New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In


PDA






Shipwreck
June 13, 2006, 12:46 PM
New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In

Texas Developer To Begin Second Neighborhood

POSTED: 10:38 am CDT June 13, 2006

A new subdivision planned in Kansas will look and feel just like any other development in the fast-growing area.

But there's one big difference: Registered sex offenders won't be allowed to live in the new development in Lenexa, Kan. The development will be off of K-10 highway and and Woodland Road in Johnson County, Kan.

In August, construction begins on the Kansas City area's first sex-offender-restricted subdivision, probably only the second such development nationwide.

A Texas-based developer said his plan is an answer to a problem communities wrestle with -- how to keep sexual predators far from children and families.

Their first such project in Lubbock, Texas, has nearly sold out in nine months. Developer Clayton Isom said he's planning other such subdivisions in the Kansas City area after the Lenexa project is finished.

"Certainly, there are things you can do to improve a neighborhood, like pour better streets or build a park. But this is more," Isom told The Kansas City Star. "We can keep one little girl or boy safe."

The developer works closely with homeowners' associations to draw up restrictions banning registered offenders from living inside the development. Potential owners will undergo background checks. If a homeowner becomes a sex offenders after they move in, the association will give them huge financial penalties, a fine of at least $1,000 a day, until they move out of the neighborhood, The Star reported. And a lien may be put on the house, in order to collect the money.

Apparently, the exclusion of sex offenders is legal. Lubbock's community development executive director Nancy Haney told The Star that the restrictions do not violate the Fair Housing Act.

"Sex offenders aren't considered one of the seven protected classes," Haney said. "The developers did their homework."

Isom said his company wants to lobby lawmakers to create financial incentives for developers who create neighborhoods that ban sex offenders.

Not everyone is happy about the idea.

"If entire towns and municipalities do this, you have serious constitutional issues," Brett Shirk, executive director of the area chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Star. "If you start outlawing all these areas, where are offenders going to live?" He said it is a "slippery slope."

The restrictions do not apply to people who have been removed from the sex-offender registry or people who have other crimes on their records. It only applies to sex offenders on the sex-offender registry.

Isom said he got the idea for the subdivisions after he heard about a 9-year-old Florida girl, Jessica Lunsford, who was kidnapped, raped and killed -- allegedly by a registered sex offender. Court records said that convicted sex offender John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping Jessica, keeping her in his bedroom for several days and burying her alive behind his home.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Erebus
June 13, 2006, 12:55 PM
If this sets a precedent how far behind can gun-free/crime target subdivisions be?

Actually I might like that idea. If there is a gun-free subdivision in town there is no reason for a criminal to risk going anywhere else.

SJG26
June 13, 2006, 01:05 PM
They will ban the "known" sex offenders...................parents/people need to be alert for the unknown ones too!

SteveS
June 13, 2006, 01:06 PM
If this sets a precedent how far behind can gun-free/crime target subdivisions be?


I have no problem with citizens, through some type of contract or covenant, deciding on what kinds of rules they want. If I don't like them, I won't buy a house there.

Low-Sci
June 13, 2006, 01:06 PM
Doesn't seem like a bad idea at all to me. The developer is probably making plenty of money on that little catch, and I guess as a business they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Course, that doesn't stop sex offenders from living elsewhere and going into the neighborhood.

Erebus
June 13, 2006, 01:15 PM
I have no problem with citizens, through some type of contract or covenant, deciding on what kinds of rules they want. If I don't like them, I won't buy a house there.


+1

Hadn't thought of it that way. If private citizens choose to establish an agreement amongst themselves there is no reason to oppose it.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It's when government tries to impose it that it becomes a problem and objectionable.

rbernie
June 13, 2006, 01:41 PM
If private citizens choose to establish an agreement amongst themselves there is no reason to oppose it.I do not disagree with this in principle, until I recall that it was the same argument made to me ten years ago when I tried to sell some rural property in NC and was advised by my neighbors that I better not sell it to anyone with a suntan and curly hair. :what:

We as a society already allow the institutionalization of certain values, with the goal of preventing the most eggregious of discriminations. According to the article, we already have seven protected classes defined within the Fair Housing statutes. Will this subdevelopment not simply act as the catalyst for adding an eighth (ex-cons)?

