'The police can't even stick a loitering charge on this guy, and they've gone and ruined his life'
April 23rd, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In my March blog post Can Anybody Figure Out What on Earth This Guy Did Wrong?, I discussed the Victor Emmer case. According to one newspaper:
"After an El Dorado Hills mom reported observing a strange man speaking with her two children at each of three children's-story events, deputies arrested the man at his Folsom home. Victor Emmer, 49, was arrested March 13 on suspicion of loitering where children gather.
"'It's an odd charge,' said sheriff's Sgt. Jim Byers, noting the statute intends chiefly to protect school-grounds neighborhoods.
"'The family was at the Folsom Borders Books story-telling time, where he (spoke to one of the children), and for lack of a better term, he creeped the mom out. Then, a few days later at the El Dorado Hills Library story time, she saw him again striking up conversation with her children. And then, he does it again. We felt it justified a criminal complaint, she signed it and he was arrested...'
"When investigators heard a low bail amount set for Emmer, they explained to a judge that they believed it was too low. Now bail in the case is set at $100,000, and Emmer has bailed out of custody, Byers said.
"Investigators want to hear about any similar incidents, he said.
“'He is not a registered sex offender in Folsom or California and we have not found any information to indicate he has any prior offenses,' said Lt. Sheldon Sterling of the Folsom Police Department."
I wrote, "If anybody can explain to me what this guy did to deserve to be arrested and held on $100,000 bail, I'd love to hear it."
Colin, a Canadian reader, writes in with an update:
"Glenn, regarding your article on Victor Emmer, after Folsom and El Dorado police issued a public plea for assistance in building a case on this guy, a 'pattern of creepy behaviour', this has been the fruits of their labors -- Emmer not yet charged with loitering (4/8/08).
"The police can't even stick a loitering charge on this guy, and they've gone and ruined whatever life he's been trying to build in that community.
"Bad police work, and I really feel sorry for this guy who is stuck in the middle of a witch hunt."
Apparently many people in the area aren't happy about the way Emmer is being treated--see Widespread ire over decision to arrest Folsom man (Folsom Telegraph, 4/1/08). To write a Letter to the Editor of the Folsom Telegraph, the newspaper which has been covering the story, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.646 seconds.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
"If this were an elderly, very conservatively dressed woman talking to those children, I don't think she would have been tossed in jail with a $100,000 bail."
How sad, but how true. In this era of the perpetually offended, men who are not elderly are looked upon as potential perpetrators of terrible things. Society has prejudged us and does not trust us because of our presumed enhanced aggression and sex drive. As a class we are unfairly gender stereotyped in a way that NO other class -- be it gender, race, religion, nationality or otherwise -- would tolerate. This case is a perfect illustration of that.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
There are lots of articles, and lots of ways of writing them. At first glance it appears that the man was definitely wronged.
However, the original articles in the local paper have local commenters who say they saw the man and feel that the response was justified, including others who say he followed kids around, harassing them. And the woman who filed the report apparently did so only after they left the premises themselves (remember this was the second time it happened) but were followed by the fellow to the parking lot. Creeping people out is not a crime. Yet stalking and harrassment are, even without a pre-existing order. Do we know what happened? The police are being tight-lipped, which is as it should be. He will have his day, and we will find out if he is a witch-hunt victim, or a real witch. We can place our bets from our armchairs, but prejudging in the face of people who say they know the case, changes the odds a bit.
When police are able to use their discretion (as opposed to mandatory arrest policies for DV calls), they try to use it well. I, for one, will wait. before judging.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The undesired class (men) has been vilified, dehumanized, and scapegoated until public opinion is actually against said class simply for being a member of that class.
Not that we haven't seen this type of behavior before....
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
I understand people being concerned, but concerned should be miles apart from arresting someone.
So just by hanging out he gets arrested, and a woman can make a completely false allegation of rape and nothing is done to her.
We are really deteriorating as a society.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
And people wonder why I stopped volunteering my time with young men!!!
I used to coach Little League ball (one team to a 11-0 season) and volunteered time as a Cub Scout Pack Den Leader/Committee member, Ass't Pack Master and eventually Pack Master... now I avoid children at all costs.
When men can be arrested for merely talking to a child, is it really any wonder that men in America are increasingly choosing to avoid relationships???
