For lack of a better term? I'm not sure what to call it. I started arguing with someone who was claiming you shouldn't help people in public because it could get you into legal trouble. Without wanting to even get into the ethics of why you should help someone regardless, I brought up good Samaritan laws. This person brought up a guy in Illinois who was convicted as a sex offender for grabbing a girl by the arm and lecturing her for jumping in front of a car without looking both ways first. According to this person, holding someone underage, even for a moment, counts as imprisonment of a minor, and automatically gets you put on the sex offender registry for life.

Now, that seemed fishy, but plausible in an awful sort of way, so I did some digging. I found several sources that mentioned this story, and learned the alleged man's name is Fitzroy Barnaby, the incident occurred in 2001, he was convicted in Cook County in 2003, and it's a cautionary tale against being a good Samaritan (ugh). But I cannot find any court documents, nor can I find any original sources. Every source references a since-deleted article by the "Chicago Sun Times", and Barnaby isn't even listed on the Illinois sex offender registry. Was this whole story just made up? Or have records been sealed and scrubbed or something?

Dude.

It's a story that basically says "nowadays women accuse you of rape for no reason so you should never help them"

The ones who wrote, believed and relayed this story are just sexual assaulters, nice guys and incels. Of course it's fake.

Okay, so I managed to find a reddit comment section from 12 years ago (don't hate me) that seems to chalk it up as most likely untrue. Not sure if there's much more evidence to be found one way or another

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/s/8rSk4VqE1P

Edit: found an alleged reply from the writer of the original story (of the since deleted original article). This alleged response is from an archive of a chat board in 2005.

"I've been reading some online postings in repsonse to this and understand
the skepticism, given no other media have picked it up. I can't explain
that, sorry. It's there to be read at the Appellate Court clerk's office at
Lasalle and Randolph in Chicago.
More to it ... well, it was a 16-page ruling and I summarized the important
stuff, I thought.

He drops his girlfriend off at work, he's driving back home, girl's on her
way to school, the near-hit happens, he yells at her, pulls around and gets
out, grabs her, pulls her toward his car and yells at her, she breaks free
and runs off crying, meeting up with friends. A day or two later, she's in a
car with her friend's mom, they see the same guy, same car, she tells the
mom, mom calls police, he's arrested at Blockbuster a few blocks away, girl
makes positive ID. Trial comes, not guilty on 2, guilty on 1, judge says
that charge is a sex offense, he appeals, appellate court says - yes, it is
a sex offense and now you've got to register.
Guy has no priors. State's attorney stands by push for registration, judge
says he's constrained by the law, appellate court says that's right.

Unfortunately, there's nothing more to it.

Steve Patterson
Chicago Sun-Times
350 N. Orleans St.
Chicago, Ill. 60654
312-321-2090
spatterson@suntimes.com"

Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.

While good samaritan laws protect people who help others it doesn't provide immunity. Intentional misconduct or gross negligence are a couple of ways a good samaritan can face legal action. Now, while those are good exceptions to have to protect the victim. Because of a broken/corrupt legal system those exceptions can be used against someone that was just trying to help.

Bottom line: Help others but dont be a hero or a creep. And you reduce your risk of facing charges.

This comes across as if you're on the side of those peddling this (most likely) fake story. While what you said is true, it comes across as unnecessary at best, and malicious at worst to warn others about the "risks" of helping others. Good Samaritans can face legal trouble, but that's exceedingly rare.

Always help others if you're able and do it within a reasonable lens, full stop.

Fitzroy Barnaby

Theres no way thats a real persons name.

fitzroy is a last name that 3033 persons share as of 2010, so i could see someone appropriating it as their child’s first name

I dont know anything about this story you mention. What i do know, is that people should understand the risks when they decide to take action. Denying them that knowledge is irresponsible, regardless of how rare those risks occur.

I help if im able and I am happy you do too. But the people that don't help because they are scared of a potential risk of a lawsuit, I dont hold any ill will against them

Fitzroy Fitzroy? In this economy?

It would have been really helpful if Steve Patterson could have cited a case number or a caption or something.

Even if the story is mostly fake, it doesn't absolve the fake guy of being in the wrong.

There's a difference between someone being accused of this if they were legitimately carrying the girl to safety...and someone being accused of this because they grabbed a girl by the arm and held her there for no other reason than to yell at her for not being careful.

Even if your intentions are technically good, you still have to be aware of the consequences of your own actions. This isn't to say, "Don't help people". It's more like, "Are you sure what you're doing is actually helpful?"

It shouldn't matter in the first place though. Such a story can happen, because, to the surprise of the internet, women are humans and individuals. If a person falls victim to such a scenario, they were just a victim to one individual, not all women in the world, let alone all people in need of help in public.

I think it might be worth re-reading this comment through the lens of the other comment where you dug up the details of the (alleged) actual story. Not too sure which came first due to the edit in the other comment.

The guy pulled his car over to grab her and lecture her after the incident happened. That's not ok and shouldn't be covered under good Samaritan laws. Really that could be grounds for something like assault charges in some jurisdiction. Potentially if she wasn't a minor she could have even had a decent shot at a self-defense claim if she'd shot him when he grabbed her (this is 'murica after all) he continued to escalate a situation that was already resolved and introduced physical force into circumstances where it wasn't warranted.

What you probably pictured (I know it's what I had in mind) was probably more like someone grabbing a girl to keep her from walking into traffic. That would probably be covered under good Samaritan laws.

But holding onto her after that to yell at her probably wouldn't/shouldn't, that's uncalled for, though there may be a little more leeway there since it would still sort of been in the heat of the moment. Odds are probably pretty good that she wouldn't have even pressed the issue since he just potentially saved her life if that were the case.