"If entire towns and municipalities do this, you have serious constitutional issues," Brett Shirk, executive director of the area chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Star. Is he right? Are there Constitutional issues here?

The whole sex offender registry has always seemed unfair to me, in that it violates my concepts (notice I didn't say 'the law', since I don't know the law) regarding double jeopardy and 'paying your debt to society' and all that. I understand the arguments - recidivism rates for sex offender being what they are - but it bothers me nonetheless. Especially bothersome are the inclusion of 'touching' crimes as sex offenses, since they require that judgement be made regarding the INTENT of the act rather than judging the act itself.

To be placed on a sex offender registry for life, especially over a 'touching' crime conviction, seems hardly fair. To compound that with further penalties (however privatized) just doesn't sit well with me. Even if it is/remains legal to create such a subdivision, I would not live in one.

Augustwest
June 13, 2006, 01:51 PM
Isom said his company wants to lobby lawmakers to create financial incentives for developers who create neighborhoods that ban sex offenders.


While I don't disagree with the concept in general, that right there tells me all I need to know about Clayton Isom...

razorburn
June 13, 2006, 01:55 PM
You probably would if you had kids. As you acknowledged, sex offenders have incredibly high rates of re-offense. I have no pity for child molesters and the like. What comes to them has been brought on themselves. Even if you think "touching" crimes aren't so bad, it's just as sick to me if some disgusting pervert decided to just grope somebodies 9 year old daughter.

Zundfolge
June 13, 2006, 01:58 PM
I have no problem with private businesses creating developments that keep out Registered Sex Offenders, or Felons or whatever.

But the instant laws are written to do this the line has been crossed (and for that matter, once government creates "incentives" to create these developments the line has been crossed).

SteveS
June 13, 2006, 02:21 PM
But the instant laws are written to do this the line has been crossed (and for that matter, once government creates "incentives" to create these developments the line has been crossed).

Good point. I can see something like this getting out of hand or becoming institutionalized, along the lines of affirmative action.

Personally, I doubt I would live in one. It is likely that a person would pay a premium to live there and would only get the benefit of not having a registered sex offender living next door to them. I am not saying this isn't a good benefit, but it will probably give people a false sense of security.

I have worked as a family therapist and probably treated several hundred child victims of sex crimes. I never had one that was molested by a stranger. The vast majority were molested by a relative, family friend, step-parent or the boyfriend of mom. If you really want to protect your kids, be careful who you let watch them and don't ignore warning signs just because you don't believe that your relative would never do someting like that.

Manedwolf
June 13, 2006, 02:23 PM
You probably would if you had kids. As you acknowledged, sex offenders have incredibly high rates of re-offense. I have no pity for child molesters and the like. What comes to them has been brought on themselves. Even if you think "touching" crimes aren't so bad, it's just as sick to me if some disgusting pervert decided to just grope somebodies 9 year old daughter.

+1. It steals a child's childhood innocence forever, it can never be fixed or replaced, the memory will be with them for life.

That, to me, is unforgiveable, and I'm all for repeat offenses being a capital offense. Even FIRST TIME ones, if convicted, have no place in civilization.

I would also be very, very lenient on any parent who had killed a sex offender caught abusing their child. Who wouldn't?

Wes Janson
June 13, 2006, 02:51 PM
Yes, but how many people are registered sex offenders who AREN'T child molesters, or rapists? Ever heard of the term "statutory rape"? Or that other great one: "lying"?

