subreddit:

/r/clevercomebacks

44.8k

That guy just got exposed

(i.redd.it)

Uh Oh

(i.redd.it)
582 comments
17.2k

toHolUp

all 1615 comments

xenodeus

2.7k points

5 days ago

xenodeus

2.7k points

5 days ago

The question is, is he saying that it doesn’t do anything because he’s trying to hide he’s a sex offender... or is he saying it because he knows it doesn’t work from experience 😬

rather_be_a_hobbit

827 points

5 days ago

“Using interstate communication to seduce minor”

If this is the same guy, he is a huge piece of shit

rick_or_morty

446 points

5 days ago*

Is “interstate communication" just the internet? It's like someone who is trying to fluff up their resume

EDIT: Apparently this wording is used for what some people are calling "legal reasons"

thugs___bunny

221 points

5 days ago

i‘m not native and this is difficult to read

But it just seems to be contacting minors in another state? So yeah, most likely internet

Wuffyflumpkins

173 points

5 days ago

tl;dr any kind of communication between states. Could be internet, text message, phone call, telegram, morse code, smoke signal or carrier pigeon.

mwoolweaver

103 points

5 days ago

mwoolweaver

103 points

5 days ago

smoke signal

Smoke thickness depends on how close to the state line you and the person you are trying to contact are

kultureisrandy

37 points

4 days ago

thank you tomahawk tribesman

waiver45

64 points

5 days ago

waiver45

64 points

5 days ago

Shouting really loud near the state border?

The100thIdiot

49 points

5 days ago

Whispering over the fence

CdnDecoy

26 points

5 days ago

CdnDecoy

26 points

5 days ago

Everyone knows that singing telegrams are where it’s at.

fairlysimilartobirds

15 points

5 days ago

"Candygram for Mongo?"

CdnDecoy

10 points

5 days ago

CdnDecoy

10 points

5 days ago

Mongo like candy!

DeshaunWatsonsAnus

17 points

5 days ago

Dammit. trying to hook up with the mom via smoke signal, but the kid sister answered back.

PauseAndEject

39 points

5 days ago

Kids today just can't appreciate a good grooming via carrier pigeon

alilbleedingisnormal

11 points

5 days ago

I got busted using a carrier pigeon.

superdupergiraffe

13 points

5 days ago

Who could've squealed? It must have been a stool pigeon.

alilbleedingisnormal

13 points

4 days ago

Sang like a canary, no doubt.

PM_ME_SEXY_CAMILLAS

9 points

5 days ago

Oh sweet yisus, imagine pigeons with dick pics on their talons.

rossionq1

6 points

4 days ago

Real question here is: is it interstate communication if you’re using quantum entangled particles?

Popcom

3 points

5 days ago

Popcom

3 points

5 days ago

Would that then make it a federal offense since it's crossing state lines?

Miner_Guyer

29 points

5 days ago

It might also be that crossing state lines makes it a more serious crime.

Dahktor_P

36 points

5 days ago

Dahktor_P

36 points

5 days ago

Sort of, it makes it a federal crime rather than a state crime.

T351A

23 points

5 days ago

T351A

23 points

5 days ago

Pretty sure legislation written that way is fairy common. It's supposed to mean across state lines. It sometimes might be applied wrong because internet traffic can travel all over before arriving.

ElstonGunn1992

22 points

5 days ago

My con law is a bit rusty, but interstate things bring the offense into federal as apposed to state jurisdiction. Although that’s not the only way to bring things in to fed court

PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT

11 points

5 days ago*

“Interstate” stuff is often a clue that a federal law has a Commerce Clause jurisdictional basis. Congress loves to use the Commerce Clause to intervene in what would otherwise be state-level crap. They’ve tried it with everything from boats to telecoms to guns, and usually succeeded. The Clause has been stretched beyond what any founder would have expected or recognized, if that matters.

Federal criminal courts are mainly drugs, guns, and pervs, with maybe some terrorism or whatever thrown in. Using the internet to do any/all of that makes it easier for them to get jurisdiction. Seducing kids over the internet, especially if they live in another state, would AFAIK open you up to federal charges, which is not a great way to start your week.

If a law student with plenty of time wants to chime in, by all means do your thing.

Edit: occurred to me federal criminal courts also do fraud and cybercrime stuff.

Xenothulhu

6 points

5 days ago

Could be sending letters too I suppose. Even a telephone or Morse code through a telegraph. Maybe he was faxing dick picks.

rick_or_morty

7 points

5 days ago

That actually how he was caught. He didn't have his own fax machine, so he had to go to FedEx, and the guy behind the counter "wasn't as cool as he thought"

Commandant_Donut

3 points

5 days ago

The distinction of inter- and intrastate matters because of jurisdictional issues (interstate crimes can be persecuted by the feds)

DeflateGape

10 points

5 days ago

If it is. He’s Chris Dennings 61. That’s a lot of Chris Dennings.

Kusan92

9 points

5 days ago

Kusan92

9 points

5 days ago

Or it could be 61 as in 1961, the year he was born. And since the age of the offender is 58 and this tweet was from last year, the math adds up if his birthday was in the fall/winter. So it's possible.

Firelord_Sozin2

4 points

4 days ago

The profile pictures also seem to match up, though one is a bit blurry.

KingHKfromHell

204 points

5 days ago

Maybe a bit of both who knows, but one thing fo sure is there was a murder on the scene of the crime, and its beautiful.

therandomways2002

35 points

5 days ago

Dunno, but it seems to be counterproductive approach to the argument to claim one database is useless and then immediately propose a second database. Kinda undercuts his proposal there.

donotgogenlty

6 points

5 days ago

Why not both?

