Nightingale

the question was "european countries" specifically. edit: someone beat me to the Canada thing. Also, Belgium gives gay marriages a "civil union" or similar status, same rights, different name. France, Germany, and the Nordic countries have extensive civil union rights (similar to California, I believe). Argentina has civil unions. The union grants the partners rights such as collection of a pension for the surviving partner in the advent of the other's death, and rights to healthcare benefits.

The title should have been "What the Nation of Islam wants from America." Sure. Farrakhan (sp?) is a radical, and personally, I feel as though he is WAY off base and really just trying to make waves. I think most of us saw the Farrakhan message for what it was, roll our eyes, and move on with life, because the only way to get people like that to go away is to deprive them of their audience. We were concerned that you, or perhaps others reading, felt, or could be misled into feeling, that the Nation of Islam represented all Muslims, which is very much not the case. Matter of fact, the Muslims I work with think he's a moron.

um... could just put it under the category of "driving while distracted" and leave it at that??

um... Netherlands, I believe. http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record?record=814

Nation of Islam does not represent all Muslims anymore than the Christian Coalition represents all Christians.

which is why we have a republic and not a democracy. if we had a democracy, majority rule could overrule the constitution. because we have a republic and a system of checks and balances, it makes sure that the majority doesn't steamroll over the minority, at least, no more than allowed by the constitution.

that's not a good analogy. Here's a more appropriate one, I think. If your mortgage rate is 3%, your rate stays unchanged, no matter what someone else's rate is. You are not affected by someone else having a rate of 5% or 2%. Your rate is 3%, and what goes on in the household next door has nothing to do with you whatsoever.

you can't go through life being afraid of everything. you have to assess risk and take which risks are reasonable to you, and avoid those which are not. goes for just about anything in life.

bump

what's pencil packing?

I'm honestly not sure... however, I do know that a waiver against gross negligence is invalid.

Had my lawyer advised me not to sign the waiver, I would not have signed the waiver. Different DZs have different waivers, and I'd have looked around. And no, he didn't just find some legal loophole. He just explained the contract to me and let me know that if I signed it, that I couldn't sue them for negligence or for my own stupidity (which I wouldn't anyway), but that the contract didn't exclude suing for gross negligence.

but they still can't see what's in their container. The rigger could've stuffed the container with moldy socks for all the student knows, and written down incorrect information on the card. The only way to verify that there is, in fact, a reserve in the container, and that the reserve is what the card says it is, is to open it up.

in some circumstances, not suing can screw it up for everyone. you have a DZ with a rediculously high student fatality rate. Students don't know this. They're newbies. So, people keep coming to the DZ to do AFF, and they keep going in, because the DZ is knowingly using moldy reserves. Nobody sues. The DZ stays in business. Sure, maybe some of the fun jumpers go away, but the DZ does some agressive marketing and makes up for it with more students and tandems... more and more keep getting killed or hurt because of bad equipment. Skydiving statistics look bad. All of a sudden, we have 80 or 100 more fatalities per year. Statistics like that hurt everyone. I recognize that is an extreme example, but, if nobody does anything, it definitely could happen.

then how, like Lisa said in another thread, is the student supposed to be able to take complete responsibility for the rig on their back? how can you be responsible for something you can't see? (and I'm not saying students should be allowed to pull reserves. I agree with you.)

You NEVER explicitly (or even non-explicitly) agreed not to sue under conditions of gross negligence. Agreeing not to sue, never, ever, ever, is not in the waiver.

they don't have their waiver on their website. Could you post a copy?

Please, only DZOs or DZ employees (or contractors ) answer this. This came up in another thread: A student, first jump, wants to inspect the gear they'll be jumping. They want to look over their reserve, from their exact rig. Should they be allowed to pop the reserve and inspect it? We talk about personal responsibility in skydiving, but I know I asked if I could look at my reserve, and was told no. How is a student supposed to be responsible for the gear they strap onto their back if they're not permitted to even look at it?

the examples you cited are simple negligence, and would be covered by the waiver (except the moldy reserve one, because of the 120 day inspection requirement...that one would be a grey area). With regards to the plane thing, sure, I won't get on it if it sounds funny. I know how a plane's supposed to sound. However... do you REALLY think they'd let me inspect the engine? somehow I doubt it. They wouldn't even let me look at the gear I was going to be jumping. No amount of plane knowledge is going to do you a damn bit of good if they won't let you poke around in the engine. Also, in a gross negligence case (deliberately giving a student faulty gear, for example, or sending them up on a plane that they know damn well is more likely than not to fall out of the sky), the thing is, if you allow the DA to handle the whole thing, sure, the guy gets charged with manslaughter, pleas out, and gets to spend a couple of years trying not to drop the soap. His business partners, if any, however, are free to continue doing business, and the guy in jail probably doesn't lose any assets. He's just locked up for a little while, and could even have a third party run the DZ. However, if you sue him and get his assets taken away (hell, donate them to another DZ to set up a student scholarship fund if you feel guilty about it) and get his ass shut down so he doesn't hurt anyone else.

I've read and signed two. And I had my lawyer read BOTH of them before I signed them so I knew exactly what I was signing. Sometimes what you THINK something says is not what it actually says, because legal definitions can be different from common definitions. I always have my lawyer look over any kind of contract or waiver before I sign it. And if he advises me not to sign it, I don't. That's what I pay him for.

I ASKED to look at my reserve on my second jump. They told me no. I was put in a position where I had to trust that what the DZ told me was in my rig was in fact, in my rig. As an experienced jumper, you can look your gear over. Students are not given that opportunity.

you can be injured by someone else's MISTAKE. I accept that. What pisses me off is that you and Lisa are saying that a DZO could DELIBERATELY and MALICIOUSLY put their students at risk (gross negligence...not in the waiver) through giving them faulty equipment ON PURPOSE, and you think they should suffer no consequences whatsoever and be allowed to continue doing exactly what they're doing. If a student asked to inspect the reserve on their student rig, do you think that would be allowed?? HELL NO! they'd simply be told that it was rigger inspected, that they're being paranoid, and to relax. At least, that's the answer I got when I asked.

then don't sue. that's your right. however, if the aircraft was maliciously ill maintained, and jumpers were permitted in the thing even though the DZO knew full well that it could fall out of the sky at any moment, I hope SOMEBODY sues him and puts him out of business so he doesn't kill anyone else. Maybe the guy who didn't sign the waiver, but whose entire family was killed because a plane fell out of the sky onto his house? Lawsuits exist in part to help put business owners with dangerous practices out of business for the safety of everyone else.

yup. It says: "whether caused by the negligence or fault, active or passive, of any of the Releasees, or from any other cause." and again, does not mention "Gross Negligence." I did not sign an agreement not to sue for gross negligence.

sure! its legally binding here too. What you're citing is not a case of gross negligence, and maybe not even negligence, depending on the details. The waiver covers the DZ in cases of negligence and in cases of accidents.