Custy Rogues Gallery
Night of The Living Crusty-Bitches

Cop Hell: Disturbing Pull Over

6661 A few weeks ago I read a hell story that mentioned a guy feeling up display mannequins and it reminded me of a truly disturbing story.

One night I pulled over a car for speeding. While walking up to the car I noticed that it had real dark window tint so I couldn't see inside it.

When I made it to the driver, I asked if he could put the back windows down (we do this for our safety to make sure no one is hiding etc.).

He did without any problem and a quick glance assured me no one was back there. I get his license and as I'm walking back to my car, I look in the back of the car again to see a head staring up at me from a box.

Now we are trained to stay calm under most situations.

So the outer me just stopped walking and stared while the little inner me was screaming like a frightened school girl.

The head was from a child mannequin and in a bigger box beside it was the rest of the body.

Of course my question to the guy was "Sir, why do you have pieces of a child in your backseat."

Apparently he had bought it off craig's list and was returning from having picked it up. Yep, nothing weird about that at all.

"Ok, do you work for a store or something and going to use it as a display?"

Come on, I wouldn't be sharing this story had he said yes.

So a run of his name says that he's a registered sex offender.

Oooooooffff course.

Legally he wasn't breaking any laws but his probation officer thought differently. Apparently it's suspicious to own a child mannequin if you touch kids. Who knew.

Anyway in the end he got what he deserved. Till this day however that face looking at me through the flaps of the box still disturbs me.


--Badge #666




Why do you have pieces of a child in your backseat? There's a phrase I didn't think I'd see this morning.


He got what he deserved...for what? Buying a mannequin? He had a parole officer, so he'd obviously already done his time for whatever crimes he committed. Besides, you get put down as a "registered sex offender" if you get drunk and piss in public, and a kid sees you. Or if you're an 18-year-old high school senior having sex with your 16-year-old high school junior girlfriend, and her parents want to fuck with you. Unless this guy had a living, breathing, actual kid in his backseat, he didn't deserve to get hassled.


Well if the conditions of his parole were "Do not touch small mannequins" and he went and did it anyway then yes, he would have got what he deserved.

That said... I find it very worrying the way society is going these days, where people are punished for seeking out non-harmful ways to relieve a desire that would have had em chasing after children in times past. It's as if people can't see the difference between a cartoon and reality, or a mannequin and a real child. If the mannequin stopped this guy from doing anything that would harm a real child then by all means let him do whatever he wants with it.



@K.: If part of your parole is not to be involved with child-like situations, that typically means you've gotten your ass in jail for some form of child porn charge or child molestation charge or something to do with kids. The conditions are based around what your ass was in jail for, so this guy obviously was not supposed to be around kids or anything that resembled a kid.
And please don't make me quote the statistic that most people that go to jail have a very high chance of recidivism and going back to jail after doing the crime again, and this is especially true for sex offenders in regards to violating human rights (like pedophilia.)

And Badge, seeing the head of a child mannequin is just fucking scary. I would probably need to be hospitalized with a number of shrinks making sure I don't lose my shit if I saw that. >_>


Well I should probably add that I'm speaking as a socially conservative, law'n'ordser lock em all up christian fundie type. I don't like pornography; not even the regular kind. I don't like sex offenders. I certainly don't like people who go after kids.

The thing is, the fact that I don't like it is irrelevant to the best way to deal with people like this. My first reaction tends to involve a knife and their testicles, but my experience has been that people who have certain issues are less likely to act on them if they have a way to relieve their desires in a non-harmful manner.

The ultimate aim of dealing with someone like this guy would be cure. The problem is that there may not necessarily be a cure for him and it would be unnecessarily cruel to punish him for something that he can't change, when a much better alternative is to set boundaries and relief points in order to prevent his condition from harming others. Preventing him access to children and any images of children (real images, not cartoons and "pseudo-images", or whatever the law is now) would be good boundaries. Beyond that, the law should be silent. It should only come in to play when he's potentially harming another. A mannequin wouldn't be "another" and as long as he's acting in the privacy of his own home, and not attempting to involve real children, he's not committing a crime in my opinion.

People like this need a long-term help. When they attempt to harm others they should be punished, but if they're trying to find a way to relieve their urges in a non-harmful manner then why should they continue to be punished?


It's a sliding down the slippery slope thing. The object is for the child molester to not reoffend. If he starts doing whatever his thing is (and I'm not going to speculate as to what, exactly, he had in mind for that child mannequin) he's more likely to lose control. And once he's out of control, he's more likely to go out and molest a real child. This is why child molesters are routinely not allowed to possess or look at porn, or hang around anywhere children congregate, or etc. etc. It's very probable that a condition of this guy's probation/parole was that he not have possession of any likeness of a child. (And he would have been well aware that it was a condition of his parole, and he knew better than to have that child mannequin in the first place.) And it's a good condition for child molesters to have as part of their probation/parole. Good for any children who might come in contact with him, and good for him as his chances of reoffending are less.

Good for you, Badge #666, for advising this guy's PO of the situation.


I know I'm not the only one who noticed that Badge did not put the offender back in jail. He merely did his job which was "report it to his parole officer". Its the parole board/officer who saw this as a problem and locked the guy back up.

Now I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about the legal system when it comes to sex offenders, but I can almost bet that this guy was counseled on what he was/was not allowed to possess. They like to be specific about things like that so they don't happen again. If the guy wants a doll to play fantasies with, he can stuff a child t-shirt and jeans with leftover plastic bags (up-cycle!) and put a pumpkin on top. Clearly this guy had a problem (at least the parole board/officer thought so) and thought he was a threat.

On that note, if I saw it, I'd be looking for the candid camera first and then hope, like Badge did, that it wasn't really happening. I'll bet that would give me nightmares for weeks!


We, as a society, have lost our fucking minds.

Taco Slave

That's how Dahmer got started, with mannequins. I'd call that a pretty clear sign of problems that need to be taken care of RIGHT NOW.


Holy crap that's fucking terrifying.

K--if Pervy here had been convicted as a sex offender for pissing outdoors or fucking a 17-year-old when he was 18, his parole officer probably wouldn't have considered the purchase of a child mannequin a violation.


You handled that more calmly then I would have.

The comments to this entry are closed.