Nashua Telegraph - Latest Comments in Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Keith Richard Radford Jr. — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:08:47 -0000

so many people who with so much time to surf the internet joined together to harm so many people by use of so many internet company's being forced to post sex offender information through laws created by the ignoring public

who for a short wile put faith in government law makers to allow them to place their safety in the hands of government instead of just looking after ourselves and our own family's. [See "M" the move] Now the many sex offender who have made an effort for years to just get on with their lives in the face of unconscionable public humiliation need a class action suite against the federal government. Federal responsibility for what has happened in this country due to federal involvement. Any creation of isolation by any communication of media in any country is directly eroding or democracy. America is the land of the free. Americans are free to do good or bad. When America posted face on the internet the American federal government denied them the right to forgiveness and I do not think any American, government official or internet surfer today knows the day and the hour nor do they have that right to denie forgiveness.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

oneandonly — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:03:00 -0000

Please explain that to people like these.

13 year old both sex offender and victim.
http://www.denverpost.com/c...
6 year old sex offender.
http://www.denverpost.com/c...
Knowing that the term “sex offender” gets slapped on 13 year-old boys that grope 13 year-old girls renders the term all but meaningless. What does the term tell us, what does it communicate, if it lumps a serial rapist in with this kid?
http://slog.thestranger.com...

The list goes on and on and these are just the ones reported. Most news people refuse to do so or the families are terrified of the reprecustions from people like you.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

oneandonly — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:34:24 -0000

Then the 4 year old on the list should just be shot, yes?

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

oneandonly — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:13:47 -0000

NAMBLA was never defended, neither were the KKK nor the Neo Nazis. Learn before you speak.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

oneandonly — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:08:44 -0000

Wrong, those convictions ARE what get people on the lists.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

John Doe — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:46:25 -0000

Evidence vs Emotion, You hit the nail smack on the head. THAT is a most excellent observation.
You are absolutely correct.
EVERYONE, please re-read this post, give it serious thought and consideration. You'll be better for it.
The News media and politicians who created this hysteria for votes and ratings will someday pay for this irresponsible delima this nation faces.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

dylanspeak — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 02:04:03 -0000

Somehow, I'm missing what the "free stater" insult is supposed to mean.

There's a word for your way of dismissing someone by calling them a "free stater." It's an ad homineum argument. That's when someone runs out of logical things to say about an argument, so they say something negative about a person's character.

When you is, it displays to everyone that you've run out of logic, and you have to result to namecalling like a 5 year old.

I'm not even going to get into arguing points here, primarily because I'm not from Nashua (from California) and don't know the ordinance. But I saw the logic that Mr. Tollner and his fellow assemblymen used to carefully craft this law, in a previous article and it seems to based on the same kind of spurious evidence that other legislators have used.

I've also read the Human Rights Watch paper that you dismiss, and you seem to be glossing over many things when you talk about how they support buffer zones. They clearly say (on page 23) that there should be NO residency restrictions applied to entire classes of SO's across the board. A few pager earlier, they talk about how registration should be limited to offenders that at are high risk to reoffend AS DETERMINED ON A CASE-BY-CASE basis using a number of factors, not just the crime committed.

And so you know (because I wouldn't want you to be worried that I'm one of those crazy "free staters"), I am not affiliated with any organization but myself. I post because I am friends with a child sex offender who is one of the most decent people I know, and I'm sick and tired of people like yourself lumping everyone in this category together as predators. My friend is a good man who made the mistake of taking a teenager's advances as something he should believe in. It was a mistake, and he admits it. But he no more "preyed" on this girl, or is a pedophile, than you are.

The law's "distinctions" make very little distinction between coersion and not, and people like yourselves that want to assume that everyone who committed an child sexual offense is a pedophile terrify me. A pedophile is someone who is habitually attracted to pre-adolescent children. It is a medical definition, and it is being thrown around like people know what it means. And people are being persecuted because of it.

And just so you know, as well, I am the aunt of a 6 year old who was molested as well, so I'm not immune to the fears that you have. I've just seen enough to know that punishing people in such widely different cases as if they committed the same kind of crime isn't justice.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:17:49 -0000

Lady you are way out of line here! Those arent even my words... they belong to Jeremy Olson, not me! While I agree we should fax, call, mail and write our legislators on an issue we feel strongly about, how is that hardly grounds for attack? THESE ARE NOT MY WORDS. What is wrong with you?
What did I DO TO YOU? This is really unbelievable.

Here's something I dont disclose... but you want it? You got it. I dont need 'crying' which I never did at a legislative hearing. I've got personal experience.

Molested as a child? Been there. 16 yr old neighbor boy... I was 5. How's that for getting your sick rocks off lady? You think I'm biased? You bet I am. He was someone I KNEW.