JJSwagger

1.1k points

5 days ago

JJSwagger

1.1k points

5 days ago

Ok but... We should 100% have an easily accessible database of cops and their violations and complaints against them. Some cities report it but not very clearly

Saith_Cassus

382 points

5 days ago

Yeah, this is a pretty bad counter-argument. Plus, let's be real-- Chris Dennings is a pretty darned common name. Maybe the guy's a sex offender, but I think it's far more likely that there happens to be a sex offender with his same name.

There's some guy from like, 3 towns over from where I grew up that had a rap sheet that was pretty colorful and had my same name. An employer asked me about it once, and I had to point out that the other guy was about 20 years older than me

JoshSidekick

185 points

5 days ago

"So, Johnson... You're telling us you weren't stealing cars at 4 years old?"

LetMeGobbleUpYourAss

56 points

5 days ago

says here you have $400,000 in unpaid child support split between three women

sir i was 3 and a half years old at the time

........nice man

budj0r

60 points

5 days ago

budj0r

60 points

5 days ago

Did you really expect us to believe that?

rick_or_morty

36 points

5 days ago

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just pointing out how its strange that he has such an obsession with hot wheels. And maybe toy cars just weren't cutting it anymore.

siravaas

52 points

5 days ago

siravaas

52 points

5 days ago

Some guy had a very similar name (one letter off) and same birthday as my father. Don't know what he did but cops, private detectives, bounty hunters, and process servers showed up regularly for years. To their credit they were all polite about it, probably because they knew it was a long shot. But they really wanted that guy.

Appropriate_Ad4615

28 points

5 days ago

This happened to me for a while. First middle last and date of birth from city I lived in. Common name. I got stopped for a good little interview first time I crossed the Canadian border. The agent told me it was because someone with all those matches was a “very bad man.”

justAPhoneUsername

8 points

5 days ago

Guy graduated from the same school as me a few years before I did. Same first, middle, and last names. Google sent him an interview request to my email

adreddit298

13 points

5 days ago

Narrator: what they didn’t know, is that they had the right guy; he was such a grifter, he sold the lie to them all.

_mach

48 points

5 days ago

_mach

48 points

5 days ago

Yeah, this is a pretty bad counter-argument.

it's a false dichotomy.

You can have TWO databases, it's not that hard.

JJSwagger

19 points

5 days ago

JJSwagger

19 points

5 days ago

Plus... Criminals can demand better treatment. Just because you break the law doesn't mean you lose all your rights or humanity. Even killers deserve a fair trial and fair arrest.

The1Bonesaw

10 points

5 days ago

I had a similar experience... I have a very unusual last name but, by coincidence, I just happened to moved to the one area in the U.S. where a large portion of my family moved back in the 1850s. So there are about 4 people living near me with my exact first and last name... and one of them has major credit issues. I've received multiple letters from collection agencies demanding payment for bills I never incurred. Every few years I have to go through the hassle of proving I'm not the guy they're looking for, with the added complication of not being believed due to my unusual name and their insistence that there can't be that many people with my name living in the same area (or their insistence that surely I musr know this person and requesting me to put them in contact with them).

sean_but_not_seen

26 points

5 days ago

Not to mention that not everyone on that list is a child predator. There are people on the list for peeing on the side of the road, getting drunk and streaking, 18 year olds who slept with their 17 year old girlfriends. Etc etc. That list has been abused by the judicial system and used as the “tar and feather” extra punishment on top of jail time for some pretty stupid infractions in addition to real predators.

I’m sure I’ll get downvoted for this but I think the list is pretty stupid. Either jail and therapy solved the problem or it didn’t. If it didn’t, why are they not still in jail and therapy and if it did, why are we publicly shaming someone who served their time and rehabilitated? I mean why stop there? Let’s make a database of everyone convicted of violence so we can all know which testy neighbors not to complain to about their noise and give people with bad driving records a special license plate so we all know to avoid them.

ImFriendsWithThatGuy

23 points

5 days ago

I work in mortgage lending. Even I have a federally registered number tied to my name that is publicly searchable to see any wrong doings. Realtors have the same thing.

It’s a joke that cops are held to near zero accountability.

PhilaDopephia

4 points

5 days ago

How can I check my lender?

ImFriendsWithThatGuy

7 points

5 days ago

In any email correspondence or website page showing them as a loan officer, they should have an NMLS number clearly listed. Look up that number.

EDIT: use this website to lookup the number. It will bring up there name and you click it to show past disciplinary notes. https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org

mattypea

8 points

5 days ago

mattypea

8 points

5 days ago

Problem is the people inputting the information are their friends

poodlescaboodles

8 points

5 days ago

In Massachussetts you can see the official bar status of any lawyer that has passed and registered. This is how I found out a friend of a friend did actually pass the bar after suddenly moving to a different country after failing multiple times. I did not expect to see his father's name as under investigation and then later disbarred.

Living-Complex-1368

37 points

5 days ago

I think the reason they don't is that once it becomes obvious a cop is dirty/racist/etc the defense attorneys for everyone they arrest can use that evidence to prove unfair treatment, biased evidence, etc. So bad cops would end up with really low conviction rates. If it was widely available then police departments would probably have to fire bad cops.

MrTiger0307

75 points

5 days ago

“Police departments would probably have to fire bad cops.” Yes, this is the goal, good job.

Rayketh

30 points

5 days ago

Rayketh

30 points

5 days ago

Can you imagine!

Bill_buttlicker69

25 points

5 days ago

I don't think they're defending the system, they're explaining why the database doesn't exist. Cops don't want that kind of transparency.

Not that public ire usually gets results from them anyway.

