Forum: General

Thread (Discussion): Accused child molester back in jail

A Bay area child molester who was allowed to work near children is now back in jail accused of rape.
[snip]
Smith was also given a second chance by the owner of the Chik-fil-A restaurant inside the Tyrone Square Mall in St. Petersburg. He was hired and eventually became a supervisor.

That worried Smith's probation officer because malls are magnets for children. So, he took Smith to court telling Judge Dee Anna Farnell, Smith should be forced to quit the job.

However, Smith's new friends and fellow employees, including the restaurant's owner showed up and told Farnell, "We're in full support of Gary". They said Smith "proved himself."

Farnell agreed with the restaurant owner and allowed Smith to continue to work at the mall.

Accused child molester back in jail
Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Smith was arrested Feb. 10.
A Bay area child molester who was allowed to work near children is back in jail on rape accusations.

In 2003, a court convicted Gary Smith of St. Petersburg on four counts of molestation after two sisters accused him of preying on them when they were young.

At the time, prosecutors agreed to a plea deal to save the traumatized victims from testifying. As part of the deal, Smith's possible 90-year prison sentence was cut down to three years behind bars. Smith, 32, was freed from prison in Pinellas County more than a year ago.

Landlord Rick Schroeder recently rented a home to Smith.

"It wasn't a molestation scenario, it was a wrestling scenario as I understand it," Schroeder said.

Farnell agreed with the restaurant owner and allowed Smith to continue to work at the mall. Outwardly, Smith was cooperating with the court by avoiding his old temptations. But investigators said he secretly found another victim, a teenage mall employee.

This month, she told investigators Smith raped her. On Feb. 10, Smith was arrested and taken to the Pinellas County Jail. The victim told police all three sexual batteries happened at the mall.

"I don't know what to really think," Schroeder said.

Judicial ethics prevent Farnell from commenting about the case, but next week, Smith will go before her again. If convicted of this latest crime, Smith could face life in prison.

Unbelievable that in today's day in age someone would support a perv working at the mall.

I guess the Judge thinks the perv has more rights than the children congregating at the mall.

What gets me is that the issue was already challenged and the statute (s.948.30) was changed to clarify "no malls, pet stores, zoos, etc." for a reason.

This one's a no-brainer - just watch the chick fillet company get their pants sued off.

Please, please, PLEASE read more carefully and skeptically. Let's take a closer look at this one.

I know I'll get slammed. But just what went on here? His former victims said he molested them 'when they were young'. What's that supposed to mean? They came forward at 20 and said he did this when they were 4? The media calls him a 'child molester'. Wrestling with 16 year-olds or fondling 6 year-olds? What?

That means there was no legal restriction to prevent that, correct? No probation or parole violation and no mental health order by his counselors. Evidently, you are arguing there should be such a restriction even after someone is off probation or parole. Fair enough.

Let's see if this article is enough evidence to support your case.

Me either, and neither should you, DP1! There isn't enough here to form a conclusion.

So, DP1, is seem you want these offenses to be true for political reasons despite skimpy evidence. That would mean you want victims or at least this victim. True, they say to believe the victim, but I prefer to believe the evidence. Was a rape kit done? Was there opportunity? Very possible to both, but on the other hand it could be, as you say, there is a lot of $ in the works, and alot of $ is a lot of motivation. It's pretty nifty when an RSO is always guilty like you think they are.

Bottom line, we don't know anything yet.

They said Smith "proved himself."

But just what went on here

Wrestling with 16 year-olds or fondling 6 year-olds? What?

watch ME get slammed for this one.

His new charges are with a 16 or 17 year old and consensual and wouldn't even be illegal in 28+ states where the OAC is 16.

So this case is more about sensationalism than a real rape.
Hardly worth a life sentence.

yes i hate to agree but for somebody already considered a predator to work around or with children.....law or no law is retarted on his part....but of course it's not his fault....he told his po about the job and the po objected but the court said go ahead...so that's one more bit of stupidity for the court system.....

butt brabber

Is there any chance LE feeds this info to the press to get back at judges? This article sure is one sided and false in many ways.

Need any more be said?

A failure to uphold the law, that's what went on.

"Is there any chance LE feeds this info to the press to get back at judges? This article sure is one sided and false in many ways.

The man being accused of a new crime is hardly proof the PO's assertion was correct.

You and DP1 carry on about how his PO did such a fantastic job proving this guy was a danger and that stupid ol judge went and ruled against the PO anyway. Easy to understand why you take the PO's side considering where your paycheck somes from.

Airman inquiry focuses on audio Investigators study tape in shooting
By PAUL CHAVEZ
Associated Press

SAN BERNARDINO - Prosecutors considering whether charges should be filed in the videotaped shooting of an unarmed airman by a sheriff's deputy are awaiting an FBI enhancement of the tape and are particularly interested in the audio, officials said Friday.

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A. Ramos said the shooting review would not take as long as the usual three-to-six months, but he indicated the decision would not be made hastily.

''A rush to judgment does not equal justice, so we're not going to rush,'' Ramos said at a news conference.

