One of the primary goals of many home shoppers is finding a neighborhood that is safe. That makes sense. No one wants to live in constant fear of having their valuables stolen—or worse, being assaulted. However, there is one specific “safety” criteria that makes little sense to weigh heavily in one’s home search: Registered Sex Offenders.
Searching for registered sex offenders is easy with sites like CrimeReports, which puts links to your local law enforcement’s detailed offender info right on a map. However, just because it’s easy doesn’t mean it’s particularly useful.
Before I go on, I want to be very clear that sex crimes are serious business, and I’m not downplaying the seriousness of the crimes in any way. That said, in my opinion it’s silly to fret about the number of registered sex offenders living in an area, and even more ridiculous use it as a major deciding factor in your home search. Here are a few reasons why:
- Most sex offenders assault people they already know.
- They’re registered, so you know exactly who they are.
- If they want to re-offend, they aren’t limited to the neighborhood they live in.
- It’s the unregistered and uncaught criminals that you should really worry about.
Allow me to illustrate some of these points. Using the aforementioned CrimeReports, I pulled up a map of my own neighborhood and started clicking through to the first ten offender detail pages nearest to my home. Here are some excerpts from the descriptions of their crimes:
- …sexually assaulting the unknown 14 year old male victim… grabbed his buttocks…
- …sexually assaulting the known 13 year old female victim… sexually assaulting the known 14 year old female victim…
- …entered a on-line chat room. Once in this chat room he committed his lewd offense by exposing in front of his web cam…
- …sexually assaulting the known six year old male victim…
- …was 21 years of age at the time of the crime molested a 14 year old female. His vehicle was parked in a posted no trespassing area and he and the victim were watching a pornographic DVD inside the vehicle. Both were naked…
- The victim in this crime was a 11 year old female who was molested when the victim was taken on walks… His next victim was a 12 year old female who had gone to his home to play video games…
- …was on line and talking to what he believed to be a 12 year old and in fact was a detective.
- …sexually assaulting the known female victim from her age of one to five years old…
- The victim in these crimes were both 14 year-old females, known to the offender.
- …he harbored the known (he had known her about a month) 14 year old female victim after she had runaway from home.
Again, all of the crimes described above are inexcusable, but do any of these guys really sound like people you should live in fear of just because they happen to live a couple blocks away from you?
The majority of registered sex offenders (and seven of the ten in the list above) commit their crime against someone they already know (a friend or family member). Since a registered sex offender is, well, registered, it’s pretty easy to make sure your wife and kids aren’t spending time with him, even if he lives just down the block.
In the specific examples I pulled up from around my home, two of the three offenders who did not assault people they already knew committed their crimes online. I understand that with this newfangled internet thing you can go anywhere you want right from the comfort of your own home. Do you think that by living in some sterile suburban protective bubble you can avoid these online predators?
Speaking of mobility, you realize that the internet isn’t the only way for a sex predator to find potential victims, right? Sex offenders can drive cars & ride buses just like normal people. Just because you don’t have any living within a mile of your home doesn’t mean that there aren’t any hanging out in your neighborhood or in the parks or businesses you frequent.
But really when it comes down to it, this whole registered sex offender thing is a misdirection anyway. People worry about it because the information is out there and easy to find. But how many registered drunk drivers, registered drug dealers, registered car thieves, registered assaulters, or registered burglars do you have in your neighborhood? Oh right, none, because most of the crimes that home owners should be worried about don’t require offenders to register their location for life. And what about the sexual predators that just haven’t been caught yet? For all you know one could be living right next door to that home you just made an offer on.
Worrying about registered sex offenders is silly. Sure, if everything else is equal, anyone would rather not live in a neighborhood with a handful of known creeps. But everything else is never equal. It’s better to know what you’re getting into than to be ignorant, but if you’re ruling out a neighborhood just because of registered sex offenders, you’re limiting yourself unnecessarily, and possibly missing out on a great home for no good reason.
00
By Kary L. Krismer @ 193:
If you don’t think it’s better to live near them, then why do you keep saying that people are silly for not wanting to live near them?
Why can’t you just concede that people are not silly for wanting to live in neighborhoods with a smaller known criminal element?
