Judge Who Told Accused Sex Offender to Write to His 13-Year-Old Victim Wasn't Totally Wrong

dinsdag 24 september 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Ericka Sóuter 2 hours ago

Judge Shari Michels caused quite a controversy recently by telling a cop accused of sexting and groping a 13-year-old girl that he could write a letter to his victim. Sounds crazy, right. Understandably, people freaked out. How could this officer of the court encourage and allow such a thing? But as horrific as it sounds, Judge Michels is not totally off her rocker.

At the hearing for former New York City police officer Modesto Alamo after his arrest for forcible touching and endangering the welfare of a minor, Judge Michels seemed to take pity on the man. Though she ordered him to stay away from the young girl, she also said, "If you feel that there is a need for communication, write it down, put it in the envelope, and put a date on it, and in the future, if you want to give them that information, you can do that then."

Not surprisingly, her words have enraged the girl's family and I am sure countless others. But while this judge may not be best equipped to provide counseling or therapy to this alleged criminal, her actions do highlight an important issue that is often ignored. Sexual predators have an illness and they need to be helped in addition to being punished. Why help him, you may ask? Because one day he will be back on the street.

If they do not learn how to deal with their illegal sexual proclivities, they are doomed to repeat them. I have no idea what the best approach is to helping someone with this problem. Michels also ordered him to have a psychological evaluation and get treatment after he reportedly talked of suicide. I imagine different sex offenders may need different things to eradicate or suppress those despicable urges. But I am 100 percent sure that they need some kind of intervention beyond just being locked up.

With all the furor her advice has caused, Judge Michels has since issued an apology through a spokesman. She regrets what her decision may have made the victim feel and did not intend to offend anyone. I buy that. The important thing to remember is that she was trying to make sure Alamo found a way to deal with his demons and not become a repeat offender. Can we really blame her for that?

What do you think of Judge Michel's advice to this defendant? Do you think sexual predators should get counseling?

Image via Hey Paul Stuidos/Flickr

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Ericka Sóuter

is a veteran pop culture and celeb news writer. That experience boils down to two things: she knows way too much about the Kardashians and she dominates on Trivial Pursuit's arts and entertainment questions.

More
?

reacties | | Read More...

Mom Accused of Cancer Hoax Used 4-Year-Old to Get Cash Out of Strangers

vrijdag 13 september 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Another day. Another cancer hoax from an Ohio mom who allegedly claimed her 4-year-old was dying just to bilk people out of their hard-earned dollars. Wasn't it bad enough the first dozen times this happened in America? Do we really need yet another child being victimized by his mother, yet another mother being dragged into the courts to answer for a despicable lie?

Of course, Emily Creno King should answer for her alleged cancer scam. But what do these crimes do to society, to the people out there who are truly struggling?

Isn't it hard enough fundraising without scammers?

For years I shaved my head annually for St. Baldrick's, a legitimate charity that raises money for children with cancer. Year after year, I'd solicit donations, and year after year, it got harder to reach my goal. People just don't have extra money lying around, not in this economy.

And yet, when bad things happen to good people, they try. They open their wallets up and pull out a $20 for that little kid with cancer, for that father of four undergoing radiation. Despite the horror stories we read daily in the news, there are a lot of good people out there who would give you the shirts off their backs.

But then there are moms like this.

There are people who know that people are inherently good and who look for ways to work that to their advantage.

The result is a cancer scam that hurts a little boy -- 4-year-old JJ thought he was going to die because of the things his mother had allegedly done to him including forced medications, frequent visits to hospitals, and shaving his head -- and hurts a community as a whole.

There is a domino effect when people are burned by fundraising hoaxes like this. They stop donating out of fear that it will happen again.

Who can blame them? I don't want to give my hard earned cash to someone who is abusing my trust.

The trouble is, this leaves the people who truly need it with nowhere to turn. They are struggling in a bad economy with the typical health insurance issues, and they need help that won't come because someone else abused the system and used their innocent child to do it.

Emily Creno King is facing a third-degree felony charge for child endangerment, and cops are investigating claims that she took money and gifts from people across the country.

Could the punishment include some sort of community service to the very people screwed by scams like this?

Do you donate to private people in need? What stops you?

Image via Utica Police

reacties | | Read More...

Anesthesiologist Accused of Horrendous Prank on Patient While She's Unconscious (PHOTO)

dinsdag 10 september 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Nicole Fabian-Weber 2 hours ago

A woman in Torrance, California, was horrified to find out that when she was completely knocked out from anesthesia during surgery, the anesthesiologist and a nurse reportedly affixed a fake mustache above her lip and yellow tear drops coming down her cheeks, and snapped photos of the unconscious patient in this state. Adding insult to injury, the woman found out about the tasteless prank after she returned to her job as a surgical supply purchaser at the very hospital she received surgery. She claims that she was either approached by coworkers who had seen the photos or ignored by people she formerly had communication with. 

And now she's suing. And if I were a betting woman, I'd say she's going to win. Big.

Torrance Memorial Hospital has acknowledged the fact that the photo "demonstrated poor judgment" but claims it was "intended to be humorous in nature." The woman, on the other hand, claims in her lawsuit that she was fully anesthetized rather than sedated "for the sole purpose of humiliating and embarrassing the patient." The lawsuit also says, "Perhaps the most vulnerable position any human being will ever endure in their life is a time when they are placed under full anesthesia." And I can't say I disagree. I would be pretty mortified to find out people were "defacing" me while I was having surgery as if I had passed out at a party from drinking too much.

