Metro Jacksonville

given the recent events, jacksonville has approximately 1515 registered sex offenders in it’s 874 square miles (the estimate is 522 people per 1 falsely accused person ) or about 2 per square mile.  however, in our 1 square mile of springfield we have approximately 115 - or if you use a population of 2000 that’s about 1 wrongly accused soul per 17 people. maybe it's time to step outside, look to your left, look to your right and then across the street, many peoplle don't take the time to REALLY get to know their neighbor, now would be a good time. 

i have modified my description of these poor unfortunates.  i am sure that all but 1 or 2 of them were just a couple of poor guys in the wrong place at the wrong time after all - boys will be boys. ::)

wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Let's see if I can get this thread going: of the 115 sex offenders living in Springfield how many would be affected by the change to the legislation that SPAR is apparently trying to push through?

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Well what else would you call a pedophile and/or sex offender? They are POSs that will most likely not be rehabilitated, so who cares what they are called.

So are we advocating merely being aware of our surroundings and networking with folks in the neighborhood, or spying on our neighbors?  I'm down for the former, but not the latter.

Yeah, thing is, when you really dig into that issue you realize a lot of that 1500 figure is just mind-boggling bull$h!t.

Check out F.S. 800.04. What you'll quickly figure out with our "sex offender" laws is that they're just insane. If two high school kids are dating, and one of them turns 16 before the other, guess what...they're now a sex offender under Florida law. And you'd be surprised how often this happens. Everything's fine, and then they break up, and now all of a sudden the younger one (or their parents) are pissed off over harsh words or whatnot, and someone makes a complaint, which the schools now have a legal mandate (and no discretion) to investigate.

Florida also prosecutes as "sexual contact" things aren't really sexual contact. Kissing, hugging, etc. The definition used to be finely written as vaginal, oral, anal, etc., penetration, and certain other activities. The new definition is a joke. And the legislature, in its infinite wisdom when it basically allowed religious groups free reign to write these laws, also included mandatory minimums, so neither the prosecutor or the judge have any discretion at all. Straight off to jail you go, no matter how absurd the situation is, and oh by the way since you were now sentenced under the statute, welcome to the rest of your life on the sex offender registry.

This type of utter B.S. is responsible for a significant portion of our disproportionately high number of "sex offenders" compared to other states. Yeah, some of that 1500 number probably are "baby rapers", but the lion's share are just normal people that got caught up in a ridiculous set of laws that make no sense. Honestly, Franz Kafka himself couldn't have come up with a set of more ridiculous laws, where a kid can be prosecuted because he turned 16 a month earlier than his girlfriend. Or where kissing or non-sexual "body contact" can be prosecuted as a "sex offense".  ::)

And don't get me started on how, because the alleged "victim" is a minor (yet, they disregard the fact that the alleged "offender" very well may be too), you have limited rights to investigate, cross examine, or present evidence of the accuser's sexual history. But at the end of the day, Cindi, you really ought to be aware that under our state's absurd laws, a "sex offense" isn't necessarily what you'd consider a "sex offense"...

 This will not be a popular post but....And Chris has already covered this pretty well, but to help take the coming "heat":
Of these 115 sex offenders, how many are pedophiles?  How many have this term applied to them because when they were 18 they had sex with a 15 year old and the parents prosecuted?  How many have served their time and have not been arrested again for ten, fifteen or more years?  How many are predators? 

These are important questions, if not to worry about the rights of the offenders themselves, but why scare the public that they all are "baby rapers" when they all aren't?  None of these crimes should be tolerated, at least the ones that are real (IE, the 18 - 15 thing could be argued as not "real").  The good thing is that because they must register, we know where they are.  Passing laws that "push them out of your neighborhood" may just push them underground and then you won't know where they are and neither will the police.  And while you are trying to scare the public, how about those that haven't been caught yet?  Let's watch every adult male just in case. And , perhaps we should wath every adult woman as well as it does work the other way upon occassion....

There are laws in place to handle this issue.  Most of the rooming houses and such have asked known offenders to move on at the communities request. The best thing is to stay informed and be watchful.  And be honest.  We have received calls because the rumor was that we housed pedophiles and yet, a simple check proves we have not.

Keep in mind that those are only the registered ones too. Not the ones that haven't been caught yet. Given some time maybe we can go through the 115 in our 1 square mile and determine if they were charged with assaulting someone under 12, that would rule out the 16 year old boy & his <16 year old girlfriend scenario. And while we are at it, we could compile a list of where they are living. Maybe there is a hotspot or two or three that we would then be able to make sure to give a very wide berth.

Baby rapers evokes so much more emotion than the more rational approach.

Someone very close to me was molested as a child. (short of sexual penetration but life scarring never the less)

I don't take it lightly, but to misrepresent what the law defines as a sex ofender by catagorizing them as baby rapers does the cause against child molestation an disservice.

Oh it's much worse than that, Joe...

Under Florida law, if two kids get together, and one's 15 and 11 months and the other's 16, it's a "sex offense".  ::)

You already couldn't really get your head around the 18/15 thing, given the almost 80-year span of the average human lifetime, a 3 year difference is such an arbitrary figure upon which to be sentencing someone to jail, and branding them a "sex offender" for the rest of their life.

But the new laws are just insane. By comparison, the old 18/15 thing looks downright lenient!

Quote from: ac on October 23, 2009, 09:29:11 AM
So are we advocating merely being aware of our surroundings and networking with folks in the neighborhood, or spying on our neighbors?  I'm down for the former, but not the latter.

i was simply stating that it is very important to be aware of who you live next to.  

Ah, so its "do you really know about your neighbors," i. e. digging up dirt; not actually meeting or establishing a rapport with them.  Gotcha.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
Keep in mind that those are only the registered ones too. Not the ones that haven't been caught yet. Given some time maybe we can go through the 115 in our 1 square mile and determine if they were charged with assaulting someone under 12, that would rule out the 16 year old boy & his <16 year old girlfriend scenario. And while we are at it, we could compile a list of where they are living. Maybe there is a hotspot or two or three that we would then be able to make sure to give a very wide berth.

Well that's the friggin' problem, nvrenuf!

Nobody will break these figures down for you on these "offender" registries. I suspect the reason is that, if they did, the wind would be sucked out of the sails of this whole "not the CHILDREN!!!" response that people have with this issue. Who's going to give up an issue that gets people to the ballot box, and gets them to open their wallets?

Personally, I'm interested in finding out other stats on this issue. Like how many of Florida's alleged "offenders" still live with their own PARENTS? Or how many of them were prosecuted for "molesting" a consenting-in-fact but not-in-law victim whose age was, let's say, within a year or two of their own age? Without this kind of information (which you can't get), there's no way to know how many of these "sex offenses" are just a legal fiction.

I think the true stats would be shocking...

Quote from: strider on October 23, 2009, 09:37:25 AM
We have received calls because the rumor was that we housed pedophiles and yet, a simple check proves we have not.

I'll give you 3 guesses as to where that rumor started, and the first two don't count! LOL  ::)

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 09:16:59 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Well what else would you call a pedophile and/or sex offender? They are POSs that will most likely not be rehabilitated, so who cares what they are called.

Considering that the thread was about sex offenders, maybe you should read up on how a person gets on that list....it can include rape, date rape, an 18 year-old having consensual sex with a 15 year-old, etc....many (maybe even most) are not pedophiles

and since "most will likely not be rehabilitated" you've decided to throw them all into the "baby raper" category...wow!

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 10:03:45 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 09:16:59 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Well what else would you call a pedophile and/or sex offender? They are POSs that will most likely not be rehabilitated, so who cares what they are called.

well considering that the thread is about sex offenders, maybe you hould read up on how a person gets on that list....it can include rape, date rape, a 18 year-old having consensual sex with a 15 year-old, etc....many (maybe even most) are not pedophiles!

I have previously lived in an area with a high concentration of sex offenders and most of them are wastes of life! I stand by my comment. If that offends someone, too bad.  IMHO, some of our laws are too lenient! People get off and do the same freaking thing again.

And as far as the teenage scenario, they know the law, so tough-cookies. Hold out till your 18, esp. if you have crazy strict parents.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 09:51:57 AM

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
Keep in mind that those are only the registered ones too. Not the ones that haven't been caught yet. Given some time maybe we can go through the 115 in our 1 square mile and determine if they were charged with assaulting someone under 12, that would rule out the 16 year old boy & his <16 year old girlfriend scenario. And while we are at it, we could compile a list of where they are living. Maybe there is a hotspot or two or three that we would then be able to make sure to give a very wide berth.

Well that's the friggin' problem, nvrenuf!

Nobody will break these figures down for you on these "offender" registries. I suspect the reason is that, if they did, the wind would be sucked out of the sails of this whole "not the CHILDREN!!!" response that people have with this issue. Who's going to give up an issue that gets people to the ballot box, and gets them to open their wallets?

Personally, I'm interested in finding out other stats on this issue. Like how many of Florida's alleged "offenders" still live with their own PARENTS? Or how many of them were prosecuted for "molesting" a consenting-in-fact but not-in-law victim whose age was, let's say, within a year or two of their own age? Without this kind of information (which you can't get), there's no way to know how many of these "sex offenses" are just a legal fiction.

I think the true stats would be shocking...

Again, if you would read before posting...I said "Given some time". I'm working on the list for Historic Springfield only, having to break it down from the overall 32206 zip. But I can tell you so far Evergreen and Brackland are heavy areas. And lots of these say under 16 and under 12 and yes I am looking at the date of adjudication compared to the offenders age. Over 20 is old enough to know not to go after a 12 year old. Wouldn't you agree?

Oh and when I get around to offering the list, cut me some slack (yah right like that would ever happen on this forum) if I went outside the boundaries by a few blocks.

Quote from: ac on October 23, 2009, 09:51:49 AM
Ah, so its "do you really know about your neighbors," i. e. digging up dirt; not actually meeting or establishing a rapport with them.  Gotcha.

wow, you went to the same lame mind reading class others have and are dead wrong. meet your neighbors, regardless of if they live in a rooming house, single family house or RV.  

If you guys really want to see how utterly fukking ridiculous this stuff gets, let's just check some recent news...

Text-messaging Florida teen lands on sex offender registry:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html)

Just unbelievable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/us/10offender.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/us/10offender.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper)

Let's not forget this national humiliation from a few years ago:

QuoteGoing Down Down South: Fighting Absurd Sex Laws

Playboy

By Chuck Shepherd.

If Howard Fletcher, co-founder of the National Sexual Rights Council, has his way, spring-breakers will want to stay out of Florida this year. Too dangerous. Maybe they should head to Iowa. Or South Dakota. Surf's lame, but at least those states aren't weighed down by 19th century sex laws that turn sexually active tourists (and residents) into criminals.

Florida laws prohibit living together, sex outside of marriage and sodomy (defined as "any unnatural and lascivious act"). The sodomy statute also notes, inexplicably, that "a mother's breast-feeding of her baby does not violate this section."

The fact that the state of Florida included this exception suggests that any combination of mouth and breast not involving an infant violates the code. One wonders what law-abiding citizens do for foreplay in Florida.

Sodomy laws in Florida and in many other states are notoriously vague, a sign of the generally upright demeanor of sexually challenged lawmakers. An exception was the code in the District of Columbia, which showed the dangers of being too specific. Until recently it stipulated that carnal copulation was forbidden not only in the mouth and anus but in any opening of the body other than the vagina. So much for nostril sex or for inserting anything but a Q-Tip into your ear. Was such behavior a serious problem in the capital?

A more important question is: Do the punishments fit the crimes?

If convicted under Florida's antisex laws, which treat cohabitation, fornication and sodomy as misdemeanors, you could face up to 60 days in jail. By some standards, that's progressive. Thirteen states still consider sodomy a felony; some call it an "abominable and detestable crime against nature." Go down on your date in Michigan and you could spend 15 years up the river.

Howard Fletcher thinks all such laws are ridiculous. He could have chosen to make his case in any of the states that criminalize sodomy and fornication, but he chose Florida. If you are willing to go to jail for sex, better to do it in a state that can lock you up for only two months.

Last November, aided by a grant from Hugh Hefner, Fletcher flew from his hometown of Juneau, Alaska to Boca Raton. There he checked into a single-bed hotel suite with a female friend and performed with her a pleasurable variation of lewd and lascivious lovemaking. They broke all three antiquated laws almost before Fletcher's credit card number had cleared the hotel's computer.

On his third day in Boca Raton, Fletcher held a press conference. No, the sex hadn't been that newsworthy-- or at least Fletcher would not go into detail beyond specifying that oral sex took place. Instead he told invited members of the press that he was going to turn himself in to the local police, which he proceeded to do. (Yours truly did not.)

Despite Fletcher's full, written confession and several non-explicit photographs he made available, the Boca Raton police department said it would have to "conduct further investigation" before the state's attorney could decide whether to file charges. So far, no charges have been filed.

Actually, recalls Fletcher, the presiding detective, Guy DiBenedetto, was a "real professional." In the midst of a Kennedy-worthy array of local television cameras, "he kept a straight face and treated the entire process with dignity and respect. And he also said he'd have to be careful how he behaved with his wife."

The sleep-in became a teach-in. Fletcher carried out his act of civil disobedience self-effacingly, befitting his status as a 66-year-old great-grandfather who genially admits that he is occasionally unable, tumescently, to break as many consensual-sex laws as he would like.

