Level 3 Sex Offender Sues McDonalds and Mother

[happygirl]

I'm really tore on this one, as a parent I wouldn't want him working around children, but this man does deserve the chance to make a living and since we don't all the details of the crime it really hard to make a decision

 

[tedhowe]

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

They release them because that is the LAW.

The guy in this story was convicted in 1980. He served 25 years.

You can't just hold someone forever if the sentence at the time the committed the crime said they would get out in 20 years.

If you want to hold child sex offenders for life, then change the sentencing laws.

In my opinion, the appropriate thing for the mother in this story to have done would be to go to a different McDonalds or to Wendys...not to make a call to the employer.

She says she didn't ask for him to be fired, but what did she think would happen? What would she have done if they had said "yes, we know his background and feel that his job as a grill cook - where he doesn't come into contact with children - is acceptable."

My guess is that she would have then tried to pursue it.

In my opinion, if she took the initiative to ask McDonalds about his employment, she wouldn't have stopped there if the act of asking the question didn't get her desired result.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

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?

That's not the same thing at all. When you accuse someone of being a crackhead, short of a drug test (which the company either does or doesn't use, anyway) or an arrest for crack use/possession, it's just your comment against the employee. This woman alerted them to PUBLIC INFORMATION, which they could quickly and easily confirm. She did not speak to the man, call a bunch of times, picket, or alert the media (he took care of that last one himself, lol). How is that harassment??

 

[TinkerbellMama]

She says she didn't ask for him to be fired, but what did she think would happen? What would she have done if they had said "yes, we know his background and feel that his job as a grill cook - where he doesn't come into contact with children - is acceptable."

My guess is that she would have then tried to pursue it.

In my opinion, if she took the initiative to ask McDonalds about his employment, she wouldn't have stopped there if the act of asking the question didn't get her desired result.

Unfortunately, you don't get to penalize people for what you, a total stranger, GUESS they would have done in a given circumstance (which did not occur).

 

[tedhowe]

I'm really tore on this one, as a parent I wouldn't want him working around children, but this man does deserve the chance to make a living and since we don't all the details of the crime it really hard to make a decision

I'm torn too.

10 or 15 years ago when Megan's Laws were coming into being, I had spirited debates with people that community notification laws were a form of additional punishment for the people who were previously convicted of these kinds of offenses. They make it nearly impossible for these people (some of whom have reformed) to live anything like a normal life in society.

People told me: "You'll feel differently when you have kids"

Now I have to daughters, and I feel exactly the same. It's a principle issue with me. We have a principle in our law that you are not supposed to be subject to additional punishments that were not in effect at the time you committed the crime. So far the courts have held that retroactive requirements of Megans Laws are not additional punishment. I think that reasoning is silly. The government may not be the one applying the punishment directly, but the government's laws certainly cause society to push additional punishment on these people.

I always end up on the unpopular side of this debate because I believe it is important for the government to treat the worst, lowest of us with the same respect for our rights as it has for the president, the supreme court justices, etc.

If we don't do that, then society itself is at risk.

 

[tedhowe]

Unfortunately, you don't get to penalize people for what you, a total stranger, GUESS they would have done in a given circumstance (which did not occur).

Hmm.. interesting point, and this was not at all what I intended with my previous post... but isn't that exactly what society is doing with the idea that we can let these people out, but they have to be segregated from the rest of us.

We're attempting to punish them for what them MIGHT do in the future. If that's what we want to do, then lock them up for good after a single conviction.

As to the point of your post - I guess I was over the line. I don't know what the mother would have done if action hadn't been taken.

 

[DizBelle]

The ad for me on this page:

"Is your past clouded by a criminal conviction? It's time for a new future!"

It's a service that will expunge your record, reduce felonies, and/ or seal records in California courts.

That's good context advertising.....

 

[Pooh Girl 71]

I'm not sure if this a federal regulation or just one here in Virginia but ALL sex offenders have to inform their employer that they are a registered sex offender for every job they apply for the rest of their life. Granted, this guy might not have done that. But, the police can come to the employer and let them know they have a sex offender working there.

 

[actionvaughn]

I'm not sure if I'm the first to disagree in this thread, but in California, it'll be illegal for the woman to go calling employers and disclosing information like this about their employees. I have no sympathy at all for sex offenders, but the woman was wrong, and so was McDonald's. The guy disclosed this to McDonald's, and got hired despite it, and it's no business of the woman's to go blowing horns. Here's what the Megan's Law site says:

I want to share with others the information I found on the Attorney General's Megan's Law Website. Does the law prohibit me in any way from sharing this information?

