PADI Underwater Child Molester Specialty Course?

Tricky wrote:

> <Rolls Eyes> And they let a Texan run your country for you?.....that'll
> explain alot!</Rolls Eyes>

Still more stereotypical Texan bashing, I see. Do you also think all
Jewish people are stingy and all black people love watermelon?

(crossposting removed)

Gordon in Austin

"Nitespark" <nitespark@h8spam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:emGbb.2076$k74.236@lakeread05...
>
>
> Chris Guynn wrote:
>
>
> > I can't say for sure whether or not he was a scoutmaster, but I can say
that
> > the likelihood of that being true is very slim. He would have had to go
> > through the background checks because he would have to be a registered
adult
> > in the Boy Scouts. I don't know how extensive the background checks
are,
> > but from what I hear they are pretty good. I'm not surprised that
someone
> > working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I wasn't
> > surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who
were
> > pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their
"leadership"
> > positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI
instructor,
>
> Chris,
> A background investigation certainly screens out a LOT of the would be
> pedophiles, but it is not an absolute cure-all.

Agreed. I would imagine that a pedophile can often get away with numerous
incidents without being reported. If they aren't reported, a background
check doesn't help much. Also, a background check doesn't help much for
first time offenders. Unfortunately, it is no where near a cure-all, but it
does help.

> In my local area, a
> substitute teacher, who was also an ordained minister, was recently
> arrested for indecent liberties. The local school board did an
> extensive background investigation on this person and nothing turned up.
>
> A spokesman with the school board interviewed on the news said this
> person was suspended from his substitute teaching position, and barred
> from any school property.

Now the question becomes, if they are found not guilty, do you allow them
back into the school system?

>
> Now as far as the person in the original post being PADI, whether or not
> he is guilty is not for me to decide, but even if he is, I doubt the
> certifying agency has anything to do with his criminal intentions.
> Could have just as easily been NAUI, SSI, etc etc.

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I dais that the certifying agency was
really irrelevant. I wasn't surprised it was PADI, but I would have been
equally unsurprised if it had been NAUI and only (very)slightly more
surprised if it had been SSI (simply because of the BSA policy on recognized
agencies... SSI and others qualify, but they have to have special
permission).

C Guynn

Chris Guynn wrote:


>>>working for the scouts would be a pedophile fo rthe same reason I wasn't
>>>surprised that their were such a large number of Catholic clergy who
>
> were
>
>>>pedophiles. They seek out positions where they can use their
>
> "leadership"
>
>>>positions to take advantage of children. As far as being a PADI
>
> instructor,
>
>>Chris,
>>A background investigation certainly screens out a LOT of the would be
>>pedophiles, but it is not an absolute cure-all.
>
>
> Agreed. I would imagine that a pedophile can often get away with numerous
> incidents without being reported. If they aren't reported, a background
> check doesn't help much. Also, a background check doesn't help much for
> first time offenders. Unfortunately, it is no where near a cure-all, but it
> does help.

It is very much like the crime of rape. A vast number of rapes are NOT
reported. Likewise, if the rapist has never been arrested, then he can
get away with the crime until someone does get the courage to come
forward, or the crime escalates, with injury.

Probably the biggest deterrent is the knowledge the WILL be caught and
when they are, they WILL be dealt with harshly. Criminals that commit
crimes against kids have a VERY tough time in prison.

>
>
>>In my local area, a
>>substitute teacher, who was also an ordained minister, was recently
>>arrested for indecent liberties. The local school board did an
>>extensive background investigation on this person and nothing turned up.
>>
>>A spokesman with the school board interviewed on the news said this
>>person was suspended from his substitute teaching position, and barred
>>from any school property.
>
>
> Now the question becomes, if they are found not guilty, do you allow them
> back into the school system?

Good question. My personal opinion...HELL NO!!! Unless it can be
proved the victims lied and made the entire episodes up....but I think
in this case, it was multiple victims on multiple occassions. That is
much harder to fabricate than a "one victim, one incident" scenario.
>
>


--
Claravoiant meeting canceled due to unforseen events.

"Nitespark" wrote ...
> Criminals that commit crimes against kids
> have a VERY tough time in prison.

As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>

Grumman-581 wrote:

> "Nitespark" wrote ...
>
>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
>
>
> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>
>

Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.



--
Claravoiant meeting canceled due to unforseen events.

Nitespark left this mess on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:31:39 -0400 for The Way to clean
up:
>
>
>
>Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>> "Nitespark" wrote ...
>>
>>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
>>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
>>
>>
>> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
>> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death... <evil-grin>
>>
>
>Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.

I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I think his
real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under that
dark cloud.

In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man does
not have to.

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

"de Valois" <devalois@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:bkpgf402t57@drn.newsguy.com...
> Nitespark left this mess on Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:31:39 -0400 for The Way to
clean
> up:
> >
> >
> >
> >Grumman-581 wrote:
> >
> >> "Nitespark" wrote ...
> >>
> >>>Criminals that commit crimes against kids
> >>>have a VERY tough time in prison.
> >>
> >>
> >> As that Catholic priest so recently found out... Even in a protective
> >> lockup, one guy managed to kill him by beating him to death...
<evil-grin>
> >>
> >
> >Now THAT is a cure for recidivism.
>
> I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I
think his
> real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under
that
> dark cloud.

