Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:34 PM
In the story available here, http://www.nbc5.com/news/4509122/detail.html
, it states how Six Flags has added new wording on the back of its season passes reserving the right to deny entry to criminal offenders.
The story cites a 2000 incident at Great America, where attorneys advised SF to add the warning.
The parks, however, have no plans to perform background checks on every guest entering their gates.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:56 PM
On the bright side, I guess there's going to be no crowds at SFMM from now on. :)
(Easiest punchline ever!)
Red Garter Rob
Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:24 PM
.. or SF Great America .. or SF America .. or....
Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:30 PM
As clever as it is to make fun of this, the article is about something a little different than the thread title suggests.
It basically says that SF won't let sex offenders into the parks, not ALL criminal offenders.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:47 PM
Sucks to be Tigger.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:17 PM
I agree with Six Flags, I think it is logical to have this rule in affect where there are MANY kids just running around, sometimes without adult supervision.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:47 PM
Wasn't it Rye that had a problem with a sex offender clown that they couldn't get rid of since they are owned by the local government?
Reading the back of my Six Flags pass, while it goes into detail about sex offenders, it also says, "...any crime of a type the could pose a threat to the safety of our guests...". That could cover a lot of other ground. I particularly have to think of gang activity that has caused problems at a number of parks, especially around Halloween.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:56 PM
I guess most of us probably don't read the fine print on the back of the passes. I was surprised when I read it. I certainly agree with what they're trying to do but at the same I wonder how long before the ACLU or somebody like that tries a challenge?
We had a deal in Iowa awhile back where one of the courts threw out a rule that said sex offenders (registered) couldn't live within so many feet of a school.
The ACLU was behind that challenge all the way.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:44 PM
Well, SF could be purposely looking for a fight. So they claim they've tried but it's been deemed against the law for them to single someone out.
Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:39 PM
For them to say a past convicted sex offender is not allowed to even enter the park is so wrong in so many ways. The "rule" assumes that anyone convicted of a sex crime is only going to a park to look for little kids to fondle.
If it was worded to say that sex crimes were not allowed on park property, I wold have no problem with it at all, even though it's common sense to know that one shouldn't preform any kind of crime anywhere.
Any kid in my care is always in my sight. They know to kick and scream if someone makes them feel uncomfortable. We have to tell our kids how to react to best escape a situation that could scar them for life, and pretending to ban "sex offenders" from a park isn't going to make them any safer. It just may put them in more danger. "Run along Dick and Jane. You are safe here at the sex-offender-banning amusement park."
Hate the sin, love the sinner. Be wary of monsters. Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect.
Friday, May 20, 2005 10:52 AM
Sex offenders shouldn't be on the street at all in anyway. But how are they going to monitor this? They going to check every name or just pic names at random to check? Do you think they are hyping it to the media to make have sex offenders second guess getting a season pass?