I am sorry, but I think that is horrible. Those of you who don't see anything wrong with it, consider the fact that its far better for ex-convicts to be working and productive in society than to be unemployed and with nothing better to do than to get in more trouble. That news station ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Post by charminglife on May 23, 2012 8:59:58 GMT -5
I do feel for guy because it has to be SO hard for him to find any kind of job with this on his record and then this news channel comes in and pretty much harasses him out of a job. But - he is a convicted sex offender and I don't blame the food service company for terminating him - they're probably just trying to clamp down on the issue before it gets any bigger.
Everything about the reporting rubs me the wrong way though. Its lazy shock journalism.
Oh no, I seriously disagree. Dude shouldn't be serving hot dogs to children under those circumstances.
If he wants to sell tired, I don't give a shit but considering all the families at the ballpark, kids going to the bathroom by themselves, birthday parties, cub scout overnights, fuck no. I don't feel bad for him and he never should have been hired in the first place.
I don't understand why everyone assumes the company would do a background check. I've worked in many different jobs, including working at a kid's restaurant and a bank, and I've never had a background check done, to my knowledge at least. I wouldn't think they are very common for high turnover, food service jobs.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
Are you all shitting me right now? Did I wake up in some kind of alternate universe??
And not to be nitpicky but you can be a cub scout up to age 12 and most cub scout events involve boy scouts who are indeed teenagers.
But cub scouts aside, we're really rolling on the train that as long as he only rapes teenagers, children should be safe from him? Or perhaps we're on the only children hang out at ballparks, not teenagers train. Actually, the only train I know for sure we're on is the dumb ass hell train.
Regardless of the wording of the statute, I find it difficult to believe that if he had forcibly raped a teenager, that he would be out in public and not locked up for 15-20. Just saying. He is working as a cashier. He served his time. What else should he be doing?
Not to mention, wasn't he supervising cashiers? I don't think he was actually serving them...
I didn't go back and read, but that's what I thought I read..
I don't care if he was cleaning bathrooms or installing plumbing. He works in a facility where large numbers of children/teenagers gather. He can go do oil changes at Jiffy Lube, work for a landscaping company, or whatever. But I don't think he ought to be working at a ballpark regardless of who he technically works for.
I'm not, actually. Are we assuming so because I mentioned cub scouts? Because every event I go to welcomes siblings of any gender and actually allows girl scouts to come as well.
Not to mention, wasn't he supervising cashiers? I don't think he was actually serving them...
I didn't go back and read, but that's what I thought I read..
I don't care if he was cleaning bathrooms or installing plumbing. He works in a facility where large numbers of children/teenagers gather. He can go do oil changes at Jiffy Lube, work for a landscaping company, or whatever. But I don't think he ought to be working at a ballpark regardless of who he technically works for.
Why do you think this person is just going to automatically want to molest/rape teens? He was convicted in one incident of something you know zero details about. This conviction follows him for the rest of his life. I feel certain that his employers were aware of it because it was some of his own employees that tipped off the media.
This situation was a mini witch hunt. The media outed him in some trumped up hysteria from something that he was convicted and served time for 9 years ago. The Fox affiliate acted douchey and this man's employer fired him because, I speculate, it would have saved them a public relations nightmare.
I'm seriously side-eyeing the nitpicking over which age group this guy might victimize. As well as the tangent conclusion that all the moms on here would be just fine sending little Junior or Princess Nestie up to the counter to fetch us a hot dog. Oh, but wait, as long as they're under 13, it'll likely be fine since dude only goes after puberty-passers.
I don't care if he was cleaning bathrooms or installing plumbing. He works in a facility where large numbers of children/teenagers gather. He can go do oil changes at Jiffy Lube, work for a landscaping company, or whatever. But I don't think he ought to be working at a ballpark regardless of who he technically works for.
Why do you think this person is just going to automatically want to molest/rape teens? He was convicted in one incident of something you know zero details about. This conviction follows him for the rest of his life. I feel certain that his employers were aware of it because it was some of his own employees that tipped off the media.
This situation was a mini witch hunt. The media outed him in some trumped up hysteria from something that he was convicted and served time for 9 years ago. The Fox affiliate acted douchey and this man's employer fired him because, I speculate, it would have saved them a public relations nightmare.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
There always might be mitigating circumstances, ranging from some girl lied about her age to his coworkers saw him trying to pick up kids.
