Father Who Killed Sex Offender In Daughter's Bedroom Won't be Punished

Not surprisingly, an Indiana man, who found and killed a man inside his daughter's bedroom, will not be prosecuted. From the Indianapolis Star:

A Northwestside man who killed a would-be rapist in his home last weekend was justified in his actions, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi announced today.

Robert McNally will not face criminal charges in the death of David Meyers, Brizzi said in a statement.

Meyers, 52, climbed through a window and tried to assault McNally’s 17-year-old daughter in her bedroom about 3:20 a.m. Sunday, police said.

McNally, 64, was wakened by the girl’s screams and struggled with the attacker, police said, putting him in a fatal chokehold.

Meyers, a convicted sex offender, was nude except for a mask on his face and carrying rope, condoms and a knife, police said.

Comments

[SexOffenderIssues]

Well I agree with this. The man should not be charged for defending his family. The idiot who broke into their homes, got what he should've expected.

But, I'm sure the media and politicians will use this to further punish sex offenders. I cannot understand how anybody can expect sex offenders to even breath without violating something.

It is just wrong that sex offenders have so many rules and regulations while other criminals, who are more dangerous, do not.

Anyway, I am glad this family was not hurt.

[Sexual Violence Prevention]

"The man should not be charged for defending his family. The idiot who broke into their homes, got what he should've expected."

Kudos, to you. I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't punish someone for protecting his 17 year-old daughter. David Meyers, the offender who broke into the McNally residence, was clearly intent on raping the girl, violently if needed, because he carried with him, not only a rope and condoms, but a knife as well.

Additionally, the incident was accidental. McNally never intended to murder, or aid in the death of, the offender - he was trying to merely apprehend him until the authorities arrived.

Some people may feel sorry for David Meyers, but I'm not one of them. Maybe sex offenders do get treated differently than other criminals, but I can't agree that they are any less dangerous than other criminals or that they deserve fewer stipulations. If they didn't want the restrictions and stigma that comes with being a convicted and registered sex offender, they shouldn't have committed a sex crime in the first place.

Many sex offenders NEED such restrictions on their lives because, as David Meyers life was testimony to, they are simply not going to change their ways. They will con and manipulate until they get what they want, just like Meyers attempted to do. Fortunatley, he was shut down before he had yet another victim.

[disillusion1998]

Sexual Violence Prevention: You stated "Many sex offenders NEED such restrictions on their lives because, as David Meyers life was testimony to, they are simply not going to change their ways." Well, we see what good these "restrictions" did, don't we? And it would not surprise me to even the tiniest, slightest degree that the "sex offender" laws helped push him to commit another crime.

This is pretty much how Registration "works" and how effective it is. The laws harass and punish people listed on these Registries who have no intention of breaking any laws, which is the vast majority, BTW. Yet, the laws do absolutely nothing to hinder anyone listed on a Registry from committing any crime. It is nothing but wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

You said, "If they didn't want the restrictions and stigma that comes with being a convicted and registered sex offender, they shouldn't have committed a sex crime in the first place." It is a shame that Registration didn't even exist when a good percentage of people listed on the Registries committed a sex crime. It is also a shame that more and more punishments and "stigma" are added for those people on a routine basis and again, those things obviously did not exist when they committed a sex crime.

Additionally, if you think these "sex offender" laws are so great, I would challenge you to go ahead and expand them to cover every single person ever convicted of any felony. We have hundreds of thousands of people on these Registries that never did anything to a child and yet a large number of states Banish all people on their Registries from living within X feet of schools, daycares, etc. Yet, any person who has gotten angry at children for crossing their yard in their grass and taken a shovel and beaten them nearly to death can live right next door to any school that he likes. Until Registrymongers are calling to Register all these people, I will continue to call them liars and hypocrites.

[Sexual Violence Prevention]

You said:

"Sexual Violence Prevention: You stated "Many sex offenders NEED such restrictions on their lives because, as David Meyers life was testimony to, they are simply not going to change their ways." Well, we see what good these "restrictions" did, don't we? And it would not surprise me to even the tiniest, slightest degree that the "sex offender" laws helped push him to commit another crime."

My Response:

That’s one of the most heinous and irrational responses I’ve ever heard regarding the acts of a sex offender. Please provide some logic as to why having to be registered as a sex offender or having to live so many feet away from schools, preschools, etc. has ANYTHING to do with a man making the choice to unlawfully enter someone's residence armed with a knife, carrying condoms, with an obvious intent to rape his daughter. The laws put in place to protect children and the innocent from sex offenders are not what push sex offenders to commit repeat crimes. Their own CHOICE AND WILL to commit those crimes does. The biggest reason so many restrictions and stipulations are put into legislation is because the majority of sex offenders (such as pedophiles, rapists, psychopaths, and sadists) are going to do exactly what Meyers did, except NOT be corrected for their immoral and selfish crimes if these laws aren't put into motion. Additionally, predators and pedophiles, typically take very little responsibility for their own actions, hence, the reason they would blame the government for their own behavior. I've even heard a pedophile go so far as to say his victim (who was 8 years old) "wanted it," negating the child's innocence and dismissing his own responsibility for the offense.

