SHARE: Sex offender removed from shelter

A sex offender who has been living at the Calvary Lutheran homeless shelter in Loyal Heights has been removed, SHARE confirmed to My Ballard today.

This weekend a My Ballard reader posted a notice in the forum claiming that a Level III sex offender was living at the church for a few weeks. We spoke with Alan at SHARE this morning, and he confirmed a sex offender moved into the shelter on August 21st. Alan said they discovered the man’s background on Saturday, and SHARE members removed him on Saturday night.

Neighborhood members of the task force set up to monitor the shelter reacted in an email this morning. “We have communicated to [Our Redeemer’s Pastor] Steve Grumm our extreme disappointment, concern, and frankly, anger that this situation was allowed to occur,” they wrote. “We have demanded that rigorous screening for sex offenses be immediately implemented for each prospective shelter resident before he is allowed to use the shelter.”

Despite the neighborhood’s repeated requests, SHARE refused to conduct sex offender checks, even calling them “un-American.” Alan says that the discovery of this sex offender does not change their stance. “We’ve never had a problem,” he said. “It doesn’t change anything.” We spoke with one neighbor who lives near the church. “This is what we were concerned about,” he tells us. “They are no longer welcome in my neighborhood.”

The neighborhood task force said it will be meeting with Pastor Grumm soon to discuss how the screening will be implemented. We have contacted Pastor Grumm for a comment, and will post it as soon as we hear back.
(Thanks Shanedillon for your forum post!)

85 comments on “SHARE: Sex offender removed from shelter”

  1. > See upcoming events in our Ballard calendar <

  2. Can you provide a source for your information? Is this info available online?

  3. Can you provide a source for your information? Is this info available online?

  4. There are levels of sex offense: I, II and III. You can read more about it here:

    A 21 year old whose boyfriend/girlfriernd is 14 years old can get convicted of statuatory rape if the parents find out and get angry. But that does not give them a Level III status. So, the status itself reveals that this person is dangerous and highly likely to “re-offend” actual victims – not just a 14 year old who has a crush on a 21 year old and doesn't consider him/herself a victim. Saying people are fear-mongering over a dangerous sex offender who is likely to re-offend is like saying, “Sure, there is a giant bear in front of you growling at you in the middle of the woods, but maybe he's just CGI.” It's very naive and unrealistic.

  5. He did re-offend. He was convicted a second time for going after another boy age 14. This boy had “diminished capacity” as noted in the earlier comments. Meaning this sicko went after a mentally challenged 14 year old boy.

    In addition, his most recent King County jail stay was from April 20, 2009 through August 17, 2009. Not sure yet what that was related to, but I have a call into the Dpt. of Corrections and will report here once I know.

  6. Yes, you can go to Washington State Court records and put in the criminals name, Jonathan Schoppett. There you will find 12 court cases. The case I mentioned above is 07-1-00281-9 SEA.

    King County has an online site called “ECR online.” You can either sign up to view reports there for a fee, or you can go down in person to the King County Superior Court and view the records there for no charge. Either way, you enter the case number and view all court records pertaining to that case.

    Also you can go to the King County Jail look up and view the most recent stays for Jonathan Schoppet by entering his name. Limited information is also available there as to the nature of the charges.

  7. SHARE is correct. The sex-offender registry is blatantly un-American and likely unconstitutional too.

  8. So the meeting on the 1st October is not open to the public and only to the 'Task Force'. Who is on the Task Force and how do I get on it?

  9. I know the task force is made up of a small group of immediate neighbors of Our Redeemers. I do applaud them for the attempts they have made to try and get SHARE and Our Redeemers to take the concerns of the neighborhood seriously. Unfortunately, both the church and SHARE have continued to make decisions without concern for the “real” neighbors who have made a conscious decision to live in this neighborhood. I predict this pattern of negligence and contempt will continue. And all of this with the financial backing of the city of Seattle. As SHARE stated, “this changes nothing.” It does indeed, change nothing.

  10. We were told by SHARE and Our Redeemer's:

    1. SHARE does not house sex offenders.
    2. The screening process was adequate to catch sex offenders.
    3. If there were any problems, the shelter would be gone the next day.

    It turns out none of it was true.

    It seems like Our Redeemer's will only acknowledge the problem with this shelter if there is a victim. That is too late.

  11. Well we have a mayoral and city council election coming up soon. Seems like pulling the plug on SHARE's funding would be a good issue to ask candidates about. I mean really, they harbor sexual predators, they are belligerent and go out of their way to cause major headaches (with real financial costs) for the city and port, they refuse to follow the law, and when push comes to shove it all ends up in court, with taxpayers paying for both sets of lawyers!

