Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: vaskidmark on January 12, 2009, 03:20:25 PM
-
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?s=9652114
Aint irony ironic?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- The winner of the $500,000 lottery drawing came forward Saturday to collect his prize, and the man who will pocket a half-million dollars from a raffle designed to benefit a sex abuse victims charity is a three-time sex offender.
Alec Ahsoak of Anchorage was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor twice in 1993 and once in 2000, according to the Alaska Department of Public Safety Sex Offender/Child Kidnapper Central Registry.
The lottery, which had its drawing Friday night, was conducted by Lucky Times Pull Tabs. State law says all games of chance must benefit charity, and the organization Standing Together Against Rape, or STAR, was the designated beneficiary.
Ahsoak, who will turn 54 later this month, collected his winnings Saturday at Lucky Times in the form of a ceremonial check presentation.
He says he plans to use the money to buy a home and to improve his life, and late Saturday afternoon said he will donate $100,000 to STAR.
Attempts to reach STAR for comment on Saturday were not successful.
When Channel 2 News first met up with Ahsoak, he couldn't have been more excited. But as the day unfolded, Ahsoak's past came to light in an ironic intersection with the mission of the event.
Ahsoak says he's had a hard-luck life, and the money will help him turn that around. He grew up in foster homes and the Jesse Lee Home for Children in Seward.
In the past he said he has donated money to a children's home in South Dakota, but that could not immediately be verified.
Lucky Times' owners said they started the lottery with the best of intentions and really just wanted to help out a cause they believe in.
They hope just as many residents will want to participate in the charity lotteries to come.
After taxes Ahsoak took home about $350,000.
Contact Yvonne LaVoie at ylavoie@ktuu.com
Comments are split between "he has done his time" and "take it all away from him, he's evil." I'm just wondering why he waited till Saturday afternoon to decide to donate 1/3rd of his take-home to the charity - could it have been the revalation about his past? [tounge in cheek]
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Is he a victim of sex offenses other than his own? If yes, he qualifies.
-
The fact that "he did his time" would carry more weight with me if he hadn't put himself in a position to have to "do his time" a second time.
Repeat offenders lose a lot of my sympathy, regardless of the circumstances of their past they bear the burden of creating a life that prevents them from succumbing to it repeatedly.
If you have a contagious disease, you exile yourself somewhere where you will not be a threat to other people's health; and that's taking hard responsibility for something you have absolutely no control over.
If you know you are a child abuser, you go to live and work somewhere where there are no kids. None.
You don't get to live a "normal" life anymore.
Now that he has the means to do so, he has no remaining excuses.
-
The only relevant question is whether there is any provision in the lottery (or state law) to make him somehow ineligible. If not, shut up and cut him a check.
-
Was there a restitution clause in his convictions? If so, then take it. Otherwise he paid his money and he took his chances just like everyone else.
-
I think it's more sad that he kept getting released than any money he may win. "Oh, you were convicted of raping little kids? Let me introduce you to my good friend Mr Sparky the magical rehabilitation chair. Guaranteed to prevent repeat offenses!"
-
What does 'sexually abusing a minor' include in AK law? Does it just mean the obvious creepy molesting six-year-olds stuff, or some other things as well? It's possible there was something about the cases that persuaded the judge to give him a shorter term.
If you know you are a child abuser, you go to live and work somewhere where there are no kids. None.
Where's... that?
-
If you know you are a child abuser, you go to live and work somewhere where there are no kids. None.
Where's... that?
Neverland Ranch, these days anyway. =D
-
Umm, I gotta agree with Micro here: what are all the facts? Might just be looking at a guy that ended up with a couple statuatory convictions...
As for him collecting the money: he's done his time. If he was required to pay restitution and has, then all's said and done. You can't keep kicking someone if they've paid their "debt to society": if you do, you remove any reason they have to reform...
-
i gotta go with mb too until i find out what the charges actually consisted of
-
i gotta go with mb too until i find out what the charges actually consisted of
Should I start quoting Revelations now?
