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.
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.
*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 1206-S2.SL) ***
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(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.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
This disclaimer is also on the sheriff's office websites around the state of Washington:
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.
I don't make assumptions. I read the law.
No matter how Schneider feels about Rojas, the bottom line is what she is doing fits the bill for harassment. I cannot support such actions. There is a reason her story is posted on this blog, which focuses primarily on cyber-harassment. Schneider and her followers, like "mssparky," another damned special interest crime blogger (and my loyal readers know how I feel about wannabe crime analysts), have filled my comment board with insults and excuses for her criminal behavior. I can't believe they're still crying because I didn't post their juvenile comments, but that's a beef for a different day. The fact remains that the Rojas family has a valid argument whether Schneider likes it or not.
Someone sent me a few choice quotes Schneider posted on Facebook.
Danielle Jones Schneider
You had asked for people to submit questions or ideas that they would like explored in your documentary... I believe if someone is accused of childhood sexual abuse or rape that they should be required to have a psycho sexual evaluation and PASS it as truthful in order to even be considered eligible for a plea offer....what would need to happen for this to be made into law? Since the abuse in my family occurred, I've noticed that individuals that harm animals seem to get harsher legal consequences than those who harm/sexually abuse children, can the statistic be looked into for this.
Schneider wants to dent someone accused of a crime to be considered guilty until proven innocent and treated as automatically guilty. Have people forgot it is supposed to be INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY? Have we forgotten about false allegations? It happens.
Schneider: I DO NOT BELIEVE a P**** can be cured...althou gh I do believe in a God of miracles, I WOULD NOT be willing to risk an innocent child to test if a convicted p***** has been "healed" would you?
It is hard to read such things without reasonably concluding you are willing to put a slant on your arguments favoring your opinion. I wonder if her God shares her opinion?
Schneider: The recidivism rate comment could be argued. Lots and lots of abuse is not reported!
Who is assuming now? A recent New York state study found 95% of sex crime arrests were of first timers. The recidivism rate is consistently low. Yes it can be argued, but like many comments Schneider makes, it is based upon conjecture and assumption.
Danielle Jones Schneider
I agree with the above statement...of course some are unjustly punished (life is not fare![sic]) In any criminal conviction there is the potential for errors. BUT I do believe that sentences for sexual crimes are not equal to the damage done. THAT is why I suggested that you look into the stats for other crimes that although are bad, in my opinion, don't damage individuals the same as a sexual crime. I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHAT DO WE VALUE AS A SOCIETY? and DO OUR LAWS REFLECT THAT. Yes, I am bias BUT one could argue I have personal experience and that SHOULD make my opinion matter!
I agree with the above statement...of course some are unjustly punished (life is not fare![sic]) In any criminal conviction there is the potential for errors. BUT I do believe that sentences for sexual crimes are not equal to the damage done. THAT is why I suggested that you look into the stats for other crimes that although are bad, in my opinion, don't damage individuals the same as a sexual crime. I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHAT DO WE VALUE AS A SOCIETY? and DO OUR LAWS REFLECT THAT. Yes, I am bias BUT one could argue I have personal experience and that SHOULD make my opinion matter!
Well I have personal experience too, as a victim of cyberstalking and vigilantism. She admits to bias. Bias means she is incapable of looking at things objectively. Bias justifies illicit actions, like running a blog that mixes a few fact with some baseless conjecture. Well I'm a bit biased against my ex but I know the difference between speaking about proven facts and spreading rumors. The fact remains Schneider is inflicting pain and her own brand of justice on another person.
I really don't care about this case. I merely blogged about it as another bad example of a vigilante feeling justified. Is Schneider a member of the criminal justice system? Doubt it. One of her screen name is fitting -- Totally Cracker. It fits her quite nicely.
Another wonderful example of Schneider's wonderful bias:
If you see E*** R*** please call your local authorities and tell them that there is a felony warrant in Washington state for ***** aka***. The police can handle it from there. Can you imagine marrying into this family?
Benjamin is on the witness list to testify on behalf of P*** and J*** lawsuit against myself and my husband. Not sure that this apple has fallen too far from the tree.
I'd love to hear what she meant by that last line. Another example of Schneider's conjecture:
There is also a wanted felon that is all twisted up in our story (E*****) shouldn't I do everything within reason to locate him? Especially because he has children with him that are most likely the victims of childhood sexual abuse.
At least she admits she's again assuming something. It sounds like she's implying the family is full of child abusers. The fact she says this on a blog gives more merit to the lawsuit against her, along with gratuitous use of the terms "predator" and "pedophile." I wonder if she cares her comments may be the only thing hurting the children?
Someone recently brought up a good point I should relate here. This is what I've referred to as keeping someone in victim mode. Instead of starting the healing process for the sake of the Rojas's victim, Schneider decides to obsess, to pick at the scab. After all, people think it is wrong to overcome the abuse. I could even question the motivation to ask constantly for funds. She says she has a FB page to beg for more money. I wonder if she was encouraged by the support Angry Tammy Gibson got for her unprovoked attack on a Level 3 registrant. Its the same location, it was high profile, and the time Schneider began blogging coincides with the outcome of the Gibson case. Jesus stated Love of Money was the root of all evil. It also makes a good motivator for a struggling mother with SIX kids.
Think I'm wrong? Well sue me, Danielle. Maybe I'll start a legal defense fund too.
UPDATE: It is funny Schneider posted this on her blog:
Obsession
: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation
I find it quite befitting her. Obsession also implies the taking over of one's life, which is what her blog does. She truly is no different from AZU.
9 comments:
How about a class action suit against her?
Why directly address Schneider or her supporters? She is unreasonable. Just keep posting info on her actions and the law suits against her. Keep up the good work!
She's not as bad as some of her whack-job supporters like that bimbo MsSparky, but what Schneider is doing is still illegal.
They're over on her site now crying because I deleted some comments. Perhaps if they behaved like grown people instead of "daring" me to publish their idiotic rants then claiming I can dish it out but can't take it. I was only expecting chants of "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you." You two are right.
The Rojas family needs to start a legal defense fund of their own. I would post a link here for my readers to support anti-vigilante actions.
I left a comment for her pointing out that her vendetta is just further harming her daughter and devastating her family. She constantly claims to be maintaining her blog in order to protect others but her actions make a lie of her words. If what she says was true she would only be attacking Patrick and would limit her posts to detailing his actual crimes. Instead she attacks various members of his family and other church members. This demonstrates that her blog is just vindictive ranting and not about protecting anybody. She even infers that Patrick's brother shares his sexual orientation.
I wonder if she'll post my comment or bin it...
She won't post it. She's a hero in her own mind, powered by estrogen. Her followers are all women who get together to throw darts at men and watch Thelma and Louise and Sleeping with the Enemy over and over again. If you went over there saying kill the Rojas family they'd post it.
You were right... she didn't post it. I didn't think she would but I know she's read it and that's enough. It's just so sad that the person who should be most concerned about protecting her daughter and helping her heal is more concerned about her own vendetta. Her husband needs to grow some balls and take charge.
Vigilantes think they are justified. They think what they are doing is right. In short, they are thinking like criminals.
Well I'll be jiggered. She has finally decided that my comment is acceptable to publish. Still, as I said earlier, whether published or not is not the main thing but rather that someone speaking a bit of common sense gets in her ear.
Well she read it, that's all that matters. I noticed how much they hated the hatred directed at them. If they hate how it made them feel, then how can they continue to justify their hatemongering ways?
Post a Comment