Victim of statutory rape? Been there... go dig up the Nashua Police Reports on it... dated 1995. Since you love fact finding... this should be too hard for you. You claim to know everything else I do... so go learn more about me.

Have a registered sex offender in the family? Oh my goodness folks.. she's 3 for 3. Biased? Yes. Relevant? Yes. Experienced (unfortunately) in all of these dynamics? Yes. These are not issues that are solved by mouthing off, ranting or coming up with surface level reactions. These issues are so deep and intertwined that most of the public cannot wrap their poor heads around them.

You really are something............ you really are. None of the stuff that you have cut and posted here are words that are mine. These are free public forums and they see all kinds of posters (just like this forum does). You are purposefully and maliciously trying to attack me in this forum and attribute statements to me that YOU KNOW are not mine. And YOU are the kind of policy shaper Nashua should have? YOU who purposefully twist words, use intentional deceit to manipulate the emotions of the public (albeit, you are very gifted at your craft) ? In fact, I doubt that you could find one thing that you could post that actually belongs to me, that I said, that would be upsetting to most people.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:05:23 -0000

Funny, you're hiding behind a name that you think is an attack on me.... and you attack someone else for hiding their identity?

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:02:31 -0000

Honestly Lady... I've been to Taproom Tuesdays twice in my life *something you would know if you had a clue as to what you are talking about* and joined that thread specifically for the purpose of the issue in Manchester. Go find out when my last post was... or for that matter... if I ever posted on any other topic. Cant find it? Because it didnt happen. Where is your VENOM coming from? Did I do something to you that you arent aware of?

Yes means yes is not my phrase.. it was something the site founder put there to, as he put it "piss people like that off"... something he clearly has achieved with you. Personally, I dont agree with that statement being on the site, though, if someone says yes,... are you to interpret that differently, believing everyone is an adult or of legal age? But the, you'd know that too, if you really knew what you were talking about.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:02:31 -0000

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:02:31 -0000

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:55:11 -0000

Honestly now... living on LOCK ST? You must be a transplant yourself. You arent FROM Nashua, as you would never CHOOSE to live in that neighborhood if you were intersted in safety. Please honey, do yourself a favor and stop slinging accusations, NASTY ones at that, about people you dont KNOW. I dont even know the people posting here... and yet you find a way to ATTACK me for doing something about the WRONG that is happening in America. Trashing another woman with vile UNSUPPORTED attacks that are not the truth is stooping pretty low, dont you think? If you put half your energy into moving out of that section of Nashua you might not have so much to complain about elsewhere.

#1. I NEVER used my personal situation as a TALKING POINT or REASON for anyone not to support residency restriction laws. I PURPOSEFULLY left it out because it is irrelevant. These laws do not work, they are smokescreens. If you want to protect children, go after the schoolboard to teach sexual abuse prevention policies that are up to date and stand a better chance of working than the horrendously outdated 'stranger danger' policies.

#2 I am NOT the LEADER of Moral Outrage. I am a woman who was concerned about the plight of young men in America who were getting in trouble with a myriad of laws that we need LAWYERS to decipher for us. My husband was never taught the details of statutory rape laws when we were in highschool. He knew the age of consent was 16 and he ASKED the girl her age. She said 17.... why was he EVER charged with anything? That is an honest mistake of someones age through purposeful deception on the part of the minor. But that doesnt matter in most states. And they certainly did NOT teach us this in highschool. If they had, perhaps my husband would not be in the boat he is in. Again... spend your energy on education.. make
sure this doesnt happen to YOUR SON someday (assuming you are or will be a mother some day). Further, I volunteered to be the 'media contact' for moral outrage because of my knowledge of the issues and the laws of other states as well as my availability to answer calls that come in nationwide. I am listed as a site admin because I spend (or at least used to, as time has not allowed me to lately) a lot of time helping others (parents and teens alike) navigate the minefield of these laws and teenage sexuality.

#3. I am not a leader of the NH Free Staters movement. In fact, I am not even a member. I have never done anywork with these people on a professional level for the freestater movement. I have run across many of them in the legislative halls of Concord... other civic minded people who are doing their DEMOCRATIC duty to defend the constitution. Last time I checked, that was every citizens' duty and RIGHT as an American. I partnered with a gentleman I met (who happened to be a freestater) because he and I were both interested in the local politics of Manchester concering residency restrictions as we both reside here. No more, no less.

