Child Dies Because Man is Afraid of Being Labeled a Pedophile

[Danoff]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html

Good article. Interesting problem.

 

[Swift]

Unfortunately, I'm vnot at all surprised. I really hope that the mother doesn't put blame directly on the guy that went by. As it's not his fault at all.

 

[Kylehnat]

That's really sad. The man didn't help her and she died. If he had helped her in any way, he would have been accused of kidnapping her in the first place.

 

[Swift]

That's really sad. The man didn't help her and she died. If he had helped her in any way, he would have been accused of kidnapping her in the first place.

Hence the point of the article. 💡

 

[Famine]

Unfortunately, I'm vnot at all surprised. I really hope that the mother doesn't put blame directly on the guy that went by. As it's not his fault at all.

She's too busy suing the nursery to notice.

 

[Omnis]

Last summer, an Illinois man lost an appeal on his conviction as a sex offender for grabbing the arm of a 14-year-old girl. She had stepped directly in front of his car, causing him to swerve in order to avoid hitting her.

The 28-year-old Fitzroy Barnaby jumped out his car, grabbed her arm and lectured her on how not to get killed. Nothing more occurred. Nevertheless, that one action made him guilty of "the unlawful restraint of a minor," which is a sexual offense in Illinois. Both the jury and judge believed him. Nevertheless, Barnaby went through years of legal proceedings that ended with his name on a sex offender registry, where his photograph and address are publicly available. He must report to authorities. His employment options are severely limited; he cannot live near schools or parks.

Arguably, the law would have punished Barnaby less had he hit the girl or not cared enough to lecture her. Perhaps that's the equation that ran through Peachey's mind.

Good god, what a load of bull! Poor guy. That's civil injustice in itself.

 

[Swift]

She's too busy suing the nursery to notice.

That's who she SHOULD be suing.

Omnis, I agree. I can't believe they didn't get it thrown out of court, or at leased dumbed down the charge, like they do with murder cases and what not. But yeah, that's just sick. His life is ruined because some dumb girl didn't know to stay out of the road when cars are going by.

 

[Dave A]

This is a case of the law being an ass costing someone their lives. It's not that guy's fault, it's the nurseries, but if the law wasn't so damn pathetic she'd still be alive despite the nursey staff's fault.

 

[Ev0]

I feel really sorry for the guy; I can't blame him for thinking that he may have been accused of abducting/raping the child. Although I hate to admit it, I probably would have had a similar reaction if I was in that guy's situation. Hopefully he won't get charged in any way.

And I agree with most people in the thread; if anyone is to blame, its the Nursery. Through their neglegence, the child got lost in the first place.

 

[Keef]

If I were a judge I would throw out the vast majority of civil cases, because most are stupid, a waste of time and/or frivolous. Like when a lady tripped over her own son in a Wal Mart, broke her leg because she tripped over her own son, who, mind you, is not Wal Mart's property, then she sued Wal Mart for millions of dollars because she tripped over her son, then she won, because the judge who approved that should be shot in the face. America at its best. There is no jusctice. Justice is too harsh; remember, we have to be fair and kill people in a way that they can't suffer from it.

 

[a6m5]

This "child" was 2 years old. If a 2 year old was wondering about near a road or on a sidewalk with nobody around, you should pull over and help that "child". "Parents must be driving around & would find her"? That is a very lame excuse. It's not his fault that he wasn't very bright though, so I don't think he should be charged with anything.

If the child was 4 or 5, I'd think twice about helping him/her. 2 year olds? I wouldn't think twice about stopping the baby.

On the second story, I just can't believe the judge would let that happen.

 

[niky]

I agree... perfectly... there's something wrong with a society where you fear for your life every time you try to be a good samaritan... like the damn civil cases where a victim sues their rescuer for medical malpractice... that's some stupid ****.

 

[Dave A]

With the laws you have he would have been charged had anyone seen him. He wasn't being dumb, he was thinking about himself, the law is dumb and the nursery is at fault. And it being a 2 year old or a 5 year old wouldn't make a damn difference in a court case.

