Sex offender working as a CFI

Things may not be what they seem. I've been close enough to a person that has gone through some troubles like this to know that. Being found guilty by a court means about as much as OJ being acquitted by one.

I'd reserve judgement unless I had all the facts, which none of us ever will.
 
desertdog71 said:
I'd want to curb stomp him so you have my answer and I DGAF what debt he paid. It wasn't enough.
Click to expand...


I find myself continually baffled by the expressed morality of this country, when taken as a whole. There's a lot of hypocrisy, whether recognized and unrecognized. A tremendous amount of inconsistency, skewed along the lines of emotional response ... and usually the emotional response in question follows an exponential curve, typically unrelated to facts or evidence or information. It's reactionary, and there's such a strong stigma against trying to smooth out the curve that I'm sure at least one person reading my responses is going to think, at least privately, that I must be "one of them pedos" because I'm not part of the lynch mob.

In reality, I just don't understand the inability to separate the overriding emotional response evolved to protect the young of the tribe from the act of discussing an issue on legal and moral grounds. If we can't put our animal instincts aside in the name of rational, intelligent consideration of a problem, then we've lost the hope of advancing further.

~Fox
 
Derg said:
Knock yourself out, bro!

I don't find any honor in physically involving myself in a situation like this. Vigilantism makes for a great Charles Bronson movie though.
Click to expand...
The question was if I'm OK with it. Don't twist things and get condescending about it.

I'd never put myself in proximity to such a POS much less pay him for lessons.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Derg said:
One of my mothers neighbors ended up on "the list" when he urinated in his own fenced backyard and a parent called the police about what the children "might have seen" through the knots in the wooden fence.

It's mighty easy to get yourself on that list so Id be reluctant to generalize too much.
Click to expand...
Admitted guilt to AGGRAVATED Sexual Assault. Not pissing in the back yard.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
desertdog71 said:
The question was if I'm OK with it. Don't twist things and get condescending about it.

I'd never put myself in proximity to such a POS much less pay him for lessons.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

So curb stomping doesn't define vigilantism? I'm all ears here, please bring me to clarity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PK
Derg said:
So curb stomping doesn't define vigilantism? I'm all ears here, please bring me to clarity.
Click to expand...
Question: Are you OK with this guy teaching young adults?

Answer: I'd want to curb stomp him so the answer is NO.

What Doug and Fox and others heard: Hey guys let's track this POS down and go vigilante justice on his ass.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Don't presume what you think I read, I thought I was fairly "internet succinct" on my statement but if I need to clarify I'd rather you ask than presume.

Would I want him teaching my child? Hell, I hardly would want half of you guys teaching my child for a variety of issues! Ha! :)

But how many offenders have I flown with? I have no idea. I'm sure I have though.

Over all, we're largely arguing hypotheticals. I don't have a kid, you don't have a child undergoing flight instruction by him and its largely like that ABC show "What Would You Do?"

A hypothetical discussion, sure. But a serious Socratic debate on the issue with limited information with much of it, potentially, being heresy, I'm not just going to get my panties in a tizzy for the sake of, well, being in an Internet tizzy.

In reality? I largely minimize exposure to unknown people. There are convicted murderers, being on the verge of murdering and those that have murdered that just haven't been caught yet.
 
As an addendum to my post, statistically speaking, just talking pure Vulcan logic statistics, we have more to fear at a large family reunion than we do in the middle of Los Angeles.
 
OP:
imchrishansen.jpg
 
Derg said:
Don't presume what you think I read, I thought I was fairly "internet succinct" on my statement but if I need to clarify I'd rather you ask than presume.

Would I want him teaching my child? Hell, I hardly would want half of you guys teaching my child for a variety of issues! Ha! :)

But how many offenders have I flown with? I have no idea. I'm sure I have though.

Over all, we're largely arguing hypotheticals. I don't have a kid, you don't have a child undergoing flight instruction by him and its largely like that ABC show "What Would You Do?"

A hypothetical discussion, sure. But a serious Socratic debate on the issue with limited information with much of it, potentially, being heresy, I'm not just going to get my panties in a tizzy for the sake of, well, being in an Internet tizzy.

In reality? I largely minimize exposure to unknown people. There are convicted murderers, being on the verge of murdering and those that have murdered that just haven't been caught yet.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I'm not looking for a fight. I just have very strong feelings on this. I'm a parent and my own mother was abused by the ones she trusted most. That being said, my emotional response stands. I will check out of this topic because its just going to piss me off.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
The whole point of the "justice" system is for offenders to pay their debt to society (and be personally punished by losing their freedoms for a period), and then return to being regular citizens again.

I don't understand the desire to go "curb stomp" someone who paid their debt and hasn't done anything to rate some new punishment. If you find them personally vile, and don't want to be friends with them, or don't want to work with them, that is your personal prerogative. Using physical violence against them, though, is most certainly not any of our personal prerogatives. In fact, such action would be just as wrong as whatever they did to be sideways of the law in the first place.

They should have the opportunity to fulfill the opportunity they've been given to be productive members of society after doing their penance.
 
If he is really interested in children sexually then death is the only solution. That being said most "sex offenders" are probably not genuine sex offenders in the sense that they did something along those lines. 15 year old guy sends nude picture to 15 year old girl on phone he's a sex offender (roll eyes).

Until the abuse of the title changes and it won't it requires much more qualification per incident.
 
Just an FYI from Harvard:

  • Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.
  • No intervention is likely to work on its own; outcomes may be better when the patient is motivated and treatment combines psychotherapy and medication.
  • Parents should be aware that in most sexual abuse cases involving children, the perpetrator is someone the child knows.
One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...h_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

But there are many other and more detailed studies conducted over a long period of time..... a host of them including a long term study done in Canada which I read over a bit and suggests much higher rate of recidivism as do many other studies including stats at the department of Justice. In an article entitled “Recidivism of Sex Offenders” published in the journal of the Center for Sex Offender Management, author Tim Bynum examined a multiplicity of studies on re-offending by convicted sex offenders. Bynum acknowledges that sex crimes are under-reported which can skew studies of recidivism. And there are many variables, such is the person staying in treatment and much more. Bynum cites a 1997 study which found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had a higher recidivism rate than rapists with 52% of the former re-offending vs. 39% of the latter.

While this is a very complicated subject, personally, I don't think it's worth the risk/gamble for ANY child (mine or others) to knowingly be put in contact with anyone convicted of such a crime where there is true substantial evidence and/or admittance of guilt. Period.
 
Derg Said:
Sandusky is a CFI now or are we talking hypothetical? :)
Click to expand...

Jerry Sandusky is serving a 60 year sentence and won't be eligible for parole until he is 99 years old. Too soon, IMHO!

He's in 'protective custody' in Pennsylvania's Super-Max along with murderers, capital offenders - the baddest of the bad. SCI - Greene is in the south-west corner of PA, and while they may have educational opportunities for their residents, I doubt if CFI is one of them.

Would add a new meaning to the term 'flight risk.'
 
A Life Aloft said:
I don't think it's worth the risk/gamble for ANY child (mine or others) to knowingly be put in contact with anyone convicted of such a crime where there is true substantial evidence and/or admittance of guilt. Period.
Click to expand...

"Put in contact"? How are they supposed to avoid contact with children?
 
Boris Badenov said:
"Put in contact"? How are they supposed to avoid contact with children?
Click to expand...

As in do not send them locked in an airplane thousands of feet in the air with a person who violently raped children.. not pass them at the grocery store. Wake up.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top