View Full Version : Keeping kids safe



Haffy
03-30-2007, 04:23 PM
This was posted on another website but I thought I would share it with you all here as well.

It is www.familywatchdog.us

When you visit this site you can enter your address and a map will pop
Up with your house as the small icon of a house and red, blue, green,
dots surrounding your entire neighborhood.

When you click on these dots, a picture of a person will appear with
an address and the description of the crime he or she had committed.

This site was developed by John Walsh from Americas Most Wanted.
Another tool to help us keep our kids safe."

Thanks to Teamdozer12 for sharing this.

dí76
03-30-2007, 04:55 PM
How terrible is this. I put the schools address in and I was amazed at how close these folks live or work.:mad: We might as well just feed the kids to them. Kinda like they did in King Kong. I was aware of the State reg website as I have to frequently visit it to see if our students are living with them but this site will partner well with that.

Thanks Haffy

Dave

hide_from_the_kids
04-26-2007, 07:50 PM
Interesting . . . took me a minute to figure out what the different dots mean.

ribnag
04-30-2007, 09:12 AM
hide_from_the_kids : Interesting . . . took me a minute to figure out what the different dots mean.

Yeah, but what does "unlawful sexual contact" (which seems to come up as the conviction for about 90% of dots) mean?

WhereRWe?
04-30-2007, 09:49 AM
Yeah, but what does "unlawful sexual contact" (which seems to come up as the conviction for about 90% of dots) mean?

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec255-A.html

Trezurs*-R-*Fun
04-30-2007, 10:34 AM
hide_from_the_kids : Interesting . . . took me a minute to figure out what the different dots mean.

Yeah, but what does "unlawful sexual contact" (which seems to come up as the conviction for about 90% of dots) mean?

I'll take this as a rhetorical type question. To me it means that it was a sexually motivated crime that should be dealt with Capitally. There are no excuses, no "degrees of severity" especially in todays society. I've heard the argument that, "...it's not the same if someone molest a child or an adult has consentual sex with a minor." Bunch of crap in my book.
If someone should murder someone with a gun or by poisoning them, it doesn't change the severity of the outcome. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse is sexual abuse. Call it "Unlawful sexual contact" if it sounds more palitable to you but its the same thing under a different guise.
Lets face it, with the headlines of sexual abuse and the amount of educational material that is put forth by the schools and the State to prevent and stop abuse, the latter statement is simply an excuse to condone or lessen ones wrongful actions. The perpetrator knew it was wrong and illegal therefore the severity of the crime should be reflected in the punishment. Even high school aged kids have access to this information and therefore should be culpable. Let's face it they know they can't drive without a licence, or buy alcohol and cigerettes.

I don't believe in accidently "unlawful sexual contact."

The victims are the ones who pay the most NOT the person who is guilty of "unlawful sexual content." We need to remember that every dot on that map marking a "unlawful sexual contact" means there is a victim(s) that can never change what has happened to them, unwillingly or unwittingly and they will live with it the rest of their lives.

Ask a rhetorical question get a rhetorical response. ;) ;) Thanks for giving me a chance to tell you how I feel on this subject and I hope others feel the same way.

Cache On!!!

ribnag
05-01-2007, 12:23 PM
Trezurs*-R-*Fun : I'll take this as a rhetorical type question.

Well, then you'd take it the wrong way.

I asked because some states put you on the registered offender's list for such "serious crimes" as peeing in the bushes, consentual 15YO/15YO activity, or that great ol' catch-all for the nannies, consentual "sodomy" (which has about a million definitions and applies to almost anything but missionary-with-a-hole-in-the-sheet).



There are no excuses, no "degrees of severity"

Well then, I expect you to turn yourself in immediately for that time you relieved yourself against a building after a few too many beers at a music festival. No excuses! :p

Mmmm, beer... :cool:



Call it "Unlawful sexual contact" if it sounds more palitable to you

I called it that because the linked site called it that, not to somehow defend or minimize the crimes involved. :rolleyes:

Trezurs*-R-*Fun
05-01-2007, 01:02 PM
Trezurs*-R-*Fun : I'll take this as a rhetorical type question.

Well, then you'd take it the wrong way.....




Your arguments are flawed. Peeing in the bushes is not "unlawful sexual contact", touching oneself in the manner you suggest has really never been considered a crime. If your comparing "unlawful sexual contact" with indecent exposure, beastiality, and homosexual activity then your not comparing apples to apples. If someone goes to the folk festival in Bangor and decide to pee up along a consession stand then they should be arrested and people warned but this is not "unlawful sexual contact." The 3 boys that peed in the towns water supply in Mass. were not charged with "unlawful sexual contact" they were charged with something else and I doubt they have to be put on a registry for sex offenders.

Your example of two 15 yo' are considered in most states to be unable to give consent to even their own medical care; they can't get credit cards, they are not even allowed by law to hold a full time job. Therefore, 2 15 y.o. by most State law cannot have consentual sex by definition. If one or the other was charged with a crime then there must have been an issue concerning the law.

Sodomy, as you bring to issue, if it was forced upon someone "unlawfully" then I'm not sure of your point here. If your referring to homosexuality as a crime then I'm still not following your drift because it doesn't bear on the topic, or at least I don't see how it does.

You have taken my comments personally my friend. No malice or ill will was intended to you. I took the question rhetorically, I answered the question rhetorically. I was not attacking you, I was expressing how I feel about those that are charged with "Unlawful sexual contact." I respect that others feel differently even if I will never be converted over to believe that "unlawful sexual contact" can be condoned in "some instances."

I only responded to your reply because your trying to draw me into a debate over issues that are not in keeping with my original post. WhereRWe? supplied you with the States definition if thats what you were looking for.

Cache On!!!