« "Punishment and Recidivism in Drunk Driving" | Main | President Obama commutes crack sentence and issues five more pardons »

November 21, 2011

Committed sex offenders climb roof with nooses to protest confinement conditions

ImagesCAFGHOTPBreaking this afternoon is this interesting story out of Virginia, headlined "Rooftop standoff with noose-clad sex offenders ends."  The piece reports on the extreme (and successful) efforts by a pair of confined sex offenders to bring attention to their complaints about the conditions of their confinement.  Here are the details:

A three-and-a-half-hour standoff at a psychiatric facility for sex offenders who have already served their prison sentences ended without incident Monday when the two men who had climbed onto a roof with nooses around their necks climbed down and shook hands with police and officials.

The standoff at the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation, which began around 11:30 a.m., ended just before 3 p.m. when police brought in ladders and the offenders took off their nooses and climbed down.  The men were not immediately arrested but were assessed by medical personnel, Virginia State Police Sgt. Thomas Molnar said.

Offenders at the facility told The Associated Press the men climbed a fence to get to the awning, which is connected to the main building and is about 15 feet off the ground.  The men had fashioned nooses from bed sheets and tied them to a building support, demanding to speak to a state official about conditions at the facility.  The protest could be seen from a nearby highway....

[S]everal residents of the facility identified them as William Dewey and Victor Johnson. Dewey has complained to the AP about his treatment at the facility on several occasions. "Nobody wants to listen to us anymore," said offender Timothy East, one of several to report the standoff.  "There's no voice here.  Some people are taking drastic measures to make their voice be heard."

In calls and letters to the AP, Dewey and other offenders have complained about an increase in security.  The nearly 300 offenders were sent to the facility after serving their prison sentences.  The U.S. Supreme Court has said such civil commitment programs are constitutional as long as the offenders are there for treatment, not further punishment.

The offenders argue their privileges, such as outside recreation and property allowances, continue to be cut back while security increases.  "It's too much of a prison mentality here," East said.  "When they start going back to prison mentality that means we'll go back to it, too, and they're not going to like it."

Gordon Harris, another offender at the center, said he was in art class when everyone started running toward the yard where the standoff was taking place.  He said many residents are upset over the restrictions and the lack of treatment.  "There is no treatment here," he said.  While two state inspector general reports in 2007 and 2008 were highly critical of the amount of treatment offenders received, that has increased in recent years.

November 21, 2011 at 06:28 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20154373378e5970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Committed sex offenders climb roof with nooses to protest confinement conditions:

Comments

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRINCIPAL_CHILD_PORNOGRAPHY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-21-19-09-25

Here's another one for the pile.

Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2011 8:38:17 PM

they have a simple solution. IF they consider it an ILLEGAL after the fact PRISON sentence and ILLEGAL imprisonment. Simply slit the throats of the so-called treatment aids and Leave!

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 22, 2011 12:26:18 AM

This is rather long and full of weasel language - starting with the very front cover where they use an aerial shot where you cannot get the full effect of the multiple layers of razor wire fence outside of that "treatment facility" (the facility is easily visible from U.S. 360 and looks like a prison) - but this recently released report, especially Chapter 9 "VCBR Census will Likely Increase and Commitment Decisions will Always be Spectulative" especially the section starting on page 132 is absolutely essential background:

http://jlarc.virginia.gov/meetings/November11/SVP.pdf

But if that is too long the URL here essentially summarizes the report:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/nov/14/flawed-screenings-pack-sex-offender-facility-jlarc-ar-1459053/

And federalist, if you live in Virginia - or a state which operates a similar facility, you should be concerned that millions of dollars of our tax money is being wasted to keep people in what is in every respect but name a prison following the completion of their sentence based on what the government has known from the very start is a guess based upon false assumptions (again, you have to get past the weasel language in the report but they cannot hide that essential point). That has nothing to do with how horrible individual sex offenders are - if an individual is a horrible sex offender, they should have been tried and sentenced to a long prison sentence or LWOP in the first place. Not given a short sentence and placed in "civil commitment" based on what the government knows are flawed assessments and a guess by a psychologist who has the financial incentive to find someone in need of "sex offender therapy" because they make their living providing "sex offender therapy."