From the facts on the surface, though, this sounds horrible. A single conviction doesn't mean he's a sexual predator, and either way he was working a job out in public without unsupervised access to children. Unless folks think he should be banned from attending the game as a patron, I don't see how it's justifiable to attack him for working there.
I'm seriously side-eyeing the nitpicking over which age group this guy might victimize. As well as the tangent conclusion that all the moms on here would be just fine sending little Junior or Princess Nestie up to the counter to fetch us a hot dog. Oh, but wait, as long as they're under 13, it'll likely be fine since dude only goes after puberty-passers.
That's all I'm saying.
And no, it's not necessarily that there are a few stray children running around. My irritation stems from the fact that we are dealing with an environment where children can easily go unattended for long periods of time in a loud place where very few people would hear them scream and even if they did, they would assume it was from the excitement of the 7 inning stretch.
This isn't the case at a Jiffy Lube.
And honestly, I'm not a fan of the way the news station handled this at all. I'm also not completely up in arms that he was employed here. What does horrify me is that so many of you have no qualms about where this man was employed given his charge.
I don't want the guy sleeping under a bridge or out in the woods and I don't think he shouldn't be employed somewhere or anywhere. But I don't think it's too much to ask that he not be hired to work in ballparks, amusement parts, schools, or the Y.
Let me make it clear then, I am not a fan of the sex offender registry. I'm just not. I want it gone.
That being said, I think it would be dumb as fuck for the cable company to hire a guy who'd been convicted of b&e. Does this mean I think the dude shouldn't work anywhere? Absolutely not. I'm not sure how this is much different.
So, I didn't understand what that charge was....so I found the PA statute. It very well could have been a Romeo and Juliet situation. It also could have been date rape. Obviously, we don't know the details, but if it's either of those things, I doubt he poses a risk in the job that he held.
I have mixed feelings on Sex Offender registries. *no flames* The cases where a 19 yr was having sex with a 17 yr old doesn't really warrant not ever being able to live down the street from a school or being on the registry for life. There really needs to be a better way of categorizing sex offenders and the later penalties based on the facts of the situation.
Now, dirty old man luring kids to sit on his lap and molesting kids deserves this kind of punishment. But, the 19yr old and 17 yr old, not so much.
Next question: Are young men aware of these consequences? How many parents are explaining this to their sons?
So, I didn't understand what that charge was....so I found the PA statute. It very well could have been a Romeo and Juliet situation. It also could have been date rape. Obviously, we don't know the details, but if it's either of those things, I doubt he poses a risk in the job that he held.
I have mixed feelings on Sex Offender registries. *no flames* The cases where a 19 yr was having sex with a 17 yr old doesn't really warrant not ever being able to live down the street from a school or being on the registry for life. There really needs to be a better way of categorizing sex offenders and the later penalties based on the facts of the situation.
Now, dirty old man luring kids to sit on his lap and molesting kids deserves this kind of punishment. But, the 19yr old and 17 yr old, not so much.
Next question: Are young men aware of these consequences? How many parents are explaining this to their sons?
Nitaw, I completely agree with you here. I really do. In fact, here in MI there is now a "Romeo and Juliet" law that is allowing certain offenders to have their names removed from the registry, which I think is great.
As to your "next question": I preach this all.the.time. It's not worth a conviction to have sex with your 14 or 15 year old girlfriend. Parents find out about this shit and they hit these boys HARD. I've seen one case in particular that made me feel really bad for the defendant. Boys need to learn about all these consequences before they make the choice to have ANY sexual contact (not just intercourse) with a under 16 year old girl.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
According to old news reports, his victim wasn't a teenager. She was 23 at the time of the attack, which took place in a bar bathroom after she had participated in a thong-wearing contest.
so, it seems like a date rape issue. It in no way makes it OK...and it doesn't matter that she was involved in a thong contest at all....but we're not talking about a pedophile.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
so, it seems like a date rape issue. It in no way makes it OK...and it doesn't matter that she was involved in a thong contest at all....but we're not talking about a pedophile.
I agree, not a pedophile, but I disagree with your characterization of this as a "date rape" issue. Did you read the account of what actually happened? This was not a date situation.
So yeah, dude fucked up. He paid his time. He did NOT commit a sexual crime against a minor so the Fox affiliate station is still a shitbox of douches and this man was fired needlessly. Oh, and his co-workers still suck for ratting him out.