Free-Range Kids

Autistic Man Jailed for Talking to Kids. Just Talking. That's All.

Daniel Lee accused of 'luring.' Cops say they can't take chances.

|

Scared
Dreamstime

A man with autism is being held on $100,000 bail for talking to some children.

The man, Daniel Lee, 26, of Wayne, Pennsylvania, spoke to a group of three siblings—ages 8, 9, and 10—last week, asking them about their school and telling them he was on his way to a cabin in the woods. It's unclear if he told the kids he wanted them to join him or not. (News accounts differ: See this and this.)

He walked off then found and talked to the kids again 20 minutes later near Wayne Elementary School, whereupon the children's mom saw him and called the police. The police found the man in just two minutes.

Why so fast? My guess is because he was not a crafty creep trying to elude the authorities. He is a man with a disability that makes it hard for him to interact like a "normal" man around kids, which apparently means never interacting with them at all and instead running in the opposite direction screaming, "Get away! I hate kids! I am not a predator!"

Now, WPVI reports,  Lee is in jail, "charged with Attempting to Lure Children into a structure, which is in reference to his statements about a cabin, corruption of the morals of a minor, and harassment."

Corruption of morals? Really? How, exactly? He doesn't seem to have said anything salacious. And police say that at no time did Lee make any physical contact or even attempt to make physical contact with the children. Yet here's how the news anchor played up the story:

The big story on Action News tonight is word of an attempted luring at a Radnor Township school and police have a suspect in custody.

My God, they make it sound as if the kids just barely escaped a depraved menace. As Lee's mom explained to the reporter—and police—Daniel has autism, and sometimes likes to talk to kids.

But, WPVI reports, "The police say…they can't take any chances." After all, here's a grown man, living at home, with a part time job at a movie theater. Why cut him any slack?

A psychiatric evaluation will be performed on Daniel, and if it's determined that his parents are not making up their son's diagnosis, perhaps the charges will be dropped.

But shouldn't the charges be dropped for anyone facing such an accusation? Is it really a crime to talk to kids about a cabin in the woods if you never touch or attempt to touch or grab them? Wouldn't that make it a crime to read "Little Red Riding Hood" to a kid who isn't your own?

Daniel's mom said that she will teach Daniel that what he did was wrong. Who will teach the police that it's wrong to throw a man in jail when he clearly has special needs and hasn't done anything more than talk to some neighborhood kids? 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

153 responses to “Autistic Man Jailed for Talking to Kids. Just Talking. That's All.

  1. The police say?they can’t take any chances.

    And the law says…?

    1. …nothing about mens rea apparently.

      1. Maybe he was just PREmensrea-ing…

        I’ll show myself out.

        1. I think that would be best for everybody.

        2. or COmesrea-ating with the children.

    2. Had a talk about this sort of thing with a friend of mine last night. Apparently if we don’t enforce every law on the books to the fullest extent at every possibility, we’re on our way to being a banana republic. And this guy is to the right of Limbaugh on most issues.

      1. Small government radical, eh?

        1. Yep. But he’ll regularly drive 80mph on the highway and not bitch about being ticketed. I need to ask him if whenever he passes a state trooper doing that and doesn’t get pulled over, does he turn around and insist the trooper cite him for speeding?

        2. Go far enough right and you’ll find yourself on the left.

      2. I actually agree with him. Having laws that are selectively enforced is an excellent way for a government to target those the government doesn’t like. If you aren’t going to enforce the law to the fullest, why have it. And, it might actually have positive effect too. Like Abraham Lincoln said. “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”

        1. And my argument is that if you have a law that is unjust but won’t get repealed because none of the politicians involved want to be seen as soft on crime (see: War on Drugs), do you just shrug your shoulders and continue perpetuating the injustice?

          1. The drug laws are actually a perfect example. If the drug laws where enforced to their fullest extent in all instances. I don’t think you would have the same drug war. The problem is the politicians, their families, and donors get of light when they are caught breaking the drug laws, but black and brown people get the book thrown at them. Start sentencing the Noelle Bush’s of the country to long jail and or prison stints and I bet the drug war goes away.

            1. It’s not just black and brown people. It’s poor people of any color. The system chews up those who lack the means to defend themselves.

              1. Yes, I know. I’m not trying to say it’s just black and brown people. The statistics do show that black and brown people are far more likely to receive jail or prison though. But, you are absolutely right, it’s pretty much everyone outside the political class.

        2. The ratchet only goes one way.

            1. Thanx. I quite enjoyed that.

              {{{( (_?_) )}}}

    3. They can’t take any chances, which is why they trumped up the charges with something as ridiculous as corrupting the morals of a minor.

      So, what exactly is being implied there by our genius ruling class here? That a child who is molested has had their morals corrupted?

      1. Based on the definition of the term, unless there’s more to the story, I don’t see how they’ll get that charge to stick.

        1. What’s the standard sentencing recommendation for corrupting the morals of a minor? Does it still involve drinking hemlock?

          1. Bailiff, whack his peepee.

      2. “So, what exactly is being implied there by our genius ruling class here?”

        Penised people are evil and should know their place.

  2. If there was ever a charge where mens rea was crucial to the charge, this would be it. But no. That would keep the cops and DA from padding their stats to get more funding to fight the never ending war autistic sexual predators have been waging against elementary school children.

    1. “autistic sexual predators”
      Just say Bo. It’s faster.

      1. that got a chortle from me

          1. I’m just trying to keep his memory alive.

            1. I swear I saw him in a thread this week.

            2. You can’t use “sexual” in the same sentence as “Bo.”

            3. Someone should bring back MNG. Nobody could get John quite so revved up quite so well as him.

              1. Why are we wanting John to get even more revved up?

                1. It’s my perverse side showing.

              2. I thought MNG was palin’s BP. No?

    2. From Oxford Dictionaries:
      mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

      “He admitted he knew right from wrong,” said Detective T.J. Schreiber at a Thursday afternoon news conference, referring to his conversation with Lee after his arrest. “And he knew it was wrong for a stranger, especially 26-year-old men, to speak with 10-years-and-under children.”

      What I found surprising, in this day-and-age of helicopter child protection, was that someone didn’t want the parents charged for letting their children wander around unsupervised.

      The country has changed, people, get used to it, and individuals, like Mr. Lee will get caught up in it, perhaps to our moral detriment.

      1. “And he knew it was wrong for a stranger, especially 26-year-old men, to speak with 10-years-and-under children.”

        For fuck’s sake, when exactly did men simply talking to children become a criminal activity?

        1. It’s very weird to read this and contrast with my experiences in Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, China). Not only does no one freak out when I talk to kids (even though I’m 6’6″), but parents will often smile and wave back.

          I fear the day that I forget myself and greet a kid in America.

  3. A few weeks ago I was picking up some takeout at a restaurant. There was a sign there that said kids would get a secret prize with some meal or something. There happened to be a little girl there, maybe nine or ten, who asked the woman behind the counter what the prize was. The woman said she didn’t know. I piped in and said “Well it wouldn’t be a surprise if they told you what it was, would it?” Then I thought Oh Shit. I just talked to a strange kid. I hope no one calls the cops. To my relief the adult with the kid smiled at me. Close call.

    1. I hear ya. I always get a little nervous when I’m out walking the dog and a kid wants to pet him. I’m cool with it and the dog loves it. But, I’m always worried the parents will think I’m some kind of child predator and make my life a living hell.

      1. Try walking around with a dog AND a baby.

        1. A man walking around with a dog and a baby isn’t a preying on children. He is clearly a rapist trying to bait an adult woman into his rape pit.

          1. [Takes notes. Checks on baby rental rates.]

          2. My next door kids like to chase our cat. Fortunately their father is a cop. Oh. Shit.

            1. If a cop moved in next door to me I’d sell my house.

          3. He is clearly a rapist trying to bait an adult woman underage girl into his rape pit.

        2. Try running from a dog with someone’s baby.

    2. was it a creepy smile? was she a child of the corn maybe?

  4. Make no mistake, cops are not here to protect us. Their job us to enforce the law no matter how immoral, period. These were good cops. The thing is a good cop is a bad person.

    1. These were good cops.

      True. They didn’t beat him to death.

  5. Why do you want the chilrunz to be raped, Lenore?

    1. /raises hand

      1. WHY, not WHO.

  6. If you’re going to talk to strange kids, at least take the precaution of being an elderly woman.

    But even if you *are* an elderly woman, don’t talk about going to your cabin in the woods.

    Especially if the cabin is made out of gingerbread.

    The authorities might not understand.

    1. What if the hut is on chicken legs?

      1. Then tell Hansel and Gretel they shouldn’t have spent their food money on acid.

        1. Am I the only one who knows the Baba Yaga terrorize your children story?

          1. I know about Baba Yaga, but I wasn’t going to pass up the opportunity to make a bad joke. You expect too much of me.

          2. They say the only way to get rid of Baba Yaga is to tell the zoning people there’s a mobile home in the neighborhood.

            1. Alternate joke – something about “house hunting.”

              1. I got it – sometimes you go house-hunting, but in Russia the house hunts *you.*

        2. Or else Putin is invading Germany.

          1. You know who else invaded Ger… no, wait, thats not right…

      2. And the fence is made of sausages?

  7. they make it sound as if the kids just barely escaped a depraved menace.

    I will attest that they can be elusive little fucks.

    1. elusive little fucks

      Seriously, are we not doing “phrasing” anymore?

      1. Chasing, but I’m not as spry as I once was.

  8. He is a man with a disability that makes it hard for him to interact like a “normal” man around kids, which apparently means never interacting with them at all and instead running in the opposite direction screaming, “Get away! I hate kids! I am not a predator!”

    That probably is your best bet, either that or just completely ignore them. And I mean COMPLETELY ignore them. Like if they fall and break their leg right in front of you, just keep walking.

    Don’t even stop and douse them with water if they’re on fire, and definitely don’t piss on them if they’re on fire since that would involve pulling your dick out, which would get you on a sex offender’s list forever. Even if you were honestly trying to put the fire out and didn’t have any water or anything else to use.

    Just walk away… just walk away.

    1. I guess that was just a long winded way of saying I hate kids, and wouldn’t piss on one if it was on fire.

    2. Yes, if you see one alone in a car on a hot day, don’t break the window or try to get them some water. People will think your are trying to abduct and/or poison them.

      1. Instead you should call the police and have their parents arrested.

    3. ^This, Loki.

      And as sad as it will be, someday we will see something like that play out.

      1. I guarantee somewhere in this country a child has been hurt or killed because a grown man saw the child, thought they could be at risk, and chose not to do anything or investigate it further because the danger wasn’t immediate enough to offset the not insignificant risk of a do-gooder thinking the Good Samaritan was a pedo. Marty Feldman’s Eyes provides his own anecdote of such an occasion.

    4. If you love kids, you can get involved in some formalized activity that involves them. I coach them in football. Previously I volunteered at an after-school/preschool program; OK, that one I was actually assigned to, didn’t actually pick out. They’ll check your background, give you ID, everything’s OK, everybody gets to know & love you.

      1. Last I checked this was a libertarian site. Having to get official certification to be allowed to interact with other people — including children — is a nightmare straight out of any number of dystopian novels.

        1. There’s legally allowed, & then there’s socially accepted. If you want the latter, you may need to do more than the former.

  9. Wouldn’t that make it a crime to read “Little Red Riding Hood” to a kid who isn’t your own?

    US Code 879.126 sec 14 ss 22 para 7

    Ignorance Is No Excuse.

    1. Is that the infamous “Fuck you, that’s why” catchall law?

  10. Daniel’s mom said that she will teach Daniel that what he did was wrong.

    “Daniel, NEVER talk to ANY children!!! It’s WRONG!!! Go to your room.”

    WTF?

    1. “Daniel, you just can’t talk to children because their parents will get scared. That’s not fair or right, but that’s just the way things are and you don’t want to go back to jail.”

  11. So does it take a village to raise a child or not?

    1. Well, without the village, mom wouldn’t have had any cops to call.

      1. Now I get it: it takes a police village to raise a child.

        1. You’re still wrong. It takes Village People to raise a child.

    2. It takes a village if you don’t have a strong father figure.

  12. A psychiatric evaluation will be performed on Daniel, and if it’s determined that his parents are not making up their son’s diagnosis, perhaps the charges will be dropped.

    Perhaps not. From a very cursory search, it seems some, including the mother of the world’s most famous autistic woman (!) suggest that there is a higher incidence of some autistic males being drawn to child porn that random selection would suggest. If Lee’s parents are trying to avoid getting their son labeled as a putative child molester, I would suggest they don’t go the psychiatric route. I would also suggest they purchase a very large magnet and place it near the hard drive of their son’s computer. Just in case.

    1. Why do they need to do an eval on someone with autism? Isn’t there already a diagnosis on the books?

      1. Isn’t there already a diagnosis on the books?

        Perhaps not. Maybe they always knew he was strange but they never sought out a doctor and only learned what autism was when he was an adult. Maybe they’re immigrants who never had their kid checked when they were in the homeland, even if they did such things over there. Again, just based on his ethnicity, his parents may have avoided taking him to the “crazy doctor” as mental illness or even learning disability has a much bigger stigma in East Asian cultures as compared to here. Who knows?

        1. That poor bastard. I bet his Tiger Mom was always pushing him.

          “You know the Park’s autistic son? He already have 42 kids stashed away in cabin! What you got? Zero? We so ashamed of you!”

          1. Oh man, I seriously almost pissed myself reading that. Fantastic job.

          2. A new keyboard is $25.00.

        2. And even if there is one, you can be damn sure the prosecutors are going to want their own eval, and try to discredit any prior evals.

          Remember, they are going to bring the full power of the state to bear on this rather than admit any wrongdoing.

    2. I’d simply refuse an evaluation for him, lawyer up, and go to court. There simply is no law against conversing with kids. Unless they’ve got recordings of him saying “come with me to my cabin, kiddies” there shouldn’t be any way to get a conviction. Of course, I’m assuming a fair and just trial. That’s probably stupid of me.

      1. The prosecutor/detective will “coach” [read: coerce] the kids to say the “right” thing.

  13. What’s particularly depressing about this is that maybe, just maybe, a guy with *autism* might find it easier to relate to children socially than adults. Considering, ya know, that autism makes it difficult for people to develop social skills. It might just be that the only people he can relate to “normally” are kids, because they’re on the same level of social development. So they’re basically saying that autistic adults have to give up the only source of social interaction that they are capable of.

    1. ^this

      “But you’d feel differently if YOU had children.”

    2. ^this

      “But you’d feel differently if YOU had children.”

    3. Exactly. This is disgusting discrimination born of mindless paranoia.

  14. “Get away! I hate kids! I am not a predator!”

    Well, yeah, and?

  15. Recently I was stopped at a traffic light and a toddler, able to walk but still in diapers crossed the street looking around looking a little panicked. Got across the street ok, but was still looking around bewildered and when the light was green I took off due to bullshit like this. I sure hope a bad guy didn’t kidnap it, ironic, innit? Trying so hard to keep the monsters at bay while turning us all into monsters who won’t help goddamn children who need it.

  16. The man, Daniel Lee, 26, of Wayne, Pennsylvania, spoke to a group of three siblings?ages 8, 9, and 10?last week, asking them about their school and telling them he was on his way to a cabin in the woods

    Isn’t that Warty’s preferred opening line?

    Sex offender.

  17. Sounds like this guy, or more precisely his parents, have a hell of an ADA lawsuit. Also, the possibility of the feds coming down on the PD for civil rights violations. That mother is going to come out of this looking like a monster for siccing the cops on a retarded person.

    1. “retarded person”.

      I didn’t read the original story very closely, but I think he’s been that way his whole life. So he’s just tarded.

      Charlie Gordon? That fucker was retarded

    2. One can only hope. But if anything can trump the ADA it’s “for the children.”

    3. “Sounds like this guy, or more precisely his parents, have a hell of an ADA lawsuit.”

      Does having a disability trump being an evil penised person?

      1. In reality, no. But it’s going to be a hell of a case.

  18. “He admitted he knew right from wrong,” said Detective T.J. Schreiber at a Thursday afternoon news conference, referring to his conversation with Lee after his arrest. “And he knew it was wrong for a stranger, especially 26-year-old men, to speak with 10-years-and-under children.

    So that’s it then.

    All of you 26-year-old men had better damned well avoid all children.

    1. I’m sure Officer Jackboot did get him to admit that through intimidation. I wonder if the guy’s mental age is high enough to be considered an adult.

      1. The first time I read through that I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the mental age of the autistic guy or of the cop.

        Then I realized you probably intended to indicate the autistic guy – but I was still wondering if the cop’s mental age was must past puberty, if there yet.

    2. Mr. Lee is fucked. He, as someone with some form of pragmatic language impairment, probably unknowingly gave up his 5th Amendment protections to speak with someone who has been trained to twist even the most innocuous phrases into legally damning evidence.

      1. This has the potential to be a (or possibly several) landmark cases. Their best bet at this point is to offer him a misdemeanor plea that won’t land him on any lists. Spitting on the sidewalk, $25, court costs waived.

      2. Call me naif, but evidence of what? That he spoke to some children in public?

        1. Well, that’s the point. It’s a police interrogator’s job to make even the most non-threatening action look like premeditation for murder 1, and that’s assuming he’s not corrupt and just doing his job.