With the National Sexual Rights Council, Fletcher has targeted the religious right as the source and defender of repressive sex laws. He describes the enemy as "bigoted, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, hypocritical, narrow-minded, power-hungry, inflexible, anal-retentive, prurient, nosy, reactionary, totally unchristian political terrorists."

Joining Fletcher at his postcoital news conference was the other half of the NSRC leadership, West Palm Beach attorney Elliot Shaw. As passionate on the topic as Fletcher is, Shaw warms to the subject of archaic sex laws.

These statutes "make criminals out of nearly everyone," Shaw told reporters. "Even you," he shouted at a female journalist who had confessed that she lives with her boyfriend. "The laws are based on the double-standard, Madonna/whore complex," he went on, "and they're simply not valid now, if they ever were." The steam in the room was palpable as Shaw plowed through a rack of Masters and Johnson statistics, evolutionary psychology theory ("We are programmed with a massive sex drive") and biblical history ("When Eve stretched out for knowledge beyond the garden, God gave her pain, enmity and total subservience"). He ended his rant sounding like he had just cooked up another agenda item: "These laws are almost something we should report to the human-rights people."

At the press conference, Fletcher explained why the council had chosen Florida. The sleep-in was the opening salvo of a three-pronged attack. Although Fletcher wasn't arrested, he and Shaw say they used his standing as an admitted criminal to file a federal lawsuit to prevent the state from prosecuting him (or anyone else on the same charges). In the suit they demand that the statutes be invalidated as violating the constitutional right of privacy. They hope to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The suit also seeks an order requiring the state to protect naive visitors, such as those spring-breakers, who may hop into bed unaware that they are breaking the law.

You have to love these guys.

On a second front, the NSRC is attempting to gather almost 500,000 signatures to place its Right of Intimate Privacy Initiative on a statewide ballot this year. The initiative would amend the state constitution to read: "No act of sexual intimacy committed in private between consenting persons above the age of majority shall be prohibited by law." That's a polite way of telling the state to butt out.

As its third initiative, the NSRC is pushing for repeal of the antisex statutes in the state legislature. The group is now lobbying to bring lawmakers on board. The NSRC counts on at least one of these three courses of action to succeed.

When it comes to sex crimes, Florida seems to be the geographic expression of a confused psychopath. Even on good days the police-blotter columns of the state's newspapers are filled with a disproportionately large number of paraphiliacs, both creative and mundane.

But just when observers realize that the best thing for the state might be for it to admit itself en masse to the Betty Ford Clinic, along come Fletcher and Shaw to reveal that Florida has even more perverts (hundreds of thousands, in fact), than previously known. It's not just the spring-breakers but also the senior citizens who buddy up out of convenience and occasional wildness. The criminal class includes swingers on baseball's world champion Marlins, and even the Goldie Hawns and Kurt Russells who drop in at Disney World or South Beach. (We have no idea if Goldie and Kurt have ever violated the laws of Florida. But if they bunk down in the same hotel room, they're at least guilty of cohabitation.)

For a nation whose church and state are supposed to have been separated, biblical admonitions and religious doctrine saturate our sex laws. Florida's fornication law, says Fletcher, originates with the notion that a daughter is the property of her father until marriage. (The government acts as if someone has broken into Dad's garage and ruined his power saw.) Similarly, allowing only marriage partners to have government-approved sex is based on biblical teachings that a woman escapes from her father's bonds only by becoming the chattel of her husband. Any man who slept with another man's wife, says Fletcher, "was in fact committing theft, much as joyriding is grand theft auto."

Despite Florida's take on it, the predominant view among Americans holds that marriage is merely a civil contract under which the parties are free, but not legally required, to commit to sexual exclusivity.

Prevention of sodomy--that abominable and detestable crime against nature-has a biblical basis as well, but Fletcher says it may also be grounded in the need for one tribe to outpopulate another. Hence, there can be no wasted seed. But Fletcher believes that the amount of thrill-ride sex today outstrips procreative sex by at least 1000 to 1 (which is good, if you believe the anti-population growth activists).

To be valid, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's familiar test of constitutionality, a law must serve a "legitimate" government interest, and if it infringes on a fundamental right, such as the right of privacy in intimate relations, it must have "compelling" justification. The NSRC says the three Florida laws that Fletcher violated and similar ones on the books in dozens of other states fail this "legitimate and compelling interest" test.

In fact, the only justification the government might muster is that it somehow has a duty to make everyone a biblically good citizen, just as some public high schools have SAT preparation courses to help students get into college, a lawmaker might argue, the purpose of these laws is to help people get into heaven. But it is done, in most cases, against our wills.

OK, the laws are stupid, but how big a priority is eliminating them? After all, asked one reporter, how often are they enforced?

"Every day," says Shaw.

He admits that the newspapers aren't filled with accounts of police officers breaking down doors to arrest fornicators. But the laws often crop up in other legal actions. Mary Albert was accused of forcible sodomy, but even had he proved that the act was consensual, he could still have faced up to five years in jail for it.

Most of the time the laws do damage in ways that are far more subtle. Last summer in Texas, for instance, a child-welfare official removed a baby from his foster mother's care because the woman was living in sin with another woman. The official contended that, as the state's sodomy laws criminalize homosexual sex, the foster mother was involved in an ongoing crime.

Lawmakers are notoriously unenlightened when it comes to revising sex laws. Letting the people decide through a referendum is a compelling idea. But getting on the ballot won't be easy. The NSRC will need those half a million signatures.

Still, says Shaw, the NSRC's campaign is a lot more realistic than waiting until a majority of Florida's lawmakers stand in the legislature to praise shacking up and lactation-free breast kissing.

So far, the demand for warnings to out-of-staters is the NSRC's most intriguing idea. The legislature might have to call on the good people of Sheraton and Hyatt and their stockholders to warn their guests and, more onerously, to check proof of matrimony before allowing two people to share a room.

Imagine if the state were compelled to display this warning at its borders:

WELCOME TO FLORIDA.
SPEED LIMIT 65 MPH.
CONJUGAL SEX ONLY.
(WE ID.)

(Reach the NSRC toll-free at 1-888-247-9413.)

Read the closing comments of one of the JSO Detectives investigating the Somer Thompson murder:

This is from the T-U just today:

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2009-10-23/story/threat_posed_by_sex_offenders_varies_widely_in_jacksonville_area (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/crime/2009-10-23/story/threat_posed_by_sex_offenders_varies_widely_in_jacksonville_area)

QuoteSome offenders wouldn't fit most people's stereotypes. Mulligan said one man on the St. Johns roll was convicted at age 18 of having sex with a 17-year-old girl. Now in his 40s, the man is married to that woman but must still report his address to the authorities at regular intervals.

Ps. I know a sex offender is not only a pedophile. I said and/or.

As far as I am concerned, anyone that gets convicted of rape can rot in jail for the rest of their life or suffer the death penalty.  We have too many nutjobs getting off or out of jail early. Period. End of story.

How many stories have their been of people having a long rap sheet. I'm sorry, but that just isn't acceptable to me.  A lot of our judicial systems, jails and "rehab" programs are a joke.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:07:49 AM
And as far as the teenage scenario, they know the law, so tough-cookies.

You're part of the problem, then. It's an unjust law.

Clearly, I don't think the majority of us are talking about this situation:

"Some offenders wouldn't fit most people's stereotypes. Mulligan said one man on the St. Johns roll was convicted at age 18 of having sex with a 17-year-old girl. Now in his 40s, the man is married to that woman but must still report his address to the authorities at regular intervals."

What percentage of sex offenders fit into the above type scenario that most of us would deem ridiculous?

The point of this thread is to be aware of your surroundings and realize maybe you don't know people like you think you do. And I'm sorry, but I tend to agree. I run with a tight circle of family and friends and don't trust many others. For a slew of reasons.... I think that is all the person was saying. I don't think they are on some crusade to bash people who are labeled as sex offenders that don't really deserve that label.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:15:08 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:07:49 AM
And as far as the teenage scenario, they know the law, so tough-cookies.

You're part of the problem, then. It's an unjust law.

I never said it was a just-law. But it is the law none the less. I didn't create it.  I don't think jay-walking should be illegal but people are too stupid to look both ways, so it is.

Theocrats writing laws that are retarded is the right thing to do!

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:17:28 AM
What percentage of sex offenders fit into the above type scenario that most of us would deem ridiculous?

Far more than you'd think. That's the problem.

Well like I said, I have done my homework in the past when I lived in a semi-crappy hood and there are definitely some chester, chester child molesters over there.  It makes me sick that they even get to breathe fresh air.

I'm not talking about other said seemingly "innocent" situations...obviously.

Im a big fan of the sexual predator living across the street from one of our local elementary schools.

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=13820

Or the one living right behind the same school

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=33386

Im sure the sexual battery Under 12 just means he REALLY loved this kid. It must suck being so misunderstood.

Or this guy two blocks from the same school

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=825

Lewd and lacivious under 16... but it happened in 96... that would make him only 40. I guess thats not too much of a gap....

Its too bad there isnt a law against living so close to schools... OH WAIT. There is!

Im all for taking it case by case. For instance, there is one about a block down from me who seems to fall into that wrong place/wrong time category, but most of them in our area seem like real gems.

Quote from: Dan B on October 23, 2009, 10:24:31 AM
but most of them in our area seem like real gems.

exactly...

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:24:17 AM
Well like I said, I have done my homework in the past when I lived in a semi-crappy hood and there are definitely some chester, chester child molesters over there.  It makes me sick that they even get to breathe fresh air.

I'm not talking about other said seemingly "innocent" situations...obviously.

Right, but that's not what has happened.

Florida has a lengthy history of rallying behind over-broad categories of "offenses" that aren't really "offenses". It's really not that hard to write a law that punishes *actual* sex offenders and doesn't create a large category of "registered sex offenders" that exist only in pure legal fiction, but whose lives are nevertheless ruined by conviction for an "offense" that isn't offensive.

Florida has the 2nd or 3rd highest number of registered "sex offenders" in the entire COUNTRY, we're at or exceeding the numbers from states like California and New York who have much higher populations than Florida. Meanwhile, if you look at the wonderful top-tier bracket that we're in, you'll note that it includes such notable bible-belt states like Arkansas, Alabama, etc.

Why exactly do you think that is?

Isn't it because the south is full of backwoods kiddie rapists?

You have already stated that some of the laws are too stringent.
But if the law isn't changing, then unfortunately people need to abide by them.

I grew up in NJ where there were similar laws keeping a 16 yr and a 17 yr from banging like Jack Rabbits... why is there the whole "is she legal?" joke/comment?  If a 19 yr old guy decides to date a 17 yr old girl.. well he needs to take the situation a bit more seriously. It is what it is....

Quote from: buckethead on October 23, 2009, 10:36:05 AM
Isn't it because the south is full of backwoods kiddie rapists?

lmao!

Quote from: Dan B on October 23, 2009, 10:24:31 AM
Im a big fan of the sexual predator living across the street from one of our local elementary schools.

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=13820

Or the one living right behind the same school

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=33386

Im sure the sexual battery Under 12 just means he REALLY loved this kid. It must suck being so misunderstood.

Or this guy two blocks from the same school

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=825

Lewd and lacivious under 16... but it happened in 96... that would make him only 40. I guess thats not too much of a gap....

Its too bad there isnt a law against living so close to schools... OH WAIT. There is!

Im all for taking it case by case. For instance, there is one about a block down from me who seems to fall into that wrong place/wrong time category, but most of them in our area seem like real gems.

Dan, have you looked at the age of the "offender" at time of sentencing, then added the year (or two or three) it can take for that to have worked its way through the system from arrest to conviction, in order to figure out what age the "offenders" were at the time they committed the "offense"? And then compared that to the age of the "victim"? I doubt it, because those stats aren't available, and the court records are usually under seal.

So all you're really doing is looking at a website with a list of registered offenders, then applying a broad brush just like everyone else. And for all you know, those people could have been living there for 20 years, before the law went into effect.

Look, I'm not denying that there are legitimate sex offenders, or that they should be (and need to be) punished for their crimes. My issue with this is I suspect a nice big chunk of Florida's registered "offenders" are only "offenders" through the operation of legal fiction.

100+ "misunderstood" guys (and yes there are some women folk in that mix also) in 1 square mile is a whole lot of misunderstanding.  and yes i am well aware there are MANY cases of "wrong place, wrong "girl", but what is an "acceptable" age?  
obviously dan didn't jump to conclusions when he found out about the guy around the block that fell into the wrong place/wrong time.  back to the, get to know who lives around you.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:21:50 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:17:28 AM
What percentage of sex offenders fit into the above type scenario that most of us would deem ridiculous?

Far more than you'd think. That's the problem.

and that is the sole reason I took exception to the stated term for all sex offenders give in the original post

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
You have already stated that some of the laws are too stringent.
But if the law isn't changing, then unfortunately people need to abide by them.

Yeah with that attitude, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and african-americans would still be in the back of the bus.

Nice viewpoint!

You are kidding right?

Is it really that hard for 2 people to wait till they are 18 to have sex? Jesus Christ....

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 10:41:01 AM
100+ "misunderstood" guys (and yes there are some women folk in that mix also) in 1 square mile is a whole lot of misunderstanding.  and yes i am well aware there are MANY cases of "wrong place, wrong "girl", but what is an "acceptable" age?  
obviously dan didn't jump to conclusions when he found out about the guy around the block that fell into the wrong place/wrong time.  back to the, get to know who lives around you.

