Canada - Michael Stanley, dangerous sex offender, escaped from Canada, now in U.S.

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

"The U.S. Marshals Service says it has no reason to track down or hold convicted sex offender Michael Stanley, who slipped away from Canadian authorities after removing his ankle bracelet last week.

"We have no reason to monitor him because he's not suspected of any crimes in the United States," said Jack Williams, acting deputy chief. "We don't monitor our citizens like that in the U.S."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/11/sex-offender-michael-stan_n_4086507.html
 
When it was suspected that he was in various smaller cities in Canada, schools were in lockdown, children were told to travel in groups and everyone was told to lock their doors. Perhaps more people should heed this advice now that he is in the US.
 
"He has a long history of sexual offences dating back to 1987. Stanley also has a history of taking children from playgrounds.

In 2006, he was sentenced to serve time for assault and unlawful confinement after luring two mentally impaired boys to an Edmonton apartment. One boy was 13, and one was nine.

In the late 1980s, Stanley spent nine years in prison for the aggravated sexual assault of an 82-year-old Lethbridge woman who was in a wheelchair."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sex-offender-michael-stanley-located-in-u-s-1.1958871
 
AuburnPoet said:
Snipped by me

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news...Michael+Stanley+with+video/9021992/story.html

"Hayduk said American authorities were aware of Stanley’s situation when he was allowed into the country. He crossed from British Columbia into Washington at the Blaine border crossing. Asked why American authorities let the wanted sex offender into the country, Hayduk said he didn’t know.

“That’s a question that they’re going to have to answer,” he said."


Typical of our government. Safety of our citizens doesn't mean diddly.

:banghead:
Click to expand...

The reason probably is because he is an American citizen. We don't want him here, you guys can keep him. He is yours after all, not ours.

Btw, the charges he is facing in Canada are:

1 - breach of recognizance
2 - mischief
3 - driving without a valid driver’s licence
4 - driving without registration
5 - driving without insurance

The new reports make it sound like he is wanted for sex crimes, but that isn't true. Basically he is wanted for driving a car and not observing the conditions of a peace bond posted against him (such as removing the ankle bracelet).

I'm not sure why the RCMP want him back, the simplest solution IMO is just make sure he stays on your side of the border.
 
otto said:
"He has a long history of sexual offences dating back to 1987. Stanley also has a history of taking children from playgrounds.

In 2006, he was sentenced to serve time for assault and unlawful confinement after luring two mentally impaired boys to an Edmonton apartment. One boy was 13, and one was nine.

In the late 1980s, Stanley spent nine years in prison for the aggravated sexual assault of an 82-year-old Lethbridge woman who was in a wheelchair."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sex-offender-michael-stanley-located-in-u-s-1.1958871
Click to expand...

I think the reporters are kind of distorting things a bit. As far as I can tell the only serious offences were the two you mentioned, and only one of those was a sexual offence. The rest of his criminal history appears to be for minor things. He seems to be the sort of person who doesn't respect rules or authority, which makes him unpredictable and the reason why they were monitoring him. The media make it sound like all his offences were of the serious kind, but if that were true he would have still been in prison.

They are sort of linking everything in his record as if they were all violent sexual offences, but that probably is just a case of bad reporting.
 
Tugela said:
I think the reporters are kind of distorting things a bit. As far as I can tell the only serious offences were the two you mentioned, and only one of those was a sexual offence. The rest of his criminal history appears to be for minor things. He seems to be the sort of person who doesn't respect rules or authority, which makes him unpredictable and the reason why they were monitoring him. The media make it sound like all his offences were of the serious kind, but if that were true he would have still been in prison.

They are sort of linking everything in his record as if they were all violent sexual offences, but that probably is just a case of bad reporting.
Click to expand...

I don't think so - no distorting going on at all. There are privacy laws that prevent a full publication of his criminal activities. For each year in prison while awaiting trial, he is credited with two years of sentenced time. I wouldn't under-estimate a criminal record of sexual offenses dating back to 1987.

