OS moment. Sex Offenders

According to form, the RSO is back in jail in TN. He seems to have tried to meet a young girl from a chat room. The young girl turns out to have been a UC LEO. He attempted to run from the arresting LEOs also. I don't think I will be hearing from him for a few years.
 
I have been surprised by the information the local authorities gave me. They say they cannot harass RSOs and I cannot either. If they are asked, they are quite cooperative and informative. They do give out the website, they will issue telephonic warnings, they can give out the nature of the offense and there is a search by zip code function on the website. I am only less than elated that ALL criminals aren't required to be registered. I would appreciate knowing if my new neighbor is a drug dealer. The other debate in Kentucky is whether convicted elder abusers should have to register similarly.
 
Matis, it may do good to read up on laws regarding OC spray. Many areas have different regulations, especially on a college campus. I know in MI it is illegal to carry a spray with anything over a certain percentage of key ingredients.

As for the registration, I don't agree with it one bit. Some of it shouldn't be even on there (public urination, heck, I could be a registered sex offender). For the ones that should be registered, they shouldn't even be out of prison.

I guess I just look at it, and say, yeah, they are a rapist, but why don't we have a murder database? Why doesn't we simply have a database of all felons living in neighborhoods? Are murderers somehow less dangerous?
 
Are murderers somehow less dangerous?
Click to expand...

In proportion, the rate of reoffense is lower for murderers and they stay in jail longer. Sex offenders often have multiple victims which are under represented due to the shame and pain which comes from testifying against them.....especially hard for children.
 
Quote:
Matis, it may do good to read up on laws regarding OC spray. Many areas have different regulations, especially on a college campus.
___________________________________________________________
jefnvk, Good idea and I have started on that.



Quote:
As for the registration, I don't agree with it one bit. Some of it shouldn't be even on there (public urination, heck, I could be a registered sex offender). For the ones that should be registered, they shouldn't even be out of prison.
______________________________________________________________

I understand what you mean. Our "justice" system is very badly screwed up -- not sure exactly where to start. Prisons are filled with non-violent "offenders" who committed the unspeakable crime of smoking a vegetable. The whole "drug war" is in my opinion just a pretext for vastly increasing government power at our expense. Child protective services subject their wards to worse risks than they'd face if left in their original families. Burglary, robbery and even murder in many big cities never get properly dealt with while petty infractions by good citizens get prosecuted to the hilt. Plea-bargaining lets serious offenders off while snaring the innocent into pleading guilty to some crime because they cannot afford the money for good representation or the risk of losing. And on and on. We won't even mention that giving welfare to generations breeds crime and social breakdown in teh first place.

And I'm sure that many on the sex-crimes perp list do not belong there.

However, many DO! And I'm not going to wait until we solve all of our social problems before I do EVERYTHING I can to protect my child!

There are now hundreds of thousands on these lists. Even if three quarters don't belong there, we are still left with thousands and thousands of criminals dangerous to kids and women roaming among us.

I agree that registering them is stupid compared to keeping them locked up or executing them.

And it is important to know what the law says about OC in Connecticut. But whatever it says, she WILL have a way to defend herself, one way or another and to do so EFFECTIVELY.

She was born with the right to protect herself and we will find a way.

Sorry, jefnvk, it's not you, but this really gets me hot under the collar. We home-schooled her for six years because we don't trust the authorities with her education. I'll be damned if I'm going to trust them with her safety!


matis
 
Yeah, I know. Keep forgetting that however common sense says that dangerous people should not be in jail (And conversely, people who are of no danger to anyone else should not be in jail), it will not be. I guess, that I look at it, and say 'in my world, there'd be no need for gun laws, sex offenders lists, titeling of vehicles, etc, ecause criminals would be where they belong'

Do what you can to help her, though. Another thought, see if the college has some sort of PE class she can take in self-defense or martial arts. I know we have a few martial arts class available to us.
 
+1 on the martial arts classes

When I was heavily involve with the martial arts, I taught a "self defense" class to (primarily) women, at the local college (my alma mater as it turns out). While it was only a 10 or 12 week class, I felt good knowing that my students now had the "tools" to escape from almost any dangerous situation. In a few hours, I can teach anyone how to disable and stop an attacker, long enough to "escape and evade" the threat (and I still do on occasion.)
 
Maybe a "friendy" visit from the (gun toting) neiborhood watch folk is in order. They could deliver to the sex offender a watermelon that had been shot with a .44 mag HP round and say something like:

"Welcome to the neiborhood. We will be watching you 24/7/365. If you even approach a child, teen or woman, your chest cavity might end up looking like this watermelon." :D
 
Ozzieman...your statement "I blame the corts and the lawyers that defend these people."

is absolutely ridiculous and a terribly un-American way of thinking. We don't live in Cuba or China or under colonial british rule or Nazi Germany where you were presumed guilty until you could prove your innocence (and in most cases couldn't). The Bill of Rights in our constitution guarantees a right to stand trial by jury where you are afforded a proper defense. That protects you from your next-door neighbor accusing you of a crime you didn't commit (let's take child-molestation for example) so that he can dig himself a pool in your front lawn.

In your Ozzieman monarchy, any individual within 10 minutes of a person accusing them of child-molestation would be found guilty and hung because no lawyer or court would defend them.

Personally I'm glad we live in America.

