To many residents of Westgate Apartments, John T. Whitehead appeared to be a trustworthy and friendly - if sometimes erratic - neighbor.
He encouraged the children in the complex to play with him at the local park, something parents said they thought was harmless. He rode down the slide with the kids, wrestled with them, offered them sodas and gave them piggy-back rides.
"It was stuff that on the face of it looked innocent," Assistant Dist. Atty. David Melton said.
But after Lawrence Police received a complaint about Whitehead earlier this year, they began investigating and found a more disturbing reality. The physical contacts he had with children were a way to sexually arouse himself, and he maintained a collection of thousands of photographs of children - some he had taken himself, and others he'd clipped from magazines and newspapers.
Most of the photographs were of young boys. Many had been decorated with word balloons coming from the children's mouths with phrases such as "Does it tickle."
The details came out Thursday at a sentencing for the 30-year-old Whitehead, who recently entered a plea to one count of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child.
The sentence he received from Judge Stephen Six, including 24 months' probation and court-ordered therapy, was less severe than what he could have received had he not been allowed to enter a plea agreement. He initially was charged with aggravated indecent liberties with a child - involving three victims ages 6, 9, and 11 - which carries a presumed prison sentence of at least 55 months per count.
But prosecutors said they thought a plea was the best solution, given factors including the ages of the victims and the possibility that not all members of a jury would think his actions fit the definition of child molesting.
"What we had were really contacts through clothing," prosecutor Melton said.
Whitehead will be prohibited from having unsupervised contact or physical contact with children while on probation.
The judge gave him credit for the 47 days he served in jail while his case was pending. He will be required to register as a sex offender.The incidents that led to Whitehead's arrest all happened at Westgate Apartments, 4641 W. Sixth St., between March 2001 and April 2005. According to statements in court, Whitehead admitted that he sought out contacts with the children as a way to become aroused.
"These contacts became so intense for him that he found himself having to go and sexually gratify himself, then seek out other contacts," Melton said.
One victim's mother testified that at the time she met Whitehead in 2001, she was vulnerable as a single mother dependent on welfare assistance. She said he came to her door every day asking if her two sons could come outside to play.
"John appears charming ... and he has fooled many people for many years," she said.
She said at times Whitehead would not take his medication and that he once threatened to burn down her apartment building. She said she complained about Whitehead to the apartments' management but was told that he was harmless. She did not specify the nature of the medications.
Whitehead, who is on disability, according to statements made in court, does not have a job and worked as a volunteer at Heartland Medical Clinic.
Whitehead stood up in court and apologized to the victims. He said that while trying to address other personal problems, his attraction to children was "pushed on the back burner."
"I've had it hidden inside me since I was a little kid," he said. "I was afraid to talk to anybody about it. ... I will do my best to correct my problem."
Both prosecutors and the victims' mothers credited the work of Det. Tyson Randall and other investigators from the Lawrence Police Department.
"They took the tip and ran with it and began interviewing people," Melton said. "There was really a lot of legwork on Tyson's part and the other detectives he was working with."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Ok...what he did was sick and wrong, no doubt. But what kind of parent doesn't wonder why a 30 year old man is asking if her boys can come out and play??? You need to have a little common sense.
punkrockmom (Nikki May) says…
That's what I was thinking too. Definitely NOT something you should think of as "nothing" or "harmless".
craigers (anonymous) says…
This just creeps me out more and more when I hear of older men being aroused by little kids in general. This is sick. Parents watch who your kids hang out with and if you don't know the person, then why did you let them play with Mr. Whitehead?
trueninetiesgirl (anonymous) says…
i tell my girls that if they are a yr past your age then they are probley only look for sex or to feel you up. to stay away from theses people.
lovely1 (anonymous) says…
lucky me, this man now lives w/ his father on my block!!!!!!!
kjgs (anonymous) says…
I would like to know why there was not a picture of this man in the article. Wouldn't that be the best way to warn people about him.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Just how did this mentally disabled man break the laws? It isn't clear from the article. It is clear that the DD guy was aroused by normal playful touching and that he had the will and presence of mind to leave the company of those children before acting on his urges, all with the permission and oversite of the children's parents. How is that aggravated indecent solicitation of a child? Be careful what you think, it may get you prosequted [if you are mentally ill]. If this story has been accurately reported, there is yet another problem with our legal system.
