dahmers love zombie: Stupid: Passing laws that create these sort of zones. If you are that scared of an offender reoffending, do me a favor -- change the Constitution so that you can keep them in jail forever. Surely that could get the requisite number of states to vote for it? But until then, use a little common sense in creating these forever-punishing sex offender registries.

I could go out and kill a kid and have fewer restrictions on me when I get out of prison, than if the kid sees me fapping in my bedroom because they were looking over my fence.

Moral of the story: Always kill them before the sex because at that point its necrophelia instead of pedophilia

Don't the molesters know the rules of supply and demand?

Huh huh...

Wood creek.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And day care is always free!

And the quite when they get home is priceless!

Damn that client suggestion box!

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The Angry Hand of God: Don't the molesters know the rules of supply and demand?

The demand consistent supply of fresh poon. Learn you some economics.

I guess you are right. I was just thinking there was a lot of competition.

dahmers love zombie: Stupid: Passing laws that create these sort of zones. If you are that scared of an offender reoffending, do me a favor -- change the Constitution so that you can keep them in jail forever. Surely that could get the requisite number of states to vote for it? But until then, use a little common sense in creating these forever-punishing sex offender registries.

I could go out and kill a kid and have fewer restrictions on me when I get out of prison, than if the kid sees me fapping in my bedroom because they were looking over my fence.


This. Those child-worshiping "think of the children" knee-jerk reactionary asshats want to have their cake and eat it too.

Is there some sort of rewards program for these places? Or at least a free continental breakfast?

They used to have a free kids buffet, but the sneeze guard kept getting in the way.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/jan/07/48pt-hed1-15-inches-of-s tory/

Nice SEO URL you got there, Courier Press.

germ78: Not all sex offenders are child molesters, subby. There are plenty of sex offenders out there who will rape you even if you're not a child.

Health Care worker repeatedly rapes an elderly patient.
Automatically can't live near schools and parks.

Makes complete sense.

Nice.
They did the same thing around here, except it was 2000 feet, (or was it yards, I forget). anyways, now the only places they can live are isolated hotels outside of town or quiet little acreages out in the boonies.
Which is perfectly fine, since they can't drive and pick up victims and bring them to where no one will hear them scream, or in the case of hotels, help hold them down.

/them damned unintended consequences.

"Welcome to the Woodcreek Inn! Would you like a raping or non-raping room?"

FormlessOne: "Welcome to the Woodcreek Inn! Would you like a raping or non-raping room?"

The wife and I are going out tonight, do you offer child care?

How much do they charge for Bad Kids?

Did anyone notice the hyperlink contains the words "15 inches of story"? Giggity.

I would never side with child molesters, but as a side note, can we get some child free zones in places? I'd rather live next door to the sex offender than children. I guess it depends on what the sex offense was of course :P, but most likely they wouldn't bother me however a child will.

Nothing comes for free. We all learn that sooner or later

The hotel really isn't that bad. The lubed up door knobs make opening doors a bit tricky, but you get used to it.

Were they holding a Cereal Convention or something?

dahmers love zombie: Stupid: Passing laws that create these sort of zones. If you are that scared of an offender reoffending, do me a favor -- change the Constitution so that you can keep them in jail forever. Surely that could get the requisite number of states to vote for it? But until then, use a little common sense in creating these forever-punishing sex offender registries.

I could go out and kill a kid and have fewer restrictions on me when I get out of prison, than if the kid sees me fapping in my bedroom because they were looking over my fence.

This. So very much this.

Kids check in, and get checked out.

Now that's a reality show.

belhade: Were they holding a Cereal Convention or something?


"Fun Land" will NOT tell you where he hunts.....

It really does not help that public urinators, mooners, MILF's that scored with the 16 year old neighbor, and men that didn't check the ID well enough at the bar are listed with real sick puppies and rapists on your local sex offender map.

Right now, I really despise the child-centered, reactionary whiners who invented this arbitrary "residency requirement" bullsheet for all "registered sex offenders."
Come up with something better. Smarter. Yes, smarter.
For example, be more particular in who you want to shun. Society can't financially afford the system we've got now. Raping 9-year-olds should be a shunnable offense. Molesting hospital patients should be a shunnable offense.
Waving your weenie at your girlfriend should NOT.

Enemabag Jones: It really does not help that public urinators, mooners, MILF's that scored with the 16 year old neighbor, and men that didn't check the ID well enough at the bar are listed with real sick puppies and rapists on your local sex offender map.

Which makes it completely useless.

If I look at the sex offender list for this state it lists the persons age when they committed the crime, and the age of the victim. As far as the crime they committed, it's really vague, such as "child endangerment", which covers all kinds of things both sexual, non-sexual, violent and non-violent. Even "sexual assault" has some weird provisions, which means the person didn't necessarily rape or molest someone, which is what people assume when they see "sexual assault".

So, the reactionary idiots will look at the list and be outraged because they think they live around a bunch of rapists and child molesters, which inevitability ends up getting some benign "offender" harassed to the point they have to move, or worse. Employers will see this person on there and be afraid to hire them, or even if they do get hired, what about when a bunch of neighbors call the employer outraged (since it does list their place of employment), and the employer just doesn't wanna deal with the flack, even if he has no problem with the employee personally.

And the list also should have a time limit. Why should people that were charged with a crime in 1982 or something, be on there if they have not committed any crimes whatsoever for 30 years? Do we just let the list fill up with people that have turned their lives around and are no longer a threat? If the person is considered such a threat that he must be deemed a "sex offender" for life, why have they been released into the public? In these cases, why can't the cops simply check up on them privately periodically and make sure they're accounted for, rather than them being publicly shunned for life and unable to find a job or contribute to society?

