Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. I personally would not have run to the neighbors until I knew what I was talking about.
|
I had the convictions/charges in front of me along with name and address. I went to one person with close personal ties to people of authority. I did not 'run to the neighbors'. From the first post:
One block from our house, directly across the street from where my and 11 other kids catch their school bus, lives a convicted child molester-his crimes were Wreckless Endangerment of a Child and Aggravated Sexual Assault. In my 6th post, I stated his tier status and the years and details of his convictions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shakran
This is the first time I've brought it up.
|
No, it's not.
Quote:
Let's not forget that if a guy has sex with a 17 year old who claims she's 18, he's legally raped her, and if convicted, has to register as a child molesting sex offender. Even though there was no intent to commit the crime, he still has to have the sex offender stigma attached for the rest of his life.Those charges could easily come from such a situation....
If your state falls in the latter category, the guy could still be in the situation I described - had sex with a 17 year old who lied and said she was 19......
oh and BTW aggravated sex assault in NJ could mean that when he was 17, he slept with his 16 year old 3rd cousin or with his step sister. Hardly something you have to worry about him raping your little kid over...
There is also a large conceptual difference between a man who has sex with a 17 year old who claims she is 18 or 19, and a man who knowingly has sex with a child.....
|
Four times in 27 total posts. That's as far as I went, though. Might have been more...just wanted to show you that you are indeed using one constant unrelated scenario to prove your point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shakran
It's not my fault if they don't inform themselves of the facts before they make assumptions over what you're distressed about. Hell, that's the whole point we're trying to make to you here, is don't go off half cocked before you know the facts.
|
And, except for not being able to find his tier status immediately, I did not go 'off half-cocked'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shakran
Yes, it is.
|
Now who is going off half-cocked? You were given the exact nature and status of someone's profile and still use some ridiculous analogy to prove...what? That the NJSP could possibly be, as you keep pointing out, 'going off half-cocked'? You have the same information I do, but choose to use the same excuses to make your point, when it's simply not prudent.
Quote:
I applaud that. Watch your kids carefully, and not just because someone's on some stupid list. Every offender on that list had a first offense before which he wasn't on that list.
However, you also admit in that statement that you didn't know the nature of those convictions. Finding them out before getting the neighbors involved would have been the prudent thing to do.
|
I never said I didn't know what his crimes were; I knew what they were from the start-it was his tier status that needed to be dug up. You came here guns blazing accusing me of going on some witch hunt. Please read and tell me where I said I don't know what he did.
Quote:
|
You can't assume that with hot button issues. People have a visceral reaction to sexual predators, and if they even THINK someone is a predator, they're liable to do unfortunate things. Now, don't get me wrong. If he's REALLY a sexual predator, then he brought everything on himself. But don't start that ball rolling unless there's a need.
|
I'd like to reverse that and say don't assume he just didn't know his girlfriend was only 16. It goes both ways and excuse me if I have a vested interest in my children's safety and choose to put that first instead of making assumptions that all is well, really.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SHakran
True, but had you found out the facts and then gone through proper channels, it never would have happened.
|
I went where I had to go to find out what I needed, again, facts in hand save his tier status. The person that did not go through 'proper channels' was the perpetrator. The person I first contacted is married to a town employe and the sister of a town cop, a friend of the police captain, none of whom was aware of the existence of the subject. Should I myself have contacted the captain? Hindsight says yes, but at the time, shortcuts to quick resolution said yes. That is not 'going off half-cocked'; not perfection in resolving either, but certainly not the badly performed melodrama you've made it out to be.