tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post115643587947994232..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156609434749963072006-08-26T11:23:00.000-05:002006-08-26T11:23:00.000-05:00Scott<BR/><BR/>In light of your decision to pursue nothing more than your ineffective letter writing campaign my own sardonic boldness compels me to suggest that in the future you confine your whoa-is-me-plea-for-sympathy to yourself. <BR/><BR/>Seriously, dude, if you got a stress disorder that keeps you from taking effective action than you need to seek professional help and not draw unsuspecting others into your drama. Certainly, there is darn few of us that do not have enough of our own daily tragedy to deal with without being sucked into that of others who then seem to thoughtlessly blow-off suggestions of constructive recourse. <BR/><BR/>kayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156605760322207772006-08-26T10:22:00.000-05:002006-08-26T10:22:00.000-05:00Gary,<BR/><BR/>You guys may want to listen to the morning show later this week. I found some interesting information on the sex offender ordinance that will be quite interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156472202421292232006-08-24T21:16:00.000-05:002006-08-24T21:16:00.000-05:00This story has got to keep going.<BR/>Unreal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156466120767503062006-08-24T19:35:00.000-05:002006-08-24T19:35:00.000-05:00AI: “…the issue of how the law is enforced is totally separate from the ban itself imposed by the law…”<BR/><BR/>Yep, you got that part right; that was my point. <BR/><BR/>AI: “Let me also make it clear that Jay and Scott are not convicted sex offenders.”<BR/><BR/>I never thought, said, or even vaguely suggested that Scott or Jay were convicted sex offenders.<BR/> <BR/>AI: “I suspect you will find that only men are being detained for questioning in this manner as Jay and Scott, and most are suspected of being gay.”<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that what Scott and Jay experienced is happening with other gay or perceived to be gay men? Even if they are the only two known WHY are they not being advised to file a complaint now?<BR/> <BR/>Again, those responsible need to be held accountable, if anyone is trying to abuse this or any other law... and that apart from any argument about the law passing constitutional challenge. <BR/><BR/>kayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156460276571733922006-08-24T17:57:00.000-05:002006-08-24T17:57:00.000-05:00Kay, the issue of how the law is enforced is totally separate from the ban itself imposed by the law, although the constitutionality of the law on the ban itself is far from settled. Let me also make it clear that Jay and Scott are not convicted sex offenders. I suspect you will find that only men are being detained for questioning in this manner as Jay and Scott, and most are suspected of being gay. Do you think police should be able to detain you when you leave Walmart to make sure you paid for everything on your person because you are red-headed and everyone knows (or think they know) that red-headed women shoplift when they visit Walmart?Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156459060399227912006-08-24T17:37:00.000-05:002006-08-24T17:37:00.000-05:00“The law as applied to Scott and Jay in this instance is unconstitutional.”<BR/><BR/>Huh, I thought I read that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals did find the law barring convicted/ registered sex offenders from parks constitutional, correct? <BR/><BR/>That aside, it would seem that both the lack of probable cause you pointed out and perhaps false reporting, by the woman, would support filing a lawful cross-complaint. <BR/><BR/>I’m just saying flippant/ hysterical/ unfounded/ whatever complaints need to be filed and investigated with all parties held accountable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156452678947790992006-08-24T15:51:00.000-05:002006-08-24T15:51:00.000-05:00The law as applied to Scott and Jay in this instance is unconstitutional. Those cops had no probable cause for detaining them for questioning. The ICLU has a lawsuit that they could include them in as plaintiffs. I've encourage Scott and Jay to contact the ICLU.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156448622235358032006-08-24T14:43:00.000-05:002006-08-24T14:43:00.000-05:00Gary, can Scott file a cross-complaint against this woman/others? Or some other sort of legal cage rattling to dissuade this type of thing happening to others...<BR/><BR/>kayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1156440717671925302006-08-24T12:31:00.000-05:002006-08-24T12:31:00.000-05:00Hell they were aggressive before the new ordinance. Now they're practically Gonzo.<BR/><BR/>Park Police are about one rung above School Police on the Law Enforcement ladder. All Opie wanna-bees. They have guns and they're dangerous. I have two horror stories, but won't bore you with them here. Never get caught by these guys--they make things up to satisfy their own agendas.<BR/><BR/>Mary Bridgette MA does have a problem with the gay community. It's personal and close to her. It's still no reason to visit this ridiculous ordinance upon us.<BR/><BR/>Melina wants to win, that's her excuse. Crl is goofy. That's his excuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com