Ihaveanevilparrot: Enemabag Jones: It really does not help that public urinators, mooners, MILF's that scored with the 16 year old neighbor, and men that didn't check the ID well enough at the bar are listed with real sick puppies and rapists on your local sex offender map.

Which makes it completely useless.

If I look at the sex offender list for this state it lists the persons age when they committed the crime, and the age of the victim. As far as the crime they committed, it's really vague, such as "child endangerment", which covers all kinds of things both sexual, non-sexual, violent and non-violent. Even "sexual assault" has some weird provisions, which means the person didn't necessarily rape or molest someone, which is what people assume when they see "sexual assault".

So, the reactionary idiots will look at the list and be outraged because they think they live around a bunch of rapists and child molesters, which inevitability ends up getting some benign "offender" harassed to the point they have to move, or worse. Employers will see this person on there and be afraid to hire them, or even if they do get hired, what about when a bunch of neighbors call the employer outraged (since it does list their place of employment), and the employer just doesn't wanna deal with the flack, even if he has no problem with the employee personally.

And the list also should have a time limit. Why should people that were charged with a crime in 1982 or something, be on there if they have not committed any crimes whatsoever for 30 years? Do we just let the list fill up with people that have turned their lives around and are no longer a threat? If the person is considered such a threat that he must be deemed a "sex offender" for life, why have they been released into the public? In these cases, why can't the cops simply check up on them privately periodically and make sure they're accounted for, rather than them being publicly shunned for life and unable to find a job or contribute to society?

Um, excuse me. You seem to be lost, or perhaps confused. This is FARK. Reason and sanity are not allowed in here. Back out quietly before you get hurt.

Sounds like a great place to sell the most girl guide cookies.

It's just therapy ...

Is that the Rush Limbaugh Arms hotel?

Be sure to tell Chris I'm in room 107.

dahmers love zombie: Stupid: Passing laws that create these sort of zones. If you are that scared of an offender reoffending, do me a favor -- change the Constitution so that you can keep them in jail forever. Surely that could get the requisite number of states to vote for it? But until then, use a little common sense in creating these forever-punishing sex offender registries.

I could go out and kill a kid and have fewer restrictions on me when I get out of prison, than if the kid sees me fapping in my bedroom because they were looking over my fence.

I'm with you up until the last sentence. This whole "sex offender registry for life because of public urination/private masturbation/college streaking" is a strawman. Look up the sex offender registry near your area. Virtually all of them are there for having sex with minors, with about 20% of their victims being younger than 12. There have been one or two examples in the history of the nation where someone was put on the sex offender registry for a minor offense, and it was immediately noted and corrected every time.

Ihaveanevilparrot: Enemabag Jones: It really does not help that public urinators, mooners, MILF's that scored with the 16 year old neighbor, and men that didn't check the ID well enough at the bar are listed with real sick puppies and rapists on your local sex offender map.

Which makes it completely useless.

If I look at the sex offender list for this state it lists the persons age when they committed the crime, and the age of the victim. As far as the crime they committed, it's really vague, such as "child endangerment", which covers all kinds of things both sexual, non-sexual, violent and non-violent. Even "sexual assault" has some weird provisions, which means the person didn't necessarily rape or molest someone, which is what people assume when they see "sexual assault".

So, the reactionary idiots will look at the list and be outraged because they think they live around a bunch of rapists and child molesters, which inevitability ends up getting some benign "offender" harassed to the point they have to move, or worse. Employers will see this person on there and be afraid to hire them, or even if they do get hired, what about when a bunch of neighbors call the employer outraged (since it does list their place of employment), and the employer just doesn't wanna deal with the flack, even if he has no problem with the employee personally.

And the list also should have a time limit. Why should people that were charged with a crime in 1982 or something, be on there if they have not committed any crimes whatsoever for 30 years? Do we just let the list fill up with people that have turned their lives around and are no longer a threat? If the person is considered such a threat that he must be deemed a "sex offender" for life, why have they been released into the public? In these cases, why can't the cops simply check up on them privately periodically and make sure they're accounted for, rather than them being publicly shunned for life and unable to find a job or contribute to society?

Please post your neighborhood. I don't need your address; a general city and region will do. Are you on the northeast side of Dayton? South Central LA? I'd genuinely be interested in seeing your local sex offender registry. When I looked at mine last year, out of the 20 people closest to me, 14 of them were there for rape of a teenager, and the other 6 for molestation/sodomy of a child younger than 12. I just didn't see anything vague.

Oh, and in case he sees this: "Paging FarkingHostile." He's always got insight on this issue.

The only way this story gets any better is if there is one of those 'toddlers and tiaras' competitions in this town and they all stay at that hotel...

/well of course they molested little Brianna, she's clearly the sexiest 5 year old in the hotel... maybe I should have toned down her makeup, taken off her wig and evening gown and removed her padded undies and changed her into her casual denim outfit before going back to the hotel... those poor molesters didn't stand a chance against her radiant beauty...

Sofa King Smart: The only way this story gets any better is if there is one of those 'toddlers and tiaras' competitions in this town and they all stay at that hotel...

/well of course they molested little Brianna, she's clearly the sexiest 5 year old in the hotel... maybe I should have toned down her makeup, taken off her wig and evening gown and removed her padded undies and changed her into her casual denim outfit before going back to the hotel... those poor molesters didn't stand a chance against her radiant beauty...


There's no such thing as a "molester". People make mistakes. Go back to work.