Florida man charged with trying to 'barbecue' sex offenders at motel

a reply to: howtonhawky

The Sex Offender Registry is not for vigilantes to take matters into their own hands and BBQ people. It is meant to inform the public of an individual who lives in the community who COULD be a danger.

Keeping in mind again that a large majority of offenses involving children involve people whom know their victims like relative's or trusted friends and not strangers.

People who commit offenses like man slaughter or murder or serious assaults are not required to public registration so you may know a sex offenders lives 3 blocks away, you would be unawares a person who murdered someone was your next door neighbor.

Every sex offense is serious and should require LE notification but public notification is simply fear mongering and as I have stated, often results in a sex offender skipping the process with LE losing the ability to track them. People often over react and create even more danger to themselves and others

a reply to: DJMSN

It is what it is....

No matter what it was created for it now is a list that is half full of monsters and the other half regular folks getting caught up in the system.

Recently round here they charged an 18yo for having relations with a minor of 15yo.

Now think about the amount of hate and fear that society has against people on those list.

It is sad when the corrupt government can not even get a simple list correct.

a reply to: howtonhawky

A list of "monsters" is not going to keep anyone safe as our communities are full of monsters not on any list as is evident from the police blotter in newspapers everyday. List kept by law enforcement allows control and some safety but public list create more danger in my opinion as offenders avoid registration and go unchecked.

Public list also prevent individual offenders from reintegrating into society as they are largely unemployable, and become burdens to communities. List also create fear and result in dangerous situations like the BBQ man as innocent individuals also reside in low income hotels and would have also died in the resulting inferno.

Certainly the registry needs to undergo a rework of who must register and many states and communities are making changes but changes are slow to fix but often we are too quick to establish laws to make politicians look tough on crime when the laws actually create more problems than they actually fix

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So....my questions here are how did this guy know there were child sex offenders at this particular motel, how did he know there were more than one, what were multiple child sex offenders doing at the same motel, and why is the news only covering that someone wanted to kill them???

the BBC interviewer/film maker called Louis Theroux did a show on pedophiles.

he went to visit what looked like a ...well a motel, or housing for sexual offenders.

I guess it depends on each individual case how you are charged and where you go.

This place was like a hostel, 2 or 3 people to a room and all were sex offenders.

The show/short film was filmed somewhere in the states so I presume sex offenders have places like this where they are visited by parole officers and have case workers checking in on them to make sure everything is still in their pants and what not.

One part that indicated that these hostels are in any old random communicate was a that during the filming it was Halloween time, they had a sign in the windows indicating that the household doesn't celebrate in Halloween celebrations.


Maybe this guy found out where one of these places are and was angry for any number reasons and hungry for some vengeance.

a reply to: DJMSN

I have no problem with a long and detailed answer DJMSN, and I apologise for making it necessary for you to reiterate your original point. Forgive me, the sun is out, and therefore I am not at my ideal operating temperature!

So, the assailant was aware of the presence of the individuals he targeted, because information on their whereabouts was common knowledge. And, from what you were saying, the targets were likely present in the motel at the same time, because options in the area were limited, as to affordable lodgings. The only query remaining to my mind, is whether or not these individuals had completed their sentences, or whether they had been released as part of some initiative or program, like some kind of probationary system (likely designed to save money for the state, rather than as a genuine effort to reduce recidivism.

The thing is this:

It is not a popular thing to say, it is not a pleasant fact to consider, but it will always be more important that innocent people are protected from predators, than it ever is to protect predators from the consequences of their actions. People who have extensive history of commission of sexual offenses are rarely, if ever, capable of rehabilitation, or so the current understanding of sexually motivated criminal behaviour goes. Kiddy fiddlers, rapists... these are things a person does not stop being, just because one has completed an insufficient sentence, handed down by a judge who has shares in the prison system. Sicknesses of that sort only end, when the person "suffering" them does. Because of the nature of the mental malady effecting individuals prone to committing sexually motivated crime, it seems wrong to suggest that the offender is the one who suffers anything. Only their victims matter, only their victims pain, sorrow, suffering, or indeed their lives matter.

The lives of those whose only possible future contains more sexual violence toward innocent people, do NOT matter. They are unimportant, beneath notice and rightly should be. Once a person has been effected by their experiences badly enough, that they can see their way to forming a habit of criminal behaviour involving sexual assault on ANYONE, of ANY age, for ANY reason, its pointless to wring hands, and express concern for those individuals. Regardless of how well they are treated from a certain point onward, they will re-offend. People that sick do not GET better.

That being said, the assailant in this case clearly had his head screwed on wrong. He would have been arrested for simply killing these people, using a more acute, specific, less broadly dangerous method. He could have stuck a knife in those people, or battered them with a brick, but instead chose fire, a weapon well known for being difficult to control the spread of. He endangered innocent lives, not just those he specifically wanted to end. His electing to use this method makes me wonder whether his intentions were as "noble" as he would have the police believe. Surely, if one is determined upon killing sexual predators, one does so from a position of wanting to protect people from the deviants. Given that motivation, one would assume a careful, zero collateral approach would be in order. But this mans actions put a lot of lives and property at risk, other than the lives he claims to have been after taking.

I wonder, given his choice of methodology, whether the assailant was not just calling for help himself. Clearly, something is very wrong with his decision making processes.

originally posted by: Cygnis
Seems he wanted to give them a taste of their afterlife...

But yes, many questions..

WHy are they not being asked....

wouldn't be funny if everyone we judged and killed got a free pass to heaven since man isnt fair?