Sign the Petition

[BRASSO]

39 minutes ago, garfield said:

Baloney.  When all else breaks down, when all opinion seems at odds, it's the law the separates and defines us.

  No... thats your opinion. But, in my opinion,. it is not " the law " that separates and defines us. It is above all else our humanity that defines us... not " the law ".

 The " law " before the 19th Amendment was adopted in the US was that Women could not vote. For any number of " rational reasons ", it was said at the time ( by mostly Men ). But it was our humanity that pushed that law aside... essentially saying it is not humane to deny a citizen the right to vote based upon their gender. The law in essence... was wrong. " pitchforks " were out.... and the " law " was set aside. Changed. .

  How about The " law " from the Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford Decision.  Go look it up. Then tell me after you've read it that if its" The Law " that seperates and defines us.  Or if the law is omnipotent.... the final arbiter forever in other words, on who we are, what we value, what we cherish, and what we honor ( or should ). The " pitchforks " soon came out after that Supreme Court Decision. Would you have been against "the pitchforks " coming out then too ? Because its " the law " that defines us, and as such, :" the law " must be followed, instead of our decency.. our humanity ?

 These people that have violated the sacred trust as supervising adults over children are entitled to " a second chance "... but not among children. Even if " the law " might say " its ok.  Well, some of us believe, no, its not ok. Its far from ok. Our humanity, our decency, calls out for better safety, better protections for children and young adults than what " the law " currently requires of us. You seem to have a LOT of sympathy here for the sex offenders, but not a whole lot of sympathy for the victims they have been caught preying on. The victims, lest we forget, don't get " a second chance " to remove the tramautic memories... and " the law " can't make that go away either. Only eternal vigilance can protect us, and our children.... not " the law ".

Edited November 3, 2017 by BRASSO

[garfield]

2 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

  No... thats your opinion. But, in my opinion,. it is not " the law " that separates and defines us. It is above all else our humanity that defines us... not " the law ".

 The " law " before the 19th Amendment was adopted in the US was that Women could not vote. For any number of " rational reasons ", it was said at the time ( by mostly Men ). But it was our humanity that pushed that law aside... essentially saying it is not humane to deny a citizen the right to vote based upon their gender. The law it was believed... was wrong. " pitchforks " were out.... and the " law " was set aside, as wrong headed.

  How about The " law " from the Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford Decision.  Go look it up. Then tell me after you've read it that if its" The Law " that seperates and defines us.  Or if the law is omnipotent.... the final arbiter forever in other words, on who we are, what we value, what we cherish, and what we honor ( or should ). The " pitchforks " soon came out after that Supreme Court Decision. Would you have been against "the pitchforks " coming out then too ? Because its " the law " that defines us, and as such, :" the law " must be followed, instead of our decency.. our humanity ?

 These people that have violated the sacred trust as supervising adults over children are entitled to " a second chance "... but not among children. Even if " the law " might say " its ok/ Well, some of us feel, no, its not ok. Its far from ok. Our humanity, our decency, calls out for better safety, better protections for children and young adults than what " the law " currently requires of us. You seem to have a LOT of sympathy here for the sex offenders, but not a whole lot of sympathy for the victims they have been caught preying on. The victims, lest we forget, don't get " a second chance " to remove the tramautic memories... and " the law " can't make that go away either.

...and public pressure was brought to bear on the laws and they were changed and many people were happy with the change.

Golly,  I really thought our system of government was better understood by more of the population who lives under it.

Your viewpoint of the existing law is not the basis of adjudication under that law.  If you rally enough support to change the law, so be it!  Really, good for you!

But the law as it stands now is the law despite how it may conflict with your personal belief.

 

[garfield]

6 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

  No... thats your opinion. But, in my opinion,. it is not " the law " that separates and defines us. It is above all else our humanity that defines us... not " the law ".

 The " law " before the 19th Amendment was adopted in the US was that Women could not vote. For any number of " rational reasons ", it was said at the time ( by mostly Men ). But it was our humanity that pushed that law aside... essentially saying it is not humane to deny a citizen the right to vote based upon their gender. The law it was believed... was wrong. " pitchforks " were out.... and the " law " was set aside, as wrong headed.

  How about The " law " from the Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford Decision.  Go look it up. Then tell me after you've read it that if its" The Law " that seperates and defines us.  Or if the law is omnipotent.... the final arbiter forever in other words, on who we are, what we value, what we cherish, and what we honor ( or should ). The " pitchforks " soon came out after that Supreme Court Decision. Would you have been against "the pitchforks " coming out then too ? Because its " the law " that defines us, and as such, :" the law " must be followed, instead of our decency.. our humanity ?

 These people that have violated the sacred trust as supervising adults over children are entitled to " a second chance "... but not among children. Even if " the law " might say " its ok/ Well, some of us feel, no, its not ok. Its far from ok. Our humanity, our decency, calls out for better safety, better protections for children and young adults than what " the law " currently requires of us. You seem to have a LOT of sympathy here for the sex offenders, but not a whole lot of sympathy for the victims they have been caught preying on. The victims, lest we forget, don't get " a second chance " to remove the tramautic memories... and " the law " can't make that go away either.

You are attempting to enforce penalties on the accused that don't exist, period.

You don't have that right, as much as you might contend you do.

The laws of the applicable states are enforced upon this person, not the laws of Stu or Brasso or Garfield.