Posted by: virginia | Nov 22, 2011 9:53:57 AM

The Virginia Civil Commitment Center's employees were very fortunate that this particular standoff did not involve any hostage-taking or the killing of guards and staff. It would be in the best interests of the civil committment center and the Commonwealth of Virginia to honor the inmates' demands, because if another stand-off occurs,the civil commitment staff might not be so lucky.

If one keeps a person beyond his/her prison sentence in punitive, prison-like, conditions, it stands to reason that those inmates will eventually decide they have nothing to lose by assaulting or killing custodial and corrections staff as a way of venting their frustrations toward civil commitment. Aside from the financially astronomical costs of civil commitment that exceeds even the costs of already expensive run-of-the-mill penetentiaries, keeping inmates beyond their sentences destroys any incentive to behave well toward the staff or to seek rehabilitation.

Before the 1960's, few people thought that black people, especially inmates, might one day violently rise up against the prison system, just as few people thought before Stonewall that any gays or lesbians will violently resist police harassment. When it finally happened, shock and panic resulted.

Mark my words, if Virginia and other states that currently have civil commitment don't abolish it, it could eventually enter the minds of the committed detainees: "What do we got to lose anymore?" When that happens, I would not want to be in the shoes of any employee at these civil confinement centers.

If these sex offenders are this dangerous, then find out if they have committed any other offenses that one could charge them with in a REAL Criminal Court of Law instead of in these Kangeroo Courts that civil commitment really is. One can always use somebody's prior record and corroborating evidence to access if they are a flight risk when being charged.

Civil commitment has far more in common with Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany than it does with U.S. jurisprudence.

If we continue civil commitment, an ugly confrontation between detainees and their keepers could eventually occur and spread nationwide to other civil commitment centers. As the late James Baldwin once said, "The fire next time."

Posted by: william r. delzell | Nov 22, 2011 10:25:45 AM

@ william r. delzell - I concur

@ virginia - go hate another group of people. I'm sure you won't have a hard time finding one. Your comments always show that you have no clue about the Registered Sex Offender community.

Posted by: Book38 | Nov 22, 2011 7:52:12 PM

Mr. Delzell --

If, as you conjecture, those detained via civil commitment conclude they have "nothing to lose" by murdering their guards, they will be making an erroneous decision. Virginia has and uses the death penalty.

The notion that the public will rise up in some revolution against civil confinement is a sex offender fantasy. What will actually happen is that, with full public approval, the guard killers will go on trial for their lives, and the conditions of confinement for their fellow sex offenders will get more restrictive, not less.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 22, 2011 11:09:34 PM

Bill:

You continue to blindly not address the issue of confinement after serving a judicially (and must be assumed) correct sentence at the time of sentencing.

Is this the kind of country in which you are proud? You wonder why I previously called your God "Congress" or any legislative body which must be assumed to represent "the people".

Posted by: albeed | Nov 23, 2011 12:04:22 AM

sorry bill i think your FULL of it. YOU know very well this type of sentence is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTUTIONAL! if they are really mentaly ill which is the excuse for the so-called after sentence confinment! Then why have a trial. Use the EXISTING LEGAL civil comitment process the LEGAL one that has been in place for a century or more and comit them!


This illegal crap we have now is nothing but an ILLEGAL AFTER THE FACT PRISON sentence! Just as the registry we have now is an ILLEGAL after the fact LIFETIME PROBATION!

in BOTH cases anyone caught up in them has every LEGAL and MORAL right to KILL ANYONE involved in running and supporting them ANYWAY they can!

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 23, 2011 12:15:55 AM

as for this!

"The notion that the public will rise up in some revolution against civil confinement is a sex offender fantasy. What will actually happen is that, with full public approval, the guard killers will go on trial for their lives, and the conditions of confinement for their fellow sex offenders will get more restrictive, not less."

