ummm, he was working. was there anything to suggest that he was targeting any kid at the haunted house?

if there is nothing showing that he crossed the line in any way, shape or form? it would seem that he was more interested in working and maybe helping out. sad.....

hummm...Get a job, Get Busted??

So, the SO didn't even attempt to do anything inappropriate? I feel safer already.

In FL a SO can actually get a job like this as long as a judge approves it (if on paper) When off paper there is no law restricting where a SO can work - now whether they would give you a job is another issue

In Wisconsin the law is that he is to have no contact with children. He clearly broke the law here, whether he intended to harm a child is irrelevant. He knew the law and he knowingly broke it.

This should serve as a warning to all registrants, especially in backwards states--Just stay away from even interacting with any child at pretty much all costs.

Independent is that law only applicable to those on paper? In FL it is only those on paper - was this guy on probation?

To clarify - in FL you cannot go to places that children congregate (if on paper or in a county that has an ordinance) but you can interact (off paper) with children. But on or off paper you can get special permission from a judge - I wonder if the guy thought this was ok becasue it may have been a haunted house that was not for young children?

Also Independent I just have to mention - although legally the fact that he was not supposed to be there cannot be disputed I do not think that fact that he did nothing wrong is irrelevant - as a matter of fact it is extremely relevant becasue it is exactly the heart of the matter - the RSO restrictions make it difficult for anyone to get back to a normal life after serving a sentence and that is the relevancy - and for dopes like you-know-who it proves a point although she does not realize it! He broke a proximity law which should not exist anyway - he did not harm anyone in anyway except himself ...

Val, maybe you should READ the articles you post.

"The criminal complaint shows that he never crossed the line with any of the children but will still face three new felony charges simply because he was there."

@ Everyone else, why is he being charged with three felony charges?

Advocate, I of all people want to see RSOs go back to work. Work has a stabilizing effect making them less likely to commit crime. However, in this situation going to work at a place where it us mostly intended for children was either a severe lack in judgement given the laws in Wisconsin or something worse. I guarantee you Rew, Free, Frog or any of the other people on this forum who have been on the registry would ever do this or think it's a good idea to work at a haunted house! If for no other reason than someone can see who you are and make a false report about you. Smart people on and off the registry would be wise to stay away altogether from situations like this regardless of legality!

So yes, it is irrelevant because the law is the law right now.

Actually the fact that he was not supposed to be there CAN be disputed. The part of the law in question (948.13  Child sex offender working with children.) http://tinyurl.com/pccgpr4

(a) Except as provided in pars. (b) and (c), whoever has been convicted of a serious child sex offense and subsequently engages in an occupation or participates in a volunteer position that requires him or her to work or interact primarily and directly with children under 16 years of age is guilty of a Class F felony.

This is not a blanket prohibition against working with children. This is a prohibition against taking a position whose primary focus is interacting directly with children. At first glance working at a haunted house would qualify except statements from the reporting officer indicate otherwise. http://tinyurl.com/p6xtv3b

The complaint indicates on Oct. 25th, a citizen witness attended the haunted house with his wife and children. They apparently selected the earlier time period in the day because "it was advertised to be a less scary experience geared towards children."

If the haunted house was setting aside special times for children then its primary focus was obviously not for children. Interaction with children was something that could happen yes but this law does not prohibit that and the primary interaction would have been with adults at all other times the haunted house was in operation.

Good luck getting a jury to buy that.

And even it is legal Aladdin, which in this state I think even if the rule of law is in his favor which is questionable he still faces an uphill battle to not serve jail time. It is still smart to stay away from jobs like this. You already have one giant red letter on your chest, don't make it any harder on yourself!

Yup because you say so! Just because some thing is the law does not make it right or Constitutional - it is relevant to the cause because it is a perfect example of how far reaching and bogus these laws are. When you have a person with a label that has paid his price to society and cannot work where ever he wants without risking 3 felony charges you are no longer living in the "land of the free." You are living in a land that incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the World. The law being the law does not trump the relevancy of something - that is just submissiveness. And I maintain that things are not always as they seem and that is extremely relevant.

Also, just so you know - including someone else s name in your rhetoric to say I am sure they would feel that same does not make your point more valid to me - in fact if you ever did that to me I would tell you off!

See that is the difference in some of us - I look at it that the label already takes a lot away for registered citizens and so when they are in the right they need to fight back .... this man may or may not be in the right (legally) but the fact remains he did nothing wrong (albeit possibly legally wrong)

Just like those bogus Halloween rules that do not apply to those off paper where I live but they make everyone sign it anyway ...we are fighting it now - it is the principal of the thing. Some say that it opens the door for the county to make an ordinance and if they try we will fight that too but even if they do the message is you can not just arbitrarily impose restrictions on RSOs just because ...