ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

General News

CA: Dad tackles person convicted of sex offense who exposed himself in front of 5-year-old daughter

A brave dad tackled and duct-taped a person who is listed on the sex offense registry who broke into a California home and exposed himself in front of his sleeping 5-year-old daughter, according to a new report.

The man started creeping around outside the home in Grayson around 5 a.m. Tuesday, KOVR reported.

“He went and knocked the door, he tried to open the door, peeking through the window, trying to see and he was showing his private parts around the windows,” said the little girl’s sister, Ceci Ramirez, translating for her mother, Martha Zepeda.

He repeatedly said “I love you” as he touched himself, according to Ramirez.

The girls’ father warned the man to leave — to no avail.  The family learned the man — identified by the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office as 39-year-old Diaz — had broken the screen of the kitchen window and entered the home, according to the report.

At some point, Diaz entered the little girl’s room.

“The man turned on the lights and that’s when my sister woke up and she got scared,” Ramirez told the outlet.

But then the girls’ father jumped into action — tackling Diaz and pulling him out of the house.

Security footage obtained by KOVR shows the family outside as he pinned Diaz down. He can be heard duct-taping Diaz to keep him from fleeing as they called 911.

Diaz was arrested and hit with charges including child endangerment, peeping and prowling, the local outlet reported, citing the sheriff’s office.

He was previously convicted of assault with intent to commit rape in 2009 and released in 2018, according to California’s Megan’s Law website.

Ramirez told the local station she is proud of her father for protecting the family — but is fearful after the incident.

Security footage obtained by KOVR shows the family outside as he pinned Diaz down.

“I was pretty scared because I thought the man would’ve taken and kidnapped [my sister],” she said.

Zepeda said her younger daughter is afraid but otherwise OK.

A next-door neighbor who only gave her first name, Erica, said she is also concerned.

“We’re girls and we didn’t know if it was going to happen to us,” she told the station. “It could’ve been us.”


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If you are on the registry then guess what…in the public’s eye this guy’s crime is something WE ALL did. That’s how the public is going to perceive it.

Hats off to the dad. This guy should be put in a secure facility. He obviously has issues. Unfortunately we the 99% will have to suffer for this dipshit’s actions while he enjoys three squares a day, a nice bed and medical attention. I guess no matter what level you are on, there’s someone lower. This guy might be the lowest though.

I’m not entirely sure how you would go about classifying the flasher as potentially “the lowest”. Where does that put violent rapists? And then, what about murderers and manslaughterers? Finally, there are ACSOL members whose sex convictions of times past include aggravated rape, human trafficking with intent for commercial production. Some of them regularly comment on this site.

Hitting home: We went to jail. We’re on the registry. What does that make us?

What perturbs me most about your comment is that you sound like the common fearmonger citizen who would ‘kill’ any sex offender just because he’s a sex offender against a minor. We’re people who made a mistake, not “dipshits”. We’re trying to serve our time in peace. We’re hoping to not reoffend again. Your language is not supporting our efforts to become productive citizens again.

Last edited 23 days ago by AC

Way too long is right, the guy is a dipshit. He chose to reoffend. Your comment about “we are people who made a mistake”, well this guy has now made multiple mistakes and obviously has a problem. How many chances does he need before he’s deemed dangerous in your eyes?

And speak for yourself…i did no jail time for my misdemeanor offense as some others probably didnt receive jail time either, so dont use a blanket statement like, “we did jail time,” as though all of our offenses are equal.

I never said our offenses are equal (I’m not that simple-minded.); just that we all share a common general experience; whether it’s jail or “jail”.

My point was besides how many times a person’s offended and re-offended. The language you’re using to isolate him (‘Diaz’) is exactly the kind of language that’s being used on us. That makes you just as culpable as people who wish nothing more of us because we’re people convicted of commiting a sex offense.

Last edited 22 days ago by webmaster

I’m using language to isolate him because this posting is specifically about him, is it not? Am I supposed to include other offenders when discussing this guy’s crime? This guy is scum…he already did time for a bad sex offense. One time, sure, call it a mistake in judgement. But to get out after serving several years and then choose to commit another sex offense? That’s no longer just a mistake…it indicates a real problem with this guy.

Bringing up how all of us are just trying to move on with our lives has nothing to do with this guy. The majority of us probably are living right, but nobody said anything about anyone other than the offender in this article. How you spun it into that is perplexing.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I really am.

Sex offenders ex-convictions come in all shapes and forms. Some are more serious than others. Some offenders re-offend. Others do not. I never denied this. I’m reiterating it now.

Some of them re-offend because of how society has treated them, making them feel like they have no other choice. The language that you’re using to describe him may be facilitating that.

Mr. Daniel Diaz may have re-offended now, because it’s “a real problem” for him. (I’m not discounting that possibility.) It’s possible that, 15 years down the line, he wouldn’t re-offend once more. The fact that he was ever called a scum because of a problem he didn’t know how to fix himself, however, would stay a scar for the remainder of his life.

The fact that you even isolate him at all makes you just as guilty as society, who wanted to isolate us for the bads we’ve done. I’ve made that point already, and yet, I’m still not getting that through to you.

And, perhaps I won’t. At this point, I’m going to tip my hat and come to the resolution that we simply don’t agree. Fair?

Last edited 22 days ago by AC

Definitely agree to disagree…because if you feel that this guy may have broken into a house and exposed himself to a little girl because of society, then yeah, we will never agree. So be it…not everyone thinks the same, no harm in that.

Equal or not, you’re still considered a “sex offender” to the public and lumped with everyone else, so the nature of said infraction doesn’t matter to the public. That said, it’s guys like the one in the article that make our fight such an uphill battle. Doubtless, something is wrong with him, but then the public thinks all of us have mental issues……..

Well then, good thing my requirement to register was removed some time ago. And personally, I never really cared what society thinks, because I was never listed on the website and was able to fly under the radar, thankfully. Not really sure why you brought that up though, when what society thinks, had nothing to do with my comment. Unless, of course, you were just looking to take a jab?

I don’t agree that all of society doesn’t care what the nature of the crime is. There are plenty of people who know how to think for themselves and how to differentiate between criminals such as a persom who committed forced rape and a Romeo/Juliet type of person who is forced to register. For the sheep who just follow the fear, sure, but that’s far from all of society.

Sorry, but I agree with Way too long that this guy is a dipshit, and also maybe stupid or mentally disturbed. Sure, there are those who have done worse, but I don’t know how that makes what this guy did any less stupid.

By the way, how come you know the conviction records of all the ACSOL members?

