If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Sex offenders sue for the right to hand out Halloween candy, are already stocking up on M&Ms and Baby Roofies   (latimes.com) divider line 135
    More: Unlikely, Halloween, sex offenders, 1st amendment, Megan's Law, registered sex offender, free speech  
•       •       •

4319 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 8:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 08:35:43 AM  
"We can think of what happened in Nazi Germany, where Jews had to appear in public wearing yellow stars."

Look, I think the sex offender panic has gotten out of hand, but you need to calm the fark down.
 
2012-10-04 08:39:25 AM  
Daddy, these little blue ones don't taste very good, but look what they did to my thingy!
 
2012-10-04 08:39:43 AM  
"To us, it's similar to branding," she said. "We can think of what happened in Nazi Germany, where Jews had to appear in public wearing yellow stars."

And you just lost your case right there...

There is nothing wrong with being Jewish, there is something wrong with being a sex offender. To suggest you're the same as an innocent bystander who was systematically slaughtered is, well, kind of offensive.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:47 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: "To us, it's similar to branding," she said. "We can think of what happened in Nazi Germany, where Jews had to appear in public wearing yellow stars."

And you just lost your case right there...

There is nothing wrong with being Jewish, there is something wrong with being a sex offender. To suggest you're the same as an innocent bystander who was systematically slaughtered is, well, kind of offensive.


I wouldn't say they lost it, but they did use a stupid argument. Which is sad, as they have a point.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:52 AM  
Sex offenders are people too, you know.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:00 AM  
Alright I'll be that guy.

The government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own property.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:33 AM  
What?!?!
I'm not giving out candy.
I'm giving out chloroform rags.
Sheesh.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:39 AM  

Warlordtrooper: Alright I'll be that guy.

The government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own property.


Of course they do, if you are still under their control due to your criminal actions. They may also restrict with whom you may associate while you are under their supervision.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:50 AM  
This thread will hit about 230 posts I think.

85% of it will be the following:

1) There are a lot of people on those lists who have done nothing dangerous or "criminal" they are victims of over-zealous "for the children" prosecution. This will be followed by anecdotal stories of person peeing on a dumpster at 2am downtown in a bar parking lot, etc.

2) Child molesters are on that list for a reason and they should be punished and it is a good thing that they are.

So, how about I save everyone a lot of time and typing and just say the following:

The system is broken. Yes, children need to be protected, but we have gone well above and far beyond the useful range of that protection and created a "sub class" of people who are treated the same whether they are dangerous predators or someone with a moments drunken indiscretion. This will probably lead to more criminal acts as those people are actually being forced to live a life of crime to survive, as we seem to have taken their abilities to function in society away from them, regardless of the severity of the offense.

Tear it down, start over, and let people who are predators stay on the list, and let those who did something stupid serve their punishment and let it be done.

argh.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:01 AM  
Aren't most registered sex offenders not allowed within a certain distance to children?

And yeah, the Nazi/Heeb reference was stupid.

and -
i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-04 08:54:29 AM  

sodomizer: Sex offenders are people too, you know.


Yes, people who have been found guilty of committing a sex crime. Me, I'm just going to avoid their house on hallowe'en. I'm just bigoted against sex offenders. And the Dutch.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:58 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: there is something wrong with being a sex offender


No, not always. You can wind up on a sex offender registry for some pretty stupid shiat. And this is ignoring the fact that the mere existence of a registry like this means you're either a) continuing to maliciously punish people who have supposedly already paid their debt to society or b) admitting that you let a potentially dangerous person loose in the community for no good reason.

The whole sex offender thing is 100% useless and I will always support anything that helps anybody on it get back any right that's been stolen from them.

You don't want Johnny Rapesalot to live within 100 yards of a school or playground or hand out Halloween candy because you think he's a threat to kids?

Then leave him in prison, dumbasses.

/ that said, the Nazi Germany bit was pretty dumb...
 
2012-10-04 08:55:14 AM  
Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.
 
2012-10-04 08:55:14 AM  

Nurglitch: sodomizer: Sex offenders are people too, you know.

