Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CRoseCrizzle t1_irqj939 wrote

He will be 63, having gone to prison at 27 and in being there for 36 years. But he targeted vulnerable teenage girls back then, so I suspect he still might be a danger to the community. Really hope that no new victims are caused by his release.

167

JackMitcham t1_irqs3yq wrote

...on supervised release after 36 years because his sentence was almost up.

This is news?

−35

Patralex t1_irquf56 wrote

Replying to JackMitcham (#68,999)

It’s news because he raped over nine young women and he’s being released. It’s more of a “he served his time but still be careful” thing, imo

36

255001434 t1_irquhxc wrote

>Gillmore has been classified as a sex offender at the lowest risk of reoffending. He will have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life due to his rape conviction, but the classification means the state and county aren’t required to notify surrounding residents that he’s living near them.

He admitted to nine rapes. The only one he could be convicted of because of the statute of limitations was 13 years old. Unless he's been castrated, how is a serial rapist at "the lowest risk of reoffending"?

214

255001434 t1_irqupym wrote

Replying to JackMitcham (#68,999)

How is it not news? He admitted to raping nine women. You don't think it's of interest to the public to know that he'll be out soon? What qualifies something as news to you?

64

JackMitcham t1_irqvxv0 wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#69,088)

> How is it not news? He admitted to raping nine women.

It was news in 1986. he served his time.

> You don't think it's of interest to the public to know that he'll be out soon?

What will anybody do differently with this information? This is just a fearmongering article. "Look at all of the scary scary crime that's happening, and we're letting one of those scary criminals out in your neighborhood! BoooOoOoOo."

−32

255001434 t1_irqwt6t wrote

Replying to JackMitcham (#69,120)

Yes, he served his time which is why he's getting out and I didn't argue against that, but he was a serial rapist. He hunted people. It is of public interest to know that he will be in public again. It's pretty weird that you don't think so.

>What will anybody do differently with this information?

You don't think it might be of interest to someone to know if this guy moved into their neighborhood? We wouldn't know who he was without it being in the news. Would you want to know who this guy was if you were a young woman or had a teenage daughter?

This is not fearmongering. It is of legitimate public interest, but you seem more concerned about protecting his privacy.

38

JackMitcham t1_irqx270 wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#69,150)

> You don't think it might be of interest to someone to know if this guy moved into their neighborhood?

That information is not given in the article. They're not listing where he's moving to.

>Would you want to know who this guy was if you were a young woman or had a teenage daughter?

I don't see how knowing that this guy exists matters at all, especially as a national news story, not a local one.

Can you give me a good reason why someone in Pensacola, FL should care about this?

−3

JoeSeijo t1_irqxam5 wrote

Hopefully he has low T.

−16

255001434 t1_irqxtsn wrote

Replying to JackMitcham (#69,163)

Do you hold this same high standard for all news articles, or are you just particularly concerned with this guy's privacy? This is more important to the public than quite a lot of news stories that make national headlines.

>They're not listing where he's moving to.

They don't need to. By making it known who he is, people will be able to find out if he's someone they come into contact with.

Since you brought it up, he may have "served his time", but he was only convicted of one out of the nine rapes he admitted to, because of the statute of limitations. He did not serve time for eight rapes that we know he did. There's nothing to be done about that, but I still don't view him as someone has paid for his crimes, as you seem to.

27

CyanideKitty t1_irr0h3g wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#69,150)

So are you proposing we make the sentence for rape a life sentence then?

Contrary to what the media wants you to believe people can come out of jails after decades and NOT repeat their past mistakes. I guarantee you I live near multiple rapists (many men still continue or lightly force it, even if she changes her mind mid sex) , they just haven't been caught by the law (or in my case my ex would rape me when I said no. Marital rape was made illegal in 1993, I got married in 2004. I was told by multiple cops in multiple districts/cities/counties not to bother because we were married and marriage is a 24/7 consent situation. Any movement that is not immediate pulling out after she says no makes you a rapist, technically.

Really, what does knowing about a convicted rapist do vs knowing I live near a bunch of not caught rapists? Absolutely nothing in my eyes. Plus he's old as fuck who has served his time. He's done his time, he can now resume a "regular life".

−26

LuceeCarioca OP t1_irr0p1r wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#69,088)

It is in our best interest to know where this guy is. It’s in the best interest of our families, friends, their families and friends. Serial rapists don’t get “cured” or “reformed” by anything. They’ll rape again.

47

JackMitcham t1_irr0wqq wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#69,250)

Fine, he'll be retirement age in under 2 years. You know what I mean.

I've already given way more thought to this story than I wanted to, because it's a complete non-story.

−17

JackMitcham t1_irr1q4h wrote

Replying to LuceeCarioca (#69,328)

> It is in our best interest to know where this guy is. It’s in the best interest of our families, friends, their families and friends

Cool, the article doesn't give this information. And it's in a national news outlet, not a local one.