I’m sorry if I miscommunicated. I really don’t know anyone’s record history. Promise. (Unless you told me; which no ACSOL member has.)

There’s no doubt what this man did was disgusting and appalling.

All I’m saying is, please re-consider your language. If you don’t like to be called a “dipshit” by society (I know you don’t), think what you’re doing to another sex offender; of whom you could have been in the shoes of.

Sorry for the miscommunication. I don’t know anyone’s record. I’m simply intuitively aware that, amoung us ex-offenders who reply to this website, there is possibly someone who has been convicted of these serious crimes. It could be that there’s no one convicted of those who are here now. I’m confident there has been and that there will be. That’s all I was saying.

There’s no doubt that Mr. Diaz was in the terrible wrong here. I don’t deny that for a single second. My only point was the insensitive language being used. We’re calling him a “dipshit”, when in fact, society calls us just that for crimes we’ve committed. We all did a horrible deed, we’re paying for it. We’re trying to be upright moral citizens again, and to not repeat ourselves of our past; even if some of us have repeated our offenses; perhaps several of times. I wouldn’t know who, but that isn’t my point. Calling us “dipshits” disrupts our rehabilitation process, because it re-enforces the stigma that we’re trying to heal from. So then, why are we also doing it for another sex offender, when we don’t like it being done to us?

I was only trying to approach this subject matter in the best of my fair, level-headed manner was all. Wasn’t trying to give Mr. Diaz a free pass for his undeniably bad deeds.

Only, this guy isn’t trying to heal, which is why he was called a dipshit.

You don’t know that.

Sure, there could be many other reasons he is called a dipshit………..🤔

Ok, how about, his actions show otherwise…better?

There is a point where I will not support another registrant. This guy is that point. A repeat offender is not worth supporting. Anyone can make one judgmental error ( although attempted rape isn’t exactly what I would classify as an error in judgement ), but to continue your ways after experiencing the consequences is just f****** ( your welcome moderator) stupid. Basically , fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I didn’t make a mistake. I committed a felony.

Huge difference. A mistake is something you didn’t know was wrong or you didn’t mean to do. That’s not what happened in my case, and most likely not in most of our cases.

Minimizing only makes things worse, for the person doing the minimizing and for others.

Sorry to come down hard on this one sentence in your comments, but if we’re going to be pushing for change in the rules and laws that affect us, I really think we have to approach things from a point of reality. The reality is that we didn’t just ‘make a mistake’, we committed a crime. Taking responsibility for the fullness of what we did goes a long way in helping others see that we can in fact change.

The guy in this article? Clearly he isn’t even at the point of realizing ‘he made a mistake’ yet. Long way to go for him, sadly. Luckily the father took action before his girls were more seriously hurt.

@Worried, I disagree but I think you might be misinterpreting what many of us might mean by mistake I agree with the idea of what you are getting at with minimization though. Mistake had a pretty broad range of meanings when used alone and when one person says it, it might be minimization but another, it might not depending on their meaning. For example, one person might say they made a mistake and mean that the only mistake is that they got caught. I don’t agree that a mistake must be accidental or unknowing and by definition it’s not. The definition of mistake is “an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong”. The way I see it is that at least for me, I made a mistake by committing a crime. The crime was not the really the mistake but the decision to go through with it was. The crime was what it is, a crime and a rather serious one. In other words, I made a mistake in my decision making process and as such committed my offense. (I don’t say felony only because mine was a felony but deemed misdemeanor after my probation completed so I’ll use the more general term of crime).

I see the fine line you’re trying to draw here, but I don’t think it’s necessary. There’s no need to preface “I committed a crime” with “I made a mistake.” Just put it out there and start with the real deal – the crime. The mistake business is just an effort to soften things up. When I add phrases like that to what I’m saying it’s usually to try and make it not sound as bad to others.

What I’ve learned is that to most people on the other side of this, the victims and their families, there is little to nothing we can say which helps. But there is lots we can say that hurts, and adding words to our statements intended to soften the sound of what we did is one of the things which adds to the hurt.

It’s really hard for us to successfully advocate for ourselves if the words we choose are adding to someone else’s pain by coming across as minimizing.

Maybe the “softening up” is in fact the real deal.

Society, for one, definitely treats our felonies and misdemeanors more horribly than what they actually may be: we’re the “worst of the worst”, as if we’re some kind of be-all-end-all terror in the world.

We can use the word “mistake” amongst ourselves, because we know that’s what it is; unless it isn’t, which again, we would know.

Families and victims will never see it that way; you have that correct. If we don’t think unto ourselves that way, we’re only giving into their superstition and irrational fear. That solves nothing, if we were to be the educators of this subject matter.

Last edited 22 days ago by AC

I agree with you: we all need to take responsibility; whether we call it a mistake or a felony. I never implied that a mistake couldn’t be serious. A felony is an egregious mistake. In this case, it’s merely tomato versus tomahto.

It was merely the insensitive language used to describe Diaz. “Dipshit” is exactly how society sees us. I know for a fact that, if an article was written about ACSOL and its group of “diptshits”, I guarantee you 120% we would be angrily joining as one to rash-rant about that article. We would espouse how society’s petty attitude like that is exactly what shaped the sex offender registry to begin with and what not.

If we don’t like it when society calls us that, why should we be doing it to other sex offenders who could just be like one of us?

Last edited 23 days ago by AC

You’re missing the point, friend. This guy is a dipshit, not because he’s a registrant, but because of the idiotic actions of his crime that was posted, as well as, reoffending when he’s just recently been let out for his previous crime.

You’re equating one for all and thinking that by calling one registrant a bad name, it means we’re calling all of them the same.

I haven’t missed your point. I’ve addressed it several of times.

Many to most of us had past actions which were idiotic; some more serious than others but are still idiotic nevertheless.

Again, look at where we are today.

Agree, many of us made idiotic decisions. But the original poster wasn’t calling him a dipshit simply because he committed a crime. I think his reasoning for calling him a dipshit, as was mine for agreeing, is because he (1) reoffended when he was given a second chance at being free (As much as we can call registrants having a second chance) and (2) the extremely weird details of his actions as written in the article. Nothing more, nothing less…I think you’re reading too much into him being called a dipshit.

I realize some are question the validity of it, which is why I included, “as written in the article”.

What did you do if dont mind me asking??

“Previous arrest/ conviction for assault with intent to commit rape”. There! Does that satisfy your requirements? Might try reading the article before jumping right to the comments. Save a lot of time sounding foolish.

I don’t see how that nullifies anything I said: that the language we use to isolate one offender makes us just as guilty as people who want to do just that to us; isolate us as pariahs in society.

