Skip to comments.Subdivision Wants To Ban Sex Offenders
Posted on 08/13/2011 10:34:17 PM PDT by Slings and Arrows
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Residents in an exclusive west Orange County subdivision want to ban registered sex offenders from moving in.
State law requires convicted sex offenders to live at least 1,000 feet from schools or playgrounds, but residents in the Keene's Pointe gated community in Windermere said they want to bump that up to 2,500 feet.
A rule like that would keep any sex offender from moving into the subdivision.
"Everybody wants this to be as safe a place as possible to raise their kids and they all recognize that this is one of the ways to do that," said HOA President Russ Blackwell.
The idea came about when residents learned that their neighbor was a registered sex offender.
The ban would apply to future residents.
Do they lean Dem in that district?
I’m not for sex offenders in any way or shape. But why lay laws, on top of laws, that already address this issue.
These people are for bigger regulation and control.
What is next?
Can’t live there unless your Soccer Mom car is valued over $50K?
All they have to do it put in some more parks, a learning center for children and they sex offenders can’t live there.
If this is a community with a Home Owners Assoc. I don’t see how you can’t get away with this. People should have the right to live however they feel fit. Having dirtbags eliminated as neighbors seems more constructive than banning Christmas displays and the American Flag.
They probably don’t want perverts being able to live near their children. They work hard, they are active in their communities, and they pay big money to live well and safely. How is it irrational that they don’t want these fiends near their children at all? They don’t pay for undesirable elements to live around them, rightly if I may be so bold as to add. Would you want these people living near you and would you prevent it if you could? I know I would gladly (not implement a law obviously) prevent them from living near me or my neighborhood if I could.
I don’t see the big government argument against people not wanting sex offenders living next door.
The only problem I have is that too many offenses fall under the sex offenders act. There have been stories in the media of guys getting sex offender status for pissing in the forest or 18 year olds for dating a 16 year old.
This happened to the son of a friend of mine. Walked out of a bar, took a leak in the parking lot, and a cop drove by just at that moment.
Looks peaceful, but is really meant to put the ‘boot on the throat’ of the law abiding citizen.
By the way, HOAs are mostly run and ruled by narrow minded folk, with nothing better to do than enact restrictions to feel power.
In CA, they use the same argument (currently 1,000 feet from a school) that you cannot carry an unloaded firearm (to the point they mean on your own property or in public site, or crossing the street to put an unloaded firearm in your auto to go to a legal place of using it).
If you get pulled over, within 1,000 feet of a School in CA and asked to declare if you have any weapons, you either lie or be honest about them (unloaded and properly stored) and still face a felony, based on the ignorance or knowledge of the Peace Officer's mood at that time.
That is my analogy on why it is not about ‘sex offenders’ (who I despise) but about the bigger picture of allowing petty interests to control the masses. That is undemocratic.
They are using this angle to move even more progressive agendas.
I think you’re missing the point. These are fat cats who don’t want sex offenders living anywhere near their children, but could give a flying —— about anyone elses. Moving sex offenders en masse to poorer neighborhoods doesn’t lessen the threat of sex offenders, just the class of their potential victims.
I agree. Many Police are lazy in the way they charge people. I say that having many LE and Fed friends who are not lazy (but those guys are getting fewer to find).
“If this is a community with a Home Owners Assoc. I dont see how you cant get away with this. People should have the right to live however they feel fit.”
From what I read, one of the main activities of a Home owners Assoc. is to deny people the right to live however they feel fit.
“Having dirtbags eliminated as neighbors seems more constructive than banning Christmas displays and the American Flag.”
Going back to your first sentence, dirtbags are people too. Heck, even you may be a dirtbag from your neighbor’s point of view.
As to the sex offender part, what did he do to earn that status? Was it more serious than taking a leak by the side of the road at midnight? More serious than streaking at a football game when he was a teen? More serious than a false accusation in family court? Do you know?
That's one of my concerns. The other is that these people are looking to modify a law covering the whole state for their own convenience. If it applies only to their community there's an equal protection issue; if it applies to the whole state there will be massive disruptions (not just of the SO's), and who-knows-what unintended consequences.
Valid points. Please see my post #13.
“I know I would gladly (not implement a law obviously) prevent them from living near me or my neighborhood if I could.”
Why not implement a law? And what would you do in the way of prevention instead of a law?
On the other hand, I know of one neighborhood just north of me drove out a sex offender by force. I think his place might have burned down (or threatened), or he was harassed. I don't remember. This sicko was the real thing and a repeat offender who liked little boys and little girls. He should have gotten life.
That's my problem with the list. Those that really do belong on the list, shouldn't be out on the street in the first place.
sounds reasonable and rational. Therefore,,,it is almost certainly against federal law.
I forgot to add. Now the special interests groups (maybe Progressive Socialists?) in CA are petitioning to move that 1,000 feet circle around schools to 2,000 feet. This is in effect, de-facto gun control over 80% of the state.
They justify this by the fact that ‘it protects children’. Forget personal liberties. Gee, have not read of any law abiding citizens shooting school children in CA, ever.
CA is one big Leftist Progressive Home Owners Association from Stalin.
===== Point Below =======
So, my analogy (ignore the fact that this is about someone has a Sex Offense) is that a minority of activists can eventually erode common sense and the masses to gain control over the masses.
Creeping Shariah Law, by people who don't see past their petty needs.
Yes, the law of unintended consequences.
This is a clear case of NIMBY. Keep the sex offenders and other rabble out of “our gated Communiteh” while the little people have to suffer.
But you have to CHOOSE to live in a community with deed restrictions.
What’s the problem with it, again?