He was at a playground the day he cut off his ankle bracelet. I am certain that he was not there for an innocent reason. He also has a criminal record in the US. It's only a matter of time before he does it again - but not in Canada next time.
 
musicaljoke said:
I wonder how long it took the border guards to determine that he was not subject to an extraditable warrant. Why didn't they just hold him there until they got a legal opinion? That could take months ... years. Really, what guard in his or her right mind makes that kind of decision??!
Click to expand...

Both the American and Canadian border guards can access each others criminal records when determining if someone is admissible or not.

An arrest warrant on record for a serious crime would result in the person being returned across the border. But, for minor crimes they would not do that since they would not be covered by extradition.

There is a reality TV series here about the Canadian border guards and what they do. On one episode they were interviewing a guy heading south from BC who happened to have an Alberta wide warrant out for his arrest. But since it applied only to Alberta, the border guards could not hold him. The solution was to enter it into the system and let Alberta know the guy had left the country, so he could be picked up when he returned IF Alberta decided to extend the warrant country wide.

So there are all sorts of rules about stuff like that, the border guards have to follow them. In this case the extradition treaty probably doesn't apply to minor crimes such as driving without paperwork or violating peace bonds, so they let him in. They had no grounds not to do so, and since he was an American citizen they could not send him back without cause.
 
otto said:
I don't think so - no distorting going on at all. There are privacy laws that prevent a full publication of his criminal activities. For each year in prison while awaiting trial, he is credited with two years of sentenced time. I wouldn't under-estimate a criminal record of sexual offenses dating back to 1987.

He was at a playground the day he cut off his ankle bracelet. I am certain that he was not there for an innocent reason. He also has a criminal record in the US. It's only a matter of time before he does it again - but not in Canada next time.
Click to expand...

If he was a repeat sex offender he would not just be getting a few years. The 1987 case was the only one they cited, which means it was the only one. The 2006 case involving the kids could not have been a sex offence, he would not be out by now if it did. He almost certainly would have been declared a dangerous offender at that point if that were the case. Also, it is unlikely that he had more sex offences beyond the 1987 incident.

FYI, the "dangerous offender" designation carries an indefinite sentence, those people are unlikely to ever be released.

As a reference, a few years back there was a case reported here that involved a guy who abducted a boy for a period, then returned him (I forget the name, but it was discussed at length here on WS). In that case the offender had an earlier sex offence, so they have now had him declared a dangerous offender, which means he probably will never be released. Whatever this Stanley guy did must have been considerably less than that, and it could not have involved a long series of serious crimes, otherwise he would also be sentenced as a dangerous offender in 2006. That clearly did not happen.

The issue here appears to be that authorities would LIKE to have him declared that, but probably his offence does not rise to that standard, so they don't have the grounds to.
 
Well, I don't wish him on any community, and certainly not at large with his criminal history and the prognosis that he will repeat his offenses. At best, it was careless to release him upon the American public without even registering him as a sex offender. Is this routine? Can Americans be convicted of sexual offense crimes in other countries and not have it show up on their criminal record in the US?

I agree that he is entitled to live in the US and am relieved that he has chosen to do so. But to minimize his offenses and embrace him wholesale, is just foolish.
 
How is he entitled to live in the US, when he is supposed to be under supervision in Canada? It makes no sense whatsoever. He needs to be extradited back to Canada.
 
otto said:
"The U.S. Marshals Service says it has no reason to track down or hold convicted sex offender Michael Stanley, who slipped away from Canadian authorities after removing his ankle bracelet last week.

"We have no reason to monitor him because he's not suspected of any crimes in the United States," said Jack Williams, acting deputy chief. "We don't monitor our citizens like that in the U.S."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/11/sex-offender-michael-stan_n_4086507.html
Click to expand...

Isn't that nice?:banghead:
 
jjenny said:
How is he entitled to live in the US, when he is supposed to be under supervision in Canada? It makes no sense whatsoever. He needs to be extradited back to Canada.
Click to expand...