You mean like the same "FULL PUBLIC APPROVAL" that swept Adolph Hitler, into power or the ruler for the last 40years or so of LIBYA!

sorry bill your in a dream world if you think it's even CLOSE TO LEGAL to decide some is SANE enough to charge!
sane enough to take to trial!
sane enough to HAVE THE TRIAL!
sane enough to get a verdic!
sane enough to impose a sentence!
sane enough to SERVE THAT SENTENCE!

but ONLY once it's done think it's legal to SAY SORRY YOUR NUTS! and have to be confined!

sorry i think anyone who thinks like that is betraying everything our founding fathers belived and if they have taken an oath of office to support the U.S. CONSTUITON a TRAITOR to that oath and liable for immediate EXECUTION by any REAL AMERICAN who wishs to deal with the LITTLE TRAITORS!

Posted by: rodsmith | Nov 23, 2011 12:20:35 AM

albeed --

"Is this the kind of country in which you are proud?"

Yes.

I know that's a minority sentiment on this board, and I don't care.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2011 8:24:18 AM

rodsmith --

At some point, you should tell us how you REALLY feel.

Your virtue, as ever, is you don't try a bunch of smooth, sleazy language to make your position sound moderate. The defect of that virtue is that your position is incorrect as a matter of law. You say, "this type of sentence is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTUTIONAL!" If I taught that to my students, I would get the boot from the dean as being insufficiently conversant with Supreme Court precedent.

Of course that was not my main point. It was that attempting to escape even from illegal confinement (which this is not) by killing the guards is capital murder. The idea that the public would rush to the support of sex offenders killing guards to escape is, I repeat, a fantasy. Indeed, support for the DP would be higher in that case than its usual strong support.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2011 8:54:36 AM

book38: "go hate another group of people. I'm sure you won't have a hard time finding one"

me: you realize that I have consistently opposed civil commitment of sex offenders and the comment you replied to is in opposition to civil commitment, right?

if you believe that it is "hate" to believe that people who commit violent sexual assaults should receive long prison sentences, then count me in as a hater. if you believe that it is hate to try to use legal means and rational arguments to try to fight the injustice of continued incarceration following the completion of a prison sentence rather than recommending violent riots and claims of injustice which will accomplish nothing to help your claimed goal but a whole lot to hurt it, then count me in as a hater.

I consider it a badge of honor to be called a hater by the likes of you :P

bill: "If, as you conjecture, those detained via civil commitment conclude they have "nothing to lose" by murdering their guards, they will be making an erroneous decision. Virginia has and uses the death penalty."

me: I believe that you are legally incorrect because the residents are legally civilly committed and are therefore not prisoners under Virginia law. The facility is also a civil commitment/mental health facility so the term guard is inappropriate - but more importantly, it is not a jail or correctional facility. As a result, a murder by a resident of direct care staff would not be a death elgible offense under Virginia law.

Of course, the resident who commits murder would go to prison and likely guarantee that they would never get out.

bill: "The notion that the public will rise up in some revolution against civil confinement is a sex offender fantasy"

me: An official government body here just released a report saying that the vast majority of committees should never have been committed in the first place and at least 60 were wrongfully committed based on using an outdated test resulting in a waste of millions of dollars and that news was greeted with a collective yawn. That really shows how much the general public cares about this - had any other state agency been shown to be wasting millions of dollars a year, people would be calling for its head. With the civil commitment of sex offenders, people are complaining that there is not enough waste because more sex offenders should be committed.

bill: "the conditions of confinement for their fellow sex offenders will get more restrictive, not less."

me: like with your claims about the possibility of the death penalty death penalty, you once again ignore the fact that civil commitment is legally not incarceration. As a result, the 14th Amendment applies to treatment decisions and there is a limit to how restrictive conditions can be. See, Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).

Posted by: virginia | Nov 23, 2011 9:55:36 AM

Bill:

Thanks for your honest reply. Now we know where each of us stand with respect to the concept of liberty.