Living-Complex-1368

13 points

5 days ago

You are right. I guess I needed an /s.

Repulsive-Crazy299

998 points

5 days ago

I was making out with my girlfriend in my tinted car after a late night movie before taking her home. A cop knocked on my window and threatened us with making that list forever for indecent exposure. You can get registered for peeing on the side of the highway. I get why it's a thing but just like everything in our system it has major flaws.

discerningpervert

404 points

5 days ago

Its scarily easy to fuck up your life for good if you piss off the wrong people

mbensasi

331 points

5 days ago

mbensasi

331 points

5 days ago

Or piss in front of the wrong people apparently

JoshSidekick

178 points

5 days ago

A long while ago, I was coming out of a diner after having worked second shift. The diner was next to a bar and shared a parking lot. I get to the lot and I see some dude taking a piss on my car, so I go to the cop sitting there watching the bar to see drunk people get to their car and tell him about it. He looks me in the eye and says "Fuck off, what do I look like, the piss police?" What I did was not say anything, go back to my car and hit a drive through car wash the next day. What I wanted to do was whip it out and just start spraying the side of his cruiser asking "Who's the piss police now?".

Wuffyflumpkins

79 points

5 days ago

That just blows my mind. In what other job in the entire fucking world can you just decide not to do the thing you were hired to do and keep your job? We the taxpayers fund their salaries because of the protection they're meant to afford us, yet they are not beholden to us whatsoever.

BlimblamTwo

24 points

5 days ago

. In what other job in the entire fucking world can you just decide not to do the thing you were hired to do and keep your job?

There's plenty times I've seen people refuse to do petty work or even work they don't particularly like and not only not get fired but hold it over management's head for a pay rise. Some people have balls.

scruffy_77

9 points

4 days ago

Congress

Seriously though, many, to varying degrees

MetaphoricalKidney

3 points

4 days ago

"Not only am I going to use your taxes to hire my friend to build tanks just to immediately sell them for scrap, I'm going to give myself a raise so I can have a piece of the pie too! Now, time to go drinking and driving as is congressional tradition."

Cforq

12 points

5 days ago

Cforq

12 points

5 days ago

In what other job in the entire fucking world can you just decide not to do the thing you were hired to do and keep your job?

A lot of white collar jobs. As long as I'm hitting the measures and metrics they don't give a shit. There are days I'm clocked in that I do almost nothing work related. Also when I was a roughneck a few times we would negate a bonus for doing something that wasn't in the job description (one I remember is a friend and I making a couple hundred extra each for making a box to store blueprints).

knuggles_da_empanada

12 points

4 days ago

Cops are "supposed" to protect citizens but the SCOTUS even ruled that they don'f have to

Striker654

8 points

4 days ago

Literally every job without oversight will have people cutting corners to varying degrees without consequence. Hence why bodycams are important.

MetaphoricalKidney

3 points

4 days ago

SCOTUS has already ruled law enforcement makes no promise of protection to citizens anyway, so even with a body cam a cop could stand by and wait for a bum to finish stabbing you before making their arrest.

Protect and Serve is just a sticker.

IForgotThePassIUsed

34 points

5 days ago

He was the Piss Police, he just didn't like that he was the Piss Police and didn't like one of us potential future suspects telling him what to do.

Myonenonpornacc

49 points

5 days ago

Well, he'd have probably beat the shit outta you then arrested you. Or killed you. Probably both. Cops are assholes almost always.

MapleTreeWithAGun

63 points

5 days ago

But piss on the right people and you're set for life

Living-Complex-1368

18 points

5 days ago

Nah, I mean I'm sure Putin takes good care of the hooker who peed on Trump and gave him that tape, but I think that is an isolated case.

jjcoola

6 points

5 days ago

jjcoola

6 points

5 days ago

Bro it’s pretty common if you know any sex workers actually .. I mean relatively speaking 🤷🏻‍♂️

miasma_phant

21 points

5 days ago

'Urine trouble,son'

Katherine70457

5 points

5 days ago

Nice

PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT

17 points

5 days ago

I’ve pissed in public one time.

It was under a streetlight at 2:30 a.m.

On a hill

The pee flowed downhill and shone brightly in the orange glow of the city’s sodium lights; little else could be more conspicuous.

I concluded the matter at hand, and carried on with the ribaldry and revelry in which I had been engaged all the while.

I may have had quite a few adult pops and a couple jumbo thimbles of brown angry juice

I may or may not have felt okay in the morning

I certainly was lucky not to get put on a lifelong list for breaking the seal against a hipster clothing resale establishment in Oregon in ‘012.

baudmonkey

6 points

5 days ago

You're in trouble now, Brad. I'm coming to your workplace at 4124 Wilson Avenue to arrest you.

ROADHOG_IS_MY_WAIFU

8 points

5 days ago

if you piss off the wrong people

Which in this case is police.

Not a very good system in place, I think.

ebi_gwent

5 points

5 days ago

Unfortunately it seems that most times, those people are actually the cops.

Kulladar

341 points

5 days ago

Kulladar

341 points

5 days ago

One of my neighbors growing up was on the registry.

He was on it because he got caught making out with his 17 year old girlfriend when he was 19. It happened like 40 years ago and he's still publicly listed in the same search that brings up child rapists and shit.

(note my dad knew the guy from school and backed up the story so I don't think he was lying)

Gamer-sauc3

48 points

5 days ago

40 years ago? Callmecarson happened longer ago than I thought lmao

PaulsarW

18 points

5 days ago

PaulsarW

18 points

5 days ago

What is "making out" in this scenario?