Gunner Retired
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
And Jeana wonders (in the education thread) why men don't volunteer more with children....Seems pretty self-evident to me.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Lance,
I think the trick to being able to volunteer as a man is if you are specifically invited to do so by the school.
Volunteering when it has been requested is socially acceptible... but offering as a man to volunteer to help children is grounds for getting you strange looks.
Basically what it boils down to is the same situation men deal with in divorces... the women want them involved only to the extent that they are the ones making the request.
If they want you there and you aren't... you are the bad guy.
If you want to be there and they don't... you are the bad guy.
The only way it works out is if you are available to be there when they want for you to be.
It seems to me that women want to be the gatekeepers to all interaction with children... able to pick and choose when men should and when men shouldn't be interested in helping out. Frankly the entire situation has gotten ridiculous.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Jason writes: "Frankly the entire situation has gotten ridiculous."
Jason... you have a talent for understatement (although I would have chosen perhaps a harsher word?).
But discussing a mans volunteer efforts are wanted only when they're wanted... add to this they're only welcome for so long as said man appeases their egos and caters to their doctrine, elect to think for yourself and you'll find yourself uninvited real fast.
Take too long taking his leave and he'll find himself accosted with allegations of nefarious intent (readily concocted by paranoid fear mongering minds).
G_R
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Gunner,
I think you and I are talking about very different situations. The program I volunteer with does not require that anyones ego be appeased, or that we cater to any doctrine, or that we think the way we are told to.
We just visit the school at a preset time and location, run example experiments for the children... bring materials for them to run an "experiment" of their own that gets to the root of some of the key concepts being addressed... and answer questions along the way.
I don't have to do anything other than share the knowledge that I believe children of their age would be able to grasp... and ultimately the teacher understands that I know a hell of alot more than she does about the subject so she pretty much just sits there and does other work, only getting involved if there is some sort of problem (i.e. a kid being too loud or disruptive).
They want us to go there and they know that ultimately we are doing them a huge favor... if they were unappreciative or difficult we'd just pack it up and the program would be over.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Wow, and you wonder why there's so few men who look to a career in teaching children.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Andy said
"However, the original articles in the local paper have local commenters who say they saw the man and feel that the response was justified, including others who say he followed kids around, harassing them."
Fine, but if that's the case, they ought to be able to stick a charge on him.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Jason,
I think it's more a matter of observing microcosms and macrocosms. When I was coaching LL ball and leading cub scouts I heard the stories of the girls soccar teams, and what went on in the classrooms and on the busses with guys pawing at the kids.
Then I heard a few tales of Scout Leaders getting caught with hand down a kids pants. Then I heard a tale of a District Rep accused of such things. I knew the guy and my first thought was "wow, just goes to show you never can tell".
Then I was accused of molesting my son. Here's where it get sticky... I was about to absolutely reolutely irrefutably and unimpeachably PROVE I was 7,000 miles away on the alleged day and at the alleged time of the alleged molestation.
Yet I was denied exoneration.
I started to wonder about all these tales I had been hearing of men molesting children and really thinking them through with a critical eye. A lot didn't add up, and there were holes in the sordid tales of misdeeds perpetrated by the hand of a man.
So I started digging.
I started reading.
I started compiling cases and notes on cases.
I started archiving in files dozens of cases, which now contain hundreds of cases.
And yanno what?
There're commonalities which are easily missed until you step back and look at the totality of the paradigm. Certain patterns which emerge when you read case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case after... etc... of men accused of affornting/accosting/assaulting/attacking or otherwise not catering to a child or womans whimsies.
Funny the things you notice once you know what to look for.
Olde Pharte
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Good point, Lance.
One of the local papers in my town ran an informal poll last January -- "For men: If you saw an unattended young child crying in the middle of a mall, how would you react?" Sadly, less than HALF ot the respondents said they would go up to the child to help. 12% said they'd try to find a woman to help!
Why are men afraid to come forward? Well, we have this strange bias -- we don't like being accused of terrible things we didn't do!
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The problem I have with this is we are missing a greater point. Why is something like the "Playground Law" this speaks of constitutional? Here in NY, single men cannot go sit near a playgorund by law. Yet single women can. Why is it that one group of people (pedophiles) dictates the law for the majority? Can a person be arrested for simply sitting in a restaurant outside a bank (casing the bank)? It's a thought crime, and that makes me very very nervous not only for men, but for our country.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
". . . single men cannot go sit near a playgorund by law."