-
one of us should or at least talk in tongues as a warmup
-
i gotta go with mb too until i find out what the charges actually consisted of
you know, I really don't get you c&s, during the heated
FLDS thread I started last year you accused me of siding with pedo's when all I was doing was
questioning whether the state had enough evidence to haul away a ton of kids based on a spurious and proven false phone call.
It turns out I was quite correct, it was an abuse of the criminal justice system.
So C&S, why are you supporting pedo's?
-
cause the charge is one of those catch all charges the type i've seen abused
It turns out I was quite correct,
and no
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy897.html
https://secure.deseretnews.com/user/comments/1,5150,705271025,00.html
https://secure.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705277102,00.html
That document contained a list of names, men and "wives", one of which showed one man had 22 wives, and at least 10 of those "wives" in that document were younger than 17 or had children listed with ages that placed conception at younger than 17.
One of the most troubling statements from the child protection investigator was when testimony was given that girls at the YFZ Ranch were forced into marriage and gave birth as young as 13.
Voss also testified of a 14 year old that was pregnant and a number of 15 year olds that were pregnant as well.
When Voss was asked point blank if in her professional opinion the children should be returned to the compound, she said she did not because "the sect members do not believe they are doing anything wrong."
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/04/update-on-flds-custody-hearing.html
According to an AP report, documents seized from the Eldorado, Texas, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) identify at least 10 other men (besides the six who have already been charged) who were married to girls 16 years old or younger.
The documents identify 20 underage girls — some as young as 12 — who were married to members of the FLDS.
In all cases, the fathers or step fathers were in agreement with the underage marriages and, in some cases, actually presided over the ceremonies.
The AP report stated that the marriage certificates, Warren Jeffs’ journal entries, photos and family records show that these underage marriages were not isolated events.
Documents in separate child-custody proceedings confirm that even men who have not been charged with abuse had married girls who were 15 or 16 in FLDS church ceremonies. And four girls, ages 12-14, are shown in marriage certificates, photos and notes as married to Jeffs, age 52.
Under Texas law, even purporting to be married to more than one person is illegal. Investigators there are believed to be working on about 50 possible bigamy cases involving FLDS men.
Even so, prosecutors will have a difficult time getting convictions without the cooperation of the young girls involved, who believe their eternal salvation depends on their participation in polygamy.
http://www.custercountynews.com/localnews/2008/08/more-flds-men-engage-in-underage-marriages/
12's a bit young for me ymmv
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fonni.jkl.fi%2F%7Elauri%2Fkuvia%2Fnot_this_shit_again.jpeg&hash=783ec892c092410454cca7d5dd67fd9b22360832)
-
What does 'sexually abusing a minor' include in AK law? Does it just mean the obvious creepy molesting six-year-olds stuff, or some other things as well? It's possible there was something about the cases that persuaded the judge to give him a shorter term.
Where's... that?
he's 54 now. he was convicted in 2000, so he was, what, 45 or thereabouts. and 1993, so what, mid thirtys?
even if the girls (or boys) where teens, its still creepy. really creepy.
-
he's 54 now. he was convicted in 2000, so he was, what, 45 or thereabouts. and 1993, so what, mid thirtys?
even if the girls (or boys) where teens, its still creepy. really creepy.
It may be creepy to some people, but it's not the same as sick, pedophiliac perverts who abuse children because they're so terribly broken themselves they can't even abstain from their terrible act. A man (of any age) can be sexually attracted to a teenager - there's a reason 'barely legal' videos are so popular commercially. Again, I'm not saying this guy is a nice person. I'm just saying, let's not declare him a pedo until we have the facts.
-
It may be creepy to some people, but it's not the same as sick, pedophiliac perverts who abuse children because they're so terribly broken themselves they can't even abstain from their terrible act. A man (of any age) can be sexually attracted to a teenager - there's a reason 'barely legal' videos are so popular commercially. Again, I'm not saying this guy is a nice person. I'm just saying, let's not declare him a pedo until we have the facts.
no. its creepy. girls that age are at a very vulnerable. An adult can be very persasive in a insudious manner. A guy who has done it repeatedly is not just attracted to younger women, he is a predator and teen girls are his prey. that is a pedo.
