Waukesha crime

Josh at Blog Waukesha is listening to his scanner today.

Around the same time at 12:15 today, there was a call about someone walking car by car looking in the windows by associated bank. There wasn’t any chatter that I heard regarding if they caught the guy or not.My Wife’s purse was stolen one day like this, she left it in the back seat on the floor and someone busted the rear side window open and took it within a 15 minute period. I bought a 10 guage shotgun that night.

Meanwhile Darryl Enriquez reports on an increase in another type of crime.

This just in from police Capt. Mark Stigler, Criminal Investigations Division commander:.

“We have seen a significant increase in motor vehicle thefts in 2008 as compared to the same time period in 2007. In the month of January, seven vehicles were reported stolen, eight were reported in February and five so far in March.

More people leaving the motor running while they just “pop in for a minute.”

Waukesha sex offender ordinance

Waukesha passed a sex offender ordinance limiting how close they can live to parks, schools day care centers and recreational trails.

Fox Head weighed in with this,

Ok, as these other municipalities adopt the ordinaces, the state will need to work harder to place these people, it is typical to follow the path of least resistance, ie they will go to the communities without the ordinances. So, the conclusion is to get an ordinance set up to prevent that occurance.

Granted, I agree that 2,000 feet would be better and I like the idea of a cardboard box out in a cornfield, but if 1,000 is what we got, then go with it and we can always refine the rule later.

Cindy Kilkenny notes on a similar ordinance in Brookfield,

I am also a little concerned about the label of sex offender. There are some heinous examples of humanity out there, and some of them wear that label. Others who have been tagged look more like the typical high school senior. And has anyone noticed we only label the men? I would suspect women are as capable of sexually deviant behavior as men. Until we are willing to spend the time to differentiate the issue of sexually deviant behavior as a society, I think we’re sliding down that slippery slope that lets labels trivialize an issue of great importance.

Jessica McBride observes in posting about a Franklin offender,

At the same time, I’m a bit conflicted about these sex offender living ordinances.
It seems to me that if you don’t want the city to restrict where you live, then don’t molest kids. At the same time, don’t we live in a country where, if you serve your time, you’ve served your time? Granted, the restrictions are much like a probation or parole condition. Yet, these individuals - as depraved as they are - aren’t all on probation or parole anymore. What do you think? Are these ordinances getting over the top? I know that’s controversial to say and will be easily pilloried by some. After all, attacking child molesters is the safe side to be on. But why don’t we craft living restrictions for other offenders, too, then. Let’s restrict all felons from living 2 miles from a school, etc.

And don’t ask me whether I’d want a child molester living next to my kid’s daycare center. Of course not. But even if we had such a living restriction ordinance out here, it wouldn’t prevent a sex offender from living next door to our HOUSE or across the street anyway (I live more than the normal restriction zone from a park, school, and daycare). So, I am not 100 percent sure you can stop sex offenders from ever seeing your kid in an urban, suburban, or exurban area. So what are we accomplishing?(15 registered sex offenders live in my zip code).

Nick points out in the comments,

…the danger here has many facets. First of all, the legality of such ordinances is dubious at best. In essence you are punishing someone after the fact, without legal representation. This violates their due process rights, and could even be challenged on the grounds of double jeopardy.

Secondly, it continues to put a spotlight on “registered sex offenders”, when the sad reality is that “stranger danger” type attacks are the vast minority of cases. This gives people a false sense of security and safety where it’s not warranted.

Finally… it sets a bad precedent. If we say its ok to do this to this class of criminal, then another criminal will be next.

Dad29 also brings up a pertinent point in the comments,

If the State attempts to preclude “possible” criminal activity, we are setting up a framework which is truly frightening. It is akin to barring people with DWI conviction(s) from going into taverns or buying beer.

The Freeman on Saturday interviewed one of owners of a rooming house that rents to sex offenders.

My own personal opinion? I’m not all that excited about having sex offenders around, but our society’s laws say that the offenders has served his time. What are they going to do now that they are “free” men and women? And what are we going to do with them to keep our society safe?

Cat urine mimics meth?

From the Week magazine’s daily website.

When I first read this account, I was mildly upset at another strong arm action by cops.

Bad week for: Rushing to judgment, after a Florida woman was jailed for 50 days when police found a vial of a yellow substance in her purse. Cynthia Hunter, 38, insisted the vial contained dried cat urine purchased for her son’s science experiment, but cops didn’t buy it. A full lab test this week revealed that the vial contained . . . dried cat urine.

