http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/article/328582/3/Rayne-Perrywinkle-Cherish-would-be-here
RP gives a speech.
I find especially interesting the idea of not allowing sex predators to own vans (he didn't, I thought it was his mother's?) and that violent predators should have tattoos you can see from a great distance.
Is this so that, once these laws are in place, she can put her children in a stranger's van, send them to fitting rooms and restaurants with strange men with confidence?
Also, is she not aware that not all violent predators are registered? That at some point, these bad people were unregistered? Lots of them go undetected for years? They could be anyone?
I don't mean to be ugly, but her intentional blindness to her own culpability is staggering. If she thinks this whole 'Scarlet Letter' thing is the way to go to protect society, is she also OK with her own face being tattooed with "Baker act", "Domestic Violence", "Child Abandoner," etc., so that we all can know what we're dealing with when around her?
BBM what the... :what:. I didn't have a chance to listen to it yet but this bolded part, seriously??
1. A lot of people drive cars/vans/trucks that they don't own. People borrow them from friends or family, rent them, drive company-owned vans, etc.
2. Not every child is victimized by someone in a van. Some are on foot, some are in sedans, whatever. Van driving does not automatically = predator.
3. So, sex offenders should be unable to get a huge number of jobs because they can't drive vans? (I'm thinking of friends who are carpet cleaners, delivery people, construction workers...not sex offenders as far as I know).
4. Sad but true IMO, there are people on the sex offender registry who are there for stuff like peeing in public. They should be disallowed from owning vans - oh and tattooed?
5. Every predator has a FIRST offense. Every single one of them.
There's more, that's just off the top of my head... I'm stopping before my head explodes.