As a legal eagle, why didn't you address my first sentence? I know, I might bring up the Fa__ist or N__i word. Would I be incorrect?

Posted by: albeed | Nov 23, 2011 10:23:30 AM

albeed --

For my crime of saying I'm proud of this country, you now unambiguously imply that I'm against liberty.

albeed, I thank you for illustrating better than I could the anti-American thinking that permeates this board.

"As a legal eagle, why didn't you address my first sentence?"

Because I'm no longer going to do the homework for people who want to take shots but are too cowardly to sign their names.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2011 10:50:42 AM

virginia --

What you overlook is that murder by lying in wait is a capital offense whether the commitment is or is not incarceration, and whether or not it is legal. A person subject to allegedly unlawful civil commitment must pursue legal remedies. He cannot murder the guard to get out. This is just baseline stuff for a lawyer or, indeed, for anyone not fond of vigilantism.

To book38: "I consider it a badge of honor to be called a hater by the likes of you :P"

Just so. I have no clue as to why he went after you.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2011 11:01:48 AM

virginia,

Sorry you feel that way. You must be a professional victim or an enabler. I feel bad for you.

@Bill Otis

The Revolution has started. Your precious congress is going to be congress will be put on trial for treason. You know the rest. As for your "badge"...may I suggest storage place on your person, where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted by: Book38 | Nov 23, 2011 11:32:17 AM

I guess I need to clear the air. One of those individuals, I believe a Bill Otis, who responded to me, apparently thought I was urging detainees at the civil commitment centers in Virginia and elsewhere to start up a violent insurrection against the system. No such thing! I don't want innocent people harmed! It was a lucky relief that the standoff of a few days ago did NOT result in any bloodshed!

My letter simply WARNED that any law that keeps an inmate beyond his or her sentence with no chance for freedom even with GOOD behavior, COULD eventually cause that inmate to decide that the LACK of any incentive to behave toward the guards and staff could lead to the OPPOSITE incentive: i.e.--to rise up in desperation against civil confinement in a violent manner as the Attica and Lucasville inmates did between 1971 and 1993. As to whether the death penalty would deter inmates in Virginia's (or in other states' civil confinement centers for that matter) from staging a violent insurrection, one must remember that some insurrections can be spontaneous. A spontaneous type of insurrection is often UNPLANNED that could happen in a fit of rage that is so strong that the participants in such an insurrection will not be thinking about the consequences (in this case, the Virginia death penalty) of their actions until its too late to undo the bloodshed already caused. They only think of the here and now until after the insurrection comes to an end. By the same token, some detainees might feel that their current situation is even worse than being on death row, and would, thus, disregard such a consequence. When Virginia in 1831 experienced the Nat Turner slave insurrection, the threat of a brutal lynching afterwards apparently did not deter Turner and his fellow slaves from carrying out their violent, but ultimately, futile uprising. Many of these slaves actually WELCOMED the martyrdom of being lynched as they felt they were on the right side of history.

Posted by: william r. delzell | Nov 23, 2011 12:21:38 PM

Book38 --

"The Revolution has started. Your precious congress is going to be congress will be put on trial for treason. You know the rest. As for your "badge"...may I suggest storage place on your person, where the sun doesn't shine."

I will leave it to others to decide whether, in addition to being rude, you're crazy.

The revolution among child rapists and other confined sex offenders "has started"!!!

Well, it hasn't, but if it does, we will finish it.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2011 12:36:55 PM

bill: "What you overlook is that murder by lying in wait is a capital offense whether the commitment is or is not incarceration"

me: Under Virginia law, a murder by lying in wait is not a capital offense unless one of listed factors which transforms First Degree Murder into Capital Murder is present. The definition of capital murder is found in Section 31 of Title 18.2 of the Virginia Code - here is a link - http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-31

Murder by lying in wait by itself is First Degree Murder, a non-capital offense under Section 31 of Title 18.2 of the Virginia code - http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-32

