How many criminals live near you?

[gravenewworld]

http://www.criminalsearches.com/neighborhood/default.aspx


I've got a lot of Os, some Ss, and a few Vs.

[WarPhalange]

None. Cool.

[Jimmy Snyder]

Egads. The map shows approx. 1 mile radius of my house. There is one V (violent), four T's (Theft/Robbery) about 2 dozen O's (Traffic/Other) and easily 50 Mu's (Multiple Crimes). One shudders to think what these multiple guys are up to. After living here nearly 15 years I'm probably going to start locking my door at night.

[Cyrus]

1 Mu.

How is this legal? I guess criminal charges are public record?

[Greg Bernhardt]

I have actually live right next door (20ft) from a sex offender.

[CJ2116]

I found two old teachers who committed sex crimes against minors...!:redface:

[Moonbear]

Other than traffic offenses, the rest are showing up mostly in areas with student apartments and trailer parks (also many occupied by students), so not much of a surprise there. Not all that many though, considering the number of students in the town. Maybe drunk and disorderly doesn't get counted. :biggrin:

[OAQfirst]

In a state registry, I found over twenty sex offenders in my city. This list showed two.

[Evo]

No criminals, one registered sex offender nearby, he's only 22 now and his crime is "indecent liberties with a minor", so probably got caught with his girlfriend a few years ago.

[wolram]

None? we got the last in the final witch hunt, great burgers that night.

[Math Is Hard]

Holy crap! there's a rapist one street behind me!!!! :surprised

Offense Description:
RAPE BY FORCE

Gender: M
Height: 6'0"
Weight: 220 lbs
Eye Color: Brown
Hair Color: Black
Ethnicity: Black

He's a big guy!

[rootX]

Can you identity people who committed the crime?

Doesn't this make it harder for criminals to get back into the society?

[Math Is Hard]

It gave me the guy's name and picture!

[ekrim]

Couldn't count them, especially with all the overlaps. This is about 1 sq mile

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v433/wheresmytampico/crime.jpg

[rootX]

It gave me the guy's name and picture!

1. Definitely not good for people who are trying to get back into the society :shy:.
2. Bad for general public too - spreads fear

==> BAD SOCIETY :grumpy:!

[Math Is Hard]

Good heavens! My city is overrun with rapists and pedophiles. I've got to stop looking at this map.

I wish I hadn't given away my crossbow now. :frown:

[lisab]

Couldn't count them, especially with all the overlaps. This is about 1 sq mile




Wow, ekrim - that's really a lot! Be careful :eek: !

I have one sex offender in my part of the world (that this database knows about, anyway). But tell you what, I live next to the biggest jerk you'll ever want to come across. Too bad there isn't a map of jerks, I wouldn't have moved here if I had known.

[ekrim]

Wow, ekrim - that's really a lot! Be careful :eek: !

I have one sex offender in my part of the world (that this database knows about, anyway). But tell you what, I live next to the biggest jerk you'll ever want to come across. Too bad there isn't a map of jerks, I wouldn't have moved here if I had known.

In the past five years, we've had our car stolen, two burglaries during the day where we were completely cleaned out, car windows broken, and one attempted home invasion thwarted by me.

[OAQfirst]

Yeah, I'm looking at a long list of sex offenders, mostly child molesters, and only two appear in that link.

Worse, I recognized one from work. I know if I say anything, he'll be fired. And that'll put him in an excellent position to sue me. At least there aren't any children where I work.

[Evo]

Yeah, I'm looking at a long list of sex offenders, mostly child molesters, and only two appear in that link.

Worse, I recognized one from work. I know if I say anything, he'll be fired. And that'll put him in an excellent position to sue me. At least there aren't any children where I work.At my job, you can make anonymous tips to HR. If you think he's a child molester and not some poor guy that was 18 and arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend, you could always print it out and leave it on his manager's desk. Just come in early or stay late when no one else is around.

[moe darklight]

1. Definitely not good for people who are trying to get back into the society :shy:.
2. Bad for general public too - spreads fear

==> BAD SOCIETY :grumpy:!

yea I'm kind of ambiguous about this... I think that all should be kept anonymous except rapists; and I'm only slightly leaning towards the idea of making rapists known.

