Brian Peppers is getting a run for his money.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Chowderhead**

http://seminoleheights.patch.com/articles/zoo-volunteer-charged-with-molestation

Update: On Wednesday, a Hillsborough County Circuit Court judge set bond for the defendant at $107,500. He remains in jail as of Wednesday evening.

Tampa Police on Tuesday arrested a Lowry Park Zoo volunteer on suspicion of molesting a 9-year-old boy in one of the park's bathrooms, according to police spokeswoman Laura McElroy.

Cameron James Spurback, 21, of 4904 Hi Vista Circle, remains in Orient Road Jail in lieu of bond.

Police said the boy went into the bathroom at 2:15 p.m. and was approached by Spurback, who allegedly pulled down the child's pants and fondled him.

"The defendant then pulled down his own pants and fondled himself in the presence of the child," McElroy said in a news release. "The child fled the bathroom and told his parents."

The child's parents flagged down zoo security, who then contacted police. Spurback was detained as he came out of the bathroom, McElroy said.

"A detective interviewed the defendant, who admitted to this offense," she said. "The child was not injured and he positively identified the suspect."

Spurback had just finished his shift at the zoo, McElroy said. He does not have a criminal history.

The most interesting part about this case, however, is the man himself. I have no idea of what is origins are, but it looks like he was in some severe accident/blast.

Spoiler:

**Avatar 720**

If he wasn't such a perverted feth then I might feel a small bit of sympathy for him; but alas, he couldn't keep his hands to himself.

**FITZZ**

Sorry...I don't feel the slightest bit of sympathy...nor should I (or anyone) be expected to,his condition/appearance doesn't give him any excuse to behave in the manner in which he did.

I think he should be dealt with in the same manner in which anyone who preys on a child would be.

**Avatar 720**

I think he should be dealt with in the same manner in which anyone who preys on a child would be.

Chop their knackers off and shove him the cell with Bubba the prison pimp, owner of every STD known to man and several known to monkeys?

**FITZZ**

Avatar 720 wrote:
I think he should be dealt with in the same manner in which anyone who preys on a child would be.

Chop their knackers off and shove him the cell with Bubba the prison pimp, owner of every STD known to man and several known to monkeys?

Yup...pretty much...followed by being set on fire and launched via trebuche into a wood chipper...feet first of course.

**Boba Fex**

Chowderhead wrote:

**Medium of Death**

Clearly his appearance is as important as his actions.... oh wait...

You sicken me.

I'm not supporting him, but for feth sake, his appearance has nothing to do with his crime.

**Quintinus**

Strong wtf
Holy crap
BRB bleaching eyes

**Karon**

Boba Fex wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:

Seriously, how can that....thing be allowed to work? I'm not being insensitive or anything, but that thing isn't fething human.

**alarmingrick**

Karon wrote:Seriously, how can that....thing be allowed to work? I'm not being insensitive or anything, but that thing isn't fething human.

as much as i'm in the string him up crowd, that's where i disagree. no matter how inhuman he looks, he's still a human being.
not that it in any way excuses what he did, or should it lessen his punishment.

**Avatar 720**

He lost the ability to be shielded from prejudice when he decided that he wanted to fiddle kiddies. If I saw him out in the street I wouldn't yell out that he's an ugly SoaB, but now he's done this I don't think I could care less, how many people will be offended on his behalf (because let's face it, how many people complaining about everything from porn to whatever are actually offended on their own behalf)?

As far as i'm concerned, him and his toddler touching tendancies just opened up the gak-flinging floodgates; no longer do I care how he's treated because of the way he looks/smells/walks/feels, and I don't doubt that many people feel the same way.

**Boba Fex**

@Medium of Death: I agree, his appearance has nothing to do with his actions. I read the article, lost any respect I may have had for him as a person, and decided to mock his physical appearance with a funny, and appropriate, gif

**SlaveToDorkness**

Perhaps he was face-molested by a Tiger?

**FITZZ**

This individules appearance isn't the issue here,and should generate neither sympathy nor anamosity ...his actions are the issue and are the only thing on which he should be judged.

I would hope that when this case goes to trial ...his appearance isn't seen as an "excuse" for his behaviour or utilized to generate sympathy for him,however I'd also hope that it's not his appearance that is judged as "monsterous."...but rather his actions.

