Woman Setting Up Cams To Watch Sex Offenders

Hysteria! This woman has nary a single statistic to report of a violation by any RSO living in close proximity to her, but she succumbs to the Political hysteria constantly spread...

7-15-2010 Florida:

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A self-proclaimed vigilante is setting up video cameras in an Orange County community in an effort to keep an eye on registered sex offenders, she told WFTV Wednesday.

WFTV has reported that more than 100 sex offenders live in the Lake Shore Village Mobile Home Park off North Orange Blossom Trail. Barbara Farris, who runs the group “Be Aware,” is spending nearly $14,000 to install five surveillance cameras to keep an eye on the offenders.

"If their probation, it says no contact with children, then there's no contact with children, and we got it on camera," Farris said.

The owner of Lake Shore Village gave Farris the go-ahead to put the cameras on property. She'll have access to a video feed, as will local police and probation officers.

Some residents called the cameras an invasion of privacy.

Farris said the cameras will be up and running soon. ..Source.. WFTV.com9

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CT- Ozark Police: Connecticut man behind alleged bomb threat

Now I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, if I am, but I think this story went down differently. A guy (RSO here) walks into a church probably to talk to the minister, someone sees the EpiPen and panics, a BOMB, god call the police. Police come realize its nothing but a EpiPen and plant that the guy (RSO) called about disaster information. Notice, not only do police admit the guy (RSO) never said anything about a bomb threat, but police also will not press charges for the alleged bomb threat. Yes, there is a issue of registration, but other than that this is a case of hysteria and overreaction caused by Alabama's claims of RSOs dangerousness, and yes, a coverup to justify the overeaction.

3-17-2009 Connecticut:

OZARK – A Connecticut man who police say is a registered sex offender there had inquired about Ozark’s response to terrorist-type disasters before he spoke with personnel at Ozark Baptist Church.

Ozark Deputy Police Chief Myron Williams said Joseph Liebman entered the church around 11 a.m. Monday with what appeared to be a bomb on his backside.
The church houses a daycare with about 70 children.

While the extent of Liebman’s conversation in the church was not released, Williams said Liebman also called CARE Ambulance in Ozark and questioned the availability of emergency services in case of disasters.

Police arrested Liebman while he was walking toward the Dale County Courthouse with a stethoscope. The alleged bomb was later identified as two EpiPens, which Williams said are used for emergency insect stings and could be similar in style to an explosive.

Williams said there were no charges in reference to the potential bomb threat and that it was not fully clear if that was Liebman’s intent.

Liebman was instead charged for failing to register in Alabama as a sex offender, a Class C felony that carries up to 10 years in prison.

Liebman had been staying in the area with a friend and is awaiting the possibility of charges from Connecticut, Williams said.

“It’s still under investigation so we are learning more information, but Mr. Liebman never stated there was a bomb threat ... and he did not appear to be under the influence of anything,” Williams said.

“But as a precaution the children were removed from the facility and traffic rerouted downtown.”

Dale County Sheriff Wally Olson said the EpiPens have been sent for testing to determine whether they were filled with any explosive material.

An official with the Connecticut State Police Department said he could not confirm whether Liebman was a registered sex offender there.

The incident remains under investigation. ..News Source.. by Ebony Horton

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Predator panic increases risk

2-10-2009 National:

I've been an Internet safety advocate since 1993 and right now I'm discouraged and angry about what's going on in this field. I'm angry because people who ought to know better are trying to mislead the public with false information about online risks which is diverting attention away from real risks. And I'm not alone. Many respected online safety organizations and leading youth-risk researchers are trying to shift the discussion away from mostly predator danger to youth behavior risk. Thanks to some politicians, it's an uphill battle.

Online safety groups and public officials should be spending our time educating families on how to avoid real risks that affect most kids-- like bullying, harassment and unwanted exposure to inappropriate material. We also need to do a better job of identifying and reaching the small minority of "at risk" kids who are putting themselves at greater risk by the way they behave online.

At issue is the constant drumbeat of predator panic coming from state attorneys general including Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Roy Cooper of North Carolina who are co-chairs of the Multi-State Working Group on Social Networking which represents attorneys general from 49 states. Although their rhetoric is purported to help protect young people from harm, the actual impact of their campaign to rid social networks of predators may be inadvertently putting young people at greater risk.