A friend I've known for quite some time is in jail right now for having consensual sex with another teenager. When you mix ambiguous and wide-sweeping laws with aggressive and vindictive prosecution, the result is the destruction of the true purpose of the justice system. I've seen first-hand the results. Be thankful that you've never been caught up in it.

rbernie
June 13, 2006, 03:09 PM
You probably would if you had kids. As you acknowledged, sex offenders have incredibly high rates of re-offense. I have no pity for child molesters and the like. What comes to them has been brought on themselves. Even if you think "touching" crimes aren't so bad, it's just as sick to me if some disgusting pervert decided to just grope somebodies 9 year old daughter.As point of fact, I have three young children (ages 11, 5, and 3) and I do not take my role as a parent lightly.

But let's be serious here for a minute - how many of you have patted a youngster on the back or touched them on the arm during the course of some interaction? All of us. I've recently had occasion to watch a grown man be tried and darn near convicted of a sex crime for exactly that - a crime that generally resolves to 'inappropriate touching'. Bear in mind that this touching occurred in public, with everyone fully clothed, did not involve any private body parts, and was conducted with no overt signs of arousal or obvious groping. The charges were brought against this man because several young girls decided to get their teacher in trouble. The defining line between a conviction or acquittal or not was the jury's determination regarding the defendant's INTENT during the touching. Essentially, he was being tried for a thought crime rather than for a real crime. Fortunately for him, the jury could not find it in themselves to see evil intent in the touching and chose to acquit him. But he's still a destroyed man - loss of job, loss of career, and tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills - and all over our desire to judge 'intent' during normal human interactions.

I'm sorry - as far as I'm concerned, 'touching' crimes are far too subjective to be useful in matters of law.

Cacique500
June 13, 2006, 03:15 PM
If this sets a precedent how far behind can gun-free/crime target subdivisions be?


+1

In my county, since 2003, all new subdivisions are required to have a homeowners association. Yes, we do have choice and can move somewhere else but I've moved 10 times since school and sometimes due to other circumstances and other variables the HOA is the least of your worries at the time.

The one I live in has a no "display or discharge of firearms" clause - first time I've ever seen that in the covenants. The discharge part I understand (and usually comply with ;) ) but the 'display' wording has me a little concerned. After talking with the management company it seems that if I walk to my mailbox with my .45 on me and a neighbor sees it, I can be fined. :fire:

IMHO HOA's are inherently evil - any time you get petty people in positions of power no good will come of it. Yes they *can* keep property values up by keeping pink flamingos out of the yard, but they do a lot more harm with individual rights & property ownership. Amazing to me that HOA's covenants can supercede city/county/state law in some cases.

RyanM
June 13, 2006, 03:17 PM
Unfortunate title. When this thread is at the top, all you see from the main page is "New Subdivisions Ban Sex..."

K-Romulus
June 13, 2006, 03:25 PM
My former yuppie apt building in the Ballston section of Arlington, VA, had a "no sex offender" clause in the lease. And they did do some sort of criminal background check to verify it.

NYC already has co-op associations (similar to homeowner associations for condominiums or high-rise apartment buildings) discriminating against firearms owners:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/realestate/28cov.html?ex=1150344000&en=05f213d8a2c4be66&ei=5070

Mightier Than the Board

By TERI KARUSH ROGERS
Published: May 28, 2006

IN New York City, letters of recommendation are part of the hazing ritual known as a board package, whereby a buyer must convince a co-op board that he or she would make a worthy neighbor. But in this era of cellphones and instant messaging, formal letters of recommendation solicited from friends and associates can seem as quaint as cucumber sandwiches, with buyers and writers alike tempted to treat them as crustless formalities.
- - -
It is also unwise to bring up a candidate's penchant for entertaining or for cooking pungent-smelling foods. JoAnne Kennedy, the chief operating officer of Coldwell Banker Hunt Kennedy, said that other instances of innocent sabotage involve statements like "they train pit bulls and have five grandchildren that they like to take care of."

She also bemoaned references to "things that are absolutely off the wall — like gun collections."

"I mean, gun collecting is an honorable pastime in some parts of the world," she said. "But New Yorkers don't collect guns; they collect art."

