|
|
Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion |
Sex Offender Arrested For Living Near School Bus Stop local6.com August 26, 2005 Note that the two stories have a different take on when he moved into the house. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159835) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 159856 (In Reply to Message 159836)Posted by dp1 on Aug 27, 2005 02:35 PM | Also by dp1
"Yes, I'm aware that I'm well within the ordinance," Vermeulen said. "...For me to move here in the first place, probation said was fine." This is the problem I've got with this. Probation should have said that it isn't fine. They should have told him he'd be in violation of a local ordinance. If probation refuses to do violation reports to the criminal judge in regards to the 2,500 foot rules then the least they could do is warn the offenders of the possible consequences. This is a dirty game. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159836) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 159860 (In Reply to Message 159835)Posted by dp1 on Aug 27, 2005 02:51 PM | Also by dp1
"I'm going to follow up with his probation and parole supervisor to see what they know about our ordinance. If there's an issue, we'll take it up with their management staff," said Chief Randall Scoggins, Mt. Dora Police Department. I can tell you the answer to that one. What do they know about ordinances? Nothing. Vermeulen's attorney said his client would plead not guilty to violating the ordinance. Meanwhile, the probation department that approved the move must check with a judge to see if they must now file a violation of probation. Huh? They are just getting around to this now? Geez, let the RSO out of jail until these idiots figure out the law so they can enforce this properly. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159835) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 159868 (In Reply to Message 159860)Posted by orolan on Aug 27, 2005 03:17 PM | Also by orolan
Geez, let the RSO out of jail He's out on bond, right? Hats off to his PO for not ordering him held without bond pending a decision by the judge on the VOP issue. There's a huge fundamental issue here. The DOC has statutory authority and responsibility over the "supervisory and protective care, custody, and control" of probationers. DOC, in performing its statutory function, approved the address of the probationer. On approval, it actually became a requirement of his probation that he actually live there. Mount Dora has no authority or control over his probation, so it can't make him move. Look at it another way. Suppose Mount Dora passed an ordinance banning the practice of probationers paying supervision costs to DOC. Think that would fly? If the Attorney General had issued an Opinion on the matter when the first ordinance came about, this wouldn't be happening now. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159860) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 159872 (In Reply to Message 159868)Posted by dp1 on Aug 27, 2005 03:31 PM | Also by dp1
It's not that clear cut. Some parole orders and conditional release orders are clear about not violating local ordinances. Maybe this guy didn't have that as a condition of supervision, but others do. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159868) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 159946 (In Reply to Message 159872)Posted by orolan on Aug 28, 2005 04:02 PM | Also by orolan
That's true. But at the same time, the probationer or parolee must obey his probation or parole conditions. When the two conflict, state law will always prevail. Like my example. If Mount Dora passed an ordinance prohibiting COS payments, what would happen? The probationer could continue to pay COS, thus violating a local ordinance, thus triggering a VOP. Or he could comply with the local ordinance, thus triggering a VOP for not paying COS. Situations like that are why there is a peccking order in statutory authority. Sure the probationer has to obey local laws and ordinances. But only if those laws and ordinances don't cause him to violate a state law in the process. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159872) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 160029 (In Reply to Message 159835)Posted by Silverthorne on Aug 29, 2005 06:34 AM | Also by Silverthorne
This guy had child porn. He didn't molest anyone. He didnt jump out from behind a bush and grab a strange kid. I mean come on. 2,500 feet is a joke anyway. If someone wants to snatch a kid they're not going to do it in their own neighborhood. Theyre going to get in the car and drive to the next town and do it. These people are so stupid. Silverthorne Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159835) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 160043 (In Reply to Message 160029)Posted by orolan on Aug 29, 2005 01:18 PM | Also by orolan
This guy had child porn. Who knows what he had? What struck me first off about this guys case was the fact that his computer was in the trash. The article didn't say that a subsequent search of his NEW computer turned up child porn or if he even HAD a new computer. Think about it. The guy has become addicted to porn. Realizes he has a problem. So he pitches the source of his addiction. No computer means no Internet means no porn. Or perhaps he got it on the computer some other way? I often have to go to friends houses to remove questionable content because their kid went looking for Yu-Gi-Oh cheats and found themselves on an anime porn site instead. Or looked for Zoo Tycoon cheats and found themselves on a bestiality site. Some people believe you can never remove the traces. Perhaps this guy was one of those and so he did the only thing he knew to do ,which was throw it away? Can't take it to a computer repair service, because they'll call the police. And maybe he diodn't have friends like me that could clean it for him? The possibilities are endless. Of course he could be exactly what the state says he is. A sex offender. But maybe not. Forum Home | Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160029) In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user. Message 160081 (In Reply to Message 159835)
|
||||||||||||||||
| Gender: Female, Age Bracket: N/A, State: West Virginia, Country: United States |
| Tell a Friend about this page. |
| Copyright 1998-2007 SexCriminals.com and Befriend | About Site | Credits | Contact Us |