**SilverMK2**

It looks like he has one of the diseases where the bones do not properly form during development. I know I have seen a case on someone who looked almost exactly like that recently but can't remember for the life of me what it is called.

I also don't particularly want to look through google for it. This other chap seemed nice enough though, so I don't think that the disease has any bearing on behavior (assuming they have the same thing).

**FITZZ**

SilverMK2 wrote:It looks like he has one of the diseases where the bones do not properly form during development. I know I have seen a case on someone who looked almost exactly like that recently but can't remember for the life of me what it is called.

I also don't particularly want to look through google for it. This other chap seemed nice enough though, so I don't think that the disease has any bearing on behavior (assuming they have the same thing).

I think you might be talking about ..Cranioddiaphyseal Dysplasia perhaps..the condition which the late "Rocky" Denis had.

**alarmingrick**

FITZZ wrote: This individules appearance isn't the issue here,and should generate neither sympathy nor anamosity ...his actions are the issue and are the only thing on which he should be judged.

+1! you nailed it right on the head.
and i feel his appearence looks more like reconstructive. but hey, i'm no Doctor.

**Karon**

gak, you guys can sit on your high-horse, no judgmental facade all you want, but I know that I would never be able to treat that thing like a normal human being. When my eyes hurt when I look at it, there is a problem.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

View from the high horse...

that "thing" transgressed and will be punished for it.

His disfigurement is a reflection your attitudes of your disgust at his appearence which evokes a stronger repulsion than that for his crime, or compassion for the child. Which in itself is pretty ugly.

His face may look ugly through no fault of his own. You choose to think and behave appallingly.

I just hope the child will be okay.

**FITZZ**

Karon wrote:gak, you guys can sit on your high-horse, no judgmental facade all you want, but I know that I would never be able to treat that thing like a normal human being. When my eyes hurt when I look at it, there is a problem.

The thing is Karon,in the same way that your feeling "disgust" at his appearance ..others may feel sympathy for him due to it,none of which should be aplicable..
I'm not sitting on some high horse being "Non-judgmental",but I am saying he should be judged based on his actions...not his appearance ...

Look at it from this perspective...would you really want him to get a lighter sentence simply because the jury might feel sympathy for him ?

**Ahtman**

I'm surprised that they gave out his home address before at least a plea/conviction was made. I notice it didn't mention anything about his mental state. Does the guy have more than facial problems?

**Asherian Command**

BRB I need to purge my eyes with fire! Or try and bang my head against a wall as I share my name with this pervert.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Wait!
He is called Asherian Command? What are the chances?

**Asherian Command**

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Wait!
He is called Asherian Command? What are the chances?

Nah my real name Cameron... I will change it later lol. I am too lazy.

**Chowderhead**

Ahtman wrote:I'm surprised that they gave out his home address before at least a plea/conviction was made. I notice it didn't mention anything about his mental state. Does the guy have more than facial problems?

That's what I am thinking.

**Mike Noble**

That kid will be scarred for life. More so than other kids who are molested.

I mean, dang, its one thing to get molested by your average, friendly looking pedo, but that guy? In a bathroom?

**biccat**

Ahtman wrote:I'm surprised that they gave out his home address before at least a plea/conviction was made. I notice it didn't mention anything about his mental state. Does the guy have more than facial problems?

It's pretty clear that normal procedural and Constitutional rights don't apply to sex offenders.

Whether this is a good thing or not...I could go both ways. But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

**SlaveToDorkness**

biccat wrote: But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

I'm really hoping you got that backwards, Dude.

**Sir Pseudonymous**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
biccat wrote: But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

I'm really hoping you got that backwards, Dude.

For once I have to agree with him. Releasing private information of suspects undergoing or set to be put on trial to the public should be illegal. If they're believed to be a hazard to the community they should just be denied bail. It is a grave injustice to anyone falsely accused of a crime to as good as be convicted of it in the public's eye before it's even determined whether there's enough evidence for them to stand trial in the first place, which far outweighs any possible harm that might result from the media not being given the identity of suspects sitting in jail cells.

**youbedead**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
biccat wrote: But I think the harm to the wrongly accused far outweighs the harm of a correctly-accused having easy access to kids while he's under investigation.

I'm really hoping you got that backwards, Dude.

Better 10 guilty men go free then one innocent man hang