There was case law and a Florida Law presented to her and she choose to ignore it.

Session Laws ch 2006-067
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1354
(snip)
Section 6. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.
Approved by the Governor May 26, 2005.
Filed in Office Secretary of State May 26, 2005.

Why are you focusing on a new conviction?

We've been mad about this Judge not doing her job for months with or without the new arrest.

He's a convicted predator for crying out loud.

The fact that you can't even admire the fact that we're outraged and have been for months about this because it's clear the Judge did NOTHING to prevent this situation makes me sick.

Orolan, don't EVER make a statement on here about you being interesting in preventing sexual abuse again.

you can't even admit this predator could have been a risk and probably should not have had access to minors

That one thing would be to keep the pervs away from the kids.

You're blowing smoke if ya can't do or support that one simple thing.

Interesting that your position is that the only reason why we think this guy is dangerous is because of our employment.

It's not a matter of whether or not he's dangerous. It's a matter of whether or not the mall restriction applied to him or not. The PO made a case that it did apply, the judge ruled in favor of the offender and the law, and you're pissed off. Not because the judge obeyed the law, but because the PO lost.
Read the law for yourself. It's pretty clear. But we've been down this road before. Newly-enacted probation conditions are not automatically imposed on probationers already sentenced and serving. But you're a PO and you think they all apply immediately to everybody, laws to the contrary be damned. The judge doesn't see it that way.

Oh, I can easily admit that. I can say he 'could' be a risk and maybe he 'shouldn't' have access to minors. But I also understand the limitations of the law on both sides. The judge did what she HAD to do. Bottom line. You hate it. I hate it. She probably hates it. Sure it would have been the easy way out. Ban him from working at the mall. Then what? Ban him from landscape companies because lawns have houses on them and houses have kids in them? Ban him from riding the back of a garbage truck because it stops at daycare centers? Ban him from working in a factory because schools take kids on tours of them all the time? Where do you draw the line?

No, you don't get it. Your idea of halting abuse is to concentrate on keeping this guy away from the mall.

I love it when you get so pissed off it takes three posts for you to chew me out:-)) Means I'm doing my job around here.

Because without it everything else is BS.

Really? How come you didn't post about it here? Wasn't that big a deal until now that he's been accused of a crime?

Which means absolutely NOTHING and you know it. I don't recall Couey being a predator. Guess he wasn't dangerous, huh?

Well then go hug the toilet. The judge did what she had to do. The law says she can't apply that mall restriction to Smith because of his sentencing date. Make up your mind. Should the judge enforce the law, or not? And again, why did we not hear about your outrage until now? Now if I could look back and say "Hey, DP1 and DTC told us 3 months ago that this was going to happen" THEN I could admire your outrage and foresight.

And don't you EVER tell me what I can and can't say. Here or anywhere.

Rolling off the chair on that one....maybe that a side effect from "being on the list" ya think?

Legislators did their part, now if only the judicial branch will pull their heads out from under the robes.

Clearly, Mr. Smith has not taken responsible for his actions.

Maybe why this is why his early termination was denied by the court.

Last time I looked, you were a PO. Not a judge.

The courts interpret the laws.

You just do what you're told by said court. You need to do a little role-swapping to learn your place.

Think of it this way. The judge takes your place and you become the probationer. Now do you get it?

You expect your probationers to do what you tell them to do when you tell them to do it and you don't want to here any BS or second-guessing out of them.

Well, the judge wants the same from you.

His prior offense, as I pointed out elsewhere, has nothing to do with this. Doesn't matter what it was, it doesn't automatically mean he raped this girl three times.

It's not a matter of whether or not he's dangerous. It's a matter of whether or not the mall restriction applied to him or not. The PO made a case that it did apply, the judge ruled in favor of the offender and the law, and you're pissed off. Not because the judge obeyed the law, but because the PO lost.

Yes, the Judge was very well aware of the pet-o-phile case, the 2nd DCA ruling and our revision to s. 948.30. No, the new 948.30 including the no pet stores, malls, zoos and whatever was not in effect the exact time the PO took this guy to court to object to his employment. She knew it was coming and knew that the DCA suggested the revision to 948.30. That's EXACTLY what pissed her off. You have got to hear the transcripts.

He needs to be convicted of it first. THEN you and the PO can crow about how stupid the judge was.

Where is the duty to uphold the law? I wonder if the JQC has been notified of this?

Yes, the Judge was very well aware of the pet-o-phile case, the 2nd DCA ruling and our revision to s. 948.30. No, the new 948.30 including the no pet stores, malls, zoos and whatever was not in effect the exact time the PO took this guy to court to object to his employment. She knew it was coming and knew that the DCA suggested the revision to 948.30. That's EXACTLY what pissed her off. You have got to hear the transcripts.

The funny thing about all the responses from the Pedo Pushers on this forum is that they are Taking sides with Smiths explanation to his employer and landlord of what "really" happened", and how some are assuming the ages of the vicitms that got him designated a Sexual Predator.

The judge didn't make the wrong choice. She made the ONLY choice.