Do you think this is ridiculous???

Question

25 years ago, a man was caught urinating in public.
A child saw this man and reported him.
He is now a registered sex offender.

FLASH FOWARD TO TODAY.

This man has NOT had any problems with the law since. He never served time for this crime.

He lives and has lived in Oviedo, Florida (owns his own house) for the longest time.
Oviedo just passed a law stating that a sex offender can NOT live within 2500 feet of a school, park, bus stop...
basically and effectively getting rid of all sex offenders in Oviedo.

This man made a very stupid mistake of taking a leak in public, but he did not touch or harm a child in ANY way.

He was told by the court that he had to move by July 1, 2007.

Aside from the obvious stupidity - is a child ANY safer 2501 feet from a sex offender than he/she is 2499 feet?

Answer 1

I think that each case needs to be treated in its own certain way a case such as this one is ridiculous.

Answer 2

He should get a lawyer to appeal that decision on a case by case basis. Hell, I have urinated in public, aint proud of it, but sometimes that is the only option short of wetting yourself, and that is just assinine. If that is truly all he did, and he has NO other record, no other suspicions etc. then I think he should get the ACLU involved, they LOVE these types of cases.

I heard about this a few years ago, that this was coming down the line for sex offenders. I used to be in propert management and one time we had an irate guy claiming he didn't know if registered sex offenders lived next to him because the association had no application restrictions yet, and he was really being an ***, so I let him have it. I explained to him that that only helped him from REGISTERED sex offenders. MOST sex offenses occur with people the kids already know, an uncle, a father, a family friend, etc.

While I am the last person to defend a sex offender, I think calling a public urinator a sex-offender is just wrong. But, I would like to know more about the case, where is it listed online anywhere? I know a few female friends of mine who were exposed to, as in the guy clearly was exposing himself, and I can see if he were caught he might be able to argue he was urinating or whatever.

Again, not knowing enough about the case I can't say for sure. Like, was he not near his home, did he not have access to ANY public bathroom, could he not hide himself better, was he drunk, things like that play into what his deviant character is, or is not.

But, if he gets the ACLU involved, that little town will wish they never heard his name after that, they are an evil necessity, heh.

Answer 3

I believe that the media has created such a hype in this type of law that it is beginning to get stupid. It's like the Salem Witch Trials. The same thing could be said about how the media has hyped how "dangerous" pit bulls are....now many towns have made it illegal to own one. If I was that man, I would challenge that ruling in court, plus I'd challenge the sex offender status as well. Best of luck to him.

Answer 4

Clearly, the legal system has screwed up in not addressing degrees of some "sex offenders". These laws that restrict where sex offenders live should be able to be appealed for specific cases like this one.

Answer 5

I feel this poor man should file an appeal. He didn't hurt any child. When was this law passed? And it should be only public indecency. Sorry to hear this. just think about all the sexual offenders that do not report where they live. sad isn't it? good luck

Answer 6

1st of all how accurate is that? If in fact he really was only peeing in public than that is just ridiculous. But think about this....... How do we know that he wasn't being a pervert. He obviously got convicted, by either a plea or a jury. If it was a jury then it has to beyong a reasonable doubt , right? Or if he took a plea than it's his own fault for taking a plea knowing the consequences and the repercussion of taking that plea...........Does it make sense?
Again, if indeed he was only peeing than the justice system has failed him and our people.

Answer 7

I understand the point of registrations, however I do think there needs to be limits. And this man should not have to move. There should be a ways to fight this...but I don't know. It really make people think though...I know several people, myself included that have gone behind a dumpster of tree on the golf course or something and could probly get in trouble for it.....some people just go to far.

Answer 8

This is riduculous, however, not true. To be a registered as a sex offender, a crime that would warrant registration must be committed, and public urination is not one of them. Something else happened, and either he's not saying or its not public.

Answer 9

I think it would be wise to look at every case on its own merit and re-evaluate. If the child was in Japan this wouldn't have been reported at all. Benjo ditches are the bathroom of choice for men.

Answer 10

Ex Post Facto?