010 7:02 AM
What a coincidence- I have to go through a background check in the next couple weeks for this very thing. I'm not worried, never had any sort of accusation. The reason? I (along with other parents) enrolled my boy in Cub Scouts. The first parent's meeting was about 1/3 how children are never allowed to be in the presence of just 1 adult, even female den leaders.
Eric at May 12, 2010 7:06 AM
Wow lovelysoul- that was a tragedy. As some have mentioned here, the bar for what qualifies as abuse now crosses over into everyday behavior. After seeing the neighborhood rumor mill in action where I live, it's easy to see how these situations get so out of control.
Eric at May 12, 2010 7:15 AM
I hate to say it, but good. People rarley give a shit what happens to men. Only when it happens to women does society seem to notice.
Take alimony for example, once women had to start paying it to men the laws about how long ex spouses were required to pay began to change.
lujlp at May 12, 2010 7:17 AM
I'm with momof4 on this one.
The story as it is written is indeed a travesty of justice of the worst kind.
But...what are the chances that two sons in seperate locations in seperate situations should be accused by two different people over nearly identical issues?
And quite frankly, if there is a video of the alleged assault, and the young man went to trial, simply showing the video should have made it obvious to any jury, or at least the sensible part of it, that there was no sexual act or intent in it.
So...how did he get convicted? Did they take a plea bargain? (If so they certainly should have gone to trial with the tape, or straight to the local media with a plea for common sense to put the prosecutor back into the real world)
No, there are questions I have about this story. Maybe it is a coincidental travesty of justice.
But it sure doesn't sound right to me.
Robert at May 12, 2010 7:18 AM
I join Bradley 13. I would like to see more evidence than assertions made on some blog article.
The link Amy provides says that the mother of these boys is a fish net maker in Maine. Did the events occur in Maine ? If so, what county ? What year ?
Names and dates would help. Also newspaper articles.
Assuming the story to be true, it might be that the boys' family is from a lower income class, cannot afford a lawyer and may have thought the offenses were so petty that did not need a lawyer. They may have taken a plea deal not knowing the consequences.
Nick at May 12, 2010 7:19 AM
I disagree with the idea that all sexual abuse is tramautic. When I was 8, a guy at the pool was tossing kids into the air. They were all lined up for him to do so. A friend told me it was fun, so I got in line.
When he threw me, his hand went up into my crotch. I thought it was a little wierd, but figured things just happen. The second time, I realized that it was just night right. His finger went some place I didn't even know that I had. Since I was uncomfortable, I didn't get in line anymore.
I don't know if he did it to all the little girls. I did not realize it was abuse, but looking back, I realize it surely was. SInce I didn't know at the time - no trauma.
Jen at May 12, 2010 7:20 AM
Also, I think parents have completely lost any sense of measuring real harm. If, theoretically, my 16 yr old daughter was at a carnival, and a boy she probably knows from school is buckling her into the ride, and maybe he kind of likes her, so he gives her a playful pinch or swat on the bottom, and she tells me about this, I'm going to ask myself, "Did this causing her any lasting harm?"
Real sexual abuse is traumatic. Even if it was a carnie copping a feel, I would probably have to weigh whatever actions I would take against the actual harm done to my daughter, which would probably be none. Am I going to risk ruining someone's life based on a possible misinterpretation?
Yet, many parents today think, "OMG, somebody TOUCHED my child!" Doesn't matter how or in what way or what the lasting effect was.
Posted by: lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 5:38 AM
-----------------------------
Very well said lovelysoul, especially "Real sexual abuse is traumatic." Good post.
David M. at May 12, 2010 7:57 AM
This is just disgusting. I think everyone involved in the legal process that put these young men in jail should themselves be put in jail. The child's parents, the arresting officer, the judge, the prosecuting attorney and all 12 members of the jury. They are all guilty of false imprisonment. At the very least they should find a shark of an attorney and sue the pants off every one of those people.
Mike at May 12, 2010 7:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/12/were_all_just_o.html#comment-1715486">comment from bradley13I don't know why Lenore wrote this as a blind story, but I know Lenore and know her work and trust her. This is not unusual, this sort of thing -- I've blogged it before.
Also, I've seen two friends who are college profs narrowly escape sexual harassment charges. Neither one did it -- and one was able to escape by proving he was somewhere else at the time the supposed sexual activity took place.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2010 7:59 AM
Which is why the false accusations of felonies need to be prosecuted as perjury. It should never be an option for the DA. I'm not talking about crimes that are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm talking about the liars who are caught on videotape, or the cop who just confessed to shooting himself in PA in another faked racist incident that wasn't.
There are innocent people in prison. We need to minimize the number. It should be risky to falsely accuse someone of a crime.
MarkD at May 12, 2010 8:19 AM
It's odd but I have hope that the media outpour on Sexting will also clue people into this. Because society thinks boys, men are evil sex monsters the only way it will get changed is if girls get arrested for it.