I'd like to see that law.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Women just feel a lot safer, and more in control of their environment (which they desire above all else), if men are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Men are in the unfortunate habit of giving women what they ask for. At least we still have the ability to prove ourselves innocent ..... Uh, wait a minute ....
April 23rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I don't believe there's a law as such, just the underlying assumption that he's a paedophile.
However I do know that British Airways won't allow a single man to sit next to an unaccompanied child, in case he molests them.
Yet the child is most at risk from it's mother, who is allowed to sit with them.
And there has never been a reported case of molestation on a plane...
While there has been a case of a mother abusing her children on a plane...
It's a wild world.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Malcolm. I agree. If he is a criminal, charge him (which I think about Jose Padilla, too); if not, let him go. I appreciate the ACLU's interest in the case, too. It sounds like he was picked up because of paranoia. If it was a frivolous arrest and the guy didn't do anything wrong, the police should be vilified. And ... ¡viva ACLU! If he still hasn't been charged, it's way waay too long.
If he is a fine fellow and victim of a paranoid witch hunt, by all means change police policy. But right now we're a bit short on facts, and I hesitate to judge. Particularly since we don't have the facts. The last article was April 8th, and today it's the 23rd. Maybe he was released after being fined for driving without a license by now. If he's been in jail with no charges since that time, it is a big deal. Even 7 days is a horrible punishment. But enough community people have stood up for the police that they have my benefit of doubt, for now. We'll keep reading.
In the meantime, here's a link for the other side of the argument.
http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/80541.html
And I'm not so law 'n' order as that author, either.
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
""'The family was at the Folsom Borders Books story-telling time, where he (spoke to one of the children), and for lack of a better term, he creeped the mom out. Then, a few days later at the El Dorado Hills Library story time, she saw him again striking up conversation with her children. And then, he does it again. We felt it justified a criminal complaint, she signed it and he was arrested..."
They "felt" that it justified a criminal complaint? How about law enforcement does it's job enforcing the law and not enforcing what they "feel" is the law? We don't arrest people for acting creepy.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Well he is a "man" he has to be guilty of something? Right??? LOL
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Jorge,
Of course he is... he's guilty of being born with balls instead of boobs.
Seriously though, in todays society no he truly doesn't have to be guilty of anything to come under suspicion of... something. And all it takes is a womans accusation to ruin his world and forever stigmatize him with the tag of "isn't he the guy they arrested for ____________?" (insert lurid crime).
G_R
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
And Jeana wants us to volunteer at schools...
April 24th, 2008 at 5:14 am
Rather than complain, it might be wise to look at how it got this way. If men supposedly run society (we did build the framework, at least), why have we allowed ourselves to become outcasts in that very society?
Blaming feminism is too pat an answer. There have to be other factors. The media?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Unfortunately there are people (men and women) who like to have sex with kids. Believe this or not, there are some perverted men out there. I worked as a prison gaurd for 5 years, and dealt with numerous pedophiles. This was a mens prison. If want a REAL education, go work in a prison. I also worked as a street cop for 3 years and I try to look at all sides of the issue. One thing I do know to be true is that there are 3 sides to the story. His, hers and the truth. I always look at things that way. Helps me keep an open mind. I found that if you put yourself in a position to screw things up, you probably will. That goes for myself. I got married young, had 2 kids, got divorced, pay child support and was STUPID enough to get married again. I didn't learn.
Personally, I don't talk to other people's kids. Unless I have too, and a lot of the time I do. I substitute teach and umpire Little League baseball, so I do interact with kids. But I get paid to. I have 2 teenage kids myself and I try to teach them what is acceptable and what's not.
As for this guy, I bet he doesn't do that again. Maybe his heart was in the right place, maybe it wasn't. Only he knows.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Supposed to read "If you want a real education......"
April 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Many have commented that "if a WOMAN had done the same thing, she would not have been arrested". I often do this "gender parity test" on things I am told, with illuminating results.
Try this one: If it had been the FATHER, instead of the mother, who had called the police about this guy, would they have been so swift to respond and arrest the alleged harrasser?