From reading a few of the reports, it sounds like Canada is inclined to spare the cost of extradition and let the US deal with him. If he tries to enter Canada, he will be arrested, so it's almost a win-win in the sense that Canada no longer has a foreign, violent, sex offender walking the streets and there's no cost.
 
otto said:
From reading a few of the reports, it sounds like Canada is inclined to spare the cost of extradition and let the US deal with him. If he tries to enter Canada, he will be arrested, so it's almost a win-win in the sense that Canada no longer has a foreign, violent, sex offender walking the streets and there's no cost.
Click to expand...

Because US now has him.
 
otto said:
There are a lot of comments about this man belonging in Canada. This isn't true. He is an American citizen and has every right to be in the US. I suppose it will just be a matter of time before he commits crimes at home.

Just before he cut off his ankle bracelet, he was hanging around a playground watching young children. In order to avoid the arrest, he removed the ankle bracelet and headed for the border. He is an alcoholic with no empathy. He attacks when he has been drinking. He is a very dangerous American citizen.
Click to expand...

This piece of does not warrant the title of American citizen. No excuses. Lock it up. MOO:stormingmad:
 
A bit off topic, but I have to say that this thread has me thinking about all of the RSO's out there in large cities, mid-size cities, small cities, towns and rural areas. It wasn't until I spent some time here on WS that I realized how many RSO's there were out and about (or, as we Canejuns say, aboot).

In the U.S. RSO locations are public information. Not so in Canada. We don't know who these guys are or what they have done. I think that is why the Canadian media was 'all over' this case. By American 'standards' this guy isn't even near the top of the high risk category. If we here in Canada had access to more information about RSO's we would probably understand that Michael Stanley is far from the worst offender out there on the streets.

My son's friend's stepfather was convicted of producing child *advertiser censored*. His arrest was in the news, but that was the last public information available. Nowhere in the media could I find out if he was found guilty or innocent. I found out through the grapevine that he was found guilty and spent a year in prison. Most of his neighbours wouldn't even be aware that a RSO lives in their midst. I find this disturbing.

I am not a vigilante...but I think it's fair that people in the community know if there is someone who they should be careful around, when it involves their kids.
 
Tugela said:
I think the reporters are kind of distorting things a bit. As far as I can tell the only serious offences were the two you mentioned, and only one of those was a sexual offence. The rest of his criminal history appears to be for minor things. He seems to be the sort of person who doesn't respect rules or authority, which makes him unpredictable and the reason why they were monitoring him. The media make it sound like all his offences were of the serious kind, but if that were true he would have still been in prison.

They are sort of linking everything in his record as if they were all violent sexual offences, but that probably is just a case of bad reporting.
Click to expand...

How can anyone say "well, the only criminal offences he has are sex offences North of the border ... so he's safe from persecution in the US." That seems to be the stance from US justice: the dangerous sex offender that crossed the border to avoid criminal prosecution in Canada is safe in Seattle, Washington.

Michael Stanley's current criminal history is for minor things like driving without a licence. He fled Canadian authorities because he was spending time at playgrounds and was about to be arrested. Is sexually assaulting an 82 year old woman that is confined to a wheelchair "minor"? Is abducting children from playgrounds "minor"? Michael Stanley has a history of sexual offences and deviant personality from 1987 to 2013, twenty six years. That's a long time to be a sex offender that doesn't interest the US border and state police.

Twenty six years of the US not paying attention to a deviant personality, one of their own ...1987-2013
He has a criminal record in the US ... can anyone pull that up? I ask only because it has been suggested that Micheal Stanley is a good guy that made a mistake with sexually assaulting an 82 year old women in a wheelchair, everyone should overlook that he lured children from a playground and then attempted to stupefy them?