I don't think ALL of them fall into that category.

Clearly, there ARE legitimate sex offenders out there, and their acts do need to be addressed by the legal system. However, speaking specifically about this state (and others in the 'bible belt'), far too many "offenders" really haven't committed anything that a *normal* rational person would consider an "offense".

And these online "registry" sites don't give you anywhere NEAR enough information to tell the difference. These people are branded for life, and nobody cares enough, let alone has enough information, to actually figure out why. I also have long questioned the constitutionality of offender registry operations in the first place, as these people have already in theory paid their debt to society by serving their sentence.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:44:11 AM
You are kidding right?

Is it really that hard for 2 people to wait till they are 18 to have sex? Jesus Christ....

What's hard is understanding how it could possibly be your place to dictate that to them?

Or the legislature's for that matter.

If someone rapes a 10 year old, that's a crime and it should be punished. With all due respect, unless you're going to rely on some BS religious argument, I see no crime in two 15 or 16 year old kids having sex. They can drive cars, they can operate in society, are you telling me they can't stick something in a hole? Gimme a fukking break.

And that's what truly preposterous about our laws, even according to your own logic. If BOTH are under the magic number, no crime. One over, one under, all of a sudden now we have a crime. If they'd already been dating for years, it doesn't matter. Honestly, WTF?

And again, I haven't stated whether or not that I think 18 is the acceptable age.

There are a ton of "unfair" laws.

Are you suggesting it's perfectly fine for people to just choose which laws to abide by? And then when they get caught to hell with any repercussions because the law isn't what they deem "fair"?

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:48:10 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:44:11 AM
You are kidding right?

Is it really that hard for 2 people to wait till they are 18 to have sex? Jesus Christ....

What's hard is understanding why it's your place to dictate that to them?

It isn't my place! I didn't make ANY of the laws we live by.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:49:03 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:48:10 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:44:11 AM
You are kidding right?

Is it really that hard for 2 people to wait till they are 18 to have sex? Jesus Christ....

What's hard is understanding why it's your place to dictate that to them?

It isn't my place! I didn't make ANY of the laws we live by.

Then if you recognize an unjust law, why defend it?

All I am saying is... if people don't want to get in trouble, they need to follow the law.

There are a few I don't follow, but if I got in trouble for it, it wouldn't be some shock or boo-hoo, I knew it going in!

but it is our place...laws are often written or changed because people speak up.

Let us think back on a few laws that never should have been, shall we?

A few short years back, it was considered legal for one person to own another person.

Any others?

So for all those people that are dying to make 14 or 15 or 16 the legal consensual age to have sex ... go ahead, knock yourself out.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:53:34 AM
All I am saying is... if people don't want to get in trouble, they need to follow the law.

There are a few I don't follow, but if I got in trouble for it, it wouldn't be some shock or boo-hoo, I knew it going in!

Like I said before, with that logic african americans would still be in the back of the bus, women wouldn't be voting, and hell, depending on how far back in history you want to take it, we'd all be answering to the Queen of England.

Again, nice viewpoint there...

Sorry but I am not convinced that 18 is such a horrific age to have to wait to have sex.
What age do you suggest? 14.7 ?

I would however condone removing the legal smoking and drinking age all together.   ;D

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:59:21 AM
So for all those people that are dying to make 14 or 15 or 16 the legal consensual age to have sex ... go ahead, knock yourself out.

That isn't my point.

I don't think it should be a *magic number* at all, I think when dealing with minors, the only fair way to do it is to have it be based on X number of years' deviation between the ages of the consenting parties. I think it's preposterous that two 15 year olds having sex is just peachy, or two 16 year olds having sex is just peachy, but if one's birthday is even day ahead of the other, let's say 15 years 11 and months vs. 16 years even, now all of a sudden it's a "sex crime".

There are several of these "bright lines" in our current law, where regular people get tripped up by their own birthday, or that of their girlfriend, boyfriend, and often, FUTURE SPOUSE. This is patently unjust.

As to the "age of consent", you clearly aren't familiar with the law. Two 16 year olds having sex, or whatever else, already isn't a crime. The idiot religo-nazis already let that horse out of the barn. The problem is the current laws contain these age-based "gotchas" that are creating a large category of "sex offenders" whose "offense" only exists through pure legal fiction.

for the 10th time... i am not saying what is just or unjust

and i am not saying that people shouldn't try to change the law

but don't you think people would want to try and keep themselves out of trouble with the law the way it is WHILE working to change it?

"age-based "gotchas"

such as?

And why are these landing in court anyway?

Because of a parent feeling their child was taken advantage of?

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:01:05 AM
Sorry but I am not convinced that 18 is such a horrific age to have to wait to have sex.
What age do you suggest? 14.7 ?

Then I guess you should have written your legislator back when they changed the law so that 18 was no longer the age of consent. As I've already said, that horse is long since out of the barn.

And I think you're being hypocritical. Not that you'd admit it in the context of this debate, but I'd put the odds of you having waited until 18 to engage in "sexual activity" (which, under this state's laws, includes kissing, 'body contact', etc.) at 0. I suspect that's the case for 90%+ of this country.

You have missed and continue to miss my point.

Some people are unfairly charged, we get it.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:09:35 AM
"age-based "gotchas"

such as?

Let's say two high schoolers are dating. They're both the same age. Legal.

One has a birthday before the other. Oops, "sex crime"...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 11:11:51 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:01:05 AM
Sorry but I am not convinced that 18 is such a horrific age to have to wait to have sex.
What age do you suggest? 14.7 ?

Then I guess you should have written your legislator back when they changed the law so that 18 was no longer the age of consent. As I've already said, that horse is long since out of the barn.

And I think you're being hypocritical. Not that you'd admit it in the context of this debate, but I'd put the odds of you having waited until 18 to engage in "sexual activity" (which, under this state's laws, includes kissing, 'body contact', etc.) at 0. I suspect that's the case for 90%+ of this country.

My point was, what do you suggest the laws be here in FL? I didn't grow up here, I have no clue the specifics of the sex laws. But if I was a teenager here, I would.

This whole thread has been derailed from the original point... know your surroundings, neighbors, have street smarts...  That's it.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 09:16:59 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Well what else would you call a pedophile and/or sex offender? They are POSs that will most likely not be rehabilitated, so who cares what they are called.

Because some of them may have never touched a child? Someone could be a sex offender who was 19 and dated a 17 year old or whatever the law is.. both had consensual sex and then parents found out and pressed charges etc.  I'm not saying there aren't sick-o "baby rapers" out there.. but there are plenty on that list who do NOT fit that description..

I guess I should read the rest of the thread before I post this but oh well.. =D

So (2) 13 yr olds can have sex? Or it has to be 16 and over...

As long as they are both 16, or 17, or 18, etc...

but not a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old... well until it changes, it is something people need to be aware of. You sound like you are suggesting people blatantly DON'T follow the law because it is unfair.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:10:19 AM
And why are these landing in court anyway?

Because of a parent feeling their child was taken advantage of?

It's usually a situation where they're dating and everything's just peachy. Then they break up, it gets nasty, and someone makes a complaint without truly recognizing the enormity of the snowball they're setting in motion. That's exactly what happened to that other kid in Orlando.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
You have already stated that some of the laws are too stringent.
But if the law isn't changing, then unfortunately people need to abide by them.

I grew up in NJ where there were similar laws keeping a 16 yr and a 17 yr from banging like Jack Rabbits... why is there the whole "is she legal?" joke/comment?  If a 19 yr old guy decides to date a 17 yr old girl.. well he needs to take the situation a bit more seriously. It is what it is....

I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

Anyway, you win. I'm exhausted.  Some of the laws are retarded...people have to decide whether or not it's worth it to them, which laws they follow and don't follow.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:16:24 AM
So (2) 13 yr olds can have sex? Or it has to be 16 and over...

As long as they are both 16, or 17, or 18, etc...

but not a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old... well until it changes, it is something people need to be aware of. You sound like you are suggesting people blatantly DON'T follow the law because it is unfair.

There are a couple breakpoints. Which is one of the things that's so unbelievably stupid. The latest iteration of these asinine laws provides that a 16 or 17 year old can already have sex with someone up to age 24, without it being considered a crime. So like I've said repeatedly, the religo-nazi "age of consent" horse has already left the barn.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0794/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0794-%3ESection%2005#0794.05

But a 15 year-and-11-month old and a 16 year old, or any other combination you can think of involving anyone over and under that arbitrary break point = "sex crime". A 24 year old and someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old, = sex crime. Meanwhile, two 15 year olds = no crime.

It's all unjust. What's worse, they change these laws all the time, almost every two years there is some revision that makes these things even more asinine than before.

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

Ok, so using that as an example. Did you know the law at the time? Where you worried at all that the person had psycho parents that might want to contact authorities if they knew activities had taken place?  If I was kid here and knew these laws I would honestly be scared sh!tless and not want to deal with the situation at all...

So, legal discussion aside, can we boil this thread down to:

Be aware of your surroundings, meet your neighbors, preach "stranger danger" = Good; Make assumptions about people without researching, or spy on them = Bad?

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 11:24:42 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
You have already stated that some of the laws are too stringent.
But if the law isn't changing, then unfortunately people need to abide by them.

I grew up in NJ where there were similar laws keeping a 16 yr and a 17 yr from banging like Jack Rabbits... why is there the whole "is she legal?" joke/comment?  If a 19 yr old guy decides to date a 17 yr old girl.. well he needs to take the situation a bit more seriously. It is what it is....

I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

If that happened prior to 2005, then yeah, you were probably a "sex offender". Good god, someone call the cops!

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:29:13 AM

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

Ok, so using that as an example. Did you know the law at the time? Where you worried at all that the person had psycho parents that might want to contact authorities if they knew activities had taken place?  If I was kid here and knew these laws I would honestly be scared sh!tless and not want to deal with the situation at all...

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:29:13 AM

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 11:24:42 AM
I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

Ok, so using that as an example. Did you know the law at the time? Where you worried at all that the person had psycho parents that might want to contact authorities if they knew activities had taken place?  If I was kid here and knew these laws I would honestly be scared sh!tless and not want to deal with the situation at all...

Yep, I knew the law and just didn't care. I was hanging out with someone i liked having a good time. That's all there was to it.

Just like I know I'm supposed to cross only at crosswalks but I say EFF THAT and cross wherever I want! And if I get a ticket for that, I'm going to be grumpy as hell because doing that didn't hurt me or anyone else!

Anyway, my offense to this whole topic is applying the term baby raper to a whole group of people and saying non of them can be rehabilitated. That's just crap to me. There are a whole groupppppp of bad scary people but not EVERYONE listed on those sites is an evil person out to do bad.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 11:30:53 AM

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 11:24:42 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:38:30 AM
You have already stated that some of the laws are too stringent.
But if the law isn't changing, then unfortunately people need to abide by them.

I grew up in NJ where there were similar laws keeping a 16 yr and a 17 yr from banging like Jack Rabbits... why is there the whole "is she legal?" joke/comment?  If a 19 yr old guy decides to date a 17 yr old girl.. well he needs to take the situation a bit more seriously. It is what it is....

I dated a 17 year old when I was 19...and we did "stuff".. guess I'm a sex offender who just didn't get "caught"!

If that happened prior to 2005, then yeah, you were probably a "sex offender". Good god, someone call the cops!

Well I'm 31 now so...  =D   It was around  late 1997, early 98. I am a terrible person..  Throw my name up on the sex offender webiste.

I already brought up the jaywalking point.

But the ramifications for the sex offender stuff is way worse then getting a ticket...

I agree, the law is retarded... but it would scare me enough to follow it (if I was aware of it)... which I am guessing most people aren't? Not sure...

No one is arguing that there aren't sex offenders who are mis-labeled or that some of them aren't scum.

But, some of them are.

After researching age of offender, offense and date of adjudication and then allowing for a couple years to work through the court system, these are the ones that I came up with in the general proximity of Hist Spr who I believe Cindi is referring to. If you have children, I would be aware of these addresses and these faces. Except maybe Yvonne who it sounds might have flashed someone at the wrong time when kids were around. She was approx 35, at some point you need to consider the consequences. I see now that the links didn't include in my paste. If you want to know a specific link let me know and I will get it.

Chavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Dale Harlan Benchoff
Address: 2504 N Laura St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt); sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1949-05-05
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
09/26/1995   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9301121   PUTNAM, FL
Guilty/convict
09/26/1995   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9301099   PUTNAM, FL
Guilty/convict

Emory Carl Barnes
Address: 2058 N Market St
Crime: Sex Batt/Coerce Child By Adult; F.S. 794.011(2)(B) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1953-01-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/22/1991   SEX BATT/COERCE CHILD BY ADULT; F.S. 794.011(2)(b) (PRINCIPAL)
9106186   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Eric Althea Lewis
Address: 1949 Hubbard St
Crime: Sex Bat/Inj Not Likely; F.S. 794.011(5); false Imprison Any Other; F.S. 787.02
Date of birth: 1956-02-21
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
07/26/2000   SEX BAT/INJ NOT LIKELY; F.S. 794.011(5)
9902007   ST JOHNS, FL
Guilty/convict
07/26/2000   FALSE IMPRISON ANY OTHER; F.S. 787.02
9902007   ST JOHNS, FL
Guilty/convict

Francis Joseph Suriano
Address: 205 E 1st St Apt 3
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1952-12-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
04/05/2000   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9401707   CLAY, FL
Not Available

George Howard Jones
Address: 1531 Ionia St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1954-09-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
10/09/2001   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
0108471   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Harry Lawrence Gordon
Address: 1924 Hubbard St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1957-12-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
12/03/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9612265   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Henry Frank Smith
Address: 1153 Walnut St Apt 3
Crime: Sex Offense, Other State (Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With A Child Under 14)
Date of birth: 1952-01-30
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/24/1987   SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD UNDER 14)
CR88816   SAN DIEGO, CA    Guilty/convict



James Edward Carter
Address: 945 N Liberty St # 115
Crime: Sex Offense, Other State (Rape Of A Child)
Date of birth: 1953-01-26
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
10/03/1990   SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (RAPE OF A CHILD)
Not Available   KING, WA    Guilty/convict

Jerald Oneal Cowart
Address: 239 W 10th St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1956-12-13
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
04/26/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9604062   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Jerome Watts Sr
Address: 1421 N Liberty St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Conduct Victim Under 16 Years Old By Offender 18 Years Or Older; F.S. 800.04(6)(B (Principal)
Date of birth: 1968-09-13
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
09/06/2001   Lewd or lascivious conduct victim under 16 years old by offender 18 years or older; F.S. 800.04(6)(b (PRINCIPAL)
0103300   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Joe Nathan Walls
Address: 329 E 1st St # 202
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1963-05-11
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/24/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9603482   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Leon Caldwell
Address: 1507 Ionia St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2)
Date of birth: 1963-02-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/20/2003   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2)
0302284   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Neil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Oliver Nelson Jr
Address: 1631 Hubbard St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1940-08-28
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
06/28/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4) (PRINCIPAL)
0013321   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Ricardo Eugene Mathews
Address: 136 Phelps St Apt 4
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04; lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1953-02-28
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/19/1993   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04
93008493   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict
08/25/1993   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9308493   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Rodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Willie Charles Mccullough
Address: 1615 N Laura St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1944-11-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
12/07/1990   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9012856   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Willie James Moore
Address: 1031 N Liberty St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1962-08-17
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
06/03/1997   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9212555   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Yvonne Shavon Satterfield (perhaps she flashed her business around kids, at 35 she might have known better)
Address: 451 E 7th St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition Victim Under 16 Years Old Offender 18 Or Older; F.S. 800.04(7)(C) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1965-06-29
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/09/2001   Lewd or lascivious exhibition victim under 16 years old offender 18 or older; F.S. 800.04(7)(c) (PRINCIPAL)
0100268   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

I don't know if this story is true or not, but it does serve to illustrate a point.  

A man in south Florida was playing golf with friends.  He was old enough to have some minor prostate problems.  He had an urgent need to relieve himself so he stepped off the course into the surrounding brush to do so.  A woman in a house next to the golf course saw him and called the police, telling them that a man was exposing himself behind her house.  He was arrested, convicted of the misdemeanor and is now a registered "sex offender".

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:47:44 AM

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 10:41:01 AM
100+ "misunderstood" guys (and yes there are some women folk in that mix also) in 1 square mile is a whole lot of misunderstanding.  and yes i am well aware there are MANY cases of "wrong place, wrong "girl", but what is an "acceptable" age?  
obviously dan didn't jump to conclusions when he found out about the guy around the block that fell into the wrong place/wrong time.  back to the, get to know who lives around you.

And these online "registry" sites don't give you anywhere NEAR enough information to tell the difference.

I disagree.

Using my earlier examples, and the link I provided to the FDLE site, I learned the following

The Predator was only 20, but he was convicted of 794.011(3)  Commits Sexual Battery; Upon Person 12 Or Older Without Consent And In Process Threatens Or Uses Deadly Weapon Or Force Which Would Most Likely Cause Serious Personal Injury

(3)  A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115

(1)  As used in this chapter:

(a)  "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

(g)  "Serious personal injury" means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement. 

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

Winner #2 was 46 at the time of conviction and committed 794.011(2)(a)  Person 18 Or Older Commits Sexual Battery And/Or Injures Sexual Organs Of A Victim Less Than 12

(2)(a)  A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 and 921.141.


(1)  As used in this chapter:

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
794.011(2)(b)  Person Under 18 Commits Sexual Battery Upon Or Injures Sexual Organs Of A Victim Less Than 12

(2)(b)  A person less than 18 years of age who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082,s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.


(1)  As used in this chapter:

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

and the last person was 40 at the time of conviction and was convicted of 800.04  Lewdly Fondle Or Assault, Commit Or Simulate Sexual Acts On Or In Presence Of A Child Under 16 In A Lewd, Lascivious Or Indecent Manner

A person who: 

(1)  Handles, fondles, or assaults any child under the age of 16 years in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner;

(2)  Commits actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, actual lewd exhibition of the genitals, or any act or conduct which simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed upon any child under the age of 16 years or forces or entices the child to commit any such act; 

(3)  Commits an act defined as sexual battery under s. 794.011(1)(h) upon any child under the age of 16 years; or 

(4)  Knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act in the presence of any child under the age of 16 years, without committing the crime of sexual battery, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this section. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.


I would say there is plenty of information on the FDLE site.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
No one is arguing that there aren't sex offenders who are mis-labeled or that some of them aren't scum.

But, some of them are.

I agree with you on that, no argument there.

But we should all recognize that this particular state has a looooooooooong history of incredibly asinine laws and asinine law enforcement when it comes to this particular issue. These laws change almost constantly, and contain these unjust "gotchas" that have literally created a whole category of "sex offenders" out of thin air. People who are now on a sex-offender registry for life, just for sending a text message, or because their girlfriend's birthday was a month behind theirs.

As even the JSO detective investigating the Somer Thompson murder noted in his TU interview just this morning, a good chunk of these people haven't really committed any "offense" at all. It's a legal fiction.

So my point was that, in this state, you really have be careful about painting them with so broad a brush. I originally took offense to the "baby raper" comment by Cindi, as I think it was a gross mischaracterization of the average person who finds themselves on that list. Given the legislative history on this issue, I suspect a nice big chunk of registered "sex offenders" in this state haven't done much that the average person would consider offensive.

I understand that....

I'd be curious to see some real stats though...

i.e. 3 out of 10 offenders is baloney
5 out of 10 will not commit a crime again
2 out of 10 will be repeat offenders....

I still think the original gist of the person's post wasn't meant to be mean-spirited and more of re-ignite your street smarts comment...

You can also tell by the context that person was referring to scum-bags, not the wrongfully persecuted.

I guess now we are supposed to read and hear sex-offender as maybe-a-sex-offender. At least in FL.

Quote from: Dan B on October 23, 2009, 11:51:53 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 10:47:44 AM

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 10:41:01 AM
100+ "misunderstood" guys (and yes there are some women folk in that mix also) in 1 square mile is a whole lot of misunderstanding.  and yes i am well aware there are MANY cases of "wrong place, wrong "girl", but what is an "acceptable" age?  
obviously dan didn't jump to conclusions when he found out about the guy around the block that fell into the wrong place/wrong time.  back to the, get to know who lives around you.

And these online "registry" sites don't give you anywhere NEAR enough information to tell the difference.

I disagree.

Using my earlier examples, and the link I provided to the FDLE site, I learned the following

The Predator was only 20, but he was convicted of 794.011(3)  Commits Sexual Battery; Upon Person 12 Or Older Without Consent And In Process Threatens Or Uses Deadly Weapon Or Force Which Would Most Likely Cause Serious Personal Injury

(3)  A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person's consent, and in the process thereof uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon or uses actual physical force likely to cause serious personal injury commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115

(1)  As used in this chapter:

(a)  "Consent" means intelligent, knowing, and voluntary consent and does not include coerced submission. "Consent" shall not be deemed or construed to mean the failure by the alleged victim to offer physical resistance to the offender.

(g)  "Serious personal injury" means great bodily harm or pain, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement. 

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

Winner #2 was 46 at the time of conviction and committed 794.011(2)(a)  Person 18 Or Older Commits Sexual Battery And/Or Injures Sexual Organs Of A Victim Less Than 12

(2)(a)  A person 18 years of age or older who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a capital felony, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082 and 921.141.


(1)  As used in this chapter:

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
794.011(2)(b)  Person Under 18 Commits Sexual Battery Upon Or Injures Sexual Organs Of A Victim Less Than 12

(2)(b)  A person less than 18 years of age who commits sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injures the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age commits a life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082,s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115.


(1)  As used in this chapter:

(h)  "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

and the last person was 40 at the time of conviction and was convicted of 800.04  Lewdly Fondle Or Assault, Commit Or Simulate Sexual Acts On Or In Presence Of A Child Under 16 In A Lewd, Lascivious Or Indecent Manner

A person who: 

(1)  Handles, fondles, or assaults any child under the age of 16 years in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner;

(2)  Commits actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, actual lewd exhibition of the genitals, or any act or conduct which simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed upon any child under the age of 16 years or forces or entices the child to commit any such act; 

(3)  Commits an act defined as sexual battery under s. 794.011(1)(h) upon any child under the age of 16 years; or 

(4)  Knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act in the presence of any child under the age of 16 years, without committing the crime of sexual battery, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Neither the victim's lack of chastity nor the victim's consent is a defense to the crime proscribed by this section. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.


I would say there is plenty of information on the FDLE site.

First off, you have to compare the revision history of the statute against the conviction date. As I've said in my other posts, the laws related to this issue change relatively constantly in this state. The current version of that statute that you're quoting may not be (and probably is not) the same terms that the "offender" was actually convicted under.

So what was the conviction date? Odds are, at that time, he was 20 and the "victim" only had to be so much as a day under 18 in order to convict him. This appears to be another example of the same B.S. I was referring to when I originally refuted your statements.

So you've just acknowledged, then, that your research has determined that this particular "gem" (using your own sarcastic word), was 20 and committed a "sex crime" against a victim OVER the age of 12. So there goes the "baby raper" idea. And how much you wanna bet this was another situation where the guy's girlfriend was a year or two younger than him or whatever? Real BIG "sex crime" there.

This was my original point in the first place. Most of the people on these registries aren't really "sex offenders", unless you consider a 20 year old having sex with an 18 year old a crime. I don't.

A friend of mine has the label "sex offender" for life. He was accused by a 16 year old girl of sexual assault and he was convicted. Ten years later, the "victim" said she lied about the whole incident and has attempted to help my friend get the charges removed. The state does not care and has refused to help remove this stigma.

I find it sad people pass judgment and don't know the whole story, they just believe what they are told.

Everyone calling these people out reminds me of witch hunting.

Quote from: Dog Walker on October 23, 2009, 11:47:04 AM
I don't know if this story is true or not, but it does serve to illustrate a point.  

A man in south Florida was playing golf with friends.  He was old enough to have some minor prostate problems.  He had an urgent need to relieve himself so he stepped off the course into the surrounding brush to do so.  A woman in a house next to the golf course saw him and called the police, telling them that a man was exposing himself behind her house.  He was arrested, convicted of the misdemeanor and is now a registered "sex offender".

That happens all the time. It depends on the discretion of the police officer. He could have been charged with public urination, which is not considered a "sex offense", or he could have been charged with indecent exposure which is considered a "sex offense".

Depending on how the officer wanted to do things, the guy either gets a fine and goes home, or he gets a fine and goes home, then is a registered "sex offender". It's pathetic.

Chris or anyone, how does the law define the difference between a sex offender and a sexual predator?  Are they always on the same list?

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 11:46:59 AM
After researching age of offender, offense and date of adjudication and then allowing for a couple years to work through the court system, these are the ones that I came up with in the general proximity of Hist Spr who I believe Cindi is referring to. If you have children, I would be aware of these addresses and these faces. Except maybe Yvonne who it sounds might have flashed someone at the wrong time when kids were around. She was approx 35, at some point you need to consider the consequences. I see now that the links didn't include in my paste. If you want to know a specific link let me know and I will get it.

Chavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Dale Harlan Benchoff
Address: 2504 N Laura St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt); sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1949-05-05
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
09/26/1995   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9301121   PUTNAM, FL
Guilty/convict
09/26/1995   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9301099   PUTNAM, FL
Guilty/convict

Emory Carl Barnes
Address: 2058 N Market St
Crime: Sex Batt/Coerce Child By Adult; F.S. 794.011(2)(B) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1953-01-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/22/1991   SEX BATT/COERCE CHILD BY ADULT; F.S. 794.011(2)(b) (PRINCIPAL)
9106186   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Eric Althea Lewis
Address: 1949 Hubbard St
Crime: Sex Bat/Inj Not Likely; F.S. 794.011(5); false Imprison Any Other; F.S. 787.02
Date of birth: 1956-02-21
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
07/26/2000   SEX BAT/INJ NOT LIKELY; F.S. 794.011(5)
9902007   ST JOHNS, FL
Guilty/convict
07/26/2000   FALSE IMPRISON ANY OTHER; F.S. 787.02
9902007   ST JOHNS, FL
Guilty/convict

Francis Joseph Suriano
Address: 205 E 1st St Apt 3
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1952-12-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
04/05/2000   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9401707   CLAY, FL
Not Available

George Howard Jones
Address: 1531 Ionia St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1954-09-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
10/09/2001   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
0108471   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Harry Lawrence Gordon
Address: 1924 Hubbard St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1957-12-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
12/03/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9612265   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Henry Frank Smith
Address: 1153 Walnut St Apt 3
Crime: Sex Offense, Other State (Lewd Or Lascivious Acts With A Child Under 14)
Date of birth: 1952-01-30
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/24/1987   SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH A CHILD UNDER 14)
CR88816   SAN DIEGO, CA    Guilty/convict



James Edward Carter
Address: 945 N Liberty St # 115
Crime: Sex Offense, Other State (Rape Of A Child)
Date of birth: 1953-01-26
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
10/03/1990   SEX OFFENSE, OTHER STATE (RAPE OF A CHILD)
Not Available   KING, WA    Guilty/convict

Jerald Oneal Cowart
Address: 239 W 10th St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1956-12-13
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
04/26/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9604062   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Jerome Watts Sr
Address: 1421 N Liberty St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Conduct Victim Under 16 Years Old By Offender 18 Years Or Older; F.S. 800.04(6)(B (Principal)
Date of birth: 1968-09-13
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
09/06/2001   Lewd or lascivious conduct victim under 16 years old by offender 18 years or older; F.S. 800.04(6)(b (PRINCIPAL)
0103300   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Joe Nathan Walls
Address: 329 E 1st St # 202
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1963-05-11
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/24/1996   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9603482   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Leon Caldwell
Address: 1507 Ionia St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2)
Date of birth: 1963-02-12
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/20/2003   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2)
0302284   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Neil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Oliver Nelson Jr
Address: 1631 Hubbard St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1940-08-28
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
06/28/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4) (PRINCIPAL)
0013321   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Ricardo Eugene Mathews
Address: 136 Phelps St Apt 4
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04; lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1953-02-28
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
08/19/1993   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04
93008493   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict
08/25/1993   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9308493   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

Rodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

Willie Charles Mccullough
Address: 1615 N Laura St
Crime: Lewd,Lascivious Child U/16; F.S. 800.04 (Principal)
Date of birth: 1944-11-15
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
12/07/1990   LEWD,LASCIVIOUS CHILD U/16; F.S. 800.04 (PRINCIPAL)
9012856   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Willie James Moore
Address: 1031 N Liberty St
Crime: Sex Bat By Adult/Vctm Under 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (Principal In Attempt)
Date of birth: 1962-08-17
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
06/03/1997   SEX BAT BY ADULT/VCTM UNDER 12; F.S. 794.011(2) (PRINCIPAL IN ATTEMPT)
9212555   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Yvonne Shavon Satterfield (perhaps she flashed her business around kids, at 35 she might have known better)
Address: 451 E 7th St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition Victim Under 16 Years Old Offender 18 Or Older; F.S. 800.04(7)(C) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1965-06-29
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/09/2001   Lewd or lascivious exhibition victim under 16 years old offender 18 or older; F.S. 800.04(7)(c) (PRINCIPAL)
0100268   DUVAL, FL
Guilty/convict

So let me get this straight...

Out of the 115 registered "sex offenders" in that geographic area, that list of 20 or so represents the ones who are actually child molesters?

I think your research has provided a great public service to the neighborhood. But surely, even you must admit, 20 out of 115 is not a great ratio when we're talking about how many people on the "sex offender" registry are actually sex offenders...

Tashi, I'm sorry to hear of your friend's unfortunate situation with a liar. I also had a friend under similar circumstances but the case was dropped before conviction and he is no longer listed. The state not being willing to help your friend sucks big time and it is unfair.

But I also believe many of these are legitimate and the parents of children who were forever damaged by these people probably wish now that they had done more "witch hunting". You can apologize for thinking the worst of someone but how do you apologize to your kid for not taking every precaution you could?

Quote from: Dog Walker on October 23, 2009, 12:13:31 PM
Chris or anyone, how does the law define the difference between a sex offender and a sexual predator?  Are they always on the same list?

Externally (e.g. to the public) they're pretty much one and the same. These registries that are released to the public don't tell you whether the guy got convicted for some dumb$h!t BS like sending a text message, or whether he's actually a child-molester. That's the whole problem, from both a public safety standpoint and from a civil rights standpoint. The current system has the person who actually is a child molester getting lumped into the same list and press releases as the guy who got arrested for pissing on the golf course. It's preposterous.

That's why nvrenuf had to do his own research and come up with a list of how many of Springfield's registered "sex offenders" actually are sex offenders. Internally, I'm sure law enforcement and the probation officers responsible for overseeing address updates, compliance with these new zoning restrictions (e.g., not within 1000 feet of a school, church, or pretty much anywhere else in town, depending on the city), etc., have their own scoring system for how risky these people really are. But we don't have access to that.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 12:13:50 PM
So let me get this straight...

Out of the 115 registered "sex offenders" in that geographic area, that list of 20 or so represents the ones who are actually child molesters?

I think your research has provided a great public service to the neighborhood. But surely, even you must admit, 20 out of 115 is not a great ratio when we're talking about how many people on the "sex offender" registry are actually sex offenders...

Out of the 189 for the 32206, I first attempted to narrow down to the ones that were in Hist Spr proper. That dropped the number quite a bit. Tons more just on the other side of the railroad tracks or a few blocks north and/or east. Then I attempted to only pull out those that seemed to fit the child molester scenario. Obviously as long as a molester has mobility, any child could be at risk. But I was trying to show those that might live near by that a child might believe they could trust due to familiarity of seeing them often.

Actually I was unpleasantly surprised to see how many did NOT fall into the wrong place/barely wrong age difference scenario. And in that regard I'm referring to the entire 32206 list.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 12:14:14 PM
Tashi, I'm sorry to hear of your friend's unfortunate situation with a liar. I also had a friend under similar circumstances but the case was dropped before conviction and he is no longer listed. The state not being willing to help your friend sucks big time and it is unfair.

I think most people know someone who's been caught up in some ridiculous BS like that, including a close friend of mine. If he didn't have the financial resources to hire a lawyer and defend himself proactively, he too would have found himself on the registry. And he doesn't belong there, the situation was ridiculous.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 12:23:19 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 12:13:50 PM
So let me get this straight...

Out of the 115 registered "sex offenders" in that geographic area, that list of 20 or so represents the ones who are actually child molesters?

I think your research has provided a great public service to the neighborhood. But surely, even you must admit, 20 out of 115 is not a great ratio when we're talking about how many people on the "sex offender" registry are actually sex offenders...

Out of the 189 for the 32206, I first attempted to narrow down to the ones that were in Hist Spr proper. That dropped the number quite a bit. Tons more just on the other side of the railroad tracks or a few blocks north and/or east. Then I attempted to only pull out those that seemed to fit the child molester scenario. Obviously as long as a molester has mobility, any child could be at risk. But I was trying to show those that might live near by that a child might believe they could trust due to familiarity of seeing them often.

Actually I was unpleasantly surprised to see how many did NOT fall into the wrong place/barely wrong age difference scenario. And in that regard I'm referring to the entire 32206 list.

So how many were you comparing overall, to ultimately narrow it down to the 20 who were actual child molesters?

Overall comparison was 189 for all of 32206. Are you asking for the total # listed as offenders in Hist Spr? If so that will take me some time. Again.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 23, 2009, 12:51:41 PM
Overall comparison was 189 for all of 32206. Are you asking for the total # listed as offenders in Hist Spr? If so that will take me some time. Again.

You've already gone through a lot of trouble doing the research that you've done, which is truly helpful to the neighborhood. So I really don't want to put you out even more. Also, you clearly recognize the problem I'm referring to, which is why you researched to make your own list in the first place.

I was just trying to get a handle on how many you had to weed out to get the 20 who were actually child molesters. Even a rough guess would probably serve just fine, for discussion purposes.

the point from the whole thing was that many people in many neighborhoods have absolutely no idea who lives next to them.  i was amazed at how many people were amazed that there were over a hundred "sex offenders" in a 5 mile radius of the orange park address.  and, the website does specifically identify predators. 
whether you think that it's alright to have sex with a 15.95 year old or whatever isn't the issue, and it is NOT an issue about rooming houses or single family houses it is about the fact that there are still 20 what some would think of as "not socially acceptable sex offenders".  that is still almost 1 per block in springfield.   

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
No one is arguing that there aren't sex offenders who are mis-labeled or that some of them aren't scum.

But, some of them are.

But you had no issue with the term "baby raper" and thought that all of them should rot in jail....this is the problem with blanket statements.

Also, nvrenuf, I'm not trying to be picky, but on your list I think the following were probably wrong place/time or age "gotcha" situations:

QuoteRodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This kid was only 19 on the date of his final adjudication in May 2001. Then speaking realistically, the "offense" likely occurred at least a year or two prior to that, perhaps even longer. Once you waive speedy trial, things can really drag out. So looking at the information, the "offenders" birth date is September of 1981, and then taking the victim's age range according to the original charge under FS 800.04, it appears this was probably a 16 or 17 year old kid with a 15 year old kid. To put it in perspective, that's a high school freshman dating a high school junior or sophomore. Unless you have more information on this one, I doubt this was really a "sex crime".

QuoteChavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This one is also likely a wrong place/time situation. Apparently the judge agreed with me, considering the withhold of adjudication, in both this case and the one above.

This guy has a December of 1975 birth date, and an adjudication date of May 1999. As of the date of conviction, the kid was only 23, and the actual incident probably occurred at least a year or two or three prior to that date. The statute he was cited under at that time required only that the "victim" be <18. So in all likelihood, this could have been a 19 or 20 year old kid with a 17 year old kid. Again, unless you have more information on this one, I don't consider that a "sex crime".

QuoteNeil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Same deal as above. Looking at the dates, this could well have been an 18 or 19 year old kid with a 15 or almost-16 year old kid. I doubt this was really what most people would consider a "sex crime".

Also, as a side note, my date ranges are assuming the "incidents" (if you can call them that) were reported the same day as they occurred. Which is almost certainly not the case. Assuming you don't waive speedy trial, then it takes 6 months to get to trial, and it could still conceivably be a year or longer by the time sentencing rolls around. If the defendant does waive speedy trial, then all bets are off, and these things can really drag out awhile, depending on discovery, etc. So if you start adding the statute of limitations on top of all of that, then these "offenders" could very well have been (and, looking at the dates, quite likely were) very close to the "victim's" ages.

Again, unless there is some additional information, it would appear these aren't child molestation cases, or even what most normal people would consider a "sex crime".

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 01:15:49 PM
the point from the whole thing was that many people in many neighborhoods have absolutely no idea who lives next to them.  i was amazed at how many people were amazed that there were over a hundred "sex offenders" in a 5 mile radius of the orange park address.  and, the website does specifically identify predators. 
whether you think that it's alright to have sex with a 15.95 year old or whatever isn't the issue, and it is NOT an issue about rooming houses or single family houses it is about the fact that there are still 20 what some would think of as "not socially acceptable sex offenders".  that is still almost 1 per block in springfield.  

Well since you brought up the Orange Park example in your argument, you may want to read this:

AP Story, just released:

QuoteNo Sex Offenders Suspects in Florida girl's Death...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GIRL_IN_LANDFILL_FLOL-?SITE=FLJAJ&SECTION=SOUTHEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

They investigated all of them within a 5 mile radius, and none had anything to do with it.

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
No one is arguing that there aren't sex offenders who are mis-labeled or that some of them aren't scum.

But, some of them are.

But you had no issue with the term "baby raper" and thought that all of them should rot in jail....this is the problem with blanket statements.

No, I think the scumbags should rot in jail and was smart enough to read between the lines in the initial blanket statement and not get up in arms about pedophiles being called baby rapers.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 02:00:46 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 01:20:48 PM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:36:20 AM
No one is arguing that there aren't sex offenders who are mis-labeled or that some of them aren't scum.

But, some of them are.

But you had no issue with the term "baby raper" and thought that all of them should rot in jail....this is the problem with blanket statements.

No, I think the scumbags should rot in jail and was smart enough to read between the lines in the initial blanket statement and not get up in arms about pedophiles being called baby rappers.

So you think a 16 year old kid with a birthday a month ahead of his 15 year old girlfriend's is a "pedophile"? Or you think the registered "sex offender" mentioned by the JSO detective in the article I posted, who had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend (who is still married to at age 40) back when he was 18, is a "pedophile"?

And don't tell me this $h!t doesn't happen, I found 3 of those situations just on nvrenuf's list in this thread.

Did I not already agree with you that there are people who are wrongfully persecuted?

I am not talking about them!  And neither was the initial poster.

Steph...that's not what you or the original poster said...

To refresh, the original post said "jacksonville has approximately 1515 registered sex offenders in it’s 874 square miles (the estimate is 522 people per 1 baby raper) or about 2 per square mile"

and below is my response and your response to my post

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 09:16:59 AM

Quote from: tufsu1 on October 23, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
wow...I'm very impressed with your choice of the phrase "baby raper"....definitely doing yourself proud!

Well what else would you call a pedophile and/or sex offender? They are POSs that will most likely not be rehabilitated, so who cares what they are called.

Care to retract anything?

I have already stated and agree with that some sex offenders receive that title when they don't deserve it.

However, for the ones that suck at life, I don't care what they are called.

Chris, I shouldn't answer as I don't have time right now to go back and review it all over again. But if I wait until I do it will be way out of context with the thread stream. I did intentionally take these points into consideration and dropped two other people off the list for that very reason. Without the case in front of me I can only go by what I read and my perception of same. And the one case said the victim was 12-15. You are assuming the 15.95 year old I'm guessing with a 17 year old. It could have also been the 12 year old, we don't know. If they were convicted at 23, I took off 3 years making them 20 which is old enough to know not to dip your stick into a well that's under 16. The other two fall into a bad offender or good offender category but without the case file we won't know for sure either way. I took the information I found in the citation and used that to base whether they went on the list or not.