Now your statement "no its the fact that smart sleeze bag lawyers find ways of throwing out evedance, or loopholes in the law." is true, perhaps we are a bit too strict about evidentiary rules or perhaps there are too many loopholes. So close those loopholes by petitioning your state representative, state senator, etc to do more about it.

I'm not just making this up, you can read all about it in the Bill of Rights. It's the sixth-amendment, which is just 4 down from the second amendment that I also happen to agree with.
Here's the link: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm

I understand your frustration that sometimes the justice system fails and child-molesters are freed and commit crimes again. So figure out ways of improving the justice system so that it fails far less often but still preserves an individual’s rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. But your current "lynch-mob" proposal is grossly at odd's with the American principles of individual rights set out by our founding fathers and the Bill of Rights.
 
Maybe a "friendy" visit from the (gun toting) neiborhood watch folk is in order.
Click to expand...
Useless.
I know a SO.
He'd take that as a challange. Sick as is seems,,,it's all a game to him.

Been there - done that - (w/ the threat).

His reply was " I choked the life out of a 10 year old (gook) with my bare hands. How many people you killed?" " Don't write checks with your mouth, you a$$ can't cover".
 
pro-
yeah --problem is - he's family. (sort of - he was family by marriage but not anymore via divorce).

It's a complicated situation. AFAIK, his little episodes in this country have been limited to just "happy hands" and clumsy gropings. Other than that one,,(admission?/challange?), (I'm assuming most of his real nasty stuff took place in S/E Asia.),,there's just simply no proof he's done anything wrong. He's a real text book case. Salt of the earth type,,decorated combat vet.,,very well respected for his willingness to pitch in and lend a hand..good father,,good provider,,hard worker - yada yada..
His only "problem" seems to be with little girls.(and also with anyone that gets between him and little girls).

Even his admisson was absolute creep city...I'm taking hair on the back of your neck standing up wierd..
When I first heard of his problem, I tried the "That's all over with now. Try anything funny, and I kick the #$%# out of you" approach. He just stood there,,never said a word.

Maybe a year/18 months later, he and I were changing the muffler on a car I owned. The car's up on jack stands and I'm underneath. Being a Camero, it's a tight fit even on the stands. I'm pounding on a bracket when I hear him kinda mumble what I quoted above.. I slid out from underneath and looked up,,and he's just staring off into the distance,,like he's talking to himself..
Weird - scarry too. I got the heck out from under that car (Thank you Midas!!).

My take on SO's? Try 'em and fry 'em. Like I said though - it's tough. They're like these invisible people. On the outside they're one thing,, underneath,,sumpthin else. I'm 6 foot 200plus - he's 5 foot 4. I don't scare all that easy. I was scared @##@-less. I can't possibly imagine the terror a young child would feel if confronted by him...
 
Ozzieman,

You are absolutely 100% right!

"There is only one way to take care of some one with the tytle of "registered sex offender" and that would be to KILL them. No long drawn out trial, no 20 years in jail for apeal, KILL them.
KILL them all. "

It cant be said any better than that.

These people shouldnt be released. They should be executed. ALL of them.

And all murderers, rapists, etc.

The government wastes billions of $$ of taxpayer money to pay for lawyers, appeals, jail time, and "rehabilitation" for these people.

The problem could be dealt with very quickly and cheaply.

A bullet in the head for every convicted sex offender. No rehabilitation, no second chances to harm more kids.

Execute the scum.
 
If I had a convicted SO that I knew about in my neighborhood, I let him know I "will, if need be" deal with him in a way he wont find pleasant.

and it wouldnt be an idle threat.
 
Freedom- That makes sense. Convicted always means guilty because we are an infallible species. So you should kill him because 12 other people thought he was guilty.

There have been ~7000 people on death row since the death penalty was reinstated in '76, and 967 executions. There have been 115 exonerations.
In other words ~1.6% of people (115/7000x100%) who were placed on death row were later found innocent. Granted that number isn't huge. But is 1.6% acceptable? If you were wrongfully accused of a crime as those people were, would you take satisfaction in knowing that they only made a mistake 1.6% of the time and that 98.4% of the time they didn't mess up? Would you be even happier knowing that it took an average of 9.3 years to sit on death-row before their innocence could be proved, but you wanted a speedy-execution process?

I'm NOT saying in principle there is a problem with the death penalty. Hell if I guy rapes and murders a little kid, he should get much worse (in my opinion). He should receive a lifelong public torture sentence. Screw the death-penalty. It doesn't have that much of a deterrent effect. You're much more likely to achieve a sense of fear if you publicly torture someone for days till they beg for death and all the other child-molesters see it and fear to commit their crimes.

But again, would it be okay if you did this 1.6% of the time to an innocent person? Should we be okay with that? If 1.6% is too high, what is the acceptable limit? 1%? 0.5%? 0.01%? or should we be even less stringent? Is 10% okay? 40%- hey we're still better than 1/2 at getting it right. 1.6% is only for the death penalty; other crimes have higher and some have lower percentages for exonerations.

Exactly how much value do we place on protecting an innocent individual from wrongful imprisonment or death (or torture if the Bill of Rights didn't prevent it)? I don't know. There's a balance certainly for ensuring public safety and punishing felons while maintaining the individual rights of the innocent. But I certainly wouldn't be so quick to kill that guy in your neighborhood as unsettling as it may be, without at least giving some thought to the fact he may be innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top