Or would they have told the dad to "stop bothering us and take care of it yourself, it's YOUR job to protect your kids" (that's the polite version!).
From all the depressing news on this site I'm reaching a conclusion that most real feminists should agree with: end obselete male chivalry (and the Neanderthal males who enforce it) if you want to improve access to equal treatment for men under the law.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
The answer is that men don't run society. I don't think we ever have.
Let's follow the rabbit hole for a few moments. To the guy who just got falsely accused of rape, what is the problem? The problem is the laws.
But eventually that guy will begin to question what caused those laws? Feminism. So the laws are a symptom and feminism is the cause.
That is the step most of the posters here are at (by my own opinion). But I think there's something more to it:
What allowed feminism to gain such great power and social acceptance? Biological preferential treatment of women. And that's why even if you made the laws the same and removed feminism, women still get lighter sentences than men (pre-feminist history will demonstrate this). So Biology is the cause and feminism is the symptom and the laws are the expression of that symptom.
But how do you fight biology?
You can't. The problem can't be cured. Our only hope, as men, is to keep the symptoms under control for as long as possible until the cause ultimately results in the downfall of our society.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Callum,
Never a case of molestation on a plane? Without doing any research I remember a Southwest Airlines case a man or 2 who kept molesting a stranger girl sitting next to them. When the plane landed, they were arrested, but they said, “Well, the parents were really to blame for sending her by herself.”
April 25th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Did you guys ever see that Predator show on MSNBC? Men who are into kids do strike up conversations with them and are very friendly with them. To say hello or talk for a few moments is one thing. To seek out children (or women) and follow them around is another. To do so with kids is especially weird.
We received notice a week ago of an older man walking past our school’s playground wearing nothing but a tiny bathing suit. He freaked out some parents and they called the police. The police said he didn’t commit a crime and so they couldn’t do anything. Our school is connected with a public park, with a walk way. There are condos on one side but no pool in the park. It is possible he was walking to a pool somewhere. But it is still weird that you do that in front of children. I think the police were right in not doing anything, but I would pay attention to someone who dresses that way in front of little kids. To say that it is just hysterical feminists shows that you don’t have little kids.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
jeana, he must be Canadian, or European. I live in Daytona Beach and you can always tell where somebody is from by the shorts, or bathing suits they wear. The tighter, smaller the suit, they farther from the US they are from. But, I wouldn't want some dude walking around the neighborhood wearing a marble sack. Not just so my kids wouldn't see it but mee too!
April 26th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I wrote, "If anybody can explain to me what this guy did to deserve to be arrested and held on $100,000 bail, I'd love to hear it."
It's a witch hunt and the new witches have male sex organs! He's a man pig and he's guilty as all get up!
April 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Tim Murray –Your observations are spot on. This is the main reason I say that places like schools and libraries are not safe zones for men. Hospitals are not especially safe for men either.
Andy S – In some ways, I agree with you, but I diverge in that the reverse is not often given the same consideration. Kids who harass and bother adults are rarely given the same treatment. I have lived in places where kids are free to make as much noise as they want and get in your face as much as they want and there is no recourse for the harassed adult.
We are so eager to protect kids, that protections for adults is minimal while protection of kids is off the charts.
Some men like kids and that freaks a lot of people out. Of course at the same time, we abuse men for not being more involved in the rearing of kids.
Damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t.
Lance – “And Jeana wonders (in the education thread) why men don't volunteer more with children....Seems pretty self-evident to me.”
Damned if ya do and damned if ya don’t( I know I repeat myself, but it cannot be said enough). Schools and libraries are UNSAFE ZONES for men (anywhere large numbers of supposedly educated women congregate is an unsafe zone for men).
Jason - “It seems to me that women want to be the gatekeepers to all interaction with children... able to pick and choose when men should and when men shouldn't be interested in helping out. Frankly the entire situation has gotten ridiculous.”
And that is what I call the problems with matriarchy (or formalized female power centers – like child rearing). Many Feminists love to discuss the bad points of patriarchy (while refusing to consider that patriarchy has any positive aspects), but that is not hypocrisy cuz similarly, they also wish to discuss the positive aspects of matriarchy while refusing to admit any of the negative aspects of matriarchy.