    If there was ever a better example of how Seattle needs to grow up (and “grow a pair” for that matter), this sure looks like it. How many taxpayer dollars are being pissed away by simultaneously both propping up and at the same time fighting this bunch of professional bums?

    This should be a litmus test issue for all candidates this fall – stop funding this band of criminals!

  12. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!

    Who could have possibly imagined things would go this way?

    Oh, wait….

  13. Sex offenders belong in downtown shelters–about as far from high concentrations of kids and potential victims as they can get while still receiving services. Human decency says you don't offer an alcoholic a drink; in that same vein you keep the predator away from prey. Especially as victims of sexual predation are victims for life.

  14. I sincerely hope that they don't just wait until something bad happens.

    I personally think that the best thing that Our Redeemers could do is take control of the shelter themselves (yes that means being responsible and libel for it) and house 'select' homeless people.

    There are probably homeless that don't have a criminal record or have done anything wrong or have drug/alcohol problems. How about we help those ones first?

    I am doing my best at keeping in contact with Steve Grumm (I have faith he will return my calls and emails) and will try to get on the task force meeting on the 1st October.

    I am sure nobody would object to a shelter strictly for people that have kept a clean sheet, and just don't have a place to stay.

  15. You sound like a very nice person and I agree with your idea that it makes complete sense to screen homeless residents in a residential neighborhood for ones who are truly trying and don't have any violent/sex offenses in their past, but unfortunately with my extensive dealing years ago with both Steve Grumm and SHARE I can guarantee you that their strange and unreasonable agendas are much stronger than reason or concern about others. :(

  16. If that is the case then it is only fair they make those agendas public. But lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they will do the right thing.

  17. Every neighborhood that hosts tent city has to fight this battle with SHARE. On Mercer Island last year, SHARE assured us they would competently handle the warrant and sex offender checks, then SHARE grandfathered 90 of the 100 tc residents with no checks at all. The neighbors did some checking and found several with warrants and a couple with sex offender status.
    During their 3 month stay, our neighborhood was littered with emply beer cans and bottles, intoxicated residents walking around late at night, men lurking in the bushes in the parks, and 2nd hand smoke drifting downwind into our homes.
    SHARE should get some acreage outside of town, away from our family neighborhoods, near a bus line, setup their tents and have at it – without putting our children at risk.

  18. Absolutely agree! Waiting until something bad happens is not an option. They, both SHARE and Our Redeemers have given the community just cause for pulling the plug at this point. They had an obligation to make sure that no violent or sex offenders were housed in the shelter. That is what Grumm stood up and said at the public meeting. But they did not keep that promise the positive side of this is that a good citizen WAS paying attention and called this out BEFORE something bad happened.
    SHARE and Our Redeemers have failed to keep a promise of not housing potentially dangerous people in the shelter. They show a serious lack of concern for the community that lives directly around the shelter. My family should not have to worry that another offender is living a houses away from us that just has not been discovered. This is not just about sex offenders living in our midst because that is a real possibility anyway, that is why we are careful and lock our doors etc. It is about an organization funneling in people that have a higher than average probability of being criminals hiding amongst the homeless anonymously and there being no screening and accountability from the people who claim to be in charge.

  19. unamerican to screen for sex offenders? Then that must be true for companies who require a drug test before being considred for employment, or for parents to be drug free in custody cases…a sex offender is a huge deal, especially when they are being housed in a community so close to children and other neighbors…and Strike I agree with you.. Our Redeemer can place any requirements or restrictions on the facility while still reaching out to help the homeless…and anon..where should they live? I am not sure..perhaps in a less dense community…? It's intertesting that I have to pass a background check and a drug test to be empoyed..and in turn my tax dollars go to pay for individuals who do not have to pass any background or drug tests to collects assistance…where is the sense inthat? Safety shoudl be our numberone concern…I's like to know how SHARE discovered the individual…makes you wonder doesn't it?

  20. Geeky Suedes :-

    Has there been any comment yet from Our Redeemers? I have yet to get a response back.

  21. “…I's like to know how SHARE discovered the individual…makes you wonder doesn't it?”

    They didn't “discover” them. Your community did. SHARE has a history of hiding Sex Offenders in their camps. As you can see from their rhetoric they try and play the “Woe is me” card whenever they get caught.

