On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> live, a state panel reported Thursday.

I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|

On Dec 26, 1:13*pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|


Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
with innocent Children exposed to them...

On Dec 26, 2:00*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:13*pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
> with innocent Children exposed to them...

On Dec 26, 2:00*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:13*pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
> with innocent Children exposed to them...

Easy way to deal with the problem. They find stable addresses or they
go back to jail.

"Stan de SD" <StanDeSD@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cf02d2cb-8008-4e76-b467-f513c7bb5724@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 26, 2:00 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 26, 1:13 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 2:30 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
> with innocent Children exposed to them...

Easy way to deal with the problem. They find stable addresses or they
go back to jail.
===================

Your taxes at work.

On Dec 27, 8:29*am, "Dayafter Today" <G...@suckz.net> wrote:
> "Stan de SD" <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:cf02d2cb-8008-4e76-b467-f513c7bb5724@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 26, 2:00 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 1:13 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 25, 2:30 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > > > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > > > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > > > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > > > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> > Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
> > with innocent Children exposed to them...
>
> Easy way to deal with the problem. They find stable addresses or they
> go back to jail.
> ===================
>
> Your taxes at work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In case you haven't figured it out yet, many parolees report
themselves as "homeless" to avoid responsibilities such as keeping a
stable address and adhering to the terms of their parole. If you make
it a requirement to either have a permanent address or go back to
prison, then you will eliminate 90% of the problem with so-called
"homeless" parolees.

On Dec 26, 2:28*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> >> The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> >> increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> >> 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> >> live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> You might shed a few more tears if you were living in a rural part
> of California - being within 2000 feet of a school is more common
> in densely populated areas. *So, the rule simply makes it better in
> urban areas at the expense of making it worse in rural ones - they
> are going to have to live somewhere.
>
> Also, I'm not sure we are better off forcing these people out of their
> homes - if the police suspect something where the chances of being
> wrong are high, at least they can rig a vide camera pointed at a house
> to see if something is going on (e.g. kids going in or out) without
> spending a lot of money. *You'd have to assign an officer to tail
> these guys if they are homeless, which is far more expensive.
>
> There are examples (not sure how many) of where the law works very
> poorly. *One is Cupertino Junior High School, located (according to
> google maps) adjacent to Route 85, which is a 6 lane freeway with
> sound walls. *Judging from the map superimposed on a satellite or
> aerial photo, there are houses located within 2000 feet of this school
> (straight-line distance) but separated from the school by the freeway,
> which is not passable by pedestrians. *The shortest distance along
> surface streets from these homes to the school is well over 2000
> feet. Yet, depending how the law is interpretted, these people can't
> live there.

See my reply to the other misguided liberal in this group. I'm tired
of having to repeat myself all of the time...

Stan de SD <StanDeSD@gmail.com> writes:

> On Dec 26, 2:28Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Dec 25, 2:30Â*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>>
>> >> The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
>> >> increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
>> >> 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
>> >> live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>>
>> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
>> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>>
>> You might shed a few more tears if you were living in a rural part
>> of California - being within 2000 feet of a school is more common
>> in densely populated areas. Â*So, the rule simply makes it better in
>> urban areas at the expense of making it worse in rural ones - they
>> are going to have to live somewhere.
>>
>> Also, I'm not sure we are better off forcing these people out of their
>> homes - if the police suspect something where the chances of being
>> wrong are high, at least they can rig a vide camera pointed at a house
>> to see if something is going on (e.g. kids going in or out) without
>> spending a lot of money. Â*You'd have to assign an officer to tail
>> these guys if they are homeless, which is far more expensive.
>>
>> There are examples (not sure how many) of where the law works very
>> poorly. Â*One is Cupertino Junior High School, located (according to
>> google maps) adjacent to Route 85, which is a 6 lane freeway with
>> sound walls. Â*Judging from the map superimposed on a satellite or
>> aerial photo, there are houses located within 2000 feet of this school
>> (straight-line distance) but separated from the school by the freeway,
>> which is not passable by pedestrians. Â*The shortest distance along
>> surface streets from these homes to the school is well over 2000
>> feet. Yet, depending how the law is interpretted, these people can't
>> live there.
>
> See my reply to the other misguided liberal in this group. I'm tired
> of having to repeat myself all of the time...