Of course, First Degree Murder is at the minimum a sentence of decades in prison - so its still a worse outcome than a treatment facility where one has even a slight chance of being released.

bill: "A person subject to allegedly unlawful civil commitment must pursue legal remedies"

me: I never said otherwise.

bill: "This is just baseline stuff for a lawyer"

me: like looking up what the law actually is before trying to correct me? Sorry, couldn't resist :P

bill: "I have no clue as to why he went after you."

me: given that he thinks it is outrageous to have a child molester or rapist send to prison or placed on the sex offender registry even when they were convicted after the law creating the registry went into effect, he may well have a problem with women. I believe that he removed all doubt with ths statement:

book38: "You must be a professional victim or an enabler"

me: its absolutely none of your business whether I have been a victim of sexual assault or not.

Posted by: virginia | Nov 23, 2011 1:34:01 PM

Ugh, first degree murder is section 32 of Title 18.2 of the Virginia Code.

Posted by: virginia | Nov 23, 2011 1:57:04 PM

virginia: "me: its absolutely none of your business whether I have been a victim of sexual assault or not."

It is when thinking like yours effects a class of citizen who also have wives and children that live with them. The AWA punishes MORE than just the ex-offender.

Bill Ottis: I plead guilty to being "crazy" as you put it. In today's COMMUNISTIC Federal Government we have departed from the law. That law is the United States Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. Yes, Yes, Yes, I am crazy for wanting our country to return to the protection and freedom that our Constitution provides.

As for the last part: "Well, it hasn't, but if it does, we will finish it."...you don't want that Bill. When you confront someone who has nothing to lose, you experience the worst they have to give. That's just human nature.

Posted by: Book38 | Nov 23, 2011 5:21:56 PM

Book38:

You are correct that a revolution against the SEX OFFENDER Witch Hunt and the terrorists who enable it has started. It actually started many years ago. I mean, people who are Registered have murdered other people BECAUSE of the immoral, retroactive SEX OFFENDER laws. I don't know what more some people want for a revolution.

I don't know that I agree much with other things that you have said, but no matter. The criminal legislators in congress are not going to be put on trial for treason. Those scum aren't going to be accountable at all for their crimes.

People who are listed on a glorious Registry need to understand that they can run a revolution all by themselves. A person who is listed on a Registry already knows that the Registries don't squat to protect anyone. But don't leave it at that. A perfectly effective revolution is to simply ensure that not only do the laws do no good but that they are also counterproductive. As I've said a thousand times, people who are listed on a Registry should understand what it is that the terrorists would like for them not to do and then, as long as it is legal, do it as much as is convenient. That absolutely includes being around children. I would guess that for a good 90% of Registered people who are not on probation/parole with conditions that prevent it, that it is completely trivial to have relationships with as many children as the person would like. So, that is most of the people listed on the Registries, right? Does that qualify as a revolution? Seems to be the opposite of cooperation so I would say it certainly does.

People who are listed on a Registry should also identify people who support the Witch Hunt and DIRECTLY attack those people individually and relentlessly. Again, keep it legal, you will still be able to do plenty. But remember that not only are those people attacking you, they are also attacking your spouse, children, and the rest of your family. Return the favor. Find out where their family members work and work to get them terminated. Be creative. And there is no hurry. You can do it for years and years and years. Make it a goal to disrupt other people's lives and bring problems.

The point is - as long as Registries exist, ensure that they do nothing but cause problems.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Nov 29, 2011 4:53:40 PM

FRT: "As I've said a thousand times, people who are listed on a Registry should understand what it is that the terrorists would like for them not to do and then, as long as it is legal, do it as much as is convenient. That absolutely includes being around children"

me: you're position is that having convicted child molesters spend as much time with children as possible will actually help your cause of opposing the sex offender registry? Really??? You actually think that having icky pervs around children will somehow help convince people to oppose the sex offender registry? Do you have any idea how this country's media and political systems work - all that encouraging icky pervs to spend more time with children will accomplish is having one icky perv relapsing and molesting or raping a child - and then restrictons will get even tougher.