So far, no one has convinced me of my alleged foolishness; only angry responders who can’t seem to see multiple possibilities; namely that Diaz’s re-offense could be due to a sense of hopelessness that stigma and shaming has caused him.

(With no intended sarcasm) I can only apologize for being “too forgiving”, I suppose, but I won’t be doing that. Forgiveness and mercy, especially for someone who probably needs help, not scorn, because he is not in control of himself and, hence, of his downward spiral into reoffense, is what I believe will help create a rehabilitated citizen.

Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge the horrendousness of an egregious crime for what damage it has done. Just that we shouldn’t leave that as the end of the conversation.

Am I ‘wearing rose-tinted glasses’? Perhaps. Do I hope that such ‘unrealistic’ outlook helps cease further re-offending? Absolutely.

Last edited 22 days ago by AC

There are many studies that found a feeling of nothing to lose, stress, and psychological issues are potential triggers to recidivism.

“Research has shown that life stress and feeling that they have nothing to lose is a leading cause for a person listed on the registry to reoffend, meaning that, in many cases these laws can be self-defeating in preventing sex crimes.”

Criminal (In)Justice: A Critical IntroductionBy Aaron Fichtelberg

Thanks for the reference.

I agree. Kudos to this dad, but I don’t agree the peeper is the among the lowest. Not by a long shot. I know my conviction is pretty dam low and I wish to God I got caught for merely looking in windows when my life was circling the drain some 30+ years ago.

This thread reminds me of discussions I heard in prison. Inmates constantly talked about other inmates and how their crimes were somehow worse. It made them feel better about themselves to do that. “Well, I’m not as bad as ….” That is why sex offenders often get beat up.

The bottom line is that we all did something to get on the registry or we wouldn’t be on the registry. I apologize to anyone who is truly innocent and just snatched off the street and charged with a sex crime. Some of the crimes are heinous and some are not. Some people were punished excessively, some were not.

I don’t care if this guy was deranged, on meth or just a slow learner. He did a disservice to his young victim, her family, himself, everyone on the registry and all of society. The article emphasized that he was a “sex offender.” That will be the takeaway for most readers. Every registered person who reoffends reinforces the false stereotypes of all registrants and creates irrational fear in the public.

We can only do two things. First don’t reoffend. Second try to incrementally educate people.


Funny just think if there was not so much stigma attached to not only being on this dang list , and made easy to get the “help” , and that “Help” in no way be punishment/shaming he very well may not have been out there creeping , punishment is not meds , its the (opposite) a little understanding about other peoples issues is a strength for all that truly care about meaningful change , and yep helping “all” live a life of dignity , I feel for all in this article , they are all victims to a system not geared to help , just punish and keep the doors rolling and allowing people to live inside their tortured mind with no true freedom

Disagree. This guy is insane or was big time tweaking, probably both, during this incident. No way the “public” is going to equate him with every registrant. The tiered registry passed because the public realized not all are equal. This is a good example.

“The father dragged the intruder outside. Zapeda said he tried to escape two times, but instead of running away from the scene he would try to run back into the house.

Read more here:

That’s crazy. The father is a hero who kept is cool yet took care of business.

And we can comment at that site.

The link doesn’t work.

At any rate, it sounds like you have a lot of pain yourself, so you’re trying to compare yourself to someone ‘who had done worse than’ you. (That is in reference to your quote, “The tiered registry passed because the public realized not all are equal. This is a good example.”)

Some of us, having been convicted (rightfully?) of a sex crime, have done something very inappropriate, unacceptable, “weirdly twisted”, etc., in order to have landed us where we are today. This man sounds just like another one of us: someone who potentially is good but made a horrible error in judgement; perhaps, as you suggested, because his judgement was shrouded.

He is not an extreme example that is different from us, especially considering that some ACSOL members who comment on this website would fall under California’s tier 3.

I, too, respect the father’s protection of his children. He did a good thing for his daughters. However, that’s no reason to isolate a sex offender as something ‘worse than ourselves’, when in fact he fits right into our cushy lil’ ex-offender’s group. We made a mistake, and we’re trying to correct our past. He can, too.

Last edited 23 days ago by AC

I dont know your crime, but to say this guy’s basically the same as everyone else on the list is ridiculous. Sure, all registrants share one thing in common, which is being on the registry. However, despite what you might think, their are different levels of crimes with some being worse than others. This guy did several years in jail for a serious offense and then got out and somewhere along the line decided to reoffend. Not all of us will accept your notion that we’re all the same, because we’re not.

Not all crime is equal, therefore not all offenders are equal.

And before you accuse me of being like all the fear mongers, I believe in second chances. I dont, however, have sympathy when you didnt learn with the first chance and go on to reoffend.

With that having said, let me ask you a follow-up question: if he were to show up in one of our ACSOL groups, would you shun him? Ask that he be exited?
I’m merely curious.

Not at all. He’d be welcomed just like anyone else. I think you’re missing my point about why I’m down on this person. I would venture to guess that most of us would do anything to get to have a do over and erase our past indiscretion. Which is why I sit here thinking what is this guy thinking?! He’s either not very bright, has a screw loose, or dangerous. (Or all of those)

Coming down on this guy isn’t because he’s a registrant…it’s because of his latest actions.

His latest actions are likely due to certain issues which accompany his being a registrant.

(And then, as it later came to light, this article may not even be telling the whole truth.)

My point being is: if he ever comes into our group, there’s going to be reference that you called him all of these things. That’s not helping him. I really don’t think that’s helping his rehabilitation process.

Last edited 22 days ago by AC

For one, I haven’t called him, “all of these things.” One of the first poster’s in this thread called him a dipshit and I agreed. To me, his actions warrant being called out and not sugar coating it.

Two, when he gets out of jail for his latest offense, he sure as hell better have thicker skin than allowing someone calling him a dipshit to hinder his rehabilitation. He’s a big boy and committed a big boy crime, so he needs to put those big boy pants back on and accept that he’s not going to be coddled through his rehabilitation.

I respect your position on this.
Though, I do have to kindly ask: if Mr. Diaz were to come to an ACSOL support session, what would you do or say to him? Would you ask him to be exited? Would you show him an extremely coldl shoulder right in front of him?
I’m merely curious.

I responded to your first one, which this one asks a bit more so I’ll add to my response. I would not shunt him, nor ask for him to be removed. I would treat him with the same respect I would want from anyone. I will say, however, if he were someone I knew personally, I would be asking him what the heck was he thinking. He just ruined his “second chance”. Hence the name calling. It’s like when someone says or does something dumb and someone else replies, “good going, Einstein”.

