Level 3 Sex Offender Sues McDonalds and Mother

[Keggy]

MA is an at-will employment state...so they can fire him if he looked at someone the wrong way. It doesn't matter under what circumstances he was hired to begin with.

He has no case.

And no...can we find a cold dark island off of Alaska somewhere?

I feel that even though it is an at-will employment state his case still does have merit. It really just depends on mcdonald's hiring practices and whether or not it was disclosed, etc.

 

[Heidict]

at what point do convicts just get to be regular people working regular jobs?

Once you rape a child, you are no longer considered "a regular person".

Too bad the guys in prison didn't get ahold of him during his stay. Then we could be assured that he would never harm another child.

 

[singingpixie]

when the convict didn't molest children.

Not just picking on you, but for everyone who doesn't think he has the right to work a job and support himself-

If we're releasing violent criminals after they've done their time (and for the foreseeable future, we will be- not enough room in jail to house everyone), what do you suggest happens next? As heinous as their crimes were, these people do need homes, jobs so they can afford to eat, etc. We can't just release them and then deny them access to all jobs and all housing. And as tempting as the island suggestion is, it's not exactly practical in the short-term.

 

[wvrevy]

Wow this is a tough one. The man did his time and has been released. He's registered with the sex offenders' website. He got a job and then got fired. I do consider what the mother did as harassment. If I called someone's employer and said "Hey did you know Joe Bloe is a crack head" and they in turn fired him, that is a direct result of my actions.

I do not consider myself soft on crime by any means but at what point do convicts just get to be regular people working regular jobs?

But the fact that the mother got the information from a public website and called to inform the McDonalds upon finding out means that he likely doesn't have a case against her. If the information is public and she did nothing more than make one phone call, he has no chance of seeing that classified as "harassment".

As for the discussion about whether he should ever be let out of jail...only if it's in a pine box. He wasn't convicted of statutory rape, he raped a child, not a 16 year old. In my eyes, yes, there is absolutely a difference, and anyone capable of that loses any right to breath the same air as actual human beings. I realize the law doesn't agree with that...but the law is simply wrong. Anyone convicted - with physical and circumstantial evidence - of raping anyone under the age of about 14 should be given the death penalty, and anyone convicted of the same for someone under 18 should be at least locked up for life.

 

[4cruisin]

But your eyes don't matter. The laws do. Where or not anything thinks he should have been released, he was. He does have rights. Individuals do not and should not have the right to choose to deny someone else their legally given rights.

According to the law, he does have rights but trust me, as a regular citizen, I would certainly figure out a way to discriminate against a level 3 s.o.

Again, when people choose to rape/molest a child, they lose all rights in my book.

I wonder what the recidivism rate amongst level 3 offenders is? If it is 1%, who wants their child to be that 1%??????????

In the grand scheme of life, my beliefs have no merit on this case, however, where children are concerned, some people had better start paying attention.

 

[wvrevy]

MA is an at-will employment state...so they can fire him if he looked at someone the wrong way. It doesn't matter under what circumstances he was hired to begin with.

He has no case.

And no...can we find a cold dark island off of Alaska somewhere?

This is wrong. Regardless of the "at-will" status of the state, it is still illegal to fire someone under certain circumstances (for, say, not having sex with their boss...or because they're black...or any number of other reasons). He may very well have a case against the McD's, but it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Nikel]

As for the discussion about whether he should ever be let out of jail...only if it's in a pine box. He wasn't convicted of statutory rape, he raped a child, not a 16 year old. In my eyes, yes, there is absolutely a difference, and anyone capable of that loses any right to breath the same air as actual human beings. I realize the law doesn't agree with that...but the law is simply wrong. Anyone convicted - with physical and circumstantial evidence - of raping anyone under the age of about 14 should be given the death penalty, and anyone convicted of the same for someone under 18 should be at least locked up for life.

But the fact is that he IS out of jail. He DOES have a right to be employed and support himself. Don't like it? Well first the law has to change before rights start getting striped away.

 

[Nikel]

According to the law, he does have rights but trust me, as a regular citizen, I would certainly figure out a way to discriminate against a level 3 s.o.

Again, when people choose to rape/molest a child, they lose all rights in my book.

I wonder what the recidivism rate amongst level 3 offenders is? If it is 1%, who wants their child to be that 1%??????????

In the grand scheme of life, my beliefs have no merit on this case, however, where children are concerned, some people had better start paying attention.

Frankly I'm MUCH MUCH more concerned about the child rapists out there that aren't caught than one that's been caught, served time (25 years, so it's not like it was just a few months), is registered like he's supposed to be, and is clearly also following whatever probation or check-in he's been given to comply with. Obviously many people disagree.

