Suit to evict convicted child molester
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Joined
·
1,186 Posts
Quote:
For legal immigrants, but not for illegal immigrants.
Civil rights has and can be use unfairly towards others.
| and just to add...civil rights are for every one in this country, *including* people who aren't citizens. |
Civil rights has and can be use unfairly towards others.
I said 'some degree of security', not to imply that by removing known sexual offenders you are guaranteed of your child's safety, but it's a start.
People who live near a sexual predator (as I do) know that when you tell your child to stay away from this particular person, you frighten them very much. It's one thing for a child to know that some people might hurt children, but that this one person DOES hurt children is something else altogether.
Children, being the weakest members of our society, need the most protection. I opt for protecting them over protecting child molesters. While we may all be diligent parents, there are a lot of parents who aren't, not to mention many immigrants who don't understand the dangers of urban life. (I have a lot of that in my neighborhood.) For a child molester to live in a neighborhood like mine is like setting a kid lose in a candy store and telling him, 'No candy.'
People who live near a sexual predator (as I do) know that when you tell your child to stay away from this particular person, you frighten them very much. It's one thing for a child to know that some people might hurt children, but that this one person DOES hurt children is something else altogether.
Children, being the weakest members of our society, need the most protection. I opt for protecting them over protecting child molesters. While we may all be diligent parents, there are a lot of parents who aren't, not to mention many immigrants who don't understand the dangers of urban life. (I have a lot of that in my neighborhood.) For a child molester to live in a neighborhood like mine is like setting a kid lose in a candy store and telling him, 'No candy.'
"a neighborhood like mine"
But there are children everywhere.
To say that an offender can't live in a neighborhood with 100 children, but may live in a neighborhood that only has 3 children, is to say that the 3 are not as precious as the 100. IMO. Not a real solution.
But there are children everywhere.
To say that an offender can't live in a neighborhood with 100 children, but may live in a neighborhood that only has 3 children, is to say that the 3 are not as precious as the 100. IMO. Not a real solution.
Quote:
I didn't mean it the way you took it. In my neighborhood, there are many preschool children wandering the street and alley areas alone. Their families are from the middle east, where this is not uncommon. I've never lived anywhere else that had so many very young children wandering unsupervised and at considerable distances from their homes. The mothers of these children frequently don't know where they are, or if they are inside someone else's house playing. They often go down the street, pounding on doors, looking for their children.
Originally Posted by townmouse "a neighborhood like mine" But there are children everywhere. To say that an offender can't live in a neighborhood with 100 children, but may live in a neighborhood that only has 3 children, is to say that the 3 are not as precious as the 100. IMO. Not a real solution. |
I didn't mean it the way you took it. In my neighborhood, there are many preschool children wandering the street and alley areas alone. Their families are from the middle east, where this is not uncommon. I've never lived anywhere else that had so many very young children wandering unsupervised and at considerable distances from their homes. The mothers of these children frequently don't know where they are, or if they are inside someone else's house playing. They often go down the street, pounding on doors, looking for their children.
Quote:
YIKES Sarihah! I would be so much more worried about this situation for many reasons OTHER than child molesters!! Can you have a "community meeting" and explain how dangerous it is to allow your small kids to roam freely without supervision in this country?? I feel terrible for those parents... I'm assuming they are simply unaware... if they are negligent, then I'd just be pissed :LOL
Originally Posted by Sarihah I didn't mean it the way you took it. In my neighborhood, there are many preschool children wandering the street and alley areas alone. Their families are from the middle east, where this is not uncommon. I've never lived anywhere else that had so many very young children wandering unsupervised and at considerable distances from their homes. The mothers of these children frequently don't know where they are, or if they are inside someone else's house playing. They often go down the street, pounding on doors, looking for their children. |
Joined
·
6,616 Posts
Quote:
No, civil rights for everyone. If it's a civil right, it's a right that goes with being a human being. It's a right, not a privledge.
Quote:
What about the pedophiles that have kids? Many have visitation and some have custody. I just don't think there's a simple answer.
Originally Posted by beccaboomom For legal immigrants, but not for illegal immigrants. Civil rights has and can be use unfairly towards others. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolov Although, I've also had dreams of a "pedophile community" perhaps somewhere in outer mongolia?? |
Quote:
I really don't think it's negligence, I think it's a cultural thing. These people just don't seem to be able to understand how many risks their children face when they are wandering the neighborhood alone. They'll send a 4 year old out with a 3 year old, and it seems that they feel that they have an older child supervising the younger one, so it's okay.
I've tried talking to some of these mothers when they come to my door, but they got mad. I wasn't coming from a judgemental place, but from a place of, 'this is some important information'. One lady told me that she doesn't need me to tell her what to do. I tried to explain that I wasn't telling her what to do, but only wanted her to know that for small children to roam the neighborhood is dangerous in this country. This was before the child molester moved into the neighborhood, btw, so I didn't have that to use as explanation for my concerns.
She was still pissed, and told me to mind my own business. I told her that I was minding my own business when she knocked on my door looking for her child. Incidentally, TWICE I've had a mother try my locked door when I didn't answer the door. I had been working out both times, and was covered in sweat. I didn't want to come to the door covered in sweat and wearing skimpy workout clothes. So, I should mind my own business but it's okay to try my locked door, presumably to walk right inside if it's unlocked (and potentially get bitten by my dog)?
It's awkward, at least for me, trying to manage all of the nuances to these kinds of cultural clashes. I want to respect other's ways, but I want my ways respected too.
Originally Posted by lolov YIKES Sarihah! I would be so much more worried about this situation for many reasons OTHER than child molesters!! Can you have a "community meeting" and explain how dangerous it is to allow your small kids to roam freely without supervision in this country?? I feel terrible for those parents... I'm assuming they are simply unaware... if they are negligent, then I'd just be pissed :LOL |
I really don't think it's negligence, I think it's a cultural thing. These people just don't seem to be able to understand how many risks their children face when they are wandering the neighborhood alone. They'll send a 4 year old out with a 3 year old, and it seems that they feel that they have an older child supervising the younger one, so it's okay.
I've tried talking to some of these mothers when they come to my door, but they got mad. I wasn't coming from a judgemental place, but from a place of, 'this is some important information'. One lady told me that she doesn't need me to tell her what to do. I tried to explain that I wasn't telling her what to do, but only wanted her to know that for small children to roam the neighborhood is dangerous in this country. This was before the child molester moved into the neighborhood, btw, so I didn't have that to use as explanation for my concerns.
She was still pissed, and told me to mind my own business. I told her that I was minding my own business when she knocked on my door looking for her child. Incidentally, TWICE I've had a mother try my locked door when I didn't answer the door. I had been working out both times, and was covered in sweat. I didn't want to come to the door covered in sweat and wearing skimpy workout clothes. So, I should mind my own business but it's okay to try my locked door, presumably to walk right inside if it's unlocked (and potentially get bitten by my dog)?
It's awkward, at least for me, trying to manage all of the nuances to these kinds of cultural clashes. I want to respect other's ways, but I want my ways respected too.
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
On the question of civil rights: the thing is, the constitution of the US protects everyone within it's borders, regardless of status.
this is from lawcollective.org, and is written by a lawyer and very closely vetted for accuracy (I know this person and she is very very VERY careful about such things)
Quote:
So maybe it's not so much about civil rights, but that everyone is subject to, and protected by, the constitution, such as it is.
this is from lawcollective.org, and is written by a lawyer and very closely vetted for accuracy (I know this person and she is very very VERY careful about such things)
Quote:
| Non-U.S. citizens who've been arrested for a crime have the rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning. These rights are based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and they protect everyone, citizens and non-citizens, adults and children. You have these rights even if you are "undocumented" or no longer have a valid visa. |
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
Quote:
Exactly.
Originally Posted by calpurnia Isn't that why Gito isn't on US soil? So that they don't have to afford the prisoners any rights. |
Quote:
Sorta....
"With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.
***
"The decision addressed the question of "whether United States courts lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba." Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, al Odah v. United States, 542 U.S. __ (2004)(slip. op., at 1), www.cdi.org/news/law/rasul-decision.pdf.
"The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had held that the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager barred Guantanamo detainees from bringing actions challenging their detentions in U.S. courts because they were foreign nationals outside U.S. sovereign territory."
More here:
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
Originally Posted by sadie_sabot Exactly. |
"With a decision notably brief for the mountain of argument leading up to it, the U.S. Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush held on June 28, 2004, that foreign nationals imprisoned without charge at the Guantanamo Bay interrogation camps were entitled to bring legal action challenging their captivity in U.S. federal civilian courts.
***
"The decision addressed the question of "whether United States courts lacked jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba." Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, al Odah v. United States, 542 U.S. __ (2004)(slip. op., at 1), www.cdi.org/news/law/rasul-decision.pdf.
"The court reversed the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had held that the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager barred Guantanamo detainees from bringing actions challenging their detentions in U.S. courts because they were foreign nationals outside U.S. sovereign territory."
More here:
http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