>Serial rapists don’t get “cured” or “reformed” by anything. They’ll rape again.

You have zero evidence that there is a 100% recidivism rate for rapists. I looked it up to be sure, and you're not even remotely close.

−22

CyanideKitty t1_irr68oi wrote

Replying to mjgoot (#69,422)

These people could already be getting raped by their significant other for all I know. Until/if he reoffends he has served his time, is "rehabilitated", and is free to live out his days (until he reoffends, if he does). Why should we only worry about those who have "paid their debt"? Shouldn't we fear monger the unknown rapists as well as those who have served their time? No, we shouldn't because that just pushes a living in fear of everything society even more than we already do.

Also, I'm in Milwaukee, how do I or my sister or anyone I know need to know a rapist is Oregon is released? At most that should be a COMMUNITY alert, like with pedophiles.

−14

leo_aureus t1_irr7cku wrote

So now that he is an old (no, scratch that, 63 is not old), older man, who targeted and raped teenagers, I would be willing to bet this motherfucker loves the fact that there are so many rail trails nowadays, and he is going to come off like a harmless older, quiet person. Until it is too late.

44

Such-Wrongdoer-2198 t1_irr86r3 wrote

If you're not going to lock him up for life, that means he's getting out sometime. Nine victims certainly seems like a candidate for a life sentence.

58

JackMitcham t1_irr9ztq wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#69,766)

> No one fucking told you "marriage was a 24/7 consent situation"

I believe her. Lawyers are still making this case in court.

>and even if they did, you know better.

And how does that help arrest the rapist?

3

JackMitcham t1_irrb96p wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#69,877)

>What lawyers?

Many lawyers. Trump's lawyers, for one.

>What case?

The case that one cannot rape one's spouse. I was very clear in my original post, I don't know why you're confused.

>What rapist is getting arrested?

None, that's the point.

>Her ex-husband?

I mean, yeah. She literally said she was raped. What is confusing you? Jesus Christ man, pay attention.

0

255001434 t1_irrej9a wrote

Replying to CyanideKitty (#69,321)

>So are you proposing we make the sentence for rape a life sentence then?

Did you not read my comment? From the first line:

>he served his time which is why he's getting out and I didn't argue against that

My comments were simply about why this story is worthy of being news. Who are you arguing against?

He admitted to nine rapes, but was only convicted of one of them because of the statute of limitations. There's nothing we can do about that, but I'm not going to pretend this is someone who has paid for his crimes. Those eight other victims would probably have something to say about that.

You seem to think all rapes are equal and of equal threats to society, but this is a man who hunted down multiple victims after seeing them in public, including a 13 year old girl. Anyone he crossed paths with was a potential target. He is the most dangerous type of rapist there is and the type that people in his vicinity would most need to be warned against. As the article says, he isn't required to notify his neighbors, so reporting the story is one way because don't know where he will move to.

Edit: He's 63, which is not young, but he is still capable of harming someone. I would want to know if he lived near the young women in my family. Nice that you don't think it matters, since other men are "technically" rapists too. Some men are much more dangerous than others. You don't seem to get that.

9

JackMitcham t1_irrh3eb wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#69,939)

> No idea what Trump's lawyers have to do with this conversation. > >

YOU ASKED which lawyers are making this case in court.

>she stated she was told by law enforcement many years later that it was legal.

Yeah, when she tried reporting the crime. You don't have a problem with that?

>on your idiotic comments.

Enjoy the ban, I guess.

2

Badtrainwreck t1_irrktqg wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#70,250)

If we improve the “worst” of us, then we improve all of us. I say worst in quotes because not all criminals are the worst of us and not all of us are “better” than them.

17

osrsironfox t1_irrqf4z wrote

"Time to go for... a jog" him, probably

13

PossibilityStandard t1_irrwbt3 wrote

Bummer that the people inside didn’t deal with this dude…

13

bannana t1_irryt55 wrote

Replying to Such-Wrongdoer-2198 (#69,745)

Unfortunately he didn't get convicted for 9, statute of limitations ran out on the others. There shouldn't be a limitation on rape since they didn't have DNA back then and all rape kits aren't routinely processed as a matter of course

32

255001434 t1_irsfwrh wrote

Replying to sephstorm (#71,173)

He was convicted of raping a 13-year old girl and I'm sure the average 63 year old man is still plenty strong enough for that.

I doubt there is much data on their raping abilities, but 63 isn't as old and feeble as some people seem to think. I've known guys around that age who are strong as hell.

33

Zumbert t1_irskx3c wrote

See this is why I walk instead of jog

6

sephstorm t1_irsmk1u wrote

Replying to Cannibal_Hector (#71,922)

Possibly. I'd have to see the data to support it. But the truth is while it won't prevent people from taking action typically, it will insure that those people can assault fewer victims over a lifetime, and that more of the rape case DNA tests get more priority I think.

3

Boobabycluebaby t1_irsxn2h wrote

Replying to Cannibal_Hector (#71,922)

Nah. There's plenty of non-murder crimes that give people life. Drug dealing, robbing banks, Bernie Madoff's pyramid. Tons of crime revolving around money and such. People don't go- oh well they'll surely murder if they get life. Sometimes you got to let the sentence match the justice for the crime and not be scared about it escalating. Shit already escalates all the time with rape/murders.

4

255001434 t1_irsz59u wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#72,129)

>absent the information on his other victims in the thread that i saw, we can assume that wasnt the common victim profile?

Why would you say that? As they stated in the article, they only described the one who came forward publicly. We have no reason to make any assumptions about the others, but even if the others were older, he has shown a willingness to attack children and that is enough.

Sure, the average 63 year old is probably less capable than when he was in his 20s, but breaking into a house and assaulting a teenage girl is not very physically difficult.

12

didsomebodysaymyname t1_irtp2qg wrote

Replying to sephstorm (#71,181)

It's hard to know how many men are rapists, but given that about a 1/3 of women are raped and a smaller, but significant portion of men are raped, 5-10% of men (who are much more common than femal rapists) wouldn't be crazy.

We currently have about 0.7% of the population incarcerated (including kids), most for something besides rape. So incarcerating or executing all rapists would theoretically remove 3-5% of the adult population or 4-7 Million people.

I'm not trying to argue against punishment, I just think it's crazy we have a serious crime that if fully prosecuted would incarcerate, or in your case execute, a mid size state.

6

xkeepitquietx t1_irtqpjt wrote

It is gonna be a shitstorm when they arrest this creep again in a month.

12

haroldthehampster t1_irtuwn0 wrote

they’re always going relatively easy on violent sexual offenses… Anyone else notice that. Especially ones involving children.

4

haroldthehampster t1_irtvqbn wrote

Can we make his face famous? Like a warning sticker

9

FlyingFlipPhone t1_iruim1i wrote

If I pass this $#!T-head running on the Wildwood trail (Portland), I swear I'll turn around and follow him.

7

sephstorm t1_irupw0a wrote

Replying to 255001434 (#72,724)

>but even if the others were older, he has shown a willingness to attack children and that is enough.

Enough for what? The determinations should be based on the facts. I would say that is information regarding all the victims, though I don't know if legally that is permitted.

Then again thinking about the information i've been provided, it would seem that he may have the capability to attack the same class of individuals he was convicted of attacking again. If the law didn't require him to be released, i'd say that he should probably have to remain behind bars.

−2

255001434 t1_irv80p8 wrote

Replying to sephstorm (#75,502)

> Enough for what?

Enough for concern that he is still capable of harming the type of person he has chosen to harm before. What else do you think I could have meant? You were talking about him being less capable than before, and I said he is still capable enough.

>The determinations should be based on the facts.

You mean like the fact that the only victim we have information about was 13 years old? I was refuting your bizarre suggestion that we could assume the others were of a different profile since we have no information about them, which makes no sense.

Do you get it now, or do you still want to argue over nothing?

3

17times2 t1_irvoo8w wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#72,129)

> Especially given the changing physical statistics of Americans in the US. Less healthy than in the past in some ways.

Funny thing about being incarcerated, you're not going to be part of the usual American obesity epidemic.

3

FunnySpace16 t1_irvy3t2 wrote

Replying to Boobabycluebaby (#72,665)

Why so many people want such little time for the second most heinous act behind murder. Rape is a torture of the mind and sense of self worth that lasts a lifetime and can cause people all sorts of traumas. Rapists definitely deserve life behind bars.

1

tallguy12213 t1_irwlcys wrote

This man raped at least 9 women, taking their innocence and scarring them for life. He doesn’t deserve any sort of freedom, and should be forced to rot in jail for the rest of his life.

3

MrStripes t1_irx9udv wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#78,678)

Seems like you're telling on yourself here if you're so scared of someone from your past coming forward with allegations like that. The burden of proof is still the same, if there's DNA evidence in a rape case that was unable to be tested for before but now it can be, why should the rapist get to go free just for committing a crime before we had the technology to catch them?

4

thebooknerd_ t1_irxiom0 wrote

I honestly hope he’s been reformed in prison for the sake of everyone he interacts with. Will I be surprised if i see an article after he’s released that he did it again? No. But I’m going to hope for the best since there’s no way to stop this.

1

T0WERM0NKEY t1_irzxg4e wrote

You don't get better from something like that. Our legal system is so fucked.

1

A_Flamboyant_Warlock t1_is2nd3i wrote

Replying to FunnySpace16 (#77,384)

>Why so many people want such little time for the second most heinous act behind murder.

Because dead rape victims can't come forward. If rape is punished as severely, or moreso, than murder, no rapist would ever let their victims live. Your vengeance boner isn't worth more than human lives.

3