 

[Famine]

It's actually the laws we have...

 

[Touring Mars]

he was thinking about himself

Exactly... maybe he had good reason to, but atleast he would have been afforded the chance to explain himself if it had been necessary - but by putting himself first rather than taking a chance to protect a 2 year old child who was in danger, it seems rather selfish to me.

 

[Swift]

Exactly... maybe he had good reason to, but atleast he would have been afforded the chance to explain himself if it had been necessary - but by putting himself first rather than taking a chance to protect a 2 year old child who was in danger, it seems rather selfish to me.

Yeah, it was selfish. But I don't blame the guy for a second. With the way that judges are going these days, you can be sued and found guilty for saving someone from suicide(Incredibles reference. ) Anyway, yeah, the guy was being selfish, but I think it's very justified. I probably would've stopped to see what was going on, but to be honest, if he did to much, he's probably be in jail right now.

 

[Danoff]

Like when a lady tripped over her own son in a Wal Mart, broke her leg because she tripped over her own son, who, mind you, is not Wal Mart's property, then she sued Wal Mart for millions of dollars because she tripped over her son, then she won, because the judge who approved that should be shot in the face. America at its best.

I'd like to see the case name and state where it was tried please.

 

[a6m5]

With the laws you have he would have been charged had anyone seen him. He wasn't being dumb, he was thinking about himself, the law is dumb and the nursery is at fault. And it being a 2 year old or a 5 year old wouldn't make a damn difference in a court case.

Unfortunately(and unbelievably), you do have a valid point, so I can't press my case any further, but let me just put you in that guy's shoes for moment:

While you are driving, you notice a 2-year-old walking on a sidewalk by himself with absolutely nobody around. Concerned, you pull over and pick up this 2-year-old. What is the first thing you do? I'm thinking that most people in this situation would start asking around, on the spot, "I just found this baby here" "Do you know who's it is?". After the police, kindergarden, or parents gets to the scene, I think the chances are extremely small that they would look to place you under arrest. And if they did, there would be witnesses that can testify that you were actually trying to find the kid's parents, not kidnapping him. I think the chance that judge will find you guilty is even smaller, but let's say that he/she did. If you cry out to the media, at least in the U.S., you'd be a instant hero. Goverment officials that had anything to do with your imprisonment and the 2-year-olds' parents would go in hiding and while everybody in the (at least local)media is talking about you as the man "who did the right thing".

At least, that's what I think.

 

[Omnis]

If I were a judge I would throw out the vast majority of civil cases, because most are stupid, a waste of time and/or frivolous. Like when a lady tripped over her own son in a Wal Mart, broke her leg because she tripped over her own son, who, mind you, is not Wal Mart's property, then she sued Wal Mart for millions of dollars because she tripped over her son, then she won, because the judge who approved that should be shot in the face. America at its best. There is no jusctice. Justice is too harsh; remember, we have to be fair and kill people in a way that they can't suffer from it.

Aren't you Belgian?

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Unfortunately(and unbelievably), you do have a valid point, so I can't press my case any further, but let me just put you in that guy's shoes for moment:

Now, imagine that there are no witnesses. Also, imagine that a nursery staff, horrified of losing a job, and/or a lawsuit, decided that it was the guy who opened the door to the nursery and took the kid away with the intent to drive off with him/her. If the timing is bad (i.e. the cops get there just at the moment that the nursery worker decides to point the finger, and there were no witnesses to validate the gentleman's story.) Things just got incredibly sticky and expensive for that gentleman from that point on.

 

[a6m5]

Now, imagine that there are no witnesses. Also, imagine that a nursery staff, horrified of losing a job, and/or a lawsuit, decided that it was the guy who opened the door to the nursery and took the kid away with the intent to drive off with him/her. If the timing is bad (i.e. the cops get there just at the moment that the nursery worker decides to point the finger, and there were no witnesses to validate the gentleman's story.) Things just got incredibly sticky and expensive for that gentleman from that point on.

