just found out

[white eagle]

my work partner is a convicted felon:?
I am sure the upper management is aware of this....:cry:
really unsure how to act towards him
its a sexual offense and has a lifetime gps on him

[Jim]

Be friendly, respectful and act as if you know nothing.

[x101airborne]

If it hasnt been an issue before dont let it be an issue now. My friend is a felon like that because he was 19 dating a 16 year old and the MOM pressed charges just to be mean. It is not always as bad as we think.

[44man]

Be friendly, respectful and act as if you know nothing.
Yes, best thing to do. He might have done something wrong once, paid the price yet will never shake it.

[725]

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Jim, above, gives good advice.

[WILCO]

Be friendly, respectful and act as if you know nothing.

Good advice. That's how I've treated the same situation in the past when I come across it. Goes under duly noted.

[oldred]

If it hasnt been an issue before dont let it be an issue now. My friend is a felon like that because he was 19 dating a 16 year old and the MOM pressed charges just to be mean. It is not always as bad as we think.



I wonder how many times that has happened? I have a nephew who is in the same situation only he was 20 and the girl was 16. This fellow is not a bad sort by any stretch of the imagination and I am not saying that because of him being family, he really is a good person. This girl also is not a bad sort and the entire relationship was not what most people think at first, it was just that she had a crush on the guy and followed him around. It was a normal teen type relationship except for his age and there was no "hanky panky" going on but that did not seem to matter and since both had been warned the judge was very unforgiving when the girls father had the guy arrested when he found them together at one of the girl's friends house. Poor judgement on the guy's part? You bet it was but considering the type of relationship the severity of the punishment was poor judgement on the judge's part also IMHO! The whole point is don't judge someone until you know the whole story, labeling a 20 year old a convected sex offender because of an otherwise normal relationship except for him being two years too old is a bit harsh and the guy is not, and never has been, a danger to anyone-female or otherwise!

[Wal']

Just ask the guy & have a good honest conversation about it.

You will feel much better.

[edler7]

What did you think of the guy before you found out ?

Trust your first impressions, they are often correct.

[Echo]

Just ask the guy & have a good honest conversation about it.

You will feel much better.

+1 - and accept what he says. He may lie - but you won't know he's lying - so accept it, and treat him as a normal (non-felon) person. Laugh with him, and don't, under any circumstance, refer to his record. Be a mensch...

[Jim]

Just ask the guy & have a good honest conversation about it.

You will feel much better.

I'm not challenging this nor am I suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying what I feel. Personally, I feel the subject would be none of my business. If I were in his position, I would not want to be approached and/or questioned about it. Rather, I would appreciate being accepted for who I am, mistakes and skeletons included.

[ole 5 hole group]

Let me take a different route on this question, as there are a lot of assumptions here, 1st off management may not know he’s a convicted felon unless they did a full background check on him to include an FBI criminal history request.

2nd – your initial information came from a 3rd party and may or may not be correct, so the individual could have been convicted of any number of criminal offenses or none at all.

If he’s a convicted sex offender he’ll be in a national data bank that can be checked by anyone – here’s the site, so you can satisfy yourself if he’s a convicted sex offender. http://www.nsopw.gov/core/conditions.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Each State should also have a sex offender list as well.

Depending upon the State, some have an internet public search site where with the name and date of birth you can review any and all criminal/civil records.

Speaking for myself, I don’t associate with known convicted felons of a serious nature and I will find out for myself if the felony is of a serious nature. I will not introduce a convicted felon to a friend or an associate without 1st informing them of what I personally know, as when an introduction is made a friend or close associate will normally give that individual the same trust as he gives you – that could be a mistake and I will never put a friend or associate in that position.

There are a lot of felons running around that don’t really deserve the stigma because of butt wipe attorneys, both defense & prosecutors, as the original offense should have been reduced to a misdemeanor but by reviewing the record you will be able to make that determination yourself as to the seriousness.

[Stick_man]

I'm not challenging this nor am I suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying what I feel. Personally, I feel the subject would be none of my business. If I were in his position, I would not want to be approached and/or questioned about it. Rather, I would appreciate being accepted for who I am, mistakes and skeletons included.

+1 If he wants to talk about it, and is comfortable talking with you about it, he will start that conversation.

Is he any different today than he was the day before you found out about his record? I have a neighbor who is on a "sex offender" registry due to a previous indiscretion. He is a great guy, but has had to pay for that offense multiple times. It is not right, but it is life.

Unfortunately, with the felony on his record, he will not be able to be your shooting buddy, but can still be a good friend.

[EMC45]

Couple years back I read of one where a guy (18) was dating a girl (16 or 17) and they were "involved" physically. Parents found out and had the law get him. Went to court and now he is a sex offender (registered and all). Well seems the girl's folks have since taken a liking to the boy beings that he ended up marrying the girl and having 2 kids and starting a repectable family. The parents now want the conviction reversed............Not so easy.

[Jammer Six]

If his debt is paid, it's paid.

If it's not, it's not.

It's one way or the other. It's not both.

[Ickisrulz]

If he’s a convicted sex offender he’ll be in a national data bank that can be checked by anyone – here’s the site, so you can satisfy yourself if he’s a convicted sex offender. http://www.nsopw.gov/core/conditions.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

At my first duty station these was a guy that got convicted of sex crimes. They gave him 20 years. I figured he'd be out about the time I retired from the AF. I looked him up on the link provided and sure enough he was there, picture and all. Looks creepier than he did back then.

[41 mag fan]

I'm not challenging this nor am I suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying what I feel. Personally, I feel the subject would be none of my business. If I were in his position, I would not want to be approached and/or questioned about it. Rather, I would appreciate being accepted for who I am, mistakes and skeletons included.

+1......hopefully he's not still one of those unhabiltated types

[Trey45]

I worked with a guy for many years that was a convicted felon, killed a man in New Orleans shortly after returning home from his 3rd tour as a Marine in viet nam. He did a little over 20 years, came out with a new trade, one of the finest machinists in my shop and the only man in my shop that I invited to my wedding and to be brutally honest, he was the only man in my shop that was worth a darn, ex felon or not. He served his time. The man you know served his time, that should be enough.

[odfairfaxsub]

I worked with a guy for many years that was a convicted felon, killed a man in New Orleans shortly after returning home from his 3rd tour as a Marine in viet nam. He did a little over 20 years, came out with a new trade, one of the finest machinists in my shop and the only man in my shop that I invited to my wedding and to be brutally honest, he was the only man in my shop that was worth a darn, ex felon or not. He served his time. The man you know served his time, that should be enough.

i respect a man who does his time and you can't even tell. you know what i mean. that was the idea and im glad he did something good for himself

[Ole]

My next door neighbor is a convicted felon and he's one of the nicest guys I know.