You and Book38 are totally unrealistic - see, every time a registered sex offender commits a new sex crime the reaction is to make the registry even tougher - advocating that registerd sex offenders - and ignoring that a large percentage of them are convicted child molesters spend more time around children is just reckless behavior - especially for your cause, misguided as it might be.

FRT: "People who are listed on a Registry should also identify people who support the Witch Hunt and DIRECTLY attack those people individually and relentlessly."

me: you realize that is the vast majority of the country - even many registered sex offenders support the registry for rapists and icky perv child molesters. You might get somewhere advocating reforming the registry to remove some marginal offenders, but at least where I live, the registry is almost entirely composed of people who commit violent forcible offenses against children and adults.

Again, you really believe that conducting a campaign of harassment against the majority of the country will turn people against the sex offender registry - rather than say, getting you involuntarily civil committed as being a danger to self or others and suffering from serious mental illness based upon delusional thinking? What you are advocating for will make restrictions on registered sex offenders even more strict. It will make penalties for sex offenses even harsher. You and Book38 couldn't be better advocates for harsher treatment of sex offenders if you tried.

Book38: "It is when thinking like yours effects a class of citizen"

me: you seem to be implying that people who have been sexually assaulted should not have a position about the treatment of sex offenders. Or perhaps your objection is to women having an opinion on the treatment of sex offenders.

But really, since I have no way of knowing what your sex offense was, I can't help but thinking that your real interest in knowing whether I have ever been sexually assaulted comes purely from purient interest.

And even anonymously, its always none of your business - and really, the fact that you think otherwise is not going to make me think that a grave injustice - or any injustice at all took place when you got listed on the sex offender registry - it makes me think that you are an icky perv who gets off on hearing about little girls being molested.

Book38: "who also have wives and children that live with them. The AWA punishes MORE than just the ex-offender"

me: personally speaking, if my husband was arrested for any sex offense, he would become my ex-husband faster than you can say "annullment." When I was single, I always checked the sex offender registry and wouldn't date a registered sex offender.

I'm pretty sure that the majority of women feel the same way that I do.

As for the few women who marry sex offenders, they should have known that the person they were marrying was a sex offender before they got married - if they make that choice, they have to live with the consequences of that decision. One of those consequences is the sex offender registry.

Posted by: virginia | Nov 30, 2011 7:16:40 AM

book38: "In today's COMMUNISTIC Federal Government we have departed from the law"

me: I almost let this go, but I just can't.

Wait, I thought that the sex offender registry was Nazi or Fascist, or whatever your boogieman of the day is? But whichever totalitarian boogieman you choose, one sign that we do not have an awful unconstitutional totalitarian government like you pro-icky perv types claim is that rapists and icky pervs do not receive the punishment they really deserve. See, totalitarian governments would physically castrate sex offenders - we do not do that in this country no matter how much icky pervs and rapists deserve to be castrated because we have decided castration is barbaric and unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

Of course, if you really insist, and really believe that the sex offender registry is a Facist Nazi Commie Plot then I have a solution.

I propose the following law be passed. This law which should be named Erika's Law (legislatures always go for laws aimed at sex offenders named after women - as for who Erika is, duh!) would give which gives convicted sex offenders the option of being listed on the Fascist Communist Nazi sex offender registry for life or being physically castrated and not listed.

So how many sex offenders do you think will chose castration?

Posted by: virginia | Nov 30, 2011 7:57:11 AM

virginia:

You said, "you're position is that having convicted child molesters spend as much time with children as possible will actually help your cause of opposing the sex offender registry?"

No, that is not my position. I think that should be done because it is the right thing to do. The Registries (actually, the BS that they've enabled) are immoral and their reasons for existing are not credible. The terrorists who zealously support them have shown their hand and exposed their lies. It has been proven far beyond question that the Registries cannot exist morally and responsibly. Americans aren't capable of it and that is no surprise at all to me.