-
A pedophile is someone who is attracted to pre-teen girls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) That's the medical definition.
And it is TRUE that certain people - teachers, relatives, etc. etc. can exploit their relationship with a minor (or, indeed, an adult) to get sexual benefits. We don't know what happened here though.
Which is my entire point. We don't know.
-
Sorry bluestar, but I'm aware of more cases where an "innocent young girl" sleeps with a "creepy older man" at HER instigation, often with the express purpose of "getting someone in trouble", than I am of cases where "creepy guy" takes advantage of "innocent young girl".
One's someone I know VERY well, who picked a girl up at a bar... even asked for ID (which she had). Couple weeks later, he was invited to her 15th birthday...
Or the girl in Appleton, who has gotten several guys put away for statuatory: picks a guy up, sleeps with him, and reports the "rape" the next day. Has a couple kids, herself...
Or the two girls overheard at a friend's coffee shop, talking about picking up some guy outside a nearby bar "to get him in trouble" (literal quote there)?
Not saying there aren't creeps out there, who will use whatever "hold" they can to get into a teens pants. But it CAN cut back the other way (and does)...
-
no. its creepy. girls that age are at a very vulnerable.
There are a lot of dumb 20 year olds too. When I was 18 I was with a girl that was 15, we stayed together for 4 years and she matured exactly ZERO in that time. (she was very mature in the first place) A 25+ year old that is hitting on someone under the age of 20 obviously has serious social issues, but I don't put it in the same category as someone who takes advantage of a 10 year old.
My grandma married my grandfather when she was 14, it wasn't even an issue at the time, and they raised a completely(well, fairly!) normal family. People were getting married at that age for thousands of years before that too. Now all of the sudden people are expected to wait until they are 25 to get married and/or have sex. It's ridiculous.
As far as the guy goes, hopefully he's genuine. He's paid his debt, hopefully he won't reoffend. We don't know what he did in the first place. Maybe he should still be in prison, maybe not.
-
His crimes are probably public record, but, up here, given his lack of complaint about miscategorization it is most likely his offenses were against underage family members.
Sad but true.
That is the previously dark secret of Alaskan village life. Bad uncles, step dads and step brothers are endemic.
He's 53 in 2009. In 1993 when he was convicted of two counts of statuatory he would have been 37. In 2000 on his third conviction he was 44.
The age of consent up here is 16 at either of those ages. That isn't a defensible "my girlfriend is just 3 years younger" situation. That's a predator with a big black f-ing fin on his dorsal.
If it were a case of just "I didn't know she was 17" it wouldn't have happened three damn times and he wouldn't have not defended himself.
I'm as militant against the needless expansion of what constitutes a "sex crime" as anyone else and that's documented by my previous posts, but given the totality of the circumstances this guy is a scumbag who needs to go live on an island without kids around.
That said, good on him for the donation and hopefully moving on in his life. Better though that he use the money to create a situation where he can avoid girls of any age under 18 though, no matter the personal discomfort it might cause him.
-
Here's the crime he committed at least three times, remember this guy was my age at the time of his first offenses.
AS 11.41.436. Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Second Degree.
(a) An offender commits the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree if
(1) being 17 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least four years younger than the offender, or aids, induces, causes or encourages a person who is 13, 14, or 15 years of age and at least four years younger than the offender to engage in sexual penetration with another person;
(2) being 16 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a person who is under 13 years of age or aids, induces, causes, or encourages a person under 13 years of age to engage in sexual contact with another person;
(3) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a person who is under 18 years of age, and the offender is the victim's natural parent, stepparent, adopted parent, or legal guardian;
(4) being 16 years of age or older, the offender aids, induces, causes, or encourages a person who is under 16 years of age to engage in conduct described in AS 11.41.455 (a)(2) - (6);
- Sec. 11.41.455. UNLAWFUL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR.