Gunner Retired - “they're only welcome for so long as said man…caters to their doctrine, elect to think for yourself and you'll find yourself uninvited real fast.”
Ju’ got that right brother gunner…as a former teacher, men’s notions of educational technique are very unwelcome. You’d better do it there way or the highway (or be suspect if not automatically guilty of whatever they have suspected you of…
Based upon Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I dared to contrive a way to make school fun much of the time (this was highly suspect as everyone knew school was supposed to be dull and boring and I had no kids myself which made me more suspect). I was highly suspect cuz kids where returning from school reportign that they enjoyed going to school (one of the board of directors knew these kids weren't learning as much as they could be learning if i had been using if every moment of school was perpetually boring and monotone. It was later found out I had been trying to avoid many of the repetitive and thoguhtless drill and kill excercises that make so many parents happy cz they help to fill time and make everyoen think that higher level learnign was occurring cuz they had daily workboosk to fil in that took little time to grade cuz they were mindless drivel anyways that challenged the kinds in the least and exercised their brains even less.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Mike Lordi- 1984 (with the thought police) combined with the scarlet letter (mostly for men to wear the scarlet letter) and do not forget the witch trials (where we now see the attempt by some to re-instate the death penalty for child rape-the only non-murder crime that can get the death penalty)….You won’t need to be guilty to get the death penalty, the hysteria and the witch hunt mentality will see to that.
keep in mind that in the original witch hunts, the accusers were mostly women then, too.
You’d be surprised to see how much of the constitution has been thrown out the window when it comes to men’s rights around women and kids. Men would out and out change the constitution if they didn’t like it. What women do if they do not like it is they just get the courts to overrule it or ignore it (via precedent), but never change it (that would be too obvious and take too much work).
Bill C – Yeah, I agree. As Hilary has said, it takes a village to raise a child, excluding non-related males. Seriously, I would agree if you said he should not hang with kids behind closed doors, but having been in public places, this kids ought to have been pretty safe. Men who do not have kids are presumed to a greater danger than those who do have kids.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:35 am
jeana – I hope you are as concerned about the many women who dress scantily around kids (I have seen enough of them to realize that they are not given the same treatment as men).
I can almost guarantee you that every guy here has seen that show on MSNBC. They not only catch the bad guys, but they also encourage and feed the hysteria (encouraging us to think that these guys lurk behind every bush and under every rock).
We guys on this site are happy to protect children, but we dare to balance that with the need to avoid false convictions in the presence of massive hysteria and a break down of constitutional protections. The original founders of the constitution saw that while it was a bad thing for the guilty to go free, they wanted to balance that with the problems of falsely convicting the innocent (of course that was under the old patriarchal system). The new matriarchal system would rather the innocent go to jail (and have to register as a sex offender for life and possibly even get the death penalty wrongly )than have the guilty go free.
Just cuz we men are concerned about innocents people being wrongly and falsely accused and convicted does NOT mean we are unconcerned about those who do commit these crimes (thank you Jeana for not maligning us thusly).
HAVE you Jeana heard of the fells acre daycare scandal? Have you heard of the many other ritual satanic pedophile rings that weren’t? These cases were easier to disprove after the fact, but the next stage of the hysteria/witch hunt has been far more insidious because it targets individual men for whom it is much harder to prove their innocence.
Starting in 1984, the office of Middlesex County DA Scott Harshbarger announced that Violet Amirault, her daughter Cheryl Amirault LeFave, and her son Gerald Amirault, owners of the successful 20-year-old Fells Acres day-care center in Malden MA, had suddenly converted it into a factory of child pornography and the most horrifying ritual abuse of helpless toddlers. Juries were persuaded to convict the Amiraults in 1986 (Gerald) and 1987 (Violet and Cheryl), due exclusively to the coached testimony of 3- and 4-year old children. No physical evidence or adult witness for any of the charges was ever found, despite the fact that the day-care center had always been open to a steady stream of unannounced parents and tradesmen. Starting in 1991, psychologists demonstrated how the leading questions used in cases like Fells Acres can brainwash child witnesses, but the Massachusetts legal establishment has, despite the valiant efforts of three Middlesex County trial judges, refused to correct a scandal.
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/fells.html
in most of these day care injustices, the right to be faced with your accuser was eliminated (with tragic results)...