If someone who lives next to them wants to go talk to them about it, by all means.

I personally know two people on the "sex offenders" list.  One deserved it; "Dirty-old-man" syndrome with a willing teen.  Wrong head(ed) thinking, the fool.

The other is a fine, moral person who was set up by a lying, resentful stepdaughter.

The laws are vague, poorly written and open for abuse.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 02:05:15 PM
Did I not already agree with you that there are people who are wrongfully persecuted?

I am not talking about them!  And neither was the initial poster.

If the initial poster didn't mean to call them all baby rapers.. they really needed to word what they said better! ;D

Quote from: mandy6488 on October 23, 2009, 04:32:33 PM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 02:05:15 PM
Did I not already agree with you that there are people who are wrongfully persecuted?

I am not talking about them!  And neither was the initial poster.

If the initial poster didn't mean to call them all baby rapers.. they really needed to word what they said better! ;D

correct.. but they probably weren't aware that there are several situations where perhaps people don't deserve the label... i bet most people don't know that...

it seems obvious that the person wouldn't mean that name towards people who don't deserve it

as one of the others posted, isn't it our duty as a parent to err on the side of caution.  yes, as with everything else there is an abuse of the system.  if you look up on the fdle website, honestly, do the majority of the ones that you pull up in the 32206 zip look like a teenage/20 year old guy that got caught in the wrong time, wrong place situation? 
people seem to depend on the news or whatever to "warn" you about pending doom, by the time it has hit the news about an unidentified vehicle trolling the neighborhood - most likely someone is already missing.

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 23, 2009, 04:39:25 PM
It looks like the planning to safeguard ourselves and children has gone out the window.

The problem is that it has gone too far.

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 05:37:08 PM
yes, as with everything else there is an abuse of the system.  if you look up on the fdle website, honestly, do the majority of the ones that you pull up in the 32206 zip look like a teenage/20 year old guy that got caught in the wrong time, wrong place situation? 

To answer your question, he's already weeded the 189 registered sex offenders in 32206 down to 20 in making that list, and even then it still has at least 3 on it that are pretty obviously wrong place/time type of situations.

So yeah...I think your highlighted statement is pretty accurate...

I'm just glad to have a trainwreck thread to read and a fresh batch of popcorn.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 07:43:43 PM

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 05:37:08 PM
yes, as with everything else there is an abuse of the system.  if you look up on the fdle website, honestly, do the majority of the ones that you pull up in the 32206 zip look like a teenage/20 year old guy that got caught in the wrong time, wrong place situation? 

To answer your question, he's already weeded the 189 registered sex offenders in 32206 down to 20 in making that list, and even then it still has at least 3 on it that are pretty obviously wrong place/time type of situations.

So yeah...I think your highlighted statement is pretty accurate...

wow, eliminated all those without predjudice knowing all the facts about all the remaining cases. it basically boiled down to no one above the age of 15 - 16 is raped / molested by anyone that is, what, younger than, lets say 30, it is always consentual.  strong work.  they are right, the jail is full of all innocent people. thank goodness we have fixed that little problem.  now on to world hunger.

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 08:23:18 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 07:43:43 PM

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 05:37:08 PM
yes, as with everything else there is an abuse of the system.  if you look up on the fdle website, honestly, do the majority of the ones that you pull up in the 32206 zip look like a teenage/20 year old guy that got caught in the wrong time, wrong place situation? 

To answer your question, he's already weeded the 189 registered sex offenders in 32206 down to 20 in making that list, and even then it still has at least 3 on it that are pretty obviously wrong place/time type of situations.

So yeah...I think your highlighted statement is pretty accurate...

wow, eliminated all those without predjudice knowing all the facts about all the remaining cases. it basically boiled down to no one above the age of 15 - 16 is raped / molested by anyone that is, what, younger than, lets say 30, it is always consentual.  strong work.  they are right, the jail is full of all innocent people. thank goodness we have fixed that little problem.  now on to world hunger.

No, just compare their birth dates to their sentencing dates as listed on the reports, and then add a year or two or three for the matter to work its way through the system, and you will come pretty darn close to figuring out the date of the alleged incident.

In each of those 3 cases, it seems the "offender" was very close in age to the alleged "molested child". And who said anything about 30 years old? One kid was like 22 at sentencing, another was 19 years old. The 19 year old would have been maybe 16'ish or 17'ish at the time of the incident, assuming it was reported the same day it occurred, which is unlikely. He was charged with having sex with a minor 15 years or younger, with no rape alleged. So yeah, pardon me for not viewing a 16 year old's having consensual sex with a 15 year old as a capital crime.

Ditto for the other kid. He was what? 22 or 23 at sentencing, so he was maybe 20'ish when the incident occurred, assuming it was reported same day. Which it wasn't. He was charged with having sex with a minor under age 18. So again, pardon me for not viewing a 20 year old's having sex with an 18 year old as some capital crime.

The actual child molesters on nvrenuf's list are obvious, with birthdates in the 40's or 50's and being convicted of sex with a minor under 12 or whatnot, on dates ranging from 1995 to 2008. Those are clear. But the three I pointed out really do appear to be "wrong place/time" situations. And as I said before, apparently the judge agreed with me, since their adjudications were withheld, which seems highly unlikely if they were both "sexual predators".

those 3 cases i can see, but to eliminate all but 20 off of the list and to broadly assume that due to the closeness in age and their given age it was consentual - i agree MOST of the time it probably was, but if you have a child (and yes by law 18) which way would you want to err. 

16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

Those 20 out of 189 were only in Hist Spr, if they lived outside I did not include them regardless of the offense.

Quote from: Lunican on October 23, 2009, 10:21:39 PM
16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

One comment:

QuoteI feel safer now.

lol

Quote from: cindi on October 23, 2009, 09:10:04 PM
those 3 cases i can see, but to eliminate all but 20 off of the list and to broadly assume that due to the closeness in age and their given age it was consentual - i agree MOST of the time it probably was, but if you have a child (and yes by law 18) which way would you want to err. 

Well I agree with you, the other 17 of them on nvrenuf's list are probably actual sex offenders. When they're convicted at age 40 or 50 of having sex with a minor under 15 or whatnot, then there's no question it wasn't a couple of kids that got tripped up on one of the age "gotchas". There are probably still some number out of the remaining 17 that were false allegations, people who couldn't afford legal representation, etc., but you'd never know that without meeting them and researching it.

But my original point here is that far too many people on these sex offender registries really shouldn't be there in the first place. The laws in this state are arcane, subject to abuse, and change constantly. We have literally created an entire class of "sex offenders" straight out of thin air, whose only "crime" was having a birthday sooner than their girlfriend, or some stupid B.S. like peeing on a golf course, or sending a text message.

And you should remember, that list was weeded down from 189 people, and even then there are still 3 on it who probably were tripped up on one of the asinine age cutoffs. Just be careful painting people with so broad a brush. Especially in this case. Our society is lumping some teenager who sent a text message (god forbid!) in with people who actually are child molesters. There is no way from these "registries" to really know the difference.

Calling them all "baby-rapers" isn't doing anyone any favors.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 24, 2009, 02:08:15 AM
Those 20 out of 189 were only in Hist Spr, if they lived outside I did not include them regardless of the offense.

Well, ok, but what is the total number of registered offenders that you started with in Historic SPR then? If 189 are in 32206, assuming a moderately spread out distribution, you must have started with 40 or 50 to get down to 20, and even then I think 3 of the 20 are still probably situations where a couple of kids got tripped up by our asinine laws.

You gotta admit, there seem to be a lot of babies getting thrown out with bathwater with these laws and registries.

then it boils down to, which is worse, babies getting raped or "thrown out with bathwater".  i guess it all boils down to what level of sexual deviance you find socially acceptable and if it works for you that's fine.
again, some of the laws seem crazy - imho the solution isn't to just break the law because it is stupid but work toward getting it changed. 

Quote from: Lunican on October 23, 2009, 10:21:39 PM
16 freshly minted sexual offenders in Nassau county?

http://jacksonville.com/community/my_nassau_sun/2009-10-23/story/girls_gone_wild_shoot_in_yulee_leads_to_16_arrests

Sadly, probably.

Quote from: cindi on October 24, 2009, 09:04:37 AM
then it boils down to, which is worse, babies getting raped or "thrown out with bathwater".  i guess it all boils down to what level of sexual deviance you find socially acceptable and if it works for you that's fine.
again, some of the laws seem crazy - imho the solution isn't to just break the law because it is stupid but work toward getting it changed. 

No, Cindi, you don't have the right to dictate that someone's constitutional rights are impinged by an unjust law simply because you personally find that to be more convenient than the alternative.

And even if I look at it from your viewpoint, then the current system is still woefully deficient, because you're running around in fear of these "sex offenders" on this "list", who really didn't do anything to begin with. A large number of them (probably the majority) aren't child molesters at all, they're just situations where a couple kids got caught up in the asinine age cutoffs, or some teenager sent a text message, or some guy peed on a golf course.

Surely you'd be better off if they just gave you a list of the ACTUAL child molesters, wouldn't you?

sorry, haven't impinged or dictated anyone's constitutional rights lately, although i do have drill today so i am kind of protecting your rights to b!tch about them.  i am not running around in fear of "sex offenders", but thanks for caring.  i think the actual "list" is labeled "sex offenders" not child molester. 
again, the list gives a "guideline".  i am sure that some take it as the "gospel" just as others dismiss the entire lists as just poor unjustly crucified people.  again, again, again, it is about getting out and knowing the people around you - BEFORE you hear it on the 6:00 news.

Quote from: cindi on October 24, 2009, 09:27:50 AM
sorry, haven't impinged or dictated anyone's constitutional rights lately, although i do have drill today so i am kind of protecting your rights to b!tch about them.  i am not running around in fear of "sex offenders", but thanks for caring.  i think the actual "list" is labeled "sex offenders" not child molester. 
again, the list gives a "guideline".  i am sure that some take it as the "gospel" just as others dismiss the entire lists as just poor unjustly crucified people.  again, again, again, it is about getting out and knowing the people around you - BEFORE you hear it on the 6:00 news.

I didn't hear such compassion for the wrongfully accused when you originally called those on the list "baby rapers".

And while I appreciate your military service, along with most folks, rubbing it in everyones' face in some effort to make your opinion count more than mine is tacky and gives your fellow service members a bad name. Kind of like going on a date and saying to anyone within earshot "yeeeeeeeeah I paid for the appetizer...I'm so getting laid tonight" while she's still sitting right there in front of you.

it doesn't make my opinion count more, and giving my fellow service members a bad name? - wow, nice, you really are a piece.

So baby rapist was a poor choice of descriptors for the people branded as sexual offenders at large.

We seem to agree on that. This has turned into a pissing match and is going nowhere.

true that. 

Oh...buckethead...you mean that isn't the purpose of these forums? Based on most of the threads I read that really isn't evident.

Just curious. If there is proof someone is innocent or if there is a case of 2 underage kids why would cops pursue the case or why would attorneys prosecute? I would also think a judge could wade through the mess. Are the cops, attorneys and judges all wrong?

Quote from: Springfield Girl on October 24, 2009, 03:43:58 PM
Just curious. If there is proof someone is innocent or if there is a case of 2 underage kids why would cops pursue the case or why would attorneys prosecute? I would also think a judge could wade through the mess. Are the cops, attorneys and judges all wrong?

There is no discretion provided for by statute, for that to be possible.

The laws are overarching, and include mandatory minimum sentencing requirements, etc. Once a complaint is made, the SA and Judge really have no choice but to simply connect the dots, no matter how badly the situation may reek of injustice. Jail time is flatly required, as is forced registration on the sex offender registry, with no discretion being left to the court.

Unless the defendant can somehow demonstrate that the birth date printed on his license is incorrect or something, then what do you expect to happen? This area of criminal law is a perfect example of why the legislature should never take away a court's discretion to wade through these things.

I had no idea someone under 18 could be convicted. I assumed, I guess like many that this only happened if one person was over 18. What is the percentage of underage kids that get prosecuted for this?

I guess I should add this to the list of new things to warn my kids about.

Why aren't people trying to change the legislation if in case these convictions are happening?

In my Jax experience, if a law doesn't effect them or someone they know...they don't care (or even care to discuss it for that matter)

Quote from: Springfield Girl on October 24, 2009, 03:56:51 PM
Why aren't people trying to change the legislation if in case these convictions are happening?

The legislation has changed almost constantly, that's actually part of the problem.

Revisions intended to fix one problem have tended to create 5 more. Especially problematic is the involvement in sexual politics of the religo-lobby, which loves drawing lines in the sand and taking a "hang 'em high!" attitude towards anyone who might cross one, even if only by accident.

The really ridiculous thing about it is that most of the "offenders" on these registries were convicted under some prior iteration of these laws, and for a lot of them, their acts probably wouldn't even be illegal under the current law. But because they were already convicted of a sex crime, good luck getting off that list.

The guy the JSO detective referred to in the article I posted earlier is a perfect example of this. He was 18 when he had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend, at a time when 18 was the legal age of consent in Florida. And he was convicted for it, and placed on the list of registered sex offenders. For life.