(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful exploitation of a minor if, in the state and with the intent of producing a live performance, film, audio recording, photograph, negative, slide, book, newspaper, magazine, or other printed material that visually depicts the conduct listed in (1) - (7) of this subsection, the person knowingly induces or employs a child under 18 years of age to engage in, or photographs, films, records, or televises a child under 18 years of age engaged in, the following actual or simulated conduct:
(1) sexual penetration;
(2) the lewd touching of another person's genitals, anus, or breast;
(3) the lewd touching by another person of the child's genitals, anus, or breast;
(4) masturbation;
(5) bestiality;
(6) the lewd exhibition of the child's genitals; or
(7) sexual masochism or sadism.
(b) A parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a child under 18 years of age commits the crime of unlawful exploitation of a minor if, in the state, the person permits the child to engage in conduct described in (a) of this section knowing that the conduct is intended to be used in producing a live performance, film, audio recording, photograph, negative, slide, book, newspaper, magazine, or other printed material that visually depicts the conduct.
(c) Unlawful exploitation of a minor is a class B felony .
(d) In this section, "audio recording" means a nonbook prerecorded item without a visual component, and includes a record, tape, cassette, and compact disc.
(5) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual contact with a person who is under 16 years of age, and
(A) the victim at the time of the offense is residing in the same household as the offender and the offender has authority over the victim; or
(B) the offender occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim.
(6) being 18 years of age or older, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is 16 or 17 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender, and the offender occupies a position of authority in relation to the victim; or
(7) being under 16 years of age, the offender engages in sexual penetration with a person who is under 13 years of age and at least three years younger than the offender.
(b) Sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree is a class B felony.[/i]
This isn't an "I didn't know" offense, this is either incest, position of authority or a massive age difference.
-
When I posted this little tidbit of an article I was not really concerned with just how icky the guy was. I've dealt with that sort both before, during and after they go to prison, and the ickyness just never changes. I learned to get beyond the ickyness.
I thought it was ironic that "late Saturday afternoon" he announced that he was donating $100K to STAR. That was "late Saturday afternoon" after he came forward earlier in the the day to claim his prize. It seemed to me that his charity gene only kicked in after he had been outed as a repeat sex offender.
As an aside, does it strike anyone else as "strange" that it seems that news reporters are running names through sex offender registries and other offender registries to see if there is any dirt on someone who has become newsworthy? (Why else would his name have been run through the registry, and why else would the TV station report on the registry "hit"?)
stay safe.
skidmark
-
As an aside, does it strike anyone else as "strange" that it seems that news reporters are running names through sex offender registries and other offender registries to see if there is any dirt on someone who has become newsworthy? (Why else would his name have been run through the registry, and why else would the TV station report on the registry "hit"?)
Perhaps one of the reporters actually remembered one or both of the original incidents ...? =|
-
what if the reporter just googled the name to see if he could get more info and found a news story about it.
that would seem logical. *shurg*
-
Here's the crime he committed at least three times, remember this guy was my age at the time of his first offenses.
Thanks for the info. SOooooo, what exactly is this guy doing out of prison? IMHO he should be getting out of prison right now for the FIRST offense he did. The second should have put him in permenantly.
A girl I know came forward that her babysitter had done stuff to her when she was 8 or 9 (she was 19 then). They convicted the guy but he only got 4 years because it happened "so long ago". It's BS, she knows other kids it happened to also, but they won't come forward. Furthermore there is NO WAY he is actually going to be in for 4 years.. probably a little over a year.
-
The word on the street, well, in the bar tonight, is that he was at a local mall today, and got beat up.
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/652748.html
Lottery winner attacked; one man taken into custody
By JAMES HALPIN
jhalpin@adn.com
Published: January 13th, 2009 04:38 PM
Last Modified: January 13th, 2009 08:52 PM
The winner of the state's first half-million dollar lottery was severely beaten on a downtown street Tuesday afternoon by a man wielding a tire iron or metal pipe, according to Anchorage police.
Police say Alec Ahsoak, 53, was attacked in the 400 block of D Street at about 3:30 p.m. when a man, accompanied by two women, approached him to ask if he was the man who won the $500,000 jackpot.
