 |
 |
 |
 |
Widespread ire over decision to arrest Folsom man
ACLU says Emmer's loitering charge a dose of overkill
Victor Emmer
|
A maelstrom of outrage over Folsom man Victor Emmer's arrest has swept through the Folsom and El Dorado County communities.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union has weighed in on the issue.
The 49-year-old Emmer was arrested at his house March 13 on suspicion of loitering where children gather after a woman's citizen's arrest warrant alleged Emmer had spoken to her two children at three different children's-themed events.
Emmer has no prior offenses and is currently free on $100,000 bail.
Many community members see him being the true victim.
Emmer's story was posted on the Telegraph's Web site shortly after the arrest and has since received more than 22,000 visits from Web users.
User comments, by and large, say Emmer was wronged.
One comment reads, "The notion that you can jail people just for talking, even to children, seems very much in tension with the First Amendment."
Another asks, "Since when is it a crime to speak to children?"
One expletive-laden e-mail sent to the Telegraph said, "Just because some dumb ignorant (woman) is creeped out by some guy talking to her kids … doesn't mean (Emmer) is guilty of committing any crime."
Even Web sites like the Los Angeles-based reason.com and Seattle's newsvine.com have picked up the story.
"I can understand the police talking with the guy, or even asking him to stay away from the woman's kids," wrote Radley Balko, the reason.com staff member who originally posted the story. "But arresting him? Since when is it a crime to talk to children? The guy isn't a sex offender, has no criminal record and was under no order not to speak to children."
Still, the El Dorado County Sheriff's Department maintains everything was done by the book.
"The fact is, the sheriff's office responds for service," said sheriff's Sgt. Bryan Golmitz. "(The victim) articulated a series of events to us to make us believe a crime was committed. We believe there was a crime and it was valid. We're taking all the steps to make sure the community stays safe."
The ACLU, however, thinks those steps included a dose of overkill.
"Assuming he was not doing any harassing or anything sexual, this seems to be an enormous overreaction and violation of (Emmer's) constitutional rights," said Michael Risher, staff attorney for ACLU of Northern California. "Simply hanging around, twiddling your thumbs is not a crime."
Risher stressed he was only familiar with the facts presented in the original article, but questioned the validity of the arrest and hinted at a double standard.
"The problem with these loitering statutes is they are often used to pick on unpopular groups and people," he said. "And it wouldn't surprise me if it were his sex or age or appearance (that led to his arrest). If this were an elderly, very conservatively dressed woman talking to those children, I don't think she would have been tossed in jail with a $100,000 bail."
Golmitz, though, believes the judge agreed to increase Emmer's bail because of "the deputies' understanding of the victim's complaint and the possibility of (Emmer's) behavior continuing and endangering children in the area."
One thing is certain, though - Golmitz, Risher and many Web users agree Emmer's actions were out of the ordinary.
"For the purposes of a children's time event, (Emmer's actions) don't fit with his age bracket," said Golmitz.
"Certainly, if I were in that situation with a child, I might leave or ask (Emmer) to stop talking to my child," Risher said. "I don't know if I can fault the parent for being uncomfortable."
Victor Emmer could not be reached for comment Friday.
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
With regard to the reporter's statement "User comments, by and large, say Emmer was wronged." along with the supporting quotes from readers, all I can say is "Whew! Good thing the large migration of liberals from the Bay area also brought good old common sense too!". For heaven's sake, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the man was trying to aquaint himself with small children in an environment where other men of his age (who did not have their own children with them) wouldn't normally hang around. The ACLU LOVES these situations. They generally do not support circumstances that protect society. Instead they make victims out of public nuisances and sometimes even criminals. I for one support our law enforcement. Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record does not mean that they have not engaged in unlawful or inappropriate behavior. In fact, many of those who do get arrested for crimes have previously commited related acts.
As a parent if I continued to encounter a person (male or female) in numerous places where they didn't seem to have a purpose, and they continuously approached my children to make conversation I would notify the authorities. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
This man has been wronged. Think about it for just one goddamn second. In the above comment, you state the man was getting acquainted with young children. I ask, where's the harm in that? There do exist people who enjoy being around children and are not pedophiles. This man committed no crime. If you are creeped out by him, tell your children not to talk to him, ask him to leave, etc. There was no reason to involve the law, and the law should not have gotten involved, or at least, not to the extent that they were involved. The officers should've given the man a talking to at the very most, oh, and why not find out just what the man was saying? Perhaps he was just being nice. Why are people in our country so incredibly stupid? Why didn't the mother perhaps try to strike up a conversation with the man?
Lets not forget this man was wronged, most likely because he IS a man. A woman who did the same thing would not have gotten arrested. In fact, most likely the mother and the woman would've had a nice chat or some such.
This is ridiculous.
http://www.snipeme.com/rants.php?rant=child_loitering
My 2 older children (ages 24 and 17) themselves have seen this man approaching young children on more than one occasion and this was weeks piror to any artiicals being posted in the newspaper here in El Dorado Hills.
One time they saw him at both Starbucks Coffee shops in the same day harrassing young girls and my daugther told me that she saw him follow a young teenage girl to her car and not until he spotted my daughter watching him, did he cease to harrass the young girl. My children both said they were "totally creeped out" by this guy and I certainly don't think this is something they would make up.
My family moved here from the Bay Area so my children would have the opportunity to grow up in a beautiful and wholesome community such as El Dorado Hills.
This is a tight-nit community and I'm glad to see that everyone watches out for one another. I'm certainly glad this lady notified the Sheriff's Office regarding this guy.
Well, before stating personal opinions, it's a good idea to know all the facts. The article did not mention that the woman and her children were followed into the parking lot by this man, and that is why the report was initiated.
Still, a mom being "creeped out" isn't probable cause to make an arrest.