Yes, people who have been found guilty of committing a sex crime. Me, I'm just going to avoid their house on hallowe'en. I'm just bigoted against sex offenders. And the Dutch.


and carnival workers.
 
2012-10-04 08:55:50 AM  

Bhruic: I wouldn't say they lost it, but they did use a stupid argument. Which is sad, as they have a point.


How Sandusky of you....
 
2012-10-04 08:56:37 AM  
HOTY candidate. I'm still laughing.
 
2012-10-04 08:57:55 AM  
I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares
 
2012-10-04 08:59:23 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: You don't want Johnny Rapesalot to live within 100 yards of a school or playground or hand out Halloween candy because you think he's a threat to kids?

Then leave him in prison, dumbasses.


I think this point is legitimate but the real problem is that we seem to have a lot of pedophiles in this country. Putting them all in prison for life might involve billions more in prison costs. Then again, it might give the violent rectal rapists something to do.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:53 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.


I'm okay with not allowing registered sex offenders contact with kids (especially unsupervised ones like you get on Halloween). I don't want them striking up a relationship that might lead to abuse.
 
2012-10-04 09:01:29 AM  

Kurmudgeon: Bhruic: I wouldn't say they lost it, but they did use a stupid argument. Which is sad, as they have a point.

How Sandusky of you....


I'm confused as to how that reference makes sense in this situation...?
 
2012-10-04 09:01:31 AM  

sodomizer: Vegan Meat Popsicle: You don't want Johnny Rapesalot to live within 100 yards of a school or playground or hand out Halloween candy because you think he's a threat to kids?

Then leave him in prison, dumbasses.

I think this point is legitimate but the real problem is that we seem to have a lot of pedophiles in this country. Putting them all in prison for life might involve billions more in prison costs. Then again, it might give the violent rectal rapists something to do.



Well, we should have known you'd have an opinion.
 
2012-10-04 09:01:45 AM  
so, it's still okay to park 'Free Candy' van outside house on street, right? right?
 
2012-10-04 09:01:52 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.


I go back to my prior point. If you've actually been caught banging kids or climbing in windows and raping people.... why the hell were you released from prison in the first place?

I don't understand the registry at all. The argument is that violent sex offenders are highly likely to repeat their crimes and this appears to be born out by evidence. So why on Earth is the "fix" to put them on a little list and let them rejoin the community? Put the farkers in prison and keep them there until we can figure out an effective way to reform them.

They're dangerous. They don't become less dangerous because they're on a little list and I don't understand how it makes sense to offload the risk to their neighbors rather than just keeping them locked away from them to begin with?
 
2012-10-04 09:02:16 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares


i do
and u shold too.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:46 AM  

The Muthaship: HotWingConspiracy: Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.

I'm okay with not allowing registered sex offenders contact with kids (especially unsupervised ones like you get on Halloween). I don't want them striking up a relationship that might lead to abuse.


Well, kids are everywhere... so, I guess we better euthanize all the registered sex offenders huh?
 
2012-10-04 09:03:05 AM  
A total of 119 registered sex offenders live in Simi Valley. Although some have been convicted of misdemeanors and do not have their names displayed, 67 have been guilty of more serious crimes and are publicly listed on the website. None has been involved in crimes involving children on Halloween, according to police, who say they have no records of any such crime occurring in Simi Valley during Halloween trick-or-treating.

What about crimes involving children not on Halloween? Yeah theres a big difference between a kiddy diddler and an 18 year old who got on the list because his 17 year old girlfriends parents didnt like him, and i think a lot of sex offender restrictions are pretty crazy depending on the nature of the crime, but statutory rapists and alley pissers aside, i dont think this is a terrible law. I mean yeah you want to keep your kids away from the kiddy diddlers, but do you really want them going up to a convicted run of the mill rapists house either?

/especially considering how sexy slutty halloween costumes have gotten
//wait, what? seat? over there?
 
2012-10-04 09:04:32 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.


OK, I'll bite. Why?
 
2012-10-04 09:05:37 AM  

Bhruic: I'm confused as to how that reference makes sense in this situation...?