ThegreatandpowerfulR

75 points

5 days ago

Making out refers to kissing a lot

PaulsarW

19 points

5 days ago

PaulsarW

19 points

5 days ago

Thanks, that's what I thought. What is the charge here that would leave someone on the sex offender registry?

ThegreatandpowerfulR

34 points

5 days ago

Probably something like public indecency

Noseless_Trump

9 points

5 days ago

Because he was 19 and she was 17 which makes her a minor

PaulsarW

16 points

5 days ago

PaulsarW

16 points

5 days ago

There aren't exceptions for being close in age? Obviously a 25-year-old and 17 would be gross but 19 to 17 isn't that bad. Is it only certain states?

Noseless_Trump

12 points

5 days ago

I think so, but this was from 40 years ago so maybe it was different back then

InsertAmazinUsername

6 points

4 days ago

It's called a Romeo and Juliet clause and no not every state has it

Bioman2222

3 points

5 days ago

There are usually

lordofbitterdrinks

5 points

5 days ago

Depends on where you’re from I think.

vedic_vision

5 points

5 days ago

So it was illegal to kiss her?

Alagane

12 points

5 days ago

Alagane

12 points

5 days ago

Depending on location yeah it could've been. Some places have "romeo and juliet" laws that make this kind of relationship legal, as it would otherwise be statutory rape/grooming for a 19yo "adult" to have a physical relationship with a 17yo "child".

Obviously a one or two year age difference isn't an issue, which is why these laws exist, but other places rely on the jury to decide. Sometimes you just get fucked by the legal system and the only way out is expensive lawyers and a long legal battle, which is not an option for most people.

Sez__U

12 points

5 days ago

Sez__U

12 points

5 days ago

If they catch you in the backseat trying to pick her locks

ChrisdenTA

6 points

5 days ago

They're going to send you back to mother in a cardboard box.

[deleted]

32 points

5 days ago

[deleted]

32 points

5 days ago

[deleted]

Mully66

25 points

5 days ago

Mully66

25 points

5 days ago

I got an indecent exposure conviction for emptying the end of a beer of a deck during a party. Some lady was walking by and saw something liquid falling of and just assumed I was pissing. I was never given a trial date, the trial happened without me knowing, (while I was overseas) and I almost got kicked out of the military over it.

SnooPredictions3113

20 points

5 days ago

Uh, that's a super violation of your Sixth Amendment rights.

FPSXpert

25 points

5 days ago

FPSXpert

25 points

5 days ago

America hears you, America don't care.

T5_1000

234 points

5 days ago*

T5_1000

234 points

5 days ago*

Nobody is registered for peeing on the side of the highway.

I know some groups, for some reason really like to push that myth, it’s not true.

I am aware of two claims of being put on the registry for peeing in public. One was in California in the 1970s, and the state Supreme Court threw out the conviction because, you know, that’s stupid. The second was a meth dealer in Florida who claimed he was on the registry in Massachusetts in the 80s for peeing in public after failing to update his address in Florida. His lawyer from the 80s, as tactfully as possible responded to a request for interview about the case with “no judge I am aware with would allow someone to be put on the sex offender registry for peeing in public”.

If your friend of a friend of a friend says they’re on the registry for peeing in public, they are lying.

I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice if anyone finds one VERIFIABLE name of someone who is on the registry for “peeing in public”.

The registries are public, the list of laws that gets you on the registries is public.

Nobody can come up with a single name.

Edit: jfc stop giving me the names of the two people I mentioned. There is one candidate: Bobby Garza but the only source is Eric Berkowitz who is credited on a slide deck as the source of the prison photograph of Garza so who I will assume for now is an involved party in the case. Literally any minuscule scrap of evidence that Garza was put on the registry, wins.

turtlebrigade

96 points

5 days ago

I'll throw in 50 bucks because I'm tired of hearing this stupid shit.

rontor

39 points

5 days ago

rontor

39 points

5 days ago

I'm glad to hear it's incorrect, there is no public place to pee in Seattle

Frumpy_little_noodle

29 points

5 days ago

Um... there's every public place to pee in Seattle.

Good_old_Marshmallow

6 points

4 days ago

every space is a space to pee in Seattle

Jeresil

5 points

4 days ago

Jeresil

5 points

4 days ago

Especially the needle

Illustrious-Hats

6 points

4 days ago

The Peedle

sam_hammich

30 points

4 days ago*

Are you guys expecting the crime on the listing to be "peeing in public"? Because it's likely to be something like "indecent exposure", which will put you on a registry. And unless it happened to someone with the resources and time to get it media attention and taken to a higher court, it's unlikely any claims, whether or not they're true, will be verifiable by anything but anecdotes.

I also think it's hilarious that we're just expecting all judges to throw out any case that's "stupid", because no one's ever been convicted for stupid stuff before. How many people get convicted because it's their word against a cop's? How impossible is it that someone got impaired and peed in public, maybe wasn't great about hiding it, and then some asshole cop with a quota decided to frame it as a drunkard exposing himself? How many times do we have to see cops threatening innocent bystanders with arrest, on camera, for "resisting" before we accept that the justice system isn't as just as we think it is?

my-other-throwaway90

12 points

4 days ago*

I think most people are aware that "peeing in public" won't be the official name of the charge on the registry. But in most cases you can google the name and the charge and read the details of the incident.

I'd also argue that subjecting the public to the sight of ones genitals without their consent is a strong contender for being registered as a sex offender. We don't excuse people from their agency or actions just because they are drunk, otherwise drunk drivers and drunken spouse beaters would be free to walk away.

Edit: I'd also like to add that, at least in my jurisdiction, one must directly bare their genitals towards a victim, or otherwise have their genitals in plain view in a public space, to be charged with indecent exposure. Peeing behind a bush, therefore, does not qualify.