Jeana - You likely know little about the Mass witch trils of the 17th century and how close they were to the late 20th century day care trials (not just in geographic prximity, but other apsects of the case like the supposed satanic rituals that the kids accused their teachers of performign and no evidence was ever found.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Testimony in the cases included stories of Amirault dressed as a clown and raping children with knives, and ritual slaughter of animals.
He was ultimately released from the Bay State Correctional Center on Friday, April 30, 2004, 18 years after his conviction. His sister and mother, Cheryl Amirault LeFave and Violet Amirault, were convicted of related charges in a separate trial, and both released from prison in 1995.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Amirault
I wonder if Jeane will notice the sentencing discount given the women in this case (two women were convicted along with the one man - so it could be argued that the man was not treated to anything special. Of course, he stayed in jail about nine years longer than any of the women, but if we ignore that discepancy, we can suggest that men got no worse treatment than women.
He served 18 years in jail for crimes he did not commit....
Also note.....In 2002, then-Acting Governor of Massachusetts Jane Swift refused to commute Amirault's sentence, despite a unanimous vote in favor of his release by the state's parole board. This was during HER political campaign to remain in office.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Bill C and Jeana are showing their anti-male sexism here. So in the U.S., where men are oppressed more than we are in just about every other country, men are supposed to wear their shorts and bathing suits long and baggy, but in Europe, where men are afforded more freedom, men wear skimpy bathing suits? Why is that? Why is it okay for women, and only women, to wear short and skimpy shorts and bathing suits here in the U.S.? What if it were a WOMAN walking by little kids wearing just a skimpy bikini? Should SHE be arrested and branded a "pedophile" if she does so? Women enjoy the freedom to walk around in public wearing skimpy bikinis and no one complains, and no one accuses THEM of being a pedophile when they do, so why do Bill C and Jeana advocate that MEN who do this be treated differently from women who do this?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
maybe everybody is looking at this the wrong way... if mom was suspicious of this mans behavior around her children why did she keep leaving them alone where he could approach them?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I know this is an old thread, but I just had to give my 2-cents. I am in total agreement with the issue of male volunteers. I used to volunteer for everything my older son was interested in - Football, Basketball, Baseball, Cub Scouts, etc. Never had a problem. Now, with my younger son, I can no longer just volunteer - even with my impecable references. Society has become so litigious and paranoid that volunteers are being asked to complete 10+ page applications and submit for background checks with the local Police Dept. - at our own expense! This process is more time consuming than applying for loan, apartment or a job - and, as a firm believer in privacy laws, I refuse to do it. Needless to say, I am now a very proud parent (not coach), cheering my lungs raw in the bleachers. GO TEAM!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature 1970.
In his book "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovic" when Ivan arrives in the Siberian prison camp, the other prisoners ask him:
"How long are you in for?" Ivan responds, "10 years."
"What are you in for?" Ivan responds, "Nothing."
Other prisoner: "That is a capitalist lie !! The penalty for nothing is only 5 years!"
All the prisoners laugh at the joke.
In 1970 we thought it was only true in Russia.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Does anyone know if he is still being held, or if he has been charged and what for?
June 15th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
"Did you guys ever see that Predator show on MSNBC? Men who are into kids do strike up conversations with them and are very friendly with them. To say hello or talk for a few moments is one thing. To seek out children (or women) and follow them around is another. To do so with kids is especially weird."
Sorry, but anyone who cites sensationalized, financially and politically motivated trash television as a credible source of anything is, in my book, too brainwashed to have a say in anything. The bottom line is, we have laws, and locking someone away based on the "creepy" feeling someone got from a man speaking to their kids is, well, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You may feel it's justified, but so have all of the witch hunters throughout history. And sadly, the woman who freaked out seeing a man talking to her kids, has probably been viewing some of those same shows you are citing to support your claim of "whats out there." Even worse is a system where overzealous politicians who are dying to capitalize on this ignorance would abuse their power and hold this man, absent of any real criminal actions, just to appease to the simple minded lemmings whose ideology and world view is defined by what is appearing on their television.
At some point, all this sickness becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If you think there is a pedophile around every corner, looking to grab your child, there will be. Buying into this hype and paranoia makes society that much sicker, and even places you in the leagues of those you hate and live in fear of.