HARDIN COUNTY, Ky. -- An area firefighter is feeling new heat over an old mistake.
J.C. Lanford, 40, is a registered sex offender and a lieutenant with the Central Hardin Fire Department, WLKY NewsChannel 32's Andy Alcock reported Tuesday.
Lanford's record as a registered sex offender isn't news to his fire chief, but it is news to many Hardin County residents who found out about it after Lanford was injured in a recent blaze, Alcock reported.
Two weeks ago, Lanford was among the firefighters battling a blaze on South Dixie. Lanford and another fireman spent a lot of time in intense heat searching for a resident who wasn't there. At one point, the floor gave way, and Lanford broke his leg.
"It was a heroic effort on their part," CHFD Chief Chad Marsh said. "Even though the subjects were not in the structure, they risked their lives looking for them."
But when Lanford's ordeal was outlined in a local newspaper, a resident named Kathy Sherrard said she was shocked to find out lanford worked for the fire department.
According to the Kentucky Sex-Offender Registry, Lanford was convicted in Kansas for use of a minor in a sexual performance.
"These are people that kids look up to -- policemen and firemen," Sherrard said in a telephone interview with Alcock Tuesday. "How can a child look up to a sex offender?"
Marsh said he thinks Lanford has paid his debt to society and deserves to move on.
"Here's a man that went out and risked his life for somebody, then somebody wants to bring up dirt about him," Marsh said. "I don't understand why people want to keep bringing up things that's already happened. This incident happened over 13 years ago."
But Sherrard said she won't budge until Lanford is fired, Alcock reported.
"Do you think 10 or 13 years back has taken this out of this child's mind?" she asked.
Lanford has been listed on the registry for about eight years, and will be off in two years.
So, do you think he should be fired? I'm thinking no, but I'm since I don't know exactly what he did, I can't decide.
What exactly does "use of a minor in a sexual performance" mean? It could range from anything involving 17 year old jailbait to some pre-pubescent kid.
If his chief thinks he's OK, and all his fellow firefighters thinks he's OK, then so what? This sounds too much like someone looking for something to complain about.
Not only does the Chief think that Lanford paid his debt to society, but he is continuing to pay socitey in the job he's doing. As long as his job doesn't conflict any conditions set out by the courts (such as staying away from locations where children congregate), then I have no problem with him continuing to do his job.
However, I must point out that if Lanford was a police officer, paramedic, doctor, child care worker (der), etc., then I would have a problem as those professions require a much closer interaction with children and the public in general.
My brother and sister-in-law: "Do you know where milk comes from?"
My niece: "Yeah, from the fridge!"
Barring any further information, I vote no; I see no reason to fire him if his job doesn't bring him into contact with children. The argument brought up in the article -- that children look up to him -- is countered by either glossing over the pedophilia or using it as a lesson on not all people ought be looked up to.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wait. This man risked his damn neck, and paid a pretty penny doing so, to help save lives. And she wants him FIRED?!?
Is there no room in this world for the penitent?!?
Some people hold to the view that any wrongdoing, however small or mitigated by extenuating circumstances, deserves to be punished by death, life imprisonment, or permanent maiming such that quality of life is forever detrimented. I'd imagine the same people would immediately about-face on that issue should the wrongdoer be themselves or someone they give a shit about.
My opinion depends on 2 things first what did he do (there is a difference) and what is the motivation of the person wanting to get him fired.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Lord Revan wrote:My opinion depends on 2 things first what did he do (there is a difference) and what is the motivation of the person wanting to get him fired.
Out of curiosity, what bearing does the motivation of the person trying to get him fired have on the validity of the argument against him?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
I wish they'd stop calling people who had sex with older teens "pedophiles". It makes things a lot simpler when you know that a pedophilliac is someone who has sex with the pre-pubescent (which would be considered an unnatural sexual urge).
I think that even if he was a genuine pre-pubescent sex-offender, he's paid his dues, and as long as he avoids situations of temptation, and does his job, he shouldn't be discriminated against. Being a fire-fighter doesn't mean being someone who children can look up to. It means being someone who saves people from fires. Plain and simple.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."
Lord Revan wrote:My opinion depends on 2 things first what did he do (there is a difference) and what is the motivation of the person wanting to get him fired.
Out of curiosity, what bearing does the motivation of the person trying to get him fired have on the validity of the argument against him?
while there are valid arguments about not letting offenders be at public jobs (especially if their offence was bad enough), but if motivation of whom ever is demanding the firing of said person is prevention of "normal" from the offender then the validity of the claims could suffer.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
Lord Revan wrote:while there are valid arguments about not letting offenders be at public jobs (especially if their offence was bad enough), but if motivation of whom ever is demanding the firing of said person is prevention of "normal" from the offender then the validity of the claims could suffer.