Finally, in an effort for a little quid pro quo, I will concede, you are right. If people move to a safer neighborhood and immediately become completely oblivious to their child’s safety, that is stupid. No one is really arguing for that, but in any case, it is correct.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim’s neighborhood in Everett has 47 assaults, 3 of them sexual assaults, 23 burglaries, 68 narcotics busts, 115 vehicle prowls, 37 vehicle thefts, 1 arson, and 2 robberies in a 4-month period. On top of that, a bunch of kitten kickers. And he has the nerve to call me “obtuse”.
Crime Bubble?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By masaba @ 201:
There’s a difference between not wanting to live near them and letting that affect their decision as to where to live. I doubt there are few people that would prefer to not live near them, if given a choice. But the issue is, should that affect where you choose to live or make you feel safer or unsafer?
As noted above, Ardell’s link indicates there’s only one within a mile of me. Pegasus’ link shows a few more, but not many. Neither makes me feel good, and I wouldn’t be particularly worried (if I had kids) and it got worse in six months.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Is there a way to find out where convicted arsonists live? My friend wants to live near lots of convicted arsonists so that he can stop living in a fools paradise, and gain the awareness to start concentrating on meaningful things to prevent his house from being burnt by an un-convicted arsonist.
If one is comfortable with the risk, then that is fine for them. They are the ones to live with the choice. But to poo poo another’s discomfort on the theory that obvious risk makes one less negligent is silly. It’s a bug, not a feature. I personally compromised on the long commute. How many of you will buy the argument that you’ve shortchanged yourself on alone time?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 204:
This post should be highlighted. It’s funny and insightful.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim, “…But really when it comes down to it, this whole registered kitten kicker thing is a misdirection anyway. People worry about it because the information is out there and easy to find. But how many registered drunk drivers, registered drug dealers, registered car thieves, registered assaulters, or registered burglars do you have in your neighborhood? Oh right, none, because most of the crimes that home owners should be worried about don’t require offenders to register their location for life…”
Tim, please see above. A crime report is basically a register of crimes committed in your neighborhood. I’ve never seen a more obvious case of someone getting all twisted up like a contortionist to try and justify a poor decision. Just keep digging Tim…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Pegasus @ 100:
Why do you make this so difficult? You claimed these admissions exist for multiple people living within 1000 feet of Tim’s address. Name them!
We’ve posted back and forth about 5 times and you still don’t understand what providing a source means. It doesn’t mean point to a link and make someone else look through a lot of information to verify what you said. If you have the information, post the specifics.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
One last comment on this subject, and then I’m done.
I think the core issue here is risk assessment. How does one quantify risk, which risks does one consider, and how does one best mediate those risks.
I haven’t run the specific numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that you expose your family to a statistically significantly larger amount of risk by driving an hour or two a day in your car/minivan than you by living nearby some registered kitten kickers, which would make moving out to the suburbs to escape registered kitten kickers a worse than zero sum game.
Some of the commenters here seem to base their risk assessment on the gut emotional reaction they have to the disgusting nature of the crimes committed in the past by people who happen to live a few blocks away. I prefer to take a more analytical approach.
Obviously nobody with a strong emotional reaction to an issue like this is going to be convinced by a blog post or its subsequent comments, so this is the last I’ll say on the matter.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By The Tim @ 207:
My kids don’t commute. So the equation is not purely how much risk, but also to who. I don’t know why this is emotional (bad) versus analytical (good) You can not have any decision rule without values.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By The Tim @ 207:
I have no strong emotional attachment to the issue. I don’t have kids, I like neighborhoods like Cap hill which probably also has a high number of convicted violent love criminals, and I think that our society has a little too much paranoia about these types of crimes in general.
However, I think that your calling people ‘silly’ for considering the number of known felons who live in a neighborhood is a little strange. Their risk assessment is different than yours, and it is not ‘silly’ to consider known felons as part of the risk in moving to a neighborhood.
We all choose which risks we want to accept. It would be really hard to ‘run the specific numbers’ anyway, as it probably varies from person to person based on (in your comparing the risks of driving, for instance) how much they drive, how old their kids are, how safe of a driver they are in the first place, etc.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By masaba @ 210:
Part of my views are probably based on living on Seattle’s First Hill for many years. Back in the day it was a very spotty neighborhood, and probably still is. There was an alcohol treatment center a block away. You had ultra-rich high security buildings, but I had a friend of a friend who lived nearby in an apartment building where one person put a note on the outside of their door indicating that they did not deal drugs, etc..