Whether this was merely meant as a light-hearted joke or not, the fact these medical professionals completely abused their power and responsibility for fodder is unacceptable. When patients go under anesthesia, they're entrusting doctors and nurses with their body. They're entrusting them to not do anything they didn't consent to -- and this woman clearly didn't consent to this. And let's not even get into how this is violating all sorts of HIPPA laws.

Like I said, I'd be shocked if this woman didn't wind up walking away with a serious chunk of change after this lawsuit is over. And I wouldn't be surprised if the anesthesiologist and nurse wind up losing their jobs.

Was the "joke" really worth it, guys?

What do you think of this?

Image via LA County Superior Court

?

reacties | | Read More...

PTA President Accused of Making Child Pornography ... at Elementary School!

vrijdag 30 augustus 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Jeanne Sager 3 hours ago

A community is in turmoil after the former PTA president at the local elementary school was arrested. Cops say 37-year-old David M. Navarro (not to be confused with rocker Dave Navarro) recorded the sexual assault of an 8-year-old girl on school property. Then he posted it on the Internet! Technically that means child pornography was being made at an elementary school!

How could such a thing happen? How could a guy who'd do that not only get into a school, but rise to the president of the Belfair Elementary School PTA? Surely heads should roll.

Well, maybe not.

The school's superintendent says they did a "state patrol background check" on Navarro when he became an elementary school volunteer back in 2011. It missed a 2009 charge for "lewd and lascivious acts with a child" as well as "indecent exposure." But that charge was dropped ... Navarro was never prosecuted.

Unfortunately, this is the shortcoming of background checks. Typically they only uncover things that have been prosecuted. If someone skates or -- almost worse -- flies under the radar for years, a background check does diddly squat. It can't really determine the potential for someone to do something bad, only if they have been prosecuted in the past for doing something wrong.

What we're left with is an imperfect system that puts people like David M. Navarro in a school. It puts a guy who police say shot at least six videos of this poor little girl, including one of her performing oral sex on school grounds, in a school.

The only good news in all of this is that authorities here in the states were tipped off by police overseas who noted a GPS stamp on one of the videos found online (because, of course, child pornography spreads like a virus) that directed them to the Bellfair school. They were able to nail their suspect.

Navarro is accused of uploading some 14 inappropriate photos to the site in addition to the video. He's facing federal child pornography charges. If he's guilty, he will go away for a good long time -- and that should show up on ANY background check.

Do you have faith in background checks? Do you see any way to improve them?

Image via stevendepolo/Flickr

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeanne Sager

writes articles for The Stir by day, slays closet monsters and bounds through bedtime stories with her elementary schooler by night. The Phineas and Ferb soundtrack reverberates through her brain.

More
?

reacties | | Read More...

Lea Michele Accused of 'Controlling' Cory Monteith When She Was Actually a Godsend

donderdag 18 juli 2013

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
by Maressa Brown 4 hours ago

So much is coming out about Cory Monteith's life and death at such a rapid pace right now that it's hard to know what's true and what's being exaggerated, but one thing is clear: Now-grieving girlfriend Lea Michele was a hugely protective, positive force in his life ... Which makes it even more annoying that she's being painted as something of a control freak.

TMZ reports that sources close to the couple say Lea "swooped in when Cory died and immediately took over planning his memorial and other matters connected with his death." And before the tragic turn of events, she "fiercely protected him ... as much as she could, especially when it came to his substance abuse." For instance, she reportedly took the reins on his intervention, getting him into rehab, and giving him an ultimatum to clean up or she'd walk.

To some that may seem "controlling," but I'd describe it as being the best damn girlfriend Cory could've possibly had!

To me, what Lea did for Cory -- and what she's continuing to do -- is what you do when you care deeply for someone. You protect them and support them, but also sometimes push them to take better care of themselves.

More from The Stir: Cory Monteith & Lea Michele's Engagement Wasn't Far Off When Tragedy Struck

I've told my husband on multiple occasions -- whether it was when he was riding a motorcycle or acting resistant to addressing a health issue -- that he's gotta take care of himself. For both of our sakes. Because I love him, I want what's best and safest for him. I'm his biggest advocate. Of course, I can only say and do so much, even as his wife. Ultimately, it's up to him to make the right decisions and look out for himself. Still, I'm certain the influence of a protective partner, who always has your back, is overwhelmingly positive.

Hence why it's so wrong to use the words "controlling" and protective interchangeably -- especially in Lea's case. Sounds to me like she did everything she could to help Cory steer in the right direction. Now she's the one who needs all the support she can get and reassurance that she loved and cared for him as best she could, in the best possible way.

What do you think is the difference between being "controlling" and protective of your partner?

Image via Michael Buckner/Getty

Click the "Like" button below if you're a Gleek! ABOUT THE AUTHOR Maressa Brown

has enjoyed reporting and writing for a variety of entertainment and women's magazines and websites. More often than not, you'll find her blogging, hitting the gym, reading, researching something on her iPhone, laughing, chatting at an above-"normal" volume, or getting her caffeine fix.

More
?

reacties | | Read More...