It doesn't matter that he's still married to that same woman today, and they're both in their 40's. And it doesn't matter that, under our current law, his actions wouldn't have been illegal in the first place. He was convicted, so he *must* be a "baby-raper", and now he's damned well gonna stay on that list! Cause' HE needs to think about MY kids before he goes raping babies next time!

As you've seen in this thread, peoples' attitudes and hostility towards this issue are really surprising.

Quote from: Ernest Street on October 24, 2009, 04:08:04 PM
In my Jax experience, if a law doesn't effect them or someone they know...they don't care (or even care to discuss it for that matter)

+1

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 24, 2009, 04:29:27 PM

Quote from: Ernest Street on October 24, 2009, 04:08:04 PM
In my Jax experience, if a law doesn't effect them or someone they know...they don't care (or even care to discuss it for that matter)

+1

Yeah, because that's not the case in any other city... Damn Jacksonvillians

I guess we can add another sex offender to the list...

Guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own kitchen, in his own house, first thing after getting out of bed in the morning. Some woman walking by outside saw him through his own window, now he's charged with indecent exposure:

Quote
Man Charged After Making Coffee Naked

FOX 5 Exclusive

Published : Tuesday, 20 Oct 2009, 12:10 AM EDT

Will
Thomas
By WILL THOMAS/myfoxdc

SPRINGFIELD, Va. - A Springfield, Virginia man is facing an indecent exposure charge after a passerby spotted the man naked in his kitchen and reported it to police.

Eric Williamson, 29, is a commercial diver who grew up in Hawaii and rents home with several co-workers. Williamson told FOX 5's Will Thomas his roommates were not home and he walked into the kitchen to make coffee about 5:30 a.m. Monday.

"Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said.

The complaint came from an unidentified woman who was walking with a 7-year-old boy. A Fairfax County Police spokesman said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

Officer Bud Walker said officers also consulted the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office and they were given the green light to proceed with the charge.

Williamson, who is father of a 5-year old girl, said he feels like the victim.

"I am a loving dad. Any of my friends and anyone knows that and there is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he said.

Williamson is meeting with a lawyer to fight the charge and may attempt to seek damages from Fairfax County Police. If convicted on the misdemeanor charge, he would face up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine.

END

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101909_man_caught_making_coffee_naked_faces_charges# (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/101909_man_caught_making_coffee_naked_faces_charges#)

Oh yeah, he's the father of a 5-year old girl. She's going to have fun explaining why Daddy's a "sex offender" at school.

::)

I used to work with a guy who was trying to get into medical school and went out one night. He met this girl at a bar, but she was underage. I guess he presumed she was old enough, given the fact that she was consuming alcohol in a bar...

Well anyhow, they go to a hotel, get it on, and she gets in trouble with her parents the next day. Then the guy gets arrested and goes to jail and is now a "predator" for the rest of his life. He can't become a doctor now, either.

Better check someone's ID before you invite them in and put up the "Do not disturb" sign.... but wait, the ID could be a fake too... hmmm..

QuoteHe can't become a doctor now, either.

If the crime took place in FL, he can go somewhere else, Alabama comes to mind and apply for his healtcare license and get one, as many states are allowing healthcare professionals with records to apply in their states, so long as the offense did not take place in their state. Scary, but many states are desperate for professionals and the revenue that comes from the State and Fed government.

Follow the money...

Quote from: ChriswUfGator
I guess we can add another sex offender to the list...

Guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own kitchen, in his own house, first thing after getting out of bed in the morning. Some woman walking by outside saw him through his own window, now he's charged with indecent exposure:

First of all, why in the world is this guy standing in his kitchen naked, when there must not be curtains or shades to keep from being seen by anyone outside. Who cares that he wants to make coffee naked, that's his privilege, but it's stupid of him to do so when he can be seen from outside.

We all know that the law needs to be revisited and make it so those who get caught up in stupid acts like this, or some of the other stupid acts don't haunt them for the rest of their lives. However, at some point, people simply have to think about what they're doing and take responsibility for their own actions.

This constant bringing up cases like this is useless...if it bothers you that people are being tagged as sex offenders, when you feel they are not...then petition the law makers to change the laws.

I'm thankful to not know anyone that was stupid or reckless with their sexual actions, that would've landed them charged with a sexual offense. I can't say that I feel sorry for those who have, it's called doing the right thing and not leaving yourself or opening up yourself to the possibility of violating the law.

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 10:07:49 AM
And as far as the teenage scenario, they know the law, so tough-cookies. Hold out till your 18, esp. if you have crazy strict parents.

BY that reckoning, most people who had any kind of a dating life in high school should be branded a sex offender. The case of a senior dating a freshman or sophmore would be tantamount to rape.

Should schools enforce a no dating outside of your class rule? Should they disallow couples from coming to dances when one of them is younger than the other -- even if by only a month? This would deprive teenagers of learnng important social interaction rules. Granted, sex among teenagers shold be discouraged, but do you really think that two kids making out in the back seat at the local Lovers Lane deserves to be called a sex crime?

If so, lock me up because I am guilty of just such offeneses. While I was high school senior I dated a sophomore, while a freshman in college I dated a high school senior. It was considered normal, when did that change?

Our society has a tendancy to over react and that catches a lot of people in the middle. It is ludicris to beleive that teenagers will not sneak off to make out and even more so to criminalize it. As the parent of two teenage girls, and while I find that the thought of boys with my daughters makes my blood boil, I realize that they are going to have boyfriends. Is there a line which must be drawn? Yes, but it must be reasonable. Punishing two high school kids for necking is going too far. Punishing a 21-year-old man for sleeping with a 16-year-old girl is reasonable.

the guy making coffee naked while it is visible from street has a 5-year girl? I hope the little girl was not visiting him that day. It would be rather terrible if the little girl wakes up by a nightmare, goes around the house looking for her Dad and walks into a nightmare......

First of all, there's nothing wrong with teenagers dating, so why should schools have a no-dating policy? And no, kids making out at lovers lane, IMO, doesn't warrant a call to the sex crimes unit. However, they take their own risks if they engage in sexual activity while minors...and no, I'm not advocating they should be arrested and labeled as sex offenders. I think that most people have already agreed about that, so to continually bring the teenager scenarios is fruitless.

Although I do agree that as a whole, society does tend to over react, however there's also the cry for stronger penalties when it comes to those convicted of sexual abuse of a minor...and no, I'm not talking about teenagers sexually active with other teenagers.

Quote from: Springfielder on October 26, 2009, 06:58:57 AM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator
I guess we can add another sex offender to the list...

Guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own kitchen, in his own house, first thing after getting out of bed in the morning. Some woman walking by outside saw him through his own window, now he's charged with indecent exposure:

First of all, why in the world is this guy standing in his kitchen naked, when there must not be curtains or shades to keep from being seen by anyone outside. Who cares that he wants to make coffee naked, that's his privilege, but it's stupid of him to do so when he can be seen from outside.

We all know that the law needs to be revisited and make it so those who get caught up in stupid acts like this, or some of the other stupid acts don't haunt them for the rest of their lives. However, at some point, people simply have to think about what they're doing and take responsibility for their own actions.

This constant bringing up cases like this is useless...if it bothers you that people are being tagged as sex offenders, when you feel they are not...then petition the law makers to change the laws.

I'm thankful to not know anyone that was stupid or reckless with their sexual actions, that would've landed them charged with a sexual offense. I can't say that I feel sorry for those who have, it's called doing the right thing and not leaving yourself or opening up yourself to the possibility of violating the law.

He says right in the article he didn't think anybody could see him. You saying you've NEVER had to walk around your own house naked? Gimme a break! Come onnnnnnnnnnn....

Everybody does it. How else do you get from your bed to the shower? And from the shower to the closet? If someone doesn't want to see what's going on in your house, they shouldn't be peeping through your windows in the first place!

And I disagree with your point, because I don't really think the guy did anything stupid in the first place. He does the same thing we all do, and did it in his own house! I think he rolled out of bed the same way he usually sleeps, and went into the kitchen to put the coffee on. Should he really have to expect some random woman to be peeping into his house at that exact moment and call the cops on him? That's ridiculous! And it's equally ridiculous that the guy will be labeled a 'sex offender'...

Even from the 'hang 'em high' / 'personal responsibility' argument side of things, the current setup still isn't working. Would you rather get a list of (literally) a couple thousand "sex offenders" in every city and then have to wonder which ones are just some dumb$h!t B.S. like this, and which ones who are actually child molesters? Or would you rather have a list of child molesters? Wouldn't the latter be better for everyone?

If he was visible from a passerby, then he was stupid. Has he ever heard of curtains or shades? That's all it would've taken.

Now, how many times do you have to read by others posting here, that the law needs to be revisited? I've not read many in support of anyone being labeled a sex offender for stupid crap like this...

Quote from: Springfielder on October 26, 2009, 11:44:08 AM
If he was visible from a passerby, then he was stupid. Has he ever heard of curtains or shades? That's all it would've taken.

Now, how many times do you have to read by others posting here, that the law needs to be revisited? I've not read many in support of anyone being labeled a sex offender for stupid crap like this...

So then you think the onus is on a homeowner to do whatever is necessary to prevent any other person from ever peeping inside their windows and possibly seeing them naked? What if he had drapes, but there was a crack in the middle? Or you could see a silhouette through the drapes from the lighting inside when it's dark out? We're supposed to put up 15ft high walls or something?

And since you're such a proponent of personal responsibility, you don't think that if the woman doesn't want to see what's going on inside someone's private home, she shouldn't be peeping in there in the first place?

First of all, I doubt this woman walking by with her young son was out roaming the neighborhood, peeping into houses. I know that when I'm walking by houses in my neighborhood, I look at the house...which does not constitute peeping...walking by and looking and peeping are two VERY different things. And if this guy was visible to anyone walking by, looking at the house as they do, and seeing him...yes, he's wrong.

And yes, the homeowner/resident/occupant should be responsible. As you stated before, many of us do wander from room to room not fully clothed...part of the freedom one has being in their own home, but along with that comes the responsibility of ensuring privacy to do so.

Quote from: Springfielder on October 26, 2009, 11:53:31 AM
First of all, I doubt this woman walking by with her young son was out roaming the neighborhood, peeping into houses. I know that when I'm walking by houses in my neighborhood, I look at the house...which does not constitute peeping...walking by and looking and peeping are two VERY different things. And if this guy was visible to anyone walking by, looking at the house as they do, and seeing him...yes, he's wrong.

And yes, the homeowner/resident/occupant should be responsible. As you stated before, many of us do wander from room to room not fully clothed...part of the freedom one has being in their own home, but along with that comes the responsibility of ensuring privacy to do so.

But,

1: He already said he thought he was in private and didn't think anyone could see him, and;

2: He was in his own home.

So that sounds catchy and all, but honestly WTF is he supposed to do here? Should he have shut the drapes? Probably. But if he believed in good faith nobody could see him and was inside his own house, I think that should be the end of it.

With all due respect, if you are so easily offended, don't look into people's houses. Where's the personal responsibility on the part of the woman? What's she going to do when her kid gets ahold of an R-rated movie then, get the CEO of MGM arrested? If you don't wanna see it, don't look. It's that simple.

If she doesn't want to see stuff like that, then don't look through other peoples' windows! The guy wasn't running around outside flashing her and her kid. She admits he was inside his own house making coffee and she looked in his window!

Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2009, 12:05:07 PM
in any reasonable society, the woman should have been arrested for peeping.

The place is in serious need of an enema.

So walking on a sidewalk and glancing over at someone's house should now constitute peeping? That makes as much sense as the guy that got arrested.

And so far as "serious need of an enema", I agree. This forum needs a serious douching.

Quote from: ChriswUfGator
But,

1: He already said he thought he was in private and didn't think anyone could see him, and;

2: He was in his own home.

So that sounds catchy and all, but honestly WTF is he supposed to do here? Should he have shut the drapes? Probably. But if he believed in good faith nobody could see him and was inside his own house, I think that should be the end of it.

With all due respect, if you are so easily offended, don't look into people's houses. Where's the personal responsibility on the part of the woman? What's she going to do when her kid gets ahold of an R-rated movie then, get the CEO of MGM arrested? If you don't wanna see it, don't look. It's that simple.

If she doesn't want to see stuff like that, then don't look through other peoples' windows! The guy wasn't running around outside flashing her and her kid. She admits he was inside his own house making coffee and she looked in his window!

When I'm walking the dog, or just taking a walk through my neighborhood, one of the things that makes it enjoyable, is looking at the houses....I personally, find it pleasurable to be able to do so. Had I been the one who happened to see some naked guy by his window, I wouldn't have called police, I would've simply mentioned it to him (as my neighbor) to be aware that he's visible to passersby.

There is no responsibility on behalf of people walking by and seeing something like that, visible as a passerby. To suggest there is, is ludicrous. I can appreciate that the guy didn't think anyone could see him, and IMO, I think all that needed to be done, was the officer to warn him that he was, and left it at that.

Quote from: nvrenuf on October 26, 2009, 12:11:02 PM

Quote from: stephendare on October 26, 2009, 12:05:07 PM
in any reasonable society, the woman should have been arrested for peeping.

The place is in serious need of an enema.

So walking on a sidewalk and glancing over at someone's house should now constitute peeping? That makes as much sense as the guy that got arrested.

And so far as "serious need of an enema", I agree. This forum needs a serious douching.

LOL

Never would have happened in Springfield. We are constantly being told that if JSO didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Um yeah, Virginia. Springfield, Virginia. Are we discussing all the Springfields throughout America in this forum subset?

