ngdawg

If you knew that a convicted burglar was living a few doors away, would you go to work each day and leave your door unlocked?
Do you park in town, cell phone on the front seat, cd's in plain view and leave the car doors unlocked, keys hanging from the ignition?
I was cautious before having any specific knowledge-don't answer the door or phone if I'm not there, etc. The 'system' of registration isn't perfect, nothing is. But it's obviously not perfect in either direction. The object of the OP is not an 'unknown' in terms of why he's supposed to register; to make assumptions that he was just a misunderstood youth could be a lot more detrimental than taking the information at face value. Your unlocked house may never be robbed, your unlocked car never stolen-if you want to play the game of chance, I can think of better ways to do it than with kids, though.
There are some that only go on witch hunts, wanting their neighborhoods to be some sort of heaven on earth and creating more of what would resemble the mob scene in Frankenstein than anything remotely resembling common sense and cautionary action.
Megan's Law failed both ways here. The sites linked throughout the thread are needed because of the failures and shortcomings and they are emphatic about their usage. We became aware of a 'possible' danger, not thinking there is a 100% chance of it. We took steps to further lower the odds by informing the Board of Ed and having the bus stop moved to our own street(which, really, should have been done in the beginning, regardless-the bus passes right by here anyway!) Yea, that's a witch hunt...

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

JumpinJesus

We don't deserve our constitution anymore. We need to find a country that will use it and honor it and give it to them.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

ngdawg

How so?
The Constitution isn't being tramped on....when you violate the rights of others, you lose a few yourself-that's the way of our judicial system. Felons can't own guns, vote, etc.
Nothing is foolproof and nothing is without shortcomings; if you don't break the laws, you're fine. I will admit, there are grey areas in all aspects, not to mention failings within judicial postionings-judges, lawyers, etc., are not gods and some are completely inept, but that's not the majority.
But laws protect the guilty too. Even if I wished to, I can't go to some felon's house and forceably get him out of town. I can't file imaginary charges (well, I could, but then I'd be a felon) on a whim just to be what some here have already labeled me as.
The subject has a right to live within the confines of his conditional release-in this case registering under Megan's Law. I have a right to protect my family-in this case keeping them informed about who lives nearby. He has no right to come after me and mine any more than I have the right to go after him and we both have the right to privacy. I don't see how this contradicts anything in the Constitution. (?)

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

analog

What an asinine series of rhetorical questions- do you (all of you) let your young children wander around unsupervised? I certainly hope not.

If there were parents out there supervising the young ones as they should be anyway, this would be a moot issue.

I realize that this person's house may be near a bus stop, or between your home and the bus stop, but here's the thing... there are two ages of children: dumb and happy (not dumb as in stupid, just clueless to the perils of the world), and smart and cautious. When they're dumb and happy, you have to watch over them constantly, yes? If the kid can't comprehend something like staying away from strangers, screaming if a stranger approaches them, and to stay with their friends at the stop, then they're dumb and happy- if they are old enough to be taught and understand the dangers of the world and how to avoid them, then they're smart and cautious.

So I ask you all- who is letting all the dumb and happy kids out on their own (unsupervised) to the bus stop? This is an ageless distinction, based on the child's ability to learn about dangers and what to do about them (partially based on maturity as well). The second question, then, is who is trying to foam-pad the entire world for the smart and cautious kids?

If a predator grabs a dumb and happy kid, where the fuck was the parent? If a smart and cautious kid is grabbed, then either the parent has made a bad judgment on the readiness of the child to be let alone to the bus stop, or you've got a situation where the child was literally grabbed up whole and taken off, not lured away or coerced- and that's an example of an act so brazen that it could have happened anywhere, and at any time; thus making it a pointless issue to hawk over those who should be ok by themselves. Hell, anyone can get kidnapped, it happens all the time.

I can tell you for a fact that my mom walked my brother and I to the bus stop (or drove, if necessary) and stayed there to be sure everything was ok until we got on... until our ages and maturity were such that we'd become smart and cautious and could be considered safe to travel by ourselves. I was born in 1981 to give perspective, and I was raised in a relatively small, peaceful town. In all reality, there was no threat at all- but she was there while we were dumb and happy children. For a while there, she even coordinated with another 2 or 3 parents on the street to take turns taking all the kids to the bus stop and watching over, so they didn't all have to go every day. It brings me back to something I seem to have to say all the time:

Where are all the fucking parents?

Moving a bus stop away from directly in front of his house isn't a bad idea, I don't disagree there- but you all make it sound like all of your children are out there alone with the alleged child predator (alleged because you have no idea what he actually did), and my question back to you all then would be- when your child is so alone and at the mercy of all these predators, where the hell are you? I understand people have jobs, people are busy and whatnot- but a job is not an excuse to not put the safety of your children FIRST.

And just to clarify- pulling favors of people who know people, and making calls to get a bus stop moved, and slandering a person violently before you even know what you're talking about are NOT protecting your child- you're just using a "padded room" maneuver. It is so named because all you're doing is attempting to put your kid in a zone where you believe they're safe enough to stay without you watching, so you can go back to ignoring them for a while.

