WNCN interviews Vanderwall about restrictions on citizens at State Fair 12


By MICHAEL HYLAND . . . RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – With the North Carolina State Fair underway, law enforcement officers are aiming to keep sex offenders off the premises.

“They put a perimeter around the fairgrounds, a quarter of a mile. And, when a person comes through that perimeter with an ankle bracelet on or whatever they have, it sets off an alarm,” said Wake County Sheriff Donnie Harrison.

A new law took effect last year barring many of the state’s roughly 17,000 registered sex offenders from being on the fairgrounds during the State Fair.

“We just feel like it’s patently unfair,” said Robin Vanderwall, who is a registered sex offender in Wake County and with the organization North Carolinians for Rational Sexual Offense Laws.

He said the law unfairly targets some people who’ve served their criminal sentences and fulfilled their probation obligations. His group is seeking to have the law overturned.

“We understand people’s concern for safety,” he said. “We believe there’s probably a better solution to addressing that concern.”

Read the full article by clicking here.

Robin’s comments:

While I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed by the final news story, I am disheartened that most of what I felt were the very best clips didn’t make it into the cut. For example, when asked what I believe people most misunderstood about registered citizens in North Carolina, I pointed to low recidivism rates and made glowing claims about the more recent scientific data that backs that up. When asked why I thought it was unfair that registered citizens couldn’t attend the fair, I responded that there would be thousands of ex-felons at the fair on opening day and throughout the following week, but that only one particular sub-class of citizens are categorically denied admission. I suggested that the more appropriate concern of law enforcement regarding the state fair was the potential for a domestic terrorism incident much like what we witnessed in Las Vegas.

I wrote Michael, the reporter, an email after the story aired and politely chided him for allowing Sheriff Harrison to paint the image that all sex offenders are wearing ankle bracelets when the reality is that very few individuals in North Carolina actually do. The policy restricting access by individuals wearing ankle bracelets has been in place for quite a long time and there is nothing about a complete ban on all registered citizens that changes it or even improves law enforcement’s capacity to monitor anyone who is NOT wearing an ankle bracelet. Sheriff Harrison merely took advantage of the interview to perpetuate the myth that all sex offenders are equally–and highly–dangerous to the public. We know that is certainly not the case.

It’s important to note that this press opportunity was not solicited by NCRSOL. Instead, Michael reached out to NARSOL and was referred to me as someone local enough to do an on-air interview.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

12 thoughts on “WNCN interviews Vanderwall about restrictions on citizens at State Fair

  • Tim

    Robin,
    I am sure you have taken notice of this IML issue.
    Project Angel Watch is to be housed where??? You guessed it, NSA in UTAH.

    So it comes to pass, the last gasp of our mostly phoney social apolitical conservative, evangelical and desperate right wing puritanical extremists. They started with the Catholics! Devastated by SEXPRESS that honored cannon led by Pope and People( &BTW who despise DIVORCE) FELL IN POPULARITY! HooRAY! Cheered the divorce lawyers. The ambulance chasers just smiled. That they are wholely WHITE is yet to be determined Robin; for sure they are greedy, for cash and liberty each.

    No matter what they tell me. GOLD is NOT necessarily meaningful SPEECH! Their is a difference between ACCURATE & VALID!

    THE MODEL: It breeds not the value of working it out after swearing before God you will! A PLAIN MARRIAGE OATH. TAKE NOTE THE QUINCEANERA. The south of the border followers observe this tradition. It is being used against them. For their culture SHE becomes of AGE. They are also Catholic. Like you said, “so much for family values.” Tell me bout baseball,,, me think not without the Latino! Talk about profit without tax. Point is we are talking american fabric here.
    The day to day lives of individuals! NOT in the jurisdiction of FED! Successfully having done it though it maybe to late. While the FED and the press advance the cause. We actually may do well embracing SOME of the tradition covering our women especially underage persons as is ISLAM. Another culture use the red dot! THEY are cultural not LEGAL! Not good for profit. Face it SEXSELLS! Even the outright unconstitutional use of a computer database for political security.

