Driver's License? Why?

[IowaBlue]

Originally Posted by Paws7

It has happened in the past.

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. ?

[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.

[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.

[greymule]

"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 completely absurd."

Absolutely right. "Mandatory" sentences were an overreaction to horror stories about soft judges handing out light sentences to obviously dangerous criminals. The result, however, is that some clown who "streaks" through a fraternity party gets labeled a sex offender for life, and a kindergartner who gives his cute classmate a peck on the cheek is sent to psychological counseling. Well, as Mr. Bumble observed, "The law is an a$$."

In the Wisconsin case, I would ask why a guy who raped and murdered a little girl was released after 13 years—or at all.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

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

And who is more trusted than another parent? And are they required to go through the same scrutiny?