What's everyone's opinion on convicted and registered sex offenders being TI's?

[promise5 17]

I disagree. Yes there are flaws with the system but like ice said many times it's the best we have. Do I think it's all about better lawyers no I don't but does that play a part yes it does.

I'm not sorry I believe that someone that HAS molested a child or assaulted and raped a person should not have the privilege of being a TI.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[normiss 622]

You're still ignoring the fact that some on the registry have done neither of those.

[promise5 17]

In that study did they take it in to account that sex offenses are one of the most unreported crimes?

Also, the ones that were released I to states that they did not have to register in that state did they have to be on the national registry ?

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[Shotgun 1]

This thread made me curious, so I went to the National Sex Offender Public Website and did a search. It seems to give detailed information about what each offender did. (Sorry if someone else already posted this; I haven't read the whole thread.)

I do think it's a good idea for a DZO to check the criminal background before hiring instructors, and this kind of info could help if the person happens to be a registered sex offender.

I don't know enough about how the USPA works to know if it's within their scope to issue/deny instructor ratings based on criminal background. I know that with some professional licensing agencies (such as the Board of Pharmacy), a criminal background doesn't automatically exclude someone; they look at each case individually.

[billvon 2,417]

>In that study did they take it in to account that sex offenses are one of the most
>unreported crimes?

No, they studied only people on the list.

But if you are worried that so many sex crimes don't get reported, and given that the vast majority of people ON the sex offender list are not predators or dangerous to children - why would you think that just looking at the sex offender list would do you a lot of good? If you hire and reject people based purely on the list you may just ban a competent and responsible TI - and instead blindly hire a rapist.

[promise5 17]

Very true. But that's where as I've said before with the policy of not allowing them to be certified you're covered. It's not perfect but it's the best we got.

I'll add I am SO thankful for others that are advocating for this that can make much better arguments then I have.

Not sure if someone that has committed a sex offense could be defined as responsible. I am not talking about peering in public.


I'm not on a witch hunt here or targeting anyone personally. I just believe in this and also in the fact that the very best should represent this sport to the public. Though I'm sure people will take exception to my saying that. Maybe there's such a shortage of TI that even sex offenders are needed. But I don't think that's the case.

There is something that I do strongly disagree with and that's targeting a DZ publicly that might have one on staff. I think in that case gather the facts and take it up with the owner/board of the DZ but I also think that they should in a respectful manner notify the USPA and possibly the airport owners/ board. Crap, I'll get slammed for that too. But, I don't agree in publicly targeting the DZ itself and others that work or jump there. Like others have said they may or may not know.
But my personal opinion: If you know someone has assaulted and raped someone or molested a child and your fine with working with them and or jumping with them then I find that kinda disgusting. But that's how I feel. I do wonder how much they could over look something like that if a family member was assaulted in this manner. But that's my very unpopular opinion I'm sure.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[champu 1]

promise5

I disagree. Yes there are flaws with the system but like ice said many times it's the best we have. Do I think it's all about better lawyers no I don't but does that play a part yes it does.

I'm not sorry I believe that someone that HAS molested a child or assaulted and raped a person should not have the privilege of being a TI.

You don't have to be sorry for anything. I don't think anyone here is opposed to your overall stated goal of keeping rapists from being tandem instructors.

I am curious as to why you ignored my suggestion of letting the tandem student do their own research though. The registry as it exists today and a couple phone calls to the dropzone give prospective tandem students the tools they need to take on as much or as little risk with respect to a tandem instructor's presence on the national registry, and for what, as each individual tandem student desires. In fact, people can do this for as many interactions in their life as they so choose. Success or failure at navigating life without having to interact with sex offenders is on them.

When you demand that these decisions get moved to the DZO, or to a T/E, or to a gear manufacturer, or to the USPA, or to the FAA, what you're demanding is that someone else make a crappy sweeping decision based on flawed information so that you don't have to, either as an ego defense mechanism or just laziness.

[promise5 17]

No not laziness or as an ego defense mechanism. I honestly didn't even think of it until it was brought to my attention. Maybe I was naive in my thinking that such a person wouldn't be a TI,I really don't know.

But I also think that the person that has committed such crimes and been convicted should lose privileges, which being a TI is. I know it's an unpopular opinion but that's fine I don't mind having an unpopular opinion.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[ryoder 1,393]

champu

You don't have to be sorry for anything. I don't think anyone here is opposed to your overall stated goal of keeping rapists from being tandem instructors.