    I’m sorry to say The Federal Branch has NO place involving citizen sexuality, nothing more personal individually day to day. Feminists may argue that men spend too much time thinking with their penis heads but that IS how we make Americans.

    • rwvnral Post author

      You know the backstory on the federal government’s interest in sex, right? Read up on Jack Johnson some time. The late boxer, that is. He had a penchant for white women. Congress first got into the business of regulating sex across state borders in order to set the fix that led to Jack Johnson’s imprisonment. In that instance, it wasn’t really the sex that upset them. It was the fact that the nation’s first international sporting phenom–a black man–would deign to court white women. Thus began the federal government’s long and winding road into the regulation of sexual activity across state lines.

      • Tim L

        I was not aware of the story of Jack Johnson, but it rings true. Oddly that has me wondering, if Roy Moore, and Jack Johnson were sitting on a wood street bench with a fourteen year old girl 35 years ago who; who would she have “go with” or chosen?

        CNN covers THAT more than mass killing or Russian or NK. Pathetic!
        Repubs are often able VIA ,”settlement ” w\ obligatory gag order! See Mr. Epstein.
        This a perfect example of how a hidden segment of a party runs things. Moore beat opponent (R) over Trump’s support. The ultra right can barely stomach Mr. T, and yet benefits from this type of neg press and the press itself eats it up. Plain CLICKBAIT$!

        Meanwhile, FOX covers it too but makes a case for denial or credibility. FOX also makes it a lessor story, BUT still address it. So it makes good network clickbait$, but bad for partyR as a whole, thus the spin. Obviously Dems have the same undercurrents, See Donna Brazile’s disclosure about Hillary’s primary antics. Is it not amazing a lawyer’s ability to pare the edge of culpability?

        All of this obsession with sex confirms my suspicion that as one constitutional attorney explained to me, “They who controls the sex controls the people.” It is unfortunately also tied to the inherent nature of the electronic database. The needs of a human are not outweighed by the needs of a database. It is a simple formula: Human need > machine need for input.

  • Timothy DA Lawver

    R,
    911, I will leave that one alone -and to God- for I shudder to think….literally!

    Let’s us not confuse who owns the plantation with who works it. Police unions et al benefit from the Databases and uses thereof.( Shumers peeps)There are or were rules guiding the official ( via legality) uses of the databases, presumptively owned by the people for the people. Access was limited purposely. The limitations were to prevent misuse or otherwise unconstitutional uses and prohibitions established under the 4th & 14th. These policy (A branch) rules were established to prevent government agents specifically from acting incongruent with their official capacity and the constitution.

    For instance, If a cop finds a woman attractive and he wants to know more about her. It would be illegal for him to run her license plates just so he knows her name and address as well as her age. I will leave it up to you to search for the repercussions if the cop gets caught up. To be sure the press coverage would be negative. This is the reason why such an issue is handled internally whenever possible. This behavior tendency is best explained under the term, ” Administrative conservatorship. ” Another aspect discussed under AC is one of boundaries. Institutions compete for resources sometime at the exclusion of another. I suspect ( having net year read what u did..PP URL.) this is the reason for some of the push back. I purposely exclude constitutional implication at this point because I truly doubt these considerations are being contemplated by our current Senate. We are talking about SOs after all.

    • rwvnral Post author

      Do you believe the federal courts have the temerity to see through all this and salvage us from a doomed democracy on account of state/government authority’s abuse of digital data? I am of the opinion that we need an updated version of the Fourth Amendment and an additional amendment guaranteeing the citizens a right to privacy. I am surprised that there is not such a movement already afoot. I’ve thought from time to time about heading that direction.

      • TLawver

        An excellent question, is it too late? Considering who became the top dog on the court I have serious doubts. America wonders how things went south so steadily. We followed our leadership. The two parties are entrenched and veering toward the margins of each. An immutable fact is when groups head toward the extreme the more they act and appear alike. This is why we so much throat cutting, politically speaking.