Rate this comment:
0 
0
See, it is very easy to deflate this futile exercise of determining property values based upon some real or imagined threat that the State has put out there, and done so, without even any regard to any individual. How to deflate it? Those that have to register, now no longer have to register. They can do this for public safety reasons. A person on a public registry puts the community at panic, destabilizes the registrant’s life and ultimately makes the community more dangerous in many ways (even by vigilante justice).
See, the registry isn’t about monitoring at all. Knowing where a person lives and works is not monitoring, it is harassing. The reason they don’t monitor, because as much hot air that people blow in this thread about how dangerous a registrant is, is because the State can’t show them dangerous under a legal standard of proof which would allow monitoring (like they do when a person is committed because they present a threat to themselves or others).
Get it? Your registry has no meaning until you decide to actually have a hearing and determine someone dangerous under some accepted standard of proof. Without that hearing, your registry is nothing, this debate is nothing and nobody has to follow your stupid laws.
You people are idiots. There is no RIGHT to know who is in your neighborhood. But I tell you this, there IS a right to live in peace within the community. Take THAT and put it on your registry.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By masaba @ 205:
This is a truly unusual thread at the bubble. Who would think I would ever find a funny and insightful comment from whatsmyname here, ever. Love it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 204:
+1. Talk about bursting a bubble… :)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: The Tim @ 38 – Assume for the question you did know (after all, knowing is half the battle). It wouldn’t be hard to figure out someone was an ex-con.
I think most people would say no to a convicted killer, while someone convicted of downloading free music (again, assuming you knew) is a non-issue. Each person views the risk differently. Knowing doesn’t make you safer; your perception of that risk determines whether you feel safe or not.
It’s different for everyone. If you ‘re a bachelor trained in Jujitsu and cage fighting, you’re probably not too worried about the perv down the street. If you have a wife and young daughters at home alone while you work each day, you’d probably think differently.
If I were the latter, I would let a national registry affect my buying decision.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The lesson in this is don’t “paint yourself into a corner”. Pick the where before the what. The best what in the wrong where usually equals rent vs buy.
Don’t make hard and fast likes and financial choices that paint you into a corner where you are choosing between 59 kitten kickers and 59 kitten kickers within a mile.
From the history of the blog…don’t like split entry homes, don’t like using two incomes to buy a house, don’t like Adjustable Rate Mortgages (exotic financing), don’t like busy roads, don’t like bad mls photos, don’t like spending even more than 20% of ONE income on housing…the list goes on and on.
The reality is segregating this issue to its own post distracts you from the fact that once you line up all your other wants and desires…you are led to a where that you may not like, and feel like your choice is only in that where. When in fact the chain of events that led to this where started on day one when you chose to hate townhomes and split entry homes and spending 28% of your gross income on housing.
Before you start painting the floor…look for the end point you are painting TOWARD.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 207:
I won’t name them here. The state already did. Besides I don’t want you accusing me again of plagiarizing web material by posting more than a link and a short statement which I have done. It is all there for anyone to see. Incidentally I double checked the eight offenders that are closest to Tim’s new residence and it appears that all eight are repeat offenders. Kary if you are once again too lazy to do your homework I am not surprised. It would take you all of five minutes to review the perps’ files. It is your MO to pop off without any facts. I am done with your silliness.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Kary L. Krismer @ 98:
Kary, you really are a piece of work. In addition to lawyer and re agent apparently you are now a mindreader. I’m through here.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The matter at issue here is family security and whether demographics concerning registered kitten kickers is an accurate statistical predictor for the risk of victimization. Because the harm is actually in being molested, not in living near a prior offender, the demographic statistics from kitten kicker registration are not necessarily directly correlated to the risk of molestation. The Tim would say that the demographics are so loosely related that they are therefore not relevant. Others would say the correlation of risk to demographics isn’t perfect but that it is more probable than not close enough related to the risk of victimization to be relevant.
Presumably a better statistic to use would be the ratio of the number of sexual assaults in a given area to the number of children residing in the area (if such a statistic were available). But unfortunately even these statistics, if available, would probably be materially distorted due to the failure to report most molestation. How many of you know someone who was raped or molested vs how many of those incidents were reported. My sister was raped when we were in college. A guy asked her to go to lunch and she called me to ask if I thought it was safe. I said “what could happen at lunch?” We got her medical assistance but she chose not to report the incident to law enforcement.