Registered people being around children in revolt against the Witch Hunt will not significantly change the risk to children. Any Registered person who wants to molest children is already doing whatever it is that he/she wants to make that happen. It doesn't matter if the other 95% of the people on the Registries are around children or not.

The criminal governments can make the harassment/punishments/restrictions as "tough" as they want. I guarantee that, at least with respect to me, it will bring far more problems than benefits.

And don't even try to tell me that I am promoting "reckless behavior". Please. The idiocy that the Registries have enabled and cultivated are far worse than anything I've ever spoken of. The Registries are stupid. They literally make Registered people want to hurt other people, they create an environment that promotes that, and they are doing it. Just as experts said they would. Experts don't support them, politicians do.

You said, "you realize that is the vast majority of the country ... support the registry ..." Uh yeah, which is exactly why it is the idiotic mess that it is. The vast majority of the country couldn't find a brain if their lives depended on it.

You said, "the registry is almost entirely composed of people who commit violent forcible offenses against children and adults." So what? It's too bad that it does nothing significantly beneficial and yet all the while, it encourages those people to harm other people and commit crimes. And unfortunately, the geniuses who support the Registries have left off millions of people who should be on them. In the state where I live, they had people on there who committed crimes with guns and people actually thought that was unfair. It's a joke. It would be hilarious if it wasn't heinous. That is the "logic" and the morality of the Registries.

Your entire paragraph that started with "Again, you really believe .." is ridiculous. Hell will freeze over before even the most criminal government in this country could get me civilly committed. That would be quite a crime even for them to pull off. And if you think it would be a good idea for one of their agents to even mention it to me, then you haven't been paying attention. Their side of this war has already lost but they are either too stupid to know it or too stupid and immoral to care.

There is nothing wrong with causing problems for people who are causing me problems. I'm not talking about the "vast majority of the country". Most of them are just clueless as usual. I am talking about the criminals, the terrorists who are zealously, uselessly, anti-factually, and idiotically attempting to attack, marginalize, and ostracize other U.S. citizens. The true un-American scum behind the Witch Hunt. And I'm not looking for anyone to support or agree with me attacking those people. I am not usually even publicizing why they are being attacked and most never know where it is coming from or why. I seek out their enemies and find out how to help them disrupt their lives. "SEX OFFENDERS" never even enters the picture.

I find it interesting that you are "pretty sure" that "the majority of women" would not marry a "SEX OFFENDER!!!!!!". That does completely support my theories about what kind of people the vast majority of Americans are. I will tell you, my wife is a much better person than a good 99% of the people in this country. She knew I was Registered when we got married but of course she had no idea that it was going to grow into the immoral harassment scheme that it has. If the criminal governments had actually kept their word, I would have been off of their glorious lists a long time ago. They could replace me with any career criminal who only uses guns to commit crimes.

No, neither she or I could have possibly dreamed that agents of a criminal government would show up at our home one day at midnight and tell us that we had to move out of a home that we owned because some immoral, dumbass criminal legislator suddenly decided that it was "too close" to a a swimming pool. So I'm not going to agree with your assertion that it is okay that she gets to suffer "consequences" any time some criminal government decides it will be fun.

I'm also not going to accept that my children get to suffer consequences either. I don't give the first damn if a "vast majority of the country" thinks that's acceptable. It's not. In fact, I've built quite a structure to protect them from my fellow scumbag citizens and my children will enjoy the rest of their lives being in control of those people.

No, the people who zealously support the Registries and the rest of it are attacking my spouse, my children, and other people I care about so they will pay dearly for it. F them.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Dec 1, 2011 8:44:05 AM

your nicer than i am FR

"No, neither she or I could have possibly dreamed that agents of a criminal government would show up at our home one day at midnight and tell us that we had to move out of a home that we owned because some immoral, dumbass criminal legislator suddenly decided that it was "too close" to a a swimming pool."

if that had happened at MY home there would have shortly after the announcment been a DEAD govt flunky on my step! Sorry i would EXERCISE MY CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT TO DEFEND MY HOME FROM ANYONE ...there is NO EXCEPTION in that document for govt stooges!