        In many ways America rushed headlong into the electronic age without much thought for unintended consequences. Instead we opted for convenience. Have you noticed the impact of word processing on bill and law making? The 94OMNBUS was a1300 page monstrosity! Databases both public and privately owned are under constant threat from exploitation, misuse, hacking and theft. Have you seen the DODs commercial touting that they are on top of the issue- total BS. Corporate espionage is rampant. Americans with real money are now forced to purchase identity protection! What else needs to be said. We cannot depend on our government to protect us no matter how much the cop unions claim they can. Personally I think we ask to much of govt. The FED charter was to protect the border and maintain an army and not for things like social security, medicare etc. Dwelling into the individual lives of citizens was left to the states. The Whetterling Act was a top down if nothing else. In my state info sharing concerning sex crimes was prohibited under threat of legal penalty. The Act changed all that.

        Given all this uncertainties I am not so sure the people have what it takes to be the land of the free and home of the brave anymore.

  • TimLawver

    Robin,
    For sure both D’s and Rs have jumped on the get the SO bandwagon in that sense it is not a partisan issue. BUT if we look at it from the perspective of the DATABASE one can plainly see BIG DATA is clearly in the hand of the Rs.
    About now the D’s are wondering “what the hell happened?” We got Pres Obama now we’ ve lost and keep losing elections. Right now they’re just figuring out when they sold out the SO via registration et al, they cut their own throats. A lot of people on the list would usually vote D, but no more. Cops and prison guards and P&P agents are mostly unionists who support D’s and vote en-masse.

    Our issue however is not the only way the average Joe has been sold out by Ds. Consider NAFTA as another reason why many bailed on the DNC to vote Trump. That is the way I break it down. As I have stated before the first NSA database was built in Utah, not Arlington or Manassas. There was a reason for that choice.
    They had built it but how they could use it on the general population was limited by the constitution and public opinion. It was 1994! When Mr. Snowden made his revelation people freaked! But the die was caste and who did they ( the deep state) use as a tool to gain unfettered use of the database to monitor the domestic population… The child molester. The Whetterling Act allowed individuals to be monitored via computer database for public safety.

    • TimLawver

      Mr. Schumer’s bill makes the counter argument from my comments below being a Dem. FBI DATABASE now open to the GP when Trump signs off. The Administration branch again moves against those already convicted via database in an effort to assist public safety and law enforcement. Mr Trump is an R and Schumer merely rides his coattails. Chuck will continue to milk the issue it is good for his peeps. This change in law will bring on more affirmative disabilities and constraints imposed by the people themselves. Soon facial recognition devices will be used on the GP for “the benefit of GP”. These technologies are database & software driven firms are highly profitable tech start ups. The devices are cheep to produce but they are USELESS without the all important DATABASE!

      • rwvnral Post author

        I guess you notice that Schumer finally got his FBI bill through (providing that database to volunteer organizations that work with children). When I was reading about the passage of the bill, I wondered in the back of my mind why it took so much effort. What was the pushback? And where was it coming from?

    • rwvnral Post author

      I appreciate your insight. I can’t argue with it. The odd thing for me, politically speaking, is that the Rs have always been the party touting individual liberty and the Ds have generally been the party more inclined towards the Big Data inclinations. Which I think you fairly state. How does 9-11 play into this? Don’t you think it’s a factor as well?

  • TimLawver

    R,
    I was happy to hear of your press. If change in public opinion is key the I propose this; let us confront Mr. Blumenthal on camera concerning his efforts to quash freedom of speech. Let him confirm or deny such reports! Is he a trained attorney? If so we able to force him to reconcile the two. His only good answer is ” to protect children” and it will not be good enough for the public. He knowingly and blatantly violated what he oathed to uphold. He knew better and the public WILL recognize the importance of his abdications.

    While we’re at it we can ask him if he supports other unconstitutional behavior. After all he did this outside of his duties as a Senate member.