Again, Meyers did what he did not because he was pushed to do it based on the registry or any other restriction or law, but because he chose to do it.

You said:

"This is pretty much how Registration "works" and how effective it is. The laws harass and punish people listed on these Registries who have no intention of breaking any laws, which is the vast majority, BTW."

My response:

Stating these laws harass and punish is an overreaction and a matter of personal opinion. So is stating that the “vast majority” of registered offenders have no intent on re-offending because it goes against what the research reveals: a sex offender is only 3% likely to be caught and convicted of a sex crime, which leaves the probability that he/ she will get away with their crimes, including re-offenses, 97% of the time. The majority of offenders have several more victims than those that are disclosed at the time of their convictions. Just because the U.S. Dept. of Justice reveals only about 5.3% of sex offenders being rearrested within 3 years post-release, that still doesn’t mean they aren’t reoffending. Based on extensive research by Dr. Gene Abel, the majority of them are reoffending or intend to. If you’ve never read anything by Dr. Abel, or by Dr. Anna C. Salter – and I’m concluding you haven’t - I highly recommend both. I also feel it noteworthy to mention that the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s CSOM (Center for Sex Offender Management) aptly states in their website and research literature:

“Research on recidivism can be used to inform intervention strategies with sex offenders. However, the way in which recidivism is measured can have a marked difference in study results and applicability to the day-to-day management of this criminal population… [in regards to CSOM programs] variables such as the population(s) of sex offenders studied, the criteria used to measure recidivism, the types of offenses studied, and the length of time a study follows a sample [play a role in sex offender recidivism].”

All of these variables don’t take into consideration the above mentioned fact that a sex offender is only 3% likely to be caught and convicted of a sex crime, regardless of whether it is a repeat crime or a first offense. If that’s the case even the foggy 5.3% post-release recidivism rate reported by the Dept. of Justice would increase exponentially if an offender were caught for all their crimes and offenses.

You said:

"Yet, the laws do absolutely nothing to hinder anyone listed on a Registry from committing any crime. It is nothing but wishful thinking to believe otherwise."

My response:

That’s true, it won’t prevent them from committing another crime of their own accord; however, that isn’t a registry’s sole intention. It’s useful because responsible, proactive members of society can know who their neighbors are and knowing who is a predator provides them with adequate information to prevent such offenders from gaining access to their children or family members, or their family’s/ community’s children or family members.

You said:

"Additionally, if you think these 'sex offender' laws are so great, I would challenge you to go ahead and expand them to cover every single person ever convicted of any felony. We have hundreds of thousands of people on these Registries that never did anything to a child and yet a large number of states Banish all people on their Registries from living within X feet of schools, daycares, etc. Yet, any person who has gotten angry at children for crossing their yard in their grass and taken a shovel and beaten them nearly to death can live right next door to any school that he likes."

My response:

Certainly requiring registration for violent criminals who do such things as you mentioned above, deserve to be treated equally as strictly as sex offenders. I don’t contest that in the least. But the reason sex offenders, specifically pedophiles, deserve these restrictions is because of their likelihood to reoffend if they’re placed in an environment or position in which they are inclined to recommit a crime against a child. It does make sense to keep pedophiles away from children. Why keep a criminal guilty of grand theft auto from a child when he has no sexual interest whatsoever in children? Because that doesn’t make sense.

[disillusion1998]

Sexual Violence Prevention (October 08, 2008 at 08:57 PM): I suppose I should have more clearly stated my premise about David Meyers since you completely misunderstood it. Forget about whether or not Registration, etc. may have helped push Meyers to commit a crime. You said, "Many sex offenders NEED such restrictions on their lives because, as David Meyers life was testimony to, they are simply not going to change their ways." My point was that clearly (and especially in Meyers' case) "sex offenders" do NOT "NEED such restrictions" because obviously they do no good. What good did "such restrictions" do for Meyers. None.

Now, as far as whether or not Registration, etc. causes increased recidivism, I think it is very evident that it does and it's not even debatable. You seem to think that is not true and that leads me to believe that you know very little about these issues. I doubt you will find a single expert in this entire country who agrees with you. Registration, and especially, especially, all of the idiotic tag-along laws that it has enabled, exacerbate nearly all of the major issues that have been positively correlated with sexual offending. That is clear. Also, anecdotally, I've spoken with hundreds of Registered people and there is just no doubt about it. Here in Georgia, one of our "sex offender" laws led directly to the murder of a 6 year old child and possibly a 13 year old (I haven't researched all the facts on that one yet). The people who pushed the laws in the legislature are as guilty of that murder as if they had done it with their own hands. Experts who testified for them warned them that such things would happen.

