TX: State law changed where sex offenders can walk within West Lake Hills

Admin

The city of West Lake Hills adopted changes to its sex offender ordinance to be in compliance with state law during the Dec. 13 City Council meeting with hope that the changes will cause Texas Voices for Reason and Justice to drop its lawsuit against the city. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Wow, what a convoluted law!

“The ordinance also doesn’t apply if the offender is going “immediately to or from” a parole office or other court-mandated destinations, or if the offender was in or near a child safety zone “for a legitimate purpose,” including transporting a child they are allowed to be with.”

So apparently if you need to go grocery shopping you have to a huge alternative route. Because its impossible for you to offend on your way to drop off your kid or to see the PO but guaranteed to offend if you need to do anything else.

There should be criminal consequences for legislature that crafts crap like this. We can’t fart without risking prison but they get to destroy peoples lives for votes.

0
Reply

Pretty soon we’re going to need a hall pass to walk outside where we live!

Pathetic.

0
Reply

This Ordinance reeks of vagueness. “[P]remises where children commonly gather.” What is the definition of “commonly”? Can a LEO give an objective description of that word? Under this usage, it would be illegal to be near a public pool during the winter when it’s closed, as there’s mention of children *currently* gathering. Similarly, one cannot go to a mall, even during school hours on a weekday, because “children commonly gather” there on Friday nights and weekends. Same with a movie theater…no matinees during school hours.

The same vagueness applies to “legitimate purpose”? Can a LEO give an objective description of what is “legitimate”? Does this apply regardless of whether or not school is in session? Depending on the definition of “school safety zone” it may include the motor pool where the buses are parked, if the property is school owned.

There’s a Snyder-esque element to attack, too. Previously, the City provided information for where a RC could be, now they don’t. The City is demonstrating they have information to help a RC comply with the law, but is actively withholding said info. This goes back to the question of from where are boundaries measured, and how is a person of average intelligence supposed to discern these boundaries?

I love that these lawsuits are happening more and more. Aside from the money it costs the governmental body, every little win will start to cause legislators to think a bit more. It may be slow and incremental, but each loss *will* have an effect, as they will start to see “green light,” they feel they have sometimes turns yellow and red, too.

0
Reply