It doesn't, he's just not very bright.

sodomizer: we seem to have a lot of pedophiles in this country


[citation needed]

And I'm talking about violent offenders, not some fat idiot sitting in front of his computer looking at pictures of kids. My attitude toward that is that the resources would be better used cutting off his supply first then worrying about getting to him.

sodomizer: Putting them all in prison for life might involve billions more in prison costs.


Then I'd argue it's a good time to look at reforming our prison and legal system in ways that keep non-violent offenders out to make room for moving violent offenders in.

I realize that on some level I'm arguing from an idealized view of how our political and social system work and that this is all unlikely to happen because it takes away too many people's pieces of the pie, but I just don't see how a registry is in any way, shape or form a solution to any of this. It just seems so entirely pointless.
 
2012-10-04 09:07:14 AM  

The Muthaship: HotWingConspiracy: Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.

I'm okay with not allowing registered sex offenders contact with kids (especially unsupervised ones like you get on Halloween). I don't want them striking up a relationship that might lead to abuse.


Remember before we had registries, and kids were striking up relationships with people that they got Halloween candy from?

No? Neither does anyone else.
 
2012-10-04 09:10:16 AM  

Cyno01: What about crimes involving children not on Halloween? Yeah theres a big difference between a kiddy diddler and an 18 year old who got on the list because his 17 year old girlfriends parents didnt like him, and i think a lot of sex offender restrictions are pretty crazy depending on the nature of the crime, but statutory rapists and alley pissers aside, i dont think this is a terrible law.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sex offenders list for anyone who's been convicted of a sex crime? As in, it's not limited to people who have been convicted of a sex crime with a minor? So why the automatic assumption that they are interested in having sex with kids (not necessarily aimed at you, but you provided a good opportunity to raise the question)?
 
2012-10-04 09:10:41 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: Well, we should have known you'd have an opinion.


Can I be an expert witness? Please please
 
2012-10-04 09:10:56 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?


what if a 3 year old saw u pee naked. what would he think then??
 
2012-10-04 09:11:37 AM  
I always thought Roofies was spelled with a U. Learned something new today.
 
2012-10-04 09:11:59 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.


Rape, both of children and adults, has gone down significantly. There are lots if reasons for this; it's not hard to believe that keeping children away from sexual predators is one of those reasons.
 
2012-10-04 09:12:05 AM  

Bhruic: Cyno01: What about crimes involving children not on Halloween? Yeah theres a big difference between a kiddy diddler and an 18 year old who got on the list because his 17 year old girlfriends parents didnt like him, and i think a lot of sex offender restrictions are pretty crazy depending on the nature of the crime, but statutory rapists and alley pissers aside, i dont think this is a terrible law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sex offenders list for anyone who's been convicted of a sex crime? As in, it's not limited to people who have been convicted of a sex crime with a minor? So why the automatic assumption that they are interested in having sex with kids (not necessarily aimed at you, but you provided a good opportunity to raise the question)?


Because we're in the era of ZOMG STRANGER DANGER thanks to sensationalistic news reports that scare people into thinking there's a nasty stranger waiting around every corner to scoop up their little precious, when in reality, they have a greater chance of a relative or friend molesting the kid.
 
2012-10-04 09:13:38 AM  
In all honesty the fact that a seemingly ordinary people think it's normal to have a sex offender app on their smartphones is more concerning to me than the offenders handing out Halloween candy. I think the fear and paranoia that we pass along to kids over these issues does a lot of damage and I'm fairly unconvinced that the registry and all the other trappings of 'protecting children' do anything at all to reduce incidents of abuse.
 
2012-10-04 09:13:46 AM  

rhondajeremy: I always thought Roofies was spelled with a U. Learned something new today.


What have YOU been slipping into drinks all these years, then?
 
2012-10-04 09:14:15 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?


I don't like my town smelling like piss.
 
2012-10-04 09:16:03 AM  

meanmutton: RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

I don't like my town smelling like piss.


Fair enough. Public urination is, and should be, a crime. But why is it something that would land you on a sex offender list?
 
2012-10-04 09:17:38 AM  
there's a helpful bear on the 28th floor
 
2012-10-04 09:17:39 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

what if a 3 year old saw u pee naked. what would he think then??