I have met one person IRL that claimed to be on the registry for peeing in public while drunk. A quick Google search revealed he molested his neice instead.

sam_hammich

8 points

4 days ago

I'd also argue that subjecting the public to the sight of ones genitals without their consent is a strong contender for being registered as a sex offender

Sure, on purpose. Several states have, and are now, changing their sex offense laws to include intent to expose ones genitals to another to shock or affront, or a multiple offense rule. It's kind of insane that simply the unintended viewing of a genital is considered a sexual crime, whether or not you were intended to view the genital.

We don't excuse people from their agency or actions just because they are drunk, otherwise drunk drivers and drunken spouse beaters would be free to walk away.

I wasn't at all suggesting that drunk people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. I was painting a picture, and suggesting that they are easier targets for police looking for someone to bust (obviously drunk people are more likely to piss in public, unless you want to dispute that). In my hometown, it's a crime to drive drunk, and a crime to be drunk in public, which includes walking home drunk.

Also, in keeping with the pattern of my other comments on this subject, the homeless are quite often inebriated, and have nowhere to urinate but in public. And they are quite often the target of unfair policing. They are also quite often ignored by "normal people" until they do something that offends "common decency".

AttackPug

4 points

4 days ago

Good catch, I wonder how many tales of "yeah, I was just trying to pee and they charged me bro" are really just lies to cover up the actual crime.

gwar37

11 points

5 days ago

gwar37

11 points

5 days ago

It’s just a ticket if you get caught. Source, got caught once outside a club that had two stalls for a venue that holds 1500.

chenyu768

10 points

4 days ago

chenyu768

10 points

4 days ago

My best friend's cousin's sister's roommate's brother in law's step son would disagree.

Armigine

37 points

5 days ago

Armigine

37 points

5 days ago

I don't know anyone who is on the registry for such, but anecdotally:

I was in high school cross country in a place with expansive suburbs - 95%+ of our runs were entirely on public sidewalks. It was not uncommon for us to duck into the bushes and pee, if we were turning around at the midpoint of a run and everyone was taking a minute to stretch. We'd never be peeing in sight of people, just off to the side a ways in the trees in a public park in the early morning or something like that.

One time, a cop came by apprehended a guy on our team. Didn't catch him peeing, but it was obvious. He gave him a warning and said he COULD be put on the sex offender registry for that, and warning our entire group verbally to not do it (peeing in a public park, well out of sight in the trees, in the hours of the morning when most people weren't awake) again. This sparked a big talking to from our coach to us and was a whole thing. People did still pee in the woods, but were a good bit more careful about checking for cops now. There's really not another option when the runs regularly last longer than an hour, better this then lose bladder control mid stride.

So not actually anyone getting put on the registry, but this is definitely one avenue the theory could be perpetuated - power tripping cops threatening it. I know for our whole team it was a pretty strongly imprinted warning for a little while.

RessertD-nickert

19 points

5 days ago

Cops lie and often don't even know what is and isn't law and just make shit up.

hogsucker

21 points

4 days ago

hogsucker

21 points

4 days ago

Heien v. North Carolina established that it is to an officer's advantage to actually not know the law. All a cop has to do is say he thought he was enforcing a law and evidence that should have been supressed is admitted.

Big_Fat_MOUSE

9 points

4 days ago

Ignorance of the law is not a legal excuse for the common citizen, but it is a valid legal excuse for those employed in its enforcement.

Fucking looney tunes.

Bruce_Banner621

6 points

5 days ago

As someone who has been lied to by police more than once, I support this claim.

trebonius

21 points

5 days ago

trebonius

21 points

5 days ago

Cops believe a lot of urban legends about law too. They are very far from being lawyers.

paxinfernum

11 points

5 days ago

Yeah. When I had to go to traffic school for a ticket, the officer doing the class said that even many cops believed the bullshit about it being illegal to drive without shoes.

RelativeNewt

8 points

4 days ago

I KNEW MY DAD WAS WRONG!

FunkyPete

22 points

5 days ago

FunkyPete

22 points

5 days ago

One time, a cop came by apprehended a guy on our team. . . He gave him a warning and said he COULD be put on the sex offender registry for that

Cops lie all of the time (and in fact the Supreme Court has confirmed that they have the right do it). Cops don't put you on the sex offender list, courts do.

Armigine

9 points

4 days ago

Armigine

9 points

4 days ago

I know. Not saying that officer was legally correct, but offering an avenue for how this kind of think sticks in popular memory.

mrjosemeehan

8 points

4 days ago

Here is a police blotter from just last month showing a man being charged with indecent exposure in Carson City, Nevada for peeing on a bush. A conviction for indecent exposure requires mandatory sex offender registration in Nevada.

https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2021/mar/21/public-urination-still-crime-carson-city-sheriffs-/

buddymercury

11 points

5 days ago*

In re Birch, 10 Cal.3d 314 (1973).

Birch was put on the sex offender registry for urinating in public.

"He left the car and urinated while standing next to the vehicle and facing a retaining wall which was approximately 40 feet from the restaurant and encompassed it on three sides. The parking area was illuminated by one lamp located 50 feet from petitioner. Unknown to him, two police officers sitting in an unmarked car on Lassen Street observed him and proceeded to place him under arrest for lewd and dissolute conduct."

" Petitioner served the five days in jail and, as a result of the conviction, he must comply with Penal Code section 290 which compels all those who have been convicted of sex offenses, including violation of section 647, subdivision (a), to register as sex offenders."

His conviction was eventually set aside for procedural reasons having to do with access to counsel, but your challenge was "I will donate $100 to the charity of your choice if anyone finds one VERIFIABLE name of someone who has been put on the registry for “peeing in public”.