I've been active in alerting the 12-14 year olds about Michael Rayton's presence on the corner of 9th and Mass. These teens are responsible to stay or leave after they are made aware of his drinking and rape charges. But at this rate Michael should be prosequete for his efforts to flirt and pick up these young girls.
I've found out that Cottonwood houses a DD male that is on the sexual offender's list. Houses him right next door to DCCCA's half way house for woman and and their children. Only a waist high fence separates him from his potential victims. Who is to be prosequted in that case, the DD male, Cottonwood, for irresponsible placement, DCCCA, for not being aware? What are they thinking, it could be against the laws?
sd123 (anonymous) says…
I used to live at Westgate. Concerns about this particular individual were reported to the property manager as well as the owners repeatedly and by several tenants. The tenants who reported were met with threats (from John and management). John threatened several times to burn, blow up, kill things. i moved!!! Not everyone has the finances to move. Truth be known, this man did A LOT more than he has admitted to! For starters, he has lived there well before 2001. Every person who lived/lives there, had children involved in any form or fashion should have been notified shortly after his arrest! As for trusting this man, yes, he was (in the beginning) very nice, trusting etceteras. I've got pictures of the creep in my apartment, with my kids. Even the most watchful of parents let their guard down when involved with a person like this. So stop being so quick to blame the parents! This man knew exactly what and how to gain the trust of parents and children.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
what does DD mean?
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
They probaly only contacted the parents that had children involved with him within the states laws of five years. Because the State excuses what happens to the children if it is more than five years.
sd123 (anonymous) says…
DD means Developmentally Disabled. As for the 5 year statute, that doesn't give an ounce of justice for the children who have been violated by this man. Do a search for Westgate Apartments and you will understand the crap some of us went through trying to get this issue (as well as many others) addressed. The "Happy Tenants".......yes, one of them was none other than John Whitehead himself. I hope all the investigators who "found no wrongdoings" are sleeping well tonight.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
I totally agree. This happens everyday. If nothing is said or not investigated properly within a 5 year timespan. The sick individuals get away with what they are doing. It's sad. I know of some very sick situations that have happened, and because the SRS wouldn't do thier job right, some person got off easy because the state can't do anything about it, past five years.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
A grown man, plays with children in isolated areas, gives them gifts, prefers contact sports, appears like a good guy to parents......my mom was poor and single, but she wasn't an idiot!!! These are the typical signs of a pedophile. Maybe we need to require an IQ test for all people who want to have children!
megorama (anonymous) says…
Stop blaming the parents? That is hilarious...who should we blame for not being responsible for their children???
OH! I have an idea...lets blame Santa, oh yeah, he is the one that is supposed to be watching them when they are sleeping. GROW UP and take responsibility for not being cautious with your children!
I would NEVER let a man, regardless of how charming he was or appeared to be, "play" with my children!!! HELLO??? Doesn't anyone see a problem with this???
westernksgirl (anonymous) says…
Make no mistake about it, this "person" is definately more of a "menace". He is a pedophile, and a repeat offender at that. The fact that the prosecutors office did not charge him or go to court with these facts is almost as sick as this man himself. Judge Six should've thrown out the plea agreement and made this thing go to trial. Just because the victims that are known were sexually abused "on the outside of the clothes" makes absolutely no difference.
Further, it is the parents' faults in cases like this. This man is a classic pedophile. If a "man" of ANY AGE asked to "play" with my young children, I would have called the cops on him so fast he might not have made it to the end of my driveway. Would it have him arrested? Probably not. Hell, doesn't even look like it gets a person in jail. But, at least is starts a record . .or, at least it should. It is time to start holding police, law makers, prosecutors and judges accountable for these threats (more than a mere "menace") to our children. And while I agree for so many reasons that there ought to be some "baseline" requirements for people to be parents, unfortunately, a high I.Q. does not mean someone is either "street smart" or smart in the "ways of the world". Parents need to be involved, spend the time with your children. Check out your babysitters, their aquantances/spouses, day care centers and all other peoples that have contact with your children. Never "assume" that someone is safe. Never be afraid to deny someone the right to just "hold" your baby, or "play" with your child. If it doesn't feel right, do not do it, and even if you think it's "okay", stand guard. Your child depends on you for that. And, teach your children to not talk to strangers, but also, don't be isolated with people older than them. Tell them, they have the right to say no, loudly, and repeatedly if necessary.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
OK - given that most persons who prefer having sex with little kids (and/or persons of the same sex) are hard-wired that way (i.e. not likely to change), how do those who recently posted objecting to and/or questioning the effectiveness of the sexual predator registration laws now feel?
