promise5

Do you need this type of medical in order to get certified as a TI? No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Lost No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

SHE!! And she's gorgeous!! No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Asshat bully. Just wanted to say that No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Hatchet No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Aaaannnndddd that was turtle's college speech in a nut shell. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Acceptance No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

not me!!!!! No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Late No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Bum No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

I was curious that's all. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

+10 No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

+1 Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes. So . . . that begs the question of whether or not the DZO should be charged as an accomplice, or at least implicated, if the sex offender commits another sex offence. There would be no criminal offense by the DZO if this happened. The possibility the DZO would need to be aware of is called "negligent hiring". This would occur if it was clear the instructor had a history of this, and the DZO did nothing to prevent a future offense at the DZ. But this would only result in a (possibly costly) lawsuit. But, again, not a crime by the DZO. I don't mean to be disrespectful by "talking down" to you. But there is a difference between a criminal offense, and something you can get sued over. The DZO would have to take that into account in deciding whether to hire that person. He's a turtle. They're kinda short so unless you lay on your stach it's hard not to "talk down at him". No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Who what ? No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Isn't funny how Facebook once notified removes someone from Facebook if they're a registered sex offender. Facebook! Of all things takes a stand on this. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Sting No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

+1 Do we believe that people can change? Do we believe that people should get a second chance? If yes, then we need to offer that chance. Which is not to say the DZ should not monitor the person closely. But if a DZO has talked to the person, checked his or her background, and is willing to offer the chance, then yes. I think people have a very unrealistic view when it comes to assault/rape and child molestation. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Ping pong No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Not a problem at all getting it. and that's sad. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Heaven No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Next!! No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Obama TURTLE!!!!! You're going to get this locked or bumped to SC!! No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Debt No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

That's really sad and unless they are turned in they will continue. But, here's the thing. I'm talking about someone that has been convicted of this kind of crime and then is required to register. No there's not a difference on the list but when checked it would state what the committed crime was and let it go from there. I just don't see allowing someone like this to be certified. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.

Alright then why not just do a mandatory check. I don't know how many they get a month but I don't think checking the registry would take up that much time. I still see them as having a bigger problem with liability for not checking. They don't check but certify someone and a crime is committed by that person with a student. You bet that's going to come back and bite them in the butt. But thankfully I don't think it happened, or if it has I haven't heard about it. No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible. Believe me I tried.