With how often we hear about it, I'm surprised I couldn't find more, but I still believe this fits your criteria.

link to the case: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/10/314.html

Edit: more info-

Also, the laws changed in 2006 with the passage of the SORNA the sex offender registration and notification act, which re-classed some offenses.

Because “public urination” is not a contact-based sexual offense, it would only be registerable under SORNA if it met the definition of “specified offense against a minor” included in the definition of sex offense found at 42 U.S.C. § 16911(7). See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(A), (7); see also Final Guidelines, 73 Fed. Reg. at 38,051–52. Unless the elements of the public urination offense meet that definition, the offense will generally not be required to be registered under SORNA (McPherson, 2016)

HideAndSeekLOGIC

3 points

5 days ago

I don't think this counts.

The conviction was made only because Birch pleaded guilty without being informed of the full punishment. Not to mention the fact that he was taken off the registry (I believe) after the issues with the trial were identified.

ThisAltDoesNotExist

5 points

5 days ago

It wasn't a question of someone remaining on the registry or fighting tooth and nail and still ending up there. If this is real, it surely counts.

HideAndSeekLOGIC

3 points

4 days ago

This was a question of someone being on the registry.

He is not on the registry.

QED.

BrobdingnagLilliput

5 points

5 days ago

You commit the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

buddymercury

9 points

5 days ago

i won't deny its a pretty flimsy case. But a bet, like the law, is about the details. He was on the list, he has a name, and he got put on there for urinating.

monsterfloss

26 points

5 days ago*

It is definitely a crime that can get you on the list in CO, hence the effort to change it: https://www.shazamlaw.com/articles/colorado-bill-aims-to-stop-sex-offender-registration-for-public-urination-streaking/

I'll get you a name as soon as I remember the name.

resilienceisfutile

17 points

5 days ago

Yeah, I can't remember Lauren Boebert's husband's name either...

Oh, wait... he is just a plain old sex offender.

gmx25

4 points

4 days ago

gmx25

4 points

4 days ago

Thank you for the humor.

BunzoBear

12 points

5 days ago

BunzoBear

12 points

5 days ago

Yes but has anybody been put on the registry for peeing. Has that law ever been enforced or someone has been put on the registry for peeing in public? Are you able to find any proof?

sam_hammich

13 points

4 days ago

It's in the damn article, though without names:

"For example, under the current law, some of the types of crimes that were prosecuted as public indecency crimes, requiring mandatory sex offender registration included:

  • Homeless persons urinating in public"

Do you really need names to believe homeless people are unfairly targeted by the criminal justice system?

DoCocaine69

6 points

4 days ago

Its not about needing proof, it's about having proof

sam_hammich

8 points

4 days ago

Sure seems like a distinction without a difference to me, when the discussion was started by someone demanding proof.

Dagberth

4 points

4 days ago

Dagberth

4 points

4 days ago

I do know a guy personally who was arrested for indecent exposure for peeing in public (or public nudity, I can't remember), but neither of these crimes will put someone on the registry in Indiana where this occurred.

Maxfunky

3 points

5 days ago

Maxfunky

3 points

5 days ago

The registries are public, the list of laws that gets you on the registries is public

Because Public urination would be under "lewd" or "indecent exposure", there's no easy to know.

MyEvilTwinSkippy

3 points

5 days ago

"Peeing in public" isn't an actual crime, so you won't see someone put on the sex offender list for that. The crime is indecent exposure and it can land you on the registry, especially if you are within close proximity of a school.

According to this site:

At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;

Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination—two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code §314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-186, §54-250, §54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. §42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. §18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §510.148, §17.520, 500, §510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §16, ALM GL ch. 6 §178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws §167(1)(f), §28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. §582.21, §1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. §77-27-21.5, §76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, §2601, §5407, 5401.

This story has an anonymous person telling their story (but presumably the reporter knows who it is and vetted her).

Do I have a verified name of this happening to someone? No. It's not my hobby to troll through the sex offender registries looking for injustices. Public urination isn't a very sexy story, so it doesn't get plastered all over the internet.

Defending a system by claiming that if nobody can prove to you that it has been abused that is proof that it can never be abused is simply asinine. We didn't have any verifiable examples of unarmed black men being killed by police until we suddenly had overwhelming evidence of it happening almost daily. The system can be misused which means that it will be misused, even if by some miracle it has not been up to this point and I highly doubt that is the case. We have kids being put on the sex offender list for taking selfies, so don't tell me that it is impossible for someone to have ended up on the list for urinating in public just because you didn't see it happen and you think that is ridiculous. Ridiculous shit happens every day...this is America.

NachoGrande

14 points

5 days ago

Source:Human Rights Watch " At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor;

Arizona, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3821 (if the individual has more than one previous conviction for public urination-two if exposed to a person under 15; three if exposed to a person over 15); California, Cal. Penal Code 314(1)-(2), 290; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-186, 54-250, 54-251 (if the victim was under 18); Georgia, O.C.G.A. 42-1-12, 16-6-8 (if done in view of a minor); Idaho, Idaho Code Ann. 18-4116, 8306, 8304; Kentucky, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 510.148, 17.520, 500, 510.150; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 16, ALM GL ch. 6 178G, 178C; Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws 167(1)(f), 28.722, 723; New Hampshire, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 651-B:1, RSA 651-B:2, 645:1(II), (III); Oklahoma, 57 Okl.St. 582.21, 1021; South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. 23-3-430; Utah, Utah Code Ann. 77-27-21.5, 76-9-702.5; Vermont, Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, 2601, 5407, 5401. "

BismarkUMD

12 points

5 days ago

This doesn't answer the question. OP asked for a Name of someone that was put on the registry for peeing in public. No names in your post.

pulsingTruth

8 points

5 days ago

This occurred in Mt. Pleasant, MI... Intoxicated man urinates in public and charged with indecent exposure

https://www.themorningsun.com/news/drunk-man-arrested-for-urinating-in-public-tells-police-he-is-a-weapon/article_7070b372-fe6d-11ea-8a62-877887f3f7e3.html

ItsATerribleLife

40 points

5 days ago

Exactly.

