On Dec 27, 2:01*pm, Paul Simon <pa...@hotmail.no> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 1200 -0800, 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...
>
> Heh, Sam never tires of hearing himself break wind! *

Is your name Sam?

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

> On Dec 27, 12:17Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Stan de SD <StanD...@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.
>
> 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.

Hey moron, you didn't address the issue, which was that in some areas,
it is simply difficult to find a "fixed address" that is not within
2000 feet of a school or park. While it might be nice for me
personally not to have any sex offenders allowed to live in my
neighborhood, they are going to end up somewhere - the rule is not
fair to people living in those other areas.

Also, do you think it really makes sense to stop a sex offender from living
within 2000 feet of a school or park when the offender's residence is
separated from that school or park by some barrier (a freeway, river,
or what not) that prevents walking between the two locations without
traveling at least 2000 feet?

Your "response" ignores those issues.

On Dec 27, 4:29*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Hey moron, you didn't address the issue, which was that in some areas,
> it is simply difficult to find a "fixed address" that is not within
> 2000 feet of a school or park. *

Yet they exist, usually in areas that aren't especially desirable, but
than again, who broke the law in the first place? Breaking the law
comes with penalties.

> While it might be nice for me
> personally not to have any sex offenders allowed to live in my
> neighborhood, they are going to end up somewhere - the rule is not
> fair to people living in those other areas.
>
> Also, do you think it really makes sense to stop a sex offender from living
> within 2000 feet of a school or park when the offender's residence is
> separated from that school or park by some barrier (a freeway, river,
> or what not) that prevents walking between the two locations without
> traveling at least 2000 feet?
>
> Your "response" ignores those issues

You seem to forget (or maybe never real understood) the definition of
"parole". Parole is a CONDITIONAL RELEASE - from PRISON, but NOT from
punishment. The release is conditional on your adhering to the terms
of your release, which includes conditions specific to your conviction/
sentencing. Parole is NOT a "right" - it is a privelege that is
granted as an opportunity for an offender to prove his ability to
adhere to rules ( a bit of a problem with most criminals). That means
you might not get first choice where to live - tough shit! If said
parolee can't find a way to meet the terms and conditions, he can go
back to prison.

I don't cry over a lack of special consideration for convicted sex
offenders. Only liberals seem to value the convenience of sex
offenders over the safety of potential victims... :O|

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

> On Dec 27, 4:29Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> I.e., you have no answer to a very sensible post.
>>
>> > No, Silly Billy, <snip>
>>
>> Hey moron, you didn't address the issue, which was that in some areas,
>> it is simply difficult to find a "fixed address" that is not within
>> 2000 feet of a school or park. Â*
>
> Yet they exist, usually in areas that aren't especially desirable, but
> than again, who broke the law in the first place? Breaking the law
> comes with penalties.

Sigh. The point was not the inconvenience to the offenders but the
inconvenience to the non-criminals living in those areas.

>> While it might be nice for me personally not to have any sex
>> offenders allowed to live in my neighborhood, they are going to end
>> up somewhere - the rule is not fair to people living in those other
>> areas.

(Note how Stan de SD not only ignored this, but pretended I had said
something else)

>> Also, do you think it really makes sense to stop a sex offender from living
>> within 2000 feet of a school or park when the offender's residence is
>> separated from that school or park by some barrier (a freeway, river,
>> or what not) that prevents walking between the two locations without
>> traveling at least 2000 feet?
>>
>> Your "response" ignores those issues
>
> You seem to forget (or maybe never real understood) the definition of
> "parole". Parole is a CONDITIONAL RELEASE - from PRISON, but NOT from
> punishment.

The law applies to sex offenders, not sex offenders who are paroled. The
requirement to register continues for life.

> I don't cry over a lack of special consideration for convicted sex
> offenders. Only liberals seem to value the convenience of sex
> offenders over the safety of potential victims... :O|

No, liberals merely look at all the tradeoffs and try for an
optimal solution.

"Stan de SD" <StanDeSD@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7b771ee-1008-46ff-996b-60a1f1bc2c26@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
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.
======================

Untrue. No address, no job, no parole.

On Dec 27, 8:26*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Dec 27, 4:29*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> Stan de SD <StanD...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> I.e., you have no answer to a very sensible post.
>
> >> > No, Silly Billy, <snip>
>
> >> Hey moron, you didn't address the issue, which was that in some areas,
> >> it is simply difficult to find a "fixed address" that is not within
> >> 2000 feet of a school or park. *
>
> > Yet they exist, usually in areas that aren't especially desirable, but
> > than again, who broke the law in the first place? Breaking the law
> > comes with penalties.
>
> Sigh. *The point was not the inconvenience to the offenders but the
> inconvenience to the non-criminals living in those areas.

Oh, really? Then why not put the perp back in prison?

>
> >> While it might be nice for me personally not to have any sex
> >> offenders allowed to live in my neighborhood, they are going to end
> >> up somewhere - the rule is not fair to people living in those other
> >> areas.
>
> (Note how Stan de SD not only ignored this, but pretended I had said
> something else)

Note how the same Silly Billy Zaumen now twists and turns this into an
argument about being "unfair" to the people living next door to the
criminal. So are you really arguing it would be "more" fair to
eliminate the 2000 foot restriction?

> >> Also, do you think it really makes sense to stop a sex offender from living
> >> within 2000 feet of a school or park when the offender's residence is
> >> separated from that school or park by some barrier (a freeway, river,
> >> or what not) that prevents walking between the two locations without
> >> traveling at least 2000 feet?
>
> >> Your "response" ignores those issues
>
> > You seem to forget (or maybe never real understood) the definition of
> > "parole". Parole is a CONDITIONAL RELEASE - from PRISON, but NOT from
> > punishment.
>
> The law applies to sex offenders, not sex offenders who are paroled.

Doesn't change the argument one bit. If the law says you can't live
within 2000 feet of a school or park, you need to find somewhere else
to live. And most sane, rational people don't give a flying fuck how
sex offenders are "inconvenienced"...

> The requirement to register continues for life.

Yes, because we know that sex offenders are seldom fully
"rehabilitated" and often still pose a risk. You actually have a
problem with that?

> > I don't cry over a lack of special consideration for convicted sex
> > offenders. Only liberals seem to value the convenience of sex
> > offenders over the safety of potential victims... :O|
>
> No, liberals merely look at all the tradeoffs and try for an
> optimal solution.

Bullshit. Liberals look for a fucking crusade and throw common sense
and sanity out the window (thanks for appropriating my statement,
shows how original you are). You think it's some great crisis that sex
offenders are prohibitied from living near places where their
potential victims congregate under minimal or no adult supervision.
You also whine and cry that there might be some area that is within
the 2000' distance that you feel does not constitute a danger because
access is restricted (i.e. freway or retaining wall). Guess what,
Silly Billy? The legal system is overloaded as it is. Do you think
that some judge or the courts have the time and funding to survey
every corner of the State of California, and draw up pages of maps
resembling gerrymandered legislative districts, solely for the purpose
of making life a bit more convenient for some freaking sex offender?
That's why there is an arbitrary limit: it's easy to define, easy to
determine, and avoids wasting time on judges, parole officers, and
attorneys arguing over whether the west 1200 block of Thrid Street in
Hicksville is technically in violation because it's 1675' by air from
Central Junior High, but 2133' by foot. The courts don't need to waste
time and money over this type of crap...