 

[luvmy3]

Not just picking on you, but for everyone who doesn't think he has the right to work a job and support himself-

If we're releasing violent criminals after they've done their time (and for the foreseeable future, we will be- not enough room in jail to house everyone), what do you suggest happens next? As heinous as their crimes were, these people do need homes, jobs so they can afford to eat, etc. We can't just release them and then deny them access to all jobs and all housing. And as tempting as the island suggestion is, it's not exactly practical in the short-term.

These people should not be allowed to hold jobs anywhere there are children present. If he's a level 3 then he is likely to do it again. I certainly wouldn't want my dd and her friend stopping in the McDonald's he was working at.

 

[java]

Aren't their laws about Level 3 sex offenders - like about not living within x feet of a home- not being allowed to work with children ect...
I am sure this varies by state but in NJ they have some very broad guidelines about just this exact thing.
I am not sure he could even be LEGALLY working at the McDonalds.

And on most of the websites you check something saying you agree to not use any information you gain on the website against the person. (like you are not suppose to tell you neighbors) PLEASE! What a load.

And on them having jobs. Yes they need jobs. NOT A JOB AROUND CHILDREN though. Work in a cemetery, in a factory, in a bar whatever- but not around kids.

 

[4cruisin]

I also thought there were restrictions on where a level 3 could work/live etc.

There is a level 3 in neighboring town that lives across the street from a daycare center. Why is that allowed?

 

[java]

I also thought there were restrictions on where a level 3 could work/live etc.

There is a level 3 in neighboring town that lives across the street from a daycare center. Why is that allowed?

Perhaps they are not aware? One lived down the block from my son's school and when that was discovered he was brought in on a parole violation(but he was on parole)and ended up getting more time because he had been applying for jobs in schools!!

 

[coliebird]

I propose sex offender island...leave them al there, airlift in food...

voila. I cannot for life of me understand why they release these people

I don't know why they release them either, especially when they admit that the offender is likely to repeat the crime. Why would you let someone you know is a risk to society out on the street

 

[momof3littlelilos]

I don't know why they release them either, especially when they admit that the offender is likely to repeat the crime. Why would you let someone you know is a risk to society out on the street

ITA!

 

[luvmy3]

I always thought that they could not live near a school. I'm not sure if thats really a law or something I just assumed.
There was a registered sex offender who lived in an
apartment complex across from the town soccer fields. There were flyers with his picture, name and address, allover the park. I always wondered if th etown did that or if it was a concerned parent. Needless to say my kids weren't even allowed to walk to the bathrooms by themselves.

 

[freckles and boo]

I don't know why they release them either, especially when they admit that the offender is likely to repeat the crime. Why would you let someone you know is a risk to society out on the street

You are "they". Again, if you feel that a certain criminal act is so heinous that the criminal should never be released, contact your legislators and be the squeaky wheel. They represent you. I hate being backed into defending someone who makes me want to puke, but if we degenerate into a society of vigilatism we will fall to pieces.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

I always thought that they could not live near a school. I'm not sure if thats really a law or something I just assumed.
There was a registered sex offender who lived in an
apartment complex across from the town soccer fields. There were flyers with his picture, name and address, allover the park. I always wondered if th etown did that or if it was a concerned parent. Needless to say my kids weren't even allowed to walk to the bathrooms by themselves.

long story short, DH and I lived in an apartment when DD was a baby and were told we needed criminal background checks as part of our lease. Fine.

Downstairs neighbor ended up moving in a sex offender (I only found out because I check the registry every so often) needless to say we were furious, moved within 30 days, and sued the landlord for breech of contract (this guy was added to this woman's lease after he had already been staying with her for 6 months or so )

As a result of this a good friend of ours in the new town we moved to where we bought our house who was on the city council introduced and they passed legislation sex offenders cannot move I think its within 1600 feet of a school or daycare type setting. This was in 05.

The law is now being challenged by a sex offender who wants to move in with his girlfriend and her children near a school

The lawsuit was just filed last week, its been in the news here.

Mr. Upstanding Sex Offender says this ordinance is a violation of his rights

 

[java]

You are "they". Again, if you feel that a certain criminal act is so heinous that the criminal should never be released, contact your legislators and be the squeaky wheel. .

Worked for me. There was a level 3 in the town next to us(where our church is) and he had been convicted and released and reoffended 3 different times. I wrote asking if they were waiting for him to kill a child before they locked him up for good. I asked what about the 3 strikes law in our state? And I wrote and I wrote. He was rearrested!! (now I don't know for sure that the letters did it-but it didn't hurt)

 

[Todd&Copper]

I have a question:

How did he come up with $85,000 in lost wages?

 

[LisaNJ25]

I propose sex offender island...leave them al there, airlift in food...

voila. I cannot for life of me understand why they release these people

Alcatraz can reopen for them.