A person may use the information disclosed on the Attorney General's Web site only to protect a person at risk. It is a crime to use the information disclosed on the Attorney General's Internet Web site to commit a misdemeanor or felony. Unless the information is used to protect a person at risk, it is also prohibited to use any information that is disclosed pursuant to this Internet Web site for a purpose relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, employment, education, scholarships, fellowships, housing, accommodations, or benefits, privileges, or services provided by any business. Misuse of the information may make the user liable for money damages or an injunction against the misuse. Before using the information disclosed on this Web site, you may want to consult with an attorney or merely suggest to others that they view the Web site for themselves.

Unless the woman physically witnessed the man leering at some children, I don't see how she has the right to report this. (Can he even see anyone other than his co-workers from behind the grill?) She can, like the site suggests, direct the employers to look at the site, but they already knew anyway. I can't say if he'll have a lot luck suing the woman, but she was by no means, right.

 

[Planogirl]

Yep, it sounds like the man has a case against the woman based on the Megan's Law site. Her intentions may have been good but you have to respect the law.

 

[poohandwendy]

I just wanted to ask, how does this woman feel she is actually protecting anyone by contacting his employer? He was hired to work the grill, not as a nanny or even to work directly with the public.

There is no evidence he would have ANY opportunity to harm children on his job. His being fired does not mean he will leave the area or be less a threat to children. I just don't understand what she was trying to accomplish, other than having him punished further by being fired?

 

[EMom]

I'm not sure if I'm the first to disagree in this thread, but in California, it'll be illegal for the woman to go calling employers and disclosing information like this about their employees. I have no sympathy at all for sex offenders, but the woman was wrong, and so was McDonald's. The guy disclosed this to McDonald's, and got hired despite it, and it's no business of the woman's to go blowing horns. Here's what the Megan's Law site says:


Unless the woman physically witnessed the man leering at some children, I don't see how she has the right to report this. (Can he even see anyone other than his co-workers from behind the grill?) She can, like the site suggests, direct the employers to look at the site, but they already knew anyway. I can't say if he'll have a lot luck suing the woman, but she was by no means, right.

In that case, I'd have to insist I saw some leering. As a mother and as a human being, it would be my moral obligation to see to it that this creature is kept as far away from children as possible. Given his history, he is virtually certain to reoffend. For crying out loud, he's working at McDonald's! It's like turning a raging alcoholic loose in a liquor store. Some way, somehow, I'd alert every mother I knew and then have them alert every mother they knew and so on and so forth, until this McDonald's went under from lack of Happy Meal sales. Or they could just cut to the chase and fire him. He should have never been hired in the first place. Maybe McD's will learn a lesson from this and keep Mayor McMolester away from the kiddies by not hiring any more like him.

I care nothing about his rights. I care about the children he is destined to abuse. This mother should be given a medal. I've alerted parents when I've found out about a sex offender in their neighborhood and I'll do it again. It's how we got rid of one in our neighborhood years ago, before we ever had kids. My neighbor found him on the registry, we let everyone know, the whole neighborhood (which was full of little kids) shunned the family and his family had him move out. Let him live in the forest for all I care....or that desert island someone mentioned.....or Antarctica. But they are not fit to live among children. Some say we must respect the law, but I think there are ways to skirt the law here. And society does what it must to protect children from monsters who have no conscience.

Like calling McDonald's.

 

[mgilmer]

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?

If they sexually abused a child, the answer is NEVER! No do overs, no forgiveness, one strike and you are out. Lock them up until they die. Definitive enough for you?

As for the lawyer representing this pig, he is human scum. He is a perfect example of why we need legal/tort reform in this country. He is living proof of every lawyer joke (e.g. "What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?" Answer: A good start.). Shakespeare was right.

 

[ChrisnSteph]

I just wanted to ask, how does this woman feel she is actually protecting anyone by contacting his employer? He was hired to work the grill, not as a nanny or even to work directly with the public.

There is no evidence he would have ANY opportunity to harm children on his job. His being fired does not mean he will leave the area or be less a threat to children. I just don't understand what she was trying to accomplish, other than having him punished further by being fired?

I actually agree with this.

This mother should be given a medal.

Probably what she was going for.

 

[poohandwendy]

In that case, I'd have to insist I saw some leering. As a mother and as a human being, it would be my moral obligation to see to it that this creature is kept as far away from children as possible. Given his history, he is virtually certain to reoffend. For crying out loud, he's working at McDonald's! It's like turning a raging alcoholic loose in a liquor store. Some way, somehow, I'd alert every mother I knew and then have them alert every mother they knew and so on and so forth, until this McDonald's went under from lack of Happy Meal sales. Or they could just cut to the chase and fire him. He should have never been hired in the first place. Maybe McD's will learn a lesson from this and keep Mayor McMolester away from the kiddies by not hiring any more like him.

