Level 3 Sex Offender Sues McDonalds and Mother

[Fizzgig]

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?

Do you believe he would never go to the bathroom while at work? That he would only work the grill and never leave it? That at no point in time, even though being rated a high risk to repeat his offense of raping a child, he would be fine in an place like a McDonald's? Do you believe that the McDonald's corporate lawyers would agree to taking on a liability like that?

And yes, I'm another that is fine with the death penalty for sexual crimes against children. Thankfully, Colorado is currently working at reinstating that punishment.

 

[momof3littlelilos]

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.

I think you might have misunderstood me?
It's the job of the criminal justice system to keep the free general population safe from dangerous criminals (or protect our orifices as the case may be.)...or at least that's one of the theories of criminal justice. I have no intention of playing vigilante, but I expect to be kept safe by the system that "we" keep in place through our taxes and our vote.
As a society we agree to have prisons and jails in order to segregate convicted criminals for the purpose of: 1. keeping the rest of us safe. 2. Punishment/retribution/revenge and/or 3. rehabilitation of criminals.
Letting level 3 offenders out of prison violates 2 out of 3 theories supporting the existence of prisons. (I'm not into revenge...I believe in safety and rehabilitation)
It's the job of the system to protect those of us who might be sexually attacked from those that have been convicted of attacking and whom they believe are still a danger. None of us should really have to call our legislators. It should go without saying that the criminal justice system should function at some minimal level without the citizens micromanaging the govt.
I don't believe that it's appropriate for those of us who follow the law to have to adjust our lives to accomodate unrehabilitated criminals. I don't believe that is really the intent of the law if that is what you're suggesting.

 

[momof3littlelilos]

Do you believe he would never go to the bathroom while at work? That he would only work the grill and never leave it? That at no point in time, even though being rated a high risk to repeat his offense of raping a child, he would be fine in an place like a McDonald's? Do you believe that the McDonald's corporate lawyers would agree to taking on a liability like that?

And yes, I'm another that is fine with the death penalty for sexual crimes against children. Thankfully, Colorado is currently working at reinstating that punishment.

It was noted in one of his appeals that he admitted to raping 20 other women.
I wouldn't want this guy working with my teenage daughter.
As if he'd never have access to a teenage girl in the break room, or the supply room, or the dumpster? I'd like to know that my teenager isn't at risk from fellow workers. There are lots of underage potential victims at McDonald's, behind the counter as well.
ETA: I'm guessing once corporate found out then whoever made the decision to hire this guy was let go, and corporate will distance themselves from him/her as much as possible.

 

[hentob]

It was noted in one of his appeals that he admitted to raping 20 other women.

 

[Charade]

Sure looks like McDonalds (the franchise) screwed up. I think he's got a case against them and maybe one against the lady who reported him.

 

[manning]

There is a case in southern MA where a convicted sex offender raped a 6 yo boy in the local library. The man is a convicted s.o. Why do they let these people out? It keeps happening over and over and over again.

Eventually, someone may realize that there is no hope for these people and they need to stay locked up.

I would be p.o'd if I frequented that McDonalds with my children and the company knew they had a level 3 offender working there.

Because they are sick and need treatment.....ya right

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

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!

so let address THAT problem.

I'm all for letting probably 90% of these ridiculous "drug felonies" out of prison...lets work on rehabilitating THOSE men and women.

I cannot believe anyone who defend the rights of a man with a sexual COMPULSION to destroy little children's lives.

How on any planet is it harrassment to report public information to anyone?

If anyone has a lawsuit it the mother against McDonald's here for endagering her child.

 

[tiggger1]

He might actually have a case unfortunetly, I found this online under MA Laws

Section 178N. Information contained in the sex offender registry shall not be used to commit a crime against a sex offender or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassment of an offender. Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to the provisions of sections 178C to 178P, inclusive, for such purpose shall be punished by not more than two and one-half years in a house of correction or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

 

[4cruisin]

He might actually have a case unfortunetly, I found this online under MA Laws

Section 178N. Information contained in the sex offender registry shall not be used to commit a crime against a sex offender or to engage in illegal discrimination or harassment of an offender. Any person who uses information disclosed pursuant to the provisions of sections 178C to 178P, inclusive, for such purpose shall be punished by not more than two and one-half years in a house of correction or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I bet that McD's will say that according to the law, their hands were tied and they "had" to hire him to avoid the discrimination law. However, there are ways that they could have not hired him and not been subject to the laws. You don't have to tell the applicant "oh, we're not hiring you because you are a level 3 s.o. and we feel that working in an environment where children frequent is inappropriate." How about just not hiring him. You don't have to give a reason.

Why isn't this pervert working for a restaurant with a "closed" kitchen (not open to viewing the public)? Isn't it ironic that he works in a place where he can view children/young teens on a regular basis? I find that way to convenient considering his history.

BTW, I believe the mom is being represented pro bono by a lawyer. If she needs a defense fund, I'll send a check today.

 

[hentob]

BTW, I believe the mom is being represented pro bono by a lawyer. If she needs a defense fund, I'll send a check today.

I would too

I strongly believe that if you ADMIT to raping 20 women/children, you get no second chance at life He does NOT deserve to be treated like a human, because he is not a human. He is a monster

The judicial system failed everyone when he was spilled back into the general public. I am glad this woman took it upon herself to "out" this man. He should have NO privacy when it comes to letting the world know that he is a rapist.

He should have a tattoo on his forehead that indicates he raped again and again and again and again and again.....

 

[kribit]

so let address THAT problem.