I've taken him shooting too. Nothing preventing a felon from shooting a gun, they just aren't allowed to own one.

EDIT: Just read the law and apparently they aren't allowed to "possess" a gun. I guess that means he can't go shooting?

[Ole]

According to this:

Definition of "prohibited possessor" in AZ.


Who has been convicted of a felony involving violence or possession and use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and whose civil rights have not been restored.

He should be OK if his felony was drug related (non violent).

[firefly1957]

I do not know the rules were you are but in 2006 I discovered a real lowlife shift supervisor was a sex offender. We had multiple complaints against him for his bad acts and temper all to no avail . Come to find out there were several laws broken by the company by hiring him and giving him access to the computer and all our personal information. He was gone the next day and no one missed him come to find out there were a dozen sex harassment complaints active against him at the time. Oh and was not minor he was convicted of second degree sexual misconduct with a 12 year old girl apparently his daughters friend. Your case may be completely different just do nothing wrong yourself and treat him as he deserves to be treated. Might find out if he reported felony status when he hired in if it matters most felons don't and lying on employment application is cause for termination. (don't get into trouble doing it )

[wallenba]

my work partner is a convicted felon:?
I am sure the upper management is aware of this....:cry:
really unsure how to act towards him
its a sexual offense and has a lifetime gps on him

How did you find out? Rumor mill or the horses mouth? Sometimes a person is maligned by an enemy and never knows it. My ex wife said all kinds of untrue things. Luckily for me, the maid of honor from our wedding knew it was all BS and told her so. You never know who your friends are.

[lead-1]

If his debt is paid, it's paid.

If it's not, it's not.

It's one way or the other. It's not both.


I agree with the above and it leads me to one of the hardest things there is to follow,
Matthew 7:1, Judge not, that ye be not judged.
I really do try to let someone's past alone but its human nature to wonder what or why.

[fatnhappy]

Before you do anything, you might want to ascertain the facts. Criminal convictions are public record. The criminal charge itself will tell you 90% of the story. FWIW, I've hired a few felons, one of whom spent 5 years in the fed pen. All I hired have worked out.

In the stricter sense, I believe how you act and treat him in the workplace shouldn't be dictated by anything other than professionalism. If you're anything like me you don't go to work every day to meet new people or socialize, you're there to perform a service for which you're remunerated.
It's nice if everyone gets along and enjoys mutual respect, but in my experience it is pretty rare.


Side note with regards to sex offenders. In many instances the conviction charge and original charge vary greatly. Pedophiles often get shockingly reduced plea bargains because young children don't make good witnesses, parents don't want to put them on the stand or worst of all, they're too young testify or speak. Perusal of the sex offender registry will demonstrate how little they're punished for such aggregious offenses.

Serpents among us is a parental education tool written by a cop (http://www.millstonejustice.org/)

[Jammer Six]

EDIT: Just read the law and apparently they aren't allowed to "possess" a gun. I guess that means he can't go shooting?

No, it means he can't go shooting legally in the state of Washington. I don't know about other states, but I know there is at least one, Alaska, that will not restrict his gun rights in any way.

Here are the viewpoints I've run into:


His debt is paid, and like every other citizen, he should be allowed to defend himself and his family.

He's a convicted felon, and we don't let felons have guns.

All rights, all people, all the time.

His debt is either paid, in which case all his rights should be restored, or it is not paid, in which case he should still be locked up.

The State should not be allowed to take weapons from anyone. Cold, dead fingers, and other hyperbole.

Well, except in this case.

A lot of people believe that "god given rights" were only given to a select few, namely citizens who meet certain criteria, like not being felons.

There is a lot of debate on what the criteria should be, and who should decide what it is and enforce it.


I note that many of these viewpoints contradict each other, and I note that many "hard core" gun rights advocates get a little soft around the edges when it comes down to cases. This is especially true in the case of illegal immigrants.

Carry on.

[Beagler]

My wife is a CO and alot of the time she dosent even want to know why they are in the clink. As long as they are respectful to her she shows the same back.

[Love Life]

I've worked with several felons over the years. They did their time and went on to serve. People screw up. What they do after they screw up can be just as important as how they screwed up.

[41 mag fan]

I've worked with several felons over the years. They did their time and went on to serve. People screw up. What they do after they screw up can be just as important as how they screwed up.

You are exactly right there Love Life.
Lots of people make mistakes, and bounce back and become a viable member of society. but theres also some mistakes, that people just have a hard time letting go and will hold it against a person, for example a pedophile.




White Eagle, I'm sure your work knows about his conviction.
Your line of work, the employer probably knows more about you than you know about yourself.
You can bet your last dollar, if that'd been anything other than what it was, he wouldn't be working there with you

[Boondocker]

White Eagle like others said he paid his debt. That said I always have a bit of caution
towards folks. If you have some doubts or curiosity you can check this website, it is how I found a known molester on my road,so I had my grandkids stay clear. Hell I even went to school with him 30 some years ago and did not know of it. It is good to know of the elements around you good or bad. To err on the side of caution.

http://www.megans-law.net/

[white eagle]

Thanks fellas
very helpful
I guess its just the stigma of felon that is making me think twice
and seeing his mug on the National Sex Reg.
all this intell came from him directly so he wants me to know but man I don't need any more

[Lloyd Smale]

I judge people by how they treat me. NOT by the opinions of others and NOT by something that happened in the past. For the most part you can figure in a couple hours with a man if hes someone you want to spend time with or if hes trouble. So bottom line is that if you didnt get that feeling allready hes probably a decent guy that made a big mistake in his past.

[Jammer Six]

I don't judge anyone by how they treat me.

I judge them by how they treat the waitress.

[Lead Fred]

Over half the folks I know are ex-felons, non with sex beefs.

They are better people than anyone I can name in Washington DC, cept Ron and Ran Paul.

Id share a foxhole with any of them. More than I can say for most of the kids I know under 30.

[swheeler]

http://www.familywatchdog.us/ Search by name, you'll know for sure if he's a chomo.

[Ickisrulz]

Over half the folks I know are ex-felons, non with sex beefs.

They are better people than anyone I can name in Washington DC, cept Ron and Ran Paul.

Id share a foxhole with any of them. More than I can say for most of the kids I know under 30.

Yep...ex-cons...salt of the earth...cream of the crop.:groner:

[edsmith]

here in maine it is kind of hard to hire a felon in a lot of jobs, I am a retired locksmith, no felons in that job, also in most of the trades you have to have a background check to get a lic. in a lot of jobs, I thnk there should be a background check. I worked for a realestate maint. company, no background check there,access to peoples apts and homes. I have known a few felons, some were good guys, and a few should still be in lockup. I guess it all depends on the person.

