• Kissimmee Man Accused of Trying To Set Sex Offenders on Fire
    32 replies, posted
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Orlando-Man-Accused-of-Trying-To-Set-Sex-Offenders-on-Fire-481862721.html
At least it wasn’t Florida Man this time.
But issimmee is in Florida
Shhh, he's trying to lay low.
Have you not read the first sentence of the article?
If you read past just the title of the thread, you don't have time to make that sweet epic zinger 1st reply.
He's not the hero we deserve, but the hero we need.
This isn't very funny, actually. Remind me again why sex offenders are put on a publicly accessible list, allowing you to track them at all times? I seriously don't think that giving them nothing to lose is going to make them less likely to rape someone again. I don't have anything to back this up, but I'm pretty sure that if you have literally nothing to lose you'd be way more likely to relapse.
IIRC in the US you can be labeled a sex offender by getting caught peeing outdoors or if you have naked pictures of yourself as a minor. Rating this OP "funny" or "winner" would've been disgusting on its own without that fact (there's a reason vigilante "justice" is illegal, you know?) but considering the context it's just downright utterly retarded.
This isn't some brave vigilante justice in the face of a corrupt system of law. This guy is just a sadist with an excuse.
What a goal-oriented, pragmatic individual
because they are very easy punching bags in society, thus have a legal code that is absolutely draconian "for the children's sake!" not that what they've done doesn't range from terrible to horrifying but its clearly a very vindictive, NIMBY inspired system.
And I imagine nobody wants to be the guy that proposes rewriting laws on it due to stigma associated.
It was his dreaded nemesis, Kissimmee Denizen.
Not only that but it's just fucked in general. You can be put on the sex offender registry for as little as being charged with public urination near a playground with no children present, or willfully sending someone your own nudes while underage. In high school we even had an assembly where they told us not to send nudes to each other because we'd be considered sex offenders, which is somehow preferable for them than just fixing their fucked up, draconian laws.
Seriously. I know someone who has to be registered because they had consensual sex with someone while both of them were 17, then it was discovered after he turned 18 and he had to go to jail and do probation and still be registered. It's fucking insane.
Mostly so people can avoid being their next victim and businesses, especially those who deal with kids, can avoid hiring them. I don't see any issue with this, don't want you name on it? Don't be a piece of shit who sexually assaults and rapes people.
not to mention it's possible to be registered as a sex offender due to something you never actually did, you can be put on there simply for having an 18th birthday where you have a relationship with someone 2 years younger than you (when it could just be like 1.1 years older, e.g. 1 year apart for 11 months out of the year) in a few states, and any number of more unnecessary reasons to be placed on the list. Public shaming belongs in the era of the salem witch trials, not in a country whose constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
So why not make a list for every kind of crime then? A shoplifter list allows businesses to avoid losses, embezzling list allows you to avoid hiring bad people, murderer list allows you to avoid mingling with murderers. By making a list you're essentially making a hit list for wannabe vigilantes. It should up to the law and state to properly deal with these people, not some random individuals with no knowledge of the law.
Because sex offenders are particularly predatory. Honestly I'd have no issue with having a murderer register either. Obviously it'd be silly for minor crimes, but for serious crimes like sex offences, violence and murder I don't see an issue. I care more about keeping innocent people safe from those types of people than I do about the feelings of violent pieces of shit.
For a moment I saw "Kiss me man"...
Except it isn't "point at him and stone him to death" it's "this guy is a sex offender, stay away from him if you think you might be vulnerable/your kids might be vulnerable/your business might put them in a position they could use to take advantage of others. There's numerous valid applications for it and people against it are just being silly. I think innocent people should have the right to avoid such people and should be allowed to know if such people are in their area. These vigilante cases are rare and I'd say the benefits far outweigh the means.
Rare or not (they're not that rare here in the US), it makes vigilante "justice" incredibly easy when registries are publicly available. That means innocent people who were wrongfully put on the registry get shit on even more than if it weren't publicly available, and even people who deserve to be on the registry don't deserve to be put in a position where they are in danger of people taking the law into their own hands and harming them, which is exactly what a publicly available registry does. The registry doesn't have to be publicly available to everyone in order to keep them away from schools and jobs that could allow them to take advantage of children. It's an unnecessary step which could harm people who have already done the time and are paying for their crimes.
I'd say making sure that people who haven't committed crimes can avoid such people, and thus avoid being killed/raped is more important than ensuring the same for criminals I think people, particularly parents should have the right to know if dangerous persons live in their area.
Well, I'll admit that if the laws weren't absolutely draconian and didn't have a massive population of people guilty of nothing more than public urination or sending nudes when they were younger or even nothing at all, I wouldn't have as much problem with a public registry. I'd still say it promotes vigilante justice from overly emotional parents and people like Kissimee Man, but such incredibly poorly written laws should not force people on a public registry alongside serial child rapists. Fuckinig over innocent people isn't a small price to pay to keep people safe. And if we had a rehabilitation oriented criminal justice system rather than a retribution oriented one, we could greatly lower our massive recidivism rate and then doing the time might actually mean more criminals can be turned into upstanding citizens. Fair enough. I only rated you dumb because of that remark anyway.
Acts like urinating in public are enough to put you on the same list as people who diddle kids This list should not be public because the majority of people are fucking stupid and don't understand that the requirements for becoming a "sex offender" is wider and stupider than it should be.
I forgot to reply to this earlier after rating, but they should really take this to court if they haven't already. The age of consent in most states is sixteen, and even if one has sex below the age of consent and both people are the same age, that isn't grounds for being considered a sex offender (though I could be wrong, and if I am, fuck you whoever decided that would be the case, especially considering that pretty much only ever applies to the male in similar situations). I mean fuck me, I have a friend who got married at the age of sixteen, almost seventeen to a man in his early thirties, and even though they got a divorce and she now considers him a child molester for reasons I'm not going to get into, he's not on the registry.
Well yes there are some issues with how easy it is to get on the register, I already said I agree with that, however I don't think that's an issue with the register itself, more an issue with the criteria for getting on it. It's kind of like saying that putting people in prison is bad because ridiculous stuff like smoking week can send you to prison. That isn't an issue with the notion of prison, it's an issue with the laws that will send you there. As nice as rehabilitation is, I still don't think it's fair to make people have to live around former offenders who could potentially strike again without any real warning.
there's very little public good for all the harm that the public registry generates. its a bad system that doesn't really actually address the problems or the crimes and is one of the most vindictive pieces of our justice system.
Vigilante cases like this are rare occurrences, I'd say the benefits of allowing people to take precautions around such people is of far more benefit than the rare chance vigilante might go after the.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.