Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
Received this in an email today.
Follow the link.
http://tinyurl.com/cs9qylu
Note that the guy was convicted for a non-contact crime, solicitation, and that the victim was most likely not a child.
This SO is being SO unreasonable. After all he just wants to see his biological daugthter!!! (sarcasm off)
This will piss you off, folks.
rewdiazepam
Follow the link.
http://tinyurl.com/cs9qylu
Note that the guy was convicted for a non-contact crime, solicitation, and that the victim was most likely not a child.
This SO is being SO unreasonable. After all he just wants to see his biological daugthter!!! (sarcasm off)
This will piss you off, folks.
rewdiazepam
I have no doubt, given his location and the date of his conviction, that he was arrested in the same sting operation my husband was arrested in. A Macomb County "cybercrime" unit arrested over a hundred men in a few years time.
There was no "child." There was an undercover officer, several decades older than Mr. Carns, going into adult sex chat rooms posing as a drug-using, promiscuous 15yo seeking out another hook up with an older guy.
He was wrong, no doubt. But the idea that he would somehow pose a threat to his own child is sheer lunacy.
This undercover officers, these monsters, who I have no doubt were sitting there masturbating while pretending to be a hot horny 15yo seducing 20-something lonely losers, were getting off on ruining the lives of men. Screw them.
There is so much wrong with this story. The child in question is 6. This man's conviction was from 2008, so it's likely his arrest was in 2007. Why is custody just becoming an issue now? Did he suddenly become dangerous?
I assume the issue is that, as much as this angry, bitter woman wishes it were so, no sane judge is going to deny a man custody for the kind of offense this man committed. Less than two months after my husband's arrest, a judge who was not known for being particularly compassionate or lenient determined, based on his offense and the evaluation of two therapists, that he was able to have unlimited unsupervised contact with his child. That continued when he was on probation, and extended to allow him to go to places otherwise prohibited during his probation (parks, playgrounds, schools, etc.) if he was with his child. Because, the judge believed, as any decent judge would, that it was in the best interest of our child that my husband be allowed to fully participate in his life.
I'm sure that's what is happening here. The funny thing, of course, is that even if this bill passes, it won't really change things in this case. What the bill does is switch the burden of proof: currently, it would have to be proven that the SO were an unfit parent, whereas this would switch the burden to the SO, to prove they are a fit parent. That will not, in cases like this, be hard to do. A man who commits a single online statutory offense involving an undercover officer posing as a willing, eager post-pubescent teen is going to, in nearly all cases, be classified as low risk, and a fit parent.
You are right. The real perverts are the undercover officers posing as teens getting off doing this. I have noticed that there are always only a few local police departments within a state that usually have only one cop responsible for all this activity. There are two particular police departments here in Oklahoma and two in southwest Missouri that make all these arrests for solicitation.
These same officers must log on either to a chat room every night or to a P2P network in an attempt to catch guys chatting or downloading child pornography. One has to wonder what kind of cop does this night after night when there are surely more serious crimes to solve.
The American citizen should not be afraid of the people talking to teens on the internet or looking at naughty pictures; they should be scared of their own government. The government overcriminalizing this type of activity is causing all the misery.
Any government that is approaching a totalitarian regime, as we are in the country, attempts to keep its own citizens paralyzed with fear. It certainly looks as if the United States is doing that well.
rewdiazepam
The mother in the article seems to be a very bitter person. You can read between the lines when you read the ariticle.
Many times it is the man who gets the short end in these custody cases, not to mention the number of bogus sex crime cases which spawn from these family disputes.
She appears to hate her husband with a passion---bet she did not squeal so much when that support check came in the mail every month. I know the child support is for the child, but you would be shocked to see how many mothers do not spend all the support check on the children.
rewdiazepam
I honestly think the state is just setting itself up for a huge fall. If the registry is indeed non-punitive, then if anybody successfully sues over it and gets damages, the state will have to pay out BIG. The limitations that are imposed on what you can sue for over actual legal punishment would not apply.
I would love to see, in the future, SOs, their families, and especially their children sue for the damage and trauma done to them. It's going to happen, and when it does, the state is going to have to pay out big time.