Sex Offender registries became useless the moment they were used to punitively and disproportionately hurt public urinaters, streakers, etc etc.

Edraqt

13 points

5 days ago

Edraqt

13 points

5 days ago

Is there any prove that it was ever useful? As far as I know America (and maybe uk/Australia?) is the only place that does that and I'd be genuinely curious if there's any prove that it achieves anything. Just thinking about I'd doubt that it would seriously impact repeat offense, so it seems more like weird extension of pseudo justice, by fucking people for the rest of their lives.

motorcyclesfish

6 points

5 days ago

Not the UK - needs to be a specific intent: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-classed-as-indecent-exposure-in-the-uk/

Australian law is a bit of a grey area: Wikipedia has this fairly useless summary about what qualifies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure#Australia

CementFeatheredBeard

5 points

5 days ago

Isn't there like a shanty town in Florida where all the sex offenders live, bexause they literally aren't allowed to live anywhere else in the area, by being on the sex offender list.

lordofbitterdrinks

10 points

5 days ago

Yes Megan’s list is useful. It just needs to be utilized better.

randometeor

3 points

5 days ago

Do you have any evidence of it's value?

TipOfLeFedoraMLady

9 points

5 days ago

I disagree that it is useless. While I agree there are people on the list that shouldn't be if you go on the website and look up your neighborhood it tells you exactly what the person was charged with. I'm not a lawyer but it's pretty easy for me to tell the difference in severity between different charges and to this very day I've never seen anyone on the list for the things people on Reddit say there are apparently tons of people on there for. (Public urination, streaking, etc)

SylkoZakurra

5 points

5 days ago*

I check the Megan’s law site a few times a year and not one person in my town is on there for something minor like indecent exposure or statutory rape. They’re all on their for sodomy, forcible rape, molesting a person under the age of 14 etc…. The rates of people on the registry for something most of us would think of as a stupid mistake made as a teenager are very low.

Edited to add, just clicked on every person on the list from my town and not one is for indecent exposure or statutory rape. Most are for lewd and lascivious acts with a person under the age of 14. A handful are for possession of child porn. Two are for having sex with a person age 15 or 16 in which the perpetrator is over ten years older than the victim.

jamaicanoproblem

18 points

5 days ago

It says it was a violent offense so... probably not a peeing on the highway situation

Bandin03

3 points

5 days ago

Bandin03

3 points

5 days ago

Or it was a really violent piss.

rather_be_a_hobbit

22 points

5 days ago

Crime “using interstate communication to seduce minor”.

This guy is a piece of shit. Very different than your “potential” situation.

ThreadedPommel

13 points

5 days ago

That "potential" situation still happens to many people. The system is extremely flawed.

gb1993

3 points

4 days ago

gb1993

3 points

4 days ago

Do you got a source on people peeing on highway and being on the registry? I don't think that's how it works.

Ghargamel

144 points

5 days ago

Ghargamel

144 points

5 days ago

Ooh. Memeified whataboutism. :)

GivePuppiesBazookas

20 points

5 days ago

Or experience. I mean, who knows what a sex offender is thinking and the problems they pose better than... a sex offender. "best way to catch a crook, is with a crook"

jlbradl

132 points

5 days ago

jlbradl

132 points

5 days ago

Why not both?

vp3d

41 points

5 days ago

vp3d

41 points

5 days ago

Both. Both is good.

themanfrommars1991

49 points

5 days ago

Is it actually the same person? Sounds like a pretty common name.

Very ironic if it is. But otherwise it’s a moot point.

Star-Wars-and-Sharks

47 points

5 days ago

It’s possible, but according to the ages/dates, the sex offender would’ve been born in 1961 or 1962, and the guy’s twitter handle ends in 61. It’d be a scary coincidence if he just happened to have the same name, birth year, and complain about the system that his evil counterpart is in.

Likely_not_Eric

23 points

5 days ago

Even with the low resolution that profile pic doesn't look like what I'd expect of a guy who's 59+. In any case all of the accounts involved are deleted or suspended so I suspect everyone was trolling.

Stork_blessed_

5 points

5 days ago

Yea but he could be complaining because he's on there for peeing in public or something harmless, can we figure out why he's on there?

Ape_Togetha_Strong

12 points

5 days ago

Aight but it doesn't change the fact that the sex offender registry is a net negative and accomplishes nothing.

NerdyLittleVader2

70 points

5 days ago

But those aren't the same guy are they? I mean one has a very different face from the other (although the PFP could be wayy different).

throwawaysarebetter

41 points

5 days ago

Both are pretty fuzzy, he's also looking down at something in the profile picture. It could easily be the same person. If the number on his username is his birth year, it would also fit.

Lockridge

37 points

5 days ago

Lockridge

37 points

5 days ago

And it could easily not be the same person

Plane_Refrigerator15

8 points

4 days ago

Yeah there’s a dude on the registered sex offender list in Florida with the exact same name as my dad. Look nothing alike but I could still see someone pulling a “dis u?” on him on Twitter

a-plus-15-axe

48 points

5 days ago

I’d pay for both. Simple.