The post was a duplicate. I didn’t realize that my first wasn’t deleted after all, and so I accidentally re-wrote it again. Turns out that the moderators simply accepted it much later, after the re-write.

Last edited 22 days ago by AC

The link works and I copied pasted from the link. Maybe you have settings blocking it. Or find another news source to verify.

This thread started with comments trying to equalize offenses and registrants all taking the blame for what this guy did. That is what I was replying to by merely pointing out the public would not equate everyone. I stand by that. While I think there is more fear mongering now due to politics, like QAnon, it has not come to the point of demolishing the Tiered registry because of what this guy did. The public sees differences. That’s all.

Is it possible there is some divide and conquer in the air?

Thanks for clarifying what you mean. I think I might have lead astray what you were originally speaking on, so we weren’t necessarily in the same boat. My answer was influenced by a strong of conversation above, which spoke on a slight tangent from what you’re specifically addressing.

Also, it might just be the browser I’m using. I tried copy and paste as you suggested, but still no luck. o.O

The login link on the site goes to a facebook login. Those on the registry get kicked off that social medium. I don’t have an account and consider social media a waste of time. However what I would have posted is:

Kudos to the father for detaining this guy who is obviously mentally ill. Two points are worth making. He is definitely not typical of those on the sex offender registry so it is a mistake to generalize.  More than 95% of those on the registry will never reoffend. The second point is that the sex offender registry didn’t prevent this guy’s reoffending. Perhaps we should question whether the registry should even exist.


I didn’t realize there was a sign-in there. It didn’t stop me until testing it now. That is a good comment, but it looks like you’d have to register first. Doesn’t have to be Facebook.

Yes. I just tried again and pressing the register button takes one to a Facebook login. However, the author is Erin Tracy and her email address is

I’m curious if the offender lived next door, or on the block where the victim/family lived. Or if he lived in the immediate neighborhood. Megan’s Law would theoretically have provided the victim’s family with a forewarning that this dangerous offender lived in close proximity, and posed an immediate risk. Therefore, the father would have been ‘on notice’ that this dangerous person could potentially do what he did at any time. What precautions did the father take? Was there no active neighborhood watch?

Seems that the theory of Megan’s Law failed in this instance. No?

I agree that this guy was pretty insane at the time of his acts. Likely psychotic, possibly as a result of substance abuse, possibly not. Certainly, he belongs in a locked facility until such a time that he “reasonably” no longer poses a risk to the community…which may be quite some time in the future.

I get what you’re trying to prove with the whole registry not working as intended…and I agree. But to question what precautions the father took is some real twisted stuff in your mind. They were in their own home. The offender broke into the home to commit his crime. This isn’t a case of negligence where the parents let their kid outside, unsupervised. Give your head a shake…people should be able to feel safe in their own homes. That offender has serious issues and it shouldnt be turned on the victim in any way.

Danton…If you “got what I was trying to prove with the whole registry not working as intended” – then you certainly should have understood that this was my entire point, and nothing more. And I in no way was blaming the victim (which is beyond ridiculous). Please re-read my post and view it in that vein. I will chalk this up to you not fully understanding.

Ok, I’ll accept that I misunderstood your post then. My apologies.

Bullcrap reoffenders who give us all a bad name. Exposing himself to a 5 year old girl? Dude would of had a lot more wrong with him if I was around.

Matthew, you just made the point that all these comments are over the top, One person with a previous sex offense reoffends and its like everyone one the registry is gonna reoffend, I read 4 different news articles in the past ten days involving a child being kidnapped and killed by neighbor, truck driver impregnating a 13 yr old / in Kentucky a police rescues a child kidnapped riding her bike in her neighborhood, The news says nothing about being done by a person with a past sexual offense in these articles, so Im assuming they never committed a sex crime before. This guy listed pn the registry, reoffend’s and the news article makes it out like this is why the registry is so important , where in all the other news articles there’s no questioning the false safety thats pushed on Americans that if a person is not on the registry that they are Safe humans around children and a person on the registry shouldnt be living in any society because there life consists of what child will be there next victim. Wake Up America / The registry is making society less safe then more safe for all. Maybe if they used all that money on treatment and helping people readjust into society the proper way , this guy may have not done this act. I rescue dogs and I can tell you one fact / No dog became a better dog without support / love and rewarding good behavior. You cant beat / chain up in backyard with no shelter/ not interact with them and expect they will be a good dog. Save Families- Banish The Registry not the American people in society that are listed on the Registry.

Last edited 22 days ago by webmaster

I’m certain the Hit Lists encouraged this guy to commit this recent crime. That is what the Hit Lists do. Prevent no crime and encourage more. Truly idiotic social policy.

You’re certain, huh? So, it couldn’t be because he’s just a bad person with bad urges? It’s amazing how so many people on this site try to justify people’s crimes instead of just accepting that some people are bad or have problems.

Yes, absolutely certain. In fact, I’d say there isn’t a shred of doubt.

You sure do jump to wild conclusions, don’t you? I’m not justifying any crime. Crime is crime. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t acknowledge what drives it or makes it more or less likely to happen.

This guy may be completely evil. I read nearly nothing about it. He may commit crimes all the time. But for sure, the Hit Lists made it more likely that he will commit crimes. And they surely do for probably 99.9% of the people listed.

I haven’t jumped to any conclusions. You said, factually, that you are certain the hit list encouraged this guy to commit his recent crime. Wouldn’t that be you, who’s jumping to wild conclusions? You have no proof of your point, whatsoever, so it would indeed be a wild conclusion on your part.

I’d like to see the study to where you’re getting your facts and percentages from with regards to why people reoffend. Because you just doubled down on your wild conclusion. I have a very difficult time believing that his crime or 99.9% of the other reoffenders are committing their crimes because they’re on a “hit list”. There are a million + people on the registry now and what’s the re-offense rate? Isn’t it somewhere well under 5%? That, right there, should tell you that the registry itself doesn’t cause people to reoffend.

It’s well noted, based on your posts, that you’re a scorned individual and hate the registry and anything and everything about our judicial system. I get it…every one of us have been dealt an unfair hand. But to blame that list for everyone’s behaviors, is avoiding making them/us/anyone offending, accountable for their own actions.

You are missing what I am saying. It is simple really – the Oppression Lists contribute to committing crimes. For nearly everyone, being listed on the Oppression Lists increases the chances that they will commit a crime, sex or otherwise. It doesn’t mean a person will. It doesn’t mean that is the main or only cause. That isn’t blaming any recidivist crime on the Lists. Etc., etc., etc. That is completely and totally well known and if you consider that “wild conclusions” then you are lost. But I’m completely okay if you don’t believe any of that.