When that 15 yr old girl is locked up for taking a picture of herself, she is breaking the law just as much as many of these boys are. I hope they use this to overhaul the whole system rather than make it a special exception.
Joe at May 12, 2010 8:37 AM
Jen, I didn't mean that there aren't abusers out there, and many are undoubtably working around children. But a misplaced touch doesn't necessarily equal abuse. I would certainly feel differently if a carnie or swim coach put his hands down my daughter's pants. That would be obvious. And, even if he touched her butt (through jeans) while locking her in, that may indeed indicate he is a pedophile...or not.
To me, if there's a reasonable doubt, you don't start a witchhunt. The vast majority of sexual abuse victims know they were abused and are traumatized by it. Just feeling something's "not right" isn't proof. It may be cause to keep your child (or yourself) away from that person, but it fails to meet the standard for prosecution - or at least it should.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 9:11 AM
On child sexual abuse, and the unproven notion that it always ruins a child's life.
http://www.csulb.edu/~asc/child.html
Martin Seligman himself was sexually abused by a newsstand operator as a child, but his parents didn't get hysterical about it -- it wasn't treated as a great trauma, and he credits this for helping him not be traumatized by it.
He writes about this in What You Can Change...And What You Can't:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400078407?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1400078407
Oh, and P.S. If you're not me, please don't put in more than one link per comment, as your comment will go to my spam folder.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2010 9:16 AM
Sad. In Thailand, it is permissable for woman to pick up almost any small child and hug them and fuss over them for a minute, especially in public. I understand the same thing is true in Korea.
Here, you would get arrested for kidnapping and child endangerment etc.
Public agencies, from the USDA to the US Army to social service workers, are ever trying to justify their existance and expand their turf.
U.B. Ware
BOTU at May 12, 2010 9:48 AM
I think the trauma is directly related to the severity of abuse, as well as who did the abusing, and the age of the "child". They're not really breaking that down in the studies.
Personally, I had an older relative run his finger across my upper thigh when I was around 8 yrs old, and say, "You know what that means, don't you?". I didn't really, but now, of course, I do. He was touching me inappropriately - and I've always remembered that moment so clearly - but it didn't "traumatize" me. I didn't even tell my parents.
When I was around 14, I took swimming lessons and there was good-looking (married) lifeguard probably in his 30s. He flirted with me, and even floated me around the pool in his arms. I loved every minute of it ( and I learned to swim really well that summer!). If he'd had sex with me, I'm sure I wouldn't have minded.
Today, of course, they'd both be arrested. So, I can see the argument that CSA doesn't always cause trauma, but I definitely see kids and parents whose lives have been messed up by the prolonged and forceful sexual abuse of a trusted relative or friend. I'm talking intercourse, not just touching.
Are they functional? Usually. But more often than not, they abuse drugs/alcohol or act out sexually by being very promiscuous. Their lives are not stable. In fact, CSA is on too many of the resumes of abusive and neglectful parents for me to conclude there's no association or lasting trauma.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 10:09 AM
LS
The Craft case is a travesty and should never have come to trial (I followed the case since the trial was held less than 40 miles from my home). Tonya Craft was fortunate. Had she been male or unattractive, she would've been hung.
Reason had good coverage of the case:
http://reason.com/search?cx=000107342346889757597%3Ascm_knrboh8&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Tonya+Craft%22&sa=Search#1281
Chipper at May 12, 2010 10:37 AM
I understand what you are saying, LS. There is a possible logical flaw in your comment.
I don't know if it is true that those traumatized by this sort of conduct are only a small percentage of those who experience it.
If that is true, though, then all you are really saying is that those who were traumatized are going to act out later because of it.
But, you seem to be jumping right back and assume that the small percentage who are traumatized tells us something about the rest who weren't traumatized. If I misunderstand you please tell me where I went wrong.
I think that was the whole point of this article, that it is a mistake to treat 100% who experience it as if they were traumatized.
I read many years ago that statistically the worst thing that can happen to most female victims of real rape is to go to the local rape crisis clinic, where they will be expected to re-live their unpleasant experience, week after week, and are not ever allowed to let it go.
I don't know that personally, but it is consistent with what I know of people and how they deal with bad things.
irlandes at May 12, 2010 10:48 AM
Irlandes, what I was saying is that a touch you don't want can be traumatizing, but a touch you do want - or one that is so minor that it barely registers (ie: a boy copping a feel) is not going to cause trauma.
However, sexual abuse by a parent, or trusted caregiver, particularly if it goes on for years, is usually quite damaging, at least in my experience. I cannot understand how any studies could suggest otherwise, unless they're lumping all child abuse together as equal.
There are such varying degrees of abuse. A two second touch is just not the same as a 5 year relationship involving intercourse and/or oral sex with a child.
Even exposure (like the boy in the bathroom) is not likely to be traumatizing. Young girls, particularly teens, have to be a little tougher than that. Seeing a naked boy isn't going to ruin them for life.