I am curious as to why you ignored my suggestion of letting the tandem student do their own research though. The registry as it exists today and a couple phone calls to the dropzone give prospective tandem students the tools they need to take on as much or as little risk with respect to a tandem instructor's presence on the national registry, and for what, as each individual tandem student desires. In fact, people can do this for as many interactions in their life as they so choose. Success or failure at navigating life without having to interact with sex offenders is on them.

When you demand that these decisions get moved to the DZO, or to a T/E, or to a gear manufacturer, or to the USPA, or to the FAA, what you're demanding is that someone else make a crappy sweeping decision based on flawed information so that you don't have to, either as an ego defense mechanism or just laziness.

At the DZ where I've made most of my jumps, the tandem students would be taken out to the plane and find out who their TI was to be just moments before getting on the plane. (Staff were running out to the landing area, handing the TI's a fresh rig, and driving them back to the loading area). That really limits any time to do a background check. Sure, there was a website with staff listed, but it was usually out-of-date.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 622]

Have you based this whole discussion over something you heard?

[rehmwa 2]

I can just see the advertisements next week.

"SAFETY - we use the latest and best techniques and equipment.

special note: BUYER BEWARE

At OUR Facility, we do background checks on all our instructors. We can affirm there that there are no known sex offenders on staff.

disclaimer - we cannot affirm that at our competitors' operations, especially (insert main competitor name here) - you never know what sick freak you might find over there"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[promise5 17]

Holy crap NO!!!!
I may be a blonde but I'm really not that stupid.

I'm just being very careful. I don't want to be accused of targeting individuals or DZ's. This isn't a witch hunt.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[normiss 622]

You're intimating that you know of a TI that IS a registered sex offender though.
Are you 100% positive that's accurate?

Or am I simply misunderstanding?

FYI - I still owe you a recipe...I know...some of my created recipes are a mess...I'm slowly working that out....stand by

[champu 1]

ryoder

At the DZ where I've made most of my jumps, the tandem students would be taken out to the plane and find out who their TI was to be just moments before getting on the plane. (Staff were running out to the landing area, handing the TI's a fresh rig, and driving them back to the loading area). That really limits any time to do a background check. Sure, there was a website with staff listed, but it was usually out-of-date.

I think that's par for the course at most large operations, which is why I said "a couple phone calls." If you called a dropzone back after checking on their staff and said, "Hey, I want to do a tandem, but only if I receieve assurance my instructor won't be Gropey McGee because he's a registered sex offender" then either they will work with you or if they don't then you (as someone who checks on people in this way) wouldn't want to jump there anyway.

If that's the decision that we're talking about before someone goes on a tandem with someone else, and we all agree the information in the registry isn't a perfect way to make that decision, then I don't follow why anyone would choose to deligate that decision to a licensing organization.

[RobK 0]

Amazon

The biggest problem with the UK is you managed to get rid of many of the religious whack jobs, by showing them the door. Many of those "Covenanters" and "Puritans" still hold a grip on the morals of this country. There are a large percent of our populace that would be perfectly happy to have a Biblical based version of Sharia Law codified into church and state as one.

Oh Wait.. maybe that is not a problem for the UK After all... gee thanks for sticking the US and other former colonies with them

You are of course very welcome to them

I confess I prefer the light version of religion we have over here. Funny hats and the occasional daft pronouncement but mostly harmless

[promise5 17]

I don't have a personal agenda against any one person,even though some may think I do. I choose to bring this topic to SC and accept any consequences/repercussions of doing so. I don't take a popular stand and that's ok. I don't hold it against anyone if they take the opposite stand I do. I'll still support and advocate for this.

But as a whole I don't think they should be allowed to be TI's. Across the board, until a better solution come along.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[normiss 622]

I think you do have a popular stand!
I support it too!

I just don't trust "the system".
When it comes to family law, it's damn near impossible for anyone outside the small group of people involved in the case to know anything about it. I think that leaves a lot to speculation.

It would be unfair to judge people based on inaccurate information and I see that as a real possibility.

[kelpdiver 2]

champu

I think that's par for the course at most large operations, which is why I said "a couple phone calls." If you called a dropzone back after checking on their staff and said, "Hey, I want to do a tandem, but only if I receieve assurance my instructor won't be Gropey McGee because he's a registered sex offender" then either they will work with you or if they don't then you (as someone who checks on people in this way) wouldn't want to jump there anyway.

Though you know I'm generally on the same page on you in this thread, this does feel like a burden on the student that is more a discouragement to jump than a viable solution. As Ryoder notes, at the busy DZs you get your TI pretty late in the game. He or she may be doing back to backs and there can be last minute changes as the DZ is just trying to keep the machine running on weekends.

