Man must register as a sex offender for grabbing girl's arm

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » July 2, 2005, 3:40 pm

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst ... est01.html

Fitzroy Barnaby said he had to swerve to avoid hitting the 14-year-old Des Plaines girl who walked in front of his car.

She said he yelled, "Come here, little girl," before getting out of his car and grabbing her by the arm.

He said he simply lectured her.

She said she broke free and ran, fearful of what he'd do next.

In a Thursday ruling, the Appellate Court of Illinois said the 28-year-old Evanston man must register as a sex offender.

While acknowledging it might be "unfair for [Barnaby] to suffer the stigmatization of being labeled a sex offender when his crime was not sexually motivated," the court said his actions are the type that are "often a precursor" to a child being abducted or molested.

Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.

'Most stupid ruling'

Now, he will have to tell local police where he lives and won't be able to live near a park or school.

"This is the most stupid ruling the appellate court has rendered in years," said Barnaby's Chicago attorney, Frederick Cohn. "If you see a 15-year-old beating up your 8-year-old and you grab that kid's hand and are found guilty of unlawful restraint, do you now have to register as a sex offender?"

But Cook County state's attorney spokesman Tom Stanton said Barnaby should have to register "because of the proclivity of offenders who restrain children to also commit sex acts or other crimes against them."

In the criminal case against him, Cook County Judge Patrick Morse said that "it's more likely than not" Barnaby planned only "to chastise the girl" when he grabbed her, but "I can't read his mind."

"I don't really see the purpose of registration in this case. I really don't," Morse said. "But I feel that I am constrained by the statute."

Recognizing the stigma that comes with being labeled as a sex offender, the appellate court said "it is [Barnaby's] actions which have caused him to be stigmatized, not the courts."

Pretty fucking sad. Since when has it been legal to punish someone based on a "general proclivity"?

edit: nm. Just a stupid technicality on a retarded interpretation of the law.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » July 2, 2005, 4:15 pm

That's just rediculous. Sure, the guy shouldn't have grabbed the girl. But, if the court wanted to teach him a lesson, simple assault would have done the trick (and been perfectly within the law).

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » July 2, 2005, 5:03 pm

I agree. Some minor assault charge to teach him to keep his hands to himself. Sex offender? Pfft.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 2, 2005, 5:07 pm

More proof that the court system is a joke. Hell if some stupid kid ran out into the road infront of me I might grab him/her while yelling at him/her too. Teach your kids some god damn responsibility and how to behave.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » July 2, 2005, 5:20 pm

This shit scares me.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2005, 5:49 pm

He should have kept his hands to himself.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » July 2, 2005, 5:53 pm

While he shouldnt have grabbed her, the ruling is fucking stupid

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » July 2, 2005, 5:55 pm

he should have ran her over.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 2, 2005, 5:58 pm

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 2, 2005, 5:59 pm

No-one should ever be grabbing strangers to lecture them on behavior, children or no. That said, this is clearly not a sex crime and this man's life has most likely been ruined. Now he will be mistrusted in his community, face social and professional ostracization, and be forced to report to big brother about many aspects of his life.

If someone I don't know grabs my arm and I'm afraid, can I have them charged with a sex crime?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2005, 6:10 pm

if grabbing and holding onto a minor is unlawful restraint, and if unlawful restraint of a minor is a sex offence, then he is a sex offender. people need to understand there are consequences to every action. you don't fucking grab little girls on the street for any reason.

people walk in front of my car all the time. I don't get out of the car and grab them and tell them how to behave. normal people don't leap out of their vehicle and grab teenage girls and hold onto them and yell at them for something that. human beings shouldn't behave like that. he obviously has at the very least some anger problems, but blowing your top and physically restraining someone isn't much of a punishable offense. I applaud the creativity of the district attorney to get this asshole convicted on something.

if more people got punished for actling like an asshole like that then maybe there would be less assholes.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 2, 2005, 6:23 pm

if grabbing and holding onto a minor is unlawful restraint, and if unlawful restraint of a minor is a sex offence, then he is a sex offender

Right. This argument is not about what the law says, it's about whether the law is correct.

I have no problem with him being punished for his actions. I do have a problem with being punished as a sex offender when he is clearly not.

It is akin to using the PATRIOT act to arrest drug dealers or political activists on terrorism related charges. Perhaps these people should be prosecuted, but that doesn't change the fact that they should be arrested on charges of drug dealing or civil disobedience instead of terrorism.

If the law is flawed, we should fix the law rather than mistakenly applying it whenever we see fit.

Additionally, "blowing your top and physically restraining someone" generally is a punishable offense. I imagine assault covers it.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » July 2, 2005, 6:27 pm

I honestly believe this man had only good intentions. He just over-stepped his grounds.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2005, 6:33 pm

common assault is a misdemeanor isn't it? he probably would have gotten a fine or community service.