I loved your "a sex offender is only 3% likely to be caught and convicted of a sex crime" discussion. I suspect that is all just a bunch of bunk but I don't have time to mess with that right now. I presume that 3% means only people who are not listed on one of our glorious Sex Offender Registries? If not, that would be yet another argument to get rid of the worse-than-worthless Registries.

I have read a number of things by Dr. Abel. In fact, I've spoken with him about these issues many times. The next time you speak to him why don't you ask him what he thinks about our "sex offender" laws? I don't think you'll like what he says. He believes essentially what every other expert in the country believes. In fact, when Georgia's idiotic legislature was having committee hearings during their last session to inflict more "sex offender" laws upon Georgia, Dr. Abel testified for them. He told them unequivocally NOT to pass the laws. So, of course you know what those geniuses did, right? They said, "We are smarter than you and we know better than you," and they passed the laws. Are pandering, lying politicians all over our country smarter and more informed than international experts? Or are they just catering to the torch-bearing, hysterical, fact-less majority of their constituents who really just want to feel good?

You parroted the #1 incredibly lame "reason" that most Registrymongers give for why we "need" the Registries. Speaking of the Registries, you said, "It’s useful because responsible, proactive members of society can know who their neighbors are and knowing who is a predator provides them with adequate information to prevent such offenders from gaining access to their children ...". Here's the simple deal - if "responsible, proactive members of society" do what they should do to prevent ANYONE who may harm their children from "gaining access" to them, then they will have ZERO need for any Registry. When I was raising my children I gave everyone that they had contact with the same benefit of the doubt - none. It didn't matter at all if the person was on a Sex Offender Registry or not. I never did have to say, "Well, my child was molested but at least it wasn't by one of those Unwashed creatures on the Sex Offender Registry." In reality, only irresponsible parents "need" Sex Offender Registries, us responsible parents are covered in all ways.

Additionally, you may know about some guy five houses down from you who exposed his genitals to an offended woman but you don't know a thing about the woman next door who several years ago got drunk, put her and her neighbor's kids into her car to drive them to a mall, and then got into an accident and killed one of them. That's good stuff. I'm glad I pay a fortune for these Registries and instead of my law enforcement stopping drunk drivers, they are driving around verify addresses and measuring distances.

Lastly, you said, "Why keep a criminal guilty of grand theft auto from a child when he has no sexual interest whatsoever in children? Because that doesn't make sense." I'm not sure why you ignored the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people listed on our Sex Offender Registries that never did anything to a child and have "no sexual interest whatsoever in children" but yet we have piles of useless laws that keep them from living near schools, etc., etc. I assume you think that also makes no sense.

It makes just as much sense to keep someone convicted of grand theft auto from living near schools, etc. as it does someone convicted of molesting a child. Or, you don't think stealing cars is dangerous to children? I'm thinking someone stealing a car may have a gun. Say he (or she) is stealing a car parked outside a school. Maybe someone tries to stop it or even apprehend the guy. Maybe it is a school police officer with a gun. Maybe the thief decides he's not going to be arrested and starts shooting. Seems pretty dangerous to me. Or perhaps he gets in the car and goes speeding off out of control, almost killing the police officer. That seems quite dangerous but of course that's never happened before. So, is it worse that someone would touch a child or run them over with a car or accidentally shoot them in the head? Obviously, grand theft auto could kill children.

There is NO excuse for not Registering all felons (or at least almost all of them). At the very least they had some moral shortcomings that could put children in danger. I'll tell you another interesting thing that happened here in Georgia. In Feb. 2007, it was reported that DNA samples taken from prisoners in the Georgia prison system had solved 339 rapes. Of those, 294 (~87%) were from people who were in prison for something other than a sex offense. Most of them were in prison for burglary, robbery, or drug offenses. Registrymongers have NO excuse for not hysterically screaming to Register everybody.

Regardless, the bottom line of all this BS is that Registration, and especially ALL the tag-along, worse-than-worthless laws that Registration has enabled (e.g. Banishment), provides very, very miniscule additional "public safety" and those same benefits could very easily be achieved in numerous other, much more effective ways. But while Registration and the rest provide no needed benefits, they also constantly promote recidivism, cost a fortune, create a false sense of security, reduce the likelihood that people will do what is truly effective to reduce sexual offending, divert precious, limited resources and attention away from trying to reduce sexual offending, and create a very large class of people who don't care at all about being good citizens.

[Dave]

Don't worry. Once we're fully past peak oil and the energy crisis coming hits full on, people should realize that the RSO living down the street is the last thing they should be worried about.

If you really want to protect your children from harm, teach them how to live a sustainable life. If you don't, they may grow up ruing the generation that swallowed up all the cheap energy.

"Tell me that story again, Grandpa. Tell me that story about the days of consumption and hysteria."