A bill of attainder is any law that imposes a punishment because of who you are, or because you’re a member of a class of persons, such as all those with short hair, or those having blue eyes, white skin, blond hair, male genitalia or having attained a certain age. Bills of attainer are prohibited by the Constitution.
Because of the prohibition against bills of attainder, punishments can only be imposed because a person has intentionally committed a well-defined act after the law imposing the punishment was passed, and the punishment can only be imposed pursuant to conviction and sentencing by a court—where the punishment is explicitly ordered by the sentence of the court.
Imposing a punishment for an act committed before the act was made punishable by law is an ex-post-facto law, which is also unconstitutional. Imposing a new punishment for a past crime—after the person has been convicted and sentenced—is both an ex-post-facto law and a bill of attainder, and so is doubly unconstitutional.
Imposing a punishment for simply having been previously convicted of a crime, where that punishment is not part of the sentence issued by a court pursuant to that previous conviction, is also a bill of attainder—for the same reason that imposing a punishment for any other fact of a person’s life which he has no current power to change or undo would be (such as being over 65 years of age.)
New or additional punishments must be imposed only as a consequence of actions that a person can choose to avoid in the future, not for past acts which can never be undone. Punishments are only justified as deterrents to future actions, never as additional constraints or deprivations for past acts. If the punishment for a person’s actions was not already authorized by law before the actions were performed, it is unconstitutional to apply them to any who may have committed those acts before the new or additional punishment was authorized by law.
Criminalizing or punishing a person simply for now having the status of a convicted criminal is no different than criminalizing or punishing a person for once having had any other past status which he can now never change. It is evil, immoral and unconstitutional. It is a violation of the principle of the rule of law, which requires that the same laws apply to everyone equally, and that no distinctions can be made based on who you are.
Punishments are justified as a means to discourage future bad behavior, not as a means for society to discriminate against people for what they have no power to change.
I also choose not to let a well heeled minority of home owners set in motion laws that further touch me, away from the protected community they live in.
What they deem to be correct for them, in an enclave, does not necessarily bode well for the rest of the state of FL (or the local County).
Again, small minded people trying to control the masses, even if they do not understand the ramifications of their small mindedness.
It’s also a defacto death penalty.
Why should they get special treatment? We’d all like to keep sex offenders out of our neighborhoods.
That's it in a nutshell!
She's a witch..... if you know the reference.
If she floats, she's a witch to be burned at the stake. If she drowns, she is innocent and not a witch.
‘Witch’ is it here? Humm......
Again I say, is the next decree of the HOA that no Soccer Mom's vehicle that is less than $50K be allowed within 3 miles of our ‘community’?
Where does this stop.
The FL State Gov has the authority to set laws over Sex Offenders. What they are doing for their own little interests affects the entire state, potentially.
I do not like Sex Offenders, and they are counting on everyone else not liking them to get their way.
But they are mioptic in their view and forgetting how this will affect the rest of the state if enacted.
Convicted murderers, meth dealers, armed robbers, arsonists... ok?
I understand the theory, but has a law of this nature ever been challenged successfully on this basis?
They’re already priced out of the market.
Well, the idiot. Why didn’t he use the men’s room? I have no sympathy for your friend’s son, he broke the law and knew he was doing so. Men can be so disgusting, pissing in a parking lot! It’s not on par with rape, but it is wrong.
GUYS: the world is not your urinal.
(Caveat: this is the extreme female point of view, don’t be mean now because I’m a girl and naturally feel this way.)
A 50 fine would have been appropriate, but not a lifetime penalty.
Over the years I have seen many of the ‘black tie’ level of educated moneyed woman piss in the woods or on the side of the road, or over the rail of a multi-million dollar boat.
Why is a man unequal?
OK, yes, there I agree with you. Suit the punishment to the crime, and some things are “sex offenses” but the person is clearly not likely to harm a child.
I think a man or woman going tinkle in the woods, say on a long hike, is clearly not the same as going outside a bar in a well-lit parking lot in a business district, with women and possibly even kids being unwilling witnesses to it.
Really it’s not whether it’s a man or woman, it’s what is appropriate and decent behavior for civilized people in an open, public area.
I’m not excusing him, but an indecent exposure charge and a lifetime on the sex offender registry is pretty extreme for a momentary lapse of judgement with no victims. A ticket and a fine would be proportional justice.
What's the point of living in an exclusive subdivision if you can't exclude people you don't want living there?
It is a double standard, which often leads to the DA pressing the hardest minor or felony charge they can win, on a minor citation, so that the DA’s numbers look great!
You don't understand the ‘system’.
And as for pi**ing in the forest, I thought that's what trees were for?
I agree, especially if no one was around. That is quite different than deliberately exposing himself to women walking to their cars or that sort of thing.
Maybe the laws themselves in this area need more fine-tuning and clear definitions.
Wow, I sure don’t. Didn’t realize there was so much tinkling in public going on, by men or women, or that the cops were so fascinated with it.
This is unDemocratic.
I ask my original question in my first post. Is this small exclusive community of strictly Democratic Party voting? Sounds like it to me.
The issue may be that a state law cannot be changed by an HOA. The state law overrides any rule they would make, whether it’s favorable or unfavorable to the resident in question.
Just like with building codes, the HOA might want to allow something or prohibit something for new homes, but I believe the County Codes are what a builder is beholden to.
Well, it’s been fun, but I’ve got to go take a leak...tee hee hee!
They are trying to enforce a state wide ban to settle a small need for the exclusive community they live in.
Cute response but you are admitting you do not understand.
Best to you. Regards and Semper Fi.
Hmmm...sounds like it could go either way, depending on the composition of the court.
My late Jack Russell Terrier would have agreed wholeheartedly.