"I have challenged AZUStitches77’s claim that all sex offenders are rapists or one day will be rapists by asking him to provide factual data to support these absurd statements. To date, AZUStitches has not provided any factual data. Why?"
So speaks the "Truthseeker" SOClear Media's newest and brightest sex offender defender and distorted out of control harassing fool. You may recognize him as ApparitionZ, the guy who hits all the YouTube videos with inane blurbs of nonsense reminiscent of the tactics used by the nodding pedo heads of '07.
Why have I not provided the factual data he requested? Why, it's quite simple. I never said that. Truthseeker, however, DID claim that the majority of registered sex offenders are on the registry for such things as "urinating in public" (that's his favorite argument btw), mooning people, having consensual sex, or in his case "merely looking at a few dirty pictures". That he seems to have absolutely no realization of the seriousness of his crime is great cause for concern regarding the likelihood of him re-offending. After all.....it was just some sexual pleasure at the expense of sexually abused children, wasn't it? He's become the newest sex offender vigilante on YouTube making wild unsupportable accusations and making a total nuisance of himself. Look:
"AZU = Murderer""So why do these vigilantes believe public urinators and teenagers having consensual sex should be murdered? Answer : they are scum."
"AZU believes in murdering children for playing doctor. What a sicko!""Oh, so you guys murder gay people too, interesting."
"I hear antipaedo used to make his own child porn, be warned!""I have proof that vigilantes burned down the home of a former offender in Tennessee and wound up murdering his wife! One of a number of violent attacks by the PJ Cult."
Remember how Zman used to go around to blogs and news sites always repeating "Educate yourself! Visit my blog and learn the REAL FACTS"? Remember that? Well Truthseeker has his own mantra that doesn't even make sense. Taking information from various places he tries to put it together into a new FACT.
"According to the Department Of Justice , less than 8% of sex offenders re-offend and most sexual abuse is committed by someone who is not on a registry which debunks the myth of “stranger danger” in the majority of cases."Does that statement make sense? Does he understand what he said? Let's listen to the Truthseekers mantra, it goes like this:
Now, let's listen to him explain how news stories are FACTUAL as long as they are on Zman's site.......but not if you just go out and read them yourself of course.
I am a vigilante cult leader for voicing my opinion. That opinion makes me 'violent'. So what does Truthseeker's make him? A ticking time bomb? Not only does he believe that Stitches77 voicing opinions over child sexual abuse is more dangerous that his child molesting pals.....molesting children but he even denies child sexual abuse even exists! NOOOO You weren't abused! Your child wasn't groomed and molested! It's all a myth, an overblown hysterical biased media report to make you think you were raped when you were only mooned. On one of his podcasts he goes so far as to claim the majority of sex offenders are on the registry for urinating in public and demands to know why we aren't putting women on the registry for dressing skimpily at the beach. He says:
There are a variety of reasons why a person would view images deemed as child porn. It may simply be out of research as in the case of Pete Townshend (”The Who”) or to help authorities find the people who produce such materials. Factually, most who only view these images do not go on to hurt anyone.Completely disregarding:
"Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape."Well he does have the facts after all doesn't he? What's a few dirty pictures? I guess he wants to make you think "a few dirty pictures" is nothing really to be concerned about, I mean after all he did it, and look at what a nice guy HE is. Maybe he should have read this:
U.S. criminal investigator Flint Waters works undercover in the war on child pornography. And just like the other 800 licensed investigators working the internet, he goes for stress counseling often. Is it any wonder why? He describes some of the recent things he's found.How dare he try to sugar coat child sexual abuse, or ANY sexual abuse for that matter? These people actually believe that they can and will change people's minds about them by dismissing as insignificant the horror of what it's really like. They call victims "professional victims" while claiming that THEY are victims. "Oh they should just pick themselves up and go on and stop being victims" I cannot even count the number of RSO activists and pedo activists alike who have made that statement, showing clearly that they have no understanding whatsoever of the true effects of being sexually abused and how it differs from other crimes. Tom Madison claims less than 1% of RSO's are pedophiles, a completely made up figure, he either made it up himself or someone LIED to him and he believed it. I tend to think he made it up.
"A video of a toddler on a changing table who is penetrated by an adult male."
"Pictures of a young girl, 6 or 7 years old, nude, tied to a chair and being penetrated by a dog."
Listen:
Ok, we want the truth. Let's talk truth. He finally said something that was true:
Yes that's true. I did say that the DOJ did NOT report that 95% of all sex crimes are committed by someone not on the registry. I said it because it's true. We've been harping on this for a year now and they cannot get it through their heads.
A recidivism rate does not equal a crime rate. Furthermore that 3.5% recidivism statistic was spread out over a period of three years, it was not an annual figure. It was not a measurement of the percentage of crimes committed. It was a measurement of re-offending. The DOJ report DOES NOT SAY how many people convicted of a new sex crime in any given year are or are not already on the sex offender registry. You cannot take one statistic and force it into meaning something it does not mean.