We already know this. That's exactly why the man didn't rescue this child. That's why I was trying to point out how "small" that risk is. Pretty much none. Authority was never notified and the child drowned. Nursery staff could label you as the kidnapper, until the authorities finds that there were witnesses supporting your story, plus you have no prior criminal record. Not finding anybody to validate your story? Not likely in middle of a town. It's not like the nursery was couple of miles from the nearest home.

Again, that's my take on it. As I said in my last post, live4speed did make a good point, so I do admit I can't blame the man for not helping.

 

[Famine]

We already know this. That's exactly why the man didn't rescue this child. That's why I was trying to point out how "small" that risk is. Pretty much none. Authority was never notified and the child drowned. Nursery staff could label you as the kidnapper, until the authorities finds that there were witnesses supporting your story, plus you have no prior criminal record. Not finding anybody to validate your story? Not likely in middle of a town. It's not like the nursery was couple of miles from the nearest home.

Again, that's my take on it. As I said in my last post, live4speed did make a good point, so I do admit I can't blame the man for not helping.

Lower Brailes, where the nursery is.

In a town like that there will be NOBODY during the day. It's not on the way to anywhere so no-one will drive through it, there's no businesses of any description (bar the nursery and a post office) so no-one will drive to it, and the residents are likely retired or commuters (after all, why was a 2 year old girl at a nursery? Because the parents had gone somewhere else to work - though it transpires the mother was at home, which does rather beg a further question). Even if there had been anyone milling around, what would they have seen? A two year old girl wandering about on her own and a bloke stopping his van when he sees her and going over to her...

If I was a paedophile looking to kidnap a child, it's exactly the place I'd go to.

 

[James2097]

This is exactly why there is currently a massive downturn in the number of men becoming school teachers in Aus (especially preliminary school). Its really annoying but understandable too... Now loads of kiddies won't have a male role model they need at school...

GRRRRRR!

I still think I would make sure the kid was ok though. I would've had a good look around for the parents before approaching the kid, cause if the parents were around and I went up to their kid they'd be worried... However, if the kid was in immediate danger (and standing right near the water and only 2 years old, this would count as 'immediate danger'), I would help straight-away redardless of any potential laws...

Its way too easy to paint someone as a pedophile, apparently there are loads of bogus cases where someone just hates some guy and goes to the police telling them this guy did inappropriate things with kids... Easiest smear on someone you can do for how little evidence you need.

Its just screwy, and the sad thing is I'm not surprised.

 

[a6m5]

Thanks for more info on the town.

In a town like that there will be NOBODY during the day.

Obviously, I've never been there, but I have very hard time believing that you can't find anybody to ask. I've never lived in a small town, so maybe I'm not qualified to question that, but you make it sound like there are absolutely nobody around, including bypassers.

Well, you do sound like you know about small towns, plus you live in the same country, so I'm going to have to take your word for it.

James: I'm feeling the same pain.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for more info on the town.

Obviously, I've never been there, but I have very hard time believing that you can't find anybody to ask. I've never lived in a small town, so maybe I'm not qualified to question that, but you make it sound like there are absolutely nobody around, including bypassers.

Well, you do sound like you know about small towns, plus you live in the same country, so I'm going to have to take your word for it.

James: I'm feeling the same pain.

You could walk around a town like that for about 5 hours in the middle of the day and not see a single other person. Seriously.

 

[a6m5]

You could walk around a town like that for about 5 hours in the middle of the day and not see a single other person. Seriously.

Oh, come on now. That's enough already.

j/k

 

[Speedy Samurai]

If there were other people around, why did they not help the child? Instead, the one guy who admitted to seeing the child is under scrutiny.

 

[Jimmy Enslashay]

I can understand where this guy is coming from, and I do think that society has become incredibly over-sensitive. However, I still think this guy morally did the wrong thing. Sure, there is a slight chance (and, like the article stated, convictions of sexual offences relating to cases like this are extreme and uncommon) that you may be sued, convicted and charged, but would you rather save yourself from a court case, or save the life of a completely innocent two year old girl? Wouldn't you rather be taken to court for potentially saving a child's life and guiding them to safety, than let the little girl wander off and possibly picked up by a real pedophile?

