Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Adults don't commonly engage in conversation with unaccompanied children outside their families,
Not true. Funny how all of you seem to be an authority on sex offenders. When I see an unaccompanied kid outside and they are near me, I ALWAYS speak to them, even have a conversation, so adults DO engage with kids.
Around here, it's very unusual for an adult to encounter a kid without speaking to them and asking them how they're doing whether they know them or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming:7708576
But when the person has been identified as a sex offender, we can assume he's planning a crime against the child. If enough people did what the child's mother did, prosecutions would soon cease and sex offenders would have no place to go. They deserve no better.
"We" cannot assume that at all. That only comes from ignorance.
Prosecutions would NOT cease because it's against the law for someone to blatantly attack another person. Her actions doesn't make her any better than had he re-offended. The difference is, he hadn't.
Last edited by stormy night; 03-03-2009 at 07:41 AM..
I
However, as far as what I've quoted, there was NO crime this time. He was simply talking to her daughter. Would I want someone like that associating with my kid? Of course not. But it's not a crime. She should have simply given him a stern warning to stay away from her child...and she should have done it AT THE TIME, not a year later.
For a sex offender that IS a crime, and she could have simply called the cops. It's predatory behavior and he's level 3 so she could have saved herself a trip by calling the cops.
The daughter and mother said he was trying to convince her to take some fireworks and was "chatting her up"
They aren't allowed to be in contact with kids, and he must have violated a condition of his release doing that.....
If he was on probation/parole, he probably wasn't allowed to associate with children under a certain age as a condition of his probation/parole. That's true. She should have just called his PO. Then he would be back in jail....see how easy that is.
I can't believe anyone would sit here congratulating this woman. Defense is one thing...vigilatism is quite another and it's NEVER OK.
What I also don't understand is if it was SUCH a big deal...why did she wait a YEAR?
If he was on probation/parole, he probably wasn't allowed to associate with children under a certain age as a condition of his probation/parole. That's true. She should have just called his PO. Then he would be back in jail....see how easy that is.
I can't believe anyone would sit here congratulating this woman. Defense is one thing...vigilatism is quite another and it's NEVER OK.
What I also don't understand is if it was SUCH a big deal...why did she wait a YEAR?
agreed, She shouldn't taken the law into her own hands. I *think* she waited a year, because at the time he talked to her daughter she didn't know he was a sex offender, it was later that fliers were passed out and she saw it was the same guy........
The article says (and I quote):
"According to police documents, Level-3 sex offender William A. Baldwin had moved into his uncle's Puyallup home in early June. Following his move, Pierce County deputies distributed flyers around the neighborhood to alert residents of his presence."
"She did say, however, that when she saw the flyer, she recognized Baldwin as the man who had chatted up her then-10-year-old daughter during the previous summer. It may have been Baldwin's unusual height of 7 feet 3 inches that made him memorable."
He must have visited his father before moving in with him later......
The woman had lied already, so this 'chatting her daughter up' and 'trying to convince her daughter to take fireworks' is most likely a lie as well. At the time he supposedly spoke with the daughter, the mother thought he was harmless. A year goes by and she suddenly remembers a conversation she didn't even have with someone she thought nothing of for a year?
I think the woman made it up to try to justify her actions.
Apparently the guy hadn't been doing anything suspicious because he lived there a year and she had no problem with him or any reason to, then suddenly she sees that paper and went berzerk. So the piece of paper, the LABEL was what, in her mind made him bad? Not any action on his part caused that attack.
Last edited by stormy night; 03-03-2009 at 08:41 AM..
I agree that he should still be in jail but strongly disagree that she had a right to take matters into her own hands. He got caught three times. In this case, I'd like to see him locked up for life. Three strikes.....sure. Very reasonable punishment.
However, as far as what I've quoted, there was NO crime this time. He was simply talking to her daughter. Would I want someone like that associating with my kid? Of course not. But it's not a crime. She should have simply given him a stern warning to stay away from her child...and she should have done it AT THE TIME, not a year later.
actually, it is a crime. if he is a level 3 sex offender he is not to be anywhere near children. you're not by any chance this guys mom are you?
also, we need to be MORE strict with these types....we have too much P.C'ness going on in this country. we need to worry more about our children and LESS about these adults and their so called rights or self esteem. these types of predators ruin lives. innocent lives!!! maybe he was JUST talking to the girl but hey, isn't that the first step with a pedophile?? usually they try to earn trust and spread their abuse later. and P.S. my youngest is 17 and i wouldn't want that guy talking to her either.
I would do it too. I would knock him out for even looking at my kid. Actually, I would have maced him because i have a license and if i felt threatened or felt he was threatening my child, you can mace someone without any consequences.
And frankly, a known pedophile who is 7'3" talking with my child (which should violate HIS parole or probation) can be definitely taken as a threat. His interest in her IS a threat.
I have no tolerance for perverts and i bet she think it will be time well spent behind bars. Perhaps now he will keep his dirty paws off of children.
PS in my state there are laws about pedophiles being near anyplace children play and in the presence of minors. WHy didn't his parole or probation have this stipulation? HE should be the one in jail. I would have tagged him and then called the cops to report him harrassing my child which is against the law.
I would do it too. I would knock him out for even looking at my kid. Actually, I would have maced him because i have a license and if i felt threatened or felt he was threatening my child, you can mace someone without any consequences.
And frankly, a known pedophile who is 7'3" talking with my child (which should violate HIS parole or probation) can be definitely taken as a threat. His interest in her IS a threat.
I have no tolerance for perverts and i bet she think it will be time well spent behind bars. Perhaps now he will keep his dirty paws off of children.
PS in my state there are laws about pedophiles being near anyplace children play and in the presence of minors. WHy didn't his parole or probation have this stipulation? HE should be the one in jail. I would have tagged him and then called the cops to report him harrassing my child which is against the law.
I think you are missing part of the story. If you remembered the guy talked to your child a year before and went and rung his door bell and then maced him you should go to jail as well. If you cought someone scooping out your house planning to break in but they never do it, you can't go to thier house a year later and shoot them saying you thought they might still break in.
It is assault. They right think to do would have been to call the cop, and have him locked up agian and off the streets if he was really up to something.
I think you are missing part of the story. If you remembered the guy talked to your child a year before and went and rung his door bell and then maced him you should go to jail as well. If you cought someone scooping out your house planning to break in but they never do it, you can't go to thier house a year later and shoot them saying you thought they might still break in.
It is assault. They right think to do would have been to call the cop, and have him locked up agian and off the streets if he was really up to something.
I was unable to click the link so i was going off of the assumption it happened recently. If it happened in the past the only thing to do is be vigilant in the future.
He still should have no future contact with children. PERIOD.
Quote:
Wrong or right, her tactics did work to keep Baldwin away from her children. According to court records, the man has since moved out from Tacoma to Seattle."
Looks like her approach worked!
Perverts preying on children Do Not Play Fair and neither should we when it comes to defending our children from them. I just say cut off whatever apendage they hurt the child with and be done with it.
The bottom line is, he wasn't breaking the law, and she did. She belongs in jail longer than 3 months.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