As I see it, you're saying that if the motivation is to prevent the sex offender from living a normal life, then the validity of the claim is questionable. Again, what does the motivation have to do with the argument's validity?
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Lord Revan wrote:while there are valid arguments about not letting offenders be at public jobs (especially if their offence was bad enough), but if motivation of whom ever is demanding the firing of said person is prevention of "normal" from the offender then the validity of the claims could suffer.
As I see it, you're saying that if the motivation is to prevent the sex offender from living a normal life, then the validity of the claim is questionable. Again, what does the motivation have to do with the argument's validity?
the argument that dangerous sex offenders should have jobs where they are in the publics eye is in itself sound, but does it apply to this case is another thing (that's why it would be nice to know a bit more about the orginal offence (like the age of the victim)), there's no reason to punish a man if he has already paid for his crimes (besides isn't the victim the who should making the arguments not someone who as far as I know was not involved at all with the orginal crime), since when looking cop or fireman kids as far as I know think that "I want save lives like him", not that "I want be sex offender like him".
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
"Use of a minor for a sexual performance" could be as simple as paying a 17-year old for suggestive dancing. Kansas calls them children when the age drops below 16, and actual sex seems to get other labels than "use".
"We don't negotiate with fish."
-M, High Priest of Shar
Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wait. This man risked his damn neck, and paid a pretty penny doing so, to help save lives. And she wants him FIRED?!?
Is there no room in this world for the penitent?!?
Some people hold to the view that any wrongdoing, however small or mitigated by extenuating circumstances, deserves to be punished by death, life imprisonment, or permanent maiming such that quality of life is forever detrimented. I'd imagine the same people would immediately about-face on that issue should the wrongdoer be themselves or someone they give a shit about.
Not only that, but some people have this bizarre idea that all public servants must be paragons of virtue never sulied by the most minor wrongdoing.
A cop who's gotten a ticket? For shame!!
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
Personally I vote undesiced there's just too much that we don't know to allow any rational conclusion.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
F*** this idiot. This firefighter is risking his neck for people without being asked to and in this case, he damn near could have DIED saving peoples lives. And now people want him fired, because he did something wrong, was duly punished for it and it has absolutely no bearing on his current circumstances at all?
This women, Sherrard, SHE should be forced to make a public apology to this guy. How *dare* she drag his name through the mud and demand he be fired. He has been on the sex offenders list for eight years and clearly has not re-offended in that time, yet she is shouting that he should be fired?
He didn't try to hide what he did, he has clearly put it all behind him and even outside the punishment the justice system assigned to him, he is clearly trying to give back something to the community, risking his ass day in and day out so people like Sherrard can bitch and moan.
He is not in a job where he holds power or responsibility over children. He has paid his debt.
"These are people that kids look up to -- policemen and firemen," Sherrard said in a telephone interview with Alcock Tuesday. "How can a child look up to a sex offender?"
This argument is shit. His job is not to be looked up to. His job is to rescue people from fires.
No reason for him to lose his job. Besides, what job should he do instead? It could be argued that "he shouldn't be allowed to.... yadda yadda... because he is a sex offender" for basically any job. There is no justification to bar him from working unless it actually places kids at risk.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
That formulation here would mean that he either used a minor in a porn shoot willingly by the minor or one of those film-nude-kids-on-the-beach kind of thing. Or that he had him/her in his place, shown him porn and whacked off on that.
Either way, I am pretty sure that "Do you think 10 or 13 years back has taken this out of this child's mind?" can be answered by most likely yes (in the sence that it is not something that the then-minor thinks of every day).
If there was any threat of force, or actual force involved he would be charged for something much more harsh.
I'm for now staying in the undecided category however, since even among these charges there are variations (if it was 17 year old jailbait wanting to star in porn that lied about her age the answer goes to "fuck no", however if he was a peeping tom filming kids on the beach it is more questionable).
It would really help if we knew exactly for what he was convicted.
If one thinks that the punishment assigned by the legal system is too lenient, campaign to change that. Do not simply suggest that you should have the right to brand a big 'P' on the head of anyone who has been found guilty and punished by the measures that the country's legal system finds appropriate.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
He did the crime, he did the time, he's trying to save peoples' lives (while not working in a position near children), lay off of 'im. That's how I see it.
In a wierd kind of way, he is a role model. After all, instead of getting worse in prison, as is too often the case, he's come away from it, not re-offended, and taken up a career that saves people's lives. Proof the system and rehabilitation can work, really.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
-- Asuka
He has served his sentence, paid his debt to society and appears to be rehabilitated, so why would he be fired?