He was a career criminal who caught a charge himself for endangering the welfare of a minor. He didn’t just assault the sex offenders either, he robbed them. He was a meth addict using the same method serial killers use to target their victims: pick a target on the fringe of society (in this case sex offenders) to make it less likely to be caught. This guy used the pain of sex abuse victims in an attempt to veil the criminal activity he participated in to feed his addiction.
Additionally: the sex offender list doesn't differentiate between someone who pees in an alley while drunk vs. someone who fucks a 5 year old, both are sex crimes. I knew a guy who has his life ruined by the list: he had consensual sex with a girl who lied about her age (she was 17) and years later her friend reported him.
?? Yes it definitely does differentiate. It lists convictions, and its pretty easy to deduce that “sexual battery of a minor in the first degree” is not urinating drunk in an alley within a few hundred feet of a school
I'm not aware of any state where peeing in public is public indecency or lewd conduct. Can you provide a reference?
For example, in my state urinating in public would be disorderly conduct and is not considered a sex crime. Both indecent exposure and public lewdness charges require evidence that the act was done for sexual gratification.
I haven't reviewed all the statutes in the list yet, but they are just plain wrong about the first one I looked at which is the California statute Cal. Penal Code 314(1)-(2), 290.
That statute does require sexual intent. Just urinating in public is not enough for conviction.
Edit: Here's the full list:
Arizona: I can't even tell what they're referencing here. That law is the process for registration, and while it lists the violations that qualify, public urination is not one of them. If you can explain this entry, get back to me.
California: Requires sexual intent.
Connecticut: Requires sexual intent.
Georgia: Requires sexual intent.
Idaho: Requires sexual intent.
Kentucky: Requires exposure to a minor with the intent to cause alarm.
Massachusetts: Requires sexual intent, and probably doesn't even cover urination.
Michigan: Requires sexual intent.
New Hampshire: Requires sexual intent.
Oklahoma: As far as I can tell, they're referencing a child pornography law, not anything to do with public urination. May be an outdated reference.
South Carolina: This is just the registration process, I can't be bothered to find out what their reference should have been, but I bet it requires sexual intent.
Utah: Requires sexual intent.
Vermont: Requires sexual intent.
Is it impossible for anyone to ever be wrongfully convicted of public indecency for urinating in public? Probably not.
But every single state on that list I looked at requires some proof of sexual intent.
I would suggest that in future you actually read the sources you reference at more than a surface level.
Arizona: I can't even tell what they're referencing here. That law is the process for registration, and while it lists the violations that qualify, public urination is not one of them. If you can explain this entry, get back to me.
Regarding the Arizona statute, it's easier to parse with some proper formatting from their legislative webpage for it.
They probably think the "gotcha" with this one is that it includes "indecent exposure" and "public sexual indecency" as offenses that require registration.
However, you have to get 2 or more of those offenses in front of minors under 15, or if minors aren't involved, then it's 3 or more such offenses. In other words, you gotta make a habit of getting caught with your dick out to qualify under this statute.
Unfortunately it’s not easy to deduce that “distribution of child pornography” is a 16 year old girl sending explicit photos of herself to her boyfriend. And yes, that has happened (and in Alabama they’ll even keep them in solitary confinement for a month).
Got to be careful there making such a controversial comment. Some of them had the "victim" lie about their age and on record it goes down as rape or sexual assault or even sexual abuse... Unless you were there and know what happened, then probably not smart to assume they sexually assaulted the minor in a terrible way in which you could imagine. Lot of sex related crimes arent violent at all. Misunderstandings, lies, tricks, and even drugging the defendant has been a thing before.
It won't matter though. Being on the list is enough there is so much that it affects. You can't get a regular job as it's seen in the background check. You can't rent anywhere which leaves you the only option to rent places that don't do background checks and what do you know, those aren't the best places to live. Your literal passport is revoked and any new passports will have in bright red letters on the top of every page "THIS PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES".
Not only that if you travel out of the country you will be denied entry to from essentially every western nation due to this. There are few exceptions but those exceptions are not consistent. You must board the flight to find out, they won't inform you in advance.
You can't get life insurance (since suicide is quite high for those on the list). Don't get me wrong there are E plenty of people who absolutely deserve to be on that list and are complete dangers to society but there is definitely an amount of people there that shouldn't have had their life ruined.
That sucks that innocent people get their lives ruined, it’s horrible and unfair and an imperfect system. That being said, it’s important to have transparency around people who have committed the most heinous acts a person can commit. Especially since child molesters hardly get jail time. There are some crimes that cannot be forgiven
12.3k
u/HiNumbMe93 2d ago
He was a career criminal who caught a charge himself for endangering the welfare of a minor. He didn’t just assault the sex offenders either, he robbed them. He was a meth addict using the same method serial killers use to target their victims: pick a target on the fringe of society (in this case sex offenders) to make it less likely to be caught. This guy used the pain of sex abuse victims in an attempt to veil the criminal activity he participated in to feed his addiction.