DanG 1 #476 July 3, 2014 QuoteIf you feel so strongly against it do your research (detailed) and then present it to the USPA,FAA and any other governing department that you think you should. You're the one who seems to feel strongly about it. You should be the one doing the work. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #477 July 3, 2014 quade***So the question is whether the 1st or 2nd classes also require a sex offender background check. No. They do not. Nor should they because there is no inherent interest by the FAA with regard to sex offenders and the issuance of airmen medical certificates. Flying impaired by drugs or alcohol is an obvious problem. Flying with a desire to have sex is generally not. except in political arenas, any excuse, rational or not can be leveraged to get votes on an emotional subject - we see the left and right do it all the time. Therefore, if we want to take a stance that this is a problem with the criminal's "wiring", then it can easily be put into the medical check off. Frankly, if one wants to single out this particular crime, the FAA medical is about the most logical place to insert it. right or wrong. I have an issue with continuously penalizing someone 'after' they served their time. Though in this case, I also have a visceral reaction to anyone that commits a 'true' sex crime. that's my conflict. If this is a true threat, and people feel that strongly about it, then the flaw is in the penalty phase - the penalty should be increased, rather than creating 'after the fact' unlawful punishments. If society truly thinks they are a real offender for repeat, then we should not be letting them out. (unless we can argue this is a medical issue). The argument shouldn't be creating a bias in the business world, people with Promise's position should be going after legislation to keep them locked up - i.e., a real legal solution. In the meantime, the only real solution is to put the responsibility on the DZO's - but on a voluntary basis. There is no basis for FAA or USPA or any legislature to force them to do additional checks - let them 'choose' to check - and then advertise the heck out it that they do it. And customers can ask or urge as in any other endeavor when it's not apparent. If enough customers demand this reassurance, then DZOs will do it as a good business practice - no forcing the issue would be needed ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #478 July 3, 2014 I am!!!No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #479 July 3, 2014 QuotePossibly it is for woman who haven't been assaulted or abused. I don't know. Is there scientific research to back that statement? Some things I just don't Google so they don't trigger nightmares. Yes there is a fair bit of research on this topic. I think it is important to note that the fantasy is obviously nothing like the actual act. The harder part is figuring out the why. A myriad of suggestions have been offered, some overlapping and some contradicting. I am sorry this is a difficult subject for you personally. I am going to drop it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #480 July 3, 2014 quade The responsibility should stay precisely where it currently is, in the hands of the person who hires the TI. That person has a vested interest in maintaining his business. absolutely how very libertarian of you ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuckyMcSwervy 0 #481 July 3, 2014 promise5I am!!! Please just remember to make it across the board and not a witch hunt to stick it up the ass of one or two or ten or a hundred particular individuals. That's self serving and wouldn't make it a true "for the people", from the heart act of public awareness/protection/education. Have you contacted your state's legislators? If so, what's been their reply? I'm playing both sides of the fence right now.Always be kinder than you feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuckyMcSwervy 0 #482 July 3, 2014 SkyDekker Quote Possibly it is for woman who haven't been assaulted or abused. I don't know. Is there scientific research to back that statement? Some things I just don't Google so they don't trigger nightmares. Yes there is a fair bit of research on this topic. I think it is important to note that the fantasy is obviously nothing like the actual act. The harder part is figuring out the why. A myriad of suggestions have been offered, some overlapping and some contradicting. I am sorry this is a difficult subject for you personally. I am going to drop it. Thanks for your words but please don't drop it on my account. I've had enough therapy to deal with things but I'll always have triggers/nightmares/etc. I just avoid some things I know will hurt my brain and heart and soul. Always be kinder than you feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #483 July 3, 2014 I've written a letter to my representatives taking about the registry and the concerns that were brought up I just don't feel that's my battle. I'll help and support anyone that feels it's theirs. Mine is supporting and addressing the issue of sex offenders as TI's. And advocating for those that have been effected by the sex crimes offenders have committed.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #484 July 3, 2014 QuoteMine is supporting and addressing the issue of sex offenders as TI's. Although I'd advise any DZO to conduct criminal records checks of any prospective employees or contractors (especially those with close customer interaction), I still haven't seen you make a persuasive case that "sex offender TIs" is a significant problem that needs to be addressed... or that failure to "address" it formally will likely lead to a significant problem in the industry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #485 July 3, 2014 rehmwaThere is no basis for FAA or USPA or any legislature to force them to do additional checks - let them 'choose' to check - and then advertise the heck out it that they do it. Emphasis mine. I absolutely do not know everything about everything, but I do know a little bit about advertising. It is counter-productive to advertise in such a way as to remind your clients that what they are about to buy into is a horrible idea to begin with. By advertising "our staff is 100% sex offender free" you have planted a seed in the clients mind about something horrible they almost certainly had never even previously considered. Further, just like when a magician shows you a top hat and says it's a "perfectly ordinary" one, you've pointed out the obvious fact that there is nothing "perfectly ordinary" about the situation to begin with. By saying "our staff is 100% sex offender free" you're essentially saying, "you really ought to suspect we're lying to you." DZOs should do background checks; they should probably never mention it to clients.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #486 July 3, 2014 quadeDZOs should do background checks; they should probably never mention it to clients. I was being wry...but that's ok. how about "Our DZ is 100% sex offender free, not like ______just down the road.....as far as we know" ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #487 July 3, 2014 Bad Juju all around. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #488 July 3, 2014 Quote "our staff is 100% sex offender free" Still, you have to admit: it's catchy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #489 July 3, 2014 Andy9o8Quote "our staff is 100% sex offender free" Still, you have to admit: it's catchy! Sure, but then again a lot of "cute" things people advertise with are. It doesn't mean they're actually good ideas.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #490 July 3, 2014 QuoteStill, you have to admit: it's catchy! It's certainly better than, "Our DZ is 99% sex offender free!" - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuckyMcSwervy 0 #491 July 3, 2014 I just think this is turning into a clusterfuck witch hunt that's passive aggressive in nature. If you know of people who are a danger to others and you are armed with facts, shout it from the rooftops, consequences be damned if you're that passionate about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'm out of this thread because 1. I see no end to it and B. USPA will do nothing about it because it's not their fish to fry. Best of luck in the endeavor. See some of you in Bonfire. Always be kinder than you feel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,130 #492 July 3, 2014 rehmwa***DZOs should do background checks; they should probably never mention it to clients. I was being wry...but that's ok. how about "Our DZ is 100% sex offender free, not like ______just down the road.....as far as we know" If safety is what we are worried about, why not make them 100% drug free first? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #493 July 3, 2014 LuckyMcSwervyI just think this is turning into a clusterfuck witch hunt that's passive aggressive in nature. If you know of people who are a danger to others and you are armed with facts, shout it from the rooftops, consequences be damned if you're that passionate about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Exactly. This is a relatively small sport. From just reading this thread, looking at a profile, skimming a website, and a Facebook page, the only thing not known now to me is the offender(s) name, but only because I haven't collected and ran some names through the database. Sadly, I know many women who were sexually assaulted and even sadder not one of them reported it. As for concerns of "hurting the sport" by speaking out: far more damage can be done by not. If every effort has been taken to resolve this privately, as stated above, may need to go public. The USPA is not the next step, nor any step. BBB may be a better route.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #494 July 3, 2014 LuckyMcSwervy I just think this is turning into a clusterfuck witch hunt that's passive aggressive in nature. If you know of people who are a danger to others and you are armed with facts, shout it from the rooftops, consequences be damned if you're that passionate about it. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'm out of this thread because 1. I see no end to it and B. USPA will do nothing about it because it's not their fish to fry. Best of luck in the endeavor. See some of you in Bonfire. In total agreement ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #495 July 4, 2014 QuoteI'm out of this thread because 1. I see no end to it Sorry, I've tried... I've killed so many threads in my day, but this one is beyond me...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #496 July 4, 2014 normiss Fuck off ass hat. YOU are the reason I've stopped posting here. Until you call me out and personally attack me. Again. Who the fuck is the asshat that felt you deserved back here is beyond me. You just ain't right in the head. See you folks in a few weeks. normiss Fuck off ass hat. YOU are the reason I've stopped posting here. Until you call me out and personally attack me. Again. Who the fuck is the asshat that felt you deserved back here is beyond me. You just ain't right in the head. You're right Mark, I'm not right in the head...I grew up in hell, but God has been the only one in my life to give me any sense of clarity...and yes, I've surely fallen in the past couple of years to my shame and have made a lot of nasty posts. But all I did in this instance was ask you a very simple question with regard to a particular post and you go ape-shit on me. In your impetuous ignorance, you tell me to fuck off and then send me a PM telling me to find religion through sucking cock... ...suddenly I realize that I'm not the one with the problem... You see, the only difference in our self righteous hypocrisy is that I recognize it...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
promise5 17 #497 July 4, 2014 That's sad and I'm sorry you feel that way. But yes it probably should die, but I'm thankful to those that posted and offered up real opinions and arguments. It was very helpful. Those that came here just to stir up junk, well I feel sorry for them. Life's to short.No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #498 July 4, 2014 DanGQuoteI'm sympathetic to your point. But to play devil's advocate, that's the problem which historically has been faced by ALL ex-cons convicted of just about ALL crimes since the advent of "permanent criminal records": the criminal record follows the ex-offender for the rest of his life, making prospective employers less willing to hire him, leading to the vicious cycle you note. It's even harder for sex offenders. They can't live near schools, playgrounds, etc. even if their crime was not against children. The restrictions got so bad in Miami that the only place registered sex offenders could live was under a highway overpass. And they couldn't move to another city because that would violate their probation. I'm not condoning sex crimes in any way, but if society wants to remove those people permanently, then they need to be sentenced to life without parole. Giving someone five years, but then not letting them rejoin society in any meaningful way doesn't give them any incentive to reform themselves. I guess my question would be - They know they are in a particular situation, WHY would one want to put THEMSELVES back in a situation that might cause issues? What I consider is they probably wouldn't . . . unless there is a wanted need to strap another body to themselves.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #499 July 23, 2014 I sure hope Neither are tandem instructors Notice the charge....good chance of getting on a registry now. Jebus. The things I've seen at the beaches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #500 July 23, 2014 Quote A woman recorded the incident and turned the video over to Bradenton police. "I've lived here since 1978, and I go to the beaches, and I've never seen anything like this," she told the TV station. Maybe she just hasn't been very observant. Also wonder if a copy of the recording could be gotten via FOIA? It's evidence in a public crime and now part of the public record; right?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