One problem is the term "sex offender" doesn't necessarily mean rapist. I remember on the radio a while ago about this guy who got drunk in the U.S and got caught urinating publicly, which is considered a sex offense where he lives (I think it was Texas or something in the south). Anyway, poor guy now has trouble finding jobs or living in peace because he's listed as a sex offender.

So yea... maybe if it's somebody who is a rapist or murderer and likely to reoffend it should be known, but not every tom dick and harry who's made a stupid mistake in his or her life.

[rootX]

One problem is the term "sex offender" doesn't necessarily mean rapist. I remember on the radio a while ago about this guy who got drunk in the U.S and got caught urinating publicly, which is considered a sex offense where he lives (I think it was Texas or something in the south). Anyway, poor guy now has trouble finding jobs or living in peace because he's listed as a sex offender.

I think law should be changed...

Yeah, I'm looking at a long list of sex offenders, mostly child molesters, and only two appear in that link.

Worse, I recognized one from work. I know if I say anything, he'll be fired. And that'll put him in an excellent position to sue me. At least there aren't any children where I work.

At my job, you can make anonymous tips to HR. If you think he's a child molester and not some poor guy that was 18 and arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend, you could always print it out and leave it on his manager's desk. Just come in early or stay late when no one else is around.

But, should we trust the law?

He is out, so does that mean he is good/changed now?
Theoretically, he should be good by now... else, the law sucks.

[Evo]

yea I'm kind of ambiguous about this... I think that all should be kept anonymous except rapists; and I'm only slightly leaning towards the idea of making rapists known.

One problem is the term "sex offender" doesn't necessarily mean rapist. I remember on the radio a while ago about this guy who got drunk in the U.S and got caught urinating publicly, which is considered a sex offense where he lives (I think it was Texas or something in the south). Anyway, poor guy now has trouble finding jobs or living in peace because he's listed as a sex offender.

So yea... maybe if it's somebody who is a rapist or murderer and likely to reoffend it should be known, but not every tom dick and harry who's made a stupid mistake in his or her life.I have a real problem with the registered sex offender list, it has too many kids whose girlfriend's parents didn't like them and because the poor guy had his 18th birthday he's suddenly guilty of statutory rape of sleeping with his girlfriend of 4 years. Or some other similar "crime". I think there need to be degrees assigned to the offenses and only those convicted of more serious crimes should be on the list.

[binzing]

Ha ha, my current house "cannot be located"...I'm looking up my old place now.

[mcknia07]

This shows none :) I like that for me, I don't want to live in fear.

[Evo]

This shows none :) I like that for me, I don't want to live in fear.It means that they haven't given their parole officers their new address. :devil:

Just kidding. :wink:

[moe darklight]

I have a real problem with the registered sex offender list, it has too many kids whose girlfriend's parents didn't like them and because the poor guy had his 18th birthday he's suddenly guilty of statutory rape of sleeping with his girlfriend of 4 years. Or some other similar "crime". I think there need to be degrees assigned to the offenses and only those convicted of more serious crimes should be on the list.

that too. I think the underlying problem is bureaucracy.— When laws become the means and the end in and of themselves and law enforcement authorities forget that the reason laws are in place is to protect individuals' rights. ... I mean, it's called the justice system. If something seems unjust, like giving an 18 year-old a life record as a pedophile for having sex with his 16 year-old girlfriend, then regardless of what the lawbook says it shouldn't be implemented.

[mcknia07]

It means that they haven't given their parole officers their new address. :devil:

Just kidding. :wink:

Haahaahaha, actually, I just looked it up on our state profile search, and it shows that we have 2 that live within the mile radus. I do wish it would have been none, but I knew better, lol.

[LowlyPion]

Perhaps these maps go a little too far?

"In upstate New York a judge has ruled that a 5-year-old boy can no longer visit his father at home because the dad lives in an apartment across the hall from a registered sex offender. "I'm being punished for someone else's crime," the father, Randy King, told a local TV station. "I have the right for my son to be with me where I live, not to have to take my son like a gypsy and go somewhere else." King, a Vietnam vet who has shared custody of his 5-year-old son with the boy's mother, won't be able to see his son at home until either King or the sex offender who lives across the hall moves out. The neighbor, Frederick LaFlair, was convicted in 1999 of sodomizing a 13-year-old boy."
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/02/02/custody/

[Evo]

I was reading an article about one neighborhood that does a check on anyone trying to buy or rent in their neighborhood and prints the sex offender list information out and delivers it door to door and gets petitions together to try and get the landowner to refuse the person.

