Thursday, May 27, 2010

OFF TOPIC - The Largest Street Gang in America (6 videos in all)

Playlist Link


FL - Incompetant media, doesn't know the meaning of LOITERING!

Original Article (Listen)

You would think the media would be better at reporting the facts instead of what they think they mean. The bill says they cannot loiter, and loitering doesn't mean you cannot be there, without a purpose. If you are taking your kid to the park for fun and games, that is with a purpose and not loitering. Maybe they should open up the Dictionary web site some times.

05/27/2010

JACKSONVILLE - A new law bans sex offenders from going within 300 feet of parks and schools, and from loitering in areas where children play.
- No it doesn't! It says they cannot loiter or prowl within 300 feet, and being somewhere with a purpose is not loitering. Read the bill and definitions of words some time, will you? Never count on the media for facts, read it for yourself. And, this appears to be for those on probation/parole, for the most part.

The law also says those offenders cannot dress up like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny - both costumes that could allow easy access to children.

The former law addressed only nighttime residency for offenders, not where they could spend their days.

The law has the potential to impact practically all families on the First Coast, including the neighborhood where Somer Thompson lived. The child was kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and suffocated last year after she strayed from her siblings walking home from school.

Several months ago, investigators pointed out there dozens of potential suspects because about 150 sex offenders live in a five mile radius from Somer's home.

At a nearby Gano Avenue park, dozens of families converged for a baseball tournament. First Coast News spoke to some of those families about the new sex offender law.

Michelle Bauer keeps track of sex offenders in her neighborhood by looking on the sex offender registry online. She feels nervous whenever her children leave her sight for too long.

"Even sending my 12-year-old to the restroom over there," Bauer said as she pointed across a baseball field. "If he takes longer than a few seconds, it's like 'Get my other one to go look.'"

Grandparent Ray Probst is glad to hear about the new law.

"It means safety. (Sex offenders) shouldn't be around parks, schools or playgrounds," said Probst.
- Well, you see, the media is spreading disinformation to the public.  The law says they cannot loiter, it doesn't say they cannot go to these places, with a purpose.  So, they are not helping, but spreading "false security!"

The neighborhood has a constant reminder of a "worst-case scenario" for any family with children.

Somer's face smiles back at neighbors from a banner in her family's front yard, and a garden planted in her memory is lush with flowers.

"When we heard the (little league) tournament was over here, (Somer was) the first thing that popped into my head and I don't know why. It just did," said Bright Wright of Callahan.

"Even though we tell our kids, 'don't go near a van,' or 'don't talk to strangers,' it happens everyday. Kind of sad," said Probst.
- And most sexual crimes are committed by family and close friends, so only telling your kids the above, is not enough!

Probst said laws that limits sex offenders means he can rest a little easier on his trip to the First Coast.

"I'm glad they're doing that in the First Coast area. It is important to all the families here. Makes me feel better going back to Arizona. My grandkids will be safe!" Probst said.

First Coast News stopped by Somer Thompson's family home. While no one wanted to speak on camera about the new law, a family member said it is a great idea. The family member added that it is exactly what the community needs to protect children.


GA - Shh! Georgia’s sex offender law changed last week

Original Article (Listen)

05/27/2010

By Scott Henry

It’s gotten surprisingly little attention, but much of Georgia’s harsh and arguably unconstitutional sex offender law was effectively tossed out last Friday.

That’s when Gov. Sonny Perdue signed House Bill 571, the near-total rewrite of the 2006 state law authored by Christian Coalition head-turned-politician, Rep. Jerry Keen (Email), R-St. Simon’s. HB 571, in turn, was introduced and shepherded through the Legislature by new House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.

So, as of Friday, what’s changed? Well…

  • Sex offenders can’t be forced from their homes or apartments if a park or daycare opens nearby.
  • Judges now have discretion to exempt some registered sex offenders from restrictions on where they’re allowed to work.
  • Sex offenders are no longer be prohibited from taking part in such church activities as choir and Bible study.
  • Homeless sex offenders no longer risk going to prison for failing to have a fixed address.
  • Folks won’t be added to the sex-offender registry for a misdemeanor.

The new law also — and this is a biggie — allows judges to remove convicted sex offenders from the state registry after they’ve completed their sentence.

Perhaps just as importantly, the new law provides for sex offenders to be evaluated in terms of their relative risk to the public. For the past few years, the only distinction the law made was in the case of “sexual predators” — serial rapists and child molesters. Everyone else was dumped into the same basket, regardless of whether they’d been convicted of stalking or having sex with an underage girlfriend.

Law-enforcement officials, from the GBI to local sheriffs, have long asked legislators to create a mechanism to differentiate between dangerous pervs and folks like Wendy Whitaker, our cover subject from 2006, who has remained on the state registry despite the fact that she was convicted under a law that was subsequently overturned.