I can't see an excuse for not watching your children while they're too young for them to be unsafe by themselves. Tell me, dear parents, what exactly is more important than the safety of your children- which you all say you cherish so dearly- that you cannot provide them the safety of your company? Hmm? Because that's what the whole thread is about. It's a simple question, so let's see the song and dance that ensues.

mixedmedia

I'm not sure why you are being so hostile. It is impossible to be physically present with our children 24 hours a day, seven days a week once they become a certain age and have lives outside of the home. I think we have a reasonably legitimate right to make the environments we live in with our children as secure as possible without infringing on anyone else's rights. I can't recall reading anything NG has said that implied this young man's rights have been been infringed upon. You seem to be disputing that she should have reacted to the news in a negative or concerned way at all. I don't get why you are so angry about that.

That said, most cases of child molestation are perpetrated by someone the child knows. Tell me how we are to keep our children safe from people we believe they are safe around? How are we to keep our children safe if we learn to trust someone whose past we DON'T know about? Personally, as a parent, I'm a little offended by your remarks. Who the hell do you think you are?

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ngdawg

My kids are 14 1/2. There comes a time when you cannot hover over them like a London fog. In this instance, the bus stop is now within sight-it wasn't before. I'm still what I would consider over-protective-I don't allow them to walk to the shopping center 5 blocks away and my daughter, if she is walking to the library, must do it with friends, not alone.
Myself as a child, I walked to school a half mile away from first to seventh grade; 8th grade was a bus, 2 blocks from home and every morning some creepy guy in an old Fairlane would cruise by very slowly, staring at us...
As MM said, many if not the majority, of child molesters, know their victims. Megan Kanka was killed by a neighbor with the ploy of getting her to come see his new puppy. A boy in Jackson, NJ was sodomized, killed and stuffed in a suitcase by a 16 year old neighbor when he went to the house selling magazines for school; a girl in Florida was killed by a friend of the family-she was seen on a video walking with him; a NJ teenager was killed by her best friend's stepfather after he offered her a ride home and she refused his 'advances'.
Were all these parents negligent? I truly doubt it. I don't want 'dumb and happy' kids, so they know the 'rules', they know the possibility of dangers; even when little(before kindergarten), I'd sit down, play with them and play-act dangers using their Little Tikes doll house(ok, that sounds strange, but I did). Watching over them is not enough; some things need to be drilled into them as well so that, when those moments of independence come, they come with knowledge.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

analog

First, i'm not being hostile. You're reading a charged piece and assigning hostlity to it because it disagrees with your opinions. If you happened to agree with me, you'd see my lament for better parenting in this country, not yelling. Second, I am hardly the only person crying foul on the rights of the person in question.

Right, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread- I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Personally, as a person who isn't a parent, I'm just wondering with great frustration where all the parents have gone- and it offends me on a daily basis to see the kids that the parents of America are raising today. I think (know) that I am a person with opinions. You don't agree, therefore you feel offended because you believe i'm aiming my dissatisfaction at you, as though you are the one i'm calling into question. Those with whom I have an issue (on the grand scale of all parents) know who they are to be mad at my questions. If you're the good mother you say you are, and I have no doubts about that whatsoever, nor would I make such an assertion about any person, then you have nothing to be offended about because my questions don't affect your good parenting.

ngdawg

If I may be so bold (and kinda hijack my own thread here), I am going to make some conjectures as to why you come off as 'hostile':

What an asinine series of rhetorical questions...
No, they aren't, they're all part and parcel of tasks designed to be safer than you would be otherwise.
If a predator grabs a dumb and happy kid, where the fuck was the parent? If a smart and cautious kid is grabbed, then either the parent has made a bad judgment on the readiness of the child to be let alone to the bus stop, or you've got a situation where the child was literally grabbed up whole and taken off, not lured away or coerced- and that's an example of an act so brazen that it could have happened anywhere, and at any time; thus making it a pointless issue to hawk over those who should be ok by themselves. Hell, anyone can get kidnapped, it happens all the time.
Yes it does and my mother, who was abducted in 1933, was done so out of her stroller as her mom sat inside visiting a friend-it was 1933-people left their kids outside the door. Of course, most don't do that now. We have fences and deadbolts on our doors and leashes for our toddlers. I have seen kids about first grade age walking alone to school across our busy 3 lane main road and think 'How stupid can parents be?' So, yes they're just as out and about as the bad guys. The problem here is, your statements seem to say they're out there even more.(Perhaps, not saying 'where the fuck...' might help?)
I understand people have jobs, people are busy and whatnot- but a job is not an excuse to not put the safety of your children FIRST. Personally, I know of no parent who would.
Tell me, dear parents, what exactly is more important than the safety of your children- which you all say you cherish so dearly- that you cannot provide them the safety of your company? Hmm? Because that's what the whole thread is about. It's a simple question, so let's see the song and dance that ensues.
This, as worded, is offensive because it's finger-pointing at those of us who are in this discussion.
I don't take offense; I've been extremely protective and involved with my kids and I have no doubt MM is as is almost everybody I've come across here and in real life. It's how you word your statements; I understand the gist behind them, but they're confrontational.
/end threadjack

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

mixedmedia

I don't see a lament for better parenting. I see accusations and the scapegoating of parents for child molestation. Do you suppose children weren't molested back when "parents were better"? Well, yes, of course they were, only people didn't talk about it like they do today. I agree that this man has rights, but can you explain to me more specifically how his rights have been infringed upon? By moving the bus stop? By informing the pre-school up the street? How? Or is it simply that NG exhibited alarm at discovering he was there? Because that's what it seems like.


Yes, it is. Because it is quite conceivable that this person in NG's neighborhood could befriend her family without them knowing about his past. Becoming someone they know. Making the point that this man's past is NG's business and the business of everyone else in their neighborhood.

