Sex Offender Dies in Cold After Being Denied From Shelter

Post Reply New Topic

is it not illegal to share someone's criminal record on the internet?
could a moderator please confirm/deny?

In Michigan, the state police maintains a searchable database of sex offendors that lists each person's name, specific offenses, address, and picture. So no, I don't think it's illegal.

As far as Thomas Pauli...I am not happy he died, but I don't feel any particular angst about it either. I agree with the law that prevents sexual predators from residing close to schools - if that ended up limiting this particular offendor's housing options, that's unfortunate, but it's one of the consequences of his antisocial behavior.

I certainly feel superior to dirtbags that do that sort of thing and so should almost anyone. I'd have no qualms whatsoever about pointing a pistol at one of their heads and pulling the trigger. Even most criminals hate those sort of people - they get the crap beat out of them in prison. They do that kind of thing they earn whatever they get.

I find this horribly sad. He may have been a sex offender, but he still deserves certain basic rights. He deserved the right to go to a homeless shelter. He shouldn't have had to freeze to death like that.

While I am not a moderator, if I am not mistaken, it's all covered under the Freedom of Information Act. Also, I believe each state has their own legislation regarding that.

Basically, if it's electronically available online, then it's not illegal, seeing as how a state agency made it available to the public for anyone to view. As far as the 'sharing' goes, it's not information that they couldn't obtain themselves by looking around a little. So again...illegal? I don't think so, but I'm not an expert of information laws.

I agree there needs to be a better definition of 'child abuse' so sex offenders can be dealt with appropriately without the issue being all confused. And the classification of crimes in that table is horribly broad, and the sentences are so inconsistent.

10 years jail for * ahem* 'Unnatural Intercourse' with no parole? So even with consenting adults that's worse than Voyeurism, which comes in at up to 5 years? And Domestic Violence is down at $500 fine and/or 6 months jail. I'm puzzled.

But I think that while it was unfortunate that the man died, the staff at the shelter had a duty of care to protect the people already staying in the shelter and the children at the school. They couldn't legally or morally have done otherwise.

While I don't like what he did he was still a human being and should have at least been directed somewhere else to go.

+1

The man made some bad choices in his life, but everyone has screwed up at some point. We still have a moral duty to our fellow man, and turning him away to die in the streets like that was just cruel.

Sorry, this guy gets no sympathy from me. Nor do I see why the media is so intent on blaming the law or someone other than the sex offender himself.

He is homeless. He is a sex offender. This is not why he died.


He died because he did not take care of himself simple as that. A shelter is not something you go to and say 'oh well, I was denied so ill just stay outside and freeze to death'.

He had options. He failed to use them.

911 - police will pick you up and take you to a hospital or even to a local jail to spend the night if you are homeless and facing fatal exposure from weather.

many churches are available as well.

Where is he calling 911 from? You think a homeless guy has a cell phone? And don't say pay phone, there are hardly any functional pay phones to be found.

Some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread...

Before I get started, let me state for the record that I have absolute no remorse for this man's death.

The shelter does not get to make that decision. It's purpose is to shelter people, not decide their fate.



They are bad people. They have done nothing to improve the safety of society. Regardless of this man's fate, there will still be children molested.



No, it's a shame that he chose to molest a child.



I don't care, but I'm not going to be the one that does one of these things to him, and I would not congratulate the person that did.



Don't believe in hell as it is logically absurd. You are not the king of the world that get to decides who stays and who goes.



But what does that accomplish? In my view, absolutely nothing.



Making jokes about the death of ANY human being is horrid.



It's not good, and it's not news. It's just another thing that happened.



Perhaps he is enlightened enough to realize that you don't have to take sides in every issue. Perhaps he is a good enough person to never be happy when anyone dies.



It is not your place to judge in such a manner.



His logic isn't perfect, but he's merely making a point. You can't get all sarcastic and call him an idiot because of his logic unless you REFUTE that logic. Let me try and spell it out for you. Rapists take pleasure at the suffering of others. You are now taking pleasure at the suffering of this man. See the connection?



He's the only reasonable person in this thread so far.



It is not your place to judge whether someone is guilty or innocent. Obviously, I'm not saying this man was an angel, but even so, guilt/innocence do not change the crime. You want to apply your own moral compass to the judicial system, and thankfully, it doesn't work like that.



There is no such thing as a "normal person". Yes, the majority may revel in his death, but the majority is wrong about a lot of stuff. Hating them is what *unenlightened* people do.



You don't get to decide what qualifies as justice.



Completely irrelevant tangent.



You don't get to decide that.



Ironic.



That's just your opinion, not a moral guideline.



He's a human with an opinion. That is enough.



A human being is a human being, everything else is merely context.



But it's not your place to judge anyone in such a manner.



You are mixing the tangible with the intangible. Yes, you experience the tangible, whether you "know" it is debatable. What is not debatable is that you simply cannot "know" the intangible. That's why it's intangible.



But also no gain.



No one should feel superior to anyone.



It is not your place to decide what someone has "earned".



The sky must be falling. I completely agree.

Yes there are payphones. There is the phone AT the shelter he was turned away from (he got there didnt he? if refused and its freezing outside he could have called police from there). This is all looking at it with hindsight but again, it is not a matter of 'the system' failing the person.

This person made the unfortunate choice of committing an act that got him the sex offender tag and 'the system' is set up to prevent those with such tabs from getting near potential victims. The system WORKED as it should and turned him away. After that, it was his responsibility to find another form of shelter, not the system's responsibility.

If the outcome had been 'sex offender was allowed into shelter and X innocent people were (insert criminal act here) ' then you'd be here crying that the system did not protect the innocent.

and thats what it boils down to: the system is set to protect law abiding citizens as #1 priority. As a felon / sex offender he was #2 priority.

Oh look. More antipedophile BS.

read this link before you advocate genocide...
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn

My wife's ex-husband is a pedophile and has been to prison for it.
His father was a pedophile too - guess who he molested.

Okay, I'm really ticked off.

And don't give a @@@@ about what the moderators think about what I'm going to say.

I expect the people here who wish the pedophile dead or were generally pleased that it happened to have no problem with NT's seeing themselves as defective and therefore disposable.

I expect the people here who wish the pedophile dead to wish in-vitro testing had been around before their births and would have no problem with themselves having been aborted for being defective.

Get over yourselves and grow up.