Which brings us to the new law’s shortcomings. For one, it doesn’t address the issue of school bus stops. You’ll recall that, under Keen’s law, sex offenders were prohibited from living near a “designated school bus stop.” That provision was enjoined by a federal judge, however, after it was realized that school systems frequently change bus routes and that there’s no official designation process for bus stops. At this point, I can’t imagine the state would continue to fight to salvage a provision that’s never been enforced.

More troublesome is the fact that the new law applies only to sex offenders convicted since July 2008, meaning it still won’t help folks like Whitaker. Those and other improvements to the law will have to be shaped by future lawsuits.

We say, bring ‘em on.


Supreme Court: Indefinite Prison for Having Photos, But Violent Robbers Set Free

Original Article (Listen)

05/20/2010

"Offenders" who did nothing but possess (and maybe watch) photos and movies, can be held indefinitely, after their jail terms are over. But violent robbers must be freed after their term is over. Strange justice.

People who watch tasteless photos (youth erotica, or real child porn) in the privacy of their own home, first spend years in jail, then can be held indefinitely, the US Supreme Court confirmed. People who rob, threaten, pick fights, bully, hurt children while driving drunk, infant beating nannies, dads who put their toddler into the microwave and turn it on, all these offenders are set free after their prison term is over.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered “sexually dangerous” after their prison terms are complete.[...]


“The statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,” said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

So far, so good. I wonder, though, why don’t you add dangerous violent people, who habitually commit violent robberies, habitually drive drunk and get involved in accidents, gang banger bullies who will return terrorizing others on the street Or repeat arsonists! The idea is good, just why exactly worried about sex offenders only?

The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

Here is the serious problem: People who possessed computer files, a set of 0’s and 1’s that decode into the depiction of some nude teenagers, can be detained indefinitely? They are a danger for society for possession of computer files? Even if it were the rare and unusual case that they possessed real violent rape photos of 5 year olds, what danger do these people pose to you, me, or our kids? Did they abuse? No! did they even take the photos? No! So why all the fuzz?

So the Supreme Court legalizes locking up, indefinitely, people who in the privacy of their home look at pictures? To protect whom? I worry about being run over by a habitual drunk driver, my kids being beaten up by a gang bully or robbed by a violent drug addict in urgent need to rob 5 times a day to support his drug addiction. But why should I care about a guy who stares at child porn in the privacy of his home? No matter how gross the pictures might be! And one can go to jail for nude photos of 17 year olds.

Now some guys were convicted for sexual abuse of a minor. As the Human Stupidity blog has pointed out, 17 year olds get convicted of this crime for having oral sex with 15 year olds. Or 22 year olds for consensual sex with 17 year olds. And we don’t worry about violent people who kill, mutilate? Or habitual prison rapists?

The guys “only” got 3-8 years. One can get such a jail term for possessing a few photos of nude 15 year-olds. At current sentencing practices for child porn or "child abuse", these guys probably did not commit real violent sex offenses on prepubescent children. Because the terms are relatively low, certainly these people were not convicted for habitually snatching 5 year olds to violently penetrate them. For such transgressions, the law would make sense. But even then, why not hold indefinitely people who habitually bully, rob, assault, beat and knife children, adolescents, or adults?


NY - NYPD cops (Kenneth Moreno, Franklin Mata) charged with rape after caught on surveillance video

Original Article (Listen)

05/11/2010

By Carlos Miller

They may have never been charged with rape had it not been for the video surveillance camera.

After all, who doesn’t believe a police officer?

But the video became one of the strongest pieces of evidence against two New York City Police officers who have been charged with raping a 27-year-old drunk woman who was passed out on her bed after vomiting several times.

The officers, Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, had helped the woman into her East Village apartment in December after receiving a call from a cab driver saying she was unable to pay the fare.

After escorting her inside her apartment, the officers returned twice in that same evening, including one time after they allegedly placed a false call to dispatch from a public phone in order to justify their return to the building.

It was the third time when Officer Moreno allegedly raped the woman as she laid face down on her bed. Officer Mata stood guard outside the door of the apartment as the rape took place, prosecutors told the New York Post.

Surveillance video captured them shielding their faces from a camera they spotted on the second trip. The two didn’t realize a separate camera caught their attempts to conceal their identities.

Their actions that night and during the following days — when they allegedly faked logbook entries — prompted prosecutors to build cases against both officers and eventually to reject a purported offer by Mata to testify against his partner.

Investigators also found heroin in Moreno’s locker, adding to his stellar reputation as a police officer.

The officers, who have pleaded not guilty, insist the sex was consensual, even though the woman’s blood alcohol content was between .20 and .33, according to Newsday.

Besides the videotape, investigators have also obtained an audiotape of a conversation between Moreno and the victim after the alleged incident where he apologized, according to the Post.

Wired with a hidden device, she arranged a meeting with Moreno, who apologized to her for his actions that night and conceded that she had been extremely intoxicated, sources said.

The probe involved numerous forensic tests at the woman’s apartment and interviews with virtually everyone who came in contact with the cops and her, including cabby Kofi Owusu, who took her home, residents in her building, and the two drivers involved in the accident.

The officers have been charged with rape, burglary and official misconduct.