So ... is Michael Stanley a man that should be respected as an American citizen, or should he be viewed as a violent sex offender that lures children from playgrounds and attacks women in wheelchairs in their homes ... who cares if he is an American citizen.
 
otto said:
How can anyone say "well, the only criminal offences he has are sex offences North of the border ... so he's safe from persecution in the US." That seems to be the stance from US justice: the dangerous sex offender that crossed the border to avoid criminal prosecution in Canada is safe in Seattle, Washington.

Michael Stanley's current criminal history is for minor things like driving without a licence. He fled Canadian authorities because he was spending time at playgrounds and was about to be arrested. Is sexually assaulting an 82 year old woman that is confined to a wheelchair "minor"? Is abducting children from playgrounds "minor"? Michael Stanley has a history of sexual offences and deviant personality from 1987 to 2013, twenty six years. That's a long time to be a sex offender that doesn't interest the US border and state police.

Twenty six years of the US not paying attention to a deviant personality, one of their own ...1987-2013
He has a criminal record in the US ... can anyone pull that up? I ask only because it has been suggested that Micheal Stanley is a good guy that made a mistake with sexually assaulting an 82 year old women in a wheelchair, everyone should overlook that he lured children from a playground and then attempted to stupefy them?

So ... is Michael Stanley a man that should be respected as an American citizen, or should he be viewed as a violent sex offender that lures children from playgrounds and attacks women in wheelchairs in their homes ... who cares if he is an American citizen.
Click to expand...

BBM It isn't an either or. Almost all US criminals are American citizens and that is never stripped of them be they in prison in the US or elsewhere. They are entitled to the basic rights of all citizens.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be viewed as a violent sex offender at the same time
 
Tugela said:
If he was a repeat sex offender he would not just be getting a few years. The 1987 case was the only one they cited, which means it was the only one. The 2006 case involving the kids could not have been a sex offence, he would not be out by now if it did. He almost certainly would have been declared a dangerous offender at that point if that were the case. Also, it is unlikely that he had more sex offences beyond the 1987 incident.

FYI, the "dangerous offender" designation carries an indefinite sentence, those people are unlikely to ever be released.

As a reference, a few years back there was a case reported here that involved a guy who abducted a boy for a period, then returned him (I forget the name, but it was discussed at length here on WS). In that case the offender had an earlier sex offence, so they have now had him declared a dangerous offender, which means he probably will never be released. Whatever this Stanley guy did must have been considerably less than that, and it could not have involved a long series of serious crimes, otherwise he would also be sentenced as a dangerous offender in 2006. That clearly did not happen.

The issue here appears to be that authorities would LIKE to have him declared that, but probably his offence does not rise to that standard, so they don't have the grounds to.
Click to expand...

If he hadn't had any other sex offenses, and abducting those two boys was considered fairly harmless, then the RCMP wouldn't have gone full bore with their press release saying he was incredibly dangerous. They have access to much more information than they are allowed to say.

The CBC tracked down his parole documents though....and it's easy to see why LE thinks he is so dangerous.

For example, the media reported Stanley had pleaded guilty to assault and forcible confinement of two boys, aged nine and 13, he lured into an apartment in 2004, the parole documents show he was initially charged with sexual assault in the case.

He was also charged with sexually assaulting a young girl in 2004, but parole documents reveal the girl delayed reporting the incident and eventually refused to testify out of fear of Stanley.

In 2000 Stanley was charged with exposing himself to some children.

On the night in 1987 when he broke into the home of an 82-year-old disabled woman and sexually assaulted her, he was discovered the same night in a second apartment with two young girls including a 15-month-old girl that had been undressed.
Click to expand...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/michael-stanley-targeted-children-parole-documents-show-1.2054081

The parole board apparently thought he had great difficulty controlling his violent impulses and that he was at high risk of offending again.

I still find it difficult to believe that US border agents didn't stop him from entering the U.S. They knew he was on the run from Canadian authorities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 110 more.
Total: 2,296 (members: 111, guests: 2,185)

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
2,186
Total visitors
2,297
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,355
Messages
18,123,310
Members
231,024
Latest member
australianwebsleuth
Back
Top