I understand your frustration about many parents these days, but I really don't think it has much bearing on this subject. And as for "your aiming your dissatisfaction" at me, I have already divulged on this thread that I have had a very intimate, personal experience with child molestation and perhaps your use of the term "all of you" gave me the impression you were talking to "us," the parents participating on this thread. And for your information, yes I am a very good, very protective, very involved parent and my children were molested. Your argument is better suited to discussions about juvenile delinquency.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

analog

Right, it's also conceivable that he dies tomorrow in a car accident, or he discovers the cure for cancer, or he dies old and lonely, or he gets a new job and moves away. We can sit here and play "what if" all day; that doesn't make any imaginary scenario we can come up with relevant to the discussion.

The point of the thread was that a law in place to warn parents of sex offenders didn't work and people in her community were unaware of his status as a "sex offender". It quickly turned into a discussion on the "witch hunt"-type way it was handled without any knowledge of the man's crime, and how many of you wish to immediately trample him and his rights when you don't even know what you're talking about- because you have no idea what he did.

THAT is the thread in which we find ourselves. My contribution was along that vein. I started talking about unattended children when it was asked quite ridiculously if I would go out and leave my front door wide open. My return to that question was direct and equally obvious- would you leave your child unattended? The answer again, obviously, being, "of course not". I then went on to discuss my dissatisfaction with the fact that many parents do ignore their children all too much, and do not watch their children like they should be.

How any of you, who are not bad parents, got the idea in your head that I was talking about you, or to you, is beyond me. I very clearly was talking about and to- bad parents.

Don't take things personally that aren't personal to you, and don't yell at me for pointing fingers that aren't in any way pointed at you. I never said or suggested or infered that anyone here is a bad parent.

Back to the topic at hand- I'm curious to see what he's actually done, knowing the way he's being blindly regarded as an active child predator.

mixedmedia

It appears to me that only what is deemed relevant to you is relevant to the discussion. It is perfectly relevant for you to go off on a tangent about some negligent parents whose children may or may not be molested by some unknown stranger? But my point that knowing who might be a danger to your kids without infringing on their rights is totally irrelevant? And for that matter, you still have not pointed out how this person's rights have been infringed upon. And you can't, because they haven't and you are doing the same thing to NG as you accuse her of doing to this man.

And if you want to avoid people misunderstanding who your accusations are actually aimed at, YOU might want to employ more appropriate pronouns.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

analog

Gonna have to go line for line on this.

There are not "some", there are "many" negligent parents, and there are more than enough children being molested, for it to be anything but a hypothetical to worry about them being molested. Negligent parent = easy target of a child = greater molestation possibility. It's not a difficult concept.

You use the word "might", and still think that's a good point? Or a point at all?

I didn't speculate that molestations happen, I didn't guess or theorize that neglected children are at a higher risk- those are known issues that are already happening, have always happened, and unfortunately will continue to happen despite our best efforts to the contrary. What you did was to create a fantasy world in which this one man is all manner of different threats you've invented for him that you have yet to verify on any level whatsoever are even plausible- not even including what he HAS done, let alone what he "might" do.

First of all, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say I'm doing the same thing to NG as she's doing to the guy. In what way could I possibly be infringing on NG's rights, judging her before knowing the facts, or anything else? This is probably the most made-up and baseless part of this thread so far.

Second, no one else who has said what I said (many of them saying so before me), have written that she's already trampling his rights. What was said is that by engaging in what became called a "witch hunt", she will be- mostly because there's nothing to tell us exactly what he did. I'm not sure how you misread every one of us who said the same thing: "by doing x, you're trampling on his rights without even knowing what he did". No one, especially me, has insisted she's already infringing on his rights- we've all said her future plans smelled of "witch hunt", which would be.

I see only one or two people who "misunderstand" my "pronouns", both of whom have every bias in the world to be misreading what I write (with or without intent to do so). I have a hard time believing that I've suddenly forgotten how to form a cogent sentence using the correct articulations. I said many times that only those guilty of that which I lament should feel that I am directing those comments to them, and my wording has been faithful in that purpose. I can't help it that you manage to be a good parent and still feel like I'm pointing the finger at you anyway... maybe you feel the guilt anyway because somewhere deep, deep, deep down inside you feel that there's something you could have done to prevent what happened, and some teeny tiny part of you vainly clings to the thought that you could have done something, but didn't... or could have seen it coming, and didn't. I don't believe for a second that you're anything but a great mother, and I don't believe that any other person here does either. This is not an attack on you- please stop seeing it that way. Seriously.

And 'not for nothing', but you're totally ignoring the fact that you're intimately connected to this topic on a very personal level- with all due respect, I have to point out that you may have lost a little perspective on the issue because you're too close, and you're reading into my words whatever you like (subconsciously) because you (subconsciously) "want" to feel victimized. I hate to break out the psychology of it, but there it is. People who are victimized look to be victims again- the worse the victimization, the worse the effect afterwards. It's the same reason that people who are raised in an abusive home grow up to pair with abusive partners. It's a cycle of victimization, and you're at least partly stuck in one, yourself.

I am not making a victim of you- please do not be a victim to me. This was not meant to insult, only to help. PM me if you like.

- analog.

mixedmedia

It is a hypothetical. Just as the fact that someone who has molested once may molest again is a hypothetical. One is not a more likely hypothetical than the other. You can split hairs on this all day if you want to. I don't understand why you're doing it, but eh...