I don't think comparing the patriot act to this is fair. he wasn't arrested and tried under subversive pretenses in order to get him off the streets. he grabbed a female minor in broad daylight and flipped out on her to a degree that she broke away and ran from him in fear.

although the real criminal here looks like his defense attorney. according to Illinois state law he didn't come close how the law is writ. I wonder how anyone intelligent enough to pass the bar couldnt have weaseled his client out of this one. maybe he is black.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2005, 6:35 pm

So if a 16 year old girl almost hits an old man in the street, gets out, grabs his arm and lectures him, is she a sex offender?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2005, 6:43 pm

Winnow wrote:So if a 16 year old girl almost hits an old man in the street, gets out, grabs his arm and lectures him, is she a sex offender?

did you even read the article, or just started jerking off as soon as you saw the words "14 year old girl" and "sex offender"?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 2, 2005, 6:56 pm

Highland Park Law wrote:No person, not being a physician, chiropodist.... .... shall have in his possession a hypodermic syringe, hypodermic needle, or any other instrument adapted for the use of controlled substances or cannabis by subcutaneous injection.

People inject weed? And isn't cannabis a 'controlled substance?'

edit: and yes, most assaults are misdemeanors.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2005, 7:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:
did you even read the article, or just started jerking off as soon as you saw the words "14 year old girl" and "sex offender"?

You're as creative as a line chef in the army, feeding us the same crap day after day.

Wow, more pedo references. I can clear that up right now. If I was a pedo I'd be attracted to you. You act like a fucking 9 year old on this board...lets see...nope! I don't feel a thing!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 2, 2005, 7:04 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Winnow wrote:So if a 16 year old girl almost hits an old man in the street, gets out, grabs his arm and lectures him, is she a sex offender?
did you even read the article, or just started jerking off as soon as you saw the words "14 year old girl" and "sex offender"?

haha

Anyways, I think it's preposterous that this could be called a sex crime, but apparently the law disagrees, and they *somehow* overrule me. The guy should have known better to do something like this on anyone of any age living in the country he does.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 2, 2005, 7:42 pm

Would have been punished less if he had hit and killed her heh. And why do people even bother responding to a certain troll anymore?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 2, 2005, 7:55 pm

The man did nothing wrong. She deserved a scolding. Hopefully she learned her lesson about watching out for cars.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 2, 2005, 8:20 pm

Kelshara wrote:Would have been punished less if he had hit and killed her heh. And why do people even bother responding to a certain troll anymore?

are you calling me a troll? between that and winnow calling me uncreative I have already reached july's irony threshold. christ almighty have you ever said anything worthwhile? all you do is jabber about norway like anyone gives a flying fuck, and your imaginary non-blonde supermodel girlfriend. you are basically seebs without the shoddy 15 year old jokes.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 2, 2005, 8:22 pm

Strangely enough I agree with Midnyte and Winnow.

Anyone that thinks this is a reasonable result is a fucking retard.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2005, 8:49 pm

Nick wrote:Strangely enough I agree with Midnyte and Winnow.

Go Irish! : )

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 2, 2005, 8:52 pm

kyoukan wrote:He should have kept his hands to himself.

I have to agree with Kyou.
If you are over 18 you don't put your hands on someone under 18 if they don't belong to you.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2005, 8:55 pm

Sabek wrote: If you are over 18 you don't put your hands on someone under 18 if they don't belong to you.

The point is that the act didn't warrant a sex offender tag, not that what he did was a wise thing to do.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » July 2, 2005, 9:30 pm

I agree w/ everyone

Kyou is right; I had to think about it, but I'd never grab a kid like that. I'd more than likely swear a blue-streak in the car at their stupidity, but jumping out and restraining them? Doubtful.

But I also agree the ruling is stupid; unlawful restraint could be a precursor to abducting children, as could driving past schools or getting up in the morning. Unless the Thought Police are actually with us now, as part of the Bush push to fulfill every Orwellian prophecy, you still need to actually commit a crime before you're punished for it.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » July 2, 2005, 11:02 pm

Winnow wrote:So if a 16 year old girl almost hits an old man in the street, gets out, grabs his arm and lectures him, is she a sex offender?

Well, unlike the man in this instance, it is unlikely that she would be convicted of "unlawful restraint of a minor", so I'd have to say no, she wouldn't be a sex offender.

dibit_eq · Post by **dibit_eq** » July 2, 2005, 11:28 pm

I think the guy did wrong, but the law has some issues regarding what constitutes a sexual offense. The law had the situation that labeled him a sex offender as follows:

Man over 18 grabbing a girl under 18. Makes sense I suppose. So any individual performing such an act would be a sex offender.

Hypothetical situation: If there was instead some car about to hit this same girl and a man jumps at her and grabs her out of the path of the oncoming car, the law would also have him become a sexual predator. Even if the girl pressed no charges the law would state: Man over 18 jumps an under 18 girl and grabs her. He might have meant to save her, but we can't read his mind. Might have not even seen the car about to hit her... there was the possibility he might have had sexual intentions.

I still think there's not enough information in the article. In the last paragraph, I'm kinda going with the situation that this all occurred somewhere during the daytime in a well-populated area. If the guy did the same thing around 3am in the middle of no where, I could understand the girl feeling threatened by some stranger potentially going thru a major session of road rage. Even then, I dont feel sex offender is the proper punishment... what he did was assault a minor. That's what he should undeniably be prosecuted for.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 2, 2005, 11:40 pm

Hoarmurath wrote:
Winnow wrote:So if a 16 year old girl almost hits an old man in the street, gets out, grabs his arm and lectures him, is she a sex offender?
Well, unlike the man in this instance, it is unlikely that she would be convicted of "unlawful restraint of a minor", so I'd have to say no, she wouldn't be a sex offender.

Unlawful restraint of a senior citizen. If we let the girl get away with it, it might lead to her sneaking into nursing homes and molesting helpless old people.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 3, 2005, 12:42 am

The girl almost lost her life because of being stupid. That man had a right to crack her one and yell fiercly at her hoping to make a big impression on her about being aware of your surroundings. You only get one life. She shouldn't be so careless with it. If he would have hit her, his life would have been fucked too. I can completey understand how upset he must have been.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 3, 2005, 2:24 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:The girl almost lost her life because of being stupid. That man had a right to crack her one and yell fiercly at her hoping to make a big impression on her about being aware of your surroundings. You only get one life. She shouldn't be so careless with it. If he would have hit her, his life would have been fucked too. I can completey understand how upset he must have been.

Actually he would not have been in any legal trouble unless she was in a cross walk. I remember a case when I was going to Ohio State where a student jaywalked and got hit and the driver was not cited in any way.

It's real fucking simple dont put your hands in any sort of threatening manner on a kid that isn't yours.

As to the grabbing the girl and pulling her out of the way of a car vs grabbing a girl and giving her a talking to.
Pretty sure if I checked the dictionary that pulling someone out of the way of on coming traffic != restraint.

He was a bonehead that lost his freaking temper and now he is gonna get boned because of it. Is it harsh and over the top sure, but have some self-control and don't put yourself in the place where a judge/jury has your future life in their hands.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 3, 2005, 4:35 am

Sabek wrote: Actually he would not have been in any legal trouble unless she was in a cross walk. I remember a case when I was going to Ohio State where a student jaywalked and got hit and the driver was not cited in any way.

As long as you're not drunk and are going to speed limit, killing someone while driving a vehicle is the way to go. Jaywalkers will only cost you some court appearances and killing someone while running a red light will cost you less than 1K and a manditory eight hours of defensive driving school. Red light running killers used to get off with 100.00 ticket. I don't know what the penalty is if you kill someone using a crosswalk.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 3, 2005, 7:54 am

Kelshara wrote:Would have been punished less if he had hit and killed her heh. And why do people even bother responding to a certain troll anymore?

In Nevada if you hit someone j-walking, it's the pedestrians fault!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 3, 2005, 10:43 am

In many places it does not matter where the pedestrian is crossing the road. The pedestrian still has Right of Way. Now, how seriously you are charged may be decided by whether or not they were crossing in the right place. Some states would still charge you for hitting the jaywalker, but it would just be Vehicular Manslaughter rather than Vehicular Homicide. For all we really know, this girl may have been scared most by almost getting hit by a car.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 3, 2005, 11:27 am

I guess this means if a father grabs their child and restrains them in any way in public, they could be charged as a sexual predator as well.

All this is is a kneejerk reaction to the rash of crimes comitted against children by people that the courts let back onto the streets. Tagging innocent people as sexual predators won't help. What they should do is label judges as sexual predators who turn people back onto the streets that then commit another act.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 3, 2005, 11:41 am

The best way to teach kids to look both ways before crossing the street is by hitting them with your vehicle. Clearly, this would learn her better than grabbing her by the arm and calling her a stupid little bitch, plus it keeps you off the sexual offender lists. Thank you, Illinois, for showing us the light.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » July 3, 2005, 1:20 pm

How many people who do this type of thing, or get drunk and piss in public, or have consentual sex with their underage GF (even if they are just a year older), does it take before the list is diluted?

I would hate for the first thing to go through people's mind when hearing someone is on the list to be "well, it's not like everyone on that list is really a sex offender".