There’s no easy answer here primarily because it seems the demographic statistics available haven’t been directly correlated to the risk to be avoided (the risk of molestation). To paraphrase (perhaps poorly) Scotsman and others, we each have to take responsibility to be vigilant in protecting our loved ones. Part of that vigilance is using ones own judgment to determine if there’s more risk in a neighborhood with a few registered offenders or in some other area where perhaps the risks are different. Say perhaps that you live in an insular community like Mercer Island or Bellevue and take the risk that your child lacks exposure to diverse viewpoints and grows up to be a comparatively closed minded American suburbanite. My sister and I grew up on Mercer Island. Would my sister and I been more wary if we had grown up in a less insulated environment and were perhaps more street wise? (I doubt it but who knows.)
I don’t know that I would weigh the risks the same as The Tim, but I haven’t seen any statistical evidence to say that his choice is “statistically incorrect.” All the arguments on both sides make assumptions concerning the relationship of kitten kicker demographics and risk to residents in the area. I did a quick search for stats on that but my search query was probably too complexed to get a match that appeared relevant. If somebody has one, I believe it would be relevant to the discussion, although probably not determinative of the issue.
And like a lot of people, I’m not likely to sexually abuse anybody (other than myself) but I have commited acts that if apprehended would probably now required registration although the law didn’t exist at the time. Streaking, pressing hams on car windows, and exposing myself to MILF’s at happy hour just to freak out my drinking buddies are among the many incidents that comprise my somewhat sordid past.
On a lighter note for Ray and any others who knew the way to San Jose, it used to crack me up how ballsy, and “in your face” they were at KOME in the late 1970′s. They were probably the #1 station in the market. And if you were there you remember that the station’s slogan was “KOME, the force of the rocks,” and that they called their news segments “KOME Spots.” Did you ever wonder if your mother, or perhaps more importantly your girlfriends father, picked up on any of that?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: D. in Ballard @ 218 –
Arguing with Kary is like analyzing the reason for existence, it only leads to more questions with a risk for resulting insanity. Clever to put the breaks on while you still have the wits.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 209:
My kids don’t commute.
Sure they do. Even if you have a stay-at-home parent or nanny, surely they come with you to the store, or to friends’ homes, or to the movies, etc. City life means walking to most of these things, or if you drive then driving at slow speeds. Speed kills, and speed is the rule in the suburbs – they were designed for it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Wow, I’ve somehow always miss the SB barnburner threads until they are days old…
Let me just say that while I understand the “logic” and “engineers mindset” and the “known risks” of living next to a bunch of child rapists and sexual predators…I disagree with this post.
First question I asked the sellers when we looked at their home “how are the neighbors?”. They told us about the whole neighborhood, who had kids, dogs etc. Does that mean child-rapist lightning can’t strike here? Of course not, but having other vigilant families with children nearby and no reported incidents in our neighborhood is preferable to us than the opposite. Not sure how that sentiment can be viewed as illogical…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim,
I wasn’t going to bring this up, but after reading some of the replies from some of the regulars, I wanted to clarify a few things for your readers. As someone who has two adopted children and has been through more FBI, USCIS and Washington State (and other states) fingerprinting appointments than I care to remember, as well as multiple home study and home study updates, I know that being an owner or renter plays no role in whether you are approved for an adoption or not (unless the agency you are using is requiring home ownership somehow, in which case I would urge you to seek another agency!). Further, as someone whose first child was brought home to a home we owned and whose second child was brought home to a home we rented, it really makes no difference, other than painting and decorating the child’s room in anticipation (and with child #1 that was definitely a way to help pass the time waiting for the arrival, with #2, we were so busy with #1 we didn’t have that “waiting” factor as much). Of course, a landlord may give you the option to redecorate as long as you leave it like you found it when you leave, but that’s dependent upon the landlord.
