ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: May 18 – Sacramento, July 20 – Berkeley [details]
April 20 Meeting Audio [Listen / Download]

Emotional Support Group Meetings – Los Angeles:  Apr 27  [details]

ACSOL Conference June 14/15 in Los Angeles

General News

Kat’s Blog: Vigilantism Against Registrants: What More Proof Do They Need?

I hate writing blog pieces like this, they’re depressing, scary and hit too close to home.  But pieces like this are important for all of us to read. Pieces like this serve as “slap in the face, wake you up” reminders of what we’re all fighting for and why we need to seriously amp up the fight.

Looking back at statistics, vigilante crimes against registrants have been occurring for over a decade if not longer.  Murdered registrants don’t receive a lot of press and their deaths aren’t counted among those considered “hate crimes” even though anyone with a brain cell can see that that’s what they are. Murdered registrants deaths are “just homicides”, some solved, some not, probably many that we never even know about.

What I find appalling is the fact that no one is willing to openly “connect the dots” when it comes to these crimes. Public registry….Public names & addresses….Murdered registrants.  The dots are all there, what more proof is needed?  The registry fosters vigilantism and registrants end up dead.

Need more proof, let’s take a brief, horrific walk down memory lane.

2004 New Hampshire– Lawrence Trent, 57, is sentenced to 10-30 years after pleading guilty to attempted murder of two registrants whose names and addresses he found on the state’s public registry. He later told police he felt “morally justified in committing the crime.”

2005 Bellingham, WA. – Hank Eisses, 49 and Victor Vasquez, 68, residents residing in the same home are gunned down by Michael A. Mullen.  Mullen pretends to be an FBI agent investigating threats made against “sex offenders” in order to gain access to their home. Later, Mullen admits to police that he found the victims information on the online public registry and just wanted to kill them.

2006 Maine– Stephan A. Marshall, a Canadian citizen used the online public registry information to locate and murder Wm. Elliott, 24 and Joseph Gray 57. Records indicate Marshall had browsed the online registry early the day of the murders, first killing Gray and later Elliott.  Investigators also revealed that Marshall had obtained the names and addresses of at least 34 other registrants.

2011 Hazelwood, Missouri- John J. Huffmaster is charged with violently assaulting his 74 yr. old neighbor who was a registrant.  Huffmaster reported he was “doing God’s work”. The victim sustained multiple skull and facial fractures.

2012 Washington- Patrick Drum was sentenced to life in prison for shooting and killing Gary Lee Blanton, 28 and Jerry Wayne Ray 57. Drum admits to police that he was targeting “sex offenders” and had plans to continue to kill others until he was caught.

2013 South Carolina- Husband and wife duo Jeremy and Christine Moody murder registrant Charles “Butch” Parker, 59 and Gretchen Parker 51. The murderers were identified from the Parker’s home surveillance video and Jeremy Moody is recorded telling Charles, “I’m not here to rob you, I’m here to kill you because you’re a child molester.”  Moody admitted to targeting other registrants and said he would have killed another on his “hit list” a few days later had he not been arrested.

2013 Temecula, California- David Ray Mills 36, his 16 yr. old daughter and Andre E. Dickerson 20, are charged in a vicious attack on Esteban Cruz, 21. Cruz had been accused of raping the 16 yr. old.  He was lured to a park where he was beaten with a baseball bat by Dickerson while the others watched.  The victim sustained skull fractures, broken bones, missing teeth and a lung injury.

2015 Nebraska- Registrant Phillip McDaniel was attacked at work by co-worker Jason Bates who assaulted him with a brass hammer while calling him “Chimo” (slang for child molester.) Bates had become enraged after discovering that McDaniel was a registrant.  McDaniel suffered injuries of his nose, clavicle and left shoulder but was denied workman’s comp, the Nebraska Court of Appeals upholding the denial, finding that the attack was due to “personal reasons” even though the only relationship between the two was as co-workers.

2016 Anchorage, Alaska- Jason Vukovich, 41 is arrested for assaulting three different registrants with a hammer. He had found their names on the public registry.  He showed one of the victims a notebook with a list of additional potential victims. During one of the attacks, Vukovich told a victim “I am an avenging angel, I’m going to mete out justice for the people you hurt.”

2017 Macon County Illinois- Police apprehend Samuel Henson, 19 who is a suspect in the 2015 beating death of a 53 yr. old registrant. He acknowledged knowing the victim was a registrant and is accused of the assault along with two other teenagers.

2019 Pottawatomie County Oklahoma- Harry L. Venosdel Jr, 60, was slain outside of his home.  Police say he was shot twice and likely died in agony.  Mr. Venosdel lived in an area that was not easily accessible and complicated to find for those not knowing the area.  According to police investigators, the shooter had to “know what they were searching for.”

2019 Nevada- Former NJ priest & schoolteacher John Capparelli, 70 was gunned down. His name was on a list of Catholic priests in NJ who had been “credibly accused of sexually abusing children”. The list is released by New Jersey’s 5 dioceses and lists incidents of abuse of minors as far back as 1940.

These are but a few of the assaults and murders that have taken place over the last decade or so, this is only the tip of the iceberg. How many registrants don’t report assaults or are murdered and their deaths are chalked up to “just another homicide” rather than a vigilante “hate crime”?

Clearly there is vigilantism at hand.  Murderers are admitting securing names and addresses from the public “sex offender” registries online. They admit to their sole purpose of assaulting or killing registrants, in the name of vengeance, God, justice or whatever other lunacy they can conceive of.

While most lawmakers probably wouldn’t publicly support assaults or murders of registrants, few seem willing to openly object to the negative and sometimes fatal consequences of the registry.  Few lawmakers speak up in regards to curtailing registrant requirements or to protecting registrant’s privacy or safety when public registry information puts them at risk of vigilantism.

Registrants are being murdered or assaulted every day, in every state.

Why is it so damn hard for law enforcement, lawmakers and politicians to just admit that the dots connect?

Public Sex Offender Registry……..Leads to…….Vigilantism

Join the discussion

  1. steve

    And then there’s the “civil” vigilantism. Banishment from society. Facebook, Airbnb,schools, little league, AYSO, church, parks neighborhoods, jobs, travel, libraries ..yeah that’s right the dots connect.

  2. Bruce Ferrell

    I wasn’t killed.

    I wasn’t hospitalized.

    It wasn’t someone who got my information from a web site, but someone I knew I thought was to be trusted.

    They developed an “avenging angel” mindset.

    Law enforcement released them with a “misdemeanor brandishing” charge… Because “they didn’t see it”.

    A fairly large number of others did though.

    I do avoid places where this person goes now and tend to sit with my back to a wall.

  3. mark

    This list is missing someone from CA that was recently killed in the last 6 or so mos, and the DA prosecuting the murderer has/ignoring the fact that it was done as the murdered person was a 290-.

  4. anonymouse

    That the cold blooded murder of Ms. Parker in South Carolina was more or less accepted as collateral damage and did not generate more outrage by the general public is shocking. Maybe it will take some innocent bystander children being murdered? Probably not even.

    Let’s not forget that this organization was more or less borne from such an attack (I hate to use the word “vigilante” as a true “vigilante” dispenses (actual) justice in the absence of a formal justice structure, like in the old West, which could not be further from the truth in these cases where the victims had been dealt with by the system).

    https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39150873.html

    Frank L. wrote a book about this, which was read by one Central Coast attorney, and the rest is history….

  5. norman

    and lets dont forget 4 charged in killing of Redondo Beach sex offender

    https://www.dailybreeze.com/2018/01/15/4-charged-in-killing-of-redondo-beach-sex-offender-no-strangers-to-court/

    “Prosecutors said the men allegedly killed John Haig Marshall, 61, on Nov. 28 after allegedly breaking into his apartment while he was in the shower, strangling and attacking him with pliers and bolt cutters.”

    They went and got bolt cutters for gods’ sake..WTF????

  6. Will Allen

    I don’t think Registry Nazis care at all if Registered People or their families are murdered. They don’t care. They are terrible people. They talk about “for the children” and all that but obviously those are just lies.

    They ought to at least care about people who are not Registered who are being murdered because of the Registries. Or maybe they don’t. The Registries get them off. The Registries exist for their jollies. They likely don’t care about any people being murdered. That’s what I expect.

  7. Will Bassler

    Quite simply put the vigilante-ism is a result of the existence of the registry itself and the justification and reason for the registry in simple terms is is because politicians have been told that there is a high re-offense rate. We have proven that the re-offense rate for people on the registry is less than 1% in any given year, and that the registry increases in size by about 10% per year. In Nebraska since its inception in 1996 through 2012 the registry had increased in size 776% and the average re-offense rate was around 6/10 of one percent the second part of the equation is who really commits new sex crime and what percentage of those are committed by people on the registry. For that I will go into a tirade.

