You know what keeps criminals from breaking the law?Follow

A restraining order is an order made by a court to protect a person from physical pain or injury or the threat of pain or injury.

He obviously made it clear enough to the judge that he constituted a threat to the well being of children.

Again, he was not committed of a crime. That is until he broke the restraining order by sitting outside a daycare with a camera.

I don't think what he is saying is against the law, per se, however, I do belive it is probable casue that he is conspiring to break the law, and conspiracy is a crime if they can find further evidence, say a plan on how he would meet or find this child.

Edited, Aug 14th 2007 3:15pm by fhrugby

Depends on what the legal requirement for a restraining order is though.

Let's say you had a freaky friend. Let's say that this friend publically stated that he'd like to kill you. I'm pretty sure that would meet the criteria for you to get a restraining order.

Same deal here I think. The judge ruled that his public statements regarding his desire to "cuddle" with young girls constituted a sufficient threat to issue the order. We can debate whether he would have actually done anything, but I think that's moot. Someone does not need to have committed an act of violence against someone else for a restraining order to be filed.


I think the bigger legal issue is one of scope. Usually a restraining order is pretty specific. This person represents a threat to this other person or small group of people. I don't think I've ever heard of a restraining order this broad issued before. Conditions of parole? Yes. But not a regular restraining order. He might be able to argue it on those grounds.

Tsuki? dat j00?

Would probably traumatize the kids. Not as much as being molested, but still.

Maybe have it arm if he's too close to kids and detonate if he touches one? To only traumatize the kids if trauma is already imminent?

Same deal here I think. The judge ruled that his public statements regarding his desire to "cuddle" with young girls constituted a sufficient threat to issue the order. We can debate whether he would have actually done anything, but I think that's moot. Someone does not need to have committed an act of violence against someone else for a restraining order to be filed.


No, but someone needs to have been threatened, which no one was here, and also threatened *specifically*. This is the equivalent of a KKK member saying "I'd like to kill a black person, but I never would because it's illegal" being barred from being with so many feet of *any black person*.

It's ludicrously over-broad and has no hope of withstanding challenge. There's no compelling interest here for the state to restrict this guys freedom *before* he's done anything illegal or threatened to do same. You can't ad hoc issue court orders against random people doing nothing wrong who's opinions you disagree with.