Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
... It's not really the rationale of "it saves just one" that leads me to my opinions on the BG check thing. It's the rationale of doing the due diligence to ensure that we are not putting people in positions of trust that should not be trusted with that position....
|
As I indicated earlier, I MIGHT be convinced of this IF it could be demonstrated that an umpire with a questionable background placed any child at risk by umpiring a softball game. The umpire is not in a position of authority over children in general, only in the conduct of the game, where Mom and Dad and coach and grandpa are watching. It is a problem that does not exist trying to be "solved" in a heavy-handed way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mcrowder
... I'm drawing the line between the rights of the general populus vs the rights of those unable to defend themselves (children, in this case).... I think it's a vastly bigger leap going from BG checks of umpires to phone tapping of the general public.
|
Here is where you and I have the strongest disagreement. It is not the rights of the populus that I am concerned with (if the populus has any rights at all in the same sense), it is the rights of the individual being trampled because someone is afraid. And, since I already hear similar rationale being used for much broader actions by the government, I don't see the leap / gap as very large at all.