As for parents not "twigging" to the fact that some nice guy may really be a pervert, who among us did not have at least one "funny uncle" ? How unconscience or asleep at the wheel do you have to be to not notice that Johnny's spending most of his time being held by a grown man? Of course, most parents do not WANT to believe that a neighbor, close friend, or even someone in the family is sick and twisted. It's easier to just assume the best of everyone. But that is dangerous. That's why they call it "Child endangerment" when they take kids away from a mom who SHOULD have known that the live in boyfriend was screwing with her kids.
The bottom line is that ANY adult (of any gender) who WANTS to play (alone) with little kids should be considered suspect. It is not normal to behave like Micheal Jackson. At least not by today's societal standards! Any adult whose best friends are younger kids should be suspected and monitored! And the people most able to do such suspecting and monitoring should be the children's parents!
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
I had a "funny uncle" who was reported for doing what he did. Back in the day, he got to take diversion for it. So it was swept under the rug. He kept doing him sick acts onto others, like his son, sho did it to others, and now his son is spending 18 years in prision. Which should be more because so many more cases were dropped because of the five year statue of limitaions. I would never dream of having my children be with the sorts of John Whithead. Maybe it is because I went through what I went through. Personally, I think everything they stated in the article, was pretty much not common for any sane person to want to be doing. It should have been a red flag to somebody.
westernksgirl (anonymous) says…
Oh, and Smitty:
For your information, touching a child in a way to sexual arouse an adult, is a crime. He did more than just have "thoughts". He did, in fact, act on his URGE to be aroused by these children. He even took the added step of keeping momentos of these "urges". So, a crime did take place according to Kansas Law (and, it is aggravated, if the child is less than 14 years of age, but, if older than 14, it is not a level 4 felony, but a level 5). Please read section A; more than once if you need to:21-3504
Chapter 21.--crimes and punishments
part ii.--prohibited conduct
Article 35.--sex offenses
21-3504. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child. (a) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child is:
(1) Sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age;
(2) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age and who does not consent thereto:
(A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or
(B) causing the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another; or
(3) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is under 14 years of age:
(A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or
(B) soliciting the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another.
(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of aggravated indecent liberties with a child as provided in subsection (a)(1), (a)(2)(A) and (a)(3)(A) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.
(c) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 4, person felony.
for future reference, you can do searches yourself at www.kslegislature.org (oh, and P.S., it's "prosecuted" not "prosequted")
lovely1 (anonymous) says…
how do i let them know that this guy sits outside and stares at kids in the neighborhood? This sexually aroses him? this is sick!
lovely1 (anonymous) says…
what am i supposed to do? how far away is he supposed to be from kids?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sigh. Thoughts and feelings are not illegal (if they were, then you would be in big trouble if you have ever wished someone would get hurt). Acting on those thoughts and feelings can be illegal.
SO - unless the guy does more then stare and get aroused (aroses???), he's not doing anything illegal. It is not illegal to be a pedophile. It is illegal to touch kids for sexual reasons. ..... See above law.
If you have a complaint to make about a possible violation of criminal laws, contact the cops (or if you live in the country, the sheriff)!