Guys have copped feels on me for years. Not that this is appropriate, but it's not traumatizing. We're really treating young women as too fragile if we make an inordinate deal out of something like the carnival situation.
In the past, that would call for parenting, not prosecution. The girl's dad would go over and give the kid a stern "talkin to". "Better not touch my daughter like that again, son" (in the south, he might have a shotgun when he says this).
Now, parents think the legal system should solve everything unpleasant their child may encounter.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 11:26 AM
> In Thailand, it is permissable for woman
> to pick up almost any small child and hug
> them and fuss over them for a minute,
> especially in public.
See, now, I think that's grotesque. Maybe I was cute or something as a child, but I always hated to have my cheeks pinched and head patted and hugs from people I didn't know. I really believe this inexcusable misconduct. It always seemed every bit as obnoxious as the wolf whistles from construction workers or ass-pinches at parties that I'd hear women complain about just a few years later. Both are intrusive. Each sex has misbehavior to conquer.
I remember in Fiji, we were told DO NOT PAT THE VILLAGE CHILDREN'S HEADS, no matter how much you like them or how well you seem to be getting along.
And I was all like, not a problem.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 12, 2010 12:17 PM
Simple solution -
Put the name of every politician at every level in America on the sex-offender registries.
You'll see things change pronto.
brian at May 12, 2010 1:05 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/12/were_all_just_o.html#comment-1715587">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]> In Thailand, it is permissable for woman > to pick up almost any small child and hug > them and fuss over them for a minute, > especially in public. See, now, I think that's grotesque.
I agree with Crid. They're children -- strangers' children -- not toys in a giant free-to-everybody playchest. Keep your paws to yourself.
Personally, I hate being touched by strangers, like when somebody bumps into you, then grabs your shoulder to say sorry. Touching me a second time doesn't make it better.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2010 1:24 PM
After I bump you in public, I would apologize and give you a friendly spank on the rear to show good faith.
BOTU at May 12, 2010 2:20 PM
Last night I was at the local pub and the manager (An older female) came around at one point and put her hand on each person's back at the bar (all males) and chatted with them for a second. Frankly, it seemed kind of weird to me though it was clearly in a grandmotherly way.
The Former Banker at May 12, 2010 3:30 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/05/12/were_all_just_o.html#comment-1715601">comment from BOTUAfter I bump you in public, I would apologize and give you a friendly spank on the rear to show good faith.
Yeah, right. In reality, the people who claim that are the ones who drop to the ground, cower, whimper, and beg for forgiveness.
Amy Alkon at May 12, 2010 5:25 PM
I'm 42 and single, and still hoping for a relationship sometime soon, but now I think I'll just kill myself.
I can just imagine being at my family-friendly gym, staring off into space thinking about how to get an exercise right, but my gaze is in the general direction of a 10-year-old girl, who tells Mommy that I'm looking at her funny.
Next thing you know, I'm in prison getting my wingwang chopped off by my cellmate, who, like most cons, loathes child molesters.
The problem with this country is that there are so many laws that anybody can put away anybody he/she does not like with some clever story.
mpetrie98 at May 12, 2010 6:23 PM
The thing is-if someone's slipping his finger up your cooch as a kid, that needs to be reported whether you're "traumatized" or not. Because 1) you're not the only one it's happened to from him and 2) he won't stop there and 3) when some girl comes down with a vaginal infection with tearing, from his finger, and her dad or someone is blamed for it, there's no paper trail on THIS guy.
NO one is doing anyone ANY favors with not reporting genuine molestation. And frankly, if some carny cops a feel of my kids ass, all the above applies too, whether she's personally traumatized or not.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings has a great example of what happens when adults try to downplay sexual assault of a kid. It's not doing them any favors. Taking it seriously has been shown to give the kid the best mental/emotional outcome. Not to mention stopping the assaults form happening to others.
momof4 at May 12, 2010 7:06 PM
Yes, but you better be sure, M4. The way it was described, he was throwing her into a pool during a swimming lesson. That took, what, maybe a few seconds? It's not like she's in the locker room with him. I gather there were others around, and if you're tossing a little kid in the air, and you have big hands gripped around her little thighs...well, I can see how he might've poked her with a finger. It's POSSIBLE that it's an accident. Same with the carnie brushing her butt.
You have to know when to react and not overreact. These incidents are not the same as when a kid goes to mommy and says stepdaddy has been in their bed at night fondling them, and mommy chooses not to believe it. These are genuine gray areas, so brief and inconclusive, that unless you have more proof, it would be tough to accuse, knowing that if you're wrong, this guy is totally screwed.
Plus, as far as I'm concerned, a 19 yr old who cops a feel of a pretty 16 yr old is not the same as a 40 yr old copping a feel of a 3 yr old.
lovelysoul at May 12, 2010 7:48 PM
Dear momof4:
If I had ever heard of molestation, I would have known that this was it, but I had never heard of such a thing. Gosh, until then, I thought I was flat on the bottom. I didn't even realize that I went in. I looked around. No one else seemed upset, so I thought that maybe I was being strange because I was bothered.