[LowlyPion]

I was reading an article about one neighborhood that does a check on anyone trying to buy or rent in their neighborhood and prints the sex offender list information out and delivers it door to door and gets petitions together to try and get the landowner to refuse the person.

Puts the landlord in a difficult position if an offender should choose to buy or rent. In the case you cite, the neighborhood is seeking to have the landlord take the heat for violating a sex offender's 14th Amendment Rights to equal protection? As a landlord I would politely accept their petition, but would act in accordance with the law. I also wouldn't give out the names of prospective tenants, to avoid being put in that position to begin with.

I can appreciate their concern, but that would seem to be the wrong approach.

[Evo]

Puts the landlord in a difficult position if an offender should choose to buy or rent. In the case you cite, the neighborhood is seeking to have the landlord take the heat for violating a sex offender's 14th Amendment Rights to equal protection? As a landlord I would politely accept their petition, but would act in accordance with the law. I also wouldn't give out the names of prospective tenants, to avoid being put in that position to begin with.

I can appreciate their concern, but that would seem to be the wrong approach.I believe it was a neighborhood in Missouri, not too far from here. If I can find the article, I will post it. The resident's claim was that they had a right to keep their children safe from predators.

[OAQfirst]

At my job, you can make anonymous tips to HR. If you think he's a child molester and not some poor guy that was 18 and arrested for sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend, you could always print it out and leave it on his manager's desk. Just come in early or stay late when no one else is around.

I've read in a newspaper that it's against Federal law to discriminate hiring or to fire someone based on a felony conviction unless the crime is related to the job somehow. There was some sex offender working at McDonald's, a customer saw him on a registry and reported it to the manager. The employee was fired, and then he sued the customer.

My company can not afford a law suit.

And this is so wrong.

[tribdog]

I know a guy who is a registered sex offender and all he did was get caught peeing in public. the bad thing was that he tried using two different store's bathrooms and they refused to let him. So he went and peed behind a dumpster. I think it should be illegal for stores to refuse to let people use the restrooms.

[tribdog]

My area only shows 8 criminals, funny thing is I know about 10.
Edit: Oh I would be so mad. If you click on some of these names all that pops up is a name and address. Then to find out more you have to click the view details button. I clicked on one and the crime was "no seatbelt"

[lisab]

My area only shows 8 criminals, funny thing is I know about 10.
Edit: Oh I would be so mad. If you click on some of these names all that pops up is a name and address. Then to find out more you have to click the view details button. I clicked on one and the crime was "no seatbelt"

Oooooo, no seatbelt...watch out for that guy :devil: !!!

Seriously, though, that's outrageous.

[Evo]

I've read in a newspaper that it's against Federal law to discriminate hiring or to fire someone based on a felony conviction unless the crime is related to the job somehow. There was some sex offender working at McDonald's, a customer saw him on a registry and reported it to the manager. The employee was fired, and then he sued the customer.

My company can not afford a law suit.

And this is so wrong.My company policy is that they do not hire anyone that has commited a felony...period. They are one of the largest companies in the US and are all around the world.

Last year they fired a guy that had just started working when the criminal background check came back showing he had a conviction for child molesting. His job had absolutely no contact with anyone outside of the company and all adults.

It's our hiring policy, no arrests for a felony, even if not convicted, no drugs, no bad credit. You are asked to sign a letter stating you have none of these things, and you understand that if you lied, (they do background checks on all of these things and drug tests) that you will be terminated.

Perhaps your company just needs to revamp it's hiring verbiage.

[Hootenanny]

You are asked to sign a letter stating you have none of these things, and you understand that if you lied, (they do background checks on all of these things and drug tests) that you will be terminated.
Sounds a bit extreme!

[Vanadium 50]

I have a real problem with the registered sex offender list, it has too many kids whose girlfriend's parents didn't like them and because the poor guy had his 18th birthday he's suddenly guilty of statutory rape of sleeping with his girlfriend of 4 years. Or some other similar "crime". I think there need to be degrees assigned to the offenses and only those convicted of more serious crimes should be on the list.