I.e., you have no answer to a very sensible post. BTW, the Cupertino
school example I gave might not be the best one - I drove along Route
85 yesterday evening and a bit before Homestead Ave, there was a
pedestrian overpass, which didn't appear on the Google maps. The
point, however is valid - freeways are effective barriers and in fact
pedestrian-only crossings occur infrequently.

On Dec 27, 1:53*pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:29*am, "Dayafter Today" <G...@suckz.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Stan de SD" <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:cf02d2cb-8008-4e76-b467-f513c7bb5724@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 26, 2:00 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 26, 1:13 pm, Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 25, 2:30 pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> > > > > The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> > > > > increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> > > > > 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> > > > > live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> > > > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> > > > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> > > Oh, ? Im more concerened with the Homeless Families and Single Mothers
> > > with innocent Children exposed to them...
>
> > Easy way to deal with the problem. They find stable addresses or they
> > go back to jail.
> > ===================
>
> > Your taxes at work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In case you haven't figured it out yet, many parolees report
> themselves as "homeless" to avoid responsibilities such as keeping a
> stable address and adhering to the terms of their parole.

Do you have any evidence for that statement, or are you just
subjecting the group to more of your rightard wisdom?

>If you make
> it a requirement to either have a permanent address or go back to
> prison, then you will eliminate 90% of the problem with so-called
> "homeless" parolees.

You rightards always want to throw people into prison, but you scream
like little girls when someone points out that you'll have to pay for
it.

How much more are you willing to kick on your tax bill to put these
people back into prison?

Heh heh...

Rightards...

On Dec 27, 12:17*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 26, 2:28*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> > On Dec 25, 2:30*pm, chriseric...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Homeless sex offenders on parole jumps sharply
>
> >> >> The number of homeless sex offenders on parole in California has
> >> >> increased dramatically since the approval two years ago of Proposition
> >> >> 83, an initiative that imposed harsh restrictions on where they can
> >> >> live, a state panel reported Thursday.
>
> >> > I can't tell you how many of us are shedding tears over the fact that
> >> > convicted perverts are suffering sooo much... :O|
>
> >> You might shed a few more tears if you were living in a rural part
> >> of California - being within 2000 feet of a school is more common
> >> in densely populated areas. *So, the rule simply makes it better in
> >> urban areas at the expense of making it worse in rural ones - they
> >> are going to have to live somewhere.
>
> >> Also, I'm not sure we are better off forcing these people out of their
> >> homes - if the police suspect something where the chances of being
> >> wrong are high, at least they can rig a vide camera pointed at a house
> >> to see if something is going on (e.g. kids going in or out) without
> >> spending a lot of money. *You'd have to assign an officer to tail
> >> these guys if they are homeless, which is far more expensive.
>
> >> There are examples (not sure how many) of where the law works very
> >> poorly. *One is Cupertino Junior High School, located (according to
> >> google maps) adjacent to Route 85, which is a 6 lane freeway with
> >> sound walls. *Judging from the map superimposed on a satellite or
> >> aerial photo, there are houses located within 2000 feet of this school
> >> (straight-line distance) but separated from the school by the freeway,
> >> which is not passable by pedestrians. *The shortest distance along
> >> surface streets from these homes to the school is well over 2000
> >> feet. Yet, depending how the law is interpretted, these people can't
> >> live there.
>
> > See my reply to the other misguided liberal in this group. I'm tired
> > of having to repeat myself all of the time...
>
> I.e., you have no answer to a very sensible post.

No, Silly Billy, I answered it elsewhere, but since your inability to
find information you don't want to see is legendary, I will repeat
what I said elsewhere here, just for you (sheesh). Parolees will
often list themselves as "homeless" intentionally in on order to avoid
reporting/registering requirements and dealing with LE (parole
officers, at least those who do their job, are supposed to check up on
their charges on a regular basis). No fixed place of address makes it
harder for The Man to harrass them, in their view. If you start a
policy of picking these people up and bringing them back to prison (no
need to change the law, as they are already technically violating the
terms of their parole as it is), you will find a lot more of them
deciding to find a fixed address.