So your hypothetical is that:

negligent parent = molested child
or
negligent parent might = molested child.

Choose wisely.

I created a fantasy world? Please, show me where I created a fantasy world making this guy out to be a threat.

Well, I've gone back and taken a cursory look, but I don't see anything resembling a witchhunt. City officials have been contacted, a bus stop moved, a pre-school notified. Sorry but I haven't noticed anyone else on this thread take their concerns quite so far as you and as far as I'm concerned your level of feverish outrage directed towards NG over this is as alarmist and reactionary as anything else on this thread.


The bolded part of this pre-school analytical hogwash is the only shred with any basis in reality. Only they are not deep at all, and they are one thing that all parents of molested children have in common. Vive la analog. C'est brilliance!

You understand very little.

*edit* And I'd just like to add that not only am I not a victim, but more importantly neither are my children. Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you understimate my kids and I, because of course, you don't know us. But just for future reference, minimizing people's real experiences down to superficial psychoanalytical precepts on a message board is pretty obnoxious. And to be completely honest with you, I think my efforts to become well-informed on this issue because of my personal involvement with it makes me more than qualified to have opinions on it.

To be sure, I am not the one making hysterical statements and drawing far-flung conclusions here. If someone else thinks so, I'd like them to chime in and point them out to me. I have discussed this issue and related issues on this thread in a very calm and unhysterical manner. Don't believe me? Go back and look. My problem has been your tone, and, apparently, my interpretation of your use of the pronoun "you." If I were calling for NG to go further and attempt to have him removed from the neighborhood or otherwise disrupt this guy's life you might have a point. But I'm not. I haven't. I won't. You see, because I know enough about it to see this from BOTH sides of the issue. How about you? I think it's obvious you don't.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

The_Jazz

I think everyone needs to go back and read the initial post. The whole point was that the system failed by not notifying the proper authorities. NG has every right to be concerned, and she's well within her rights to make sure that she and her kids avoid this guy, regardless of the actual circumstances of his crime. If she starts handing out flyers about the fact that he's a registered sex offender without knowing the facts behind his conviction, that's something altogether different, but I don't see anything along those lines. She's talked to the authorities and some friends and neighbors, and she's again well within her rights to do so. Finding out exactly what he did seems like the next logical step (to me at least) towards figuring out if he's an actual threat or not, but that's her step to make.

There's no witch hunt in progress, although it could certainly turn into that if NG declines to do the responsible thing.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

What's the material difference between handing out flyers to the neighbors and talking to them in person? The information still gets passed along. NG took on a large responsibility here -one no one should take on without a solid grounding in facts. She took responsibility for alerting the neighbors that someone on the sex offender list lived near them. If one of the neighbors then started harassing this guy, she'd be responsible for kicking that off. That's why many of us in this thread advocate actually finding out WHY he is on the list, BEFORE we go running to tell the neighbors.

The_Jazz

If you'd read what I've written in this post and earlier, I'm advocating exactly that.

If the neighbor harrasses the guy without any involvement by NG, how is she responsble for that? If she introduces a couple to each other and the guy ends up beating the woman, is NG responsible in any real sense? If she lets people know that a politician is moving in down the street and neighbors start protesting outside that front door, how is she responsible? The point is that other people are responsible for their own actions, and NG is responsible for her own. She's no more responsible for harrassment by someone else than I am for your actions.

As long as she's just notifying neighbors of what's she found, she's well within her rights.

As far as talking to neighbors vs. distributing flyers, one is a form of private speech and the other is a form of public speech. One is a conversation, and the other one is harrassment.

I suggest that everyone go back and read the original post before commenting any further. This thread has warped waaaay of the original post, even more so than usual. I'm as responsible for that as anyone else, but there are lots of erronious assumptions made.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

mixedmedia

I think this post effectively closes the matter on this issue. If anyone can find a square inch of ground with which to dispute this rationally I'll eat my hat. That is, if I had a hat.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

shakran

You may wish to go buy one

I didn't say she was responsible - i.e. liable - for the neighbor's actions, but the fact remains that the actions would not have taken place had she not run around the neighborhood telling everyone about the sex offender who may or may not be a real sex offender.

Well, if she knows there's a good probability that the guy will beat the woman, and she plays matchmaker anyway, then absolutely. She may not be criminally responsible, but to start the ball rolling on a situation that you know could turn out badly is at best unethical.

Totally invalid point. Politicians are public figures. Part of the understanding when you become a politician is that you're going to be beset by protestors if you're at all visible. Plus, the media follows politicians around constantly - she wouldn't HAVE to tell the neighbors, it'd be on the 5:00 news.

Yes, and the responsible thing to do is to go find out what the guy did before going off half cocked.

If you, based on shaky evidence, kickstarted my actions, you would bear at the least some moral culpability. Again, you might not be legally charged with anything, but that doesn't mean what you did was right.

I agree - however just because you are within your rights when you do something does not mean it's right to do it.

You're grasping at straws here I'm afraid. The information vehicle doesn't matter if the end result is the same. The end result of stuffing the neighborhood's mailboxes with fliers is that everyone in the neighborhood knows that a guy on the sex offender list lives among them. The end result of privately talking to everyone in the neighborhood is that everyone in the neighborhood knows that a guy on the sex offender list lives among them. The results are the same. I frankly don't care what method she used to achieve those results - it simply doesn't matter.