There was a situation around here - he was 18, she was 17. They were going to marry when she turned 18. A month before the wedding, he moves into her family's household (apparently his parents were out of town) so they could look for an apartment, job, etc.

They marry. Time passes. They have a kid or two. Her parents decide to divorce, and there's a bitter custody battle for the non-adult children. One parent gets the idea that they can show the other is an unfit parent by bringing the pre-wedding living conditions of their daughter to the attention of the authorities

The husband is arrested, charged with statutory rape for having sex with his wife, and there is now a battle between the parents and DCFS on whether they can keep custody of their kids: after all, their father is a sex offender.

I'm not sure what the word for this is, but "justice" doesn't seem to be it.

[rewebster]

what happened to the 'good old days' when you could marry at 13, or just buy a wife?

[OAQfirst]

My company policy is that they do not hire anyone that has commited a felony...period. They are one of the largest companies in the US and are all around the world.

Last year they fired a guy that had just started working when the criminal background check came back showing he had a conviction for child molesting. His job had absolutely no contact with anyone outside of the company and all adults.

It's our hiring policy, no arrests for a felony, even if not convicted, no drugs, no bad credit. You are asked to sign a letter stating you have none of these things, and you understand that if you lied, (they do background checks on all of these things and drug tests) that you will be terminated.

Perhaps your company just needs to revamp it's hiring verbiage.

If that article was correct, then I don't see how a hiring policy can absolve the company from following the law. A company can write any policy it wants, but the company still must follow the law. McDonald's also has the same policy, according to that article. Now they'll have to rationalize it in court.

I concede that I often don't know what I'm talking about anyway, so please correct me if it's obviously in error.

Federal anti-discrimination law appears to prohibit employers from discriminating against people solely because they have a criminal record. The federal agency that enforces this law has concluded that such discrimination disproportionably affects African-American and Hispanic men because they have higher conviction rates than Caucasian men.http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0191.htm

FEDERAL LAW LIMITING EMPLOYER USE OF CRIMINAL CONVICTION INFORMATION

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 restricts the state's ability to use criminal convictions in employment decisions (42 USC §2000e-5, et seq.). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces Title VII, has ruled that automatically disqualifying people who have criminal records from jobs is discriminatory because the practice disproportionately affects African American and Hispanic men. (These two groups have much higher criminal conviction rates than do Caucasian men.)

The EEOC has ruled repeatedly that covered employers cannot simply bar felons from jobs, but must show that a conviction-based disqualification is justified by "business necessity." The legal test requires employers to examine (1) the job-relatedness of each conviction, (2) the nature of the crime committed, (3) the number of convictions, (4) the facts surrounding each offense, (5) the length of time between the conviction and the employment decision, (6) the person's employment history before and after the conviction, and (7) the applicant's efforts at rehabilitation. According to the EEOC, the job-relatedness inquiry is the most important, and focuses on whether the job position applied for presents an opportunity for the applicant to engage in the same type of misconduct which resulted in the conviction (Bednar, "Employment Law Dilemmas," 11 Utah Bar J. 15 (Dec. 1998)).

SP-L:ehhttp://www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0383.htm

Can sex offenders use the statistical data, for which the spirit of this law was enacted, to challenge a termination or hiring discrimination? I don't know how this would be applied, so I'd welcome any interpretations on this.

ADD: Ah, found the article online: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/04/01/convicted_rapist_sues_after_mcdonalds_fires_him/

Apparently, the suit has recently been dropped. So this doesn't help demonstrate how the law could've been used/misused.

But ultimately, I just don't want my company to be sued. There'd be lay-offs. Why can't he just be deported to an island? During a hurricane?

[Vanadium 50]

It's our hiring policy, no arrests for a felony, even if not convicted

You mean if you're found not guilty they still won't hire you? Yipes!

[LowlyPion]

The resident's claim was that they had a right to keep their children safe from predators.

I understand. And I think that's fine. They can petition all they want. Speak out too. That is their right.

It's just that the landlord can't be swayed by such pressure. The landlord's action in denying a citizen that has paid his/her price to society is the one that is not permitted under the 14th Amendment.

As a practical matter though, why would any landlord pass the name of any prospective tenant to such a group? (As a landlord, I'd tell the group to buzz off, though in more elegant terms.) Otherwise how would they know what names to check? Same with home sales. These people are going to march into a real estate agent and demand to know the names of the party buying a house, if they post a sale pending sign? What real estate agent would risk their commission and put a sale in jeopardy? What seller? Especially in this market.