I'm sure that he did it to other little girls (I don't know that he did it to everyone judging by their reactions). If I knew then what I know now. I would have reported it.
Jen at May 12, 2010 7:51 PM
PS. The first time I thought it was an accident. His whole hand was between our legs. He was not a teacher - just another guy at the pool. Lots of people saw, but in that day, no one seemed to notice. It was not until the second throw, when his finger PROBED me that I realized that something wasn't right. I didn't know it was more than just me feeling uncomfortable.
I don't think anyone could do this now, even if they didn't have ulterior motives.
Also - I remembered later today that my HK's son's dad was accused of indecency with a child. She told me that all he did was drunkenly urinate in from of two little girls. She said that he was simply too drunk to even notice there were little girls out there.
Jen at May 12, 2010 7:59 PM
"The thing is-if someone's slipping his finger up your cooch as a kid, that needs to be reported whether you're "traumatized" or not. Because 1) you're not the only one it's happened to from him and 2) he won't stop there and 3) when some girl comes down with a vaginal infection with tearing, from his finger, and her dad or someone is blamed for it, there's no paper trail on THIS guy."
Agree, agree, and agree.
Also, I would argue that if you, or your child, wasn't traumatized by an act of molestation, then you're in the best possible position to report it. You're "taking one for the team" by protecting past and future victims who may be too traumatized to even tell anyone about the incident. Someone has to be the one to speak out, and if you can do so with minimal emotional impact then maybe it should be you.
Shannon at May 12, 2010 8:50 PM
unless they're lumping all child abuse together as equal.
That's a good point. I know y'all have talked on here before about how those grossly inflated statistics about women who have been sexually assaulted come from studies like that. Any unwanted contact, like a boy snapping your bra strap, gets lumped in with honest-to-goodness sexual assault and rape, thereby diluting both extremes while simultaneously inflating the numbers. If the child abuse and molestation stats are like this, then it's hard to separate out actual abuse and molestation from crap like a little girl walking BY HERSELF (I can't get over that part) into a men's room and seeing male genitalia. Bad for everyone.
Keep your paws to yourself.
Amen. I hate it when people down here use "I'm Southern!" to excuse touching complete strangers. I'm a huggy person. True to my roots, I don't do the cheek kiss with my friends and family; I hug. That said, I'm not at all touchy-feely with people I don't know well or at all. Having worked retail for many years, I have experienced many customers doing the hand-on-the-arm thing when asking for help or thanking me. Why do people think it's okay to put their hands on someone they don't know?
I will touch someone briefly if I need to get her attention (like she dropped something) and she's not paying attention to my "excuse me." I think a light touch on the arm is appropriate then, if you need to give her the dollar she dropped or something. Other than that, please don't touch me unless I already know you and you're sure I like you.
NumberSix at May 12, 2010 9:05 PM
Just wanted to say that the guy poking the kids during swimming was probably grooming.. Looking for a kid who tolerated that so he could move to the next step..
josephineMO7 at May 13, 2010 4:18 AM
Josephine, I think you have got it! If they can get away with a little bit, they will go further next time. They've got to test the water to find just the right victim. Perhaps someone who is willing to put up with a little bit of discomfort for "fun" and "attention".
And since I had never heard of sexual abuse, I never thought to report it (Mom probably would have smacked me for bugging her anyway).
It is hard to tell in this day and age because kids are warned about molesters, but the kids reactions may be telling. Would they have gotten so upset if it was an innocent touch or a fleeting glimpse?
Jen at May 13, 2010 4:33 AM
I don't dispute that he's probably a pedophile. The problem is that the only way to prove that, given such an allegation, is to raid his home to see if he possesses child porn. If he does, he will undoubtably be charged, convicted, and put on the sex offender registry, although it's possible that he might never have acted on those fantasies beyond getting his thrills at the swimming pool.
And a little girl's word that he touched her inappropriately is all it takes to do this. In cases where it's clear, we applaud that. In cases where it isn't, we say government is overstepping. Yet, the same laws and presumption of guilt until proven innocent are at work in both cases.
I saw a segment about Summer Thompson, the FL girl who was abducted and killed. Their first suspect - the one everyone pointed to - was an old guy who used to stand by the road with his puppy every day after school. He claimed he loved kids and just liked to talk with them.
Parents and kids figured he was probably a pedophile. The police raided his home, put him through multiple lie detector tests, and investigated him for months. He was cleared. Not a pedophile.
That just shows how wrong we can be about these assumptions. And I'm sure that old guy will never be as sweet to kids as he was before.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 5:40 AM
LS, it's NOT OK for him to get his thrills putting his fingers UP A GIRLS VAGINA at the swimming pool. It's not okay for him to merely own kiddie porn-because some kid was violated to make that porn. It's GREAT that he goes to jail and gets on the registry. People-kids and not-have the inviolate right to be secure in their own person, and violating that is and should be a crime that is punished. Period.