No one is protesting the manner in which she communicated her shaky information, we are protesting the fact that she communicated it at all.

We protest that because she communicated that information without having enough information for anyone to make an informed conclusion. All she had to do was find out what the guy did. Raped a 6 year old? Fine, distribute flyers, go door to door, get a PA system and drive the streets repeating the message. I don't care. The guy deserves it.

But what if the scenario mentioned earlier happened? He'd just turned 18, had sex with his girlfriend who turns 18 in 2 weeks, her parents didn't like it, got him convicted of statutory rape. He's on the sex offender list but sure as hell he doesn't belong there, and nothing in that conviction would indicate that the neighbors need to be any more worried about him than with any other person that your children might come in contact with.

Running around to the neighbors exclaiming breathlessly that you have a SEX OFFENDER living RIGHT OVER THERE!!!!! would in that situation at best cause the guy undue and undeserved embarassment, and at worst could result in him being harassed or attacked. And ALL of it would be preventable if the dispenser of this information had just found out what the hell was going on before she ran around spreading partial facts.

mixedmedia

I am following along here with interest, shakran.

But just for the record, I looked it up and the age of consent in NJ is 16.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

shakran

Then change the ages to 16 and 15 respectively It doesn't really matter, the argument remains the same. Feel free to alter the numbers to fit the laws in your state.

ngdawg

I did what I thought was responsible-without provoking or directly going after anyone, I checked status, convictions, etc. I told my kids and one neighbor with kids that the bus stop was in front of a convicted sex offender's home (and the fact he apparently was convicted of 'exposure', which just ain't cool when there's a school bus stop and a daycare next to his house). His status clearly states he's a tier2, meaning all authorities (police, schools, etc) had to know of his residence, which they did not, but do now. Residents are not required to be notified. (I did not point the man out to my kids, only told them that a felon was next to their stop, so we had it moved and reiterated their need(and the rules) to always be aware.)
However.....I made a mistake in thinking that this other mother would be as 'discreet' and within guidelines. Saturday, an 'anonymous' mailing came with this man's rap sheet and mugshot in it and his address highlighted. What's truly bothering me is that, on our street, there are only maybe 3 or 4houses with kids, only one with an infant and I don't really know these people. For all I know, some could be his family and for all she knows as well. The majority of the homeowners here are older, some elderly and certainly are under little or no threat at all and don't have to be any more cautious than normal. By sending out these flyers, Lisa essentially broke the law and may well have caused the very witch hunt I was trying to avoid.
I always and will always hold to the notion that 'knowledge is power', but some people just don't know how to use it. *sigh*

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

The_Jazz

Shakran, as tempted as I am to go through your post line by line, I'm not going to. What I am going to do is try to sum up your point as I interpret it - don't do anything at all including discussing it with any one at all until you find out the facts. Is that correct?

The indisputable fact at the center of this discussion is that the guy is a sex offender. He's on the registry, and that's the sole basis of the definition as we're using. That also means her information isn't "shaky". Exactly what sex crimes he committed was only answered in NG's last post (flashing), and until now we haven't had any idea whether or not he's a threat. Even now, we still don't really know.

If I've gotten your point correctly, you would disallow any neighbors asking if they knew anything about the sex offender that just moved in down the street. You would also disallow one neighbor letting another know that there was a potential threat. That seems counterintuitve to me, so I hope I've gotten your point wrong.

Just so you know, I'm going to keep talking to my friends and neighbors about anything I want. You just let me know if you object to that.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

shakran

In today's information age, when finding out that information is a mouse click away, you should absolutely find it out before you go running around telling people about it. Protect your children, but don't unfairly paint your neighbor as evil until you KNOW he's evil.


Let's say for the sake of argument that we also have a murder offender list. Anyone ever convicted of killing anyone else is automatically put on that list. You get drunk one night and run someone over. Involuntary manslaughter, you're on the list. You finally get out of jail, move into a neighborhood, and suddenly you have a neighbor running around saying you're a murderer. They're all buying guns and trying to get you kicked out of the neighborhood because they ASSUME you killed someone in cold blood, simply because you're on that list. Are you seeing yet where that list might not exactly contain all the facts that you should have before you start persecuting someone? And in the situation I described frankly you committed a worse crime than the just-turned-adult having sex with the not-yet-adult girlfriend.


Exactly my point. So don't treat him like any more of a threat than ANY unknown person is. Frankly the sex offender list can be a bad idea for parents - - Oh my next door neighbor isn't on the list, he must be a wonderful guy. I'll just go watch the soaps while the kid plays outside.

And yet you advocate stirring up the neighborhood over an unknown?

They're allowed to say anything they want, no matter how morally reprehensible it is.

Before the internet you might have a point. Used to be it took several weeks to find out convictions information on someone. If that were the case, sure, let people know the guy might be a threat. But from the time you find out he's on the sex offender list it will take a maximum of 10 minutes to find out the details of his conviction. Are you saying that the situation is potentially so dire that you can't wait TEN MINUTES before shouting the news to the neighbors? Gimme a break!

The_Jazz

Yet it took NG 5 days (or so, I didn't bother counting) to find out what the offense was. I have a sex offender living on the next block down from me, and I ended up having to call my alderman's office to get help finding out if he was a threat or not. Maybe it's easy for you to find this kind of information in 10 minutes, but it took me over a week a couple of years ago.