I'm sure it makes them feel better to think they are being proactive in discouraging sexual predators in their neighborhood, rattle their sabers as it were, but the mechanics of it, and the position they would place those that they would pressure, suggest that it is misguided and wholly impractical.

[LowlyPion]

It's our hiring policy, no arrests for a felony, even if not convicted, no drugs, no bad credit. You are asked to sign a letter stating you have none of these things, and you understand that if you lied, (they do background checks on all of these things and drug tests) that you will be terminated.

Perhaps your company just needs to revamp it's hiring verbiage.

I'd say that if this is your company's written hiring policy that they check their own verbiage. Putting that in writing looks like a cause of action that can be sustained against them. I would worry that the ACLU would become interested in this kind of end-run against civil liberties.

[Evo]

You mean if you're found not guilty they still won't hire you? Yipes!The catch is that they've caught you lying on your application and job offer acceptance letter.

If the person had told the truth, his job application would probably have been thrown in the trash and he'd never been offered the job. But since they "lied" on both the application and in the job acceptance letter where they agreed to be fired if the results of the criminal investigations and background checks came back with anything, they're not fired for their crime, they're being fired for lying on their job application.

LP, trust me it's been tested and the company is acting within the law.

We do work for the Government, and employees have access to highly sensitive information on millions of people.

Just like where I live, they do both a financial and criminal background check on you, they also verify employment and income. A lot of people get rejected, it's not easy getting in to this place.

[moe darklight]

I clicked on one and the crime was "no seatbelt"

:rofl: jesus man how do you sleep at night! start a petition to get that man and all other perverts like him evicted!

http://www.owenbloggers.com/tyler/WindowsLiveWriter/WinterWonderland_13F83/image%7B0%7D%5B8%5D_1.png

[NeoDevin]

If the person had told the truth, his job application would probably have been thrown in the trash and he'd never been offered the job.

It's possible that if someone could prove that they had been denied the job for this reason, they would have a case. Would be awful hard to prove though.

[LowlyPion]

It's possible that if someone could prove that they had been denied the job for this reason, they would have a case. Would be awful hard to prove though.

What's not difficult to prove is the fact that they asked the question in the first place - that is that they would ask whether they would have been arrested for a felony and they were not found guilty.

The answer to the question is apparently just as prejudicial as asking the race of an applicant. To force the issue all that would need to happen is an applicant that received a letter of job offer - that after receipt and prior to acceptance informed them that they had been arrested, but not found guilty, and the case was disposed of. Any withdrawal of job offer after such disclosure would look actionable to me on the grounds that the applicant was both honest even if they had failed to properly indicate on the application, and the subsequent withdrawal was a thinly veiled end run against Federal statutes that are designed to exactly prevent such abusive practice.

[cristo]

Sounds a bit extreme!

:rofl: I was just about to say that: having your staff bumped off because they lied :bugeye:

[Evo]

It's possible that if someone could prove that they had been denied the job for this reason, they would have a case. Would be awful hard to prove though.Virtually impossible, there are too many qualified applicants for every job.

I helped out with the hiring process at my old company once. We had over 300,000 responses to our job ad and were only hiring 6 people. Even after HR had screened the resumes, we still had so many, I was called in to help weed the resumes. We all sat in a big room and were given piles of resumes. Instructions were "if it's on colored paper, has a design, has frilly edges, has colored or bolded font, or doesn't look nice, don't bother reading it, just pitch it in the corner. We just sat there tossing hundreds of resumes into the air into piles without reading them. That was just the start.

Then we started reading out loud the ones that were left and rolling on the floor laughing. We did find a few dozen that actually had some potential. Remember this was for a job making $250,000.00 to $500,000.00 annually.

Then came the first day of interviews. Most didn't last 10 minutes, the victims coming out red faced and some in tears, one actually got chased out by our VP yelling "I have to understand? I have to understand? I don't have to understand ANYTHING." :eek:

These were the people that had hired me, except I had been given one shot at it and had to be interviewed by all three hiring managers simultaneously. The company wasn't hiring at the time, so I had gotten hold of the District Manager's phone number from a friend that worked there and called her and told her I had just moved there and wanted a job. She told me I had a lot of balls to call her, so she said I would meet with the "3" and I had to get 3 thumbs up, 2 out of 3 wouldn't cut it.