#3 Your information and testitmony (which I might add, you did LITTLE to respect the time limit that was placed on the public, talking endlessly) was based on emotion and fear. There were no facts in what you had to share. You said " lets just help these guys out a little... alcoholics shouldnt live near bars, and sex offenders shouldnt live near children"... the difference is alcoholics are allowed to live near bars (so why arent you pushing for that ordinance?) And not everyone requires the same amount of 'help' you believe they need. These issues are best left to professionals... not some woman who hurls vicious words of attack against others when her argument is not enough to get her way.

Funny how this ordinance was brought in your attempt to get the RSO's out of your neighborhood... not once were you honest about YOUR intent. More of the 'not in my backyard mentality'. You didnt want them on your street.

Finally, there are 2 web pages (neither of which I created by the way) not because one was 'losing support' as you would like to believe but because statutory rape laws and residency restrictions laws are separate issues. Frankly, I'm surprised you could interpret that as anything more than that... it seems rather obvious to me.

Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.

As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:55:10 -0000

Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.

As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Laurie Peterson — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:55:10 -0000

Your 'over-characterizations' and personal attacks speak for themselves.

As the good book says: "You who are without sin, cast the first stone".

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

from Fla — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:04:16 -0000

I don't believe sex crimes have gone down. Just the reporting of them. Especially where the offender is a member of the family. With all the laws in place now, the victim in many cases will not report the crime.Unfortunately whole families are punished ,with many familes losing their homes..because ot the residency restrictions.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

static — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:56:39 -0000

I don't know of the group you seem so keen on "advertising" for... You do realize you've mentioned their name more than anything else throughout your many replies... If their detractors are all like you, perhaps I'll give them a listen...But then again, I'm not here for any particular agenda- while it is apparent that you are, so I'll leave you to your rants. Enjoy!

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

static — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:50:26 -0000

Moron, kindly see my reply to your buddy below...

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

static — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:47:06 -0000

Knee-jerk reactionaries are better described as just "jerks".

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

static — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:44:59 -0000

Yes, actually there is a very famous case of a child raped and killed because of "buffer zones". His name was Christopher Barrios, although you won't find his name attatched to any legislation anytime soon. His father was on the registry in GA for a "romeo and juliet" case. His family had to move several times due to changes in the law until, finally they ended up in a trailer park. This park was filled with other sex offenders, since it was one of the few places outside the buffer zone. This put Christopher at risk from offenders considerably more dangerous than his father. He was kidnapped and repeatedly raped at the hands of a father and son (both sex offenders- registered and complying with the zoning laws). They then killed him so there would be no witness- another side consequence of "getting tough" on SO's that you never hear about. His father was forced to move his family to an area with a high concentration of sex offenders (both high-risk and low-risk) precisely because of this type of legislation. I'm curious to see what talking points you have that justify this innocent child's death...

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Evidence vs Emotion — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:58:30 -0000

That isn't necessarily true. See story here - there producer came out and said that nobody really knows what went on in those chats because Perverted Justice wouldn't release all of the transcripts. Entrapment.
Link to story http://www.associatedconten...

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Evidence vs Emotion — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:19:56 -0000

More recent studies I've used to help me form my opinion about these laws. You might want to peruse. The common finding is that these laws (including Megan's Law) are not effective. Most can be found online, but some may require access to a library. Notice only 1 was published prior to 2000.
Black, M.S. & Parks, E. (2001)
Centers for Sex Offender Management (2001).
Corrigan, R. (2006).
Fitch, K. (2007)
Harris, A.J.R. & Hanson, R.K. (2004).
Levenson,J.S., Brannon, Y.N., Fortney, T. & Baker, J. (2007).
Levenson, J.S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005)
Norman-Eady, S. (2007).
Pawson, R. (2002).
Schram, D.D. & Milloy, C.D. (1995
State of New York Department of Corrections (2001).
Tewksbury, R. & Lees, M.B. (2006).
United States Department of Justice (2001).
Valentine, D. & Huebner, B. (2006).
Wakefield, H. (2006).
Walker, J.T. Maddan, S., Vasquez, B.E., VanHouten, A.C., & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2005).

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Freest8r&Moraloutrage@ work — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:13:03 -0000

how can you show that? Loaded question. Show me one it caused.

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Evidence vs Emotion — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:06:23 -0000

2 things:
1. Where's the direct link to this finding? You've mentioned it a few times, but haven't cited it. I'd like to read this for myself.
2. Residency restrictions won't prevent this from happening

Re: Nashuatelegraph.com: Telegraph got it wrong in sex offender editorial

Evidence vs Emotion — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:02:34 -0000

There still is no evidence that this will prevent sexually based crimes. While their crimes are horrible, awful, unfathomable, and while it might make your skin crawl to have them in your neighborhood, it still doesn't mean that your neighborhood will be protected against sexually based crimes. Its ineffective, banishment and unconstitutaional - using all the information posted on here by everyone other than Freest8r, an open mind can see that!