I think that there’s a bit of merit to your statement and can accept that for some individuals, who are weak minded and have fallen into bad situations due to being on the list, your point is valid. For instance, one can end up unemployed and homeless, amongst other things, which could lead them to a mental break down and reoffending. But again, I point to the percentage of people on the list who never reoffend, which should prove that it’s really a small minority that are being influenced to reoffend by being on a list.

But that wasn’t my point…I see so many of you making excuses for people’s actions or overshadowing their actions by pointing out flaws in the system. Examples of a few that come to mind:

1) Being on a list encourages people to reoffend.
2) Our system only focuses on punishment instead of giving people the real help they need.
3) It’s a thought crime, with a fake person.

I just find it odd that anytime someone points out how bad someone is for a crime posted on this site, numerous people respond with excuses for the crime committed and tell the person how wrong they are or how they have no self worth, etc… It’s almost like it’s a brotherhood and it’s a requirement for registrants to come to the rescue of another, while losing all sense of morality.

You really just aren’t getting it and honestly I think what I have said is so well known and understood that there is little reason to discuss it much. It is simple. I’ll try to repeat it briefly, in a somewhat different way.

The Oppression Lists have an effect on the likelihood that a person will commit a crime. It that a net positive effect or negative? Personally, I think that answer is beyond obvious. That is what I was saying. The only point of argument or discussion is how big is the effect.

Your statement of “I point to the percentage of people on the list who never reoffend” is just completely wrong. Say that without the Oppression Lists that a person has an X% chance of reoffending and with the Oppression Lists it is 200X% – does that mean a person is going to offend or not? It doesn’t mean anything. Further, there are a billion things that affect if a person is going to offend or not. What if the person has other stimulus that reduces his chance of offending by 500X%? The reasons that a crime is committed is complicated but I think it is quite easy to understand that the Oppression Lists do not improve a person’s mental state or desire to live a lawful life.

But since none of that was your point, you can ignore all I just said.

Regarding what was your point – okay. I don’t like to see people excusing crimes either. However, I’ll also say if big government and other harassers/terrorists continually keep pushing a person and their family into an ever-shrinking corner, continue harassing and harming them by doing stupid, hateful things to them, for decades, and the person eventually bites, then the harassers have culpability.

Probably the most extreme case I can think of is that of George Edenfield. I directly knew the details of the case very well at the time, but it was a very long time ago. But I can get the key details correct without having to look them up (which I must do because I don’t care to waste the time doing that right now). Anyway, Edenfield was listed on the Oppression List and had been living event-free and lawfully in Georgia for over a decade. But then one day, the idiotic criminal regime comes along and tells him that he is living “too close” to a park and that he must move. He tried to move but didn’t “quickly enough” so he was arrested, convicted of a felony, put on new “sex offense” probation/therapy/theft/grift (10 years, if I recall), and forced to move. Edenfield said, “I’m going to pay them back for what they did to me” and within just a few days of being put on probation he murdered a 5 year old child. To me, Georgia’s criminal legislators murdered that child. He’s not nearly the only one they have murdered.

I can agree to that. Public doesn’t care what your background story is. We are all as bad as the worst one.

Not good!

Obviously, good report writing using proper English is a thing of the past. The very first sentence proves my point. I also note the absence of link to source, and the fact this is a ” report about a translated report. ” I am also certain this ” piece” was authored by a female with little training. I notice the use of the names of minors and witnesses involved, which raises ethical questions.

Unfortunately, in today’s world this kind of home invasion in not uncommon! Whether it has sexual connotation to the invasion is a matter of a rarer motive. If the man knocked at the door, his intent was to be noticed by those inside and that scenario is no different than the actions of an FBI task force knocking at my door on Aug. 20, 2010, at 11:50 pm, wanting to enter my home to search with no warrant.

There are some real inconsistencies in this article. I think the entire story isn’t being told. The guy is exposing himself to the daughter in the window, so the father asks him to leave??? The daughter wakes up to find them man in the room, but she fell asleep after this guy was talking to her through the window exposing himself and saying I love you?? The guy is prowling around outside, but the father ignores the daughters bedroom long enough for this guy to break in the window and climb in? No, sorry, none of this makes sense. This guy was known to the family and he was in the house with access to the kids, the father is trying to cover up something. If a prowler was outside trying to look in the windows, the first thing a father would do would be sure the girls were safe and in his sight, them call the police, get armed, and keep a vigilant watch. No, sorry, not adding up.

I did notice that I had a hard time piecing a few bits together. Originally, I thought it was just me. It didn’t occur to me that in fact the article was what couldn’t keep the story straight.

Something didn’t quite feel right about what I was reading: a perp would usually bolt away in fear once the father finds out. If not that, Diaz would alternatively fight back with the father belligerently; or at least become mildly defensive. If not that, he would beg the father for leeway and forgiveness.

Any of these possible outcomes proceeding the father “finding Diaz out” sounds credible. Diaz wouldn’t half-likely just come into the house after knocking, only to go the daughter’s room once the dad instructed him to depart, just so that he could then strip for the daughters in order so that the father would likely catch him.

It didn’t add up.

I wish I trusted my own comprehension sooner.


You are right, Eric. These sensationalized articles aren’t always telling the full candid truth. They’ve obviously left out something. Perhaps Mr. Diaz isn’t actually as horrendous as his portrayal here.

Take note: the father used excessive force by kicking the perp in his face, after the perp was already on the ground, probably not in full control of himself. That showed up in the news video: How perfectly attractive for a ‘concerned parent’ to look at: that a sex offender was being physically altered for something so unimaginably perverted as flashing a papa’s pair of young daughters. Right? =)

Absolutely correct, Eric. This screams that the offender and the father knew each other and/or have some type of history or previously established relationship (likely a familial relationship, but who knows for sure at this point).

If this story was written by a professional journalist, I’d be shocked.

I don’t see how these stories are of any benefit to us, especially when we cannot comment at the source of the article. It is too easy to jump on the trial-by-media bandwagon as if the accused does not deserve due process. In one story there is an older sister in the room. How old? We don’t know. In this Medesto Bee story, there is no sister at all.

A Grayson father tackled an intruder and restrained him with duct tape after the man broke into in his 5-year-old daughter’s bedroom early Tuesday morning.
The girl’s mother, Martha Zapeda, said her daughter was sleeping with Zapeda’s mother when the grandmother sensed they were being watched through the bedroom window. The grandma left the bedroom to alert the parents, leaving the girl asleep in bed.