In addition to shifting attention away from more common online dangers, they have proposed the use of age-verification and parental controls which could actually increase risk by driving teens "underground," possibly to overseas sites that are far more dangerous than sites like MySpace and Facebook.

What's more, all the hoopla is disrupting the work of several of the most respected non-profit Internet safety organizations which, ironically, have to spend resources countering this misleading information at the cost of focusing on how to help young people use the Internet more safely.

A bit of background

For more than two years these and other elected officials have been talking about predator dangers on MySpace and other social networking sites and calling for the use of age-verification technology to help separate minors from adults. A year ago, the working group of Attorneys General entered an agreement with MySpace to form a Task Force to study the issue. After months of careful consideration including a review of all research, the Task Force came back with a report that questioned the prevalence of predator danger and also questioned both the desirability and effectiveness of using any single technology to verity the age of users. Instead of carefully considering the report, it was rejected out of hand. The attorneys generals reaction to the report was best summed up by Blumenthal who recently said it was "based on outdated and incomplete data -- falsely downplaying the threat of predators on social networking sites." I have a great deal of respect for much of the work that Blumenthal, Cooper and other attorneys general do for public safety and to protect consumers but when it comes to Internet safety, they continue to rely on anecdotal evidence rather than available peer-reviewed academic research (PDF).

Disclosure: I served on the Task Force as co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from several Internet and social networking companies including MySpace and Facebook. I also served as a member of the Internet Safety Technical Task Force and am the founder of SafeKids.com.

Now there's a new argument based on the disclosure last week that MySpace has evicted 90,000 registered sex offenders from its roles. In a press release, Blumenthal said "This shocking revelation -- resulting from our subpoena -- provides compelling proof that social networking sites remain rife with sexual predators." But what Blumenthal failed to point out is that 90,000 is not the number of currently or recently evicted registered sex offenders (RSOs) on MySpace but a cumulative number based on all the RSO's MySpace has ejected since two years ago when it adopted technology to identify and remove RSOs from its roles.

Facebook too

In the mean time, Facebook has been under attack for its own reported predator problem. Tech Crunch, last week, ran a story with the headline "Thousands Of MySpace Sex Offender Refugees Found On Facebook." It reportedly got the information from John Cardillo, CEO of Sentinel, the security company that helps MySpace and other social networking sites identify registered sex offenders so that they can be removed. Facebook is not one of Sentinel's customers but says that it employs other methods to attempt to identify registered sex offenders and others who might endanger its members. This includes relying on Facebook members and working directly with state databases and state attorneys general according to Facebook spokesperson Barry Schnitt.

But, the attorneys general who are screaming about predators don't seem to have information about specific individuals harming children. Facebook according to Schnitt, "is not aware of a single case where a registered sex offender has contacted a minor through Facebook." The same is true on MySpace. According to MySpace chief security officer, Hemanshu Nigam,"not one of the deleted MySpace offenders has ever been prosecuted for criminal misconduct with a teen on Myspace."

Based on surveys with teens, I suspect that this is largely because the vast majority of teens are savvy enough to avoid these creeps.

As you would expect, officials from both Facebook and MySpace say that they are doing all they can to rid their sites of registered sex offenders. Of course, that doesn't mean they'll be 100% successful. Short of shutting down their services, I can't think of anything that can be done to completely eliminate even registered sex offenders, let alone the much larger number of offenders who haven't been caught and convicted.

They're everywhere

At the risk of contributing to the paranoia, it's important to point out sex offenders are also in the real world. Unless we decide to keep them in jail forever, they are going to be among us. They go to malls, they shop at grocery stores, they live in neighborhoods and many have jobs. I know for a fact that there are registered sex offenders living in walking distance from my house and I have no doubt that my children have encountered them in the real world.

And then there are the ones who haven't been caught. It's a known fact that some of them teach in our schools, patrol our streets, preach in our places of worship, work in our hospitals and clinics, and coach our kids. What's worse, family members, according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, account for "a quarter to a third of offenders." Strangers make up the smallest group with estimates ranging between 7% to 25%.