I have mixed feelings about this. It does seem that killing him made it
less of a punishment if only because the punishment didn't last so long. On
the other hand, if the person has a life sentence (without possibility of
parole), why burden teh taxpayers with his upkeep? Personally, I haven't
decided yet which side of this fence I come down on and generally skip over
these type of issues in elections.

>
> In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man
does
> not have to.

I'm pretty sure he got off too easy, but at least we don't have to pay for
him any more. As far as Jesus forgiving him goes, I can't say whether he
will or not, but if the priest repented then he will be forgiven (by God).

>
> Tao te Carl
>
> "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003
>

Chris Guynn wrote:


>
> Precisely my point. Thanks for saying it better than I did.
>
>
>>Probably the biggest deterrent is the knowledge the WILL be caught and
>>when they are, they WILL be dealt with harshly. Criminals that commit
>>crimes against kids have a VERY tough time in prison.
>
>
> Too bad the deterrent doesn't work better. Of course that could be said
> until the crimes were completely wiped out...

I am no psychologist but have gone through quite a bit of training and
education in this topic. My best guess, is the hardcore that keep doing
it do not consider the possibility of getting caught. Most likely, the
possibility of getting caught is a deterrent for the vast majority of
pedophiles....its the small percentage that think they are too smart, or
have been doing it so long they feel they have beat the system.

>
>
>>Good question. My personal opinion...HELL NO!!! Unless it can be
>>proved the victims lied and made the entire episodes up....but I think
>>in this case, it was multiple victims on multiple occassions. That is
>>much harder to fabricate than a "one victim, one incident" scenario.
>
>
> I have mixed feelings about this. A verdict of Not Guilty really only means
> that the prosecution couldn't prove their case. It doesn't mean he didn't
> do it; although, for most intents and purposes, a verdict of not guilty is
> viewed (by many) the same as innocent. I'm not sure what the legal
> ramifications are, but I would guess that if he is found not guilty it would
> be hard to justify not re-hiring him simply because he had been accused. On
> the other hand, I wouldn't want my kid going to school there and I
> especially wouldn't want my kid to be in his class.

I agree with you. In that situation, the school system would be caught
between the technicalities of the law and the moral obligation for what
is best for the students. They would be in an almost no win situation.
If the employee were found not guilty because of some technicality and
pushed the issue to be returned to employment, he could sue the school
system if they didn't claiming wrongful termination. However, if they
took him back, and he accosted some kids (again), the kids family could
sue for negligent retention.

As I said earlier, unless it is proven conclusively, the kids totally
lied and fabricated the story, then the person should not be returned to
employment....but then that is just my opinion.


>
>

--
More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my guns.

Nitespark left this mess on Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:01:07 -0400 for The Way to clean
up:
>
>>I don't agree that anyone deserves to die for a crime. In this case, I think his
>>real punishment would have been to live the rest of his life in jail under that
>> dark cloud.
>
>He DID live the rest of his life in jail under that dark cloud.
>
>While I agree with you, confinement for the rest of his natural life
>would have been appropriate punishment for molesting kids, I shed no
>tears at his demise.

Nor will I, for very personal reasons.

>My comment was NOT meant as much as an opinion on how appropriate the
>punishment, as much as we can now absolutely guarantee that HE will
>never commit that crime, or any crime again.
>
>I have dealt with situations where the death penalty was quite appropriate.
>

Agreed. While it's not appropriate to turn this into a thread about the death
penalty, I just couldn't come up with a better way of expressing my thoughts,
which are conflicted on this issue of his death.

>> In other words, I think he got off too easy. Jesus will forgive him. Man does
>> not have to.
>
>Jesus will forgive him and died for his sins. God will sit in judgement.

Tao te Carl

"It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

Chris Guynn wrote:

>>I agree with you. In that situation, the school system would be caught
>>between the technicalities of the law and the moral obligation for what
>>is best for the students. They would be in an almost no win situation.
>> If the employee were found not guilty because of some technicality and
>>pushed the issue to be returned to employment, he could sue the school
>>system if they didn't claiming wrongful termination. However, if they
>>took him back, and he accosted some kids (again), the kids family could
>>sue for negligent retention.
>
>
> I bet the wrongful termination suit would cost less than the negligent
> retention... I'd leave the guy canned. Not becaue of the expected payout in
> case of suits, but because of the more obvious reasons. I'd rather this guy
> not work for me than have a kid get molested. Although, I wouldn't let the
> case affect my decision if I weren't involved in a child-intensive industry.

I am with you on this. The welfare of the kids comes first. The only
other alternative would be for them to "make a job" for him in some
capacity where he doesn't have any contact with kids....night janitor
working 2300-0700 or something like that. He could grieve a
termination, but he cannot grieve his assigned duties or work hours.




--
More people died at Chappaquiddick than have been killed by my guns.