[Jailer]

I worked with a guy for many years that was a convicted felon, killed a man in New Orleans shortly after returning home from his 3rd tour as a Marine in viet nam. He did a little over 20 years, came out with a new trade, one of the finest machinists in my shop and the only man in my shop that I invited to my wedding and to be brutally honest, he was the only man in my shop that was worth a darn, ex felon or not. He served his time. The man you know served his time, that should be enough.

If a man serves his time and emerges from prison to become a productive member of society then so be it. One of my best friends is an ex felon. BUT! Sex offenders are a different breed and need to be treated accordingly. They are manipulators of the highest order. There is no "fixing" them and they will re offend.


My next door neighbor is a convicted felon and he's one of the nicest guys I know.

I've taken him shooting too. Nothing preventing a felon from shooting a gun, they just aren't allowed to own one.

EDIT: Just read the law and apparently they aren't allowed to "possess" a gun. I guess that means he can't go shooting?

You might want to reconsider this course of action. Merely possessing ammunition, let alone a firearm, is a felony for a convicted felon. If his rights have been restored then that's a different story but be careful of this. You could be caught up too for allowing a known felon to possess firearms.


My wife is a CO and alot of the time she dosent even want to know why they are in the clink. As long as they are respectful to her she shows the same back.

I adopted this theory very early in my career. When I first started it was cool to read files and see what guys were locked up for. That is until you get to the sex offenders. They are some of the most heinous, manipulative, vile, evil creatures walking this earth. I found that reading their files clouded my judgement so I quit that practice years ago.

Sorry for the rant, but people have no clue how awful these creatures are and how many of them are walking among you. Working in a prison for nearly 23 years has a way of opening your eyes and making you very aware of your surroundings and the evil that walks amongst us.

[Rick Hodges]

I have never seen a registered sex offender who didn't claim that his offense involved dating a girl 6mo. or so younger than him. Much more palatable story than the usual truth. I spent 25 years in law enforcement, four and a half years as a detective handling sexual offenses. During that time I never saw a felony conviction for a boyfriend who was dating and engaged in consensual sex with an underage girl even remotely similar in age. I'm not saying that it couldn't happen, only that I never saw it happen. Those cases are just not handled that way. (by the way Michigan's age of consent is 16).

Pedophiles do not "do their time and reform", period. Telling a pedophile that he can't have sex with a child is like telling you that you can't have relations with your wife. The recidivism rate is astronomical and the only reason it isn't 100% is because we don't catch them all the time.

Check out why the man is on the sex offender registry. Don't necessarily believe the story he tells.

That said, if you must work with him treat him fairly, but be careful. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

[blackthorn]

+1 Jailer and Rick Hodges! Sex offenders that target children should be put down like a mad dog!

[canyon-ghost]

Thanks, Jailer. I was wondering when all the 'soft and fuzzy' responses would end.

1. They all did something to get locked up (usually more than once).

2. Convicts are always really high on the 'respect' part, you really respect drug dealers and child molesters?

3. Sex offenders usually repeat the same offenses, sometimes they don't stay employed very long before they're locked up again.

4. You don't much reform a grown man that targets 4 and 5 year olds of either sex.

5. While they 'serve their time, pay their debt', in other words while they stand in a cell, I'm really at work.

David, I sympathize with you. I work with some convicts myself.

[arcticbreeze]

I unfortunately work in an industry (construction) where ex-cons, ex-alcoholics, ex-drug addicts, ex-spousal abusers and so on and so on are common place. My feelings may be prejudiced by this I admit. I will be cordial but trust…absolutely not. I have heard the story to many times about “I was 19 and she was 16” and it doesn’t fly. Each state is different I know but as an example in most states the age of consent is less than 18 and in most states that are 18 require there to be an age difference for a crime to have been committed. Example: TX shows the age of consent to be 17 but can be younger as long as the age difference is not more than 3 year provide the actor is not already a sex offender. Another example is in my state (FL) The age of consent in Florida is 18, but close in age exemptions exist. By law, the exception permits a person 23 years of age or younger to engage in legal sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17. I guess what I am saying is when you hear the story I usually go the other way and assume they are presenting it in a light that favors them.
It may not be right but if you have been bitten many times it is hard to keep holding your hand out.

Marc

[Jammer Six]

Okay, change the law.

As a people, what we say is this: the debt incurred is XX years. Once it's paid, it's paid.

Now, if XX isn't enough, then be working to change the law, or, in my book, your complaints don't carry much weight.

If the crime warrants death, then be working to change the sentence to death. (That's tough to do-- death is not politically popular. And that is exactly as it should be, too.)

But if you're living with the law as it stands, then XX years puts paid to it.

A lot of people are perfectly happy to live with the law as it stands, and then get bent out of shape when one small part of it goes against their grain-- like anti-gun laws. The entire body of law requires constant maintenance, not just one small corner of it.

Our system will respond to public outrage against a certain crime.

The fact that the sentencing guidelines is only XX years for a certain crime tells me that as a people, the outrage is not there, and that the current guidelines are the way we want them.

I have no sympathy for folks whose only contribution is complaint, as some of you have no sympathy for folks who were locked up. But if you haven't written a single letter over the sex crimes sentencing guidelines, if you haven't asked a candidate for Representative (the most compliant type of congressman) a single question about how they stand on a certain crime, then have a seat. All you're doing is complaining, and the rest of us will take care of the nitty-gritty, nasty business of deciding how long a baby raper should be in prison.

It's a nasty, filthy process.

And apparently, as this thread demonstrates, a thankless one.

[Beekeeper]

White Eagle,
If you had not been told he/she was an ex con would you have thought about any of this?
Yes there are a lot of real dirt bags out there but do you know what he did time for?
I like some others here have worked with several ex cons in my lifetime.
A couple of them were real dirt bags off the job but watched their P 's and Q's on the job so I never had a problem with them.
What happens off the job site is their business and what happens on the job site is yours.
I would act as if I had never been told and let him/her tell you and then make your
decision.

Remember he/she was your friend up until some one told you about his/her past


beekeeper

[wv109323]

There are two types of people that come out of prison after doing their time:
Reformed and Unreformed.
You can also go to the appropriate courthouse and research his/her crime and maybe even read the court case transcipt. Sex offenders are some of the most repeatable offenders of all criminals.
With no more information than is given I would approach my relationship with this person with observation and caution. As to whether I would develope a friendship, well...that jury is still out.
This person could become your best friend or your worst enemy.

[Rick Hodges]

Jammer Six,

There is a reason that sex offenders are put on a registry forever. A lot of people stood up, got laws enacted and now they must register where they live FOREVER!! In that sense they never finish their sentence.

[canyon-ghost]

While it would be really nice to change laws or argue how the system works, that's just more 'soft and fuzzy' answers. If you're required to work with them, then there are a few points to their world you might need to consider.

1. Most don't vote, discussing politics is worthless because their source of information is most likely television. That means they believe the democratic liberal ideas where the past never matters.

2. Don't bother discussing firearms, they barely know anything about that.

3. You'll find they take advantage of any program, including welfare, financial and insurance programs, that furthers what they can do.

4. Don't expect morality, ethics, or honesty- it just isn't there. You're better off treating them with indifference.

No, I don't much believe they are all victims or 'wrong place, wrong time' because it's usually a case of wrong person. If the guy is on gps or an ankle monitor, it means they don't trust him to be where he says he'll be. You can't trust what he tells you either. What he tells you may be a dreamy version of the morbid realities. And he'll hope you believe it.

Ughh, there's no reason to deal with any of that when it's easier not to get involved with them.

Ron

[Jammer Six]

Ughh, there's no reason to deal with any of that when it's easier not to get involved with them.

I don't know how far you'd go, so I'll ask. The original poster is an employee that "heard" about another employee.

For some people, a job is everything. For others, not so much.

So tell me this: I'm an employer. If I hire you, and I hire a felon, then I put you up on a roof together and tell you to work as partners, do you quit?

Which choice is "easier" at that point?

Black and white is simple, but if shades of gray are "warm and fuzzy", then I'm warm and fuzzy. Because real life does not come in black and white, and the choices are not always clear cut.

One of the problems with gun folks is that they want black and white answers, and they want "if-then" criteria for when to shoot, and it simply doesn't exist.

Real life demands constant evaluation, constant analysis and above all, a constant stream of decisions.

[Jammer Six]

Jammer Six,

There is a reason that sex offenders are put on a registry forever. A lot of people stood up, got laws enacted and now they must register where they live FOREVER!! In that sense they never finish their sentence.

Then that is how I'll have it!

Personally, I'd rather see them put down, but the political fight to get the law passed isn't worth it to me when there are so many other objectives that are more important to me.

[Recluse]

Felon doesn't bother me so much, but sex-offender bothers me tremendously. My experience in law enforcement has me jaded beyond belief--but that comes from the direct experience of dealing with these animals.

Yes, there are the occasional "he was twenty and she was seventeen but told him she was twenty three" cases and while they are often tried to be portrayed as the "majority" of sex-offender registry inhabitants, the truth is they are not.

Aside from public information on an inhabitant on the sex-offender registry, there is the psychological profile or workup that is NOT public. Reading those things will make you want to vomit.

There is a HUGE amount of difference between a burglar or arsonist--or even a dope-dealer--and a Chester the Child Molester. Such offenses are virtually never first-time offenses. Instead, they are "first time caught, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced" offenses.

It's incredibly difficult to even indict these animals because witnesses are scared or embarrassed or shamed to even complain, let alone be subjected to the humiliation and terror of a public trial. So to have a conviction--and a felony one at that--says this guy screwed up pretty big.

To have a GPS bracelet on says the system that released him still doesn't trust him and that his risk of repeat behavior is moderate to high. To me, that means I can't trust the SOB around my wife, my daughter or my niece.

I'd be raising nine kinds of hell with my company for hiring this sewage. Again, big difference between convicted burglar and convicted rapist. Ask any con--they have no use for the perverts.

:coffee:

[Jammer Six]

Well, if you raised "nine kinds of hell" after I put you on a roof with him, one of you would have to go.

Which one would come down to square footage, and which of you was easier to manage.

Public sector work is very different from private sector work.

[ole 5 hole group]

Well, when you put it that way Jammer Six, I guess I wouldn’t want to have a damn thing to do with your company if you’re unable to find quality workers who will work for quality pay and who aren’t felony sex offenders.

Individuals that have spent 20+ years in law-enforcement mainly in the investigative side of the house, probably have seen a lot of individuals from the very impoverish to the very rich from the lowest paid blue collar to the company CEO that basically lived a double or triple life for years prior to being arrested for their criminal endeavors, whether it be a rapist, serial killer, peeping tom, child molester, embezzler, thief, burglar, drug dealer, fraudster, or just the common uneducated person trying to put food on the table like the prostitute or street hustler selling jewelry or playing 3-card Monte or other “confidence games” etc. Ya, they’re a little jaded because they know them for who they were and how they acted to individuals that totally trusted them and were betrayed and left devastated either financially, physically or mentally – not a nice outcome for a really good upstanding citizen/family of a community who had to learn the hard way about the under belly of our society. Like I said before, I won’t associate with them and if I get wind of a criminal past – I’ll do “due diligence” and find out the seriousness of their violation and go from there.

The difference in their “rehabilitation” rate/effort usually is directly proportioned to the population area where they live, as they know how they got caught the 1st and maybe 2nd time and are a little wiser for the wear – meaning in a small populated area they will mind their P’s & Q’s and will travel away from their area to commit crimes if they still possess the desire but the big city boy will just move to a new neighborhood until he feels the crosshair and then he’ll move on to another section of the city.

Serious felons are opportunists and they will strike when the time suits them, so if you befriend one and he/she takes advantage of a friend of yours because you introduced them as a friend and hard worker – shame on you for being such a naive person relative to human nature and if that individual takes advantage of you – you only have yourself to blame.

If they did their time and decided to join the rest of us, good for them, and I hope them the very best in their life but you should understand, THEY also understand better than anyone, why some of us keep them at arm’s length.

[Jammer Six]

Well, there's no worries there, 5 Hole.

I haven't seen an American working as an employee in residential construction in several years, (felons excepted) and I've never seen ex-law enforcement anywhere in construction. So I doubt we'll miss each other very much.

[canyon-ghost]

Jammer Six, the answer is simple. In construction, you can't hire me, I drive the concrete truck (because that's my background). In other jobs, the convict can load my truck while I do paperwork but, he's not qualified to drive it.

I'm not guessing about anything here. I work with them. I'm still waiting for the one convict that is genuine and worth being friends with. But, I don't see it happening, either.

[Jammer Six]

A Teamster?

I'd close the company before I'd hire a Teamster. Believe it.

Teamsters are the only union I've ever seen cross another union's picket lines. You guys aren't even a good union citizen.

[canyon-ghost]

Not a teamster, you just can't hire me. I do the drug test and background check before I fill out the application and it takes two weeks to hire on.

And I don't mess with the Teamsters either. Some folks just know better.

[Jammer Six]

Well, there might be hope for you, yet.

[pmeisel]

Lots of companies do background checks, but plenty don't -- or don't unless they suspect a problem later. Then you have to decide what things to exclude people for -- property misdemeanors? 10 or 20 year old DUIs? Non-violent felonies completely unrelated to work (e.g. a legal fraudster, working a manufacturing machine operator job).....

There's more circumstances than there is time for conversation. The worst scum of society is usually identifiable as such, just be careful about all the rest.

[Ickisrulz]

Lots of companies do background checks, but plenty don't -- or don't unless they suspect a problem later. Then you have to decide what things to exclude people for -- property misdemeanors? 10 or 20 year old DUIs? Non-violent felonies completely unrelated to work (e.g. a legal fraudster, working a manufacturing machine operator job).....

There's more circumstances than there is time for conversation. The worst scum of society is usually identifiable as such, just be careful about all the rest.

Something to think about, do many churches run background checks for those people running the children's ministries or child care? Many of them do not.

[jcwit]

Maybe the Churches need to run background checks to see if the current and any new members are qualified to attend and are illegible for Gods forgiveness, and mercy.

Just saying.

[Ickisrulz]

Maybe the Churches need to run background checks to see if the current and any new members are qualified to attend and are illegible for Gods forgiveness, and mercy.

Just saying.

No, of course not. But from my experience churches willingly accept free labor for positions of trust and authority without taking necessary steps to protect youngsters. (In many cases the church doesn't even care if the volunteer is doing a good job.)

It is my opinion that churches would be more successful if they'd model SOME of their day-to-day activites after a successful business. Not only do they need to protect the kids, they also need to protect their reputation and themselves from lawsuits. No school or reputable day care allows workers access to kids without a background check.

The First Century church was not concerned with a person’s past (i.e., no “background check” required), it however was concerned with the person’s ongoing behavior. Infractions were dealt with immediately and, if necessary, in public. Failure to repent meant being excluded from the fellowship. God’s forgiveness comes with expectations.

[Char-Gar]

Something to think about, do many churches run background checks for those people running the children's ministries or child care? Many of them do not.

Yes, many churches, if not most, run background checks on people involved in Children's Ministries and child care. That is a sad fact. It is sad, because of the need to do it. I wrote the Child Safety Policy for my denomination so I can speak to the issue with some authority.

Child molestors will go to those places where they have access to children. Those places with a high trust factor are very attractive to them. The Boy Scouts, YWCA, churches and other such organizations have found that out the hard way. This is where child molestors go to gain access.

Currently in our town, there is a fellow under arrest who started a cheer leading and tumbling school for children so he could have access to children.

Churches have the obligation, both legaly and moraly to protect the children entrusted to them. A background check every three years and other measures are the way it is done. I myself went through a background check every three years. Yes, this has turned up some bad apples, but as the policy became known fewer and fewer bad apples show up. They don't want to be discovered.

When the policy was first proposed 14 years ago, there was much opposition. Folks were insulted that their words and character could not be accepted. It was said, that it would be the end of children's ministries as nobody would be willing to subject themselves to that. That has proven not to be a an issue and there are plenty of people willing to go through the background check. If somebody gets so spun up about the background check, that tells me they are more interested in themselves than the children. Folks like that do not need to be in children's ministry anyway.

[Ickisrulz]

Yes, many churches, if not most, run background checks on people involved in Children's Ministries and child care.

That's good. However, the churches I've been involved with did not. Maybe they figured they wouldn't have any problems being small country churches.

[Char-Gar]

White Eagle...To answer your original question, I am somewhat in the middle. I do think everybody needs a second chance and many folks learn there lesson the first time. I also know that folks who commit felonies, have some real social issues, thinking issues and/or moral issues.

So, I would work with the fellow and treat him with respect and kindness and strive for the best working relationship possible. But, it would be a long time, if every, before I would allow him in my home, near my family or anything else I valued.

He did the crime, he did the time, and now it is up to him to earn my trust, starting from scratch. I don't owe him my trust, just because he "graduated from college". It that bothers him, that is just too bad!

[Char-Gar]

That's good. However, the churches I've been involved with did not. Maybe they figured they wouldn't have any problems being small country churches.

The more doors that are shut to the child molestors, the more they seek the ones still open.

Small rural church most often figure, they know their members and their history, so no check is needed. However child molestors also live in rural areas and are often members of churches for decades and do not bother the kids in their churches. They go to others areas to do their hunting and come home and live normal lives. Just because folks have known "Jim Bob" all his life, does not mean he is not a child molestor. As he find it harder and harder to get fresh prey away from home, the greater the temptation to do it at home.

In my denomination (United Methodist) we have many small country churches and the policy applies to them as well. We have also had problems with child abuse there as well.

I would not trust my children to a church, that does not take their safety with the seriousness they should. Children are trusting and innocent, the adults around them must do the protecting. To fail to do so, just because it is easier and more comfortable not to, does not sit well with me.

[Char-Gar]

No, of course not. But from my experience churches willingly accept free labor for positions of trust and authority without taking necessary steps to protect youngsters. (In many cases the church doesn't even care if the volunteer is doing a good job.)

It is my opinion that churches would be more successful if they'd model SOME of their day-to-day activites after a successful business. Not only do they need to protect the kids, they also need to protect their reputation and themselves from lawsuits. No school or reputable day care allows workers access to kids without a background check.

The First Century church was not concerned with a person’s past (i.e., no “background check” required), it however was concerned with the person’s ongoing behavior. Infractions were dealt with immediately and, if necessary, in public. Failure to repent meant being excluded from the fellowship. God’s forgiveness comes with expectations.

It has been my observation that churches are far too trusting and accepting. There is no probation period, no letter or recommendation, not even an application form. Just "come on in, glad to have you". That sounds good, but there is a problem as well. A certain percentage of the people are really problem people with mental and/or emotional issues. They live out their problems in the church and in short order have it in turmoil and distracted from it real mission. It only takes one or two to destroy a church.

[swheeler]

Molesters are to be found in every walk of life. Powell county Deputy Sheriff, Henry White was a Boy Scout leader and convicted of nine counts of child molestation. As far as I know he is still in prison in another state under an alias.

[Ickisrulz]

It only takes one or two to destroy a church.

The church I grew up in (the pastor took care of 3 churches in a circuit) was destroyed by a single family. The family had been asked to leave their previous church, but ours took them in AND placed them in teaching positions. Within 4 years there was very little left of the church, there were two divorces and a dead pastor.

[Jammer Six]

A business that wants to stay in business does not run a background check if "they suspect trouble later".

A business runs background checks on everybody or nobody. A selective background check demonstrates an "us-them" mentality, which is business suicide. Don't know where you got that idea, unless it was from a business run by a fool.

It's sad that background checks are necessary where children are concerned.

The other heartbreaking part is stories like Calvin Willis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chemista/Calvin_Willis

[Ickisrulz]

A business that wants to stay in business does not run a background check if "they suspect trouble later".

A business runs background checks on everybody or nobody. A selective background check demonstrates an "us-them" mentality, which is business suicide. Don't know where you got that idea, unless it was from a business run by a fool.

Who are you addressing?

[Char-Gar]

The church I grew up in (the pastor took care of 3 churches in a circuit) was destroyed by a single family. The family had been asked to leave their previous church, but ours took them in AND placed them in teaching positions. Within 4 years there was very little left of the church, there were two divorces and a dead pastor.

This is all to common. It happens when Pastors don't have the backbone to deal with problem people. It was my policy never to put people in teaching positions or positions of leadership unless they have the Christian character and maturity to be a postive force in the church.

I put the nuts on the margins and let them jump up and down, fume and foam at the mouth. They bad mouthed me and tried to get me fired. They were never sucessful as everybody knew they were nuts and were glad not to have them in positions of influence and power. The nuts will always try and worm themselves into positions of influence and power for that is their nature.

If you have a cancer, best cut it out now, take the pain and allow the healing to start. If you ignore the cancer it will destroy the body. If, nuts destroy a church, that is on the Pastor for not doing what was necessary for the health of the Body of Christ.

Being a Pastor, sometimes means, you have to pick up your staff and smack the wolves and other assorted varmints that want to consume the flock.

One of my ongoing complaints about "clergy" is that so many of them don't have any balls. They have bought into the Little Jesus meek and mild stuff and forgot about the Jesus who took a whip and drove the crooks out of the Temple. Most of them are a gutless bunch. I can say this because I spent 40 years among their number and have observed them by the hundreds up close and personal.

I had a very sucessful 40 years in ministry due in a large part, to the fact I would not back up from trouble and run and hide to avoid doing what needed to be done. I am very grateful to those who raised me who taught me to have a backbone at an early age.

[jcwit]

All this talk about a child molester and sex offender I really wonder just what the fellow did that this thread was started over.

I remember a few years ago on radio out of Fort Wayne, WOWO to be exact there was a news spot and discussion where a fellow is now classified as a sex offender for life. What was his crime? Going into the bushes to take a whiz while on a hike in a state park and someone happened to see him.

Over the top, in my opinion yes, but thats what happened.

None of us know what are/were the circumstances here.

[Duckiller]

Many years ago a boss hired a young man that had just gotten out of state prison. We never knew what he had done, at least I never knew. He made an effort to learn his job, earned promotions and in general was a credit to the department and a good person to have around. His one obvious bad habit was smoking. He developed lung cancer and died at a fairly early age. Some people make mistakes in their youth, realize the error of their ways , and lead useful, productive lives evermore. If your co-worker seems hard working give him a chance like anyone deserves.

[Lead Fred]

How comes the Bill of Rights says "Shall not be Infringed"
Yet you all are quoting the illegal 1968 firearms bill.

The states give all your rights back, except firearms.
They make you buy that one back. Yup $1500 later, your a good person again.

As soon as Barry gets the International Disarmament Treaty, will make us all criminals.

[Jammer Six]

How comes the Bill of Rights says "Shall not be Infringed"
Because the constitution is only one of many sources of law.

I don't have any sympathy for folks who only read part of the law. But I do wish you all the anger you want.

[bearcove]

Because the constitution is only one of many sources of law.

I don't have any sympathy for folks who only read part of the law. But I do wish you all the anger you want.

I don't think anyone could come close to reading all sources of law if time stopped and you gave them a thousand years. Evidently you are a speed reader of the highest order!:shock:

[Jammer Six]

I don't think anyone could come close to reading all sources of law if time stopped and you gave them a thousand years. Evidently you are a speed reader of the highest order!:shock:

True. I should have said "...folks who read one part of the law."

You could study the law all of your life, never read all of it, and then, even if you did, the next morning, you'd be out of date.

[bearcove]

And you can imagine my response to the standard that "ignorance is no excuse"

That whole catch 22 should dictate reform. But that would make sense if you made the rules simple enough for EVERYONE to understand.

[Jammer Six]

I seriously doubt that a) it would be possible to write even an ultra-basic criminal code that was simple enough for everyone to understand, and b) that it would be enforceable, if you got it written, and c) that it would be interpreted evenly.

I've come to believe that murdering a babe in Mobile, Alabama is just as heinous a crime as murdering a babe in Seattle, Washington, and that the trial, sentence, institution and execution of sentence should be standardized nation-wide.

Unfortunately, we've already fought one (or two, depending on how you count) wars over the rights of local governments, and I'm pretty sure that doing away with state criminal codes, courts and institutions is politically unviable. People get wrapped around that axle so tightly they'd rather stomach injustice that cede power to a federal government, in spite of the proof that our system works.

[Char-Gar]

The founding fathers did not want a Federal Goverment whose authorities extended over the states, except in certain matters inumerated in the Constitution. So it is not a matter of individuals not wanting this or that, it is the way our goverments was designed to work.

You are correct that trying to do away with state and local goverments in favor of a uniform federal system would not work. In fact it would trigger another civil war, as well it should.

States do sign on to uniform laws in some matters. The Uniform Commercial Code is one that most folks are familiar with. It is a big help in doing business in multiple states. There have been attempts to produce a "model penal code", but they never got very far. That said, in many criminal matters states do often look to each other for a way of doing things and penal laws are far more uniform that most folks suppose. Uniform does not mean "same", it just means "similiar". With some notable exceptions , most of our penal laws evolved from a common source and that would be England.

Since the mind of man rememberth not, no goverment has expected their citizens to read and understand the laws. That would be a quite impossible task, that would take all day just to keep up with the changes the day before. The fact that they are there, puts us on "constructive notice" and we are held accountable whether we know them or not. I don't see how it could be any other way.

[gandydancer]

just let it lay. you know what they say about a sleeping dog.

[dmize]

I was a LEO at one time and am a parent and have ABSOLUTELY NO USE for child molestors. But at what point in this was the guy the op was talking about go from being convicted of a sex crime to being a child molestor? I thought I read completely thru it,guess I could have missed it.
2 things I know for a fact from personal experience.
1. In Missouri something as simple as urinating in public, ie walk into bushes or behind a car etc. is a sex crime and will get you on the sexual offender list.
2. A very good friend of mine that I have known for a long time ,married a woman that had two teenage daughters,one of whom for whatever reason apparently hated him. She talked to a counselor at school and next thing anyone knows he is arrested and charged with deviate sexual intercouse with a minor. He does time in jail!!!!!
Later a friend of this daughter taped the girl saying "I told you I could get rid of the SOB" HAHAHAHA!!!
He was released from jail but guess what he is STILL a registered sex offender.
Seems like it takes 20 seconds to get the label and 20 years to get rid of it.
I dont believe what anyone tells me anymore,and I dont trust anyone. Finger pointer or one being pointed at.

[felix]

That is very true about Missouri. I know of a few cases as well. Also, Missouri treats women the same as men in these matters. I also know prosecutors will not prosecute if they KNOW of the situation/folks, though. In other words, don't get on the wrong side of these guys in this State. Politics here stems from the civil war days, and loyalties are all screwed up just like then. The Pendergast gang from KC did not help matters from the Truman days. ... felix

[dmize]

Well they dont always treat them the same,my little brothers wife beat the dog poo out of him, he turned around and caught the ball bat she was swinging at him,she didnt let go and ended up going off a grass hillside,not punches thrown,he just slung the bat and she went with it. She had a grass stain on her back and a red mark on an elbow.
When sheriff got there he was going to arrest my brother,he is a 6'1 gym rat and she is a 5'2 twig. I finally walked up and ripped my brothers shirt off so the deputy could see the bruises and pointed out the fact that his face and neck looked like he was chasing rabbits thru a briar patch.
Well in the end if my brother pressed charges for all his damages the bxxxx could press charges for her self inflicted grass stain and spot of road rash.
Not very fair at all.

[Recluse]

*Sigh* You don't go to prison and get a lifetime GPS ankle bracelet for urinating behind a bush.

:coffee:

[jcwit]

*Sigh* You don't go to prison and get a lifetime GPS ankle bracelet for urinating behind a bush.

:coffee:

No! Thats true, but you can be branded as a sex offender for life for something as insignificant as that.

Plus we have no idea as to what the original poster acquaintance had done either.

[Jammer Six]

I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt, right up until the first excuse.

[Recluse]

No! Thats true, but you can be branded as a sex offender for life for something as insignificant as that.

Plus we have no idea as to what the original poster acquaintance had done either.

My point is that you don't get lifetime monitoring for being a low-risk repeat offender. Lifetime monitoring for parolees (read: prison time, not jail) almost always is indicative of a violent assault or multiple repeat offenses.

The overwhelming majority of non-violent sex-offense charges are given deferred adjudication which means probation with little to zero local jail time, and the ones that are even lesser than that received deferred adjudication with no probation and only instructions to register with the local police/law enforcement if/when they move or change locales.

To get a felony, plus prison time, plus a lifetime GPS anklet. . . this was more than grandpa having the towel fall around his ankles while getting out of the shower after the cat knocked the bathroom door open.

:coffee:

[waksupi]

People can get railroaded from time to time, as shown by the football player being released from prison, after false testimony.
Years ago, a friend of mine was picked up, after being accused of rape, and beating a woman. Funny thing was, he was with me at the time period, along with a county detective, a city policeman, and a retired sheriff, as we were all at a house playing music.
When confronted with the facts, she said she just didn't like him, because he had arrested her in the past. Needless to say, she ended up in the crowbar hotel.
Point being, had he not had this particular set of witnesses as to his whereabouts, he could have been in for a long and ugly situation.

[dmize]

Recluse I understand what you are getting at. The point is that bad things happen to the wrong people at times. And that point has been made several times here.'
The OP stated that a "he heard" that a co-worker was a sex offender,I can only assume that
"he also heard" that the ankle bracelet was "lifetime",and now the guy is a pedophile.
In this thread there appears to be a bunch of assumptions along with first hand experiences and not a whole hell of a lot of facts.
And as a followup to other comments,which SHOULD apply to a bunch of people here. A local guy was just relesed from prison after 13 years for killing his mother. He was an avid fisherman and one of the things that got him put away,apparently erringly was a lack of an alibi.
SO all the guys on here that wonder off to the shooting ranges,woods,lakes,rivers or like me spend a weekend or two alone on their bikes.............have any of you ever left home wondering if you would be able to supply an airtight alibi if something went horribly wrong????
Also for the record,there is a 30 sumthin guy that sits in front of me in church that has been wearing an anklet for the last 2 years because of a DWI.

[Lloyd Smale]

at a 100 bucks a month for life just think about how much money there making off those tracking braclets. I know 2 locals that are wearing them that are wearing them and there about a dangerous as my dog. My hunting partner is a counselor and deals with ohters every day and says for the most part its a joke. It does nothing but tax the ones that wouldnt do a thing and it does absolutely nothing to prevent someone who is going to repeat.

[jcwit]

My SIL wore one for 6 months because one of his no good relatives was cooking meth in one of his outbuildings which he knew nothing about, portable lab. AIL wasn't even home and has no drug record and has never done drugs, but it was his property, his problem.

He no longer has the bracelet, and will end up with a clean record. He went thru hell for over a year over this. Yup, some folks do get the shaft, with the way the laws are written today.

[waksupi]

Another example of law gone wrong. Montana made medical marijuana legal. Thing is, the Fed's didn't agree, resulting in the arrest of the suppliers.
The hitch comes in, that a landlord had rented a property to one of the suppliers, with no involvement in the business. He was found guilty in Federal court, is now serving a sentence, and owes a large fine. This is not right. Do they arrest everyone who has their property used to make crack?

[canyon-ghost]

To get a felony, plus prison time, plus a lifetime GPS anklet. . .

Y'all, JD is trying to tell you something right there. Just saying, you shouldn't ignore that part.

[jcwit]

Do they arrest everyone who has their property used to make crack?


Yup, even if the landowner is unaware.

[Ickisrulz]

Yup, even if the landowner is unaware.

On what charges? I just don't see how this can be.

Are motel owners arrested...apartment complex managers? Do you have any documented cases?

I think there's a lot of half-stories floating around in this thread.

[Char-Gar]

Yup, even if the landowner is unaware.

In Texas, every state and Federal law, each criminal offense has a request "culpable state of mind". That means in order to be convicted, a person must have a certain state of mind, regarding what he or she is doing. In Texas they are;

Intentionaly
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently

Every offense in the Texas Criminal Penal code requires one or more of these culpable states of mind in order for the offense to be commited. If no specific culpable state of mind is mentioned in the statute, the law presumes it to be "intentionaly".

The above is for anybody that actually cares what the law it. If you don't care, then disregard the above and continue blowing gas and spewing BS.

[waksupi]

Home - The Daily Inter Lake
News
Local/Montana

Landlord facing prison time in marijuana case

Story
Comments (13)

Print
Create a hardcopy of this page
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

2

Posted: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:15 pm

By JESSE DAVIS/The Daily Inter Lake | 13 comments

Jonathan Janetski is a 43-year-old landlord and general contractor.

He has no criminal history, no history of drug use, never found himself at odds with the law.

But now, after a federal drug raid, he is facing up to three years in prison over a medical marijuana operation that was run in compliance with Montana law.

Except Janetski didn’t run the business. He wasn’t an employee of the business and had no direct connection to the business in any way.

He was just the landlord.

“Initially, he got these people into the building with the idea that he was going to sell the building,” Janetski’s attorney, Todd Glazier, said. “As part of that, he was going to help them get the building into any shape they needed it to be. He was a general contractor and had some electrician experience, so he agreed to do some of the work to get all of their electrical stuff set up.”

His reason for wanting to sell the building was to raise money for an operation. Janetski has no health insurance and found out about two and a half years ago that one of the valves in his heart wasn’t working properly and required surgery.

So Janetski decided to allow Michael Kassner, 24, and Tyler Roe, 29, both of Kalispell, to open the marijuana growing facility in his building. They operated the business for about six months until the March 14, 2011, federal raid.

“When the feds came in and started doing the raids, for whatever reason, they thought that he was part of the operation,” Glazier said. “Later, when they found out he was just a landlord, and I don’t know if it was just arrogance on behalf of the Justice Department, they decided they weren’t going to back off and charged him under maintaining a drug-involved premises.”

According to U.S. Code, it is illegal to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.”

Janetski pleaded guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000. He likely will face between 30 and 36 months in prison, according to Glazier, when he is sentenced on April 19.

Glazier said he is troubled by several aspects of the case, beginning with the fact that while Janetski is facing up to three years in prison, both Kassner and Roe were only sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Kassner also will serve three years of supervised release and Roe will serve seven.

Another point Glazier pressed was that Janetski sought legal advice and did research before allowing his building to be used as it was. He contacted an attorney first and asked if what was proposed to him by Kassner and Roe was legal under state law, which was confirmed.

He also reviewed statements made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder during an appearance in Missoula in which he addressed the enforcement of federal law against medical marijuana users.

According to Glazier, Holder’s comments gave the impression that the Justice Department would not prosecute medical marijuana cases as long as participants were compliant with Montana law.

“He came here and promised something and [the Justice Department] turned around and did the exact opposite of what he promised, and that’s a problem,” Glazier said. He later added “I think that’s a pretty large breach of ethics.”

Glazier’s own transcript of Holder’s statements (completed by his secretary), however, refers only to medical marijuana users, leaving the arena of growers and dispensaries a gray area.

“I made the determination early on that in those states that had passed such laws that we would not use the scarce federal resources that we have in going after people using medical marijuana in a way that is consistent with those laws,” Holder said in response to a question on the Justice Department’s position on state medical marijuana programs.

Holder went on to say that the department would not allow those laws “to be used in a way to cover activity that was clearly criminal in nature,” trafficking marijuana. In those cases, he said, “we are going to make an example of you, we are going to use our federal prosecutors in the best way to come after you.”

As far as Glazier knows, Janetski is the only landlord in Montana being prosecuted.

Reporter Jesse Davis may be reached at 758-4441 or by email at jdavis@dailyinterlake.com.

[Ickisrulz]

So Janetski decided to allow Michael Kassner, 24, and Tyler Roe, 29, both of Kalispell, to open the marijuana growing facility in his building. They operated the business for about six months until the March 14, 2011, federal raid.

According to U.S. Code, it is illegal to “knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.”

In this case the landlord knew about the business. My question was about the claim that landlords who didn't know could be charged and jailed.

[Ickisrulz]

If no specific culpable state of mind is mentioned in the statute, the law presumes it to be "intentionaly".

I'm not understanding this.

[Char-Gar]

I'm not understanding this.

The vast majority of the criminal statues state which "culpable state of mind" is required. If for some reason the statute does not state which one, then the law presumes it to be "intentionaly". Therefore anybody charged under that statue is required to "intentionaly" do what ever is forbidden under the statute.

Go into any jail or prison and you will find the place filled with folks who were wrongly convicted because they had no knowledge or intent. You will also find the place filled with liars.

[Ickisrulz]

The vast majority of the criminal statues state which "culpable state of mind" is required. If for some reason the statute does not state which one, then the law presumes it to be "intentionaly". Therefore anybody charged under that statue is required to "intentionaly" do what ever is forbidden under the statute.

So it would have to be proven that someone intentionally leased a property for the purpose of drug manufacture/dealing in order to be charged?

[Char-Gar]

So it would have to be proven that someone intentionally leased a property for the purpose of drug manufacture/dealing in order to be charged?

Under the statute quoted in the above article, the goverment would have to prove a person leased or rented property "knowing" it would be used to grow pot.

Various states have different statutes, but each one of them has a required state of mind. That state of mind is an "element of the crime" and must be proved in order to convict.

[Ickisrulz]

Under the statute quoted in the above article, the goverment would have to prove a person leased or rented property "knowing" it would be used to grow pot.

Various states have different statutes, but each one of them has a required state of mind. That state of mind is an "element of the crime" and must be proved in order to convict.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

[Char-Gar]

As an aside, there is a different between "knowingly and intentionaly" in the above land rental cases. The difference would be something like this.

1. Knowingly - "So, you are telling me, you want to rent my land to grow pot?"

2. Intentionaly - "This land is for rent for the purose of growing pot."

[waksupi]

In this case the landlord knew about the business. My question was about the claim that landlords who didn't know could be charged and jailed.

After being advised by a lawyer, and the USAG, what would you have believed?

[Ickisrulz]

After being advised by a lawyer, and the USAG, what would you have believed?

Good point. But, I don't think I would have trusted them to begin with. It is my life's goal not to be a test case for anything I can go to jail for.

[Char-Gar]

After being advised by a lawyer, and the USAG, what would you have believed?

I dont believe such advise was given. He is a liar. I have heard to many cock and bull stories from folks charged with crimes to give much credence to such obvious BS. Folks who commit crimes most often place very little value on the truth.

[ole 5 hole group]

According to the article posted above - he plead guilty, which says a lot about his "intentions" in that matter. Had he went to trial and found guilty, he could maintain his story of innocence, despite the fact that 12 members of his county didn't believe his story.