Murders - sex offender list

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:17 am

Damn -- this was going to be a plot point in a short story I was thinking about writing. Now that it has actually happened, it's not clever at all, and downright exploitive, so I can't use it:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 410D39.DTL

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:53 am

YIPPEE!!!!! Can we please go shoot all of them! $\:D/$

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:58 am

By all means, go ahead. These guys are sick and they should be put into a hole where they can kill each other.

omahacat · Post by **omahacat** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:53 pm

This guy had the right idea of getting rid of these predators. Doesn't seem like the justice system is working to keep them from constantly reoffending. Some states restricting where these sex offenders can live. I sent an article to the Chronicle after reading about a man assaulting a woman in bozeman and didn't get any response from the paper.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:05 pm

i guess you can shoot all of them you want if you save a round for yourself...afterall...vigilantes are of the same kind of vermin as child molesters...

pretty soon they will be going into catholic churches and opening fire...and you can find the address in any local phone directory...convenient and not too bad a place to start...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 11:12 am

On-topic blog comments:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/04 ... tml#013514

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 4:28 pm

couloir41 wrote:i guess you can shoot all of them you want if you save a round for yourself...afterall...vigilantes are of the same kind of vermin as child molesters...

pretty soon they will be going into catholic churches and opening fire...and you can find the address in any local phone directory...convenient and not too bad a place to start...

"Disgruntled Worshiper Kills Congregation"

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:12 pm

ya a congregation of "guys in robes who prey on choirboys"....

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:13 am

In many cases sexual offenders/predators are scum of the earth. But wishing them all to be killed is a different matter. What if it was a statutory rape situation regarding a 20 year old boyfriend and a 15-16 year old girl? The parents charge him with sat. rape and years later when the girl is older the two get married. He's listed as a sexual offender for life. Like I said though, most cases the criminals make me sick.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:17 am

briannell wrote:YIPPEE!!!!! Can we please go shoot all of them! $\:D/$

Then the person who shot them would be on the list and get shot themselves by some other vigilante. I see a very viscous cycle taking place with this attitude.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:46 am

Then the person who shot them would be on the list and get shot themselves by some other vigilante. I see a very viscous cycle taking place with this attitude.

I have to admit that you're right in this matter.

I just think since prison, and the courts don't seem to be handling these pigs there has to be another way to deal with them. i like the firing squad myself.

as for re/max - if a 20 year old trys to "date" Anessa when she's 15, I wont put him in jail, i'll just cut off his "member"

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:02 am

briannell wrote:
Then the person who shot them would be on the list and get shot themselves by some other vigilante. I see a very viscous cycle taking place with this attitude.

I have to admit that you're right in this matter. I just think since prison, and the courts don't seem to be handling these pigs there has to be another way to deal with them. i like the firing squad myself.

as for re/max - if a 20 year old trys to "date" Anessa when she's 15, I wont put him in jail, i'll just cut off his "member"

your to kind...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:21 am

Hell's- by now after reading my posts you know I'd die for my kids, and I wont let ANYONE corrupt or harm them in anyway. saying that YES I stand by my statement.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:26 am

briannell wrote:Hell's- by now after reading my posts you know I'd die for my kids, and I wont let ANYONE corrupt or harm them in anyway. saying that YES I stand by my statement.

i just wonder how they will do in jail after your little "operation"??

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:08 pm

HB- well, can't answer that now, but if anyone tries to "deflower" either kid prior to 18, you'll find out.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:10 pm

briannell wrote:HB- well, can't answer that now, but if anyone tries to "deflower" either kid prior to 21, you'll find out.

i know what you are going through

catamaran · Post by **catamaran** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:23 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
briannell wrote:Hell's- by now after reading my posts you know I'd die for my kids, and I wont let ANYONE corrupt or harm them in anyway. saying that YES I stand by my statement.
i just wonder how they will do in jail after your little "operation"??

"Belle of the Ball" is a good guess

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:23 pm

i see you increased the age to 21, I feel once they're okay to goto college i have to trust them with the rest of life's decisions.

oh, and I would fully expect (and endorse) any father to take Ben behind a barn if he ever disrespects a woman. i wont tolerate that.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:36 pm

briannell wrote:i see you increased the age to 21, I feel once they're okay to goto college i have to trust them with the rest of life's decisions. oh, and I would fully expect (and endorse) any father to take Ben behind a barn if he ever disrespects a woman. i wont tolerate that.

good

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:44 pm

This conversation is really getting confusing. No sex until 21 (as HB edited Rebecca's post -- a pet peeve of mine, by the way as it is confusing and misstates somebody else's words)?

Are we talking about not letting people have sex until they are 21, or should we instead be worried about people who can't get laid by the time they are 21?

We seem to have zoomed straight past "sex offenders" and are now talking about being "sex repression."