(more):barf:

Camp David
June 13, 2006, 03:36 PM
New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In

+1

Due to the extremely high recidivism rate of sex offenders, I would like to actually explore whether entire counties could enforce a similar ban! Probably illegal but the point is that lenient judges are letting these folks out way too soon and they prey upon those innocent among us! Ban them from every residential community with children would be a great message to send. And if initial sex offenders commmit the crime again, make the lenient judges party to their banning from youth communities.

RaetherEnt
June 13, 2006, 03:57 PM
This is actually quite a coincidence, as just two days ago I did a search in Kansas of registered sex offenders. Turns out, I have more than a dozen within a mile of my house. Not 18 year olds that got caught messing with their 17 year old girlfriend, but grown men that have been convicted of rape, child molestation, etc. And this is a very nice neighborhood / area.

This new subdivision is less than a mile from my house. I like the idea, however, those who move there, while they might not have sex offenders IN their neighborhood, will still have them very close by.

Zedicus
June 13, 2006, 05:20 PM
I have mixed feelings about this due to the fact that in several states you can get convicted of being a "Sex Offender" for simply taking a wizz behind a bush/tree in the woods....:barf:

Shipwreck
June 13, 2006, 05:35 PM
There's another thread floating around about sex offenders - either on this site or on glock talk - I forget.

Supposedly, that's a myth about having to register as a sex offender because of peeing...

mondocomputerman
June 13, 2006, 05:39 PM
Sounds good to me! I live in Lenexa, minutes away from where the developer is, um, developing. There are a few sex offenders close to where I live, I found out after doing an online search.

Sounds like it may raise property values.

pete f
June 13, 2006, 06:33 PM
Well i have a good friend who's son is doing time andwill have to file as a sex offender for life because he had sexually contact with his Girlfriend. They started going out when he was 17 and she was 15. When she was 17 and he was 19, they had a pregnancy scare, Her mom calls the cops and demands prosecution. Statutory rape. The trial was a farce, the situation of dating and the age at which they started to "consort" was not allowed in the trial, all that was really allowed was age, activity and that fact he was now an adult and she was a minor. Never mind that she could have gone with him to North Dakota and gotten married without a parents approval.

I have seriously hard times with HOA's. I have seen how they work. A few people often get on the board and make anyone they want to have a misserable life.

What happens if this homeowner is accused of a sex crime, NO ONE will make an offer on his house becuase everyone will know that he has to sell it and that will defeat his ability to resell the house. What happens to the wife and kids? What if it is the homeowners kid who get charged with a prank gone wrong. Who among us never shoved another kid into the girl bathroom, or pants'ed a guy when he was in the hallway? This is making me ill.


I HATE child molesters. Have no regard for them at all, lower than dog poop in my eyes, same with rapists. But I have a serious problem with making a person "branded for life" over incidents that we all know are not always what they seem. Sure, the serial rapist sexual predator is fair game, but at which point do we draw the line. My daughters highschool has several girls who are or have been pregnant. All are under 18, if we press charges against some of the fathers of these babies, why not all? At what point do we say party A is and party B is not a sex offender. Too much of this is arbitrary and up to the people making the charges.

My Neighbor married his wife when she was 16 and expecting, he was a year or so older, he is now a EE and a MBA, (true he is an exception) but in todays climate he would be listed as a sex offender.

Although it enters into contract law, i find HOA's to (in my mind) be almost unconstitutional in the amount of rights that HO's are forced to give away.

I would also find that the county previously discussed where all new subdivisions are required by statute to have a HOA, to be an illegal relinquishment of powers of the county.

Crosshair
June 14, 2006, 01:16 AM
OK, this has struck a nerve with me so this is going to be a long one.

You probably would if you had kids. As you acknowledged, sex offenders have incredibly high rates of re-offense.
Actualy child molesters have a LOWER rate of re-offense according to most studies who research this issue.

# child molesters had a 13% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 37% reconviction rate for new, non-sex offenses over a five year period; and
# rapists had a 19% reconviction rate for sexual offenses and a 46% reconviction rate for new, non-sexual offenses over a five year period.