Strangers who meet their victims on the Internet represent an extremely small percentage of all cases, especially compared to family members. It's analogous to worrying about being killed in a plane crash instead of focusing on driving safely. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is one of several safety organizations that no longer condone the use of the phrase "stranger danger."

As I've pointed out in previous articles, researchers who study sexual assault cases have found very few actual cases of children being sexually molested as a result of a contact they made on the Internet. It happens, but it happens in far fewer numbers than other forms of sexual abuse. And when it does happen, it is almost always a case of a teenager who is taking extraordinary risks online including -- in most cases -- engaging in sexual conversation with a person known to be an adult. I'm not saying this to blame the victims or excuse illegal behavior of adults, but to point out that how young people behave online affects their risk.

It's time that all of us -- politicians too -- start looking for real solutions and talking with real experts, not just relying on anecdotal data and provocative sound bites. ..News Source.. by Larry Magid

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CT- State Commentary — Sex offender hysteria produces no protection for public

3-20-2008 Connecticut:

Connecticut's hysteria over sex offenders is becoming ridiculous.

Bristol has just adopted and Windsor Locks is drafting an ordinance similar to those already in force in Danbury and New Milford to forbid sex offenders from entering areas likely to be frequented by children, like parks and playgrounds. Meanwhile the General Assembly is considering legislation to forbid sex offenders from living within a thousand feet of schools -- which would exclude most sex offenders from any housing they could afford.

It is all so silly. For if the regular criminal law cannot deter people from kidnapping or raping people or seducing minors, how will a zoning ordinance do better? Are towns going to station police officers at park entrances to demand identification from everyone and delay everyone's admission until each identification has been checked against the state's sex-offender registry?

And how much will a law forbidding sex offenders from living within a thousand feet of a school discourage them from getting closer unless cars, buses, bicycles, and shoes are outlawed as well?

Bristol especially should know that these protections are imaginary, having seen last year the rape of a teen-ager in a park by a registered sex offender wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet.

State government also should know better. But then state government has not yet noticed that nearly every woman murdered by an estranged husband or crazed boyfriend dies clutching a Superior Court protective order.

State government also considers or enacts new restrictions on handguns almost every year, always without any impact on crime, since people who are prepared to use guns to murder and rob are not deterred by gun registration requirements or gun sale rules, any more than they would be deterred even by outlawing handguns.

If sex offenders really were considered still dangerous upon their release — and many of them are not psychotic predators but only boors who took advantage of an acquaintance — real protection would require imposing longer terms on them in the first place.

With abusive spouses and boyfriends, real protection would require expedited trials and more shelters and firearms training for abused women.

With gun crime, real protection would require reconsidering the drug problem, since most gun crime involves contraband drugs.

Connecticut is getting all these only imaginary protections because its government does not want to bear the expense of real protections or even to consider how much crime the state can afford, there being only as much crime as legislation establishes.

About three-quarters of imprisonments in the state and a similarly disproportionate share of the work of the police and courts involve contraband drugs. Thus, if only by default, Connecticut has decided that chasing dopeheads around to protect people against themselves is far more important than protecting people against others.

But Connecticut's inability to get serious about crime is most glaring in the opposition in the General Assembly to requiring life sentences for people convicted of three violent felonies, proposals prompted by the murder last year of three members of the Petit family in Cheshire. At a hearing of the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee the other day, a relative of the murder victims spoke in favor of a "three strikes" law.

Connecticut now refuses to impose a life sentence automatically on anyone for any number of violent felonies, as if the highest objective of justice is to preserve a judge's discretion. But if the two parolees charged with the Cheshire murders are guilty, judicial discretion will have been partly responsible for the crime, since the parolees already had more than 40 felony convictions between them. And even if Connecticut had a "three strikes" law, it would not have applied to them, since their previous felonies were not violent.

Surely Connecticut should be able to determine some number of convictions for violent felonies requiring termination of judicial discretion in favor of public safety. And surely Connecticut should be able to determine some number of convictions for any felonies that signifies the incorrigibility of a criminal and requires a life sentence.

Sex offenders get the most attention but they are not the big problem, for Connecticut is full of released incorrigibles. The other day in Manchester Superior Court the criminal record of one such incorrigible was displayed on a computer printout; it was 6 feet long and included many serious crimes. But only after the 25th conviction did he get a long sentence, 22 years. ..more.. by Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...