His initial excuse is ridiculous. "I thought maybe her parents would be driving around". How can you just assume something so vague when a child's life is obviously at risk? I'm sorry, but this guy has his morals out of order in my opinion.

From a legal stand-point, yes, he did probably the better thing, as it is very possible that you would get less of a charge than actually attempting to help the child. This is what I hate about our society today.

The nursery shouldn't go unpunished, either. How do you, first, do something so unbelievably unsafe as to leave a door open in a nursery, and secondly, fail to keep an eye on a group of children in an area? If you can't do either of these things, you shouldn't work in a nursery.

Initially, the nursery is definitely at fault for this child's death. However, the gentleman could have easily saved her life, and avoided a catastrophe such as this one.

Incidents like this really upset and anger me. It's disgusting that things like this happen.

 

[Canadian Speed]

I can understand where this guy is coming from[...]However, I still think this guy morally did the wrong thing.

Morally, his first concern should be his familly... An accusation like this has been known to destroy famillies and marriages. His only fault is fessing up for something others likely did and thought as well. Also, with the little amount of people around, it makes it pretty hard to get an alibi. Sex crimes are terrible things... but people have gone over board with them as of late. In media as well as in legal proceedings.

In Ontario Canada

Example #1 A man and wife are having an argument, nothing has really happened, no physical violence has occured, but a neighbour has called because of the noise. Police arrive, place the man in custody and leave the scene... There is a zero tolerance policy for these kinds of things. completly and unterly stupid... But beacuse some guy whacked hiw wife in an argument. We have it...

Example #2 An 20 male and a 19 year old female couple break up. Both still living at home. Girl's dad loves the boyfriend like a son and gives the daughter a hard time about the break up saying that she's making a big mistake. Daughter, fed up of playing second fiddle says the male abused her sexually/physically. 20 year old male was a prospect police officer, no priors, no histopry what so ever of any kind of activities like this. People saw them together and said they were made for each other. Father beside himself, calls the cops. With one call had boyfriend arrested despite not having any proof what so ever but his daughter's word. Boyfriend lost his shot at a job in law enforcement, and any time of social/public service job. No jail time, but his rep is forever ruined just the same...

Example #3 A husband and wife are having a divorce. Wife was cheating and it looks like she's loosing the kids. Mom reports that father "touches" the kids. No priors, no history what so ever. Husband was a teacher. Looses job, looses kids and all rights to kids. Has to pay support...

Example #4 16 year old male and a 16 year old girl at a party. Both parties are having a bit to drink. Decide to go to girl's house and have sex. They do... it was willful on both sides. Boy brags about it to buddies. Girl feels shame and pulls the rape card out. Boy gets charged, no questions asked. Boy was lucky that girls best friend spoke at the trial and said that the girl had told her the day after that it was great and that she wanted to go out with him... blah blah blah. Boy get's off of charges and is still consideered a rapist by ignorant people. The girl received no kind of punishment for this what so ever, although the damages she caused the poor guy are considerable.

I could go on and on about this kind of stuff. But these kinds of things are far more common then they should be. It appears that what ever women want to claim in these kind of cases that it will always fall on the man to proove otherwise. I'm even going to go as far as to say that should a male worker at the daycare where the baby came from, aledge that the man was a kidnaper, it would carry far less weight then had a female worker claimed the exact same things word for word... We're all even in they eyes of the law and equal rights are equal to all parties

 

[Dave A]

I agree with Canadian speed, also the guy did not think the girl would be dead in the next five mins he wouldn't have known that she's have drowned if she fell, most people including kids fall into a pool and climb out a bit wetter than they were before. If he knew she's drown if she fell in, I don't doubt that he would have stepped in. Personally, I would have probably driven on myself, the system if ****ed up and the good people get crapped on too often. This man should have zero blame placed on him.