I went on another dog walk today. Last Friday, Lucy (the dog) and I went to Guilford Battleground which is a federal park. Today we went to Country Park, which is owned by the city. Both are excellent places for a good dog walk, and they adjoin each other, making for a very large area for recreation.
For the first time today, I noticed that the entrances to the park are adorned with a new sign which you can see in the image below. They make me feel kind of sick actually. What is the purpose? Is a registered sex offender going to see these and turn back? I just don't recall sex ever being an issue in this park. My guess is that it's part of some new feel-goody legislation so that some can feel that they are doing something. It's the type legislation no one could oppose, whether it's needed or not. I also wonder if law enforcement will use it as a reason to check ID's, etc., whenever it suits a need, related or not. Maybe it will it make people more nervous and apt to report others for otherwise normal behavior resulting in false positives.
Why did I even have to think about all this? I just wanted to walk my dog.
Fuenteovejuna did it 
I guess its just to increase the level of public alertness…..And to scare off people from visiting the place after dark…..And, god forbid, if an untoward incident does occur, the authorities can say that they did their part by putting up the sign….
I can hear the biggie coming eventually: "if it prevents just *one* little…."Maybe I should steal it! đ
Question, killers are allowed instead?
This thing must have passed quietly. I now remember one reference to it on the radio last year. I don't watch TV news, but I imagine it played well there with the usual drama.I found a couple of articles:Neighboring City of High Point declines to enact similar ordanance, but I'm sure they will eventually. Some intelligent words from one city councilman:"Councilman Latimer Alexander said there seemed to be unanswered questions and noted that High Point hasn't had a problem with offenders."The Greensboro paper had a story on it. This one contains the words I would expect from the television:âIt gives law enforcement another tool"âprotecting our childrenâ"I want our community to be safe"Nobody can argue against those! That's where this type of legislation comes from.Apparently the *hotbed of crime*, Woodfin, NC, was the first to showboat with this type stuff. I would doubt that there was any significant reason for it other than publicity.A couple of reasonable comments from the Greensboro paper:"Katy Parker, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, said ordinances like Woodfinâs can be broad and have been passed in communities where there have been no assaults in parks."âOne of our policy concerns is that (the ordinances) tend to draw in a lot of people who are actually not a danger to children.ââEverybody who is labeled a sex offender is not the habitual pedophile who is going to grab a kid off a swing,â
Ok so a sex offender is really going to turn back just cause he/she (yes there are she's too) sees this sign???????Don't think so…….. a small fine and 30 days in lock up don't mean shit to these asswipes!!!!!!!!!Sorry for my language ………..Huggles,Taz
Hey JTazzie,I've done my whine, so I can feel better now. It's just that the signs are so big and red, and they just smack of a political stunt.I got my knickers all in a twist. đ
HeHe knickers in a twist……… I had my whine on my blog tonight…… :wine: Wish I had some cheese to go with mine đ Huggles,Taz
Headin' over there to check out the whine now! Cheese: I have some cheddar and Swiss in the fridge right now, some wine, too!
The signs are just completely illogical. For two reasons: 1. you don't deter anybody with a sign, simply because those who are going to commit a crime already know they would "pay" if they get caught. 2. the sign says a sex offender is not allowed but it does not say anything about robbers, homicides, drug dealers, etc., that implicates those "good guys" are welcome, sex offenders are not. This takes me to the famous "A-Team consideration", that somehow in US "sex" (read to show a naked tit on TV) is considered something "very bad" (read a crime against human kind) but going around shooting at people with a machine gun is considered "fun" and maybe even educational.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during Super Bowl XXXVIII. :up: I think the sign is illogical because it does about zero to work on a *supposed* problem. It's just political cap feathering, then once one community does it, no others can say no or they will look like they don't care about the *supposed* problem. It seems to play extremely well with people who cannot think more than a click or two past the sensational aspect of it.