Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Perhaps since he's a repeat offender they'll confine him to home with a monitor. Don't misunderestimate the ability of the media to freak everyone out. If the news hasn't been on TV and in the paper....call them yourself. The guy won't be able to go anywhere without being recognized. 386386[/snapback] Good advice, but I would be hesitant to give any info that might be incorrect. It would make more sense to call the media and refer them to the local police. The press is entitled to know the names and even the addresses of those arrested, at least in NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Or the judge could be a moron, which is entirely possible given he's a lawyer AND a politician. Putting a $23 robe on either one of those two "professionals" doesn't give them more wisdom. If I were a judge and had the evidence that Joe gave me with at least 3 witnesses plus a child, it wouldn't matter if it was a FIRST offense. Bail would be SIGNIFICANT and likely unreachable for most everyone. Guidelines, schmidelines. 386378[/snapback] Guidelines don't necessarily apply. A two-time loser with a history of rape who tries to grab a child should be remanded to the custory of the court as a threat to the community. No bail. That that didn't happen makes me wonder if either 1) the prosecutor at the bail hearing was an idiot, or 2) the priors couldn't be introduced at the bail hearing for some reason. I'm trying to verify that last one with my sister...but if that's the case, then $30k is actually a hefty amount for what amounts to illegal restraint of a minor... Which brings up another point...Joe, what exactly WERE the charges he was arraigned on? It could very well be that the prosecutor, for whatever reason, arraigned him on lesser charges than he deserved that precluded a hefty bail amount...in which case you're probably still right to be pissed about it, but the target of your anger is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Guidelines don't necessarily apply. A two-time loser with a history of rape who tries to grab a child should be remanded to the custory of the court as a threat to the community. No bail. That that didn't happen makes me wonder if either 1) the prosecutor at the bail hearing was an idiot, or 2) the priors couldn't be introduced at the bail hearing for some reason. I'm trying to verify that last one with my sister...but if that's the case, then $30k is actually a hefty amount for what amounts to illegal restraint of a minor... Which brings up another point...Joe, what exactly WERE the charges he was arraigned on? It could very well be that the prosecutor, for whatever reason, arraigned him on lesser charges than he deserved that precluded a hefty bail amount...in which case you're probably still right to be pissed about it, but the target of your anger is misplaced. 386396[/snapback] Unless I missed it, we also do not know if he touched the child. If so, Attempted Kidnapping would have been a charge to consider. If all he did was say words, it is a tougher case to prove.....BUT, if he testifies, the ADA is allowed to bring up his priors; which is why I think that he will cop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 Guidelines don't necessarily apply. A two-time loser with a history of rape who tries to grab a child should be remanded to the custory of the court as a threat to the community. No bail. That that didn't happen makes me wonder if either 1) the prosecutor at the bail hearing was an idiot, or 2) the priors couldn't be introduced at the bail hearing for some reason. I'm trying to verify that last one with my sister...but if that's the case, then $30k is actually a hefty amount for what amounts to illegal restraint of a minor... Which brings up another point...Joe, what exactly WERE the charges he was arraigned on? It could very well be that the prosecutor, for whatever reason, arraigned him on lesser charges than he deserved that precluded a hefty bail amount...in which case you're probably still right to be pissed about it, but the target of your anger is misplaced. 386396[/snapback] Per the article, he was charged with "Attempting to Lure a Child into a Motor Vehicle". Now, reportedly, he was on parole at the time, so one would think that this was a "do not pass go do not collect $200" deal. All in all, though, it's a pretty messed-up situation. That judge ought to have her head examined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Unless I missed it, we also do not know if he touched the child. If so, Attempted Kidnapping would have been a charge to consider. If all he did was say words, it is a tougher case to prove.....BUT, if he testifies, the ADA is allowed to bring up his priors; which is why I think that he will cop. 386411[/snapback] JSP said in the original post the defendant "tried to pick the girl up". I assumed that meant some physical contact. I would also assume that would constitute attempted kidnapping. However, JSP also says the girl ran away, and $30k bail seems a little light for attempted kidnapping, which makes me think he wasn't charged with that. At any rate, you're right...we don't know the details. If he testifies at the trial. I'm talking about the bail hearing. I know in the Law & Order universe the ADA's allowed to say "The defendant is a great big JERK with a history of dumping beer on people's heads, and thus should be remanded to custody." I also know the Law & Order universe ain't the real world. And as my sister's a public defender who probably averages ten arraignments a week...she'd probably know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 20, 2005 Author Share Posted July 20, 2005 JSP said in the original post the defendant "tried to pick the girl up". I assumed that meant some physical contact. I would also assume that would constitute attempted kidnapping. However, JSP also says the girl ran away, and $30k bail seems a little light for attempted