T Far too often, people feel justified to commit criminal acts in the name of revenge, retribution, or what they believe to be "justice." Such is the case of Danielle Jones Schneider. If you haven't heard about this story, just read on:
From the Seattle Weekly Blog--
It doesn't take long to look through Danielle Schneider's blog and realize that she really doesn't like Patrick Rojas. She has, of course, good reason not to. In 2007 the then-22-year-old pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges--communication with a minor for immoral purposes--for incidents involving Schneider's 11-year-old daughter. He's free now, and says that her hate blog is keeping him from getting a job. As such, he and his lawyer would like "unspecified damages" to compensate him for his troubles...
In fairness, Schneider's 277 blog posts go back to March 2009, and are vitriolic as they come. The posts blast Rojas, his father Eddie, wife Kathy, a host of clergy members at their church, nearly all of their children, and just about anyone else who's ever associated with them. She writes about where they go, what they do, and whatever rumors she hears. She accuses them of other crimes, though her documentation backing up the claims is typically lacking. At any rate, it's clear that the shaming of Rojas and his clan is something that Schneider is obsessively committed to.
We tend to think people are somehow justified in doing this, but we have a justice system for that. However imperfect it is, it is there to punish criminal behavior.What Rojas did was wrong; however, this does not give John Q. Public free reign to harass Rojas. What Schneider is doing today is harassment, plain and simple, and as such, she is a criminal. It remains to be seen whether a judge will do the right thing and rule against Schneider in light of the rants on both her blog and throughout the internet. Some of her other comments really make me question her integrity (a lot of things simple are not adding up):
We need to network, come together and make real, meaningful change. I DO NOT BELIEVE a pedophile can be cured...although I do believe in a God of miracles, I WOULD NOT be willing to risk an innocent child to test if a convicted pedophile has been "healed" would you?
She's also begging the public for money to support her legal fees for committing harassment. No doubt she's raking in the funds-- they did the same for Angry Tammy Gibson. I guess what people say about the Pacific Northwest and mental illness is true.
http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/linx/calendar/GetCivilCase.cfm?cause_num=10-2-10386-0
I'll be watching this case closely. It is time a vigilante gets deterred from engaging in criminal activity.
10 comments:
What a psycho! Let's hope the judge involved has enough sense to recognise her for the stalker she is.
The problem with people being allowed with doing such behavior online is it can escalate to worse behavior. I could see her being the next PJerk, quite frankly.
Some crazy contractor nut calling herself MsSparky wants to attack this blog because I have the gall to point out the fact Schneider is committing illegal activity. Two wrongs do not make a right. Too bad Debbie, I won't post your comments here.
Note to certain people who feel the need to defend Schneider, don't bother commenting, I delete them immediately. I don't care what Rojas did, it has no bearing to the fact that Schneider is engaging in illegal activity. The problem is too many idiots like you think that excuse a person has a record that gives the green light to commit crimes against that person. When you break the law, you are a criminal. Schneider is a CRIMINAL.
Could you be specific... WHAT is illegal about the blog? It is apparent that Rojas doesn't like the blog, but is everything said on it true and public record? Do you want to have free speech on YOUR blog?
What law do you think Schneider is violating?
I'm getting sick of having to address this issue. Washington State's harassment laws.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46&full=true
9A.46.010
Legislative finding.
The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim.
The legislature further finds that the protection of such persons from harassment can be accomplished without infringing on constitutionally protected speech or activity.
[1985 c 288 § 1.]
9A.46.020
Definition — Penalties.
*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 1206-S2.SL) ***
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or
(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or
(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person who harasses another is guilty of a class C felony if either of the following applies: (i) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim's family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; or (ii) the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
(3) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.
Notes:
Intent -- Effective date -- 2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
Intent -- 1999 c 27: "It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking." [1999 c 27 § 1.]
Severability -- 1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110.
Pretty much every sheriff's office also contains the following disclaimer:
Abuse of this information to threaten, intimidate or harass registered sex and kidnapping offenders will not be tolerated. Such abuse could potentially end our current ability to release this important information to the public.
There is a difference between free speech and criminal harassment, you idiots.
So it is my understanding that he was 15 when "it" occurred...
It sounds like he snuk in her room and KISSED her on the cheek!
It sounds like THIS sneaky behavior and this action is what actually happened... THIS is being called molestation? What is the truth anyway?
Post a Comment