Friday, January 18, 2013

In April Of 2011, There Were 21 Level Three Sex Offenders In The 55411 Zip Code, So Guess How Many There Are NOW?

DOC mugshot, therefore public domain, blog post by John Hoff

The correct answer is THIRTY-ONE.

Though there isn't a little year-by-year bar graph showing the increase or (mostly theoretical) decrease of Level Three Sex Offenders in the 55411 zip code, one of my blog posts provides a little time capsule of a moment on April 11, 2011, when I was complaining about the presence of 21 sex offenders in the 55411 zip code...

Though the DOC website was showing 20 at that time, the true number was 21 because Peter Rickmyer was in prison but owned a home and was going to come back within a short period of time. Therefore the number was 21.

Punching that same zip code into the Level Three Offender Locator tonight gets this result.

BIBLE, LAVELLE ROSSELL (1)
BUFFETT, GERALD ALAN    (2)
BURCH, STANLEY WARREN (3)
CARPENTER, RICHARD        (4)
DAY, TERRY SHELTON         (5)
DOUGLAS, RICHARD WARREN (6)
DUNLAP, TROY ANTHONY (7)
GARLAND, JESSIE LEE       (8)
GASSAWAY, ELLIOTT SYLVESTER (9)
HAMILTON, RODERICK LAMORYNE (10)
HANSON, DONALD HAROLD        (11)
HAZELTON, GLENN FRANCIS      (12)
HEMMEN, JONATHON MICHAEL   (13)
HUBBARD, HERBERT CARL           (14)
JACKSON, MAXXE STEVENS          (15)
JACKSON, WILLIE JOSEPH             (16)
JUMPER, ALEXANDER WILLINGTON (17)
KILLIAN, WIL ISAIAH                           (18)
KRAUSE, CHANDLER TRUMAN          (19)
LENEAR, EDGAR EARL                       (20)
MCGEE, LAMONT TARRENCE            (21) April, 2011
MCINTYRE, TERRELL ESHANN           (22)
NICKS, NIKIA SAJJID                            (23)
NOLEN, PATRONE ANTEZ                    (24)
REYNOLDS, WILLIE EDD                       (25)
ROGERS JR, JAMES CLEVELAND         (26)
SEXTON, FRANK LEO                            (27)
STEPHENSON, PETER RICHARD          (28)
STEVENSON, KERRY DEAN                   (29)
THOMPSON, WILLIAM TROY                 (30)
VANPELT, MICHAEL ALLEN                   (31)
WALTON Jr., TIMOTHY MARK                (32)
WARD, HERBERT STANLEY                  (33)
YOUNG, CLEVELAND ANTHONY           (34)
YOUNGS, MELVIN OTIS                         (35) January, 2013



This is, of course, an outrage. I knew the number seemed to be increasing but sitting down tonight and counting them up and comparing with my "watermark" in April, 2011 produces a shocking result.

The individuals in the Department of Corrections who are allowing this concentration of sex offenders in my neighborhood can expect this blog to become incredibly outspoken and aggressive on this topic. One of the first things I will do is figure out which individual DOC agent has the most sex offenders in my neighborhood and present that agent with a sarcastic award on this blog. 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Finally Something I Can Agree With. Thank U Johnny

Anonymous said...

Get them to 52, and you can publish a card deck as the military did at the start of the Iraq incursion.

Anonymous said...

So where else are they suppose to go? Edina?

Anonymous said...

Tear them a new asshole,John, and you will have alot of help. More than you realize and more than the perverts and the D.O.C. want.

Naysayer said...

MN Law, Section 244.052, Subd.4a. Level III Offenders; location of residence stipulates that: "the agency responsible for the offender's supervision shall take into consideration the proximity of the offender's residence to that of other level III offenders.....and, to the greatest extent feasible, shall mitigate the concentration of level III offenders...".

"Take into consideration" and "to the greatest extent feasible" is pretty slippery legal language defining responsibility, which would probably require a legal challenge in the courts to make more explicit. Short of that, shining a brighter light on the location decision process and determining who makes these determinations would be useful. One would think that Bobby Jo Champion and Raymond Dehn would take an interest in this issue, especially with some agitation from this blog.

Tom Evenstad said...

Here is one if the stories you and the JNS READERSHIP READ TAX PAYERS IN NEED OF A LITTLE $ TO REVATALIZE AN ANCIENT NEIGHBORHOOD: Why is the STATE SPENDING 73 MILLION EVERY YEAR ON MSOP TO DETAIN MOSTLY LOW AND MEDIUM RISK

Trayshon Wilkins said...

Putting trash on the trash pile. Makes sense to me.

Anonymous said...

@Anon Jan 19, 12:06pm

They are supposed to go back to the community they came from.

I guarantee you that the 55411 zip code didn't PRODUCE 31 L3SOs. So stop dumping them there.

Disperse them according to population concentrations. How about that?

Anonymous said...

Know What you talking about befor you starding Shit mr Jonny northside you no you hâve a big ass history of getting shit wrong about Peoples you dont no Just What you Heard its not What you its What you Can prove so Next Time get it Right

Johnny Northside! said...

When it comes to my attention something is wrong, like misspellings of names or things like that, I rush to make correction. I'm not aware of anything in this blog post that's incorrect and you haven't pointed anything out, either.

Anonymous said...

johnny is pisiin off all of the illiterate chomos o' da werl!!whoo! whoo! y u b starding befor yo peoples cuz What you Heard its not What you its. This shit is freakingucking marvelous!!

Anonymous said...

I'd still rather have a L3so livin next to me than Johnny Northside.
At least the chimos have been through treatment before being released and have handlers.
Hoff is a loose canon who is going to get innocent people hurt. That's why the folks on North Talk hate him so much.

Chuck said...

Long time north mpls resident. I dont hate you. Don't let L3so discourage you on this blog. .

Anonymous said...

Just saying: This offender apparently claimed to be living somewhere he wasn't -see what the homeowner blogger thought about that here: http://north-by-northside.blogspot.com/2013/08/yes-we-have-no-sex-offenders.html

On appeal from convictions of and sentencing for three counts of criminal sexual conduct and one count of indecent exposure, Donald H. Hanson argues that the cumulative effect of the district court's evidentiary errors, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury instructions denied him a fair trial. Appellant also argues that the jury instructions deprived him of a unanimous verdict and that the district court erred in sentencing. Because we conclude that appellant was not denied a fair trial or a unanimous verdict, we affirm the convictions. Because the convictions of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and indecent exposure were based on a single act against a single victim and appellant is only subject to a five-year conditional-release term, we vacate the one-year sentence imposed for indecent exposure involving P.L. and modify the conditional-release term to five years.

FACTS
Three elementary-school children, who were passengers on a school bus driven by appellant Donald H. Hanson, reported appellant's inappropriate sexual conduct on the school bus. Appellant was charged with: second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving Q.K.F.; second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving J.H.L.; attempted second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving J.H.L.; fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct involving P.L.; and indecent exposure involving P.L. The second-degree criminal sexual conduct charge involving Q.K.F. was dismissed before trial.

The investigating officer obtained a search warrant for appellant's home based on the children's statements about appellant's conduct on the school bus; evidence from a daycare provider and a parent that appellant had picked up J.H.L. and another child early; the fact that when police went to appellant's home to arrest him he was looking at the computer with a nine-year-old boy he had befriended on the school bus, and photographs he had of two juveniles in his wallet when he was arrested. At appellant's home, the investigating officer found, among other things, a copy of a bus schedule with the names of children written on it and copies of the Minnesota statutes about criminal sexual conduct crimes and tampering with a witness.


See: http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/2004/opa031020-0713.html