kidnapping, which makes me think he wasn't charged with that. At any rate, you're right...we don't know the details. If he testifies at the trial. I'm talking about the bail hearing. I know in the Law & Order universe the ADA's allowed to say "The defendant is a great big JERK with a history of dumping beer on people's heads, and thus should be remanded to custody." I also know the Law & Order universe ain't the real world. And as my sister's a public defender who probably averages ten arraignments a week...she'd probably know. 386436[/snapback] Ask her how parole violations work, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Anyone chat with the girl's Dad? Fear works two ways, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 20, 2005 Share Posted July 20, 2005 Ask her how parole violations work, too. 386442[/snapback] Anything specific? Was this guy out on parole? In general, if you break parole, you go back and finish the rest of your sentence...plus, I imagine, serve anything they might tack on if you're convicted of a crime (e.g. someone paroled on a vehicular manslaughter charge who was caught DWI would go back to serve the rest of the manslaughter charge, plus whatever the sentence was for the parole violating DWI.) But a parole violation is not necessarily a criminal act otherwise (e.g. even though approaching a school is not a criminal act in itself, a good many paroled sex offenders will have that as a condition of their parole regardless). But the simple fact that the guy's bail was set tells me that he's NOT being held on a parole violation, but a new set of charges. I would imagine that criminal charges would usually be a parole violation...but without knowing what he was charged with, I couldn't tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Even with a three strikes law? 385341[/snapback] But he's a human being and has rights just like the rest of us! He has a right to lust after little kids! Anyway, he can be rehabilitated! BARF! I prefer castration to rehabilitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 castration 386696[/snapback] Wrong head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 just to brighten your day. Portville NY. teacher found guilty of molesting kids today. Have a nice day. Rule: if they seem strange they are strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Wrong head. 386698[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Per the article, he was charged with "Attempting to Lure a Child into a Motor Vehicle". Now, reportedly, he was on parole at the time, so one would think that this was a "do not pass go do not collect $200" deal. All in all, though, it's a pretty messed-up situation. That judge ought to have her head examined. 386435[/snapback] I missed this post before I replied above about parole. How he's not back in jail but out on bail, I have no idea. What's he paroled on (what were the original charges)? Maybe the current charge is a misdemeanor, and doesn't send him back in or something like that. Best idea I can think of...and it would explain the bail; $30k for a misdemeanor is a lot, and about as high as the judge could set without being punitive. But regardless, there's something going on with this beyond simple judicial stupidity. You haven't tried contacting anyone connected with the parole board, have you? I wouldn't take it for granted that this yahoo's parole officer knows he's been charged with a new crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Per the article, he was charged with "Attempting to Lure a Child into a Motor Vehicle". 386435[/snapback] What state you living in these days? I've got my sister's Westlaw login; I want to research that charge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 FWIW, I understand Joe's fears and concerns. Anyone who loves their wife, does. I also think that the more this goes on, here, the more upset and angry he will become. A week from now might give different insight. I can't guarantee it, but I'd calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Went to the mailbox today and saw that someone had posted the Meghan's law info on a pervert in our complex. The guy has convictions on rape, sodomy with a<14 yr old or with force, oral cop. with <14 or force, and using a foreign object. What the hell is he doing out? He should be locked up for life as a minimum. At least we know about him and can keep the kids away from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 What state you living in these days? I've got my sister's Westlaw login; I want to research that charge... 386714[/snapback] PA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 FWIW, I understand Joe's fears and concerns. Anyone who loves their wife, does. I also think that the more this goes on, here, the more upset and angry he will become. A week from now might give different insight. I can't guarantee it, but I'd calm down. 386726[/snapback] I hope you're right, BiB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 More information on this ANIMAL... He was convicted of raping WOMEN, not little girls. This just gets worse and f*cking worse. The judge that handled this situation should be immediately removed from the bench. Oh my f*cking God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 More information on this ANIMAL... He was convicted of raping WOMEN, not little girls. This just gets worse and f*cking worse. The judge that handled this situation should be immediately removed from the bench. Oh my f*cking God. 386961[/snapback] Nice to hear that they have "regular" sex offenders and "Violent" The act of rape is a violent act. What the hell is wrong with the DA / Judge here? Incredible stupidity. The one thing that is going for you is the media has started to pick up on it, two articles within 24 hours so far. If more coverage ensues, the DA and judge may come to an agreement (face saving) that his bail should be increased or revoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts