Pedophile gets ok to be clown at Playland NY
SFGAMDie HARD said:
"
Secondly, one of the biggest problems here in America is the prejudice against other's sexual desires. You can't control your desires, you were born with them, so how can you judge people on that alone?
No, that is not the issue here. He preyed on children. They never had a choice.
Thirdly, just because this man may have an attraction to children, doesn't mean he'll act upon it.
But he was released and then four years later he did the exact same thing again. So obviously he can't control it and there is a good change he will again.
This is an economic issue too. Every dollar that the clown collects could instead be spent on games, food, and rides, and while I don't think a clown can cripple the amusement park financially, they can use every dollar they can get.
He is a hazard to every unsuspecting child that enters that amusement park and no family should have to go through what is the result of child sexual abuse.
Playland has the right and responsibility to keep their patrons, especially the helpless ones, safe.
How would you like it if your child got molested by a clown that the park knew was dangerous ahead of time but still allowed him in?
-------------
My fellow Americans; Let's Roll!
Woodencoaster.com
The World of Thrills
*** This post was edited by bigkirby on 12/28/2002. ***
Like bigkirby said, if I did have kids I probably wouldn't want them going to the park. Yet, you have to keep in mind that this was ruled for the public area of the park. My standing is this is only a big deal because legal action was taken. Had it not, I doubt anyone would care. But, say he made balloon animals in Central Park, for example. Would you want your kids to play there? You don't know about him being a pedophile so does it make a difference?
The only conflict I see is the park losing money because of him. The thing I find humorous in this thread is how some people must declare that they are not a pedophile when they speak about it. I think most people assume you aren't one unless you act as one. But, I digress.
-----------------
"If two coaster trains almost hit each other, why is it called a near miss and not a near hit?"
Of course he has the right to work for a living. But is it not also the business' (or in this case the gov't's) right to use reason in picking the worker.
If Rye thinks its ok, it should be ok. However, if the organization does not think so, why should he be allowed to do it in a situation that clearly threatens people's lives. like it or not, he has a black mark, and businesses should have the right to discriminate based on his actions. I wouldn't care if he kept his hands to himself. When he turns his plan into action, however....
Find a job at playland to keep him away from children. An evening janitor, etc... If he complains, it's his own fault. Even thatis to generous. Playland owes him nothing.
-----------------
How many rides must a man go on, before you may call him a fan?
I really don't think anyone should assume that someone convicted of a crime would do it again after his punishment was over. I say forgive him and give him another chance. People are to quick to judge others on the basis of their past actions. I don't know if he can or has been "cured" or not, but should that prevent him from doing a job he likes.
Sure we must protect our kids by any means possible, but he has allready paid for his actions and shouldn't be paying for him again. If he abuses kids again, he'll go back to jail again, and I don't think he wants that.
We might not know his whole story, so how could we judge him. I say leave that up to God. I feel very sorry for him AND the two boys he may have hurt.
Besides he just might be very good at being a clown. It doesn't mean that he going to hurt the kids he is entertaining.
And let me say that my opinion comes from the expierance of a very close family member being sexually assulted as a child. It negatively affected the whole family, but in the end the molester was forgiven.
-----------------
dexter said:Sure we must protect our kids by any means possible, but he has allready paid for his actions and shouldn't be paying for him again. If he abuses kids again, he'll go back to jail again, and I don't think he wants that.
-----------------
Exactly, that is up to the courts. The courts have found him guilty before and they have sentenced him accordingly. He has paid his sentence and because of that, what he did has been accounted for and his sentence is over. He now has the right of every other American in the nation that is not behind bars. So, from a legal standpoint, it would be illegal for the park to refuse giving him a job for that reason alone.
I see what your saying Vater, yes, he did strike children and this job is *gasp* with children as well but maybe that's what he knows to do. People that just got out of prison don't usually have money, they haven't been working. I don't know what he has done for a living before and after prison time, but if being a clown is what he knows what to do, why should he be forced to change his way of life after his punishment is over?
-----------------
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.
But 4 years after his initial release he did it again. it shows that he doesn't have the willpower to keep himself from acting upon his urges and therefore he shouldn't be in contact with children because it will just tempt him to act upon his urges.
If he needs money he can work at mcdonalds. Which pays more than being a clown.
-----------------
http://www.mallmonkeys.com
To give him 'another chance' would be just a little less wise than hiring an alcoholic bartender, a junkie pharmacist or me as the women's locker room attendant at the local Bally's Club. I promise I won't peek when I mop floors, clean sinks, hose down the shower room or hand naked women towels. Scout's honor.
Look toward the end of the article though: The county only has to revise a law already on the books to keep him outta there. If they time it right, they can keep him out all summer while exhausting his legal options. They'll get him.
-'Playa
-----------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.
This is an economic issue too. Every dollar that the clown collects could instead be spent on games, food, and rides, and while I don't think a clown can cripple the amusement park financially, they can use every dollar they can get.
That's a good point, and in fact if you read through the article, that was the argument that Playland officials originally used to deny this clown a performance permit. Unfortunately, the park is public property, and contains designated areas which are not income centers, where, according to the judge, the clown would not be competing with the park's operations.
CycloneWacko, go back and read the article again. Part of the problem here is that this guy isn't trying to work for Playland. He wants to engage in public performance, that is to say, busking. When you combine those two issues: first, that Playland is a public park; second that the clown in question is a busker...well, Ptboy11 put it very well. At Playland he has to have a performance permit, which the judge says there is no legal reason to deny him. And if he can't get it for Playland, what's to stop him from setting up shop somewhere less tightly controlled, say NYC in Central Park or Coney Island?
We live in an imperfect Republic. As noted by SFGAMDie HARD our penal system assumes that rehabilitation is possible, our criminal system operates on the presumption of innocence, and our governmental establishment is based on the concept that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Occasionally, those high moral concepts don't agree with our own morals and ideals. That's unfortunate. But I, for one, am not willing to give up those uniquely American ideals because of a particular situation where it presents some vague possibility of danger to unsupervised children. I'm not willing to stomp on some creepy clown's rights of expression today, as that's how to encourage someone to stomp on me tomorrow.
So, parents, keep your kids at arms length from the balloon twisting clown with the baggy pants at Playland, and if you don't approve of his performance, don't tip him. There is no legal means to keep him from performing. But there is an economic method. If he can't earn his expected tip income from performing, he's gonna go do it somewhere else, or seek out another line of work. That's the way to get him out of the park, not legislative expulsion.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
RideMan said:
But I, for one, am not willing to give up those uniquely American ideals because of a particular situation where it presents some vague possibility of danger to unsupervised children. I'm not willing to stomp on some creepy clown's rights of expression today, as that's how to encourage someone to stomp on me tomorrow.
Wow Dave, I am *continually* more and more impressed by your logic and reasoning...(and *they* said you only knew mechanicals and computer stuff, lol). Seriously, the two points I thought were TOO good to let slide by are:
1) Parents, MIND your children. I know it's a big job (too big for me, anyway), but they're WORTH the effort, and they are NOT repairable or replaceable....they're KIDS. They need supervision. It's a sad commentary, but really, society hasn't changed that much....our AWARENESS has.
2) *Civil rights*...what's the deal here? Well, *the deal* is that we HAVE rights...felons can lose them, and they can get them back. Freedoms are not *absolutely free*, they come with (surprise) a PRICE. The most recognizable of these is that we have to protect EVERYONE'S rights, regardless of whether we LIKE them or not. Even the KKK has the rights to assemble, to speak freely, and to demonstrate....we may not like WHAT they say, but I'd hate to argue against their RIGHT to say it. The *slippery slope* always seems to roll downhill, and there's little/no predicting WHOSE rights would be the next to go....
Personally I would still go to Playland despite the clown. If the park is not paying him to perform then it is out of their control. By going to Playland I am not indirectly giving him my money.
I dont necessarily agree with the fact that he will be around children, until the law changes there is nothing anyone can do. If the law changes there is a possibility he will be grand-fathered out due to ex-post-facto.
It has been 30 years since the last known occurence. How do we know he does not have his impulses under control? But then again why would anyone trust him? Irregardless of that he does deserve the opportunity to prove himself. I say they ought to throw the book at him if he fails again.
-----------------
My website - Zero G Thrills
From what I gathered from the article the park didn't have the right to ban him from performing in the public areas (obviously). Most judges will rule in a manner which they feel reflects the intent and the correct meaning of our Bill of Rights. The judge did the county a big favor as well. He pointed them in the right direction on how to legally stop him from performing around children.
As for paying his debt? Sure, in a perfect world that would and should happen. But having worked in the Criminal Justice system I know he did a whole lot more than he was convicted for. As our wonderful system always does, at least one of his convictions were a plea bargin. He should have been convicted of a much more serious offense then a misdeameanor. Why would this happen? Save the system some money, get him convicted of at least something, and to spare the victims from having to testify. Bottom line is this, I would bet my life that he has done more than he was brought to justice for and he WILL do it again. If you feel he paid his debt, then take your children to see his act and let him play with him. Tell me how fast any of you will be doing this.
SFGAMDie HARD said:
Colonel Sanders said:
And IMO That judge should be disbarred.
I am really disappointed in the classyness of this particular forum.
Secondly, one of the biggest problems here in America is the prejudice against other's sexual desires. You can't control your desires, you were born with them, so how can you judge people on that alone?
*** This post was edited by SFGAMDie HARD on 12/28/2002. ***
You have got to be kidding me. Did you just say that we should accept the fact that this guy has a sexual interest in children?
As a new parent I can tell you, with no uncertainty, that if someone touched my little boy I would kill him. It is that simple. The guy is sick and needs treatment and should be kept away from children at all costs.
-----------------
*** This post was edited by stoogemanmoe on 12/31/2002. ***
As much as we'd like someone to 'do the right thing', the judge is only given so much authority. If he oversteps his bounds, his decision will be appealed away and rendered void.