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 3, 2005, 2:10 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I guess this means if a father grabs their child and restrains them in any way in public, they could be charged as a sexual predator as well.

All this is is a kneejerk reaction to the rash of crimes comitted against children by people that the courts let back onto the streets. Tagging innocent people as sexual predators won't help. What they should do is label judges as sexual predators who turn people back onto the streets that then commit another act.

what? how many judges have the authority to let sex offenders out of prison or declare them innocent in a criminal trial?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 5, 2005, 9:00 am

Just about all of them? You have the right to a criminal trial by a jury, but not everyone chooses a jury trial. They also have the say in sentencing and can put them back onto the streets with time served and probation.

If there is anything one could bitch about in the U.S. it is the law and court system.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » July 5, 2005, 11:20 am

If I were this guy I would appeal under the notion that this is cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment has to fit the crime and being labelled a sexual offender is worse than being convicted of murder. In hindsight, I bet the guy wishes he had just run her over.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 5, 2005, 11:36 am

This is why you shouldn't attempt to create laws that tie the hands of "activist" judges...

...

A reasonable judge with leeway would slap him with assault (which he is guilty of) but waive the offender status as this was obviously not a sexually motivated incident...

When you mandate that illegal restraint is a sexual offense always...then you take reason out of law.

You will not and cannot, in creating a law, forsee every possible situation. Thus there should always be room for reasonable interpretation.

This is why you shouldn't elect stupid legislators...

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 5, 2005, 11:48 am

As an FYI according to this sherrif's website it would be considered sexual assault here in Ohio as well.

http://www.sheriff.fairfield.oh.us/defi ... iented.htm

Again comes back to some freaking common sense, keep your hands off kids that don't belong to you.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » July 5, 2005, 12:06 pm

kyoukan wrote:if grabbing and holding onto a minor is unlawful restraint, and if unlawful restraint of a minor is a sex offence, then he is a sex offender. people need to understand there are consequences to every action. you don't fucking grab little girls on the street for any reason.

people walk in front of my car all the time. I don't get out of the car and grab them and tell them how to behave. normal people don't leap out of their vehicle and grab teenage girls and hold onto them and yell at them for something that. human beings shouldn't behave like that. he obviously has at the very least some anger problems, but blowing your top and physically restraining someone isn't much of a punishable offense. I applaud the creativity of the district attorney to get this asshole convicted on something.

if more people got punished for actling like an asshole like that then maybe there would be less assholes.

Agree the guy should not have grabbed the girl, however to be branded a sex offender because of this is fucking retarded. It figures you applaud zealous prosecution in this case and insult anyone who believes the punishment does not fit the crime.

He probably was scared shitless that he almost hit the kid, and that rapidly turned to anger. Fortunately for me if I ever saw you walking across the street there would be no attempt at avoidance.

Now just to be clear, he should have had to apologize to the kid and perhaps a fine of some sort as that behaviour is unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the judgement of the court in this case.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 5, 2005, 12:38 pm

Wow he grabbed a girl and shouted at her.

SUCH AN ASSULT! Maybe the silly bitch shouldn't have walked out and nearly got herself killed.

To be honest the guy doesn't even deserve an assault charge, what a fucking stupid ruling.

Claim happy world we all live in now.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 5, 2005, 1:46 pm

Isn't it sad that if he had kit and killed her, the worst that he could've had in the circumstances described above would've been a misdemeanor count of vehicular manslaughter.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp? ... C%7C%7C%7C

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 6:39 pm

Now they're not politicians and judges, but pre-cognitives... way to go hollywood.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 5, 2005, 11:30 pm

Sabek wrote:As an FYI according to this sherrif's website it would be considered sexual assault here in Ohio as well.

http://www.sheriff.fairfield.oh.us/defi ... iented.htm

Again comes back to some freaking common sense, keep your hands off kids that don't belong to you.

Here is some common sense: Don't run out into the damn street infront of a car.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » July 6, 2005, 9:42 am

Kelshara wrote:
Sabek wrote:As an FYI according to this sherrif's website it would be considered sexual assault here in Ohio as well.

http://www.sheriff.fairfield.oh.us/defi ... iented.htm

Again comes back to some freaking common sense, keep your hands off kids that don't belong to you.
Here is some common sense: Don't run out into the damn street infront of a car.

Not saying the girl wasn't ignorant and wrong for running out in front of the car.
However the guy was a idiot for stopping, getting out, and grabbing the girl.

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » July 6, 2005, 9:48 am

They were both in the wrong. But, I don't think he should be facing such a harsh penalty while acting on such harsh emotions and adrynaline. I imagine both were scared shitless and any reasonable court should be able to see that and overlook something that was in no means sexual assult.