Ohio haunted house incident brings focus on proposed bill.
We all know that rare and sometimes completely benign events can lead to some terrible laws. In Ohio, a woman employed in a haunted house quit her job after realizing that two of her coworkers at “Spooky Ranch” were on the registry. It’s not that they did anything to her or anyone while employed there, it’s just their presence that she made issue of.
Ultimately the two employees were fired and now the news media brought it to the local police who indicate they are going to arrest the men (not because they did anything, but because they failed to register their employment at the haunted house). It doesn’t end there though – now there’s a bill introduced in Ohio that would prevent people on the registry from working in certain places.
The Bill, HB 459 would prevent registrants from working in “any capacity in which a person would be working directly and in an unaccompanied setting with minor children on more than an incidental and occasional basis or would have supervision or disciplinary power over minor children.” That capacity “includes, but is not limited to, providing goods or services to minors.”
So what would constitute an “unaccompanied setting” and would it be the minor who would need to be accompanied or would it be the worker? Say, for example, you’re working the counter at a pizza shop and a kid walks in for a slice and he’s unaccompanied. Would that be restricted employment? Or does the “accompanied” burden fall on the worker? Say you’re working as a plumber, do you need to bring a chaperone with you to fix a toilet?
Then there’s the encompassing “providing goods or services to minors”. Unless you work in a sex shop or nightclub, it’s hard to think of many retail establishments that expressly exclude minors. A clerk in a convenience store or a waiter in a restaurant serves minors all the time so that wouldn’t be “incidental or occasional”? Plus, with all these subjective restrictions, who gets to make the decision on what qualifies as an OK job vs. an off limits job?
Here’s the reality… even if this bill were to pass, would it have solved this haunted house non-problem? No, it wouldn’t have. Unless there was only one employee and one customer at the time, how can it constitute an “unaccompanied setting”? And even if people on the registry were prohibited from working in any job in any capacity anywhere in the state, would it prevent sexual abuse? No, it wouldn’t. 97% of sex offenses are committed by someone NOT on the registry, so sadly there could still be sexual assaults taking place in haunted houses.
The only problem here is that Kim Neubauer didn’t want to work with her co-workers at the haunted house. Well Boo! Ms. Kim Neubuer! Boo Hoo! That’s your problem. If it makes you feel better that you got two guys fired who probably needed the job more than you do, you should feel great right now! How would you feel if you were trying to work to support your family, weren’t doing anything wrong, but someone didn’t like the fact that Kim Neubauer from Sheffield Lake, Ohio happened to work there because they thought Kim Neubauer is a horrible worker?
I really enjoy articles like this that remind me of how the registry is not punishment.
These laws are quite similar to the Jim Crow laws that once existed. They also are similar to the Jewish restriction laws that were in Germany in the middle of the 20th century.
These laws are a cancer! They are government organized and government sponsored hate!
What do you mean “incident”? There was no incident!
Kim Neubauer has a right to her own views, including her view that anyone who’s committed a sex offense shouldn’t be able to work for a living. But if she has a problem with her co-workers, the proper response would be to quit. Instead Kim Neubauer took the cowardly route.
Yes, it would have been far more professional if Kim Neubauer from Sheffield Lake, Ohio was not such a mean person. It seems to me like Kim Neubauer is a whiny Karen who is a liability to any employer. Kim Neubauer got a job and then runs to the media to tell on her employer!
Hiring someone like Kim Neubauer (of Sheffield Lake, OH) would present a certain risk for any employer. That’s because Kim Neubauer is likely to search for personal dirt on her co-workers and use that to attract unwanted press attention to her employer, who may then feel pressured to fire productive workers and train new ones.
Were I a would-be employer, I would wonder, will Kim Neubauer stop at registered sex offenders, or are there other things in my employees’ background that Kim Neubauer would run to the press about. “No, I only worry about registered sex offenders, all other co-workers with past issues are not a problem,” is not something I, as employer, would believe coming from Kim Neubauer.
You make some very valid points, warning Ohio employers against hiring Kimberly Sue Neubauer. If I were in Sheffield Lake, I would certainly advise companies, Don’t hire Kim Neubauer!
Wow – the haunted house owner/operator really is missing the boat on this one – the point of the haunted houses is to be scary… I mean just whisper in everyone’s ear going through the house that they may encounter one or more “SO’s” in their journey…
That’ll scare everyone to death… 🙂
sigh
made me smile anyway
Well Ladies and Gentlemen, this bill is a clear violation of The United States Constitution. We have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That includes where ever we choose to work, that includes anybody. Whether your on some kind of registry or not, we all have a right to make a living no matter were that might be period. I hope these to men sue the crap out of the haunted house business, and definitely sue the the state of this, when are state legislators going to realize that they are not above the law and most definitely are not above the constitution. Every state that pulls and city or town that pulls this stuff needs to have the crap sued of of them. If not for anything else to proof they are not above the law nor the constitution.
Lol. Not sure what fairy tale world you live in but no one would win a case fighting that. I knew a guy who was a college professor, phd candidate. He did whatever he did, went to prison, got out. I met him in group. No place of education would ever hire him to be a janitor, much less a professor. There are jobs it just doesn’t make sense to do, ie anything where someone could even imply you did something out of sorts.
So many ‘do-gooders’ out there protecting the public from a threat that does not exist. Oh, how grateful we should be for them…tongue in cheek.
Look, I’m sorry to have to say this but what in the hell were those two thinking? Of course it was wrong of them to be there! It may not have illegal but it puts then right in the path for something like this! Its a haunted house, of course there would be children there! Alot of children. Plus teenagers. I know sometimes its hard to get a job being on the registry, lord knows how much I know this, but there just had to be better places for them to be than that. I’ve turned down perfectly innocent invitations to places, to celebrations, to events, even employment opportunities if there was even a hint that it would lead to problems if they knew I was on the registry. I was living in MN and had zero residency restrictions and yet I turned down the chance to buy a wonderful house just because it faced an elementary school’s play ground. I lived in a condo in Orlando and would leave the pool if mothers showed up with their little children or if a group of teenagers were there. Was I obligated by law to do so? No. I didnt want anyone to raise a fuss by seeing me there. In other words, I follow the Miyagi philosophy – best way to avoid punch, no be there! Not advocating staying inside and becoming a hermit, just for the love of the gods, show some common sense. If you dont give the police a reason to look at you sideways, they wont.
@ Kevin:
Strongly disagree. If you choose to leave your pool when teenagers arrive or not buy a house because someone might make an issue of you living there, that’s your business. But doing so is completely contrary to your assertion that you don’t advocate “becoming a hermit.” You have every right not to stand up for yourself if you choose. But it’s a whole different thing to imply that others shouldn’t stand up for their rights which, ironically, translates into standing up for yours as well.
I firmly believe that the main reason that sex offender laws got so out of hand is that those affected wouldn’t stand up for themselves, preferring to leave it to others (even though there were very few others willing to do so). Nothing short of sledgehammer-induced hypnosis will convince me otherwise.
There wasn’t anything illegal about their employment there. Nothing in the story indicates these guys were doing anything wrong. This proposed bill (which you appear to support) is based on nothing more than the hysterical rants of a nosy Karen fueled by phantasms and falsehoods. In fact, News 5 Cleveland reports (can’t post the link) the so-called “habitual child sex offender” worked there for years without incident, indicating indicating no actual threat, just imaginary ones.
In all likelihood, if any kind of sexual assault ever happens at this haunted house, it will not be by someone on the registry. The stupidity of it is that this exact bill would be proposed in response even though that inspiring event was not by a registrant.
While I also subscribe to the idea of being free to go about your life. I also believe that in some cases it’s better to be prudent than not.
I’m not saying the haunted house job was a bad idea. It’s kind of like all these guys getting arrested for working at a carnival. If you need to feed your family and the only job you can get is working at a pay-nothing, crappy job that nobody else wants, then you do what you have to do so long as it’s legal. They probably didn’t have many choices and it’s not like they were working as preschool teachers – even if that were legal, that would be a pretty arrogant move.
There are some among us who will brazenly take an afternoon stroll through the park because it’s their right to be there and nobody will deny them that. And there are others among us who will cross 4 lanes of traffic to avoid passing a kid on the sidewalk. I respect both mentalities.
@Dustin
My point was if you live on the registry to have to be very very circumspect on what you do and where you go. No one is saying you cant earn a living but to accept even a temporary job at a place where, as the law puts it, children congregate (like a haunted house), then you’re asking for trouble. This is where a dollop of common sense has to kick in. Or call it survival instinct if it makes you feel better. They were paying with fire and got burned. And now the fall out from their actions is going to be felt by everyone on the registry in Ohio.
I stated you dont have to live like a hermit and I meant exactly that. I’m out with friends and family all the time. I go to plays, concerts, etc. I just make sure where I’m going is NOT a child centered activity; like an arcade, a toy sore, or a haunted house. If I find myself somewhere that is heavily populated with kids, I leave – even if I have every right to be there. Again, if I’m not there, no questions can be asked.
Is that limiting things in my life? Yes, absolutely. Is it keeping me out of jail? Yes, abso-freaking-lutely it is. I’ve been out of jail for 15 years now and I like life, even with these limitations, outside the barb-wired fence thank you very much. And out here is where I’m staying.
Yes, for the love of the gods, please lets keep working to educate the public and find a way to help to change these laws. I want to live without this hanging over my head but I’m not going to head in a noose just to make a point.
As I stated above, those who are unwilling to stand up for themselves are are perfectly free to do so. I will always support freedom of thought, whatever those thoughts may be.
But supporting such oppressive laws – even tacitly, as here – and advising others to cower to them is something I find very hard to get behind. Meek acceptance of sex offender laws are another reason why they got s out of control. Some brazenness and audacity from registrants is needed if there is the slightest hope of abolishing the registry.
How effective could FAC be if all Florida registrants had Kevin’s mindset? They’d never find a case to take to court if they all merely sat back and hoped things wouldn’t get worse, which they already have and inevitably will continue to do so as long as those affected by these inane laws don’t stand up to fight them.
Dustin – I fight harder than 99% of those out there, but there’s a very good reason I have ring cameras covering every inch of the perimeter of my home and it’s not because I’m worried about getting robbed. There are many people looking to jam up a registrant and will make stuff up at the drop of a hat. I’ve seen brazen advocates plucked from another state, put in a dog catcher’s van for weeks, brought to another state, forced to register for life in the other state, held on bond they could not independently afford and then had a case hanging over their head for years (which was eventually dismissed) for something they clearly didn’t do and were not even in the state to do! Ask Derek Logue for more details.
I suspect Dustin’s advice would result in more arrests, more public humiliation in the news media, and more public support for law enforcement budgets. Registrants seeking to express defiance in this way may find that their defiant message is not getting through. Living next to a playground on purpose won’t send the message you think it will.
First:
Dustin says “There wasn’t anything illegal about their employment there. Nothing in the story indicates these guys were doing anything wrong.”
The article says “Ultimately the two employees were fired and now the news media brought it to the local police who indicate they are going to arrest the men (not because they did anything, but because they failed to register their employment at the haunted house).”
They DID allegedly do something wrong by not reporting where they worked and THAT led to them being arrested.
Second:
Thanks to Ms Busybody these two men, after and if they get out of jail, have less needed money only to now possibly roam the street with hate on their minds looking for someone and/or something to retaliate against.
I agree with Kevin on many of his points. First, the two should have maintained their registry compliance. If that would have caused them to be fired, better just fired and not fired AND arrested. Better yet, don’t put yourself in a position where there would be obvious objections from parents and the community. You’re not going to win supporters that way, at least not from me. They are not in any way akin to Rosa Parks fighting for the right to a seat on the bus.
Yes these two deserve the right to earn a living, but you can’t really make that argument for a temporary seasonal job like this haunted house, which would be teaming with kids at that. If they were yanked from a grocery store where they worked as a cashier or stock person, I could stand behind that person’s right to work, but personally, this is not the hill I would choose to die on.
I love reading for the millionth time how the registry is in violation of the constitution. Only probelm is we live in a wolrd where law makers and judges like to play pretend. They pretend that violating our rights isn’t punishment. They get away with it becuase most judges won’t over turn there illegal legislation.
So the constitution at this point is about as helpful as an empty roll of toilet papper. Maby someday I’ll get relief from it. But iv been on the registry my entire adult life. And the way we’re going I’ll probaly die on it.
I hope I’m wrong. But I’m starting to become a little hardened to this endless game of B.S.
In Florida you will be on the registry after you die.
Thank you caption obvious. That’s some very helpful information. I may be on it when I die. But I won’t die in Florida. As soon as my kids graduate school. I’m leaving this state.
Karrrrrreeeeeennnnnnnn!!! And we all know you are pounding your chest and bragging to the world how you took the food off the table and starved the children of those two men whose only crime was to work and support their family’s.. What a wonderful dump of a country america has became.. Sure glad to see more wonderful examples like this that prove how punitive the registry isn’t.. Supreme Court Toilet better get some more of those National Enquirer toilet magazines out to defend their decisions….
It sounds like HB 459 is a golden opportunity for those advocating truth and SO rights. Citizens, whether registered or not, have the right to attend legislative sessions. When the bill is raised in committees be there and challenge the sponsors to justify exactly how the law contributes to public safety or any other public good. Of course they can’t because they have no factual foundation.
The bill may very well become law based on moral panic alone. But legislators will be put on record, and will invariably say (or be led to say) something that could be later useful in court proceedings. Courts most often defer to the bald assertions made by legislators in legislative findings. It is time to undermine these with their own words.
This approach is tough because no one wants the visibility. I must say that I find courage in the video clip of Capt. Munsey facing off with that nitwit city counselor.
This is the synopsis of Wisconsin’s legislation.
—Wisconsin State Statute 948.13 prohibits registered sex offenders convicted of a
serious child sex offense from working or volunteering, paid or unpaid, in a position that requires them
to work or interact primarily and directly with children under the age of 16. Types of activities include:
teaching children, child care, youth counseling, youth organizations, coaching children, park or
playground recreation working, or school bus driving.—
With the above law in place in Wi. our lot is different. The law only applies to most registrants.
Perhaps there needs to be a registry of people who do by their own admission do not have the skills to work with people on the registry.
You can ask prospective candidates questions like, “Are you able to work with people who smoke cigarettes, have a criminal background or identify as Trump supporters?
If they answer ‘no’ to any of the questions, they can be put on a registry of people who do not have the people skills necessary to work with the public or employees who may include members of those sub-groups. May I point out that it is unlikely the patrons at the haunted house attraction were subject to a background check either. I am not sure why in 2022 parents are so much more trusting of carnival workers than they were decades ago. In previous generations, parents would not entrust random carnival workers to supervise their children in lieu of a parent.