For example, let's say you have say 1000 men in 2007 that were RSO's that you followed. Let's say 3% of them re-offended. That doesn't mean that 97% of all sex crimes were committed by someone not already convicted of a sex crime. The only conclusion you can factually draw from that scenario is that 3% re-offended and 97% didn't. You can bet that there were other RSO's in that same time period who re-offended after a varied period of time. But the study wasn't measuring them. The recidivism rate released by the Department of Justice does not mean what they say it means. I don't know how many other ways to say it where they can understand. I know they want to believe it, I know they DO believe it, but it's because the only people they are listening to are people who spend their time trying to find some reason, some excuse, some something somebody anybody to blame except for themselves.
When Tom Madison goes on National TV and says the things he says, he makes a fool of himself in more ways than just losing control and acting like a wild and crazy impulsive and angry sex offender. He makes himself look stupid, because he is uninformed. He can't even read and comprehend a DOJ report.
However, occasionally you find a mind that's a notch up from these other guys. Let's pay attention to him for a moment. Vanguard a staff member of Sosen doesn't get it either but I admit he's closer than the others. He tried to help his people out, and I dare say he got nowhere. They didn't want to hear what he had to say and he didn't push the issue. He's well aware I'm sure of how irritable they get when someone disagrees with them. Even Derek got in on it. I'm going to show you the mentality of these people..... the sheer brain power in action. Read for yourself some snippets of their conversation:
blueshift:
"This is some thing i got in my mail today, form eAdvoate I think. This could be a holy grail question and and answer will debunk or limits the ligamancy of the registry. Its a question I have seen asked many times, but never in this way.jean A SOSEN Staff Member:
"whether the risk of offending For an ex-felon ever becomes similar, or equal to, the risk of offending for someone who has never offended at all? If so, after what period of time since the last arrest or conviction does this occur?"
So when is a former sexual offender's risk the same as the general population?"
"just the fact that the chances of someone not on the registry offending is 95% and someone who is on the registry is less than 5% tells me that a former sex offender's risk is already less than the general population"oldman_inmaine:
"I pointed this statistical probability out in a local newspaper once while in a conversation with a poster called stitches. They were quite offended at the idea that I would suggest that their own mathematical formula indicated that they represented a far greater danger to the general population than an ex-sex offender.flowergirl_1970:
So yes the next time you get into a heated discussion with some person that is Downing the ex-sex offender just remember the probabilities of that person crossing the tracks in your direction is a little higher than the probability that you may back step and recommit a crime. laughing
Any mathematical geniuses out there?"
"Harris/Hanson (one or the other or both) out of Canada looked at this and found that the risk reduces to 0% (I think) 15-20years post release"Vanguard:
"Yes, the general public is 95% more likely to commit a new sex offense. BUT... there are less than a million registered offenders in a county with 300 million people, and there are only tens of thousands of sex offensed committed.fallenone:
Let's say there are 100,000 registerable sex offenses committed per year. That leaves the following:
5% committed by RSO's, or 5,000 offenses. Out of a million offenders, that makes 1 in 200 offenders commit a new crime.
95% committed by non-RSO's, or 95,000 offenses. Out of 300 million people, that makes 1 in 3,150 non-RSO's commit a new crime.
Therefore, the anti's could use the argument that RSO's are over 15 times likely to commit a new sex offense."
"There is no real way to do this without complex math.Well thanks Vanguard and Derek, you see Derek using YOUR numbers you provided from the 1994 DOJ report on Recidivism, you are correct that the non-Rso felons committed SIX times the number of offenses, but what does that mean really? It might be in your favor if there were the same number of criminals being measured. But there weren't. The non-Rso's made up 27 times the number of Rso's. Meaning one out of 16 sex offenders committed a new sex crime and one out of 68 non sex offender criminals did. And if we add Vanguard's calculation into the mix, there were only 1 out of over 3000 that were not any type of criminal at all.
Somehow I think they are coming to that conclusion the wrong way, by counting recidivism as the basis for assuming how many RSOs actually re-offend in the given year. The DOJ study found the number of sex offenders in the study who re-offended was about 550 of 9000 in 3 years, while 3500 or so of the 240,000 NON-RSOs committed a sex crime. That's six times the number of non-sex offenders committing a sex crime as sex offenders, not counting first time offenders"
If you want to make a difference pull your head out of the sand, acknowledge that there are seriously damaging crimes committed against people, and that your figures you're trying to pass off as FACT are not fact at all but a manipulation of statistics to try and make them say something they do not say. The Washington study does indeed say that 19% of all new sex crime convictions resulting in prison time the offender is already on the registry. The New York State study that the Reverend Hess child porn sex offender likes to reference also states a low recidivism rate over a limited amount of time. It also states quite clearly that 25% of the men in that study had a previous sex crime conviction prior to the most current offense that landed them in jail. Get your facts straight. You do not have facts. You do not have truth. Tom Madison is uninformed, and you're all acting like imbeciles.
Or, you could always stick with the same old story you've been using and continue to look like pissed off unrepentant victim bashing sex offenders who will LIE and LIE and LIE and are never to be trusted. I kinda think that's what you guys will do. None of you are smart enough to know you got it wrong, and even if you were, there's not a one of you that has the balls to stand up and say "Stitches is right guys, let's go back to the drawing board".
