Posted on 06/28/2002 8:54:28 AM PDT by Rodney King
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:41 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
First of all, this was written three years ago. So if your point was to help Ernie's name in the public, then you did him a disservice by even bringing this back up. Second, if your point was that the press is inaccurate, and that the press is making him out to be worse than he is, you would have been more effective if you politely pointed that out rather than calling everyone ignorant, etc. Third, I would agree that a molester is worse than a voyeur. However, I still wouldn't let my kids near either.
I don't remember, I think he was taking pictures of kids chagning, showering, etc.
Dead pederasts do not re-offend.
No it doesn't. Except to be even MORE outraged at the betrayal.
You don't know who Scott Ritter is but dare to call others ignorant? Like your friend, he is a pedophile.
WERE talking about, you idiot. No one here had said one blessed word about your precious Ernie since June 28, 2002. You only wish it was that important to us. Sheesh.
Just because someone peeps at boys does not make him a child molester. It makes him a freak but not a child molester.
It definitely makes him someone who dreams of being a child molester, since that is what turns him on. He'll get there eventually.
Your perspective changes when it is your brother, father, friend who is the voyeur
No, I don't think so. Right and wrong don't change based on my relationship with a person.
By the way, I don't believe you are Ernest or Ernest's friend. I believe you are the same pervert-defending troll who repeatedly and compulsively signs on here to defend the lowest of the low, and can't seem to stay away. You need to get a life.
Failing that, you need to get a new script.
Let me guess, you have one of those "little boy" hiarcuts that are popular with women these days.
Either that or it is the imposter troll back for more again.
Ernest Drupals was re-arrested in early February 2008 for violating the terms of his parole. He is due in court on 2/13/08. The article was on the front page of the Greenwich Times. I hope he goes to jail.
Article cross posted for your comment
“Sex offender arrested for violation of conditions
By Martin B. Cassidy
Staff Writer
February 2, 2008
A former Greenwich man convicted of possession of child pornography and videotaping young boys faces a felony charge for violating the conditions of the Connecticut State Sex Offender Registry by living in a Greenwich home without telling Stamford police, police said.
Stamford police arrested Ernest Drupals, 35, Thursday night at the home of one of his relatives at 29 Carrona Drive in Greenwich and charged him with violation of his probation as a sex offender by living there without notifying them, Stamford Police Captain Richard Conklin said.
Police had an address of 80 Palmer St. in Stamford for Drupals, Conklin said.
“The deal was he was he wasn’t living at his given address in Stamford,” Conklin said.
In 2002 Drupals, a Greenwich High School graduate, accepted a plea deal that allowed him to avoid up to ten years in prison on 30 counts of possessing child pornography.
Last year, Drupals completed five years probation imposed by a judge, in which he was ordered to comply with more than 25 conditions.
Mickey Sherman, Drupal’s attorney, said his client did not violate the legal requirements to update his address mandated by state law.
“Being a sex offender and keeping track of sex offenders is a serious issue, but this guy has jumped through every hoop and followed every rule that is laid out for him,” Sherman said. “I don’t believe he is in violation.”
Under state law, registered sex offenders face a Class D felony charge if they fail to comply with any registration requirements, which includes notifying Connecticut State Police in writing within five days of when they move or change their names.
Failure to meet any of the requirements is a Class D felony, carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years and a fine up to $5,000.
In November 2006, Drupals admitted he had broken the terms of his probation when he was found by a policeman near an Old Greenwich School field where children were playing. State Superior Court Judge Robert Devlin decided not to impose Drupals’ suspended 10-year prison sentence and ordered Drupals to serve out the terms of his five year probation.
In his initial arrest in June 2000, Drupals was caught filming boys in the swimming pool at Greenwich High School and arrested.
Police searched his home and found 4,000 images of children on his computer. About 2,500 were pornographic, with the children appearing to be about 8 to 10 years old, authorities said at the time.
Officers also found videotapes Drupals had taken of boys changing their clothes in locker rooms at YMCAs in New Canaan, Wilton, West Haven and other locations.
He was held on $25,000 bond and scheduled to appear in state Superior Court on Wednesday, Feb. 13, according to Conklin.
Copyright © 2008, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.”
Lady, if you don't know how thin the line is between one and the other you should stop posting.
Resurrected at post 49 and 50...
*sigh*
Ernest has been arrested in 2000, 2002, 2006 and now 2008. Is he “escalating”?
I’m posting to everyone who has written in this thread. What does the research indicate about what Ernie’s next steps are? Will he offend again? Will it continue to be voyerism or is he on the path to physically harming a child? Is the latter inevitable? Have there been any methods of success in rehabilitation for inclinations of this nature? There are many kids in the Riverside, CT neighborhood that Ernie is living in
Almost certainly.
Will it continue to be voyerism or is he on the path to physically harming a child?
Is it worth taking the chance?
Is the latter inevitable?
I'd say it's highly likely.
Have there been any methods of success in rehabilitation for inclinations of this nature?
No.
Triple Dog Resurrection!
First posted 2002
First Rebirth 2005
Current reanimation 2008
This might be a record.