I would welcome police searching my home to try and find an abducted girl. I would want to do everything I could to help.
momof4 at May 13, 2010 6:24 AM
I agree it's wrong for him to do that. My point is that it's just her word that he did it, and did it on purpose. That's all it takes to raid his house and smear his reputation.
In Jen's case, we can assume he'd be discovered guilty. But, in the case of that teacher, it's clear that little kids can get this wrong.
Both cases rely on the same tenant: that the victim is always right.
The boy in the bathroom is being charged with exposing himself purely because the girl said he did.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 6:33 AM
So...how did he get convicted? Did they take a plea bargain? (If so they certainly should have gone to trial with the tape, or straight to the local media with a plea for common sense to put the prosecutor back into the real world)
If you haven't been accused of anything inappropriate having to do with children, you're not likely to understand this. My wife and I were accused of physically (not sexually) abusing my older son. When I showed up to court, I was advised by a public defendant to take a plea bargain. Even the Public Defender assumed we were guilty. We didn't take the plea, but we almost did. When you're scared and confused (We were terrified that we were going to lose our child), there is a tendency to follow someone who gives advice when they sound relatively confident, even if it is bad advice.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 7:29 AM
And Robert, as for how two boys in the same family could be accused in two different locations - this sort of overzealous prosecution has become common enough that statistically, it was bound to happen, and has probably happened more than once.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 7:32 AM
I'm tired of people who make claims that they cannot back up with witnesses, facts, or evidence of any kind. If I went out and murdered someone, in order to prosecute me they would have to prove with facts/evidence to prove I did it for a conviction. Contrast that with your typical "he raped me" or "he abused me", where all you have is someones WORD that it happened.
Funny how I never knew anyone who was ever "raped", nor anyone who was ever accused of rape. I also never knew any child molestors, nor ANYONE who had ever been molested. Yet, now every single day you see on blogs everywhere "I was raped three times", or "I was sexually abused".
Bul--hit! Everyone wants to be a victim now, to identy with others who are also victims. Where is all the evidence or facts??? Is there some sort of epidemic in this country where half of all women are abused/and or raped? That is statistically impossible, yet you see this crap every day.
Where is our legal process? Isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty? Am I going to get thrown in jail for "thinking" about someone in a dirty way, or looking at a nice-looking woman??? What a bunch of whiners.
I agree with a blog entry i saw some time ago that told parents to NEVER send your male children to Liberal Arts schools because there is a better than 50% chance they will end up on the sex offender registry with their lives ruined because some skanky coed felt guilty the next morning about getting drunk and going home with him.
mike at May 13, 2010 7:55 AM
Perhaps the worst side effect to this obsession is that decent men are now hesitant to act correctly toward children that might need help.
Parabarbarian at May 13, 2010 8:33 AM
Perhaps the worst side effect to this obsession is that decent men are now hesitant to act correctly toward children that might need help.
Parabarbarian at May 13, 2010 8:34 AM
You've got a point, Para. What should a man do now, if he sees a little kid alone and crying at the mall or the fair? Try and get the attention of somebody official-looking, I guess, and hope for the best.
old rpm daddy at May 13, 2010 9:08 AM
As you guys oviously missed it when I first posted it
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html
Guy scared of being labeld a pedophile doenst help lost girl wandering down a road and she
drowns in a pond
lujlp at May 13, 2010 9:32 AM
Well, I can understand why men are afraid. I really can. But I also think these cases of false accusations are still rare and that must be kept in perspective. That guy in England who didn't stop when he saw a wandering toddler, and she drowned, is tragic. That mother would've been so relieved just that someone found her child that I highly doubt anyone would've claimed sexual abuse. He probably would've been a hero, and, at any rate, there are just some moments where you don't put your own interests and fears above what's right.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 9:41 AM
That mother would've been so relieved just that someone found her child that I highly doubt anyone would've claimed sexual abuse. He probably would've been a hero,
You highly doubt, but it's still possible. He probably would have been a hero, but maybe he would have been prosecuted. It's precisely that element of doubt that scared the guy off.
kishke at May 13, 2010 9:47 AM
I hope he can sleep at night because I couldn't. Even if he was prosecuted, it's unlikely, under those circumstances, that any jury would convict him. Just like with the teacher, people see it's absurd paranoia.
But, again, you have to be able to act ethically in those situations. Sure, you process the risk - and do what is reasonable to minimize the risk (ie: not putting her in his car - maybe just walking beside her while flagging down other motorists, who would be witnesses). If you see a small child wandering alone like that, there are ways to do the right thing without appearing abnormal.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 10:06 AM
LS, you're looking at it from the benefit of hindsight, which he didn't have when making his decision. I'm sure that the man would have ignored his misgivings if he actually believed that the girl would wind up dead. However, he just saw a girl wandering and figured people were looking for her and would find her eventually. Probably 99% of the time, he would have been correct, but in this ONE instance the child died.
