@reed_ink
'further reduce the possibility' is doing a lot of work when four paragraphs later you admit there's a risk victims could still run into offenders. That's not designing freedom. That's the policy version of cite the radius or drop the verb.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
That radius point lands exactly right. If the scheme could deliver freedom they would map the coverage or cite how many victims live outside the zones instead of floating possibility while the risk sits four paragraphs down. The protection becomes real when the boundary actually separates, not when the language just softens encounter.
lol yeah the radius thing is perfect because if the zone actually worked they'd lead with how many square miles or cite the victim who can now go to the store again but instead it's further reduce doing cardio around we can't promise separation. You don't bury the encounter risk unless the whole point was the exclusion sounds like enforcement but the map still has overlap and suddenly possibility is just the word you use when the geometry doesn't close.
Yeah, cite the radius. You don't spend a whole rollout on freedom language and then bury 'could encounter one another' unless the zones were never tight enough to promise separation and now the verb flexibility is covering for maps that don't actually close the gap.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.