Additionally, as you may know now, the site visit part of the home study is usually not as invasive as some people think it is. They will check out the home and write about it in their report. Here is what mine looked like from 6 years ago:
As everyone can see, whether you rent or own is not a determining factor at all in whether you are approved for an adoption in Washington State. It won’t even be mentioned in the home study report unless you have a mortgage to list under your debts in the Financial part of the home study. Having said all of that, I can see where the “right” home may play a part in whether a birth mother “selects” you for her child in a private adoption scenario, but renting does not disqualify you from adoption at all in the State of Washington and I am not sure of any countries where it does. The state and your agency may not have approved the rental you were in at the time, but that doesn’t mean a different rental would not have been approved any more than a home that you own with invalid bedrooms would not pass site visit approval.
Judging from what I am seeing on your blog though, it sounds like your adoption process is already well underway so presumably you know all of this already. As such, please keep in mind that I am not suggesting that you are misleading people about owning vs. renting regarding adoption, only that some posters are under an incorrect assumption regarding adoption requirements in Washington State.
Buying a home because you want to paint the child’s room pink or blue (or whatever) and put a swing set in the back yard is a perfectly valid reason to buy, whether the upcoming family member is biological or adopted, but it’s not required to be a home owner in order to adopt so I thought I would help clarify a misconception I am seeing from readers who aren’t knowledgeable on this subject. It’s misinformation about adoption that doesn’t need to be out there because, as you know, since there are already a lot of hurdles when it comes to adoption we don’t need imaginary ones out there as well.
Congrats on both the house and upcoming child!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By LeftOverpricedSeattle @ 223:
That’s correct. I never said that our decision to own was because we need to for adoption. Some other commenters have misunderstood what I said if that’s what they think.
What I said was that our previous home (a below-market rental) was not up to the necessary standards, so we were going to have to move. Since we were moving anyway, the decision to buy was based on the simple buy-vs-rent financial comparison. In the neighborhoods and home types we were interested in, it was cheaper to buy than to keep renting, so the decision was fairly easy.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“The people that surround my children apparently are far different then living close to Tim. I will “roll the dice” and take my chances on my non registered kitten kicker friends and family then those who have already committed crimes. Call me a GAMBLER for doing this.”
As I supported with facts and links the probability that if your child is a victim of a new violent love crime the perv is as follows:
Stranger and Registered kitten kicker: 1 in 200
Stranger and Not Register kitten kicker: 19 in 200
Known to victim and Registered kitten kicker: 9 in 200
Known to victim and Not Registered kitten kicker: 171 in 200
“The people that surround your children” are 171/200th likely to be the perv whereas the stranger RSO is 1/200th likely to be the perv. GoGo Mr. Gambler, thats odds of 171 against you and 1 for you. Very smart risk analysis there.
Gee I’ll worry about the 1 violent love crime threat and ignore the other 171 times more likely violent love crime threats against my child!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“The matter at issue here is family security and whether demographics concerning registered kitten kickers is an accurate statistical predictor for the risk of victimization”.
What is unclear, there is an INVERSE relationship being near registered kitten kickers vs. being the victim of a new violent love crime as if a RSO is stupid enough to commit a crime near where he lives then he is so stupid that has probably already been caught. How could you assume that an RSO is to stupid or lazy to get in a car and drive to another location to commit a crime? Only if you make that assumption does it matter where you live vs. where the pervs live.
Obviously the police will investigate RSO’s near where the crime was committed, but they don’t have sufficient resources to extend their investigation out to infinity. Thus if you are an RSO you are MUCH more likely to be apprehended if you commit a violent love crime near where you live instead of far away. How much brains does it take to figure that out? Again you assume RSO’s are as dumb as rocks to make your point.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By The Tim @ 8:
I know people who live in the suburbs and have to deal with real problems. One person lives in a neighborhood with a lot of dogs and people have been attacked by dogs, which escaped from private yard fences. They are so scared to be attacked that they never leave their home on foot, always by car. Another person lives north of Seattle on a road with no side walks. One child and an old woman have been killed by reckless drivers in the past years while walking near their homes.
But Tim is right, you would have to run a statistical analysis to find out which neighborhood is safe and has less crime than others.
But hey, it’s your life. If you think that you need to look up kitten kickers before you buy, go ahead, if it makes you feel better. Nobody, including Tim, will blame you for that. After all, it’s a free country :)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By patient @ 20:
Does that make you feel better?