If he had gone and tried to help her find her mother or child care provider, there is every possibility that merely because he was in the company of the little girl when her mother found her, he would have been accused.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 10:20 AM
Finding her eventually, while she's wandering beside a road?
That's not acceptable. I don't think he should be prosecuted, but ignoring a toddler alone beside a roadway is really thoughtless. Maybe her mother was looking for her, but she could've been killed in an instant before that happened.
Like I said, sometimes you put your own interests aside to do the right thing. It's like those people who stepped over the bleeding guy near the subway, or left the old guy dying in the street.
The rare chance that there might be some negative repercussions doesn't justyify failing to do the right thing.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 10:28 AM
All he had to do was stay with her and make sure she didn't get hit by a car until someone else came. Maybe he had a cellphone and could call for help. He didn't have to take her anywhere.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 10:30 AM
Obviously no one read thearticle, LS he did not have a cell phone, and while te mother may not have assumed the worst, the girl was acctually in the care of a daycare center.
The eployees of which while wandering around looking for the child came across the childs mother and lied about looking for a missing dog.
Youthink they wouldnt have jumped at the chance to throw the heat onto a convients scapegoat?
As for 'doing the right thing' The article I linked also mentions a man who swerved to aviod hitting a girl in the road, dared to lay hands on her and pulled her out of the road while lecturing her.
His reward?
He's a pedophile now - "Unlawful Restraint of a Minor" which is a sex crime.
He can never go to his kids school palysor grauation, his kids can never have their friends over, he can no longer live in certian areas, all because he pulled a little girl out of a road full of cars.
ANd you wonder why guys are squirly about helping people these days.
Did you know in england is considering a law that requires parents(READ FATHERS) to submit to a in deapth criminal background check finger prints and all(all at their own expense ofcourse) in order to recive an offical "I an not a pedophile" ID card beofre they can take their own kids to a public park
lujlp at May 13, 2010 11:05 AM
A quote from one of Ayn Rand's characters seems appropriate here:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Rex Little at May 13, 2010 11:30 AM
We have to be fingerprinted and background checked before we can volunteer at school in FL.
I didn't see the part about the cellphone, but that guy didn't grab a little girl to pull her out of the road. He grabbed a teen to lecture her on being in the road. A bit different. It matters how forceful he was in grabbing her and how long the lecture was. It's a bad idea to grab anybody's child - or anybody, for that matter - and lecture them. Like Amy, many people don't like being touched.
That said, I agree it's ridiculous to categorize that sort of "restraint of a minor" the same as a sex crime. There needs to be some common sense used in how these laws are applied because all it's doing is watering down the sex offender registry.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 11:38 AM
We have to be fingerprinted and background checked before we can volunteer at school in FL -lovelysoul
Do you have to be fingerprinted and background checked before you can take your own children out in public?
lujlp at May 13, 2010 12:13 PM
No, not yet at least - that's ridiculous!
The fear is based on sex offenders being out there in the first place. If you couldn't pass a child sex offender background check, you shouldn't be out in public. The whole idea that we need a registry, so we can avoid these people should tell us that they should BE IN JAIL. If violent child sex offenders were never let out, I think parents would be more relaxed and stop seeing a pedophile everywhere they look.
As it stands, parents figure that carnie or guy in the park could just be a normal guy, or he could have a 30 yr rap sheet of sex offenses against a child. There's been a failure to protect kids from sex offenders - letting them back on the street to reoffend - which has resulted in this kind of paranoia.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 12:25 PM
It's a bad idea to grab anybody's child - or anybody, for that matter - and lecture them. Like Amy, many people don't like being touched.
Well, hard to read the article unless you search for it, the link at that page about the little girl drowning doesn't work, but here's the other one:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45104
Now, take a look at this quote from that article:
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.
Another thing you're not taking into consideration on these things, LS, is that the juries have to follow what the law says, not necessarily what THEY think is right or wrong, and far too many of the laws are being written with no leeway for "Oh, there was no harm done". They are written with hard decisions based on definite qualifications that don't allow for personal judgment.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 12:42 PM
Yeah, I found the case myself and the prosecuter said he realized Barnaby was probably only meaning to chastize the girl but that he "couldn't read his mind" and felt constrained by statute. It's totally stupid. I can't believe there wasn't some lesser charge, or that it should've been pursued for any reason, or that he would have to be placed on the registry.
He scared her though, and we all tell our daughters to run like hell if anyone tries to grab them, so you can see how, from her perspective, he seemed like a pedophile.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 1:02 PM
I would welcome police searching my home to try and find an abducted girl.
Even if the police said they were raiding your home because you were suspected of being the abductor? Even if the only evidence they had that you were the abductor was a child saying you had touched her bottom (when what happened was she slipped on the jungle gym and you caught her)? Even if the community had turned against you because some people in your neighborhood heard about the little girl's accusation and recalled that you liked mowing your lawn in a tank top and cutoff shorts, in full view of any children who might pass? Even if you'd done absolutely nothing wrong and the rumors persisted, as in Tonya Craft's case?
