[MR] safety..

[Roy B. Scherer]

At 04:20 PM 8/22/2011, Anne wrote:
>Assuming this is the premise.  One would do well to remember that the 4th
>amendment applies here.

         Witha all due respect, milady -- and NOT attempting to 
support the concept of blanket BG checks -- I'm afraid that you are wrong.
         The Fourth Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, 
applies to actions taken by government agencies.  It does not 
generally apply to actions by private individuals, or to actions by 
associations of private individuals.

>You cannot just blanket assume that everyone has a right to know private
>information in a group. Nor will members just simply give up their "rights"
>to be a member of the SCA,Inc.  The 4th amendment applies to everyone, not
>just an individual when they want it to.  You need probable cause to commit
>a blanket "check" of an entire group.  OR.... to make it know from X date
>this will happen...

         I'm sorry, but I don't agree that this is the case.  If the 
SCA, as a private group, should decide that all members, or all 
members who wish to be warranted to work with children, must submit 
to a BG check, then pray tell where is the Constitutional violation?
         Now I grant that such a requirement would certainly reduce 
membership, and/or the number of people willing to work with 
kids.  That's obvious.  The point I'm making is that there is no 
violation of anyone's rights under the Constitution.  The SCA is a 
voluntary association of private citizens.  As such, and as a group 
which does NOT accept governmental subsidies (other than tax-exempt 
status), we have the right to specify rules for membership and for 
differing forms of participation.  (Note that that right was 
explicitly confirmed by SCOTUS, in spite of the fact that the Scouts 
are not only tax-exempt but also accept numerous subsidies from 
various levels of government.)

>  It makes me wonder who is out there paying $29.95 to "background check"
>their neighbors and everyone they come in contact with.  Doing such things,
>first is a 4th amendment violation without a person's express consentand
>provable probably cause.  It also can be problematic as, depending on what
>company used, you can get everything from nothing to more than you ever
>wanted to know and in between.  To assume that everyone is a criminal is a
>little farfetched and a lot into paranoia. It is a by product of our
>information age where we have FB and we just give everything we do in tweets
>and status updates and I do mean everything..  We have, in this country a
>fundamental right to privacy.

         We have such a right against the government.  If a potential 
employer requires a BG check, and says they won't consider you for 
employment unless you not only consent to, but actually pay for, such 
a check, then where is the violation of the Constitution?  (Remember 
that many empoloyers have such policies, and have had them for 
years.  I know of no successful court challenges to such practices.)

>The Policia are taught to guilt trip people into giving up their rights with
>the phrase, "what have you got to hide".  Well nothing actually, but I do
>have a 4th amendment right to privacy.  However, IF we, as the SCA Inc make
>a condition of membership or attending events a background check.. I cna see
>a significant drop in membership almost immediately.

         Agreed on all points.  My business is MY business.

>I worked, last yr as a staffing coordinator at a nursing agency... we
>switched several times the companies we used to do our checks.. each one had
>a different file on me and about half of it was either erroneous or did not
>tell the whole story.  One in particular tried to sell me a package deal
>where they corrected the erroneous info for me.. I corrected it myself with
>a lawyer's letter to them threatening litigation if they did not correct
>what they knew and had already been proved as wrong.  Background checks have
>become big business folks, please remember that.

         Agreed; sounds like you handled it efficiently and effectively.

>While this is a social organization, it is based in a country where the law
>of the land fundamentally protects all individuals, as loathsome as some and
>thier illegal behavior may be.

         Yep.

>I was talking to my mom today about this issue. She pointed out that when I
>was growing up in the 1950-60's, that neighbors tended to know each other
>very well.

         Yep, but society has changed -- in many ways for the worse.

>MY mom would have never allowed me in the house of the guy
>down the block. She reminded me today that she and every other mom knew him
>to be a perve and repeatedly told us to never respond to him.  The dad's
>made it abundantly clear to him he was known and watched. It never made it
>to the cops.

         If there was credible evidence, it should have!

>  my job as a parent
>was to keep my kids safe and to save the world from them.

         Absolutely.

>OTOH... I have run into some adults who prey on other adults that simply
>should be locked up or at the least be completely avoided at events..

         Yep, us too.
-- Britton

end
                 - - Roy B. Scherer
                  529 High Street
             Petersburg, VA 23803-3859;
                    (804) 3825411
==============================================
"The world is a dangerous place, not because
of those who do evil, but because of those
who look on and do nothing."
            ---Albert Einstein
==============================================