Lompoc May Revise ‘Presence’ Restrictions for Sex Offenders

Hmmm….. I find the ambiguous statements in this article about
the Grover Beach man “Frank Lindsay” interesting; “but has not
been convicted of a felony since then.” I’m sure if this man ever
got any kind of a charge beyond a parking ticket the story would have
been all over it. It appears this man committed one crime a lifetime
ago and has not committed another crime since, has apparently lived
as a normal citizen without any kind of legal problem since, yet
Lompoc doesn’t want him to be able to take his children or grand
children to the park or library, as well as most other places in the
city? I’m not seeing the logic, let alone need for this kind of
preemptive ordinance against Mr Lindsay, his children and
grandchildren, or anyone for that matter, in any city or town in the
state.

I also don’t see why these cities and towns have to think twice
about repealing these now; according to the State Supreme Court,
illegal ordinances. Perhaps they still believe all the rhetoric about
“stranger danger,” etc, that has been empirically proven to be
the furthest thing from the truth.

The fact of the matter is that at least 95% of sex crimes are committed by someone with a trust relationship with the victim, like a parent, teacher, coach, priest
or family friend or family member. Another one of the biggest myths is most sex crimes are committed by previously identifies sex offenders, which statistics show to be untrue.

The research says 95% of of solved sex crimes are committed by people that have never been identified as a sex offender. Perhaps these kind of laws and
ordinances are misguided and aimed in the wrong direction and at the
wrong people.

I’m sure there are many people out there that will be as shocked and unbelieving as I was; so I’m posting a link to the California Sex Offender Management Boards 2014 report. There’s allot more information by reputable sources that are very informative.

http://www.cce.csus.edu/portal…

It appears I have been told, and I believed, allot of things that
just aren’t true!!! I hope this helps.

I’m not sure we should allow ANYTHING to remain on the local law books. If regulation of sex offenders is preempted by the state, locals should not have any kind of sex offender ordinance, even if it simply state the same language as state law. Finish this local ordinance crap once and for all; don’t leave it to fight all over again another day.

We can’t always have hundreds of battles to fight over any and every little details instead of having it all in one place and one fight. If they won;t agree to that, then we shod proceed with the federal suit now, not put it off until later – get it done once and for all. I know nothing is ever guaranteed when you go to court, but on the other hand, we can’t sit here interminably accepting or fighting every little local crap detail they want to keep coming up with.

Re residency, I predict the state high court will OK the restrictions. They will lie to do so, and then they will approve them. I say this because this is how they have dealt with every sex offender issue for the past 15-20 years — our state high court is the worst state high court to deal with on these issues. The only benefit they might give us on that is whether they allow the residency restrictions to be applied retroactively.

These restrictions are 110% unacceptable even is not applied retroactively (if not, they will not affect me — but they are very wrong and unacceptable nonetheless). So, I hope a plan is already made and steps being taken to take that fight to the next level and fast.