I do believe you'd want to help. I sure as hell would want to help, but I can't believe you'd say you'd welcome a raid on your house under those circumstances, which are all too similar to actual cases. The police would have to have something saying the girl might be there, or evidence that she had been there, else they couldn't have cause to search your house. I mean, you'd know you didn't have the girl, so what would the search help with, other than damaging, perhaps permanently, your reputation. And if the police found some cute photos of your kids playing in the bathtub? Chances are you'd be on that sex offender registry with the actual abductor.
I'm pretty sure what you meant was that you'd welcome a search because you'd be innocent. But, like I said above, the police don't randomly search the houses of innocent people. There would have to be something that told them she might be there or that you had abducted her or knew where she was or she'd been seen at your house shortly before she disappeared. So saying "I'd welcome a search of my home if it would help" sounds nice, but it really has no meaning.
NumberSix at May 13, 2010 1:29 PM
...the prosecuter said he realized Barnaby was probably only meaning to chastize the girl but that he "couldn't read his mind" and felt constrained by statute.
Uh, that's part of what the whole complaint is here. Even if the person intended nothing bad, and even if they are believed, the police, prosecutor, and jury, are "constrained by statute", and someone winds up paying for it for the rest of their life.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 1:38 PM
More from the comments on Lenore's piece:
"I am the mother of the young men in this article.
Young man #1 was scared into a plea - Public Defender, and the prosecutor had in the meantime stirred up a real ruckus. He had gone to the local paper and several other children were questioned by their parents until they "admitted" that he might have touched them (on the buttocks through the clothing) as well. The prosecutor referred to the chat with the police as a confession, and stated he had 3 or 4 other children to whom the same thing had happened. Frightened that he could wind up in jail for decades (quite possible), he plead guilty to sexual assault of a minor.
Young man #2 has a speech problem. In talking to the police, he had a long pause in which he was trying to figure out how to express himself. Even he admits that it sounded like he was lying. Public Defender again. This one went to trial, but the tape was presented in evidence (should never have happened, he was not Mirandized) and without evidence (Public Defender, right?) that he has a speech problem, the verdict was almost a foregone conclusion. Guilty of Visual Sexual Aggression.
It happens. And, believe it or not, it could happen to you. Do you have a couple of tens of thousand dollars for defense? And even if you do, the assumption is in the system now that he would not have been accused if it had not happened, and certainly would not have been arrested if he was not guilty."
Some interesting stuff here. Devil's Advocate says that with regard to #1 - since there was more than one potential victim testifying, there might be something there. In any event, I can understand a DA having to run with it. With regard to #2 - I don't get what happened here at all. The statute in question requires that the perp act "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire." This is a required element of the crime. How did the prosecutor prove this if all the parties agree with the story as presented?
Bottom line - as my criminal defense attorney says - NEVER TALK TO THE COPS!!!
snakeman99 at May 13, 2010 1:47 PM
I know, WayneB. I mean, if you "can't read his mind" how do you know he wasn't planning to murder her? Why not charge him with that too? Makes about as much sense.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 1:48 PM
Thanks, Snakeman. What the heck is visual sexual aggression?
You know, I just thought of a gender parallel. Here, on my little beach, and elsewhere in FL, it's not uncommon for female guests (particularly European) to go topless. We're not explicitly an adult resort. Sometimes, there are kids around. So, a woman can bare her breasts openly in public but a guy can't even pee in the bathroom?
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 1:56 PM
snakeman99 - If the 1st young man had had even a semi-competent defender, the "testimony" of the other children would have been thrown out, because questioning of a child about anything like that has to be done by a professional to avoid them giving the answers they think the questioner wants to hear. Parents doing the questioning are going to be far more likely to get an "admission" than someone asking the questions the right way.
And as I said in my first comment here - when you're scared and confused, you're not likely to make the best of decisions. Also, a lot of public defenders apparently try to get people through the system with pleas far too much of the time. Again as I said earlier, the one who showed up when I was accused of abuse didn't even suggest a not guilty plea, he wanted to go straight to this arbitration thing that would have been left a technical conviction on our records.
WayneB at May 13, 2010 2:01 PM
WanyeB - don't disagree with anything you just posted. Both cases sound rife with error. I hate to say things like this when I generally have the utmost respect for our policemen and women, but really - if you are accused of something DON'T TALK TO THE FUCKING COPS!!!
And get your own lawyer. PDs suck. Keep in mind one good thing about private crim defense attorneys - they typically work on flat fees (up until trial). So don't be afraid to negotiate with them. I know several good ones who would have done a much better job on these cases and would likely have been flexible with their fees. It pays to shop around.
snakeman99 at May 13, 2010 2:20 PM
WayneB, if I had been on that jury, I would have argued strenuously for nullification. It probably would have gotten me thrown off the jury, but it would be worth a try.