I think that you're mistaken about what I'm saying - again. I am not advocating for a posse - at all. I am not advocating for anyone handing out flyers - at all.

I am advocating talking to your neighbors. They may know something. They may not. The gist of what you're telling me is that talking to my neighbors is a bad thing, and I'll never accept that.

Again, I'm only responsible for me legally or morally. If I tell someone something and they chose to do something reprehensible with that, I'm morally culpable if I could foresee the result as a possibility. If I tell my homophobic neighbor that a gay couple is moving in down the street, I'm morally culpable if he does something, but if I tell my other, tolerant neighbor what have I done wrong? What if I don't know how they stand on the issue?

How about if I notice one neighbor has left the gate to his pool open when he left town. With your logic it's a bad idea to call my other neighbor with young children to alert them to the potential threat. It's certainly not an immenent one, and there's no guarantee that any kid will wander through the gate or one that the kid will get in the pool if they do or one that they'll drown if they do get wet.

Shakran, go back to the beginning and reread everything. Please point out where I wanted to form a mob. All I see is discussion among friends and neighbors. Are you telling me that this guy's privacy is automatically the elephant in the room that no one ever mentions? Gimme a break!

Again, I'll keep talking to my friends and neighbors about anything I want and that they'll listen to. Let me know when you figure out how that's a bad thing.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

ngdawg

No, took me one day. I work, can't post 24/7
He has two convictions(I posted them early on): first one, in 2000, Wreckless endangerment of a minor-sexual assault. Second, in 2003, Indecent Exposure to stranger women.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Glory's Sun

Ok. So here's the deal. They guy has convictions. He's on the sex offender list. Now the police are aware of things. That's enough right there. If he was deemed to be a predator, then he'd be listed as such and would be tier 3 (at least I hope NJ is smart enough to recognize that). There is no need to go any further with mailings as Lisa did. There has to be a point in time when the guy can live his own life and do what he should do. I think it would be rather difficult to try and become a model member of society if everyone just looks at his past and doesn't allow him to live peacefully. If people continue on the media fed witch hunts guess what? The predatory sex offenders are going to go underground and the problem will be alot worse than it is now. Sure watch your kids and keep an eye out but let the guy live his life. Like I've said before, for every 1 sex offender you hear about on the news, there's countless of them holding down good jobs and trying to make a better life for themselves just like the non-sex offender world.

ngdawg

Which, with the help of Shanifaye and Guccilvr, I did very quickly. I had the information of the charges that put him on the registry before they pointed me to where details could be had, but no one went off half-cocked.
It'd be a little more prudent to the discussion if you would not keep going back to this comparative scenario for a couple of reasons: 1) anyone coming into the discussion would get some dumb idea that I'm distressed over a horny kid who couldn't keep it zipped and 2) it's not the point at all.
All this back and forth and you keep insinuating that the subject of the OP's status was conjecture on my part. In this particular instance, we have two convictions of a sexual/lewdness nature; whether he's a known threat or not, I play to the side of caution and that includes what's unknown in my corner of the world.
If the one neighbor I informed goes on some vigilante tirade, it's her choice and ultimately, her own consequence to bear. Hindsight is 20/20 and I'd have been better off calling the police dept. myself to acquire information, but I knew her brother was on the force and erroneously felt she'd handle what was told in a mature, lawful way. I think she crossed a line sending out the flyers but even there I might be wrong; however, according to the NJSP site, it was not her job to do and violated the intended use of the site. But again, that was her choice, not mine and ultimately, it becomes her consequence.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

analog

Yeah. Ok.

Psychoanalysis of a real experience does not minimize anything, nor is it a superficial gesture. Don't attempt to insult me by saying it's obnoxious.

I didn't say you were unqualified. If you're not going to bother reading and comprehending what I write, I don't see why you then bother to attempt to answer back.

Words.

Have fun with the rest of this thread.

shakran

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that then. I personally would not have run to the neighbors until I knew what I was talking about.

This is the first time I've brought it up.

It's not my fault if they don't inform themselves of the facts before they make assumptions over what you're distressed about. Hell, that's the whole point we're trying to make to you here, is don't go off half cocked before you know the facts.

Yes, it is.

I applaud that. Watch your kids carefully, and not just because someone's on some stupid list. Every offender on that list had a first offense before which he wasn't on that list.

However, you also admit in that statement that you didn't know the nature of those convictions. Finding them out before getting the neighbors involved would have been the prudent thing to do.

You can't assume that with hot button issues. People have a visceral reaction to sexual predators, and if they even THINK someone is a predator, they're liable to do unfortunate things. Now, don't get me wrong. If he's REALLY a sexual predator, then he brought everything on himself. But don't start that ball rolling unless there's a need.

Agreed.

True, but had you found out the facts and then gone through proper channels, it never would have happened.

ngdawg

I had the convictions/charges in front of me along with name and address. I went to one person with close personal ties to people of authority. I did not 'run to the neighbors'. From the first post: One block from our house, directly across the street from where my and 11 other kids catch their school bus, lives a convicted child molester-his crimes were Wreckless Endangerment of a Child and Aggravated Sexual Assault. In my 6th post, I stated his tier status and the years and details of his convictions.

No, it's not. Four times in 27 total posts. That's as far as I went, though. Might have been more...just wanted to show you that you are indeed using one constant unrelated scenario to prove your point.


And, except for not being able to find his tier status immediately, I did not go 'off half-cocked'.