But then I read this account that fills in some of the detail.

Hunter, 38, of Lithia was arrested Aug. 15 for petty theft and possession of a controlled substance. The theft charge came after she was accused of stealing from a Brandon Wal-Mart store.

Hunter told a deputy the dehydrated cat urine was for her son’s science project, according to a court transcript. The deputy, though, did a field test for drugs and the substance came back positive for methamphetamine, according to court records.

The prosecutor said that there are a variety of chemical compounds in methamphetamine and doesn’t know how the presumptive test was positive. [Emphases mine]

So they thought it was drugs. And who believes someone you think is an addict. And a thief. But still,

“I still sat in jail … on an assumption,” Hunter said in court. “And I mean that’s not fair either.”

She’s got a point.

I guess that’s why the chopper was hovering

From JSOnline’s NewsWatch,

Police have arrested a 15-year old boy in connection with a shooting in the 1800 block of Manhattan Drive about 3:40 p.m. in which a BB shot from an air rifle narrowly missed a woman lighting a cigarette while driving.

Voter ID case

From USATODAY.com

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to Indiana’s voter identification law, in a timely case that sets up a confrontation between officials who claim such laws prevent voter fraud and challengers who say ID requirements keep some people from the polls.

The Indiana law requires voters to show a government photo ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, to qualify to vote. Last January, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected claims by the state Democratic party that the law infringes on the voting rights of people without easy access to such IDs, particularly the poor.

The Court will also hear a case on lethal injection as criminal punishment.

Dumb Criminals XV

From Yahoo! News

Police said a man in Portage County [Ohio] was growing marijuana plants in a field and took photos of the plants.

There were 16 plants that he allegedly took photos of and took the photos to a CVS on Route 43 and Frost Road in Streetsboro.

Sex offenders, what to do?

Usually I don’t agree with much that Laurel Walker writes (and to be truthful, she probably doesn’t care), but some of the things she had in her column Tuesday morning were things I’ve been thinking about. She looks at three recent cases that raise questions about how we are to deal with them.

First is Jack McClellan, a self-described pedophile in California. Most of my readers know the circumstances so I’ll just deal with what Ms. Walker’s opinion.

Yes, the guy’s disgusting. But any day a court acts as if someone’s a criminal without benefit of charges, let alone conviction, is troubling. With good reason, the court order faces a likely constitutional challenge.

I think anyone who is concerned with privacy and government interference issues could understand her sentiments. But what do we do? Wait until the guy actually molests someone? According to common judicial law, yes. So it means we have to wait until some children are traumatized for life before we take action?

Questions.

Then there was Michael Monyelle, 30, of Waukesha. Will he act on his thoughts, or not?

But isn’t there a dangerous message here? Owning up to your thoughts can be just as bad as acting on them.

Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. But do we wait till he does before acting? Again, our legal system in the past has said “Yes.”

There there’s Dennis C. Marth, 46, a sexual predator who’ll soon be moving to Buena Vista Ave. Residents are understandably nervous.

But it seems to me that corrections staff and courts are doing a lot to ensure Marth returns safely. He’ll wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and be targeted by global positioning technology. He’ll be allowed to leave the house only with an escort. He’ll have 49 rules to follow. He must continue treatment. He told residents directly he’d try, he’d work hard.

Again, it’s no guarantee he will. But he’s served his time and our justice system demands he be released.

Then Ms. Walker’s conclusion, the only solution which will work, but clearly not one she wants.

At this rate, we’re going to need a lot more locked and long-term institutions - homes for pariahs.

In addition, check out Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin blog. It has lots more links on the sidebar on Sexual Offenders.

I guess he just fell, then

State drops battery charge in Jude case

According to the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office that’s what must have happened.

It’s official: the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office will convict no one for beating Frank Jude Jr.

While Jude family members murmured their disapproval in a courtroom gallery this afternoon, Deputy District Attorney Jon N. Reddin told Circuit Judge David A. Hansher that he wanted to drop a substantial battery charge against Jon Bartlett because “nothing could be gained by retrying this case.”

Sad. Of course, three policeman, Jon Bartlett, Daniel Masarik and Andrew Spengler were convicted in federal court for the beating, but still. The best Reddin could give.

“It’s time for the community to put this incident behind it and move on,” Reddin said. Hansher granted the motion to dismiss the battery charge.

I’ll guess we’ll have to, eh? Too bad a black man could not get justice in a major US city.