How do I find out who his prosecutor is to let them know how he misled the Registry? I’m confident that he submitted a false address, not that he “overlooked” an administrative requirement
If there’s a sex offender’s law in that area, try calling local law enforcement. Other than that no idea.
Ernest is arguing that restrictions on his freedom of movement are wrong?!
http://www.allbusiness.com/print/12645609-1-22eeq.html
Greenwich becomes ground zero in debate over restrictions on sex offenders
A proposed town ordinance making it illegal for registered sex offenders to loiter at schools, parks, playgrounds and beaches is a near lock to win approval today from the Board of Selectmen.
All three members of the board have told Greenwich Time that they support the ordinance, which has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates and a town resident listed on the state’s Sex Offender Registry.
“We’re looking at the protection of a group of people who can, again, not protect themselves from those who have already demonstrated a behavior that may be harmful to children,” First Selectman Peter Tesei said.
A Riverside man convicted of possessing child pornography, one of four town residents on the sex offender registry, is planning to speak against the ordinance during the board’s 10 a.m. meeting at Town Hall.
“Some people say that we haven’t paid our price until we’re dead. Is that what the justice system is all about?” Ernest Drupals said in an interview Wednesday with the newspaper.
Drupals, 38, argued that the proposed restrictions violate the constitutional rights of convicted sex offenders and make it difficult for them to re-assimilate into the community.
“Wow. Imagine this town passes this ordinance. What’s left for a registered sex offender? The street?” asked Drupals, who was arrested in June 2000 after he was caught filming boys in the swimming pool at Greenwich High School.
During a search of Drupals’ home, police said they found 2,500 pornographic images on his computer and videotapes of boys changing their clothes in locker rooms at YMCAs in New Canaan, Wilton and West Haven.
Drupals completed five years of probation imposed by a judge, in which he was ordered to comply with more than 25 conditions.
Under the three-page ordinance, police would be authorized to request identification from suspected sex offenders who are present in child safety zones — areas encompassing schools, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities marked by signs.
If someone is listed on a sex offender registry, he or she would be issued a warning, requiring the individual to leave the premises. Those who refuse would be fined $100 for each violation of the ordinance.
Selectman Lin Lavery vowed to support the proposal, which must get final approval from the Representative Town Meeting for it to be adopted.
“I am prepared to fight for this ordinance,” Lavery said. “I think if the restrictions are not overly broad, they are acceptable.”
Selectman Peter Crumbine also endorsed the measure.
“As long as it’s legal, I will support it,” Crumbine said. “The most important thing is to protect our children.”
This is the second version of the ordinance to come before the selectmen, who approved the first back in February. That version stalled in the RTM in June, however, because of concerns about its constitutionality and potential legal challenges from civil liberties groups.
The ordinance was reworked to make exceptions for registered sex offenders to enter child safety zones to vote, attend public meetings, drop off or pick up their children at school and meet with teachers to discuss their children’s education.
It does not apply to public streets, highways or sidewalks beyond the boundaries of a child safety zone.
Andrew Schneider, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said the ordinance is still problematic.
“It’s still constitutionally flawed,” Schneider said. “You’re restricting the freedom of movement of individuals who have already paid their debt to society. It would be like if you were to tell shoplifters who’ve already been punished by the law that once they were free from jail or (paid) their penalty they could never go to a department store.”
Schneider rejected the idea that sex offenders are more apt to repeat their offenses than other criminals.
“I think the recidivism argument is overblown,” Schneider said. “If we as a society determine that sex offenders cannot be released as free individuals, then maybe what we need to consider is stiffer penalties in the first go-around and not stigmatize them and prevent them from living as free individuals once released.”
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who was recently asked to review the ordinance by Lavery and lives in Greenwich, said the restrictions are not onerous and are not meant to punish sex offenders a second time.
“Obviously, a very commendable effort has been made to limit the restrictions to specifically defined and focused areas where children are likely to be,” Blumenthal said. “And, of course, the initial remedy is a warning, which seems to be in its favor constitutionally.”
Blumenthal, who successfully defended the constitutionality of the state’s sex offender registry in a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case, said that there is a higher rate of recidivism among such criminals.
“We won in the Supreme Court largely because the recidivism rate is so high,” Blumenthal said. “Sex offenses are devastatingly catastrophic for a child victim in a way that perhaps is unique among offenses and also for women when they are victims of assault.”
Blumenthal said he generally supports such ordinances, which are in place in a number of Connecticut municipalities.
“Well, there’s no question that such ordinances restrict some physical activities of convicted sex offenders, and some of those restrictions would seem very reasonable if they help protect children from real dangers and are related to that goal of child protection,” Blumenthal said.
Of the people listed on the registry, Blumenthal said, “They’re not people whose names have been randomly chosen from a phone book or upon suspicion. They have been convicted of a crime — a serious one.”
Drupals argued that there is a lack of evidence showing that such ordinances work, something he said he has tried to point out to the selectmen.
“I’m not just speaking for myself. I’m speaking for the almost 1 million sex offenders and their families,” Drupals said.
Staff writer Neil Vigdor can be reached at neil.vigdor@scni.com or at 625-4436.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.