Next time maybe try to contribute a halfway intelligent thought, if that is possible.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Matt the Engineer @ 221:
1. The context of Tim’s comment is one to two hours per day.
2. You only go to stores, friends, and movies you can walk to?
3. There are no fast arterials in the city?
I grew up in the city. I have friends with kids in the city. There may be marginally more family driving here, but not by much. The “commute” thing is cute, but it’s bs.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Sam Ferris @ 26:
Isn’t “already been caught” the reason he is an RSO in the first place?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Sam Ferris @ 226 –
Sam, I never said living near registered kitten kickers was either more or less risky. I merely observed that there were no statistics presented by anyone as to the number of molestation incidents when registered kitten kickers were located in the area and whether that differed from environments where they weren’t living in the area. You present a logical argument based upon the premise (assumption) that registered offenders are not stupid and therefore wouldn’t commit a crime in their own neighborhood. That may be true, but there hasn’t been any statistical evidence presented on either side of the argument to show based upon some form of quantitative analysis whether it is or is not.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By The Tim @ 24:
As I hope I made clear, I wasn’t implying that you were making statements that were untrue (because I didn’t see where you had ever said that adoption was for “owners only”), only that some posters had made that assumption and I felt it needed to be clarified “for the record”, as it were. As you point out, the rent vs. buy comparison made owning a better option for the area(s) you had on your list of “wanting to live” areas. I am back in the Seattle area again, but am most definitely in an area where renting is still a lot cheaper than buying (much to my landlord’s chagrin no doubt!). I have my own reasons for living where I am at right now and for now, it still makes the most financial sense for me to rent.
Again, congrats on the impending fatherhood (which is more exciting for me, as a long time SB reader, to read about than the house purchase, lol!).
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By One Eyed Man @ 31:
Two statistics are in fact known:
1) Only 5 percent of new violent love crimes will be committed by RSO’s
2) Only 10 percent of new violent love crimes will be committed by someone unknown to the victim.
Even if ALL RSO’s were eliminated, you would only have 1 in 20 less violent love crimes. Because in any given area you will have a ratio of something like 700,000 RSOs vs. 260 million population (I think) so lets say 1 in 300 people are RSO’s you have 299 that commit 19 violent love offenses and 1 that will commit 1 new violent love offense. Is your risk increased by living near the 1 or the 299? Your risk cannot possibly be greater then 5 percent more even is you assume that the RSO will not travel. Lets say 90 percent will travel and 10 percent of RSO will not (a very high figure for the non traveling imho) then you have .5 percent chance of living near a non traveling RSO. At best your risk is 1 out of 200 greater. So if the average risk is 100 your risk is 100.5. Statistically insignificant. That means if everyone has a 1 percent chance to be a violent love crime victim then living near an RSO makes your risk 1.05 percent. If you increase the number of RSO’s you are near you still have to increase the number of non-RSO’s you live near, multiple RSO’s will only add risk if they are concentrated in greater then 1 out of 300 persons numbers, assuming 1 out of 300 americans are RSO’s.
Seems that living near others would be a lot more statistically significant, i.e. if you live in a rural area you would be less likely to be a violent love crime victim. Also as knowing the perv is a strong indicator, then the fewer people your child knows the less risk.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 30:
Ya, I worded that poorly, I meant that he is so stupid that he will have been apprehended so easy that he is most likely in jail again. Like the guy in the wheel chair who offers $400 to his nurse to bring him a child, or the guy who rapes a child in a supermarket one asile away from his parents.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Sam Ferris @ 234 –
I know, but for him to be back in jail again, he would have to at least attempt to re-offend. BTW, I hadn’t heard about the child in the supermarket. Was this a city supermarket that someone could walk to?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: whatsmyname @ 35 –
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2010/12/03/registered-violent love-offender-accused-of-raping-toddler-at-dollar-tree-store/
I guess it was dollar tree store.
Ok here is your answer if 1 in 300 is an RSO. And RSO’s commit 1 in 20 new violent love crimes you need 16 non RSO’s to equal the chance of them committing a new violent love crime as one RSO, roughly. So if you assume than no one will travel to commit a violent love crime then living near 16 non RSO’s is the same as living near 1 RSO’s. Once you assume travel then it matters not where you live.
That is kinda shocking that living near 16 “normal” people is just as bad as living near 1 RSO, if no one will travel to commit a violent love crime, But that’s the statistical fact.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
RE: Sam Ferris @ 36 –
I am very, very sorry I asked.
