Wednesday, April 9, 2014

TX - Midland Man (Joe Garza) Addresses City Council For New Sex Offender Ordinance

Joe Garza
Joe Garza
Original Article


By Justin Kree

MIDLAND - It's a story NewsWest 9 has been following since the beginning. A registered sex offender caught twice masturbating in a Midland neighborhood, in front of the same family.

"I want a law to pass, or something to pass for all these sexual predators to have a sign posted in front of their house, or if they live in an apartment complex to put in front of the door. We need to protect our children," Joe Garza said.

Joe Garza is on a mission to make sex offenders like _____, more visible in the community.

On March 10th, _____ was arrested for masturbating across the street from Garza's home, in plain sight of his 5 year old daughter.

NewsWest 9 has been following this story, we first spoke to Joe and his wife, Sandra a few weeks ago when this happened.

_____ was arrested again on April 3 committing the same act.

Mayor Jerry Morales addressed Garza's concerns at Tuesday's meeting.

"What will happen is legal will do the research on that and give us an opinion on if we have any jurisdiction on that, creating those types of ordinances. There still a lot of research to do on that law. We definitely want to take the seriousness of that issue and see what legal has to say about it." Mayor, Morales said.

"I'm glad that he recognized what was going on and that I brought it to their attention. Hopefully the city council can see that we need to change something for the children," Garza said.

So what are the restrictions placed on sex offenders living near a school zone?

"They cannot be within a 1000 feet. If they live within a 1000 feet of the time of their offense, they can live there but under severe restrictions," Sheriff, Painter said.

Midland County's Sheriff, Gary Painter says if sex offenders are allowed free they must fill out this pre-release notification form which goes into extensive detail.

Authorities keep an even closer eye on sex offenders when Halloween rolls around.

"If they are at home, their light cannot be on. We'll go around, we'll make contact with all of our offenders to make sure they are compliant with the law. Also make sure there are no kids at the residence or coming up to the residence," Painter said.

As far as Garza's idea for putting up signs in a sex offender's yard, Mayor Morales believes it's a good idea.

"Most definitely, if any constituents can speak their mind, we are definitely going to listen. We want to take a matter of that magnitude very seriously and so we will get some good definite answers," Morales said.


Matt said...

And in these cases there were actual minors involved, often times people get punished for talking to a cop who was only pretending to be a minor!

With James Franco though the girl was 17, in some states like New York (where Franco lives) 17 is the legal age of consent. Unless he had her send him pornographic photos of herself than I don't think he actually broke a law. (while 17 is the age of consent in some states, 18 is the federal age of consent for pornography.) There is where it all gets stupid: if you sleep with a 17-year-old girl in Oregon then you're a monster who has to register but if you do it in New York then nothing happens. But let's say you move to new york after serving time in Oregon, you still have to register even though the act you committed is legal in the state you are now living in!

The other ones, especially Lunsford and Walsh, need to burn in Hell for their hypocrisy and should be in prison.

NYGuy said...

Comment I left on this article:

Totally agree, except for the James Franco reference.

1. is 17 not the legal age of consent in NY (and 16 in Scotland – if that should matter), and
2. are you seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with an adult being attracted to a physically and sexually mature person, even if that person is “underage – under 18″?

And what does that mean – underage? Under the age of what? Sex? 17. Voting? 18. Drinking? 21. All these are arbitrary dates set by legislators. It just so happens that the person was older than the arbitrary age for the activity in question.

The other examples, I totally agree, are an outrage.

Joe Smith said...

I think it's more of "Who Knows YOU"

NJ45143112 said...

In my mind, the reality is that it's far easier to destroy somebody you don't know than somebody who you know personally. The element of compassion steps in and gives everybody a chance to say "...he's just misunderstood"
The downside of this is that the blatant hypocrisy spits in the face of the thousands who seen their lives destroyed in the name of "justice."
But what is "justice?"
Is justice what is right for the victim? Is justice what is right for society? Or, is justice a euphemism for "vengeance?"

The question then arises as to why such discrepancies are never addressed by the Supreme Court or Congress...