When Zapeda came out of her room, she could see a man standing outside the living room window. He was pleasuring himself, she said.

“I love you,” Zapeda said the man would say as he continued to touch himself.
Zapeda’s husband went outside and told the man to leave. He later went to check the kitchen window to make sure he was leaving, but heard blinds being moved from his daughter’s bedroom, where the window was open but the screen was closed.

The man had made his way into the bedroom and had just turned on the lights when Zapeda’s husband walked in.

Zapeda said in an interview at the home Tuesday afternoon that her daughter thankfully didn’t see anything, but had a headache believed to have stemmed from the scare.

The father dragged the intruder outside. Zapeda said he tried to escape two times, but instead of running away from the scene he would try to run back into the house.

Eventually, Zapeda said she and her husband were able to hold him down and restrain him using duct tape until authorities arrived. That’s when the husband noticed that the man was wearing an ankle monitor.

The suspect, later identified as Daniel Diaz, 39, of Turlock, is a convicted sex offender.
Once police arrived, Zapeda said, the man acted as if he was the victim, even asking the family if everyone was OK. “He commented about things that were irrelevant, as if we were the ones that were hurting him,” she said.

Zapeda said even though the man has been arrested, she’s still scared that someone will come into her home again. Zapeda said she and her mother keep thinking how much the couple struggled to detain the man and how different things would have been if her husband hadn’t been there.

“I’m scared to even leave them alone,” she said.

Diaz was arrested on suspicion of home invasion, burglary, child abuse, peeping and prowling, said Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Sgt. Luke Schwartz.

In 2009, Diaz was convicted of breaking into a 64-year-old woman’s home in Newman and attempting to rape her the year before.

According to a Modesto Bee story at the time, the victim told police she was awakened by a man who was touching her and talking to her. He rubbed her thigh and whispered, “I’m Daniel.”

The victim escaped briefly, but the suspect forced her back into the bedroom, police said. The woman escaped a second time by biting Diaz, then ran to a neighbor’s home as Diaz fled on his bicycle. He was later found in a Newman park.

Diaz was sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to register as a sex offender, the District Attorney’s office said at the time.

Read more here:

Good job!

Nothing like trying to understand things from the cheap seats……

This guy is probably a tier 3 sex offender with mental illnesses hes lucky the dad didn’t kill him.
Sex offenders have no equality among themselves some people got cought up in the system and some people are just plain sick and enjoy hurting others
Thats why the California new tier law SB384 was invented to separate the SVP’S from people who made a consensual mistake with someone a few years younger than them.
People like this guy belong in a mental hospital for life or should be [MODERATORS COMMENT: Edited for violation of policies]


Unlikely this offender “enjoys hurting others”. Far more likely that he is suffering from delusions, psychosis, or some other mental infirmity, possibly organic in origin, and/or resulting from substance abuse (likely alcohol and/or meth). These types of offenses are rare, and this particular scenario does not reflect “evil intentions” on the part of the offender. If he came armed with a knife, duct tape, gun, or similar items, which indicates premeditation, malice aforethought, etc., then I would agree with you. But there is no mention of such and I would therefore rule out “evil intentions” (assuming the story is accurate).

You did see the prior conviction, right?

SB384 does not separate SVPs from the rest. Not unless you think simple CP possession and upskirt pictures (my crime) are SVPs. There’s very little empirical reasoning behind how the final version of SB384 was passed.

To moderators,
the edits often don’t cover up the actually intent of the sentence. I think we can all guess what the rest of THAT sentence was. You simply confirmed it.

You’re kidding, right? The SVP label and tier 3 classification does not mean one is more dangerous. You could do the same exact thing to minors of different ages and one will automatically get you labeled a tier 3 due to their age. I myself was pressured into a plea for something I didn’t do (was young and told I’d get life in prison if I didn’t take the plea). Now I’ve been out nearly 14 years, am married, have children of my own and raised stepchildren, yet somehow I’m dangerous? Don’t believe the tier labels, they’re a joke…….

Fing tiered law to separate SVPs huh??? Man you are lost as to what is really happening. I have never has a violent offense in my life, and never will, god be willing they don’t push me to it with your new tiered law. Level 3 for communicating over the internet with someone with intent to meet they said. not getting into the BS of that, but a 288.2 puts people in tier 3, so separate SVPs is a joke man, get the facts…. Had to comment on this… This is a major issue with the tiered system, and no one wants to address this legally.

Stories like this make me hate advocacy because we bash one another due to our opinion.
[MODERATORS NOTE: We moderators agree, which is why we have been more willing recently to delete comments that insult each other. Some of the more angry people have said they left because of this crackdown, but we cannot be united when our “right” to insult each other as keyboard trolls is greater than our willingness to keep discussions calm]

I’m responding to the moderators note. If everyone on here would focus on the main issue, which is the registry, we would not have this problem as much. Most of us here have committed a serious offense regardless of what it was. It’s not and shouldn’t be about what someone has done and have been already punished for – and those who commit new serious offenses should be punished appropriately for what they have done. That is the while point. Committing any sex offense is never ok. It’s just that the registry is also not ok and not an appropriate way to deal with someone who commits a sex crime.

We can all have opinions on things( like the one I do about stings being an inappropriate LE tool )but at the end of the day if it’s illegal, it’s illegal and the registry still doesn’t present a solution for prevention.

Good, I am glad to see some censorship all around and not focused on certain people anymore. I stopped coming on here because I was being bashed and getting censored every time I responded to these personal attacks. Good for you ACSOL.

One of the reasons anyway. And I can take a good bashing, just should not be from those on the list and on here. Plus, I do not like how a lot of good people that had non-contact, non-violent crimes are not being advocated for with the new tiered bill but are instead going to face being labeled SVPs and targeted more.

Curious, with the new tiered system, are level 3’s marked as SVP’s now?

This article has done one thing for sure. It has shown how different registrants approach the entire sex offender problem. We have:

  1. Those that support the actions taken against him
  2. Those that feel his actions didn’t warrant the level of retaliation
  3. Those that think he is demented
  4. Those that feel his actions were not as harmful as described
  5. Those that try to explain away every single part of the story
  6. Those that feel that any one part of the story in conjunction with his priors makes him deserving of lifetime incarceration.

What this does for me is clarify that everyone of us has an altered perception of our own offense. Those of us with what would be considered ‘lesser’ offenses try to raise ourselves by looking on this man as a problem for us ( I include myself in this group). Those with more serious offenses are trying to level the field by explaining away this man’s actions. In a way projecting.
I can admit here and now that when the time comes for me to be removed from the registry ( tic toc , tic toc ) I will not be sticking around to lend a hand to others. Sorry. I will leave this chapter of my life in my rear view mirror.