That is from http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html. That is just one of many sources. The simple fact is that many molesters are never reported and caught so, in essence, these laws do nothing to protect childred. Since molesters who have not been caught are a much greater threat than those who have. We are looking that those who DID molest children instead of looking for those who ARE molesting children.

We are letting these people out of jail and telling them to reintegrate with society, yet they can't get a job, they can't get a place to live, because they have the stigma of "Sex offender" attached to them. How do we expect them to NOT turn to crime when they are faced with such odds. Sure, put them on probation, keep track of them for a few years to be sure that they are behaving. Unless we are going to keep them locked up for life we need to give them a chance to rebuild their life. Mabee they will reoffend, mabee they won't, but if you make them second class citizens you might as well keep them locked up.

+1. It steals a child's childhood innocence forever, it can never be fixed or replaced, the memory will be with them for life.
Children loose their innocence all the time, be it from one way or another. It is a simple fact of life and being raped/molested is just one way it happens. When I was a child I had to watch an aunt I loved very much die a long and painfull death from leukemia. I left her one day, came back the next day to see her and she was dead. I walked into that room wither name on the door and saw an empty bed. For a little kid that is very traumatizing any way you try and spin it. I still remember her lying in that bed, with more machines hooked up to her than a child should have to see. I had nightmares for months after that. I wanted too, but could not go see my grandpa before he died a few years ago because I was too scared of having to see someone I loved very much in that condition again. Having my grandpa being in a similar condition made all those memories that I tried to forget come back. I still can't go into the ICU of a hospital without crying like a baby. (Like I am doing right now as I write this.) Terrible things happen all the time to kids, you have to learn to deal with the emotions and move on. Yes it is tearible, yes it hurts, and there is not a dammed thing that anyone can do about it. Branding the person responsible may feel good, but it doesn't solve anything. It doesn't erase the suffering, it doesn't ease the pain. All it does is make society feel like it is doing something when it is not.

I hate to sound heartless, but child rape victims are nothing special. All of us are a victim of some tragedy and we all have memories that we wish would vanish from our minds. What makes child molestation apear so much worse is that the victim is a child, there is a criminal that can be blamed, and often both are still alive to be paraded before the media for photo ops during the trial. Drunk drivers kill kids all the time and yet overall we pay more attention to the child that was victimised, but is still alive and still has the chance to live a normal life as opposed to the child that is dead. It is all based on emotion.

Sorry to write a novel, but I am tired of people acting like child molestation is the only traumatizing event that children can go through. I'll probably get flamed, but I had to speak my mind on this issue.

razorburn
June 14, 2006, 06:03 AM
Lower than what? They're still among the groups with the highest rates of re-offense. We're looking at those who DID and have a 13-17% chance of doing it again. That's still not close to acceptable. If 13-17% of gun owners were committing felonies, I'd have no problem with them regulating gun owners too. But that's not the case. It's far under even 1% of us who are criminals. As for statutory and all... I'm 21 now, and had been with my girlfriend who is 2 and a half years younger from when I was 17-20 yrs, the whole time which she was technically underage. You don't get in trouble for this. I was told states have a leniency period for up to a 3 or 4 year age difference. If a 40 year old sicko has intercourse with a 14 year old, then he does deserve to be labeled a felon of the highest degree. I would also be extremely lenient towards a parent who kills scum like this. Honestly, if we could alter sentencing to an automatic death sentence for anyone convicted of rape or child molestation in any form, I'd fully support it.

RaetherEnt
June 14, 2006, 08:23 AM
With all due respect to the suffering you encountered as a child watching a loved one die, you cannot, for one minute compare that to a molestation.