I'm all for letting probably 90% of these ridiculous "drug felonies" out of prison...lets work on rehabilitating THOSE men and women.

I cannot believe anyone who defend the rights of a man with a sexual COMPULSION to destroy little children's lives.

How on any planet is it harrassment to report public information to anyone?

If anyone has a lawsuit it the mother against McDonald's here for endagering her child.

I'll go one step further. I think habitual offenders (rape against children) should be hung in the town center and stoned to death either that or remove their weapon. I'm NOT talking about the statutory rape (16/17 year old situation). I'm speaking specifically of habitual offenders. There is no proof that these people can be rehabilitated and they should not be allowed to walk around on the street to abuse again.

As for the mother, I personally wouldn't have been as "in your face" about reporting the guy. She probably should have done it anonymously and none of this would be an issue.

Since our legal system protects the criminals, my guess is this guy has a case.

 

[EMom]

As long as child molesters are breathing, they will be at high risk for repeating their offense. They are almost impossible to rehabilitate. You'd have better luck with serial killers. Sadly, our criminal justice system has not recognized this by giving them life in prison without possibility of parole.

Until they do, it is up to the rest of society to protect the children. I don't care if I have to skirt around, dance around, twirl around or tunnel around the law, I have a higher moral duty to protect children. Molesters have so many more rights than children that someone must balance things out. Having seen the aftermath of child molestation, I have zero sympathy for this individual. Zip. Zilch. Nada. I find it highly suspicious that he would even apply at McDonald's since the only place you'll find more children is at a daycare center.

If I saw his profile on a website and did not let other parents know about him, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. If he molested their child and I'd kept quiet about what I knew, I'd be complicit by virtue of my apathetic silence. Yes, laws need to be changed, but until that happens, those of us who put the right of children to be safe above the rights of a perverted molester will keep doing what we must to minimize his chances of hurting little children. And we'll have a clear conscience about it.

 

[fey_spirit]

I like the Island idea, but I would prefer a nice uncomfortable hospital for the emotionally disturbed/broken somewhere.

These people are sick, and I still don't believe in punishing those who are sick, I believe in helping them.

And for the record - before someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about until it happens to my child - it happened to ME. I still understand what it is to be mentally ill, and to need treatment for a disease outside of your control. Put them in a hospital where they can get help, and keep them there.

I agree as well. If a background check was required for the position, then McDonald's should have done that prior to hiring him. If it is not required, then he shouldn't have been fired.



I like the island idea - but not a nice island in the caribbean... unless it is hot as hades and there is no shade.

 

[fey_spirit]

Why does it make a difference how old? I have experienced both, and let me tell you ... one didn't feel any better nor was it any easier to contend with then the other.

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.

 

[fey_spirit]

Given that this guy has bragged about raping at least 20 women, I don't think a Bar is any better an area for him then McDonald's.

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.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

I like the Island idea, but I would prefer a nice uncomfortable hospital for the emotionally disturbed/broken somewhere.

These people are sick, and I still don't believe in punishing those who are sick, I believe in helping them.

And for the record - before someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about until it happens to my child - it happened to ME. I still understand what it is to be mentally ill, and to need treatment for a disease outside of your control. Put them in a hospital where they can get help, and keep them there.

I don't care if we put them in a hospital, on an island, or 6 feet under.

They have no business being around children, period.

I still do not see how it qualifies as "harassment" to report a public fact to someone's employer.

 

[fey_spirit]

How does this work? I mean ok so I'm a level 3 (I'm not, but let's pretend), I move into a house that fulfills all of the requirements for my placement. There are no kids living anywhere on my entire block. I've almost finished paying off the house and someone decides to move their family with two kids in across the street... now what? Do I have to move, take a huge loss on the house and start over somewhere else?

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?

 

[fey_spirit]

On the other hand in this specific instance, he has been cleared by medical professionals. So wouldn't that fall under "I can understand the criminal justice syst4em releasing inmates who they belive have been rehabilitated,"?

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.

 

[fey_spirit]

I can't believe anyone who can't support the rights of a person who has a sickness that is out of their hands. As a former victim I will fight to the death for the rights of both the offender and the victim. The offender needs to be placed somewhere that he can receive councling and humane treatment for the rest of his life.

Now that doesn't mean that I think they should be released, as much for their own protection as for their victims. If they can't control themselves, then they need to be restrained for their own good.

But I also don't think that anyone has the right to treat a sick and suffering human being like an animal. Lowering ourselves to that level doesn't make anything any better - it just creates two sick individuals.

so let address THAT problem.

I'm all for letting probably 90% of these ridiculous "drug felonies" out of prison...lets work on rehabilitating THOSE men and women.

I cannot believe anyone who defend the rights of a man with a sexual COMPULSION to destroy little children's lives.

How on any planet is it harrassment to report public information to anyone?

If anyone has a lawsuit it the mother against McDonald's here for endagering her child.

 

[Nikel]

I like the Island idea, but I would prefer a nice uncomfortable hospital for the emotionally disturbed/broken somewhere.

These people are sick, and I still don't believe in punishing those who are sick, I believe in helping them.

And for the record - before someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about until it happens to my child - it happened to ME. I still understand what it is to be mentally ill, and to need treatment for a disease outside of your control. Put them in a hospital where they can get help, and keep them there.

So are you saying everyone without a clean bill of mental health gets locked up in a hospital? Would we be required to have annual screenings? Do all kinds mental illnessses and instability, including things like PPD, equal life in an uncomfortable hospital? (Please, before you do that to me, sign me up for the death penalty instead!)