Sex offender apprehended entering Gle...

Sex offender apprehended entering Glenbrook South

There are 9 comments on the Mount Prospect Times story from Jun 10, 2009, titled Sex offender apprehended entering Glenbrook South. In it, Mount Prospect Times reports that:

A Zion man was arrested June 5 at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview after a routine identification check at the door revealed he was a registered sex offender.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Mount Prospect Times.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#1 Jun 12, 2009
"Glenbrook South's security system worked as intended," Freeman said."

Did it really? The guy was there to deliver cabinets that the school obviously ordered. He wasn't there to molest a kid. His only crime was being near the school, and his being there had nothing to do with his conviction.

My youngest child is about to enter GBS, and while I certainly don't want child molesters around, he should have been escorted off the property. Charging him with a felony for doing his job is a serious overreaction.

“Really? Really?”

Since: Apr 08

G'View

#2 Aug 31, 2009
It depends on if he has an order of restriction barring him from being anywhere near a school or other location where minors are expected to be found. If he did and he knowingly accepted the assignment, then he's in violation of his parole.
wow

Greenwich, CT

#3 Aug 12, 2010
i am the class of 93' from gbs. i am glad that he was picked up. we have to watch out for ours kids. i hope he will sit in jail for a long time, and mets a big guy that will take care of him.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#4 Aug 26, 2010
wow wrote:
i am the class of 93' from gbs. i am glad that he was picked up. we have to watch out for ours kids. i hope he will sit in jail for a long time, and mets a big guy that will take care of him.
He was there TO DELIVER CABINETS. He had a valid reason to be there, he was not loitering.

My daughter attends GBS, and I contend that charging him with a felony is an excessive reaction. If he did not have a reason to be there, I agree that his intentions should be questioned given his history and he should have been arrested, but, let me repeat, HE HAD A VALID REASON TO BE THERE. He should have been escorted off the property but NOT arrested.
Debunker

Canfield, OH

#5 Jul 31, 2011
Melevy,

Under the Illinois Statue 730 ILCS 150, unless explicitly okayed by the Superintendent or the School Board, THEY ARE EXPLICITLY BARRED FROM BEING IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS, ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, OR WITHIN 500 FEET OF SCHOOL PROPERTY. That means, cabinets or no, the response was perfectly justified and appropriate. There's no wiggle room.

Also, before you start in on "You've got nobody at risk" thing, and I have a younger brother at GBS that I'm close with a second brother going there in a year or two. So for me to hear that this <graphic epithet deleted> was stopped at the door made me very happy. This scumbag blew his parole, and could have ended up back to the behavior that got him convicted in the first place. If he's been clear with his boss about the conditions of parole, someone else could have been sent in his place. But, no.

Before you harangue me about personal freedom, liberty, privacy, and all the rest, I'm all for that. The reality is that there absolutely MUST be a balance to that, especially where children are involved. Why risk the pain, damage (both physical and emotional), and potential death of our children, just so some sicko can install some (probably nonessential) cabinets?

Geez.

Here's a penny. Go out, buy a clue, and bring me back the change.

-Debunker
John

Elk Grove Village, IL

#6 Aug 1, 2011
They should beat him to within inches of his life the pervert.

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#7 Aug 1, 2011
Debunker wrote:
Melevy,
Under the Illinois Statue 730 ILCS 150, unless explicitly okayed by the Superintendent or the School Board, THEY ARE EXPLICITLY BARRED FROM BEING IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS, ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, OR WITHIN 500 FEET OF SCHOOL PROPERTY. That means, cabinets or no, the response was perfectly justified and appropriate. There's no wiggle room.
Also, before you start in on "You've got nobody at risk" thing, and I have a younger brother at GBS that I'm close with a second brother going there in a year or two. So for me to hear that this <graphic epithet deleted> was stopped at the door made me very happy. This scumbag blew his parole, and could have ended up back to the behavior that got him convicted in the first place. If he's been clear with his boss about the conditions of parole, someone else could have been sent in his place. But, no.
Before you harangue me about personal freedom, liberty, privacy, and all the rest, I'm all for that. The reality is that there absolutely MUST be a balance to that, especially where children are involved. Why risk the pain, damage (both physical and emotional), and potential death of our children, just so some sicko can install some (probably nonessential) cabinets?
Geez.
Here's a penny. Go out, buy a clue, and bring me back the change.
-Debunker
You want a clue, here's one. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT. My daughter attends GBS and I feel that this was a gross miscarriage of justice.

Do you really have nothing better to do than respond to posts that are nearly a year old?

You keep the penny. Go buy some common sense.
Debunker

Canfield, OH

#8 Aug 2, 2011
It's your ulcer, not mine. I just wanted to weigh in with a fact or two. I don't care how old the post is, if I can add information to someone else reading the thread down the line, so be it. I'm a LIBRARIAN, facts are what I do, regardless of the age of a source.

May I ask why you're so passionate on this issue?

“Science, not faith.”

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#9 Aug 2, 2011
Debunker wrote:
May I ask why you're so passionate on this issue?
Simple. Not everything is as cut-and-dried as the law would like. I don't know this guy, I've never met him, and while I think what he did was despicable and he should pay for it, I don't think he should be penalized for doing a job that had absolutely nothing to do with his prior conviction. He was not talking to any of the kids and was there on completely innocent pretenses. Questioning by the police would determine the reasons why he was there. I'm against automatic charges.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mount Prospect Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Northbrook considers legal options for potentia... Sat Lowest of them All 8
Deadline Announced for Appealing Your Property ... Apr 12 Innovaxis Marketing 1
We use to hold company MTG's in Deerfield Apr 12 CEO 1
baldwin town board members (Aug '14) Apr 11 jeans lounge 3
Spend your money somewhere ELSE:BOYCOTT DEERFIELD Apr 11 G F N 5
News Endorsement: Quigley for the Democrats in Congr... Apr 10 mad italian 5
George Street "Wife" (Jun '17) Jun '17 Louis 2

Mount Prospect Jobs

Personal Finance

Mount Prospect Mortgages