Whether the attack was motivated by Ahsoak's winning the lottery, which was held to benefit an advocacy group for sexual abuse victims, or the widely distributed reports that Ahsoak is a three-time convicted sex-offender was unclear.
"There was no apparent attempt at robbery," police Lt. Dave Parker said. "He was struck eight to 10 times, and then he threw his Pepsi at the assailant and he ran for Phyllis' Cafe and the assailant ran off."
By Tuesday evening, Ahsoak had been discharged from the hospital. In a show-up, Ahsoak identified the suspect as his attacker, but the man in custody had not yet been charged with a crime, Parker said. Police had also identified one of the two women and were treating her as a witness, Parker said.
Ahsoak told officers he had been stopped by a white man believed to be about 21 and wearing a blue and white checked shirt, blue jeans and a white baseball cap as he entered the 5th Avenue Mall. The stranger asked if he was the lottery winner, and Ahsoak said he was, then went into the mall.
When he walked out minutes later carrying a Pepsi, the man approached him, saying nothing more, and began hitting him on the head with the weapon, police said.
"Oh my God, I was so afraid something was going to happen to him," said Nancy Haag, executive director of Standing Together Against Rape, the nonprofit that benefitted from the lottery. "I'm just very sorry to hear that this has happened. ... Nobody deserves to be a victim of any kind of violence, and that's our stand."
Ahsoak was transported to a local hospital to be treated for his injuries, which did not appear to be life-threatening, police said.
"There were injuries to his head -- lacerations, that kind of stuff," Parker said. "Nobody knows how bad it is until doctors do their job, but he was talking and able to communicate with the officers."
There were "loads of witnesses" to the attack, but none of them were immediately able to identify the man, Parker said. It did not immediately appear that the attack had been caught on any surveillance cameras, he said.
The lottery, billed as the first of its kind, was conducted under Alaska law that allows games of chance that benefit a charity. The charity must get at least 10 percent of what's left after the prize is paid out, and organizers have estimated STAR stands to get between $2,000 and $20,000.
Ahsoak claimed $350,000 in prize money after taxes, and, the day he came forward, pledged to give $100,000 of it to STAR, the owner of Lucky Times, Abe Spicola, has said. Spicola did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.
Ahsoak came forward as the lottery winner Saturday, and reports that he is a convicted sex offender were soon publicized by KTUU Channel 2 News and picked up by other outlets, including the Daily News. By Monday, Ahsoak's victims were telling the media they thought Ahsoak should not benefit from the lottery, which was conducted by Lucky Times Pull Tabs to benefit the nonprofit Standing Together Against Rape.
Asked whether the media should have publicized that Asoak was a convicted sex offender, Haag said, "I think it put him, obviously, at greater risk because there are people who like to take justice into their own hands."
Ahsoak was convicted in 1993 of molesting two girls under the age of 13 and sentenced to four years in prison, according to court records.
Police arrested him again in March 2000 for molesting a different young girl he was baby-sitting. He was sentenced to six years in prison on a single count of sexual abuse of a minor in a plea deal that took another sex abuse charge and a charge of failing to register as a sex offender off the table.
Ashoak has finished his time in prison and is now on probation, but he is registered as a sex offender on a state-run public database. He told KTUU on Saturday that he's worked hard to turn his life around and has been in treatment for the past year.
A message left on the cell phone of Ahsoak's attorney was not returned Tuesday.
In reports that began surfacing Monday, some of Ahsoak's victims and their parents expressed an interest in suing him since he won the lottery, saying the money should go to his victims instead of benefitting a convicted sex offender.
One victim, who was molested in the early 1990s while Ahsoak, a family friend, was staying at her home, said Tuesday she thinks Ahsoak should not have gotten the money, especially since the money benefits STAR. But it was out of her hands and she doesn't think she'll sue, said the woman.
"I'm in shock that happened. That's terrible," she said upon hearing of the attack. "I don't wish that on anybody. The only thing I wished for him is that he would get better. ... I just think it's crazy the way that everything happened."