Your Aunt and your grandfather did not make a CHOICE to hurt you, but rather passed away, the same as all humans do at one point or another. Death is a biological part of life that all humans deal with at one time or another. Molestation is not. Your argument makes no sense to me.

rbernie
June 14, 2006, 09:38 AM
I'm 21 now, and had been with my girlfriend who is 2 and a half years younger from when I was 17-20 yrs, the whole time which she was technically underage. You don't get in trouble for this. Depends on the state - most states define the age of consent to be 16 or 17, and some allow an affirmative defense for a three year or four year age gap. There are, however, many states that maintain the age of consent to be 18 years old and which do not provide an affirmative defense for age gap. My point is that you could be a sex criminal in one state but perfectly legal in another. Don't get it wrong, or you're labeled as a pervert for life. :rolleyes:

By the way - if any of y'all are still young enough to still worry about this sort of thing (I'm far too old for this stuff :) ), you might want to peruse the Age of Consent (http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm) web site to make sure that you stay legal.

Honestly, if we could alter sentencing to an automatic death sentence for anyone convicted of rape or child molestation in any form, I'd fully support it.So if you lived in Virginia while you were dating your girlfriend, it'd be OK for society to put the needle to ya? I suspect that you'd not quite appreciate that......

That's still not close to acceptable. If 13-17% of gun owners were committing felonies, I'd have no problem with them regulating gun owners too. But that's not the case. It's far under even 1% of us who are criminals.At the risk of further hijacking the thread, I'm interested in how you derived these numbers.

HankB
June 14, 2006, 10:57 AM
When one hears the term "sex offender" one initially thinks of a rapist or child molester - truly disgusting, lowlife scum who deserve to be treated in a manner such that detailed discussion of appropriate punishment would draw the ire of The High Road's moderators.

But the way laws are applied, the "sex offender" label can be applied to far too many instances . . . for example, in Texas within the last two weeks, a reasonably attractive 25 year old female Spanish teacher was arrested for allegedly having consensual sex with one of her students. The charge is "having an improper relationship with a student" and is a second degree felony.

The student in this case is 18 years old.

You can argue this is unprofessional conduct, but considering the age of the student, even if true, should THIS make her a "sex offender?"

Camp David
June 14, 2006, 11:39 AM
The student in this case is 18 years old.

You can argue this is unprofessional conduct, but considering the age of the student, even if true, should THIS make her a "sex offender"?

Yes I believe it does. A teacher's responsibility is to teach, not abuse students, irregardless of age. Even if the teacher is 45 and the student is 50, I would not want them to engage in any kind of relationship because of 1) breach of professional trust, and 2) the potential of grading based on personal favors. A teacher is in a unique position of authority over a student of any age; I would agree that any personal relationship between them rightly qualifies teacher as a "sex offender". If teacher wants to pursue relationship with adult (over 21) she should resign her teaching position. You'll find this opinion is shared by most parents and many in the teaching profession.

Crosshair
June 14, 2006, 12:59 PM
With all due respect to the suffering you encountered as a child watching a loved one die, you cannot, for one minute compare that to a molestation.
You are missing the point. The point is not about what is worse than the other. Kids "loose their innocence" all the time in any number of ways. Yes some are worse than others but molestation is nothing special. What gets me iritated is that people "feel" more for a kid who was molested than one who is killed/crippled by a drunk driver, has both parents die in an accident, dies a painfull death from some rare illness, etc. My case was not "over it in a week" I was having problems long after the funeral was over. Yes it is not the worst thing that can happen to a child, but it was still a very traumatic event. Bad things happen to kids all the time. You have to deal with it and move on, just as you have to do with anything in life. Putting a scarlet letter on the offender really solves nothing.

Labeling the one who was caught is not going to really prevent anything. There will still be bad memories and trauma in the child from that event. Those who will reoffend will still do so and those who want to get this behind them will be hampered in their efforts. All the while those who have not been caught will still go about their business in these "offender free" areas. If you want them to not reoffend then keep them in prison and stop it with these feel good measures.

Phetro
June 14, 2006, 01:08 PM
Holy cow, it's the second time in my life, I believe, that I've ever agreed with the ACLU. What a sham this is--the idiots running the homeowners associations involved in this should be publicly flayed.