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Contact the DA's office or court to find out what was ordered regarding distance from children. There is no statute saying "10 feet from all kids". The "Stay away" order is specific to this person...so you have to check with the individuals involved if you want to find out what the court said about this individual's distance from kids.
pksmom (anonymous) says…
Everybody who has written comments about John Whitehead on this web page, or any other web page for that matter, you need to get your stories straight. Those of you who do not know Mr. Whitehead personally and are judging him from these stories alone, need to get off your dead a** and find something better to do. John is a very wonderful man who I, myself, would trust my child with any day. I too am a single mom who has been beaten, abused, poverty stricken, and forced to raise my child alone. Yes, this makes life hard, but that does not make me a vuneralbe person. To say that would just be an excuse, and a poor one at that. John does have disabilities but so does every other person alive. Just because his are more profound than others, does not mean that he is a bad person or even a pervert. And if people want to throw acusations around, then put me in jail too. I threaten to beat my daughter's butt everyday but that's just something that comes out when I am angry and/or she is disobeying. I would ever think of actually beating my child and John would never think of hurting a child either. And just another little tid bit of information to all who don't really know the whole story. Why would the mother of the victim ask John to babysit her children again the very week after she filed the complaints??????? That is sick to me!!!! So for all of you who think that John is just another pervert, get a life of your own. I'm sure that there are many other things that you could be paying attention to.
14Lawrence (anonymous) says…
I live on this block as well and children seem to be the only people I see him talking to.
14Lawrence (anonymous) says…
??? dead A**??? "Thousands of pictures of little kids" for the purpose of getting aroused = pervert!
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
There is a staute of limitaions for sexual crimes in Kansas. It is five years. It used to be two. But now it is five.
whatdoyouthink (anonymous) says…
If children get him arroused? That makes him a pervert!!! What happens when he does something to your children? You would probably also trust Michael Jackson too wouldn't you?
thisiknow (anonymous) says…
To pksmom---You think he's a great guy?-BTK also got aroused from photos--you see where this is going?
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Re-read my original post. I did NOT say that the parents were responsible for his sick actions. But, as a parent, you have to have common sense and protect your children. That's your job! You don't need to assume every "nice guy" is out to get your kids, but she said that a 30 year old man knocked on her door, every day, and asked if her boys could go out and play with him. Any parent should be hearing alarm bells from that. It doesn't mean you have to ban the person from seeing your kids, if you don't think they are dangerous. But, for God's sake, don't let them go out ALONE with the guy and play unsupervised. your job is to protect your children because they aren't old enough or emotionally mature enough to figure out everyone who may be a danger to them.
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
pks mom, stop threatening to beat your child's butt!!! Intimidation is a coward's way of discipline. And then to top it off, you don' t do what you say (thank god). That means you are giving empty words.
I feel sorry for your daughter. It is not her fault that you can't control your anger!! stop it!!!!
sixtwelvewest (anonymous) says…
The parents are not directly responsible for what happened to their children (though I cannot conclude from the article what inappropriate physical misconduct/abuse took place). However, my parents never would have let me go off with a strange adult, and I wouldn't let my children be around strangers or adults to "play." As a parent, it is your job to protect your children from these kinds of abuses. How anyone could say it's not the parents' fault because they were "tricked" or "deceived" is totally naive.
lovely1 (anonymous) says…
where's e_m when u need em?
Snoop (anonymous) says…
"He encouraged the children in the complex to play with him at the local park, something parents said they thought was harmless"
Lawmom already made the point....Common Sense.
This dude needs to rot somewhere.
pksmom you need to get a grip "I threaten to beat my daughter's butt everyday but that's just something that comes out when I am angry" Hmmm
WAY too much 411, we don't care. But the police might.......
"John is a very "wonderful" man who I, myself, would trust my child with any day"
Yup, tell me all need to know about U.
A wonderful pervert and pedophile.
Is that what some call an oxymoron? Just askin....
Gootsie (anonymous) says…
Yes Snoop. pk needs to be rescued.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Just how does society handle the mentally ill/developemental disabled? Do forgive me wkg if I have mis-spelled a word or two but left the meaning in tact.
All of the men I mentioned including Whitehead is developmentally slow. They are naturally more comfortable with children. The difference for Whitehead is that he associates with a caring church group of people and he is willing to state that he needs to work on his issues. DD is quite different than a sexual predator of average intelligence.
