Yes, yes, and yes. Probably all would agree.

“In response to neighbors’ complaints, a DCS spokeswoman sent the Times Free Press a “frequently asked questions” form designed for Ringgold residents which includes a statement that the agency is not required to inform neighbors about a sex offender living nearby. ”

Wasn’t the registry supposed to BE that notification? For the states that require the sheriff to provide separate community notification, isn’t that redundant to the registry to begin with? Doesn’t it just further demonstrate the registry’s uselessness, at least the public one?

There is a Ringgold, Tennessee. It’s north of Nashville and not the Ringgold in the article. I made the same mistake when I posted my first response below.

Scratch the first paragraph about Tennessee. I was misled by the story coming from a Tennessee newspaper and the road referred to in the article being Route 41 on the Tennessee side. My mistake for jumping to the wrong conclusion in that regard. Former occupational hazard – I was a military intelligence analyst for 11 years; jumping to conclusions on partial information was pretty much required.

I stick by the rest.

Brilliant response!

That would be nice, but it hasn’t helped anybody in Miami-Dade.

What new brand of madness is this?

Excerpt:

On Sept. 9, in Martin v. City of Boise, the court ruled that the City of Boise, Idaho, violated the Eighth Amendment by imposing criminal sanctions on homeless people for sleeping outdoors on public property when no alternative shelter was available.

In an open alert letter California Police Chiefs Association Attorney James R. Touchstone wrote, “This case may have a significant impact on cities with substantial homeless populations and inadequate or insufficient homeless facilities. The impact on a potential increase in homeless presence in public areas on the one hand may vie against the costs of additional homeless shelters on the other.”

“The Ninth Circuit considered on appeal whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment barred a city from criminally prosecuting individuals for sleeping outside on public property when they had no home or other shelter available,” the letter reads.

Local police will have to allow law-abiding homeless citizens to sleep on public properties but will give trespass warnings to those using private properties.

Source: https://www.triplicate.com/home/6522406-151/police-chief-ruling-alters-homeless-enforcement Published Sept. 15, 2018. Retrieved Nov 14th 2018.

If those registrants were told to move there by their PO, that PO needs to be fired immediately. Not for telling them to live under a bridge (though that’s reason enough, IMHO) but for telling them to do it IN ANOTHER STATE. Those registrants are now in violation of federal SO law now for going to another state without registering (presumably) due to the POs ignorance, well intended or not.

Banning homelessness? What a novel idea. Fine them $1000. Why not? They’re obviously too cheap to pay for a place to live. Makes you wonder why major cities didn’t think of that.

“We have no way of knowing what that person is doing, as far as our safety concerns of our children, at 3, 4 o’clock in the morning, when we’re very vulnerable,” [Councilman Larry Black] said Monday night. How so? Ringgold children are out and about at 3, 4 o’clock in the morning? No one in Ringgold locks their doors when they go to bed? All cops are off duty?

“Holly and Joel Scott said they felt unsafe living with their three children down the road. They now keep an eye on them playing outside, worried someone may attack them. The Scotts have considered moving, they said.” If “keeping an eye on them playing outside” is so burdensome, keep them inside. If it’s that concerning, then move. You have far more housing options than they do. Good luck finding a neighborhood where you wouldn’t have to keep an eye on children playing outside. And if you do, beware the child protection nazis; they’ll likely accuse you of neglect.

“I have to wonder if I should be letting our children play in the creek as they once did,” [Jamison Braly] said. “Where are these men dumping their urine and feces? Is it safe to fish in the creek? Is it safe to swim? Is it safe to even live near the creek?” Why wouldn’t it be? Haven’t animals been doing it for as long as the creek’s been there? Is animal urine and feces somehow cleaner or less disgusting than human? Or is it simply the homeless human whose waste makes everything unsafe?

“There’s nothing in this ordinance that reads ‘criminal,'” [Councilwoman Sara Clark] said. “There’s only ‘homeless’ written in this ordinance. Go to the meeting on Thursday. Let’s see if our community has a helping hand.” Yet violating this ordinance results in either $1000 fine or 60 days in jail. Yet it’s not “criminal’ like the registry isn’t punishment.

Makes me wish I had the means to move every registrant within a 10 county radius under that bridge, just to see what this council would do.