Beyond that, there are several problems I have with your argument.
The first is that I am hugely dubious about a study that says most criminal recidivism is 60%, but for kitten kickers it is only 5%. (lies, golly lies, and statistics) It makes no sense on the face of it.
The second is that traveling may be a limited option for a number of probably underemployed RSO’s, plus you have to expect the compulsive nature of this activity may mean crimes of opportunity most likely will be associated with where the person most often is located.
Third, if I accept your numbers that 1 RSO equal 16 others, I do not have the choice of either /or, but more probably I have the 1 RSO plus 16 others, thereby doubling my chances for problems.
I’m not even one who looked into this before buying; but I would consider it a negative factor (especially if I was having the family walk everywhere)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By Sam Ferris @ 26:
The fact that they’ve committed violent love crimes is enough for me to believe that they may not think rationally. They may be bright enough to be manipulative or crafty, but their willingness to commit a violent love crime says a lot about their decision making.
There’s also a lot of kitten kickers who aren’t functioning with 100% mental capacity because of either mental illness or disability.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By BillE @ 38:
So what we need is a data source that tracks kitten kickers by IQ. ;-)
I think the one kitten kicker in my neighborhood looks smarter than most of those in Tim’s neighborhood, so now I have even more reason to feel safe for the children in the neighborhood.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
By whatsmyname @ 37:
Well its the kitten kicker rate is over maybe like 5 years or so, and for a violent love CRIME (i.e. if a RSO commits a robbery thats not shown), 60 percent no doubt includes parole violations as well. But the fact is that the recidivism rate for kitten kickers is only higher then murders and lower then everything else, that’s from DOJ statistics. Still the inability to get a job, live where we want etc. will force people into crime but again if its not a violent love CRIME then its not shown in the figures I give. And 60percent for other crimes like stealing is not all that surprising, guy shoplifts $100 item, he gets out in a few weeks or a month and doesn’t care if he goes to jail for another month or so. Plus that includes drug possession type crimes, people who are addicted to drugs could care less about the legal system. Its not the recidivism rate that I rely upon mostly anyway, and that’s not really that important to you, it’s the percentage of new violent love crimes that are committed by RSO’s. Lets say the recidivism rate was 100 percent yet RSO’s committed only 1 in 1000 new violent love crimes, the recidivism rate would be meaningless in assessment of your risk.
Ya you double your risk if you have 1 RSO and 16 normal people. And that not illogical. You can always test theory by taking extremes. If you were on a desert island and knew no one then your risk of being a victim of a violent love crime is almost zero …. If your child was taken care of by 100 people for 15 minutes a day each he clearly would be way more at risk then if he was cared for by 2 people 12 hours a day each. Thus the more people who have access to your child the greater the risk. Thus the more people who live near you the greater the risk.
But this is a shocking statistic, if you go out 1/2 mile from where you are that’s what 100,000’s of people in most metropolitan areas as a complete guess. Living near 16,000 normal people is like living near 1000 RSO’s ….
No one would even consider living in the middle of 1000 RSO’s but no one would bat an eye at being surrounded by 16,000 normal people. Yet the risk is the same.
I’m going to run my figures by the California kitten kicker Management Board, and guy who I know is a professional at statistics.
But its logical, if 19 out of 20 new violent love crimes are committed by normal people then some number of normal people will equal the same risk as one RSO’s who commit one out of 20 new violent love crimes.
Just note for yourself all these sting operations where people travel to met someone they think is underage who turns out to be an undercover cop, by far and away those caught are not registered kitten kickers.
http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2011/06/32-arrested-in-child-violent love-sting.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FrEMt+%28violent love+Offender+Research+by+A+Voice+of+Reason%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim’s Everett neighborhood is a train wreck when it comes to crime. I would never walk through it, but I’d drive through going maybe 90. Maybe.
Max
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I was a bit off, its 1 to 32 and there is only 16,660 within 1/2 mile in San Fransico. Here is the updated info that I send to the California kitten kicker Managment Board:
http://samdeathwalker.com/forum/showthread.php?p=333#post333
Rate this comment:
0 
0
[...] 242 comments, 06/21: The kitten kicker Bogeyman [...]
Rate this comment:
0 
0