[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I think that he allegedly told the girls that he liked to talk to young girls.
His arrest is for assaulting a man over 65, and for stealing his phone.
The last time he was arrested for battery, he got off with probation.
Hopefully, if he is convicted this time, he will go away for battery over age 65.

I would hope that someone very adept at questioning kids is looking into this. Or, maybe they will just let it go and proceed with the charges as is. Kids can be manipulated by adults to say things that support one side or another. That just sounds like something incredibly stupid to say to some children in bathing suits of the opposite sex. Maybe he did say that, maybe he did not. I just wish people would look more critically about police and newspaper/TV accounts like this rather than just taking them at face value. It would lead to better results in the courts IMHO.

I wish that they taught Socratic thinking in more places than just Philosophy classes, Law School, some MBA schools, and some other places. 6 types of Socratic Questions

[MDLNB]

Regardless of his age (meaning under 65) and whether or not it was a misunderstanding, if the guy took the first punch, he was wrong and should be charged (he was). Regardless of whether or not he instigated the altercations, he stole the senior's cell phone. That's larceny/theft. He should be charged. Regardless of whether there are extenuating circumstances related to the whole affair, that is for the court to decide, not Monday (today is Monday) morning quarterbacking. Talking to children is not a crime, as far as I can discern. However, any adult can and should be concerned about protecting children. I do not know if there were any other witnesses, but I do know that if I had been present, I would have become involved. I am sure that most of our seniors would have. I can only assume that there was not that many folks in attendance at the time. But, I have not read the article and thus do not have all the facts. If this person has been arrested for assault in the past, I would tend to side with the senior, rather than looking for ways to justify the child whisperer. Just my opinion, being a grandfather and great-grandfather.
There are several factors that are at issue here:
Protecting our children from perverts-scare.
The assault and battery
The theft of the cell phone
The fleeing the scene

Talking to the children is not an actual crime. Thank goodness the grandfather was there to prevent a possible crime on the children from happening. Sometimes waiting for a crime to occur before taking action toward prevention, causes unending regrets later. The grandfather (depending on facts) is a hero in my book. I find it hard to come up with circumstances that warrants the 41 yr. old striking the senior, stealing his cell phone and fleeing the scene. Of course, I was not there and do not know all the facts. However, with what we do know, I refuse to defend his actions. If it turns out that the grandfather's actions were warranted, I would like to shake his hand. If my granddaughter was in that pool and someone defended or attempted to protect them, I would be forever in their debt. I am not a lawyer or psychiatrist, so I will not attempt to analyze the perpetrator's motivation for attempting to engage minors in conversation. In my opinion, any adult with common sense and/or stable mind would know better. When accosted by the grandfather, he would have been well advised to retreat, rather than allow his anger to cause him to violate the law. Hardly the action of the innocent.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Regardless of his age (meaning under 65) and whether or not it was a misunderstanding, if the guy took the first punch, he was wrong and should be charged (he was). Regardless of whether or not he instigated the altercations, he stole the senior's cell phone. That's larceny/theft. He should be charged. Regardless of whether there are extenuating circumstances related to the whole affair, that is for the court to decide, not Monday (today is Monday) morning quarterbacking. Talking to children is not a crime, as far as I can discern. However, any adult can and should be concerned about protecting children. I do not know if there were any other witnesses, but I do know that if I had been present, I would have become involved. I am sure that most of our seniors would have. I can only assume that there was not that many folks in attendance at the time. But, I have not read the article and thus do not have all the facts. If this person has been arrested for assault in the past, I would tend to side with the senior, rather than looking for ways to justify the child whisperer. Just my opinion, being a grandfather and great-grandfather.
There are several factors that are at issue here:
Protecting our children from perverts-scare.
The assault and battery
The theft of the cell phone
The fleeing the scene

Talking to the children is not an actual crime. Thank goodness the grandfather was there to prevent a possible crime on the children from happening. Sometimes waiting for a crime to occur before taking action toward prevention, causes unending regrets later. The grandfather (depending on facts) is a hero in my book. I find it hard to come up with circumstances that warrants the 41 yr. old striking the senior, stealing his cell phone and fleeing the scene. Of course, I was not there and do not know all the facts. However, with what we do know, I refuse to defend his actions. If it turns out that the grandfather's actions were warranted, I would like to shake his hand. If my granddaughter was in that pool and someone defended or attempted to protect them, I would be forever in their debt. I am not a lawyer or psychiatrist, so I will not attempt to analyze the perpetrator's motivation for attempting to engage minors in conversation. In my opinion, any adult with common sense and/or stable mind would know better. When accosted by the grandfather, he would have been well advised to retreat, rather than allow his anger to cause him to violate the law. Hardly the action of the innocent.

You should read the article. IMHO it is not well written and puts in various assumptions for dramatic effect. Mainly the statement about the "child whisperer" as you put it saying he allegedly talked to young girls. That puts a sex offender twist on it from the start but the cops never charged him for coming onto the kids. It is a crime to talk to young girls if you are trying to set up a date or the like. That's what the reporter made it kind of sound like in the article-- that this man was interested in these three girls sexually. The fight might have been about the grandfather misconstruing the intentions of this man who MAY have said something completely innocent to the girls. The facts are not in the article. In this day and time which such fears for young kids it seems to be irresponsible journalism to not get more into the facts.

I have been fighting at great personal and professional cost to get more practical information for survivors/victims of crimes accessible through or in libraries of all kinds in my 224 613 Project since January 1991. You do have to though think about the defenses to crimes also and it sound to me with my JD from the University of Minnesota Law School that a defense lawyer would have a field day with at least the prejudice put out by the local media against this innocent until proven guilty person. The man may have felt he had to flee because of the situation at the pool which was the portrayal of him as a potential sex offender.

The cops from what I have read handled this matter extremely well and made the charges based on their investigation and the law as welll as taking into account what a defense lawyer could tear down.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

You should read the article. IMHO it is not well written and puts in various assumptions for dramatic effect. Mainly the statement about the "child whisperer" as you put it saying he allegedly talked to young girls. That puts a sex offender twist on it from the start but the cops never charged him for coming onto the kids. It is a crime to talk to young girls if you are trying to set up a date or the like. That's what the reporter made it kind of sound like in the article-- that this man was interested in these three girls sexually. The fight might have been about the grandfather misconstruing the intentions of this man who MAY have said something completely innocent to the girls. The facts are not in the article. In this day and time which such fears for young kids it seems to be irresponsible journalism to not get more into the facts.

I have been fighting at great personal and professional cost to get more practical information for survivors/victims of crimes accessible through or in libraries of all kinds in my 224 613 Project since January 1991. You do have to though think about the defenses to crimes also and it sound to me with my JD from the University of Minnesota Law School that a defense lawyer would have a field day with at least the prejudice put out by the local media against this innocent until proven guilty person. The man may have felt he had to flee because of the situation at the pool which was the portrayal of him as a potential sex offender.

The cops from what I have read handled this matter extremely well and made the charges based on their investigation and the law as welll as taking into account what a defense lawyer could tear down.

I understand your need to defend him. It's in the nature of a good lawyer. However, regardless of circumstances resulting in the assault and the theft, I doubt that either one is justifiable. Put aside the incident with the children, the facts seem to indicate that there was an assault and theft. Even if the assault was due to self defense, how does he justify the theft? It appears that even a good lawyer is going to have a hard time with this one, partnered with the history of the suspect being introduced into the equation. And the prosecutor will use that as evidence of a trend in the suspects behavior. Like I said, I have yet to read the article. But, like you said, the media does have a tendency to taint the issue. If the police arrested the suspect, then they had to have probable cause. I am basing my opinion on the information provide on this thread. I am not the judge or the jury and have not convicted him. It is only an unqualified opinion based on conversation. I find it hard to defend the suspect based on information provided. Am I wrong?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Yes. I think if that guy was chatting up three ten year olds connected to me and said anything much to them, I would be very quick to get them out of the pool. He wasn't there with his family and it would strike me as odd. It said on the online news that he told them he liked "younger girls", didn't it say that Bare?

As they say "an once of prevention..." Police are reactionary by necessity, whereas we can be proactive and preemptive.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

I understand your need to defend him. It's in the nature of a good lawyer. However, regardless of circumstances resulting in the assault and the theft, I doubt that either one is justifiable. Put aside the incident with the children, the facts seem to indicate that there was an assault and theft. Even if the assault was due to self defense, how does he justify the theft? It appears that even a good lawyer is going to have a hard time with this one, partnered with the history of the suspect being introduced into the equation. And the prosecutor will use that as evidence of a trend in the suspects behavior. Like I said, I have yet to read the article. But, like you said, the media does have a tendency to taint the issue. If the police arrested the suspect, then they had to have probable cause. I am basing my opinion on the information provide on this thread. I am not the judge or the jury and have not convicted him. It is only an unqualified opinion based on conversation. I find it hard to defend the suspect based on information provided. Am I wrong?

The police do have those charges on him and they will probably stick IMHO. We do not have enough facts though for the mitigating circumstances though. It would seem to depend on why they got in a fist fight and why the man felt he had to run for it. If he thought he was unjustly going to be tarnished with the label of sexual pervert he might have just lost it. I do think that if there were any evidence that this man was making sexual advances on some kids in bathing suits in a pool, that the cops would have charged him. I assume that they did talk to kids in question at some time. There are hotheaded protectors of kids who just get angry about something and do not bother to get the facts from the kids. And kids may lie for some reason or another especially like defending a loved one if he made a seeing red mistake.

I would be seeing red if someone started talking to my 13 year old niece and they were much older and of the opposite sex. Especially if this were in a swimming pool. I would hope though that I could contain my anger.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

The police do have those charges on him and they will probably stick IMHO. We do not have enough facts though for the mitigating circumstances though. It would seem to depend on why they got in a fist fight and why the man felt he had to run for it. If he thought he was unjustly going to be tarnished with the label of sexual pervert he might have just lost it. I do think that if there were any evidence that this man was making sexual advances on some kids in bathing suits in a pool, that the cops would have charged him. I assume that they did talk to kids in question at some time. There are hotheaded protectors of kids who just get angry about something and do not bother to get the facts from the kids. And kids may lie for some reason or another especially like defending a loved one if he made a seeing red mistake.

I would be seeing red if someone started talking to my 13 year old niece and they were much older and of the opposite sex. Especially if this were in a swimming pool. I would hope though that I could contain my anger.

I'm sorry if I misinterpret your response, but I get the idea that you feel that the suspect is misunderstood and that the grandfather should have held his temper, that resulted in the altercation. I get that implication by your statement that you would hope that you could contain your anger if someone older started talking to your teenage niece. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you indicating that we shouldn't be concerned with protecting children, and you believe that if the grandfather would have resisted confronting the everything would have been OK? Because, I see this type of thinking to be problematic and accessory to this kind of behavior. Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

I'm sorry if I misinterpret your response, but I get the idea that you feel that the suspect is misunderstood and that the grandfather should have held his temper, that resulted in the altercation. I get that implication by your statement that you would hope that you could contain your anger if someone older started talking to your teenage niece. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you indicating that we shouldn't be concerned with protecting children, and you believe that if the grandfather would have resisted confronting the everything would have been OK? Because, I see this type of thinking to be problematic and accessory to this kind of behavior. Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.

We should be very aware of threats to kids especially of older men or women interacting with them. IMHO the grandfather should have approached the man talking to his grandchild as soon as possible and found out what they were actually talking about. From the article it sounds like the grandfather did not do that but accused the man of being a sexual pervert after the conversation with the kids was over and then the kids probably defended the grandfather of one of the kids by saying that the man told them that he "liked to talk to young girls". Who in his right mind says that to some young girls in bathing suits off to themselves?

The article is poorly written and does not really go into the details of who said what and when. I do think the police flushed this out and found out that this man was not trying to pick up the young girls.

If I saw a man trying to pick up a minor in some public place in the Villages I hope that I would call 9/11 immediately. I would though make sure that I was not misunderstanding the situation. It is a crime to vocalize a sexual intent towards a minor. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

[Bonny]

This thread has made me really think. We were on vacation and I was in the ocean. There were a couple of brothers 9 & 11. They were swimming by me having fun. I said looks like you boys are having a good time. They started showing me how long they could stay under water. We started talking about where they lived & went to school. We were laughing while they were telling me all about their vacation. Their family was in the water, but a little ways from us.
After reading all of these posts here, what a shame that so many people would assume I'm hitting on little boys because I was talking with them.

[REDCART]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I think that he allegedly told the girls that he liked to talk to young girls.
His arrest is for assaulting a man over 65, and for stealing his phone.
The last time he was arrested for battery, he got off with probation.
Hopefully, if he is convicted this time, he will go away for battery over age 65.

Does anyone wonder why a 41 year old male without minors with him was in a family pool to begin with, rather than a senior pool? Maybe the totality of circumstances suggests this guy is on very thin ice.

[Bonny]

Originally Posted by gryoung

Does anyone wonder why a 41 year old male without minors with him was in a family pool to begin with, rather than a senior pool? Maybe the totality of circumstances suggests this guy is on very thin ice.

Oh my goodness, I'm 63 so I shouldn't go to family pools unless I have kids ? When we lived in Santiago, we went to the pool there because it was right by our house. It was a family pool. What's a senior pool ?

[redwitch]

I'm with Tal on this one. Not enough facts to know if there were any predatory acts. The conversation could have been an innocuous question about how they liked visiting TV to something extremely lewd and obscene. We also have no idea what was said by the grandfather. He really could have come off extremely accusatory and threatening. We don't know.

What we do know is that the younger resident was charged with battery against a senior citizen and theft. According to a TOTVer who heard part of the altercation, it was very loud and obscenities were used. Maybe by the grandfather, maybe by the perpetrator, maybe by an observer, maybe by both or all? Again, we don't know.

To politely ask someone to not interact with a child is appropriate in today's world. To become immediately belligerent is not reasonable. And please remember that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by friends and family, not strangers.

In this case, I'd say that charging the perpetrator with assault, battery and theft is appropriate. How it will turn out is unknown but I wouldn't be surprised to hear self-defense being brought up and accepted. That would leave a charge of theft to be plea bargained to a misdemeanor.

[dsilverbj]

There is a simple solution which would probably require an amendment to
the by laws. Just like with the Village Charter School if you lose your job in the Villages your child can no longer attend the Charter School. The amendment should read that if you are underage in the Villages and commit a crime then you lose your right to live here whether you are living with your parents or not.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

We should be very aware of threats to kids especially of older men or women interacting with them. IMHO the grandfather should have approached the man talking to his grandchild as soon as possible and found out what they were actually talking about. From the article it sounds like the grandfather did not do that but accused the man of being a sexual pervert after the conversation with the kids was over and then the kids probably defended the grandfather of one of the kids by saying that the man told them that he "liked to talk to young girls". Who in his right mind says that to some young girls in bathing suits off to themselves?

The article is poorly written and does not really go into the details of who said what and when. I do think the police flushed this out and found out that this man was not trying to pick up the young girls.

If I saw a man trying to pick up a minor in some public place in the Villages I hope that I would call 9/11 immediately. I would though make sure that I was not misunderstanding the situation. It is a crime to vocalize a sexual intent towards a minor. Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I thought you were saying that we are the ones making assumptions by automatically placing guilt on the suspect. And I have read the short narrative article on the incident. As a matter of fact, I read two articles related to the incident. But, now it seems that it is you that are assuming that the fault is on the grandfather. How you could interpret the information provided by the article the way you did, is beyond me. You found some way to automatically interpret that the suspect was misunderstood by the grandfather, and didn't get a chance to defend himself. I see nothing in the article to suggest your "theory." I interpret the article as indicating that there was an assault and theft and that the suspect was arrested. The circumstances leading up to the altercation appears to be the fact that the suspect was chatting with three underage children, in a suspected inappropriate manner. I say suspected because I believe he chatted with them, but the only indication that there might/might have been inappropriate conversation is the little content we have of the quote he allegedly made. Whether he was innocent in his interaction with the children is a moot point, if he is guilty of assault and theft. Motivation for the violations means little unless it was self defense and the theft was inadvertent. A defense attorney will attempt to get him the best deal possible because he/she will be getting paid to do so, not because she believes he is innocent.
I like to think of my fellow Americans that get involved as heroes, and not try to find fault with their actions. I believe that there are way too many dirt bags that get the benefit of doubt and sympathy. Not to say that this guy is guilty, but on the other hand, I am not blaming the grandfather until evidence suggests otherwise. Too many folks want to make excuses for bad behavior. I am not criticizing your statement, rather I am just disagreeing with the liberal interpretation that you seem to put on the article.

[Bonny]

Originally Posted by dsilverbj

There is a simple solution which would probably require an amendment to
the by laws. Just like with the Village Charter School if you lose your job in the Villages your child can no longer attend the Charter School. The amendment should read that if you are underage in the Villages and commit a crime then you lose your right to live here whether you are living with your parents or not.

Too funny ! And what about the many seniors who live here that have committed crimes ?