    Ever wonder what the rate of new sex crimes for professions is how about the sexual offense rate for police officers? Referring to this documentation:
    http://www.ucimc.org/content/national-police-misconduct-statistics-released

    Working with those numbers, according to the referenced link:
    0.08% (1 in 116) officers are cited for misconduct
    13% of those are sex offenses/ sex related.
    800,000 estimated police officers in the US (that’s one per RSO!)
    Now let’s crunch some numbers…
    that makes ~ 6,873 instances of officer misconduct in a 6 month period of which 13% are sex related offenses giving us a grand total of….893 sex offenses committed by police officers during a six month period from April to Sept 2009 or nearly 18 per state! Estimating for the year that would be 1786 sex related offenses for police officers.

    That would make about 3% of all new sex offenses are committed by police (1786/63000).
    Police officers make up 0.3% of the population in the US (800,000/311,745,000).
    Police commit one sex offense per 1,000 officers according to the numbers.
    strangers commit less than 1% of all sex offenses. Police officers commit ~3%!
    I say forget stranger danger, we have a new worry … blue danger or pervs in a uniforms.

    We’re still trying to crunch realistic numbers for sex offenses by profession. Now, according to the AP, only 500 teachers were arrested as sex offenders out of 3.5 million teachers, which makes 0.014% of teachers committed sex offenses or 0.7% of all sex offenses were committed by teachers. The latest search was for clergy sex offenders since such a big deal is made about that. The only number we have found that’s recent (2009) is 215 victims of sex offenses by clergy.

    Oh yes WE must not forget to add in the re-offense rate for people on the registry for new sex crimes The June 2002: Department of Justice: Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (DOJ-2002) crime from 1994-1997. (DOJ-2002 page 5) we do know this, that during that time period (1994-1997): Of the released sex offenders 3.5% (339) Were reconvicted for a sex crime over a Three year period So for one year average there was 113 RECONVICTED for a sex offense. (DOJ-2003[p2]). Now for the (reality) plug-in (113/63000) We get 0.17% Or basically 2/10 of 1%. According to the Department of Justice, most child sexual abuse victims are molested by family members (34%) or close acquaintances (59%) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

    Here’s the breakdown thus far, in the Percentage of new sex crimes
    Close acquaintances (59%)
    Family members (34%)
    Police officers 3.0%
    Teachers 00.7%
    Clergy 00.3%
    strangers 1% those who have not been convicted of a sex crime (note: this could include somebody that was met at a party or a street dance and does not necessarily mean an adult)
    People on the registry/previously convicted 00.17%.

    So what this proves is that based on the re-offense rates there is no rational, reasonable or logical reason for the registry to exist. This is especially true when you take into account that it is now become a rationalized hit list for the sociopath element of our society that are vigilantes.

    • pgm111

      Wiil, This brilliant! I have been trying to analyze these numbers for this very purpose. I would like to speak with you about this. How do we connect?

      • Will Bassler

        I am on the board of directors of SOSEN.org come join SOSENs private forum that is for registered citizens and their family members and friends and more than likely I will be the one that gives you a call to vet you into the forums. Since we do a telephone interview on all new members in an attempt to keep vigilantes and moles off of our secure forms. also see http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/21/who-really-commits-new-sex-crimes-2.html

    • Dan

      Great job Will!!!

    • AJ

      @Will Bassler:
      Nice work on stats and numbers. If these sorts of numbers could be put under the public’s collective noses, we may get somewhere. Unfortunately, getting it under a judge’s nose does nothing because under rational-basis review, a judge can merely point to ANY recidivism and say the law is valid. (Thanks, SCOTUS!)

      As for the threat from the Thin Blue Liars, I’m guessing there are all sorts of horrible numbers for them. Domestic Violence. DUI. Drug use. Theft. You name it. When someone is placed in a special category outside the law (remember, courts say TBLs cannot be expected to know all the laws…yet you and I are*), one can expect abuse.

      *This concept always makes me wonder what happens when a TBL goes off duty. Must s/he all of the sudden know all the laws until next time on duty?

      • Will Bassler

        as I’ve stated time and again one of the things that all attorneys in all court cases should be prepared for is to prove that there is no high re-offense rate or high recidivism. they should do this by presenting studies that show re-offense rate of less than 5% which is easy to do. ( http://sosen.org/blog/2019/02/24/the-importations-of-reconviction-rates.html ) they should also be prepared to debunk any studies that show high re-offense rate that the state tries to use to show high re-offense rates. the interesting thing about this is that this can also be carried over into the legislatures by simply pointing out to the legislators that any study that they attempt to use to justify punitive laws had better meet the scientific method laid out in “Daubert” because if they don’t follow those strict guidelines then the laws will be overturned in the courts making them look like the total idiots that some of them are.

        Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical s, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. The Daubert Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

        After Daubert, it was expected that the range of scientific opinion evidence used in court would be expanded. However, courts have strictly applied the standards in Daubert, and it has generally been successful in excluding “junk science” or “pseudoscience”, as well as new or experimental techniques and research that the decision might have been expected to deem admissible.

        Discerning between science and “pseudoscience” was the theme of a book by Karl Popper whose summary was quoted in Daubert: “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” The book, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (5th ed. 1989), pp. 34–57, explains how psychology is more like astrology than astronomy because it does not make predictions about an individual which are falsifiable. He wrote that “the impressive thing about” Einstein’s predictions “is the risk involved…If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted.” But “it was impossible to describe a human behaviour” which would be accepted as proving psychology false.

        The considerations in Daubert do not all have to be met for the evidence to be admitted. It is necessary only that the majority of the tests be substantially complied with.

        The principle in Daubert was expanded in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), where the evidence in question was from a technician and not a scientist. The technician was going to testify that the only possible cause of a tire blowout must have been a manufacturing defect, as he could not determine any other possible cause. The Court of Appeal had admitted the evidence on the assumption that Daubert did not apply to technical evidence, only scientific evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that the standard in Daubert could apply to merely technical evidence, but that in this case, the evidence of the proposed expert did not meet the standard.

    • Eric

      Amazing stats. Court adjourned. Case closed.

  8. Aman

    Because connecting the dots “here” equals political, social and financial suicide. Any lawmaker and politician who dares sees the wrong of the registry and even whispers about change will find themselves out of a job, out of friends and out of their oh so secure future…….That’s why, sad as it is. The public needs to see and understand the truth long before the lawmakers and the politicians in order for anything to change, and that’s on us. We can connect the dots all we want, but nothing will happen until the people who keep those lawmakers and politicians well fed and well coined are ready to listen, and at least begin to accept the truth. Laws are not made by those at the top, they’re made by the people who demand them…….the voters who only know what those at the top (and every avenue of the media) have told them. It’s past time for us to tell them, all of them the real truth. The people will never know (or care) about how the registry does so much more harm than it could ever do any good unless WE tell them, show them, educate them. So…….when are we going to start?????

    • Will Allen

      I think I agree.

      I have wondered for a long time what is the best way to stop the Registry cancer. It is actually well entrenched and I have a hard time seeing it gone any time soon. I have thought for a long time that the best way to destroy the cancer is to get it to where most people see it for the cancer that it is. It needs to become very politically incorrect to support Registries. People need to come to realize that if you support the Registries then you are a backward, uninformed, unintelligent rube.

      I do see a very close parallel to the racism that was just fine in the 60s and 70s. The “people” who supported that were able to get away with all kinds of crimes and harassment for just as long as it was PC. Up until people recognized them for the scum that they were and are. Registry Nazis are just like those people. I don’t think they’ll be controlled until the vast majority of people recognize it.

      Although, I do think in our current political climate, tens of millions of people have actually starting wearing stupidity and hate as badges of honor. Many people have embraced it. And I’ve talked to many Registry Nazis just like that, “people” are truly so stupid that it’s amazing that they are still alive. But when you point out their obvious idiocy, few of them get it and most just get more stupid and desperate. Most are pathetic.

  9. Matthew

    I don’t understand why the author put that it is vigilantism… There is no crime and they are not enforcing any law.
    They are instead harassing, are violent and attacking people, mostly on the registry. Do not use the term vigilante on these punks. You are giving them a title that people use to visualize heroes and those who are helping. Remember that vigilantes have the concept of being a hero. You are giving them that title and expect them to stop?
    Poorly written..

  10. kat

    Mathew-
    The term “vigilantism” was used as is interpreted “broadly” in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. It indicates “self-appointed doers of justice/ or the suggestion of the enforcement of laws without regard to due process or general rule of law”.
    I think in today’s world climate the term vigilante carries a more negative connotation, certainly not that of a hero.
    I do appreciate your perspective though.
    Kat

  11. Will Allen

    I think what you wrote was very good but also that “vigilante” is too nice. Can’t say I thought about an alternative much but I might just use “vigilante criminal” until/unless I thought of something better.

  12. http404

    I wonder, has anyone brought a challenge based upon this information, to sue the federal or state government for violating your constitutional right to life?

    Oh I can hear the government’s defense already. That only applies if your life is taken, and so when that happens, you can come back and sue us.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *

.