As for it being considered a sex offense, I think that's a case of the laws being poorly-crafted, the insane way we craft laws to "protect the children" (except when the rich and powerful are involved apparently) and the justice system being broken because that aspect of it is kind of bullshit and probably should have been thrown out on appeal. What he did was wrong and I think there should be consequences for that, but I don't think there's any reason to think it was wrong in a sexual way unless there are other details to the story that have been glossed over.

And the person you had the conversation with that prompted this either misunderstood the circumstances, possibly because they only got the information second hand themselves, or are trying to twist the details to suit their agenda. The first is probably more likely, but we can't really know for sure.

It's also beyond 'good Samaritan' due to the whole 'pulled her towards his car' aspect. It also reads as someone trying to discipline someone outside of their care. Imagine you're a teen trying to jaywalk and this random guy turns his vehicle around, grabs you, and tries to drag you towards it.

It definitely gives of 'I'm only on the sex offender list because I pissed in public' vibes.

I was with you on this until that last part.

What are you talking about pissed in public?

Has the same ring as "Danny Dan Avidan".

Common sense says you can't get convicted as a sex offender for grabbing someone by the arm if you had reason to believe they were in imminent danger.

These kinds of stories have been around since the dawn of time for all sorts of things. Whenever you investigate the details it turns out that either the story is completely made up, or the offense was much more serious than it sounded.

Like the woman who sued macdonalds for getting third degree burns because their coffee was too hot.

Might've only had to be on the registry for a few years?

Anyway, here: https://web.archive.org/web/20050706062151/http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-molest01.html

Maybe it's a California thing, but growing up there was a lot of back and forth about how you could get put on the sex offender list for urinating in public. That wasn't the case. So if someone said that's the reason they were on the list, it was never the full story.

To be clear, I've never done this, it was just some weird cultural zeitgeist when I was growing up.

Like the woman who sued macdonalds for getting third degree burns because their coffee was too hot.

Please never mention this story without pointing out at least one of the following;

• The coffee was hot enough to cause crippling burns to her genitals.
• McDonald's intentionally had their coffee too hot to drink to keep customers from hanging out
• the woman only asked for medical expenses and did not sue until her complaint was ignored.
• the eye-popping headline number was calculated as something like one day of the company's coffee profit.

There literally isn't an instance of a US company being sued by a customer more deserving of empathy and horror.

My recollection was if it was on like school property or some place kids were likely to be. That would trigger some enhancement to the crime. I've never been in a position to need to know if that's true or not.

I was told the same thing literally across the country from you a decade and a half back.

To be fair, the context in which they invoked the case assumed we'd all remember those details already.

It's called "Urban Legend": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend

she had legit evidence,Her labias got fused her thigh, from the permanent burn injuries. at first when the news came to light years before the recent one, it was allegeded she was instigating it, but it wasnt the case.

I doubt there's anyone here who is not already aware of these details.

Everyone knows.

The way they worded it made it sound to me, at first, that they were saying her story was made up. Upon a rereading, I can see that that's not the case. However, the wording could be seen as a little ambiguous.

Blame the British.

AFTER the danger has passed

Curious, how do you lecture someone DURING the dangerous moment when they jump out in front of your car?

It’s missing a word

“Was” pissed in public

Or

Was pissed off in public

At least that’s how I read it

It used to be more common for people to discipline kids that aren't theirs for something obviously wrong. It wouldn't usually involve grabbing, unless it was to move them out of the way of a moving car like in the story. Now there is a lot more pressure on just the parents since it's frowned upon to discipline others children. Whether or not this is better, idk

I assume they mean immediately after, like if someone was standing nearby already. Its a little different if you drive past them, stop the car, get out, go back ti them, and then discipline

Florida man gets into sex offendes list for touching girl's arm.

AND McDonalds had been warned that their coffee was too dangerously hot on previous occasions, which they ignored, so it was entirely predictable, probable, and preventable.

At least part of this is probably caused by spread of the news of a similar policy in China, where people really are encouraged not to get involved, because Good Samaritans can be held responsible for deaths or injuries of victims.

I remember this becoming a bit of a big story a while back. This urban myth seems to build on that Chinese policy.

It is not an urban legend if it actually happened lol

So. In this scenario the guy saved some underage girl from being run over but went on the sex offender. I would take that trade. I 100% know my wife on hearing what happened would be mad this was done to me but would support me for saving a life. I do think this is an urban legend but sometimes I think you have to do a thought experiment. Some kid dying due to my inaction is not something I want to go to my grave with.

If it's Florida man, the original owner of the girls arm was unavailable for questioning.

I imagine it’s the part where he grabbed her by the arm and attempted to drag her towards his car that did it. Whatever his intentions may have been, I can see how that could be taken as an attempted abduction. Idk that that should be counted as a sex crime, but I can certainly see it being treated as a potentially serious assault on a minor.

My conspiracy is that social media is being used to make every one much more callouse and cold to each other. That's where they break the country. The bots knew it was very easy to manipulate the left to scare them off digital spaces. Now they have free reign to make all kinds of groups and posts filled with comments uncontested. Stuff like Pretti good shot on any shooting, hundreds of them. Over time it changes how people think since there is no push back. As it pushes people to be angrier and pissed off, it moves the public opinion away from any leftist since they're seen as very weak and ineffective

You are using social media wrong.

I used social media to look at nice women with big luscious tits. No amount of tits on my FYP will piss me off or cause hostile thoughts at any point.

Thank you.

Mate, this place is full of Americans.