I wish it was that simple after coming home from war people have a hard time leaving that chapter of their lives in the rear view.
After experiencing Megan law’s decades of trauma I don’t think anyone will walk away from this experience unscave.
Even if you do go free you’ll still hear news articles about people listed on the registry being mistreated you’ll still hear people at work talking about it .
You might even join in on shaming another person witha sex offense conviction just to fit in with society even though a couple years ago you were on the registery too.
I’m not surprised though when I was in prison there was alot of people who would promise to everybody that when they got out they would send back all kinds of kool stuff and stay in touch BUT once they went home we never heard from them again.

I didn’t say I would forget my past life , just this chapter of it. Or at least do the best I can. It has done irreparable harm to my emotional and physical well being. But like all the other experiences that brought me to this point, I will try to compartmentalize them and do my best to move on. Who knows , maybe I will be able to find a peaceful life somewhere, or maybe it will all just be too much and I decide to end it. I just know that if I don’t try to leave this behind , living with it everyday will be too much for me to handle.

Good luck and I sincerely mean that. Because it’s not simple moving on, even with life after the registry. You’re stuck in your offending state. If you want to move to another state and start a new life…forget about it, unless you want to be put right back on the registry. Every state that I’ve contacted regarding moving and being off the registry, has said they don’t care if our offending state says we no longer have to register, that you still have to in their state. They claim that it’s their right to put you back on and that if their own rules state lifetime, then you must be lifetime if you choose to move there. I have also not found one lawyer who’s claimed to have fought this. In fact, I’ve been advised by two different lawyers in different states that to their knowledge, nobody’s ever taken it to the Supreme Court. In addition, they’re willing to take a case like that, but made it clear it could be a several year process and tens of thousands of dollars. So, while the thought of being off the registry is a huge relief, it doesn’t exactly allow you to be free. I wish Janice and her group would take this issue up.

Last I looked, if you’ve committed murder in CA and got out after 15 years and then move to AZ, but their laws state 25 years, they don’t make that murderer do 10 more years in their prison. Not sure how they can impose a sentencing on you for something you didn’t do in their state, as a former registrant.

There are a handful of states that don’t make you register if their registration timeframe for you had you committed the offense there is over and you don’t need to register in your state of conviction either. It depends therefore on the offense itself. I think its a due process issue to put you onna registry in one state when you are off of it in the state of conviction but I don’t think this has been properly challenged.

Do you happen to know which states those would be? I was even told by Nevada that I’d have to go back the registry if I moved there even though the age of consent there is 16, which would mean that my crime in CA would not have been a crime in Nevada. If you know of any of those states you mention, I’d really appreciate you listing them. Thanks.

It depends on what your offense was and you should research completely but Minnesota has a 10 year registration for many offenses and if 10 years are up since release for those offensed and your not required to register in the state of conviction you should not have to register there. I believe people have mentioned OR as one too. WI could be too (15 yr) but you might run into residency restrictions by localities even if you are not required to register.

Thank you for your response. MC.

Residency restrictions even when you’re no longer a registrant? I don’t understand how restrictions are still being imposed when punishment has been served and requirement to register has been removed. A person should be completely free of burden at that point.

Your statement in your other comment is likely the reason for all of this. It seems nobody’s properly challenged it. Unfortunately, from what I was advised, the dollar cost is just too high for anyone to take up the fight.

I hope you can leave it behind you. I’m not so sure yet if the ones who so fiercely supported 290 will let it go. For instance, a probable conviction and forced registration is what Perverted Justice partied about after To Catch a Predator episodes. It is possible the real war is just starting. One example is the the recent Zoom Bombers here. Who knows, maybe the conference call was hacked so we couldn’t ask questions about the Tiered registry. Or maybe I’m just paranoid and the enemy will invite us to a slumber party and we can all dream happily ever after.

Last edited 21 days ago by Ditto

The thing is that these stories always talk about those who re-offend. Why not shift gears and gather success stories of those who have NOT re-offended. The glass is half full, I thought. Focus on the positive for a change, reiterate the low recidivism rate and if someone believes otherwise, have them PROVE it. I can easily make up stories all day long, but unless I can back it up with evidence, I don’t expect anybody to believe it. Same for recidivism. Statistics prove, and I emphasize PROVE that the re-offense rate for sex offenders is low. So, how in the world can the contrary hold true anywhere, EVER? Nobody gets to make up rules and laws based on what they lie about and think the public wants to hear. Heck, if I were the public, I would want to know the truth rather than worrying about things that stem from lies being told. The public should be outraged that they are being lied to and in return have to live a life of worry. What if I tell people that I have a contagious disease, and people freak out and avoid going outside just to find out later it was all a lie and they could have lived their lives without fear for all these years.

Lot of good that ankle monitor did, right?

A lot of you are commenting about mental treatment. But as you know, court-ordered treatment is not confidential. So if this guy has an attraction to young girls, he could not get treatment about it in court-mandated therapy. There has to be a way for someone like him to be honest about what he’s attracted to and find ways to manage his thoughts and feelings so he doesn’t do something like this.

Unfortunately, I think it goes beyond just having an attraction to young girls. If I recall, the crime he was jailed for previously was towards an older lady. It seems more like him just having sexual urges, in general, that he isn’t able to control.

I noticed that. Younger girls, older women–not people his age. This is not about excusing his behavior but trying to understand it and help him from acting out this way.
Something I find ironic is how people are commenting on how disgusting his behavior was? And what did they do? Is looking at CP less disgusting? What about the people who made the CP, whether it was truly underage sex or just nude pictures? Are they more disgusting?
What does this thinking that others are more/less disgusting say about how individuals who categorize registrants by level of disgusting behavior say about them?

It’s truly sad that even we who are listed on the registry create a hierarchy; and emphasize to ourselves who’s “lower” than us, as some cheap, hind-sighted coping defense mechanism.

It is sad. And I feel like most people who do that have low self-esteem and they are mostly just trying to make themselves feel better.

I’m sure I could legitimately say that most PFRs have done worse than me and I could scorn them all day. But I don’t do that. I will certainly condemn a person’s actions (i.e. crime) but I’m not going to run too many people down personally. I understand that people are complex and there are a lot of reasons why a person ends up as they did, and even more so, that *I* could be that person. I’m not so high and mighty that it couldn’t be me. People are a product of their whole lives. It could be me. Or worse, it could be one of my children.