He basically punted it back to the locals and advised them to do a better job with their ordinance.
-'Playa
-----------------
The CPlaya 100--6 days, 9 parks, 47 coasters, 2037 miles and a winner.....LoCoSuMo.
Helloooo...Stooge??? There is such a thing as the bill of rights and the constitution to deal with. The judge acted properly within the confines of the law AND in fact stated how the county could bar this "performer"...
From the aforementioned article...
"He [the judge] did, however, leave open the possibility that a narrowly drawn regulation, like a specific ban on convicted pedophiles from performing around children, might pass constitutional muster. "
Now, personally, I agree with Wahoo -scary as it may seem- but the judge did rule on basis of the law -AS IT STANDS.
Also note, the judge DID rule with the park on part of their request...
"In a decision handed down Monday in Manhattan, U.S. District Judge John S. Martin said the county had a right to ban Hobbs from performing in the areas of the 279-acre recreation complex that house the money-making operations of the park like the amusement rides, pool, picnic shelters and ice rink.
But he said the county did not have the right to prohibit Hobbs from performing in Playland's public areas, such as the boardwalk, pier, foot paths and picnic areas. "
So between ruling with the county on part of its' request, he told the county EXACTLY what they need to do to pass a regulation that would pass "constitutional muster".
-----------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
*** This post was edited by redman822 on 12/31/2002. ***
So let me get this straight. As a society, we should give a twice convicted pedophile the opportunity to hurt (physically, emotionally, and mentally) another minor. I'm sorry, but I don't agree. This type of abuse affects a child for the rest of their life. If caught and convicted, the abuser pays for his/her crimes, but it is well deserved. What about the child? Does any child deserve to be violated and live with that experience for the rest of his/her life? There are some parents who do not watch over their children. Does this mean that the child deserves to be abused or molested? It's not the childs fault. I'm not saying that he will do it again, but he has already been convicted twice. That is not a good sign. As someone else has already said, there are many other jobs that he could do that do not involve working closely with children.
*** This post was edited by Crazy4Airtime on 12/31/2002. ***
Worst. Logic. EVAH.
C'mon...someone gets released from prison, and all they know to do in life is shoot and rob. Is this "okay", seeing as he knows nothing else? These people do exist by the way...drive through America's (or really, any country's) ghettos and housing projects.
However, back to the original post, yes, he has to be allowed to perform due to the current laws in place in Westchester County. Certainly, this is not the best interest of the community, but hey? You can't stop people from going to public areas.
And the topic will soon be closed, I assume.
-
Alan
Crazy4airtime...
Then it is up to you to contact your legislators and have them work on passing a law/regulations that restict that option in such a way that passes constitutional challenges.
Unfortunately, in this case, the laws that protect the freedoms of law abiding citizens is also there to protect those same rights of previously convicted criminals, no matter what their crime is.
One a law/regulation is enacted that can pass "constitutional muster" then and only then can those "inalienable rights" granted to all Americans in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be usurped.
Now do not think that I am pro-pedophile. I personally find it repulsive and disgusting and would throttle the neck of anyone who would do something like that to my little girl. But to have the judicial system make a ruling like this to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of anyone without having the sufficient legal grounds other than the judges personal opinion creates a "slippery slope".
Our government was created with checks and balances and it is the Legislature's "job" to create and pass laws that are specific in nature when it come to restricitng our basic rights as citizens. It is the Judicial branch's job to make sure the the Legislature does not over step its bounds by making it's laws to vague and broad, which is what this judge had stated in his decision.
The county had previously passed a regulation regarding the denial of performance permits based on a criminal past. They did not specifically state which criminal histories would be deserving of not getting a permit. All they need to do is to go back and create a new regulation that states that previously convicted child molesters or rapists cannot receive a permit to perform on county property. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
[getting off my soapbox]
-----------------
--George H
---Superman the ride...coming to a SF park near you soon...
When I was about 15 or 16 years old I went to another counties County Fair. Since I was 15 or 16 years old my parents allowed me to walk around by myself. I may have been old enough for that but I sure as hell wasnt old enough to handle what happened to me. I was grabbed by a carnie and forced into his trailer where he tried to rape me. I got away THANK GOD (and he is not going to able to have children now) but I still am haunted to this day by it. I can NOT imagin how a little child would feel if that happened to them because they wouldnt be stronge enough to fight back.
Do I go to that Fair anymore...HELL no. I, being scared, actually did not tell my parents or anyone what happened to me. It wasnt until very recently that I could even think about it without crying. I came to find out that this man had raped another women a few months before he tried to rape me. So even though I will be hated against here for my beliefs and views I DO NOT believe this man should be allowed to work at the park or anywhere near children. He WILL strike again...it may not be for a month, a year or even 10 years, but he will do it again.
-----------------
"Now this looks like a job for me so everybody just follow me, cuz we need a little controversy, cuz it feels so empty without me." Without Me, The Eminem Show
You must be logged in to post