The laws do not adequately address the issue of mental illness vs mentally slow. More education and awareness on the part of the general public so that guardians of small children can make better decisions is a fair start since we will not return to keeping the DD locked up as they were a few years ago. The political system put this population into the main stream but the public doesn't know how to handle the responsibilty of intergrating the DD without criminalizing them.
My method is to warn the ones in harm's way of a DD but show no mercy for someone who is a sexual predator like LeRoy Henderson.
sd123 (anonymous) says…
People, all of the facts and victims have not been disclosed. There will (more than likely) be more coverage of this incident in particular. Until then, we should stop making assumptions on what Mr. Whitehead is or isn't capapble of. Hopefully, the whole truth will be revealed this time around. Mr. Whitehead does not have a developmental disability. He has a mental disability. With proper medication and proper supervision, there is no reason why he (and many others) can not be productive or at least non harmful citizens in the community. However, when those two elements are missing, and then excuses made for the lack of responsibility, bad things happen.
One fact is, this has been going on for numerous years. Management, owners and others failed to find anything amiss. And rather than face the facts, they chose to turn the other cheek and instead, make it difficult for those that did report it. Who is to hold the most blame? blah blah blah.... We all are.
megorama (anonymous) says…
Being single and poor is not an excuse to be ignorant!
We all know that having money certainly doesn't grant intelligence...bottom line, do your job parents!
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
It is very easy to sit and pass judgement on a situation when you are totally ignorant of facts and history. It is very easy to cast aspersions and stupid judgements when you are not familiar with persons and situations. It is extremely easy to get your emotions in a turmoil in present day society where nearly every irresponsible person is seeking to place blame somewhere else. It is easy to be an expert on whatever when you listen to every radio talk show (Like Limbaugh and O'Reilly)) as the limit of your knowledge and intellect It is very easy to know exactly what to do when you are telling someone else how to live their lives. In short, it is very easy to make a jerk of yourself when you cannot discern reality, the spectre of political posturing or the presence of trailer trash. Engage brain before inserting foot in mouth.
norm (anonymous) says…
What a load of horse manure. All these "indignant" mommies posting wanting to all but castrate this guy. Observation: I rather suspect these "concerned mommies" are single moms.
Oh, I feel SO much safer knowing that this person is "convicted" of having a bunch of pictures of little kids in his house and becoming aroused when he's going down a slide with some kid because the kid's mother is too busy figuring out how to enhance her welfare benefits or get it on with her boyfriend.
This sexual offenders list is something else. Why are people so worried and needing this list? Are there lists of registered armed robbers; burglars; murderers; theives; and any other criminal act? Are people less afraid of these types of criminal than the "sexual offender"?
We've given our policing authorities license to spend all their time on this sex stuff and leave the heavy duty stuff unsolved or not being prevented. We've a war raging across the globe; 40+ million Americans are without health insurance; children go to bed hungry and we're focused on sex. Great set of priorities.
While I abhor the sexual predator and especially the ones focused on kids, I also recognize it's a sign of the times and pretty much a "non-factor" when compared to the more violent crimes in our community. However, as long as hysterical and insecure "parents" want to give law enforcement an excuse for misuse of their time rather than management of it, I suppose it's business as usual.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Well Norm, *"indignant" Observation: I rather suspect these "concerned mommies" are single moms.* Let's be honest and call this a biased conclusion on your part unless you can site what observations led you to conclude *"indignant"...."concerned mommies" are single mommies.
Next item Norm...*This sexual offenders list is something else. Why are people so worried and needing this list?*
Uhh could it have something to do with our history of incest, sexual abuse, and exploitation of women and children by the male dominate society of America. Crimes that were unpunished for most of our history and considered private business in a man's castle, his home? A crime that still is difficult to enforce.
Just one more thing, *as long as hysterical and insecure "parents" want to give law enforcement an excuse for misuse of their time rather than management of it*...
The police are public servants employed at the behest of the tax payers. We, as tax payers have been on the short end of the stick for some time because law enforcement shows the abuse of their power as often as they show us proper policing.
norm (anonymous) says…
smitty....
Focus on these "relatively" minor matters, such as a "sexual predators" list takes the focus OFF of the larger and more important issues confronting our community, State, and Nation: The crime rate is increasing due to the decaying social fabric of the Nation which is fueled by a wanton disrespect for working people.