Registering them is another unacceptable thing. They paid their debt to society--let them be! If they do it again, punish the criminal. "Prevention" of crime is a loss of rights for everyone.

HankB
June 14, 2006, 01:27 PM
Camp David, in this specific instance, we disagree. The "victim" is 18 - that's old enough to vote, old enough to fight as a Marine in Iraq, certainly at the age of consent.

As I wrote in my original post, you can argue this was unprofessional conduct. I'd find it difficult to defend against the teacher's firing and revocation of her teaching credentials . . . but this would fall into an area the business world deals with every day as "harassment."

Unless the 18 year old male was, shall we say, "mentally challenged" or otherwise particularly vulnerable, I don't consider the teacher's actions criminal, on a par with rape or child molestation. If teacher wants to pursue relationship with adult (over 21) she should resign her teaching position. You'll find this opinion is shared by most parents and many in the teaching profession. I don't have access to any poll or survey showing this. Post a link if you do.

hjames000
June 14, 2006, 01:34 PM
We're dealing with complex issues when we use the term "sex offender".

Case 1 statatory rape. A freind of mine impregnated a 15 year old when he was 18 or 19. Result they're still married and have several grandchildren.

Case 2 "touching" I was drinking beer at a friend's house. He got a phone call from a neighbor. Neighbor had arrowed a deer on a farm several miles away. It was now dark and he needed help dragging it out of the woods. He asked us to pick up his twin 12 year old daughters across the street and bring them for the fun.

We ended up with several of us in the back of the big 4x4 pu. Over hill and dale we went. When we got to the scene I jumped out. One of the little girls asked me for help. I held up my hands and slid off the side of the pu bed into my arms. Her sister then asked for help. Some how when I caught girl #2 I ended up with a small breast directly cupped in my hand. I didn't release her immediately because I didn't want to drop her.

I believe she knew it was accidental as she made no comment and ran off to look at the deer. I was more traumatized than she. Think of it, a tiny change in thought patterns by her or maybe someone saw the contact and the SHTF.

razorburn
June 14, 2006, 03:48 PM
Sorry, do you guys have links to cases to prove convictions in these unlikely scenarios? I have trouble believing any jury has convicted an 18 yr old/17 yr old coupling. Or the innocous cases of accidental contact. I did click on crosshair's link, and it didn't make me feel better. The 13/17% reconviction rates are just for a 5 year period following the 1st crime, not over the criminals lifetime. I do in general have more respect for terrorists than rapists and molesters.

SteveS
June 14, 2006, 07:26 PM
You are missing the point. The point is not about what is worse than the other. Kids "loose their innocence" all the time in any number of ways. Yes some are worse than others but molestation is nothing special.

While I am not going to suggest that child victims of molestation are "special," the above statement is very ignorant of the impact of actual molestation. In my practice, I have treated 100's of children and adults. Some of them were victims of sexual abuse. I would have to say that, depending on the nature of abuse and how it occured, this was probably one of the more difficult things to recover from.

Most victims were molested by a family member. So, not only do they have to deal with the abuse and subsequent trial, but they also have to cope with the role they played in tearing apart their family. In many cases, there are family members that don't believe that the defendant is capable of doing what they were convicted of (despite confessions and physical evidence). The adults that were molested as children had difficulty with a myriad of sexual and relationship issues. Many of my female clients stayed in bad relationships because they honestly believed that they didn't deserve better and that they were "damaged goods."

Again, I am not suggesting that victims of sexual abuse deserve some kind of sainthood or that other kinds of victiums don't suffer, but I don't believe you have a good understanding of the impact of being molested as a child.

Soybomb
June 14, 2006, 08:18 PM
I dont think I want to live anywhere with a home owners association.

gc70
June 14, 2006, 09:33 PM
Sorry, do you guys have links to cases to prove convictions in these unlikely scenarios?Strange but true (http://kutv.com/local/local_story_365134652.html) - 13 and 12 year old kids convicted of sexually abusing each other. "The decision leaves the teens in the position of each being both a victim and a perpetrator in the same offense."

