just found out there's a registered sex offender lives in our neighborhood

[BehindBlueI's]

No one's taking it that far and you know it.

It sure seems like a lot of misinformation is spread, all with the "lesson" being the sex offender registry is useless because its chocked full of people who just innocently ended up there. I happen to agree its useless (or at least a poor alternative to a proven method of preventing recidivism), but not for those reasons. When I lived in the Middle East they killed sex offenders who preyed on children. It seemed to work, as young children were free to run around in public without fear or without their parents being worried. It freaked me out the first time I saw a bunch of unsupervised 8-10 year olds shopping on their own, but my buddies explained the whole "behead child molesters" thing, and it suddenly made a lot of sense.

The attack here seems to be that low level crimes or "Romeo and Juliet" situations land you on the registry, thus the registry is useless because you can't tell who was a "real" sex offender and who just got "caught up in the system". At least in Indiana, that is not the case. If you are on the registry, you were convicted of a crime against a child (a real child, not a 16 year old) or assaulted someone for sexual gratification. Pretending the registry is full of drunks who peed in an alley and 17 year olds who had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend but got "outed" by an upset daddy is a false narrative that leads to a controversy that isn't really there. We end up debating the meaningless instead of the reality.

 

[vitamink]

Yet another example of someone who doesn't need to be on "the list". I know two people on it who shouldn't be. And contrary to what some might say, they are NOT bad guys. They're not rapists or child molesters. They got caught up in some bad stuff. They should have been smarter about what they were doing and with who but they had no idea they were doing anything even remotely criminal. Sorry but if I met someone in a BAR who told me they were 22 I would probably believe them.

Just to prove a point, what were their names? Either post or PM me them and give their side of the story. I will go, pay, and transcribe the court documents for everyone to see. We'll see if they match up.

The only reason i ask is this, EVERY sex offender i've ever talked to (about 50 or so) has given me the "i was 18 and she was 15" or minimized their involvement while speaking to the railroading process of justice. And EVERY sex offender was full of **** to varying degrees. If you want an eye opening experience, go to court on a sex crimes trial. It's free. Go to a few and you can then make informed judgements about prosecutors and their malicious prosecution.

 

[public servant]

Pretending the registry is full of drunks who peed in an alley and 17 year olds who had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend but got "outed" by an upset daddy is a false narrative that leads to a controversy that isn't really there.

That's generally the argument heard from the offender or their family. It usually doesn't take much digging for the truth to rear it's ugly head.

As someone else already pointed out... mycase.in.gov

The registry is nothing more than a tool to use. To disregard it completely is just...well...stupid. IMO, of course.

 

[88GT]

I can't believe I'm with GT88 and GPIA7R on an issue. (wait, shooter? )

Hey, now!

Yeah, a few got the ban hammer the other night. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[jamil]

If you are on the registry, you were convicted of a crime against a child (a real child, not a 16 year old) or assaulted someone for sexual gratification. Pretending the registry is full of drunks who peed in an alley and 17 year olds who had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend but got "outed" by an upset daddy is a false narrative that leads to a controversy that isn't really there. We end up debating the meaningless instead of the reality.

You forgot pervs who get caught beating off in the park. There was a news report in Henryville a while back where they caught some guys doing that. I would think that should land them on the list.

 

[88GT]

It sure seems like a lot of misinformation is spread, all with the "lesson" being the sex offender registry is useless because its chocked full of people who just innocently ended up there. I happen to agree its useless (or at least a poor alternative to a proven method of preventing recidivism), but not for those reasons. When I lived in the Middle East they killed sex offenders who preyed on children. It seemed to work, as young children were free to run around in public without fear or without their parents being worried. It freaked me out the first time I saw a bunch of unsupervised 8-10 year olds shopping on their own, but my buddies explained the whole "behead child molesters" thing, and it suddenly made a lot of sense.

The attack here seems to be that low level crimes or "Romeo and Juliet" situations land you on the registry, thus the registry is useless because you can't tell who was a "real" sex offender and who just got "caught up in the system". At least in Indiana, that is not the case. If you are on the registry, you were convicted of a crime against a child (a real child, not a 16 year old) or assaulted someone for sexual gratification. Pretending the registry is full of drunks who peed in an alley and 17 year olds who had sex with their 15 year old girlfriend but got "outed" by an upset daddy is a false narrative that leads to a controversy that isn't really there. We end up debating the meaningless instead of the reality.

In Indiana.

Are all state's so logical with their criteria?

 

[Dead Duck]

Children are vulnerable.

Hey -
Adults are just as vulnerable. I've got a really nice ass.....

 

[cce1302]

Am I the only one that wouldn't care about things like this?

I'm in my late 20's now, I can come clean... but when I was 16-17... our idiotic laws would have hit me for statutory rape, because my girlfriend at the time was just 1 year under the age of consent. Would you give less of a crap if I were living in your neighborhood? We're married now, and closing on a wonderful home next week. We both work great jobs, and are morally awesome.

The definition of "sex offender" is ambiguous. Don't give it as much purchase as people want it to have.

You're right. Probably nothing to worry about.