 

[BRASSO]

30 minutes ago, garfield said:

...and public pressure was brought to bear on the laws and they were changed and many people were happy with the change.

Golly,  I really thought our system of government was better understood by more of the population who lives under it.

Your viewpoint of the existing law is not the basis of adjudication under that law.  If you rally enough support to change the law, so be it!  Really, good for you!

But the law as it stands now is the law despite how it may conflict with your personal belief.

 

 The current " laws " that you seem so protective of ( compared to children's protections ), currently stipulate that a person found guilty in a jury trial of a crime of violating an underage female's privacy on school grounds can simply lay low, then in a few years have a lawyer go into court and expunge that judge and juries work on behalf of the victim, and get the guilty verdict removed for their client... without the victim having any say in that..... and you want to talk about " the law " here is what seperates us, and defines us ? No, i don't think so. In my opinion, that " law " is seriously wrong. We are legally bound to comply with it, but there is nothing that disallows us from saying that we can do better than this... no matter what the current " law " wants from us. The petition is a fundamental , lawful method that had historically been utilized throughout history in this country to exert change in laws, and in policies. If you don't particularly care for this particular petition, fine. Don't sign it. But the petition does no " harm " as far as I can tell. It might actually do some good. And if it goes nowhere, so what for you ? No skin off your nose. So whats your beef ? That it will do nothing ? So what ? Why do you care ? I don't really get it, frankly.. even if the motives of the petitioners might be suspect. The issue trumps all that. The issue is real. It is not suspect. There are people in DCI in Corps right now with high risk behaviors, some with convictions working around females and/ or the underage. And yet you're ok with this.... apparently the status quo on this is ok with you . .  thats the overaching sentiment that your  comments are providing here with this it seems to me.

Edited November 3, 2017 by BRASSO

[Stu]

1 hour ago, skevinp said:

Are you suggesting there are State B's that have laws requiring background checks meeting the requirements of State B to be performed by organizations from State A based on nothing more than such organizations physically entering into State B on a temporary basis?  I had not heard of that before.

No. There are behaviors and criteria that are legal in State A but not in State B. And if a person who resides in State A visits, works, or travels through State B they have to abide by State B law; period. A prime example of this would be CCW permits. I pass the clearance in my State, can carry in my State, I am legal in my State, but if I place a single toe in say New York with my sidearm on me I will be in danger of being arrested and spend time in jail. Therefore it is prudent that I know the exact laws of any State in which I am going to visit because my State clearance and my State law means bupkis in NY. This also applies to 'any type of clearance' that a corps staff member has in his/her home State A to be around youth; if State B does not allow that type of clearance, and the person is visiting, passing through, or working in State B, that person cannot be anywhere around youth while in that State B or face arrest if caught.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Stu

[Stu]

52 minutes ago, garfield said:

And you became an attorney, when, Stu?  This afternoon?

Why are you arguing interpretations of the law that's already established?

 

52 minutes ago, garfield said:

BS

No, it doesn't.  Only in Stu's world does that make sense.

 

If you are so blind as to see the civil ramifications it would cause for both the corps and DCI if any DCI member corps was violating the sexual registry laws in any State in which DCI has a sanctioned event, without a general statement policy in place from the sanctioning organization, which is also not an independent entity but a collective of the member corps themselves, then there is really nothing more that can convince you.

[BRASSO]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

You do realize that you are saying that your personal beliefs are above the law, don't you?

 

 

 

 No. I comply with the law, garfield. Even laws I do not particularly care for. I am not above the law. But the laws do not " define me". But if " the law " defines you, fine. Ironically, it is you that is going overboard and the last mile on here to defend previous lawbreakers. Remarkable, the irony.

 So to finally.. and briefly... summarize your position on this for everybody, garfield:... you really hate the petition drive....  you believe that DCI office holders, their attorney representatives, need to do nothing at the moment...  that DCI has no fiduciary duties with this anyway....that Corps are free to hire whomever they want, and if fans find out  previous sex offenders are working in Corps , but don't approve of it, they should  privately email or phone the Corps Directors and BOD's themselves that hire these people to express their individual displeasure with it.... or, just let it be as these previous sex offenders with youth " deserve a second ( and some cases a 3rd ? ) chance " working around youth.  Did I sum up your position on this about right, garfield ? I want to be sure, the summary for readers that might just be coming in late to this last thread page can understand your position on all this in a nutshell.

Edited November 3, 2017 by BRASSO

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, Kamarag said:

 

I said clearances in the post you replied to originally. You ran off in a totally different and wholly unnecessary direction.

And I stated that clearance in State A does not mean automatic clearance is accepted in State B.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Why?  Because certain drum corps have elected to follow the law and still attempt to benefit from the experience of certain talented staff member while, potentially, giving another human being a chance to improve their life?

Not sufficient?  Really?

 

Is following the letter of the law, which may allow a convicted sexual offender to once again be around youth, and hiring that offender to be around your youth based on that law, a wise thing 'for the youth'?

[MikeD]

9 hours ago, Lance said:

Is it draconian to have guidelines for all corps when it comes to what "passed" means?

The FBI and Highway Patrol don't have any notation that says "passed" or "failed", they just report information. It's what org's do with it that we're talking about. 

I don't know the answer. 

By "passed", I meant that there was nothing amiss with his reports.