If a 3 year old saw me peeing at 2:30AM in an alley outside a bar, there are other far bigger problems than what I'm doing.
 
2012-10-04 09:18:20 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: meanmutton: RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

I don't like my town smelling like piss.

Fair enough. Public urination is, and should be, a crime. But why is it something that would land you on a sex offender list?


Because it involves a penis being displayed in public. And Penises can never be used for anything less than rape, so by virtue of the fact that a man had his penis out, that makes him a sex offender because someone was getting raped before it was put away. It's like a Ninja's sword. It can't be put back in its sheath without tasting blood.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:10 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Public urination is, and should be, a crime. But why is it something that would land you on a sex offender list?


I wonder the same. I don't think it's reasonable to safe that "nudity = sexual excitation." Sometimes, a dong is just a dong, and ta-tas are just ta-tas.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:13 AM  
RTFA, folks, and mock Subby for not noticing the article is not about having contact with or giving candy to children. It's about the right to decorate your house for Halloween.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:50 AM  
Approves:

pixelatedpop.com
 
2012-10-04 09:20:17 AM  

RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: Jon iz teh kewl: RumsfeldsReplacement: I would have no problem with this if the definition of sex offender weren't so broad.

Convicted kiddy-diddler? No Halloween for you.

Caught peeing in an alley next to the bar at 2:30 AM? Who the fark cares

i do
and u shold too.

OK, I'll bite. Why?

what if a 3 year old saw u pee naked. what would he think then??

If a 3 year old saw me peeing at 2:30AM in an alley outside a bar, there are other far bigger problems than what I'm doing.


if there's a threat of being called a SEX OFFENDER doesn't keep you from peeing outside, maybe you really are a rapist.
 
2012-10-04 09:20:20 AM  

meanmutton: HotWingConspiracy: Remember before we had registries, when all those kids were getting raped getting Halloween candy?

No? Neither does anyone else.

Rape, both of children and adults, has gone down significantly. There are lots if reasons for this; it's not hard to believe that keeping children away from sexual predators is one of those reasons.


I find that hard to believe, actually. You understand that these people are out in the world, with children everywhere at all times, right? If you've got comparative stats for Halloween rape, I'd love to see it.
 
2012-10-04 09:21:22 AM  

Bhruic: Cyno01: What about crimes involving children not on Halloween? Yeah theres a big difference between a kiddy diddler and an 18 year old who got on the list because his 17 year old girlfriends parents didnt like him, and i think a lot of sex offender restrictions are pretty crazy depending on the nature of the crime, but statutory rapists and alley pissers aside, i dont think this is a terrible law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the sex offenders list for anyone who's been convicted of a sex crime? As in, it's not limited to people who have been convicted of a sex crime with a minor? So why the automatic assumption that they are interested in having sex with kids (not necessarily aimed at you, but you provided a good opportunity to raise the question)?


I didnt mean all of them, i meant any of them, "none have been convicted of molesting children on halloween" is a oddly specific way to phrase it, have any been convicted of hurting kids the other 364 days of the year? I mean if nobody there is on the list for crimes against children, i can sort of see their point. But again, i would prefer not to associate with regular rapists either.
 
2012-10-04 09:21:52 AM  

meanmutton: Rape, both of children and adults, has gone down significantly. There are lots if reasons for this; it's not hard to believe that keeping children away from sexual predators is one of those reasons.


Most sexual predators of children are somebody the child knows. A parent, relative, or friend of the family. Keeping kids away from random strangers probably wouldn't even have any effect statistically on rape statistics. What probably does have an effect is the fact that children simply have far less freedom than they used to. Almost all activity for kids is much closer to home and much more structured than it was even a generation ago.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:56 AM  

JosephFinn: RTFA, folks, and mock Subby for not noticing the article is not about having contact with or giving candy to children. It's about the right to decorate your house for Halloween.


Howbout we RTFA and mock you for not noticing "For offenders listed on the Megan's Law website, the city also requires a sign on the front door in letters at least an inch tall: "No candy or treats at this residence.", and that the Lawyer in the case said Her clients were particularly upset by the sign requirement.?
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report