Cousin Dave at May 13, 2010 2:25 PM
Years ago, when my son was a freshman in high school, we had a close brush with this. Our dear friend, from Honduras, has a son, and he said something to his preschool teacher (who was also my son's preschool teacher) about playing with my son.
They've played together for years, as the families are very close. Well, whatever he said set off warning bells for her. I can't even remember it now (probably blocked it out) - something about them roughhousing - but I know she ASKED him if my son had ever touched him inappropriately, and the boy replied "yes" (at least according to her). The two of them were in a room alone when this conversation supposedly took place.
She called it in. Fortunately, the mom told them there was no way that my son would ever do that. She's known him since he was a baby, and she swore that Noah could never hurt her child, and there had to have been a misunderstanding.
The case was immediately dropped, but for 24 hrs or so, I thought this could ruin my son's life. Thank God my friend knew my son and his character so well that she didn't have the slightest doubt. If it had been another mother, who knows? She might've become hysterical and believed it.
I was (and still am) furious with the teacher, as she's known my family for 20 years. I was like, "Couldn't you have at least talked to the mothers first?" But she maintained she was just "doing her job". That is the cop out that all cowards use to knowingly wreck someone's life. She's one of those prim, proper, stick-up-her-ass kind of people, and I haven't spoken to her since that day.
This is a real threat to our sons. It's not something any mother of a young man can afford to think can never happen to them. For those of you with sons at home, it's important to be aware that it's that easy - just takes one child misunderstanding a question or having a vivid imagination and an overzealous, paranoid listener.
lovelysoul at May 13, 2010 2:41 PM
There's an excellent internet video out there that was popular about a year ago called "Don't talk to the police."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
Watch this video. Make your kids watch it when they turn 18. It's less than an hour long, with a defense attorney and then a police detective for balance who both agree you don't talk to the cops. It could save your life. It's unfortunate, most of us want to cooperate and help the police, but the justice system is about getting convictions not getting justice.
fozzy at May 13, 2010 8:37 PM
If you are ever represented by a public defender, you have to remember who is signing their paycheck -- and it isn't you. Public defenders basically get paid to dispose of cases as quickly as possible. Plus, there's the fact that many of them are drawn from pools and are doing the work pro bono and not totally by choice; even if they don't resent it, they still aren't going to be as motivated as they would be for a paying client.
Cousin Dave at May 14, 2010 8:20 AM
Some random comments:
Do not ever talk to the police about something like this without a lawyer present. Even if they haven't Mirandized you, anything you say can and will be used against you.
For the sake of all that's holy, do not ever for any reason EVER consent to any search. At all. Don't resist, be polite, cooperate under protest if the officer insists, but do not consent. You do not know what the police are looking for, what they will find, or how they will interpret it. They are not your friends, and they are not just trying to help.
I cannot help but be reminded that Orwell warned us that one of the worst things Big Brother could do was to criminalize sexual behavior, and to make children snitches.
As to this kind of thing being rare: I did some volunteer teaching awhile back, fourth and fifth grade science. Most of us were parents (I'm an uncle) but we were all warned each session to never touch any of the children, because it put US at too much risk. Again: it was not that we weren't trusted, it was that any contact could be misconstrued and blown out of proportion. The regular teachers hated this; they all thought touching, hugs, laps, and so forth were crucial tools for building trust and making emotional contact.
And absolutely it is men that are at the greatest risk. I'm too old to have kids now, but if I weren't, I wouldn't. Piss your wife off, and you won't sleep on the couch; you'll be accused of child abuse, and end up in prison.
There was a story awhile back about a man who was arrested because he was sitting alone in a park where children were playing. That was all: he never spoke to, much less touched, any child, but his presence disturbed some of the moms.
Likewise, be very careful about taking pictures in public if children are present. Heck, be careful about taking pictures in public, period.
This is exactly the kind of thing Orwell was talking about: drive people apart, destroy trust, spread fear, leave everyone a quivering, terrified, isolated unit.
And remember: it's For The Children.
DJMoore at May 14, 2010 6:29 PM
Where did you get that wristwatch?
Is that a stolen IPhone? Prove it.
Please step out of your car sir. Do you mind if I take a quick look?
Never Talk to the Police
Prof. Duane explains in these videos why he is proud of the 5th Amendment, and will never, ever talk to the police without a lawyer. You shouldn't either. Don't take his word for it; he cites the advice of Nuremberg Trial Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prof. Duane is animated and interesting. This lecture is an eye-opener.
Andrew_M_Garland at May 14, 2010 7:36 PM
Too Many Federal Laws
We all have to be afraid of a Federal bureaucracy that wants to control all aspects of our lives. Right now, you can't go through the day without breaking a few Federal laws. You know, the ones that are all punishable by "5 years and/or $5,000".
"In one case, seafood importers spent eight years in jail because their lobsters were improperly packed in plastic rather than cardboard."
Andrew_M_Garland at May 14, 2010 7:40 PM
Leave a comment