I care nothing about his rights. I care about the children he is destined to abuse. This mother should be given a medal. I've alerted parents when I've found out about a sex offender in their neighborhood and I'll do it again. It's how we got rid of one in our neighborhood years ago, before we ever had kids. My neighbor found him on the registry, we let everyone know, the whole neighborhood (which was full of little kids) shunned the family and his family had him move out. Let him live in the forest for all I care....or that desert island someone mentioned.....or Antarctica. But they are not fit to live among children. Some say we must respect the law, but I think there are ways to skirt the law here. And society does what it must to protect children from monsters who have no conscience.

Like calling McDonald's.

How exactly would you be 'protecting children' by skirting the law (aka LYING)?

I mean, why not just put a bullet in his head, where is the line drawn?

I would love to see sexual predators stay in jail. But, the above post is scary.

 

[tedhowe]

In that case, I'd have to insist I saw some leering. As a mother and as a human being, it would be my moral obligation to see to it that this creature is kept as far away from children as possible. Given his history, he is virtually certain to reoffend. For crying out loud, he's working at McDonald's! It's like turning a raging alcoholic loose in a liquor store. Some way, somehow, I'd alert every mother I knew and then have them alert every mother they knew and so on and so forth, until this McDonald's went under from lack of Happy Meal sales. Or they could just cut to the chase and fire him. He should have never been hired in the first place. Maybe McD's will learn a lesson from this and keep Mayor McMolester away from the kiddies by not hiring any more like him.

I care nothing about his rights. I care about the children he is destined to abuse. This mother should be given a medal. I've alerted parents when I've found out about a sex offender in their neighborhood and I'll do it again. It's how we got rid of one in our neighborhood years ago, before we ever had kids. My neighbor found him on the registry, we let everyone know, the whole neighborhood (which was full of little kids) shunned the family and his family had him move out. Let him live in the forest for all I care....or that desert island someone mentioned.....or Antarctica. But they are not fit to live among children. Some say we must respect the law, but I think there are ways to skirt the law here. And society does what it must to protect children from monsters who have no conscience.

Like calling McDonald's.

Ah, I see... so it's okay for you to disregard ethics, morality and the law in order to take it into your own hands to protect children.

Interesting that you talk about those with no conscience.

 

[luvmy3]

The fact that he is registered as a LEVEL 3 (means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime) is all the reason he should not be allowed to work anywhere children will be. I understand that he served his time and he should be able to go out and find employment but he should not be anywhere near children.

 

[momx2]

But he really didn't lose all of his rights, in the eyes of the law. And that is what is important and that is what needs to respected.

I agree with freckles, work to change the laws if you disagree with them.

I agree that child sex offenders should be forever locked up, but the only way that can happen is if we stop locking up people who commit lesser offenses. (which I am all for). We simply do not have room in our prisons for the prisoners we have incarcerated. It takes more prisons, which takes more tax dollars. Just food for thought.

ITA! Also, to add, when these guys are released they have to make a living or else they will commit other crimes to live. There is a big problem with our prison system today and how we lock up everyone (not talking about sex offenders). There isn't enough room for those that need to stay there while we continue to house drug addicts!

 

[momof3littlelilos]

The fact that he is registered as a LEVEL 3 (means that the court has determined that there is a high risk to commit another sex crime) is all the reason he should not be allowed to work anywhere children will be. I understand that he served his time and he should be able to go out and find employment but he should not be anywhere near children.

I guess that I've turned into an overzealous anti-criminal type...because I'd go a step further and say that anyone deemed likely to be at high risk of committing another sex crime shouldn't be allowed near anyone with a potentially violatable orifice.
I can understand the criminal justice syst4em releasing inmates who they belive have been rehabilitated, but not those that they acknowledge as being a threat. That's just crazy.
And, yes, I called my state legislators this afternoon.

 

[tedhowe]

I guess that I've turned into an overzealous anti-criminal type...because I'd go a step further and say that anyone deemed likely to be at high risk of committing another sex crime shouldn't be allowed near anyone with a potentially violatable orifice.
I can understand the criminal justice syst4em releasing inmates who they belive have been rehabilitated, but not those that they acknowledge as being a threat. That's just crazy.
And, yes, I called my state legislators this afternoon.

It's not JUST crazy.

It's crazy AND its the law.

Good move calling your legislator - that's the way to go about it.

It is not up to you to protect "anyone with a potentially violatale orifice". It's up to you to protect you and yours loved ones.

Beyond changing the legislation, I still contend that the correct course of action in a case like this is to use your knowledge gleaned from the registered sex offender website to decide NOT to go to that McDonalds any more.