So what's the big deal about nudity?  If the woman wasn't a nutcase she should have laughed at the guy showing his rear end while thinking no one could see him.  Big whoop!

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 26, 2009, 05:28:53 PM
Funniest thing, a woman was outside of the house across the street demanding that her daughter come out.  The daughter was over there at her boyfriend's "room." (not to get started on that topic ;)  The man walks out and she is cussing him up and down.  Two police officers show up and facilitate the discussion between the two.  She says: "You are 33, she is 18!"

Anyway, after much arguing and quite a scene, the girl comes out and she and the mother walk home.  The guy goes back inside.  My wife and I walk over to talk to the police officers.  I recognized one of them and couldn't quite figure out where, so we had that discussion.  Then we were talking about how it was a lawful relationship etc. etc.  The police officer told us that it is lawful for 16-24 year olds to engage in a sexual relationship.  In other words a 24 year old man can have sex with a 16 year old girl and be within the law.  I thought this was interesting and would be worth sharing on this thread.

Yeah, that's the latest iteration of the law. It was discussed a few pages back, here;

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 11:28:11 AM

Quote from: stephElf on October 23, 2009, 11:16:24 AM
So (2) 13 yr olds can have sex? Or it has to be 16 and over...

As long as they are both 16, or 17, or 18, etc...

but not a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old... well until it changes, it is something people need to be aware of. You sound like you are suggesting people blatantly DON'T follow the law because it is unfair.

There are a couple breakpoints. Which is one of the things that's so unbelievably stupid. The latest iteration of these asinine laws provides that a 16 or 17 year old can already have sex with someone up to age 24, without it being considered a crime. So like I've said repeatedly, the religo-nazi "age of consent" horse has already left the barn.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0794/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0794-%3ESection%2005#0794.05

But a 15 year-and-11-month old and a 16 year old, or any other combination you can think of involving anyone over and under that arbitrary break point = "sex crime". A 24 year old and someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old, = sex crime. Meanwhile, two 15 year olds = no crime.

It's all unjust. What's worse, they change these laws all the time, almost every two years there is some revision that makes these things even more asinine than before.

But the problem, they made no provision for the people who already got tripped on the old 18/15 laws, even though their conduct is now completely legal under our State's laws. I think thats really unfair. They're forced to stay on this sex offenders list for a "crime" that isn't even a crime anymore! And was ridiculous to begin with, even when it was considered a 'crime'.

Then unfair point #2 is that it just created another age "gotcha" between 15 and 16 year olds. Which ages make up like half of every high school, so let's not kid ourselves that they don't date, etc. 15 years 11 months 29 days vs. 16, and you've got a "sex crime".

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
Also, nvrenuf, I'm not trying to be picky, but on your list I think the following were probably wrong place/time or age "gotcha" situations:

QuoteRodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This kid was only 19 on the date of his final adjudication in May 2001. Then speaking realistically, the "offense" likely occurred at least a year or two prior to that, perhaps even longer. Once you waive speedy trial, things can really drag out. So looking at the information, the "offenders" birth date is September of 1981, and then taking the victim's age range according to the original charge under FS 800.04, it appears this was probably a 16 or 17 year old kid with a 15 year old kid. To put it in perspective, that's a high school freshman dating a high school junior or sophomore. Unless you have more information on this one, I doubt this was really a "sex crime".

QuoteChavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This one is also likely a wrong place/time situation. Apparently the judge agreed with me, considering the withhold of adjudication, in both this case and the one above.

This guy has a December of 1975 birth date, and an adjudication date of May 1999. As of the date of conviction, the kid was only 23, and the actual incident probably occurred at least a year or two or three prior to that date. The statute he was cited under at that time required only that the "victim" be <18. So in all likelihood, this could have been a 19 or 20 year old kid with a 17 year old kid. Again, unless you have more information on this one, I don't consider that a "sex crime".

QuoteNeil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Same deal as above. Looking at the dates, this could well have been an 18 or 19 year old kid with a 15 or almost-16 year old kid. I doubt this was really what most people would consider a "sex crime".

Also, as a side note, my date ranges are assuming the "incidents" (if you can call them that) were reported the same day as they occurred. Which is almost certainly not the case. Assuming you don't waive speedy trial, then it takes 6 months to get to trial, and it could still conceivably be a year or longer by the time sentencing rolls around. If the defendant does waive speedy trial, then all bets are off, and these things can really drag out awhile, depending on discovery, etc. So if you start adding the statute of limitations on top of all of that, then these "offenders" could very well have been (and, looking at the dates, quite likely were) very close to the "victim's" ages.

Again, unless there is some additional information, it would appear these aren't child molestation cases, or even what most normal people would consider a "sex crime".

Without trying to take a side, you don't know how wrong you are about these guys.  Whatever method you are using to pick out "non" cases, throw it out.

Quote from: NotNow on October 26, 2009, 10:21:21 PM

Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 23, 2009, 01:37:46 PM
Also, nvrenuf, I'm not trying to be picky, but on your list I think the following were probably wrong place/time or age "gotcha" situations:

QuoteRodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This kid was only 19 on the date of his final adjudication in May 2001. Then speaking realistically, the "offense" likely occurred at least a year or two prior to that, perhaps even longer. Once you waive speedy trial, things can really drag out. So looking at the information, the "offenders" birth date is September of 1981, and then taking the victim's age range according to the original charge under FS 800.04, it appears this was probably a 16 or 17 year old kid with a 15 year old kid. To put it in perspective, that's a high school freshman dating a high school junior or sophomore. Unless you have more information on this one, I doubt this was really a "sex crime".

QuoteChavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This one is also likely a wrong place/time situation. Apparently the judge agreed with me, considering the withhold of adjudication, in both this case and the one above.

This guy has a December of 1975 birth date, and an adjudication date of May 1999. As of the date of conviction, the kid was only 23, and the actual incident probably occurred at least a year or two or three prior to that date. The statute he was cited under at that time required only that the "victim" be <18. So in all likelihood, this could have been a 19 or 20 year old kid with a 17 year old kid. Again, unless you have more information on this one, I don't consider that a "sex crime".

QuoteNeil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Same deal as above. Looking at the dates, this could well have been an 18 or 19 year old kid with a 15 or almost-16 year old kid. I doubt this was really what most people would consider a "sex crime".

Also, as a side note, my date ranges are assuming the "incidents" (if you can call them that) were reported the same day as they occurred. Which is almost certainly not the case. Assuming you don't waive speedy trial, then it takes 6 months to get to trial, and it could still conceivably be a year or longer by the time sentencing rolls around. If the defendant does waive speedy trial, then all bets are off, and these things can really drag out awhile, depending on discovery, etc. So if you start adding the statute of limitations on top of all of that, then these "offenders" could very well have been (and, looking at the dates, quite likely were) very close to the "victim's" ages.

Again, unless there is some additional information, it would appear these aren't child molestation cases, or even what most normal people would consider a "sex crime".

Without trying to take a side, you don't know how wrong you are about these guys.  Whatever method you are using to pick out "non" cases, throw it out.

And what method are you using? Care to elaborate?

You can go and get a copy of the arrest docket.  It is public record.

Quote from: NotNow on October 26, 2009, 10:41:49 PM
You can go and get a copy of the arrest docket.  It is public record.

Exactly...

Ok, so let's take Neil Christian Allen as an example.

Per your own advice, pull the docket sheet. His original offense date was 02/01/1995, making him 18 years old at the time he allegedly had sex with a minor under 18. I originally guessed 20, so he actually comes out a year better than what I guesstimated.

https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=4957838&court=0 (https://showcase.duvalclerk.com/ViewCaseDetails.aspx?id=4957838&court=0)

So yeah, exactly how am I 'off' again?  ::)

Quote
Division:           CR-B
Offender #:   1995-003978
Offense Date:   02/01/1995
Clerk File Date:   03/07/1995
Incident #:           1995-0000000
SA #:           95CF003344AD
Agency:           JSO
Sheriffs #:           498709

Allen is a POS.  You might want to check your facts on the age of the girl. He hasn't done a real good job staying out of jail since then either.  Get a look at the statement of probable cause.  Trust me, you don't want to make your argument with these guys.

While your at it, look up the other two.  By the way, how is Neil Allen doing these days?  How old was the girl Rodrick knocked up?  Can you get that out of the clerks files?  I'm not trying to offend you Chris, and I don't disagree with your point, but you are pulling the wrong cases for your argument.  If this happens as often as you think, it should be easy to find some REAL "non" cases.

Quote from: NotNow on October 26, 2009, 11:17:31 PM
While your at it, look up the other two.  By the way, how is Neil Allen doing these days?  How old was the girl Rodrick knocked up?  Can you get that out of the clerks files?  I'm not trying to offend you Chris, and I don't disagree with your point, but you are pulling the wrong cases for your argument.  If this happens as often as you think, it should be easy to find some REAL "non" cases.

Do you know any of those three personally?

NN, can you give us a quick tutorial on how to look up arrest dockets online?

You will have to take the JSO CCR # and go to a substation or 501 E. Bay St. and order up the report.  General report will have the information in the narrative, but the Arrest and Booking Report will have the probable cause statement of the arresting Officer.  I am sorry but I do not believe that these are retrievable online.

And Chris, I have experience with Rodrick.

Quote from: NotNow on October 27, 2009, 03:19:39 PM
And Chris, I have experience with Rodrick.

I'll take your word for it then. I've never met any of them in person.

NN, How do you get the JSO CCR#?  Is there any way to just look through the arrest reports at the sub-station to try to get a sense of what is going on in a particular area?

It is listed as Incident # in the county and clerks records and will start with a year, such as 09-000000.  Or if you want, you can give the substation Officer  a location and date and they can look it up.  This can be tricky as sometimes the reporting address is different from the location of the crime.  The JSO web site has county wide stats.  They are about to put up stats by zone.  Look under "Patrol" and then pick the zone out that you want to look at. 

JSO is working at making more information online.  StephenDare! has made several very good suggestions and I have passed them on.  We really need to have someone who is adept at online communication look at what we do and try to improve the availibility of immediate information via facebook, twitter, etc.

I also think online availability would be useful to the officer on the street.  (S)He could look up reports for an area when investigating a complaint to see if there was a history of similar problems nearby and get a sense of pattern immediately while still on the scene.

I also think that if the general public had a better view of what was going on in a particular area it might make them alert to suspicious behaviors.

What would be some of the "real life" rather than technical problems that might arise if people had online, easy access to officers' reports.  Is there a possibility for abuse in there?

Wow, you are scaring me.  Those are all good ideas.  One of our big weaknesses right now is the dispatch system.  (Because of many factors) it just takes too long to get a call dispatched.  While not replacing dispatch, this could solve some of that problem.  Hmm,

Sorry if someone has already posted this - admittedly I did not read all 12 pages of this thread...  The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has an online sexual predator service called 'Offender Watch' that even offers immediate email notifications.  I've been using it for quite some time.

http://sheriffalerts.com/cap_main.php?office=54115

OffenderWatch® is updated instantaneously throughout the day as offender addresses and other offender information is updated in our office. You may enter any address in Jacksonville and see real-time information on the publishable offenders within the specified radius of the address you enter.

Offenders move frequently, so instead of having to check the maps on a weekly basis, the best way to stay informed is to take advantage of our free email alert system. You may confidentially register as many addresses in Jacksonville as you wish, and we will continuously monitor the addresses and send you an email alert if a new offender registers an address within the specified radius of any address you register. There is no cost for this service and no limit to the number of addresses you can register - your email address and physical addresses are all confidential. Tell your friends and neighbors and be sure to register your home, school, work, gym, day care, park, soccer field, parents or children's homes - any address of interest to you!

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 29, 2009, 09:20:35 AM
Good luck with getting some kind of coordination with the block captains in Springfield.  I, and others in the past,have tried to form some sort of bona fide citizens crime prevention unit (not just your typical neighborhood watch) and hit a brick wall at both SPAR and JSO.  "The crime is improving month after month."  "There isn't any crime in Springfield."  Yeah right!  I would be interested in helping out with something like this.  If there are a few more civilians that are interested and there is JSO officer that actually gives a crap enough to get the office work with us we could get something really awesome going.

There were like two break-ins in Riverside and within a month there was a Neighborhood Watch system in place, with volunteers and everyone assigned shifts etc.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,5898.0.html

Talk to JaxNole, he was one of the organizers, he might be able to offer some insight. As an unrelated side-note, this is another perfect example of why SPAR's current top brass needs to go.

Quote from: Matt McVay on October 29, 2009, 10:18:54 AM
A direct line, text or voice, to the officers on duty and their ability/willingness to respond without dispatch is the key component.  There are eyes all over this neighborhood.  An emergency message system has been tested by some of us in the hood.  It is something that requires the user to subscribe and then has the option of submitting/receiving alerts via text, voicemail, or email.  The JSO officers that work in this area could subscribe for the service and receive the alerts as well.  It is only effective if they respond though.  I'm sure a picture upload option could be added to enable upload a picture of the perp, etc.  A strict usage policy or user screening would have to be in place to prevent abuse.

The Riverside Neighborhood Watch has a website where you can go to report activity, and the person "on duty" then gets an immediate notification and can investigate and call police. It's a good solution.

Again, talk to JaxNole, he set up the alert system and can give you some insight.

Yes I wonder how ole' R2D2 is holding up these days? Being strung up by your toenails always seemed unpleasant.