Also, what kind of idiot judges a person just based on a “tier level” of the big government Sex Offense Registries (Oppression List)? Does anyone actually trust the government to grade people? Or to ever tell the truth about a person? And being listed on the Oppression List is just one aspect of a person. I personally have known a person for decades who turned out to be a child molester and who is still in prison. I know for a fact that he is a better person than 95% of the people who live in America. He seriously helped people his whole life. We just need for him to not touch children! Even though even that was clearly less harmful than so many who emotionally and physically abuse children (who I will note do little prison time and are certainly not listed on an Oppression List).

I’m not going to let the big government Oppression Lists judge or grade people for me.

The only people who I really hate and will judge is people who judge others and think the Oppression Lists are acceptable. Those “people” who think the Oppression Lists are just fine as long as they are not listed on them. I will not tolerate those harassers/terrorists. THEY are a real danger to free people and I don’t want them in my country. I discriminate against them in very real, concrete ways that have an impact in real life.

What were you convicted of and what level are you now ?

Because the Oppression Lists exist, I never discuss that or even acknowledge it. It’s of no concern to me any longer. The Oppression Lists have made me not care. I used to care, but I got over it. Anything I did is no one’s business either.

And I’d never discuss “level” as if it had any legitimacy in any way. The entirety of the Oppression Lists, especially the “levels”, is a joke, supported by evil people.

So from what you said, You evidently haven’t really seen self progress since your offense, since you are still willing to “Hate and Judge” others.

“self progress”? Too funny. I never needed progress. I’ve found it trivial to not commit crimes. That is all I ever needed. Other than that, I’ve had awesome progress.

My hate has served me well. It made very successful. I have no intention of even trying to stop hating Registry Supporters/Terrorists. I intend to nurture it and let it help me drive concrete actions that have actual impact.

Sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that.

No luck needed, thanks anyway.

The potential problem with what you’re hoping for is that there are some individuals who cannot be fixed. For whatever reason, their brains aren’t normal. Look at some of the extreme criminals from the past. Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance. The guy ate humans!, amongst other sick stuff that he did. There was nothing that could fix that guy. It’s just what it is. And the actions of this guy, as written in the article, really make it sound like he’s mentally unstable. Mentioning that doesn’t mean that any of us think our crimes were any less serious than they were. But the reality is, there are some seriously deranged people in this world and this guy’s actions certainly warrant asking if he’s one of them.

Severely flawed news reports are not justice and they are not enough to make judgements on a person’s liberty. They are not due process. They have not been rigorously cross examined. That are not enough to decide who can be fixed and who can’t. People usually say this is free speech, not a criminal court of law. I think that is a cop-out. We all know most courts most of the time seek the truth. News venues seek clicks with click bait, and we feed the trolls. For example, what does “in front of” mean in the headline, given that the 5-year-old was asleep and never woke until after? A defense lawyer might press that. Myself, I have no idea of how it would play at trial, except there is about a 95% chance there will never be a trial due to a plea bargain. That bounces the truth, the facts, back to the news media who can write most anything without the check and balance of a public trial. Which begs the question. Why is there a constitutional right to a public trial? Who needs them when we have the media to rest our judgements on. Sure, we can’t legally carry out the sentence like a judge would, but if we feed enough trolls some of them will try.

Sorry to inform you, but nobody is expecting to have their opinions used for the sentencing of said person in this article. Suggesting that nobody can form an opinion until someone’s been granted their full due process, is ridiculous. Don’t equate an opinion from an outsider to a decision by a judge and jury who’s job is to acquit or convict.

You’re also suggesting that an article is severely flawed, without knowing the true facts, yourself. So, you’re coming down on someone/people for attempting to place judgement without knowing the facts, yet you’re sitting their claiming to know that an article is flawed, without knowing the facts. Awfully hypocritical.

The group wouldn’t allow for commenting on threads with articles such as this, if we weren’t allowed to voice our thoughts and opinions on them. So while you may not like it, I will continue to exercise my right.

Like I said, freedom of speech trumps due process. Bet no one else saw that coming. BTW, you are also free to spout your speech within the confines of due process, if due process was important enough to you.

Actually, you aren’t even a registrant and never were on the public registry, so your opinion on it matters nil. I didn’t have much of a problem with the registry until it went online.

I will not indulge in another of your flame wars. I already stated my opinion. Bye.

Interesting that you refer to it as my flame war when you were the one who decided to take opposition to my comments first by telling me I was wrong to prematurely judge someone. That invited me to comment back, for which I did. You’re willing to oppose someone’s comments, but then expect them to not comment back? Maybe you should’ve thought of that, before attacking someone’s comment first.

For better or worse, we assign levels of acceptance to everything. Looks, actions, thoughts.

The only person the registry allows you to be honest with is a mirror. I don’t trust a single person any more. Not that I had much trust with any one prior to my offense.

I don’t care about the age of who he exposed himself to or that he was already convicted of something in the past. Anyone hanging around anywhere who flashes someone without consent is simply inviting trouble their way. Even though he will probably be successfully prosecuted I don’t think it will do any good other than providing a false sense of justice. The guy needs help in at least one form or another in a controlled setting for some unknown amount of time. No I’m not suggesting civil commitment, prison, jail, a mental hospital, a rehabilitation center, or anything specific currently. Perhaps it’s a combination of help he needs. Let’s just hope he gets it.

The family is a separate concern and I hope they are able to access all the resources they need to move beyond the incident.

It appears that we are all in agreement that (1) this person needs treatment and should not be free as long as he presents as a danger to us all; (2) the victim/family should be provided support/counseling or anything else that would assist in them getting back to some level of normalcy, and (3) the registry and Meghan’s Law did nothing to prevent the offense from occurring. So what are we fighting about?

Two points:

  1. This guy is one of the 0.8% recidivists. Yes, it’s possible, and in this case it entirely true. He does not deserve an iota of our compassion or respect, though he has real mental issues to boot.
  2. And yes, this hurts the standing of registrants with the community at large. This is why we must be vigilant and provide the rebuttals to stronger laws, indicating that the strongest laws in place wouldn’t have prevented this crime.

Good points. I try to think bigger too, beyond guilt in this case.

How Can a Criminal Defense Lawyer Defend Someone Who Is Guilty?

I feel empathy only in that it is sad that a person is in a mental state that allows him to commit acts like this with evidently no remorse. I will leave it to those better suited to deal with him to show compassion. Society is just to complicated these days for a private citizen to be able to risk showing compassion or empathy in a public display. You open yourself up to vigilante reprisals, both physically or worse, on a social media platform. In today’s world, the pen is definitely more destructive than the sword!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x