Driver's License? Why?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

Lexis-Nexis is a database, not a company running the background checks. I am sure that a private security company is doing that for ASA. Some paperwork would be required to transfer that information to the company. I am not overly concerned about it, although personal information should be reasonably guarded these days. Name and DOB should get that done. In ten years of law enforcement I have not had any problems identifying people by name and DOB. Name and DOB backed up with a valid state ID, such as a driver’s license would leave no doubt of whom you are. Your SS card is a requirement for a DL and thus previously verified by a state agency.

And yet, on my SSC it clearly states that it is not to be used for identification. Go figure.

I am not comfortable with anyone having my social security number, although I agree with the background checks. I do not want work with an umpire or have my daughter play on the field where the umpire is not of good moral character.

There are communities in this country that believe firearms are unnecessary and immoral. How would that wash in Texas?

Just a point on how vague "moral" character is in definition

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

There are communities in this country that believe firearms are unnecessary and immoral. How would that wash in Texas?

Just a point on how vague "moral" character is in definition

Exactly.

What about umps with past DUIs? Should they be barred from working? Just youth events?

[Paws7]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

Unless he killed her at the ballpark, while in uniform, I'm not really sure what point this is supposed to make.

Are you implying that all persons, prior to entering any ballpark, should have a background check? Fans, coaches, players, scorekeepers, concession personnel, grounds keepers, etc. ?

Not implying anything, just an example of how a background check MAY have prevented this tragic event. Who really knows.


At the local youth league, we kept a book at the complex of mug shots of RSOs that was provided to us. There was a couple of occasions when we reported when we saw one of them at the complex. Granted it was a small town and park.

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by Paws7

Not implying anything, just an example of how a background check MAY have prevented this tragic event. Who really knows.


At the local youth league, we kept a book at the complex of mug shots of RSOs that was provided to us. There was a couple of occasions when we reported when we saw one of them at the complex. Granted it was a small town and park.

Yep, and checking every single person that walks through the gate might prevent something as well. Think any parent or park worker might have something hidden in their past?

I'm not a Republican, but their rationale on gun laws (or lack thereof) seems apropos here: A motivated crazy person is going to do something crazy, regardless of the laws or protections in place to stop them.

Stranger (i.e. non parental/guardian or caretaker) assault of child is extremely uncommon.

[Paws7]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

A motivated crazy person is going to do something crazy, regardless of the laws or protections in place to stop them.

While I do agree with this, doesn't it really depends on how motivated that crazy person is. . .

Myth: Most sexual offenses are committed by strangers.
Fact: Most sexual offenses are committed by family members or acquaintances.

* According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 86% of all sexual assault cases reported to law enforcement were committed by someone known to the victim – a family member or acquaintance (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
* The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 93% of victims under the age of 17, and 73% of victims age 18 and older, were assaulted by someone they knew. Where the victim was a child, 34% of offenders were family members and 59% were acquaintances (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
* Multiple studies have shown that sex offenders often establish contact with their victims through their relationship with another person, most commonly an adult. For example, repeat sex offenders in one study used romantic relationships with women to gain access to the women's children. Offenders can also gain access to victims through babysitting for someone they know or by living with friends who have children (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007).

Myths and Facts

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by Paws7

34% of offenders were family members and 59% were acquaintances (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

Would you really consider an umpire to be an acquaintance?

I would not, unless that umpire happens to have a prior relationship with that child outside of softball.

What those statistics are really alluding to is the potential for the offender to be alone with the child, and I hardly think that is very likely at the ballpark.

I guess it is possible that the predator could first contact the child in their capacity as an umpire and then attempt to pursue the relationship outside of the ballpark, but as previously noted, the very same could be said of virtually anyone in the child's life, in any arena.

[IRISHMAFIA]

If everybody in China jumped up at the same time would it affect the path of the Earth and cause it to collide with an astroid in 1500 years? Hey, it could happen!

Look, no law or BI or poly or psyche eval will prevent someone from doing something they intend or have a compulsion to do whatever it is. It will give non-thinking people a warm, fuzzy feeling, and occasionally will come across someone not smart enough to avoid detection, but will not prevent most of the trouble our "society" encounters.

[Paws7]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

If everybody in China jumped up at the same time would it affect the path of the Earth and cause it to collide with an astroid in 1500 years? Hey, it could happen!

Look, no law or BI or poly or psyche eval will prevent someone from doing something they intend or have a compulsion to do whatever it is. It will give non-thinking people a warm, fuzzy feeling, and occasionally will come across someone not smart enough to avoid detection, but will not prevent most of the trouble our "society" encounters.

Same could be said about umpire testing.

[JEL]

I have no problem with the background investigations. I just hope they don't find that I did steal that gum from Johnnie Rummel in the sixth grade!

The investigations are being done (IMO) for LIABILTY rather than SAFETY.

[greymule]

I think this article is relevant in some ways to the discussion, at least in terms of adding some perspective.

Felon Protection - Wisconsin in favor of criminals in the work place | Reason | Find Articles at BNET

[greymule]

If everybody in China jumped up at the same time would it affect the path of the Earth and cause it to collide with an astroid in 1500 years? Hey, it could happen!

I see you're aware of this burgeoning problem. Others can Google "anthropogenic global orbit change" to learn more. It doesn't involve jumping specifically, but the fact that the population imbalance between East and West is growing, constantly making the Eastern Hemisphere heavier, could well threaten mankind's future—and soon—unless governments take action.

[IowaBlue]

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act makes it unlawful to hold a worker's or applicant's criminal record against him unless you're prepared to show in court that the record is "substantially" related to the employment.

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing.

If I were to get in trouble for, say, tax evasion, should this have an impact on my ability to work as an auto mechanic, or even an umpire?

[greymule]

I don't see why this is necessarily a bad thing.

If I were to get in trouble for, say, tax evasion, should this have an impact on my ability to work as an auto mechanic, or even an umpire?

Tax evasion? I would probably say no, it should not affect your right to work as a mechanic or umpire. And I know some umpires who in their late teens/early twenties committed serious crimes (a couple did some time) but have for decades since been productive, law-abiding citizens. So I'd reserve judgment even for a guy who 30 years ago committed a holdup.

But a guy who rapes and murders a 9-year-old girl is different. Such a crime is not just a mistake, or bad judgment, or youthful stupidity. There's strong evidence to the effect that such people are never "cured." Government should not force anyone to hire such a person. And I'm not hiring him ever, under any circumstances, even to shovel s**t.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by greymule

But a guy who rapes and murders a 9-year-old girl is different. Such a crime is not just a mistake, or bad judgment, or youthful stupidity. There's strong evidence to the effect that such people are never "cured."

And for the 14 yo boy caught fooling around with a 13 yo girl? That is the problem with the stupid law. Morons enact crap without thinking and many fall in love with the politically influential "mandatory" effects of a law and all of a sudden you are committing children to an RSO for something complete absurd.

Government should not force anyone to hire such a person. And I'm not hiring him ever, under any circumstances, even to shovel s**t.

I agree, but apparently the courts believe otherwise.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by IowaBlue

Would you really consider an umpire to be an acquaintance?





I guess it is possible that the predator could first contact the child in their capacity as an umpire and then attempt to pursue the relationship outside of the ballpark, .

You answered yourself.

I suspect that, as an authority figure, an umpire would be more trusted by a potential victim than a random person at the park.