YellowLab
June 14, 2006, 10:51 PM
HMA's are pure evil. I'm not sure what they are supposed to accomplish (ppl tell me about property values etc) but you are giving up so much freedom for a percieved value that you may never achieve.

My friend in FL tells me that he cannot have more than X cars, the boat cannot be outside, the house has to be a certain color, the x-mas decorations must be approved etc etc.

On top of that you have to PAY the HMA... so they can police and FINE YOU. At what point does that make sense?

Another note, teenage kids have been having sex for ages.... its what we do to keep the species going. Morals somehow got in the way and now you have to do X and Y but not Z to have sex. The male of the species hits thier prime at 18. Thats a lot of hormones to control. But religion and other social pressures tell us its not right.... all made up rules to control things that we really should not have control over. Since there are people who cannot go on without imposing THIER WILL on others, they somehow convinced us that completely NATURAL actions, are now morally wrong.

Sindawe
June 14, 2006, 11:58 PM
HMA's are pure evil. I'm not sure what they are supposed to accomplish (ppl tell me about property values etc) but you are giving up so much freedom for a percieved value that you may never achieve. HOAs serve a useful function in some circumstances. In the one I live under, the HOA is charged with upkeep of the property (I live in a condo development) doing stuff like cutting the grass, painting the buildings, handling trash pickup and the like. Ours also pays for water use and has a bulk rate contract for cable TV that works out ot $10/month/unit for extended basic. Ours also sets some basic rules like picking up after your animals and some silly ones like not permiting non-drapery or blinds as window coverings. Membership is voluntary in that a prospective buyer is provided copies of the covenants before purchase. Don't like 'em? Don't buy in.

For detached single family homes, I don't think they provide so much use to their members unless the HOA does stuff like run a local pool, playgrounds or such. Setting standards for home color and landscaping is just asinine.

If a newly forming HOA wants to bar sex offenders, I have no problem with that as membership is still voluntary,

Hmmmm...I wonder if I could get my HOA to mandate that all residents must have a firearm in the home. :evil:

Chrontius
June 15, 2006, 01:08 AM
Sindawe - take 'em all out to shoot .22, take them to lunch and make the pitch, then slip each of them $20. Not cheap, but it should work ^_^ (IANAL)

SteveS
June 15, 2006, 11:56 AM
I live in a detached single family home development with an HOA. The fees are pretty low and they mostly cover upkeep of the road, snow removal in winter and some basic landscaping.

I served on the board for a time and there were a fair amount of rules. In a perfect world, neighbors would be allowed to do what they want AND be respectful of each other. In some of the places I have lived, they were could care less about how their actions affected their neighbor. An HOA just allows some people to get together and agree to live by certain rules. If someone violates the rule, there are consequences.

Like it has been mentioned previously, if you don't like them, don't live in them.

rbernie
June 15, 2006, 12:40 PM
An HOA just allows some people to get together and agree to live by certain rules.If only it were optional. In most subdivisions being built these days in my neck of the woods, membership is mandatory.

Colt
June 15, 2006, 12:55 PM
How many here would pay a little more to live in a subdivision that required gun ownership?

As a positive, it could keep the numbers down on would-be rapists and petty thieves. On the other hand, it might identify a target-rich environment for gun thieves.

Hmm...

razorburn
June 16, 2006, 02:05 AM
Strange but true - 13 and 12 year old kids convicted of sexually abusing each other. "The decision leaves the teens in the position of each being both a victim and a perpetrator in the same offense."

In the link, the judge only refused to dismiss the case, he did not convict either. The girl was "convicted" when she admitted to the allegation, but she maintains the right to appeal. The boy was not convicted. The girl will probably lose her conviction after she finishes appeals. So I stand by my statement that convicted rapists and child molesters in any form are the lowest scum of humanity. Sickos like those rapists and molesters are why a lot of us carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "New Subdivisions Ban Sex Offenders From Moving In" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!