Now who is going off half-cocked? You were given the exact nature and status of someone's profile and still use some ridiculous analogy to prove...what? That the NJSP could possibly be, as you keep pointing out, 'going off half-cocked'? You have the same information I do, but choose to use the same excuses to make your point, when it's simply not prudent.


I never said I didn't know what his crimes were; I knew what they were from the start-it was his tier status that needed to be dug up. You came here guns blazing accusing me of going on some witch hunt. Please read and tell me where I said I don't know what he did.


I'd like to reverse that and say don't assume he just didn't know his girlfriend was only 16. It goes both ways and excuse me if I have a vested interest in my children's safety and choose to put that first instead of making assumptions that all is well, really.

I went where I had to go to find out what I needed, again, facts in hand save his tier status. The person that did not go through 'proper channels' was the perpetrator. The person I first contacted is married to a town employe and the sister of a town cop, a friend of the police captain, none of whom was aware of the existence of the subject. Should I myself have contacted the captain? Hindsight says yes, but at the time, shortcuts to quick resolution said yes. That is not 'going off half-cocked'; not perfection in resolving either, but certainly not the badly performed melodrama you've made it out to be.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

shakran

Erm. . .nowhere in the example you posted did I mention a murder-offender list. .
To be completely honest, I have no idea what you're referring to here. I can't see how this relates to the part of my post that you quoted. I was given the exact nature and status of the person's profile AFTER you had already started this thread and AFTER it had already been pointed out to you that you should find out what he did. I was then speaking in general terms - not specifically to you - that going off half cocked in situations like this is not a good idea for ANYONE to do, not just you.


Really? Then what, specifically, did he do, and who did he do it to? Did she consent to it? Did he know her? Was the conviction the result of a plea bargain?

Actually, Analog accused you of going on a witch hunt. I said, after you finally found out some more information, that it's no LONGER a witch hunt.

Hope you have a while. . .


if you have to assume something you don't know it.

Again, assuming means you don't know.

"more or less point to" does not mean you know what happened.

Here you say that while you don't have the information, you know where you can get it but are unwilling to pay for it.

Generally suggesting something is not the same as proving it, and it means you still don't know what the hell he did.

How much more clear do you have to make it before you convince yourself that you didn't know what he did?

I didn't. I said I didn't know what he did, and neither did you. I said find OUT what he did before you react to it.

I have a vested interest in my child's safety too and that means I don't need some damn sex offender list, because I watch him around other people no matter WHAT I do or do not know about those people. If I received partial, incomplete, shoddy information on the criminal history of someone in my neighborhood, you'd better damn well believe I'd take it VERY seriously - - and would then find out what the hell he did so that I would know how best to address the situation. But really, the situation with the kid wouldn't change - I wouldn't have trusted the guy even if he wasn't on some list.

I'm confused on how you seem to think that going to your neighbor in order to get an answer from the cops would be faster than going straight to the cops. The truth of the matter is that you acted without considering what your best options were. That's fine - hell we all do that. Just admit it and try to do better next time.

ngdawg

Tell me where there's a victim's registry and I'll get right on it. Until then, the information released by the NJSP was as thorough as the law allows. What the crimes were/are are clear enough to pose the remotest threat to the public. My assumptions that they were not of your continually pointed out 'sex with a consenting girl under 18' is certainly closer to what the details point to and, less than 24 hours later, his status confirms, best as can be allowed under law. You yourself are making assumptions that I 'assumed' with nothing in front of me. That's a stupid way to handle things, IMO. No final conclusions have been or were drawn, but acting upon what I had and have was important to rectify mistakes made by the subject and by the authorities as quickly and as safely as could be done without undue harm to anyone-which is what happened.
Yes, I could pay $35.95 and get his phone number, his past addresses, his employment records, where he served time, etc. I wasn't willing to do that, Shanifaye told me what to look for, I found it. Got a problem with that, Pookie?
I pointed out your consistent use of a trivial scenario as quoted in post 67 in the last line. Please do try to read through, dear, so I don't have to keep repeating...
Someone, possibly you (It's late and I don't feel like opening another window again, still...) made the erroneous remark that someone would plea bargain UP...that's what that is in reference to. If someone is going to pea-bargain to an endangering a minor with sexual assault, the assumption could be made their original charges were much worse. If that wasn't clear, sorry. It's a response to a post, not a specific conjecture.

I'm done answering you. You have a distinct need to pick apart, make inconsequential analogies and basically put me on the defensive for protecting my family as if some grievous harm had come to this poor misunderstood man as a result of my perceived vigilanteism. You'd make a good defense lawyer at a rape trial....

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

shakran

Congratulations - -for the first time on TFP, you've actually managed to make me personally pissed at something I read here, which is why I'm about to be a hell of a lot more blunt than even I usually am.

Quite frankly I resent the hell out of just about everything you said. Because I refuse to go off half cocked and paint someone as pure evil before I KNOW they're pure evil, you act like I'm putting you on the defensive. I protect my family too, but to be brutally blunt, I do it more intelligently.

You can play the pookie and the dear games all you want, but your condescending tone does not erase the idiocy you pulled in this situation. Face facts, "dear," you messed up. You should have called the cops and asked them about this guy before you went to the nutty neighbor who decided to conduct a one woman war against the man before either one of you knew what the hell he did. You've even admitted that you should have done that, yet somehow I am still wrong in all this. That's absurd.