There's also the other problem....our industry isn't exactly transparent on deficiencies around plane maintenance, or even the weather (sure it's nice - come on down and commit your money!, [then we'll see if the winds die down[).

If a woman (yeah, slightly sexist presumption) wants a guarantee on this, she probably should ask for a female TI. Which isn't a 100% guarantee either, and she may be in a shock when she sees how cozy a PAC or a C206 is. People aren't trying to grope you - their hand has to go somewhere.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

From an article in Forbes:

I read that article and the Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board study. The study was a sample of the 17,000 and while it did conclude 5% were clearly dangerous, it also concluded another 30% were potentially threatening.

Also on Forbes, an article to Andreya's point of appealing to have one's name removed from the list: Sex Offenders and the Human Rights Act

Having said that, I am not arguing against your point. In about 30 minutes, I skimmed a lot of "research" and "studies" for and against the sex offender registry. I did not find anything conclusive or convincing either way. Nor, did I find any hardcore percentages of "serious" vs. "non-serious" offenders (if you have, would be grateful if you would provide). For example, your Forbes article was an opinion post--hardly a call to action to dismember the registry.

What I did conclude, imo, is if--in fact--there are a disproportionate number of non-serious offenders listed to threatening and clearly dangerous, then certainly there stands to be great improvement on the laws which require one to register. I can agree it would be of much better use if it were limited to those offenders people really need to be aware of.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[normiss 622]

It also would appear that were there to be a convicted rapist (as opposed to child molester based on previous comments about lack of TI's interaction with minors on a DZ), I could see a big issue with him working as a TI.
We have enough dirty TI's that take advantage of their customers as it is. Creepy. To say the least.

I'm still not confident in the registered lists to trust them though.

[promise5 17]

kelpdiver

***
I think that's par for the course at most large operations, which is why I said "a couple phone calls." If you called a dropzone back after checking on their staff and said, "Hey, I want to do a tandem, but only if I receieve assurance my instructor won't be Gropey McGee because he's a registered sex offender" then either they will work with you or if they don't then you (as someone who checks on people in this way) wouldn't want to jump there anyway.

Though you know I'm generally on the same page on you in this thread, this does feel like a burden on the student that is more a discouragement to jump than a viable solution. As Ryoder notes, at the busy DZs you get your TI pretty late in the game. He or she may be doing back to backs and there can be last minute changes as the DZ is just trying to keep the machine running on weekends.

There's also the other problem....our industry isn't exactly transparent on deficiencies around plane maintenance, or even the weather (sure it's nice - come on down and commit your money!, [then we'll see if the winds die down[).

If a woman (yeah, slightly sexist presumption) wants a guarantee on this, she probably should ask for a female TI. Which isn't a 100% guarantee either, and she may be in a shock when she sees how cozy a PAC or a C206 is. People aren't trying to grope you - their hand has to go somewhere.
Not just the hands but feet. Crud I felt bad for my TI he was sitting rather uncomfortably on my foot and then when I tried to help out and adjust my foot uuummm yeah. It was better to leave it where it was.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[PLFXpert 0]

The thread has taken a tangent from the original post, imo. Whether or not the registration lists are effective in the first place is another argument.

To Andreya's point: Since the list is what is available at this point, would it not be wise for a DZO to consult it before hiring a registered sex offender as a TI?

I think most responders have agreed it would be wise to check and ask questions.

Disagreements among responders are some would still hire after questions meet satisfaction that risk is none (because so many were just peeing and streaking) and others would not hire regardless. The latter seem argue it is not possible to know for sure and better safe than sorry.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[promise5 17]

But that brings up the issue again of what the perpetrator was able to plea down to instead of what the actual offense was.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[PLFXpert 0]

Again, the DZO asks questions and decides whether or not they are satisfied the perp is of no danger to his/her customers and hires or not.

It is not perfect, but neither is the registry we have concluded here.

And again, the disagreement among responders is whether after said DZO is satisfied the registered sex offender is of no risk is it OK to then hire as a TI, or better to utilize the "better safe than sorry" method (because the perp may have plead down or whatever)? You have made it clear you are of the "better safe than sorry" opinion.

I am, too. But, I cannot tell a DZO how to run his/her own business as long as he/she is operating within the law.

And if I am a DZO (I am not), I may feel bad for the streaking perp I turn away, but my job is to protect my customers to the best of my knowledge based on all sources and information available to me. Better safe than sorry.

Having said that, I would still advocate for a better, more useful registry since at the very least--from what I gathered in 30 minutes of searching/reading--it stands to be greatly improved upon.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

dismember the registry

Freudian slip?

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.