Anyway, during this hiring process and seeing these high quality candidates getting ripped to shreds, I asked them how the heck I got hired and they said "Oh, we LIKED you". :bugeye:

[Evo]

What's not difficult to prove is the fact that they asked the question in the first place - that is that they would ask whether they would have been arrested for a felony and they were not found guilty.

The answer to the question is apparently just as prejudicial as asking the race of an applicant. To force the issue all that would need to happen is an applicant that received a letter of job offer - that after receipt and prior to acceptance informed them that they had been arrested, but not found guilty, and the case was disposed of. Any withdrawal of job offer after such disclosure would look actionable to me on the grounds that the applicant was both honest even if they had failed to properly indicate on the application, and the subsequent withdrawal was a thinly veiled end run against Federal statutes that are designed to exactly prevent such abusive practice.You haven't applied for a job at a huge corporation, have you? It's standard. We're talking about a company with 100,000 employees.

When you submit a job application you swear that all information is accurate and that if it is not, that a job offer can be withdrawn or if already hired, you can be terminated (seen it happen).

They've got you on the technicality of "lying on your application".

I'm sure you can refuse to answer a question, but you might as well set your resume on fire.

When I took my current position 3 years ago, I believe it only asked if you had been convicted of a felony. But I was looking around recently and some applications ask if you have been arrested on felony charges and some even asked if you had any misdemeanor charges! One asked if you had ever been fired. I have never been asked that, of course I've never been fired, but I thought that was a no-no.

You do realize that if you have a poor credit rating that a company doesn't have to hire you? So, you've been late on bills because you're looking for a job, so you can't get a job.

[LowlyPion]

When you submit a job application you swear that all information is accurate and that if it is not, that a job offer can be withdrawn or if already hired, you can be terminated (they are).

They've got you on the technicality of "lying on your application".

I understand the technicality, but however you want to characterize it, it is still a violation of law. Making such an obvious end run around Federal statutes, moreover, looks to me to establish willfulness and likely could expand the scope of the punitive award over that of the actual damages sought by any defendant.

[Evo]

I understand the technicality, but however you want to characterize it, it is still a violation of law. Making such an obvious end run around Federal statutes, moreover, looks to me to establish willfulness and likely could expand the scope of the punitive award over that of the actual damages sought by any defendant.What is a violation, asking if you have been convicted of a felony? I may be wrong about being asked if you were arrested, although I have seen it on online job applications, as I said at my company I was only asked if I had been convicted, so I may have miss-stated that earlier. Hey, I am on drugs (broken arm) my memory can't be trusted.

Companies ask about drunk driving convictions also.

http://www.dcejc.org/app/docs/crim-rec-wash-post%5B1%5D.pdf

[LowlyPion]

What is a violation, asking if you have been convicted of a felony?

Of course that is legal - though there is an appropriateness factor that must be accounted for. Child molesters as day care workers, embezzlers as tellers, the usual obvious ones.

And too for high paying jobs where probity may be an issue I suppose it is legal to exclude any criminal applicant. Lawyers are automatically disbarred for criminal felony convictions for instance.

But in the case of arrest, assuming the case had been disposed of, with no adverse finding against the applicant, then I'd have to conclude, if the law has an implicit presumption of innocence, and no guilt was found, that the applicant should be subsequently protected from the stigma of arrest - the probity requirements of a job notwithstanding. If the case was still pending, that might be a reason to disqualify, based on no other reason than its pendency and the need to hire immediately and not await disposition.

As to the drugs, let me hope that the pain and discomfort that occasions you to take them vanishes shortly.

Good wishes.

[Gokul43201]

I've got 13 Mus and a T within a block of me.

Okay, that's not accurate - I've got 13 Mus and a T that have lived within one block of my present address. About half of them have moved, some as far as 5 blocks away. Phew!

[LowlyPion]

Either the crimes in my area are under-reported or the criminals are clever enough not to give their addresses near here when apprehended. I had to pull back a couple of clicks to find a traffic citation.

[Evo]

I wonder how recent the information is?

[jhicks]

It was pretty funny to go through a list of people I knew and see how they've crossed the law in the past.