The problem is that these same working people elect simpletons such as Reagan, Bush, and Nixon who have all made a life's work out of assisting the wealthy and giving the working person the shaft. It's quite a paradox for the "ordinary Kansan" to vote for slime who will continue to chip away at their rights and ability to earn a civilized income.
Yes, the police "public servants" but they're controlled by political hacks called "prosecutors" who can't control real crime so pretend they're getting something accomplished by creating hysteria over sex. Bluntly, the hub bub that parents and professionals create and demonstrate to children following something as horrible as surviving a "predator" might be far worse than the event itself: Children get the message they're "damaged goods" from their parents and the very people purportedly "helping them." It's rather disgusting and I've witnessed it time and again.
This "non issue" of "sexual abuse" gives people something to wring their hands over, but prevents nothing.
fairylight (anonymous) says…
Norm? Sexual predators are "relatively" minor matters, "?
What world do you live in?
smitty (anonymous) says…
Norm, the control in this town of the police is by the police chief not the political hacks(as in hack the commissioner). Hack, herself was quoted in the JW as saying it took some time before she knew what the right questions were to ask as if Wildgen gave no assistance in guiding the newer commishes in their duties. Politics in Lawrence is dirty business and will not meet the stereotyping of a woman hating, child exploitive society.
Take for instance the police officer that was found guilty of dometic violence on his daughter but wildgen and OLIN announced in the JW they wanted to circumvent the state law on felonies(domestic violence) and reinstate that officer(Martin). State laws won out on that one. A felony will not allow for the carrying of a weapon.
I personally find it nice to have a grip on the larger picture(ie: national and international influences) but find it much more effective to act on smaller local issues one at a time after removing the rose colored glasses.
Fairylight has it correct in my book, *Sexual predators are "relatively" minor matters. What world do you live in?*
Please address the bigger picture of "sexual predators" are "relatively" minor matters in the context of out documented history. Does your degree and acedemic experience lend to your opinions? Any papers or research to present?
To make it simple for you I'll repeat:
"Uhh could it have something to do with our history of incest, sexual abuse, and exploitation of women and children by the male dominate society of America. Crimes that were unpunished for most of our history and considered private business in a man's castle, his home?"
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Smitty - I don't know who the hell you're referring to when you talk about these "concerned mommies" and suggesting we're all single mothers. I, for one, have not called for the guy to be castrated, nor suggested that the police spend all their time going after these sexual predators. My suggestion was that parents actually PARENT their kids, do their jobs, and protect their children. Perhaps, if they did that, there wouldn't be a need for the police to step in so much.
And, not that it's any of your business, but you seem to be a very judgemental and insulting person, but, no, I am not a single mother. I am a married woman (married before I had kids, even!) and I live in a "traditional nuclear family"...father, mother, and children...plus a dog and a cat. We were a 2-income family before we had kids and now I stay home and raise mine, while my husband works for our income. It's a novel concept...one that many people don't seem to relish anymore...but it's ensuring that my kids are raised by their parents and with our values.
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Sorry, Smitty - I didn't realize you were just quoting Norm. I'll redirect my anger towards him and apoligize to you. Apparently Norm is the closed-minded and judgemental one.
I want a list of registered sex offenders because I want to know if the nice man next door has actually made a pattern out of raping or otherwise molesting little kids. I grew up in a world in which you could go outside and play without worrying about being molested by some nutcase next door. Unfortunately the world has changed and that isn't a given anymore.
I'm not worried about a list of armed robbers, for instance, because it's extremely unlikely someone is going to rob my child while they're playing to get the change in their pocket. You obviously don't have any kids, Norm. If you did, you would realize that there are crazy people out there that live to harm children. I hope you never have kids with a cavalier attitude like yours...because they would be in danger at some point.
smitty (anonymous) says…
LawrenceMommy...no offence taken. Please go easy on Norm, he's a retired professor (of social welfare I think but not sure). A prime example of the chasm between theory and practical application it seems.
Arminius, regarding the mentally ill on the streets(Whitehead is one)...that started with Reagan's administration. I had the chance to exploit that fact earlier but decided that partisan politics has no place in this discussion.