          1. I wonder what the mother has to say after all this. Is she still pressing charges? Does she really want to toss an innocent man in jail now?

            1. Don’t matter. All crimes are crimes against the State now. No “civilian” needed to stand behind the charges.

              Once you go to a legal system that prosecutes victimless crimes, this is the way it has to be, by definition.

            2. I wonder what the mother has to say after all this. Is she still pressing charges?

              All the mother cares about is some weirdo with a penis (EAK! A PENIS) tried to talk to HER CHILDRENZ!!!!!11!!11!!!! The fact that penised individual has a disability is irrelevant where her CHILDRENZ safety is concerned. You’d understand that if you had kids, YOU MONSTER!!!!!11!!1!!!1111!!!!!

              Does she really want to toss an innocent man in jail now?

              THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS AN INNOCENT MAN, YOU CIS-HETERO MALE SHITLORD!!!!!111!!!!!11!!!!!

              1. The mother may not have a choice anymore. Remember, all crimes are against the state. Plus the threat of CPS for not supervising her children. That poor guy is screwed.

    3. And he knew it was wrong for a stranger, especially 26-year-old men, to speak with 10-years-and-under children.

      Knowledge is tricky to define, but I don’t think it counts as knowing if it’s not true. It is in no way wrong for any person to talk to any other person in public. Fuck these people.

    4. Detective T.J. Schreiber […] referring to his conversation with Lee after his arrest

      ‘Conversation’, eh? Was that after Lee said that he understands his Miranda rights, including the one about not having to have a ‘conversation’ with an agent of the state?

      1. Hey, man, Schreiber’s a good cop!

        Wait, wrong T.J.

    5. “Wrong” is one thing.

      “A violation of criminal law” is something else.

      As far as I know, there are no statutes on the books that prohibit people from speaking with children.

      1. “As far as I know, there are no statutes on the books that prohibit people from speaking with children.”

        I’m sure there are at least 50 that can be twisted sufficiently for the job.

        You are GUILTY at all times in all places.

      2. “As far as I know, there are no statutes on the books that prohibit people from speaking with children.”

        That would depend on what was said.

        “HI, kids, want to go for a ride in my van? Want to go check out this awesome cabin I have?”

        The fact that this kind of stuff happens has made society ultra-suspicious. For this poor guy it worked badly but hopefully, the system will not punish him any more severely. Don’t forget, since bail was set, it means he went through more than just the police locking him up. A magistrate must have seen the charges and some evidence, like statements from the children, too.

        1. Still felating cops,I see.

    6. But once they hit 11, they’re fair game?

      Also, I’ll bet Lee would have agreed with anything these fine officers were saying, them being intimidating paragons of the community and him being autistic.

      1. I would bet that by the time the officer in question sat down with the autistic guy he had calibrated his approash for the prey in question and figured being “friendly” would get him farther than being intimidating.

  19. OK, Lenore’s article makes it sound like the children were unattended for at least twenty minutes. Twenty whole minutes!!1! Why didn’t CPS swoop in and arrest her for neglect and take teh chirrunz into protective custody

    1. Sounds like the cops arrested the wrong people.

      It also sounds like they have an autistic man locked up in jail. I can’t imagine the damage that could do to him.

      Here’s hoping Daniel’s folks have the balls and the knowledge to bring in a pipe-hitting civil rights lawyer to light up the city like a fucking Christmas tree. I see numerous causes of action here, and potentially big payouts.

      And, no, I don’t give a fuck anymore about the poor baby taxpayers who have to foot the bill. They don’t want to cover the costs of employing a bunch of idiot goons, they shouldn’t employ a bunch of idiot goons.

      1. I wonder if their lawyer could file a lawsuit that said “We are asking for $1.1 million (which will cost each taxpayer an extra $500 this year), or Mr Mayor and the Chief of Police strung up from a light post by an angry mob. Whichever the taxpayers of the city thinks is best….”

        That might be a good way to let the average taxpayer get more involved in local politics.

        1. Add a zero to those dollar figures, and we’re getting there.

      2. ^This.

        Also, there are lots of advocacy groups, ACLU, disability rights groups, etc, that could take this on.

  20. Wayne, Pa is a really well off area with low crime. The police here have nothing else to do.

  21. “whereupon the children’s mom saw him and called the police. The police found the man in just two minutes.”

    A penised person talks to kids – police capture him in 2 minutes.

    Try to get them to spend 3 seconds on a burglary, let alone *ever* actually recover anything.