    This guy was released from yet another stint in jail and went directly to this shelter. He reported his location (as required by law) and that is how he was discovered. SHARE tries to prevent them from being discovered by telling those that shouldn't be in there to register as homeless so they can't be tracked to SHARE. This guy obviously needed to comply with the conditions of his release to avoid going back to jail so he didn't care about SHARE's agenda. You owe a big debt to those who have been working to keep communities safe from SHARE for years. They are following every move they make and this is not a rare occurance, this is how they operate.

    Courts have ruled time and again that it is ok for private property and business owners to set conditions by which those that come on to their property must abide by.

    Movie theaters check ID for 17 year olds.
    Bars check ID for 21 years olds.
    Rental car agencies require ID.
    Hotels check ID before renting a room.

    The list is endless.

    The law is clear, we need to know where sex offenders are living because we have to keep them away from our youth. This church is close to schools and daycares and they shouldn't have any sex offenders there, especially a level 3 that just re-offended.

    The question shouldn't be “how did they know?” it should be “how many more are there?”.

    You can be sure SHARE won't tell you so you have to figure it out for yourself.

  22. i sent a polite yet to the point e-mail to the church yesterday. i wasn't rude and didn't use any foul language or anything, just expressed my opinion on the matter and the genisis of the whole SHARE situation…

    haven't heard anything back, but it was only yesterday that i sent it.

  23. While I can understand the concerns, I also know that people get too uptight about these issues. The purpose of a church is to change a person's heart into one that is repentant and of use to the Lord. People can change. Paul killed members of the early church but changed when Christ challenged him.

    If you are unable to gave a person the chance to change then you are not of Christ nor do you deserve the benefit of the atonement.

  24. Yet, we don't ask for papers of illegals and it is illegal in some areas to ask for identification at election polls. At least SHARE tries to help. I'm sure that you may not be willing to help anyone. Also, if the sex offender registry is so good then why not have a DWI registry, because I would like to know who my children are getting rides with. And perhaps, a murder registry, even though murders recidivate at about the same level as sex offenders.

    I speak as a father who had two daughter molested by their grandfather. I know what I speak about and the law is flawed, as many states are finding out. Yes, this guy needs tracking but also he needs a job and an opportunity if you expect him not to re-offend.

  25. The CHURCH is doing nothing, and has no presence at the shelter, Mr. Morrison. Thanks for the update on who is of Christ and who isn't, I'm glad you are a capable judge.

  26. There is the best question of the day. SHARE may have removed him from the shelter but because they actually have a policy of protecting these people it will be like pulling teeth to get them to tell you what they did. If they did just kick him out then he is likely to be living somewhere in your community.

  27. I would love to know if your calls/emails are returned – mine never were at the prior to the opening of the shelter.

  28. Yep, can't stop them from owning property. But owning property means they're invested in the community.

    And, they've got a legit address to report if they have to register. That means parents and people concerned can check out the registry, see their photos and be informed.

    I'm concerned about those offenders required to register who are:
    a) not (as) invested in my neighborhood–no roots and therefore likely to just walk away after wreaking havoc with someone's life
    b) not truthful about their address–giving their general daytime location instead of their nighttime location (effectively loopholing out of the registry for those diligent folks checking to see which offenders are in their neighborhood, and loopholing out of the requirement that they stay far from schools/parks/daycare).

    Some have intonated “See, the system works. An offender was found to be in the SHARE shelter and isn't there anymore.” Well, that sure sounds gullible to me.

    SHARE didn't determine this repeat offender's status–even after three weeks of daily interactions. And I'd place a hefty bet that the next offender offered shelter with SHARE will be a tad smarter about registering his general daytime location instead of his nighttime one.

    So the system won't work and I'll feel even less secure. Cripes. Just do the Sexual Offender checks. I'm not asking for background checks. Homeless folks have backgrounds that led to their homelessness–I'll let them take a respite from their ghosts until they can figure out that their current lifestyle isn't tenable (preferably with social services, training, counseling).

    *But* if this homeless person has been deemed by the judicial system in our society–the society which funds SHARE–as a Sexual Offender likely to repeat, they need to be in a shelter with services and counseling that will help him (or her) stay rehabilitated.

    An unsupervised SHARE shelter in the middle of a kid dense neighborhood where one inclined can sink back into the devious behaviors that got them Level III status in the first place ain't that place.

  29. I fully support your statement that if SHARE group can somehow manage to run sex offender checks at another location then why do they refuse to run them at all locations? Don't they want to keep our community safe at all!

    Can you imagine being a homeless person and being stuck in a shelter with a rapist. Dear God what are these people thinking when it comes to what they are doing to our community and to their fellow homeless people.

Login or register (optional)

Leave a Reply

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