Yes, I do consistantly use alternative scenarios to try and explain basic concepts to people who just plain don't get it, and I will continue doing so. It seems to work, at least most of the time.

Shanifaye should have had the opportunity to tell you what to look for BEFORE you turned the neighbor loose on this guy. We are fortunate in this situation that the neighbor turned out to be a matter of genuine concern. You particularly are fortunate because if he HADN'T been a person of concern or (as has happened many, MANY times) had been on the list mistakenly due to a clerical error, he could have sued the holy crap out of you and your whackjob neighbor, and you both would have deserved it.

sapiens

If I found out that there was a convicted sex offender living across the street, I would immediately assume he was dangerous. He is more of a threat than any "unknown" person, regardless of the specifics of his crime. Past criminal behavior, whatever it may be is a good predictor of future criminal behavior. I will always protect the interests of my family over the interests of an unknown convicted sex offender.

After immediately assuming that he is a threat, I would try to find out more about the particulars of his offense. I would adjust my outlook from there.

I don't see any problem with going to a neighbor to discuss the situation. I might ask the advice of a friend before I went to the police. No angry mob was formed as a consequence. There was no lynching. His conviction is a matter of public record. I think that it is reasonable to discuss it in public.

If someone I meet is a convicted felon, regardless of the specifics, I will be hesitant around them. Even if I found out later that they were convicted of having sexual intercourse with their 17 year old girlfriend at age eighteen, I would still feel justified with my initial hesitation. (Though my opinion of them would change for the better).

That said, the sex offender registry system seems seriously flawed. I know that in many communities, it is impossible for a convicted sex offender to find a place to live- all apartments are too close to an "off limits" area. If convicted and released sex offenders are so dangerous, perhaps we need to improve their rehabilitation. I also know of people who must register because of a streaking incident in college. Being a registered sex offender for such an offense is absurd. Knowing this, I would still assume that an unknown sex offender is dangerous before knowing more about him (or her).

analog

Absolutely.

And watch that "crap" word... apparently using a naughty word makes a person "hostile".

mixedmedia

Shut the fuck up.

this message is delivered with affection and with tongue firmly lodged in cheek

as you were...

I take it back. You're just an asshole. I could be obnoxious and make some psychological analyses based on real experience, too. But that's just not my way.

Have a nice day.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

ngdawg

Sued for what? Moving a bus stop? Yea, that'll show me...
It wasn't what words you used, it's how they're applied and the perceived tone.
Careful there, assumption apparently is a tier3 crime....
If my kids were in the path of an oncoming car, I don't think I'd try to analyze how fast it was going, who the driver is, what the make is, before getting them out of harm's way. First, I'd get them out of there.
The so-called 'whacked out neighbor' did what I should have done-went to the authorities. In doing so, an overlooked mistake was rectified. Granted, anonymously sent rap sheets were mailed, but for all I know, she might have been advised to do so-I only know by reading the NJSP guidelines on their registry site that the information posted was not to be used that way, so I didn't do it. Hell, for all I know, she didn't mail them either, maybe someone else did.
To make accusations against me, regarding some imagined vigilanteism and lack of 'intelligence' is just ridiculous in light of what had happened and went completely offcourse. The simple matter is, Megan's Law, as you and I and others have stated, is flawed, but it's the way the law is, it's there for public protection and, as long as anyone stays within the somewhat skewed parameters of it, rights are not infringed. Taking the 'side' of a felon, coming down on anyone who would dare to act on their family's behalf is incredulous to me, specially when the constant idea that the action was 'half-cocked', etc. is pushed and that hasn't been the case here.
Is it better to not have a registry? Is the unknown just as 'dangerous'? To the second, I'd say yes and have acted accordingly in regards to teaching my kids. To the first, though, just like we have to assume until more information is available that the offender is not some misunderstood boyfriend of a 16 year-old, the authorities that control the online registry have to assume that those who use it are responsible adults. My responsibility has not been compromised just so I could go 'whacko' on anyone. I have no control over anyone else who gets the same information.

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Glory's Sun

There's no such thing as a perfect law, a perfect system, a perfect parent. I'm sick of the back and forth in this thread and think this thread should go back to the OP and perhaps go forward in how to make the law and/or registry system better. The "you should have done this/I didn't do anything wrong" argument is stale and old. Let's move on to something more productive shall we?

mixedmedia

I've already said my piece a while back about how I think the system could more effectively prosecute and penalize cases of sex crime against children. If there was more attention paid to the difference between predators and situational offenders perhaps a registry wouldn't even be necessary. The catch-all system of categorizing all crimes that involve some form of nudity as the same, or even similar in nature is, I believe, hurting the cause of protecting the public from dangerous people more than helping it.

And any system that requires convicted felons to be honorable and report their movements is not likely to be a reliable method of tracking dangerous people, anyway. Obviously those who want to stay out of trouble and are most likely to do so are going to be the ones on it. Those who either don't give a shit or want to be off it because they don't intend to stay out of trouble won't.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

shakran

Here we agree and that's why I feel sex offender lists should not be necessary. In addition to the reason I listed above that parents shouldn't trust ANYONE with their kids, whether they're on some list or not, there's another reason that hopefully everyone here will see the validity of.

Sex offenders shouldn't be on a list because they should never get out of jail. I've always felt that, especially if you rape someone or sexually abuse a child, that should be it. You're done. Life in prison, no parole. What's the justification for risking a re-offense? And of course if we put them in jail for life, we don't need a list in the first place.