The ONLY exception is when they claim the property via iminent domain and that usually comes with a CHECK! for the property! along with any number of other restrctions on WHEN and HOW you are removed!

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 1, 2011 12:52:41 PM

rodsmith:

I truly appreciate the desire to react with extreme violence but of course, that would never end well enough. Also, not all cops are scumbags. A small, but significant, percentage are actually decent people who want to help people. They may even vehemently disagree with the SEX OFFENDER BS. You can’t fault them for having to do their jobs.

The best and key way to revolt against the SEX OFFENDER BS is to never ever give any criminal government any more control over you than is absolutely necessary and required. Every time they try to, you should sue them. The way to win is to play pretty much by the rules.

The ultimate revolt is to live such that the laws are not only worthless but counterproductive; and beyond that, to live very successfully. Believe me, I derive great pleasure dealing with politicians who I know and they know that I am hundreds of times more successful than they will ever be. Bluntly, no matter what they may say, the measure of success in America is to be wealthy.

Anyway, I’m not going to give them any ability to control my life in any significant way. I am going to stay wealthy and control them from afar.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Dec 2, 2011 8:29:36 AM

HMM

" They may even vehemently disagree with the SEX OFFENDER BS. You can’t fault them for having to do their jobs."

SURE I CAN the Former United States of America killed for all time in the last 1940's the excuse "I was JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS"

just ask the officials of Nazi Germany...oh wait....most were hung OR locked up for life..... Could also ask all those suckers who were so-called prison guards we keep finding 50-60 years later and kicking out of the country!

At least they had a REAL excuse to shut up and go along. Unlike here! There the nazi's would have shot them for refusing to obey an order!


sorry just about every law passed covering sex offenders since the 2002 USSC decsion has been ILLEGAL on it's FACE based on that decision! ANYONE involved in supporting it is in my book a TRAITOR to their OATH OF OFFICE!

Posted by: rodsmith | Dec 2, 2011 10:10:39 PM

Bill Otis: "I will leave it to others to decide whether, in addition to being rude, you're crazy. The revolution among child rapists and other confined sex offenders "has started"!!! Well, it hasn't, but if it does, we will finish it."

WooHoo!! The GREAT Bill Otis speaks, again!

I so love how you titivate up the blog, Bill Otis. What would we all do without your charm, flattering remarks and holier-than-thou elitist views??

Posted by: Huh? | Dec 3, 2011 12:38:54 AM

rodsmith:

I hear what you are saying but I don’t think it’s practical to hold low-level cops or soldiers accountable for doing their jobs. As much as I hate our criminal governments and their agents, I think we need some minimal level of them. And it would never work to have low-level cops deciding which laws they will support and which ones they will not.

It is very unfortunate though that the people who actually create the SEX OFFENDER BS are not being held accountable for it. Especially the idiot, criminal legislators. Where I live, Registered people have murdered children in direct retaliation for the illegal SEX OFFENDER “laws”. The legislators are directly responsible for that. Experts warned the legislators that this type of stuff would likely happen so the legislators should have just murdered the children themselves.

I have a hard time understanding why the people who retaliate kill people who are usually innocent when it would be so much more appropriate if they targeted the people who are directly responsible.

People are murdering, assaulting, robbing, molesting, etc. other people because of the SEX OFFENDER BS. I don’t know if the criminal legislators are too stupid to realize that or too immoral to care. They seem to be quite happy with their panacea BS. They’ve never been interested in actual facts.

And even though the legislators and the terrorists who support them have no moral excuses not to expand their BS to millions of other people (e.g. murderers, shooters, robbers, etc.), what are the reasons that they have not? Is it because they realize the Registries are worse than worthless? I don’t think so. A few reasons that they have not are 1) money (America’s true God), 2) insufficient hatred for the targets, and 3) there’s not enough personal gain for them. They are scum.

Posted by: FRegistryTerrorists | Dec 8, 2011 8:13:07 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB