I am sickened, but I want to emphasize two things:
a convicted sex offender and served three years in prison for raping a 10-year old girl in 1998
It was April 2nd, 2004 and investigators say Eddie Cordero was on the hunt. They say he approached a 12-year-old girl at a bus stop
If I do my math right, he was released sometime in 2001, 2002 at the latest. Makes ya sick to think of how many other girls there could be in the interim that no one knows about.
REDWOOD CITY -- A San Mateo County judge Thursday refused to lower bail for a teacher who bore a child by her 16-year-old former student.
Rebecca Ann Boicelli, 33, remained in custody on $500,000 bail after Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum's ruling.
Boicelli is charged with three counts of lewd acts upon a child and one count of unlawful intercourse with a minor in connection with her relationship with the boy, whom she met when he was her student at a Redwood City school.
Boicelli was arrested Jan. 20 after an extensive investigation and DNA paternity testing confirmed that the teen was the father of Boicelli's baby, born in June.
A part-time Upper Bucks high school teacher was arrested Friday for allegedly fondling a 16-year-old student.
Prosecutors say 26-year-old David Heath engaged in a romantic relationship with the teen for several months, sharing love letters and long phone calls, even on the morning of his wedding to another woman.
Heath, a part-time gym teacher and athletic trainer at Pennridge High School in Perkasie, is charged with endangering the welfare of children and corruption of minors. The endangerment charge is a felony because of his position of authority over the victim and because it was a continuing course of conduct, said Bucks County District Attorney Diane Gibbons.
If convicted, Heath could be sentenced to more than a year in prison.
Court records say Heath met the girl at the end of the 2003-04 school year when she was 15. The girl is involved in athletics, Gibbons said. Her name was not released.
(remainder snipped)
When you end up having a teacher, a minister, a priest, a WC member, a physician, a psychologist, and so on that violate that trust, well, there should be a special level of hell reserved for them...
Has it always been this way and just never reported or is it becoming more prevalent?
Supervision and careful location yes but to do what you suggest mj can encourage vigilantism and violence.
They tried that over here with newspapers publishing such details - inncocent people ended up being attached and their property was damaged by members of the public who did not know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
These are the rap sheets from the police department with the picture and the crimes he was convicted of and current address. We have three of them now. What I do not get is the landlords who rent to them.
Well as far as being dangerous to them well I think that is the point in doing it really. sorry if that disappoints you. I do feel for one guys mom who took him in after jail , but hey I guess it is true about a mothers love, she has owned a home here for a long time and does catch trouble for allowing him to live with her again. Im not certain it is such a bad thing.
This is a town ya know with plenty of children roaming and playing about in the streets and in the park and at the public pools.
they are not suppose to be within a certain distance of children I thought but in a town this small I do not understand how they can avoid being around a child if they even walk to the corner store.
If you are in an area where there is not a housing shortage, then likely the landlords will rent to anyone who is willing to sign a lease.
Here in Ct, we are having a housing shortage, so one empty apartment gets a dozen applicants without listing the apartment. It is 'easier' to be picky. But no matter what a landlord says, he is going to upset someone, so a landlord really needs to generate a 'reason' why he does not want to rent to a particular person, and tell them "blah" is the reason I dont want to rent to you. Otherwise, legal fees will pile up as those you turn-down each complain to the city. And then you have to find some 'legal' reasoning for saying 'no'.
I could understand if a lady has a steady job and no children of her own, then what harm could there be in renting to her. Obviously assuming that your blind to all the things that legally we are supposed to be blind to. If we dis-allow sex-offenders from renting, where do they live?
The sex-offenders from a few decades ago, are a protected class today [ie, homo-sexuals, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals].
"they are not suppose to be within a certain distance of children I thought but in a town this small I do not understand how they can avoid being around a child if they even walk to the corner store."
Supervision and careful location yes but to do what you suggest mj can encourage vigilantism and violence.
They tried that over here with newspapers publishing such details - inncocent people ended up being attached and their property was damaged by members of the public who did not know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
Hogwash....our children's lives are to precious to worry about someone who can't spell for heavens sakes. It has been done in the U.S. for some time now and I haven't heard of any doctors being attached. At least we know where these preditors live and can protect our kids from them.
This coming from the same England which believes a burglar has the right to expect he will not be shot while breaking into your home. Some residents of the country are questioning the absurdity of this belief and once again want the right to arm and protect themselves, their family, and property.
I wish it was hogwash stayed too long but it actually happened - the only thing I have to correct is the word "attached" which should of course have read "attacked."
When an offender is due for release the social services departments are informed of their intended address and any objections are requested.
As to your remarks about burglars - new guidelines have been issued about what is "reasonable force". There are no plans to change the law on such matters but the interpretation and application appear to be going to be somewhat more lenient from now on.
We may not be a gun owning culture here but there are a wide ranging number of other weapons that can be used to teach the bastards a lesson.
And please remember that we are the United Kingdom and not just England.
The man who raped and beat the little twelve year old girl should have been KILLED for raping and beating the ten year old girl on his first offense. This way he would never have raped and beaten the twelve year old girl. This would have prevented the "second offense", PERIOD. The reason these things keep going on and on is because these savages are never punished properly. I'd be the first one to stand in line to throw the switch on one of those mutherfu*kers.
This way, the person would not ever have his "rights" abused by having been posted as a sex offender in a new neighborhood. That way you can relax Trefor, about some inadvertent unjustice being done. It would fix a lot of problems, and namely save many innocent lives from such savage barbarism. They should be shot down like the filty dogs that they are.
Like the song says;
"I got rights, yeah I got rights too, I got the right to know, that you gonna go..to hell on one of these black nights!"
Listen to it some time. It's called "I Got Rights" by Hank Williams Jr.
Yes Jonny, let's get back to those good old days of frontier justice, posses, and lynchings.
Let's get back to the state of primitive barbarism and forget about the rule of law and the concept or rehabilitation.
Let's go back in time and strangle people at birth because we know they will do something later in life.
Let's forget about miscarriages of justice and those who have been convicted once and have never offended again and those whose cycle of offending started because they were once victims themselves and they never got the support and help they needed at the time.
But are you complaining about that? I knew a friend in St. Louis that lived in an apartment complex that got bought by a weird cult. They basically wanted everyone who wasn't in their cult to join or move out, but they couldn't legally do anything to make the non-cult members move. I don't think it's fair to restrict people based on any of the categories you based above any more than it's legal to make black people ride in the back of the bus.
I do think you agree with what I say, but I'm not sure so I wanted to state that.
quote:
Originally posted by Galen:
The sex-offenders from a few decades ago, are a protected class today [ie, homo-sexuals, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals].
The difference is that the people you listed as sex offenders from a few decades ago didn't hurt other people. The huge difference between a gay person and a child molester is that the gay person does their thing alone or with consenting adults, while the child molester rapes children. Doing things you and I may find disgusting is not rape if both people want to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Galen:
"they are not suppose to be within a certain distance of children I thought but in a town this small I do not understand how they can avoid being around a child if they even walk to the corner store."
That would be difficult to manage in many citys.
I think it's just within a certain distance of schools, but I'm not sure.
"These are the rap sheets from the police department with the picture and the crimes he was convicted of and current address. We have three of them now. What I do not get is the landlords who rent to them."
We already have a long list of areas concerning which we msut walk very carefully, lest we be sued. To add to that list, or to say that landlords 'should'? No I dont really agree.
If I advertise a vacancy and soon get 6 people walking through it, looking, they each want to know if I will sign a lease with them. What I say, must be closely guarded, and I need to be able to 'prove' why I turn down A, B, and C but said yes to D.
Legally we have 'forced' businessmen to try and be colour-blind, gender-blind,
religion-blind, marital-status-blind [My first apartment after we were married, we had to provide a copy of our marriage license BEFORE we could sign a lease.], citizenship-blind, etc.
No a landlord's hands are already tied too much.
How do you look at someone and try to make a decision, without being swayed by any of these things? More is to make the decision, while documenting that your decision was made on purely other reasons.
Two lesbians, an-unmarried wickan couple, four Chinese immigrants, and a man who has married his dog; all come to see an apartment. Now make a decision of who to rent to, while documenting that you are not breaking any laws.
Say no to the lesbians, and they will scream that you did it because they are lesbian.
Say no to wickans and they will scream ....
Say no to the immigrants, and ....
Say no to the beasty-boy and ...
Now in my area, when they come to my dorrstep, they will each have a full-time job and shady work-history.
:-)
".... I don't think it's fair to restrict people based on any of the categories you based above any more than it's legal to make black people ride in the back of the bus."
I did not mean to be saying what was 'fair' or not. Rather what is legal.
"The difference is that the people you listed as sex offenders from a few decades ago didn't hurt other people. The huge difference between a gay person and a child molester is that the gay person does their thing alone or with consenting adults, while the child molester rapes children. Doing things you and I may find disgusting is not rape if both people want to do it."
Assuming that both are over 18 [or 16 in some states, 14 in other states]. Make one partner a 17 year old and suddenly it is child-molesting. Yeah I hear you. .
I have also [recently] dealt with minor sexual-predators and I really dont know what is happening to our society and how will we make things 'work' when we are making so many totally screwed up children and turning them loose on America.
Our 15 year old son is spending a couple days over this weekend with a sexual-predator.
This kid is 14 and lives with a very good foster-family, but they do have a lot of kids, and Brian needs full-time supervision.
Fortunately Our Matthew gets along very well with Brian and Brian does not have any other friends; so if they want to do sleep-overs we let them.
I can not handle Brian, and he does need a very firm hand. So Brian does not come here to our home. Fortunately his foster-family is well-trained for handling him. Unfortunately the only 'training' available is through experience, often while going through gaining this experience, families step awry of Social-services and get into trouble. We did. We were really stretched to our max with those foster-children that we had for the past three years. Our foster-children did include a 10 year old predator [we got Tim when he was 8].
I have learned though, that it does take a lot of attention, concern, love; and boy a lot of luck that somewhere along the line you never run at odds with social-services. But really these sexual-predators do need help and guidance.
Our Tim has ended up in a residential institution. He will be there locked away with others like him, until he turns 18. Then he will be turned loose on the world.
Recommended Posts
krys
I don't understand either. It makes me queasy too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
all I can say is there gonna get there's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I am sickened, but I want to emphasize two things:
a convicted sex offender and served three years in prison for raping a 10-year old girl in 1998
It was April 2nd, 2004 and investigators say Eddie Cordero was on the hunt. They say he approached a 12-year-old girl at a bus stop
If I do my math right, he was released sometime in 2001, 2002 at the latest. Makes ya sick to think of how many other girls there could be in the interim that no one knows about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
This is all too commonplace. Not only hunters, but people in positions of trust:
When you end up having a teacher, a minister, a priest, a WC member, a physician, a psychologist, and so on that violate that trust, well, there should be a special level of hell reserved for them...
Has it always been this way and just never reported or is it becoming more prevalent?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
God help us.
It's been like this for so damn long.......
And our system shows us why many still don't get reported.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
This is why we put their Pictures and addresses up all over town when they move in our nieghborhood.
The civil liberities have a freaking fit over the fact, they have a "right" to live in our communities after doing their time!
yep they do, and we have a right to make them as well known and popular as every public place available with a huge picture and current address!!
Just do it .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Supervision and careful location yes but to do what you suggest mj can encourage vigilantism and violence.
They tried that over here with newspapers publishing such details - inncocent people ended up being attached and their property was damaged by members of the public who did not know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
These are the rap sheets from the police department with the picture and the crimes he was convicted of and current address. We have three of them now. What I do not get is the landlords who rent to them.
Well as far as being dangerous to them well I think that is the point in doing it really. sorry if that disappoints you. I do feel for one guys mom who took him in after jail , but hey I guess it is true about a mothers love, she has owned a home here for a long time and does catch trouble for allowing him to live with her again. Im not certain it is such a bad thing.
This is a town ya know with plenty of children roaming and playing about in the streets and in the park and at the public pools.
they are not suppose to be within a certain distance of children I thought but in a town this small I do not understand how they can avoid being around a child if they even walk to the corner store.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
mj412:
" ... What I do not get is the landlords who rent to them."
As a land-lord, there is a growing list of things that I can not legally use to determine who I can and who I can not rent to.
Race, Religion, sex, marital status, homo-sexual / hetero-sexual, national origin, citizenship, ...
If you are in an area where there is not a housing shortage, then likely the landlords will rent to anyone who is willing to sign a lease.
Here in Ct, we are having a housing shortage, so one empty apartment gets a dozen applicants without listing the apartment. It is 'easier' to be picky. But no matter what a landlord says, he is going to upset someone, so a landlord really needs to generate a 'reason' why he does not want to rent to a particular person, and tell them "blah" is the reason I dont want to rent to you. Otherwise, legal fees will pile up as those you turn-down each complain to the city. And then you have to find some 'legal' reasoning for saying 'no'.
I could understand if a lady has a steady job and no children of her own, then what harm could there be in renting to her. Obviously assuming that your blind to all the things that legally we are supposed to be blind to. If we dis-allow sex-offenders from renting, where do they live?
The sex-offenders from a few decades ago, are a protected class today [ie, homo-sexuals, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals].
"they are not suppose to be within a certain distance of children I thought but in a town this small I do not understand how they can avoid being around a child if they even walk to the corner store."
That would be difficult to manage in many citys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Hogwash....our children's lives are to precious to worry about someone who can't spell for heavens sakes. It has been done in the U.S. for some time now and I haven't heard of any doctors being attached. At least we know where these preditors live and can protect our kids from them.
This coming from the same England which believes a burglar has the right to expect he will not be shot while breaking into your home. Some residents of the country are questioning the absurdity of this belief and once again want the right to arm and protect themselves, their family, and property.
God save the Queen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"The sex-offenders from a few decades ago, are a protected class today [ie, homo-sexuals, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals]."
I hate to burst your bubble, Galen, but statistically speaking most pedophiles are heterosexual men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Abigail:
"I hate to burst your bubble, Galen, but statistically speaking most pedophiles are heterosexual men."
I understand, what I meant when I said:
"The sex-offenders from a few decades ago, are a protected class today [ie, homo-sexuals, trans-sexuals, bi-sexuals]."
Was merely that it was not that long ago that those 'variations' were considered illegal not long ago.
Whereas today they have become a protected class of our society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I wish it was hogwash stayed too long but it actually happened - the only thing I have to correct is the word "attached" which should of course have read "attacked."
When an offender is due for release the social services departments are informed of their intended address and any objections are requested.
As to your remarks about burglars - new guidelines have been issued about what is "reasonable force". There are no plans to change the law on such matters but the interpretation and application appear to be going to be somewhat more lenient from now on.
We may not be a gun owning culture here but there are a wide ranging number of other weapons that can be used to teach the bastards a lesson.
And please remember that we are the United Kingdom and not just England.
Long live our Noble Queen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
The man who raped and beat the little twelve year old girl should have been KILLED for raping and beating the ten year old girl on his first offense. This way he would never have raped and beaten the twelve year old girl. This would have prevented the "second offense", PERIOD. The reason these things keep going on and on is because these savages are never punished properly. I'd be the first one to stand in line to throw the switch on one of those mutherfu*kers.
This way, the person would not ever have his "rights" abused by having been posted as a sex offender in a new neighborhood. That way you can relax Trefor, about some inadvertent unjustice being done. It would fix a lot of problems, and namely save many innocent lives from such savage barbarism. They should be shot down like the filty dogs that they are.
Like the song says;
"I got rights, yeah I got rights too, I got the right to know, that you gonna go..to hell on one of these black nights!"
Listen to it some time. It's called "I Got Rights" by Hank Williams Jr.
Ummm, I hope that was clear enough..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes Jonny, let's get back to those good old days of frontier justice, posses, and lynchings.
Let's get back to the state of primitive barbarism and forget about the rule of law and the concept or rehabilitation.
Let's go back in time and strangle people at birth because we know they will do something later in life.
Let's forget about miscarriages of justice and those who have been convicted once and have never offended again and those whose cycle of offending started because they were once victims themselves and they never got the support and help they needed at the time.
"Savage barbarism" can work more than one way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
But are you complaining about that? I knew a friend in St. Louis that lived in an apartment complex that got bought by a weird cult. They basically wanted everyone who wasn't in their cult to join or move out, but they couldn't legally do anything to make the non-cult members move. I don't think it's fair to restrict people based on any of the categories you based above any more than it's legal to make black people ride in the back of the bus.
I do think you agree with what I say, but I'm not sure so I wanted to state that.
The difference is that the people you listed as sex offenders from a few decades ago didn't hurt other people. The huge difference between a gay person and a child molester is that the gay person does their thing alone or with consenting adults, while the child molester rapes children. Doing things you and I may find disgusting is not rape if both people want to do it.
I think it's just within a certain distance of schools, but I'm not sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
P-Mosh:
"But are you complaining about that?"
I was responding to the comment that MJ made:
"These are the rap sheets from the police department with the picture and the crimes he was convicted of and current address. We have three of them now. What I do not get is the landlords who rent to them."
We already have a long list of areas concerning which we msut walk very carefully, lest we be sued. To add to that list, or to say that landlords 'should'? No I dont really agree.
If I advertise a vacancy and soon get 6 people walking through it, looking, they each want to know if I will sign a lease with them. What I say, must be closely guarded, and I need to be able to 'prove' why I turn down A, B, and C but said yes to D.
Legally we have 'forced' businessmen to try and be colour-blind, gender-blind,
religion-blind, marital-status-blind [My first apartment after we were married, we had to provide a copy of our marriage license BEFORE we could sign a lease.], citizenship-blind, etc.
No a landlord's hands are already tied too much.
How do you look at someone and try to make a decision, without being swayed by any of these things? More is to make the decision, while documenting that your decision was made on purely other reasons.
Two lesbians, an-unmarried wickan couple, four Chinese immigrants, and a man who has married his dog; all come to see an apartment. Now make a decision of who to rent to, while documenting that you are not breaking any laws.
Say no to the lesbians, and they will scream that you did it because they are lesbian.
Say no to wickans and they will scream ....
Say no to the immigrants, and ....
Say no to the beasty-boy and ...
Now in my area, when they come to my dorrstep, they will each have a full-time job and shady work-history.
:-)
".... I don't think it's fair to restrict people based on any of the categories you based above any more than it's legal to make black people ride in the back of the bus."
I did not mean to be saying what was 'fair' or not. Rather what is legal.
"The difference is that the people you listed as sex offenders from a few decades ago didn't hurt other people. The huge difference between a gay person and a child molester is that the gay person does their thing alone or with consenting adults, while the child molester rapes children. Doing things you and I may find disgusting is not rape if both people want to do it."
Assuming that both are over 18 [or 16 in some states, 14 in other states]. Make one partner a 17 year old and suddenly it is child-molesting. Yeah I hear you. .
I have also [recently] dealt with minor sexual-predators and I really dont know what is happening to our society and how will we make things 'work' when we are making so many totally screwed up children and turning them loose on America.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Our 15 year old son is spending a couple days over this weekend with a sexual-predator.
This kid is 14 and lives with a very good foster-family, but they do have a lot of kids, and Brian needs full-time supervision.
Fortunately Our Matthew gets along very well with Brian and Brian does not have any other friends; so if they want to do sleep-overs we let them.
I can not handle Brian, and he does need a very firm hand. So Brian does not come here to our home. Fortunately his foster-family is well-trained for handling him. Unfortunately the only 'training' available is through experience, often while going through gaining this experience, families step awry of Social-services and get into trouble. We did. We were really stretched to our max with those foster-children that we had for the past three years. Our foster-children did include a 10 year old predator [we got Tim when he was 8].
I have learned though, that it does take a lot of attention, concern, love; and boy a lot of luck that somewhere along the line you never run at odds with social-services. But really these sexual-predators do need help and guidance.
Our Tim has ended up in a residential institution. He will be there locked away with others like him, until he turns 18. Then he will be turned loose on the world.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.