This is why we can’t have nice things: supplemental

typed for your pleasure on 2 January 2007, at 10.52 am

Sdtrk: ‘Kenickie folks’ by Hideki Kaji

Right right; now I see why there’s been a metric ton of people over the course of the past few days, hitting ‘Shouting etc etc’ by looking for Ronald A. Dotson. I’m peering at my stats, going ‘WTF??’ Not ‘what the fuck??’, mind you, but making a perplexed sound that resembles ‘wittif’.

Mannequin fetishist could get life
Associated Press | Mon Jan 1, 5:33 PM ET

FERNDALE, Mich. – A man who has a history of smashing windows to indulge his fetish for female mannequins could draw a long prison term for his latest arrest. Ronald A. Dotson, 39, of Detroit faces up to life in prison if convicted of a charge of attempted breaking and entering at a cleaning-supply company in the Detroit suburb of Ferndale.

The potential life sentence is because prosecutors charged him as a habitual offender. Authorities say he has at least six convictions for breaking and entering and a stint in state prison over the last 13 years.

Ferndale District Judge Joseph Longo ordered Dotson to stand trial following a preliminary examination on Thursday, The Daily Tribune of Royal Oak reported. The judge ordered him jailed unless he posts a $15,000 bond.

Dotson was arrested Oct. 9 after police say he smashed a window at a cleaning-supply company to get at a female mannequin dressed in a black and white French maid’s uniform. He had been out of prison for less than a week.

Dotson was arrested in Ferndale in July 2000 and later convicted for breaking and entering at a women’s clothing shop to get at a mannequin in a pink dress with bobbed hair.

Ferndale police also arrested Dotson in 1993 after finding him in an alley behind a woman’s store with three lingerie-clad mannequins. He also has similar convictions in Detroit and suburban Oak Park.
___

Information from: The Daily Tribune, http://www.dailytribune.com

Oddly enough, the Trib doesn’t actually have this story on its website. What does that say about the Tribune? *coughfishwrapcough*

Now, I know exactly where that shop that he broke into is — I pass by it at least once a week when I’m Out and About — and I’ve seen that Mannequin. She’s cute, but definitely not worth risking a prison sentence.
And I have to go even further by saying that yes, our Ronald certainly isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think a long-term conviction is quite literally a waste of taxpayer’s money. Don’t you think it’d just be cheaper to get that tosser a couple of Mannequins, and let him go crazy? Honestly, they’re not that expensive, especially if you buy used. Now if his problem isn’t based on wanting to have it off with a Mannequin, but is actually centred on simply breaking and entering/theft, then by all means, get him some psychiatric treatment. But throwing that silly tosser in prison simply cos he doesn’t have access to Mannequins is, well, silly. Sure, it’s not as if he couldn’t buy one, but it’s been proven that he’s just not that clever. He’s an idiot, but ultimately, he’s a harmless idiot — it’s not as if he’s knifing people in the streets or whatever. There are worse individuals out there that deserve harsher punishment.

You gotta love ‘Shouting to hear the echoes’. The execution of Saddam Hussein? Not a jot, not a single syllable. Some story about some local loony who attempted to make sexy time love explosion with a Mannequin? Well, he gets not one, but two posts written about him! Our priorities are different here

Posted in Mannequins etc, Synthetiks, What the | 3 Comments »

3 have spoken to “This is why we can’t have nice things: supplemental”

  1. SafeTinspector writes:
    January 4th, 2007 at 5.18 pm

    You lied about Saddam. You wrote a whole sentance, possibly two, right there.
    I love you anyway.

    “faces up to life in prison if convicted of a charge of attempted breaking and entering at a cleaning-supply company”
    I agree with you on this. I don’t care if he busts a window every day for the rest of his life, that’s no reason to pen him up forever, regardless of what he does inside the store.
    But then, I’m of the mind that no property crime is a capital offense. Business disagrees with me.

  2. Old warrior 3 writes:
    January 11th, 2009 at 1.27 pm

    It is sad enough when a man who apparently mentally ill, and can not control his own inhabitions as a normal person should be removed from society but for mental dis orders, not prison, I worked as a corrections Officer with the Criminally insane, and in general lock up this guy would more abused and used and would become more deranged than he is now.

    Far better the Judge put him in a mental institution, or in a prision Phsyc ward so he can get his head on straight.

  3. Davecat writes:
    January 11th, 2009 at 2.14 pm

    Old warrior 3 –
    You’ve got some valid points, there. Ronald Dotson is more than likely mentally ill, but it doesn’t appear that he was maliciously insane — more like on the extreme end of passive-aggressiveness. But that’s different from people in prison who are in prison because they specifically set out to rob, rape, murder, etc. As I’d said, the man’s not a real threat, and I’m sure if he’d been given a Mannequin of his own — much cheaper than a prison term — coupled with psychiatric treatment in order to stop him from attempting further smash-and-grabs, he’d probably be a much happier person, as opposed to simply tossing him in prison and considering his case closed. That’s an extraordinarily lazy way of handling a person’s life.

    Thanks for your insights, sir! 🙂

Leave a charming reply