Care to comment on the prospect of prosecution because you had a thought of something illegal but did not act on it? Do you have any newspaper clippings of children, not porn, but photos or clippings of mostly young boys? That is what the JW quoted as reasons for this mentally challenged man's plea bargain. Any chance of recognizing homophobia as the reason for persecution of Whitehead? Norm is correct about the hysteria but not in the context of his explanations.
norm (anonymous) says…
smitty:
No, I'm not a retired social worker "professor". Please do not insult me. I hold that ilk with the same disregard I hold for "retired" politicians: As far as I am concerned, they are all cut from the same cloth.
Arminius is a capitalist apologist who is easily dismissed. His opinion counts for less than a hill of beans. Ilk like that slime want to quote stats that do not reflect the every day life of every day Americans. Let him get assaulted in the can and he'll change his view pronto.
LawrenceMommy types opinions from the exact perspective I attributed to her: emotion. She's not got clue ONE about how bad our society has become. She's or it is singular focused on sex. Does she not get enough of same in her own life? I dunno and don't really care.
The silly woman is not concerned about crime other than sex offences because that is what she her herself is focused on: SEX. I think SRS might want to investigate her parenting abilities. She's the kind and manner of ilk that when her child IS abused, she makes darn sure to remind the child that the child is messed up for life as a result of the abuse. She's the type of mommy that needs to be sterilized.
Me? I live in a world where there DOES exist a big, bad, wolf; Said wolf having a lot more on his mind than sex with kids. The children of Kosovo; Iraq; Thailand; Phillipines, etc. all know what I am referring to.
smitty (anonymous) says…
Norm...NWOR
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
Norm - You really have some issues, don't you? I would defend myself against your ignorant and close-minded attacks, but you just aren't worth it.
Smitty, you are correct about the flooding of the streets with the mentally ill during the Reagan administration. That was a direct result of the ACLU and other liberal interest groups demanding that the mentally ill could not be "held against their will" without a clear and present danger to themselves or others. The result was a lot of "moderately" dangerous individuals, or many who just can not function significantly enough to support themselves and maintain a household dumped on the streets to figure out how to eek out an existence there. It is truly sad that this was the result because many of them could have been assisted by living in a structured and monitored environment. But the courts determined that their "rights were being violated" with forced incarceration in a mental health facility. I understand the point...it's hard to argue that they are truly "free" members of society if they're forced to live outside of it. But very few mentally ill patients have the desire, nor cognitive ability, to realize that inpatient treatment is more appropriate for them. No matter which side of the political spectrum you fall on, it is a difficult issue to wrap your mind around and come to a conclusively "fair" result about.
Arminius is absolutely correct, as well. FBI crime statistics are available to the general public...even released to the media...and violent crime dropped significantly during the Reagan and Bush 43 terms. Argue about why all you like, but it is a fact.
Norm strkes me as a very angry older man with nothing better to do than insult those with valid *provable* arguments by slinging emotional and hate-filled rhetoric. I am an excellent mother...and my children will grow up believing in personal responsiblity and be productive and healthy members of society. I really couldn't care less what some angry aging socialist may think about it. To be honest, you disdain is probably the biggest compliment I can receive. You seem to have issues with sex because you turned my dislike of sexual predators into some bizarre fascination with it. Hmmm...maybe you're so against the predator lists because there's a name on it that you don't want public...food for thought.
LawrenceMommy (anonymous) says…
LOL...sorry...I know I should drop this, but I just scanned Norm's "eloquent" posts earlier and I just now had a chance to really read them. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess you've never actually witnessed, firsthand, the lives of the children in the countries you mentioned. I have, so get over yourself. Reading the New York Times and watching CNN all day doesn't make you an expert....living and experiencing does. Been there, done that. I'm not about to listen to some pseudo-psychologist explain society's problems to me when he's probably never been out of a small Kansas town.
I'm done with this thread because I know Norm's just going to get more angry and make up more insulting lies. I feel really sorry for you because you must have lived a very sad life to be so angry at people you don't even know. Try getting a hobby outdoors in the daylight. It will probably do wonders for your disposition. LOL