    “The police say?they can’t take any chances.”

    Penises are EVIL! They should all be in prison! We can’t take any chances! Do it for the children!

    “Daniel’s mom said that she will teach Daniel that what he did was wrong.”

    Not just wrong, EVIL. Penised persons are EVIL, and should pay the bills but otherwise stay away from decent folk. And their *moms* should make sure that they *know it*.

    1. Daniel’s mom said that she will teach Daniel that what he did was wrong.

      “Daniel, how many times have I told you, do NOT talk to the cops. Its wrong to talk to the cops; they are not your friends, and they will hurt you.”

      1. Nobody in Brazil voluntarily talks to the looter state’s cops under any circumstances.

  22. Why so fast? My guess is because he was not a crafty creep trying to elude the authorities. He is a man with a disability that makes it hard for him to interact like a “normal” man around kids

    Or he knew that all the officials in town are secret satanic cult members who are gonna cut him a bunch of slack over some minor kidnapping bull shit. Not like everyone doesn’t know that the entire city council just sacrificed 13 babies in a Black Mass just last weekend in a failed attempt to save the Eagles season.

    1. Of course it failed. They should know that it requires 666 babies.

  23. Surprised no one’s made the obvious joke yet:

    Which reason commenter is this guy? It’s got to be one of us, right? Because we’re all a bunch of autistics.

  24. As just everyone knows, the police are sanctified, they never err, while the citizenry, from whom the police are drawn might now and then really blow it, as to the police, never. For those readers who might believe the above, I have on offer, some lovely old bridges.

  25. no, DO NOT teach Daniel that to be friendly and open to kids is wrong. Perhaps teach him not to do that when parents or other adults are around. but DO NOT teach him its wrong. Because it is not.

    I recently spent a week in Haiti, working with some folks at a grade school there. The kids were very friendly, affectionate, goofy and fun like healthy kids are. A couple of times I caught myself thinking “oh I am certainly glad this is not in some big city in the US, as with these kids crowding around, pushing, shoving, climbing on my lap, hugging, touching my beard, taking pig-a-back rides, letting me teach them how to scrape old paint off the walls (necessitating actually TOUCHING each other, oh my goodness no!!!) I could be in far worse danger than this apparently honest man.

    Government as god never works out well for anyone. I see no reports including any discussion or questioning of the kids involved… what is THEIR take on the “incident” that is a non-incident?

    Reminds me of the man passing out ten dollar bills at some mall near Christmas time… he was ordered to stop, because, well, just because. One never can tell what he MIGHT try, now, can one?

  26. I rarely evoke the past as some sort of wonderfulness that we have fallen from – things are generally the same as they have always been. But, when I was a little kid (circa 1971-1972), there’s was an old man with a cane who went for walks through our neighborhood. When we’d see him, we’d all run up to him, sit in a row on the grass near the sidewalk, and he’d hand out a piece of candy to each one of us, and we’d thank him appropriately. He – of course – was known as The Candy Man. I can’t imagine the hellacious beatings and jail time he’d be in for in today’s world.

  27. Apparently what this guy is in trouble for is appearing weird, probably in some very subtle way such that nobody who so seemed could follow instructions to avoid. As in, nobody could possibly give explicit instructions as to how to act normal, unless following a set script & being a very good actor. If nobody can explain to you what you’re doing wrong, you’re doing nothing wrong.

    Friendly? No good! Unfriendly? No good! Talking to children at their level? No good! Talking down to them haughtily? No good!

  28. Just waiting for the story about the father arrested for talking to a group of children who are friends with his own child, while his child is there.

    1. Sadly it’s heading to that full retard level. We already have kids charged under child porn laws for pictures of themselves!

  29. This guy does absolutely nothing but he still gets free room and board? Someone needs to check his privilege!

  30. “He didn’t make eye contact with the children, so that’s kinda ‘shifty’. Got to watch out for shifty characters. Putting him the yard with the general population will straighten him out. I tell ya, these freaks today.”

  31. “You have been charged with luring. The verdict is guilty; let the trial begin.”

    Cardassia Prime or the “Land of the Free”.

  32. Lies. If the cops really weren’t taking any chances they’d have shot him in the back in self-defense and gotten Chrissy (the solicitor, not the pornstar) to rubber-stamp JUSTIFIED over the whole thing.

  33. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

  34. Autistics are know to be sub-human creatures who should never be let out of their cages. Hopefully this pitiful animal will be eliminated in prison.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.