After several months of discussion and amending guidelines, the city of Kyle has approved implementation of child safety zones that would restrict where registered sex offenders may reside.
…
City officials noted during discussion of the ordinance in February that based on its definition of common areas where children gather, residency within 95% of Kyle would be off limits for registered sex offenders.
Related:
Kyle officials revisit safety zones designed to restrict registered sex offender residency [communityimpact.com – 4/20/21]
I hope Texas has a Janice Bellucci !
Looks like banishment, sounds like banishment, smells like banishment. Hopefully Kyle has a lawsuit dropped on them soon. Things might be bigger in Texas, but the lawmakers have tiny minds!!
Again, we see that the real enemies of America live in America. “People” who support this are garbage. No one need have concern for them or their families.
The good news is that it is still safe to shoot children so shooters will continue to be allowed in the “child safety zones”. You may also beat children all you like. And everyone who is not a child is free game.
Criminal regimes that support this kind of harassment cannot be harmed enough.
Ignorance is bliss…….until one of their beloved children in the city of Kyle, TX ends up on their TX registry, god forbid, which completely protects children.
I’m just curious about what happened that they felt the need to do this now. How many sex crimes were committed by their 65 registrants before this ordinance? And of those, how many resided in what is now a “child safety zone”? And of THOSE, would they have not occurred if the accused had simply resided somewhere else? I’m guessing the answer to all of the above is ZERO.
I ran a search on the term “sex offender” in this paper’s search engine and the only hits were for this and similar residence restriction laws and proposals in their covered counties. Not one single hit about a registrant committing another sex crime, or crime of any kind for that matter.
Which again begs the question – why now? Surely they have heard of residence restrictions before and have access to research showing their ineffectiveness, as well as the legal and constitutional ambiguities. Even if they don’t agree with that research, I doubt there’s anything supporting the effectiveness and necessity of residence restrictions.
Election season is over, so what gives?
JohnDoeUtah:
When you file these lawsuits in pro per you are only creating bad case law that good attorneys have to overcome. I am aware of your lawsuits and am aware that Utah changed the law to make your 2008 “victory” moot.
Pro per litigants rarely get a good court-appointed attorneys and AG’s love getting bad case law on the books.
If you want to be successful, you have to make these challenges as a group effort only after you raise sufficient funds and find an attorney with a good track record with civil rights litigation. The only thing you are doing with these in pro per lawsuits is making it harder for yourself and others on the registry.
Like I have said so many times, they will find ways to re instate any ordinance that has been challenged, and most of the time they will win, because the boogie man is out there and waiting to pounce on unsuspecting children.
830 sex offenders better start retreating to another county the people in Kyle Texas sound like like they gettin ready to hang them some sex offenders.
Sadly this will destroy 830 family’s and alot people will become homeless transients and eventually hunted down by law enforcement agencies and thrown into prison for FTR
Good luck 😬👌
Aren’t there a large number of registrants who are minors?? 🤔