In my neighborhood:

Name:	David A XXXX	Registration #:	XXXXX
Level:	Sexually Violent Predator
Status:	Active
Registration Start Date:	08/25/2011
Registration End Date:
Lifetime Registration:	Yes

• Description:	35-42-4-3 - Child Molesting
• Date Convicted:	02/27/2004
• Conviction State:	Indiana
• Release Date:	08/25/2011

I should probably not worry about letting my 3 kids, under age 10, walk over to his house. I'm probably overreacting.

A guy in his 20s with no kids is much more reasonable about violent child molesters in my neighborhood than I am.

 

[HoughMade]

Am I the only one that wouldn't care about things like this?

I'm in my late 20's now, I can come clean... but when I was 16-17... our idiotic laws would have hit me for statutory rape, because my girlfriend at the time was just 1 year under the age of consent. Would you give less of a crap if I were living in your neighborhood? We're married now, and closing on a wonderful home next week. We both work great jobs, and are morally awesome.

The definition of "sex offender" is ambiguous. Don't give it as much purchase as people want it to have.

I suppose that if kids thinking that is the law keeps them from playing like they are adults, I should let them remain ignorant, but what you have described is not illegal, not then, not now.

35-42-4-9. Sexual misconduct with a minor.

(a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 4 felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 1 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.


(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 5 felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 2 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.


(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).


(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).


(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:
(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.
(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.


(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.

 

[Dead Duck]

You guys do what you want (within the law of course)


One place I lived (not Indiana) was super duper populated. I made full page color mugshots of certain perps that I deemed "persons of interest". When my girls were small, we would go through them together and after a while they IDed 3 of them as their schoolmate's relatives and a couple more as people around town. I spoke with other parents and teachers so we would be vigilant to keep an eye on them.

One of them that I recognized had just been voted in as one of our fire department's board of directors. He was in my stack of mugshots for two months before I went to the board meeting and saw him for the first time. He just looked familiar to me until it hit me that night where I saw him before.

This guy was NOT just a simple, vague, offender like the record showed because I checked. With an afternoon of calls found that his former PO from an earlier violation was surprised that he was out so early. He couldn't tell me all the details but assured me that his violation wasn't because of him being 18 with a 17 year old GF. More like him being 50 with a 6 month old GF.

Yes - Months......


The fire dept. had just elected him to be Santa Claus for the town's Christmas dinner because he looked the part down to the jolly belly. This is the dinner where he hands out presents after all the kids get to sit on his lap, including MINE.

Should I have minded my own business?



Be vigilant and get involved because they are all over the place.....or don't.
Sometimes a simple offense was because of a plea deal and got a lesser charge. I don't know how that all works but my kids are that much safer because of the mugshots..............I still download the pictures today.

So do you think I do anything wrong here? or illegal?





Bite Me, Cupcake!!

 

[88GT]

You're right. Probably nothing to worry about.

In my neighborhood:

Name:	David A XXXX	Registration #:	XXXXX
Level:	Sexually Violent Predator
Status:	Active
Registration Start Date:	08/25/2011
Registration End Date:
Lifetime Registration:	Yes

• Description:	35-42-4-3 - Child Molesting
• Date Convicted:	02/27/2004
• Conviction State:	Indiana
• Release Date:	08/25/2011

I should probably not worry about letting my 3 kids, under age 10, walk over to his house. I'm probably overreacting.

A guy in his 20s with no kids is much more reasonable about violent child molesters in my neighborhood than I am.

There have been a ****-ton number of posts on INGO employing the straw man, but this one ranks right up at the top.



Just how often do you let your kids walk into the houses of strangers? And you said you were reasonable.

 

[Hoosier8]

A sexually violent offender (child molesting) in my daughters neighborhood. I have warned her. I do know of a young man that is on the registry because child porn was found on his PC during an unrelated investigation.

 

[Dead Duck]

There have been a ****-ton number of posts on INGO employing the straw man, but this one ranks right up at the top.

Strawmen have to work too.

 

[HoughMade]

Strawmen have to work too.

Join with me now: "I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain....with the thoughts I'd be thinkin', I could be another Lincoln...." aw d@mm!t, sorry about that. Now the neo confederates will be all over this one too.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You forgot pervs who get caught beating off in the park. There was a news report in Henryville a while back where they caught some guys doing that. I would think that should land them on the list.

Unless it changed in the new IC code, it would not unless it was in front of children 14 years old or younger.

 

[RedneckReject]

We seem to be forgetting the small detail that this registry isn't always up to date. Even if every single person in the registry was a serious violent sex offender, they don't always live where it says they do. I'm sure some of them are correct, but imagine if people had gotten all up in arms over the supposed three that lived next door to me. How many of us have multiple sex offenders in our neighborhoods? Probably a good amount of us. Now how many of those sex offenders actually live there. Probably some, but not as many as we think

 

[jamil]

Join with me now: "I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain....with the thoughts I'd be thinkin', I could be another Lincoln...." aw d@mm!t, sorry about that. Now the neo confederates will be all over this one too.

I sense a coming on.

Unless it changed in the new IC code, it would not unless it was in front of children 14 years old or younger.

As I recall they were cases where they exposed themselves to an undercover conservation officer. The in the mugshots they all seemed to be wearing the standard "rapist glasses" like in Jon Lejoie's video.

 

[cce1302]

There have been a ****-ton number of posts on INGO employing the straw man, but this one ranks right up at the top.



Just how often do you let your kids walk into the houses of strangers? And you said you were reasonable.

Who said he was a stranger?