offering a ride illegal?

[unsure2002]

What is the name of your state? MA

The other day I was lost and asked a girl for directions. She didn't know the street I needed but thought I would be nice and offer her a ride because she was very polite. The girl said she did not want a ride, so This girl was around 15-17 years old. She was walking home from school I guess. After thinking about it, I got scared. Is that illegal to offer someone under the age of 18 a ride? Is it illegal to offer someone walking on the street over the age of 18 a ride? Thanks for any info.

 

[dequeendistress]

You use the term "ride" to describe a trip or destination in a motor vehicle, correct?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state? MA

The other day I was lost and asked a girl for directions. She didn't know the street I needed but thought I would be nice and offer her a ride because she was very polite. The girl said she did not want a ride, so This girl was around 15-17 years old. She was walking home from school I guess. After thinking about it, I got scared. Is that illegal to offer someone under the age of 18 a ride? Is it illegal to offer someone walking on the street over the age of 18 a ride? Thanks for any info.

My response:

Unless you're a Registered Sex Offender, I see nothing illegal about offering anyone, of any age, a simple ride. Take for example a driver offering a hitchhiker a ride - - nothing illegal about that.

IAAL

 

[dequeendistress]

It may be legal in the sense of the offering of a ride...although...not advisable...my opinion.

When you pick up a minor and let's say the parent did not approve, you may be opening yourself up for future problems.

I only hope that you are not thinking of using the excuse, "I was giving her or him a ride" to cover for ulterior motive.

IAAL answered you though and I apologize if this post is improper.

 

[unsure2002]

Yes I meant a destination dequeendistress. I usually overthink things too much any way but I just wanted to make sure. I am not a registered sex offender. I have heard police searching for people that offered a ride to a child so I didn't know if that was the same case, age and all. It was three weeks ago too, I just get paranoid and can't get it out of my head. So I should stop thinking their gonna come take me away and make me look like a perv in front of my fiance and family?

 

[dequeendistress]

Exactly what is it that you are not revealing?

If you offered a simple ride for a polite little girl who gave you directions, where is this paranoia coming from?

How did you "hear" that police are investigating a situation as you describe?

 

[unsure2002]

I read online in Atlanta I think that the police were searching for some guy who approached a girl at a bus stop or something along those lines. I am not hiding anything. The paranoia is from myself. I have anxiety that makes me read into stuff and overwhelm myself

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I read online in Atlanta I think that the police were searching for some guy who approached a girl at a bus stop or something along those lines. I am not hiding anything. The paranoia is from myself. I have anxiety that makes me read into stuff and overwhelm myself

My response:

So, basically, you're saying that you're the "Poster Child" for taking "Chill Pills".

Take one. Relax. There's nothing like a good "Librium".

IAAL

 

[calatty]

I agree that simply asking a minor if she needs a ride will probably not subject you to prosecution, but I have seen prosecutions for attempted child molestation or child annoyance based on a father asking the babysitter if she wants a back massage, or a man asking a teenager if she wants to come back to his place for a good time. You can never be too careful.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I agree that simply asking a minor if she needs a ride will probably not subject you to prosecution, but I have seen prosecutions for attempted child molestation or child annoyance based on a father asking the babysitter if she wants a back massage, or a man asking a teenager if she wants to come back to his place for a good time. You can never be too careful.

My response:

Way to go, CalAtty!

With your answer, I can now see this guy pacing back and forth in his living room, smacking his forehead, and pulling his hair out, muttering "Stupid, stupid, I am so stupid!"

IAAL

 

[calatty]

He was stupid. And he probably did more and ask for directions and ask her if she needed ride, or at least had more on his mind.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

He was stupid. And he probably did more and ask for directions and ask her if she needed ride, or at least had more on his mind.

My response:

You mean, "And he probably did more "than" ask for directions".

Since when did California start prosecuting people for what they have "on [their] mind"?

IAAL

 

[calatty]

An attempted violation of section 288 requires an attempted touching “with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child.” The CA Supreme Court has explained: “Although children are routinely cuddled, disrobed, stroked, examined, and groomed as part of a normal and healthy upbringing, these intimate acts may also be undertaken for the purpose of sexual arousal. Thus, depending upon the actor's motivation, innocent or sexual, such behavior may fall within or without the protective purposes of section 288.” (People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 146.) For child annoyance (PC 647.6), the conduct has to be inherently annoying and objectionable. Asking a teenager if she wants a massage has been held to be annoying conduct, so has following a girl down the road making gestures. People v. Lopez (1998) 19 Cal.4th 282 has some examples.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

You're "stretching" CalAtty!

An attempted violation of section 288 requires an attempted touching

MY RESPONSE: Where in our writer's post did you get the idea that there was a "touching", let alone an "attempted touching"?



“with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person or the child.” The CA Supreme Court has explained: “Although children are routinely cuddled, disrobed, stroked, examined, and groomed as part of a normal and healthy upbringing, these intimate acts may also be undertaken for the purpose of sexual arousal. Thus, depending upon the actor's motivation, innocent or sexual, such behavior may fall within or without the protective purposes of section 288.” (People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 146.)

MY RESPONSE: Only if there is a "touching" for the purpose of arousal. Where, in the writer's post, do you even see a "motivation"?



For child annoyance (PC 647.6), the conduct has to be inherently annoying and objectionable.

MY RESPONSE: Do you believe that asking for directions, or offering a ride, is "inherently annoying AND objectionable"? It may be annoying to a parent, or even objectionable, but the key word is "inherently" - - a baby, asking and offering aren't.



Asking a teenager if she wants a massage has been held to be annoying conduct, so has following a girl down the road making gestures.

MY RESPONSE: Well, gee, no kidding! Those are "overt" acts - - not merely "inherently" annoying AND objectionable. They are, IN FACT, annoying AND objectionable.


Remember, CalAtty, I was discussing "thoughts", not actions. There was no touching - - at least none was stated in our writer's posts. I don't care if he was imagining, while talking to her, what it would be like to ball the chick in his car. It wouldn't matter! He cannot be prosecuted for his "thoughts". There must be an overt act, and one within the definition of the statute.

IAAL

 

[calatty]

Like I said, I don't think the facts as he gave them amounted to something prosecutable, but I wanted to point out how close they were for future reference. With increasing frequency I see prosecutions for attempted child molestation based on not much more than that - an attempt does not require and actual touching just an intent to touch. For example, if he had said, Hey hot babe, how about a ride, he would fall squarely into the kind of conduct prosecuted as annoyance, and if he made any lewd suggestion beyond that, it could be prosecuted as an attempted molestation. I personally don't agree with this new turn in the law, but your conservative friends in law enforcement and the courts have no problem with it.