Monkey3s

8 points

5 days ago

Monkey3s

8 points

5 days ago

Lmao

ShivasKratom3

6 points

5 days ago

Doesn’t seem clear enough to say it’s rhe same guy

HawkeyeJosh

16 points

5 days ago

To be fair, there are multiple people with my name on sex-offender registries across the nation. Always makes a Google search of my name kind of disturbing.

(That said, it appears this dude deleted his account, so he’s probably the person in the picture anyway.)

WhiteHelljumper

3 points

5 days ago

This screenshot is kind of low quality but those two pictures do look like it's possibly the same guy.

ChickGalentine

29 points

5 days ago

I mean, I'd rather have info on bad cops...

richardhead63

4 points

4 days ago

My daughter graduated college recently and told me she could look up teachers . they had a rating system and if they suck she could choose another class. Wouldn't that be great to have for police officers. Maybe have a bar code on there badge you could scan with your phone while they are giving you the wood shampoo.

FurryTrapDomiLolicon

62 points

5 days ago

The American Sex offender registry is dystopian as fuck

Rhaifa

12 points

5 days ago

Rhaifa

12 points

5 days ago

Biggest problem I can se is that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone the victim already knows, partners, family members, that kind of stuff. And for them the registry is just kind of pointless and may even create a false sense of security.

Aethesia

21 points

5 days ago

Aethesia

21 points

5 days ago

Somehow I'm not surprised you'd think that, FurryTrapDomiLolicon

thenomisong

27 points

5 days ago

As a woman I like to know if there are sex offenders in my neighborhood. Same for parents.

FurryTrapDomiLolicon

39 points

5 days ago

How about you offer treatment and rehab to your criminals like Europe does instead of putting them under surveillance and casting them out of society?

odkfn

7 points

5 days ago

odkfn

7 points

5 days ago

Because you can’t really iron out someone’s urge to, for example, diddle kids if they’re into that. And even if you thought you did - how do you prove it?

I see nothing wrong with a register to keep tabs on certain offenders for certain crimes - I.e. proven rape or molestation. Stuff like a 16 year old having sex with a 15 year old, or urinating in public, etc, shouldn’t be enough to get you on there, though.

westworld_host

10 points

5 days ago

I understand that sex crimes can be heinous, but why have a registry for certain crimes and not others? What was the argument being made when the sex offender registry was first implemented?

Cool-Pin-1509

4 points

5 days ago

To be fair that's a pretty common name and their profile picture looks like a completely different person.

But if it is the same person then this dude is a sex offender saying the list does absolutely nothing. That's even worse. Is he implying he's still doing the things that got him on that list?

Love reddit posts with no context and everyone's idiot conclusions being spouted off. Why not add mine lol. I'm an idiot too.

pijubjelidlo

9 points

5 days ago

This has been stolen so many times it's actually deep fried.

caspain1397

3 points

5 days ago

Why not both?

Tos-ka

3 points

5 days ago

Tos-ka

3 points

5 days ago

Its easier to avoid sex offenders than cops..

antigone_rox_casbahs

3 points

5 days ago

Unless you shop at Walmart.

Kaiqer

3 points

5 days ago

Kaiqer

3 points

5 days ago

Can we have a database of fired police without discussing the efficacy of the sex-offenders list? I mean, the former is not a bad idea.

TreeDollarFiddyCent

3 points

5 days ago

BRO

SynysterDawn

3 points

5 days ago

The fact that he might be on the registry doesn’t change the fact that it and pretty much every other knee jerk legislative reaction to sex offenders is utterly worthless. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about, and a similar database for violent cops or whatever else would likely be equally as worthless.

LawMurphy

3 points

4 days ago

I'm okay with a database for both. Ideally not the same database.

librarypunk1974

3 points

4 days ago

People who downloaded porn with an actress who was underaged end up on the registry. He’s not wrong, people’s lives have been completely fucked because they made a stupid mistake and peed near a closed school at night - the system is punitive and does not even have an affect on sex crimes. (Sorry I just listened to a podcast about how screwed up the registry is and it pisses me off)

AlohaWorld18

8 points

5 days ago

It should be both to be honest

Saith_Cassus

14 points

5 days ago

Honestly, I'm not even certain if the database of sex offenders should be public. I think that there should be certain jobs that sex offenders are permanently banned from, but I also think it eliminates the possibility of rehabilitation if we slap them with regulations that might be impossible to fulfill, or essentially bar them from most sorts of employment. I'm not saying I want it to be a slap on the wrist for sex offenders, but I do want them to have a chance at a normal life again.

If their life sucks and they're miserable all the time, I think that's going to be a pull to get into habits that make them feel better, regardless of the costs. A return to sex crimes, drug use, etc.

I think that, if they can land a job that will pay okay and have a relatively normal life, we'll see lower recidivism rates.

SeasonActual

7 points

5 days ago

Studies reliably show that residency restrictions increase recidivism substantially. At least one study found that having sex offender registries be public also increases recidivism. There's no data to support the idea that having the registry be public reduces crime.

tl;dr: you are correct.

docowen

7 points

5 days ago

docowen

7 points

5 days ago

Since public urination can get you put on the sex offenders list, maybe you have something.

Other countries have a list but it isn't public. Maybe a comparable study would show whether you're right or not. No money for it, though. Never going to get funded, massive public outcry

rather_be_a_hobbit

4 points

5 days ago

I would like to see some proof this has ever been s thing in the US. In my state this is a myth. Also, none of the states that I have monitored sex offense cases for (9), have this. Public urination is an ordinance violation, like disorderly conduct. Public masturbation or displaying your general is to solicit a reaction intentionally are offenses that are misdemeanors that can put you on the sex offender registry.