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...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 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. 386981[/snapback] I called the magistrate's office to request that I be informed if this predator gets released on bail. They basically told me I'd have to keep calling back if I wanted to know. Absurd. Absolutely absurd that a law-abiding, tax-paying honest citizen should have to BEG his local government for information needed regarding the safety of a brave woman who's HELPING THEM with their case. Too much concern for the accused in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey 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] On the subject of bail, from the PA Procedure Code: (5) Release on a Monetary Condition: Release conditioned upon the defendant’s compliance with a monetary condition imposed pursuant to Rule 528. The amount of the monetary condition shall not be greater than is necessary to reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and compliance with the conditions of the bail bond. No condition of release, whether nonmonetary or monetary, should ever be imposed for the sole purpose of ensuring that a defendant remains incarcerated until trial. See Standard 10-5.3, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, Chapter 10, Pretrial Release. However, bail may be initially denied, or subsequently modified or revoked, if the bail authority determines such action is necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance and compliance. Pretty clearly, bail is meant to insure appearance, not as a punitive measure. Other considerations go into the bail decision, such as prior criminal record and what threat the accused poses to the community...but it also has to cosider the current charge, which in this case is a first-degree misdemeanor. And $30k bail is a pretty hefty sum for a misdemeanor. Sorry JSP, but no decent judge in the country is going to issue a remand order or millions in bail for a misdemeanor charge. It sounds to me like the judge was fairly outraged, and expressed as much of that as the system would allow. The judge threw the heaviest book at him within their reach. As for parole...he's required to notify his parole agent within 72 hours of an arrest or criminal citation. Ultimately, it's up to the parole board to decide whether or not he goes back in, not the judge at arraignment. You would think or hope the courts would notify the parole board...I wouldn't count on it, though. If I were in your shoes, I'd be making some calls to the parole board right now to make sure they knew this guy'd been arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 As for parole...he's required to notify his parole agent within 72 hours of an arrest or criminal citation. Ultimately, it's up to the parole board to decide whether or not he goes back in, not the judge at arraignment. You would think or hope the courts would notify the parole board...I wouldn't count on it, though. If I were in your shoes, I'd be making some calls to the parole board right now to make sure they knew this guy'd been arrested. 386995[/snapback] Already on it. It took 5 calls just to find out who to talk to about his current status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Already on it. It took 5 calls just to find out who to talk to about his current status. 387002[/snapback] I thought it would take a lot more than that, to be honest. If you can get his parole revoked (likely, I'd wager), he'll go back for a LOT longer than he would for any BS misdemeanor charge. Looked to me like he still had 13 years to go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 This is simply the result of government focusing on too many different areas. Being a jack of all trades means you're a master of none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 This is simply the result of government focusing on too many different areas. Being a jack of all trades means you're a master of none. 387026[/snapback] If Bush hadn't wasted billions of dollars invading Iraq for Haliburton, this never would have happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 update: Got a hold of the State Parole board. In PA, they have a statute that states that even though this monster was granted bail, it's lkey that the state will put a hold on his bail, over-ruling the county. This especially because he's a sex offender. Now, he couldn't tell me anything specific, but I told him I was concerned that this arsehole would slip through the cracks. He assured me that wouldn't happen. Still, I'm a bit leery. I think I'll just keep in touch with the prison to ensure he's still there. He *is* still technically on parole, and given the related nature of his offense to his orginial conviction, it's likely he won't be going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 21, 2005 Author Share Posted July 21, 2005 More Updates: My wife just called me and told me the Philly NBC affiliate was up filming at her schoold today. This story is about to blow UP. Which IMO is a good thing. It will put the heat squarely on the Judge, DA and Parole Board. One of the few times I actually APPRECIATE the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 More Updates: My wife just called me and told me the Philly NBC affiliate was up filming at her schoold today. This story is about to blow UP. Which IMO is a good thing. It will put the heat squarely on the Judge, DA and Parole Board. One of the few times I actually APPRECIATE the press. 387308[/snapback] The heat probably doesn't belong there. As far as I can tell from everything you've said, the judge, ADA, and parole board are doing as much as they can within the confines of the law. The media, of course, will point at the judge, ADA, and parole board and blame them, just as you are. It's far easier to blame real people than legal abstractions, particularly in a 30-second TV story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 What would you do if you were me? 385084[/snapback] Shave my ass and walk backwards! Sorry, I know this is a serious discussion but you left yourself wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 More Updates: My wife just called me and told me the Philly NBC affiliate was up filming at her schoold today. This story is about to blow UP. Which IMO is a good thing. It will put the heat squarely on the Judge, DA and Parole Board. One of the few times I actually APPRECIATE the press. 387308[/snapback] Bill O'Reilly had the Governor of PA on his show. PA (and NY) are two of the states O'Reilly has targeted as needing to change their child sex abuse laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Bill O'Reilly had the Governor of PA on his show. PA (and NY) are two of the states O'Reilly has targeted as needing to change their child sex abuse laws. 387562[/snapback] I've lived in 5 different states and none did a better job of dealing with child abuse than Oklahoma. It seemed that one day you were reading about someone committing a crime and within 6 months he would be tried, convicted and locked up for 200 years. I have also lived in FL and NY where it seems that sexual predators are constantly being released into the community. Most of these people can't be rehabbed, so we need longer sentences to keep them from doing it again. Doing it once is too much, let alone 2 or 3 offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Not only would I recommend carrying guns but if you dont have a dog, get one. Not too many offenders will pull a "John Couey" and come into the home if they know a dog is in there. *Edit - or even better, maybe he wont know the dog is there, breaks in, and the dog takes care of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 Not only would I recommend carrying guns but if you dont have a dog, get one. Not too many offenders will pull a "John Couey" and come into the home if they know a dog is in there. *Edit - or even better, maybe he wont know the dog is there, breaks in, and the dog takes care of the problem. 387660[/snapback] What kind of breed do you suggest? A pit bull? What kind of weapon do you suggest? You know he has a toddler in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 If you really want protection I recommend a wolf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 22, 2005 Author Share Posted July 22, 2005 Thanks, but I live in a no-pet neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 CA is just as bad as NY. Looking up the guy I mentioned above, I saw that Alameda county, CA has >1000 people listed on the Megan's law site. Our complex is across a rails to trails walking trail from the local High School. Isn't that being too close to one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 If you really want protection I recommend a wolf. 387684[/snapback] A cat would be best. A big cat. Like a tiger or leopard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 A cat would be best. A big cat. Like a tiger or leopard. 387729[/snapback] Dogs > Cats, everyone knows that. Just like Picard > Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts