[wingspan33]

. . . This is why ethics classes exist, because sadly these petulant self-serving bastards can't figure it out on their own.

I wonder, do they hold such classes in the State Pen?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Oh, I get the gist of the "plot". But like Rick, I just don't get what he did "wrong". Or more importantly how what he did could be twisted to be perceived as wrong.

Bingo ... that's because I didn't do anything wrong.   

The problem at Torrey is that the concessionaire(s) have convinced themselves that they set the standards of right and wrong. David Jebb, Gabriel Jebb, and Robin Marien have been judge, jury, and executioner for so long that they've lost sight of the fact that we do indeed have a REAL justice system in this country.

[dhmartens]

From this document:
https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default/fi ... onduct.pdf

states: Jump.and.chest.bumping.with.teammates (As Legal)


however the earlier photo of the concessionaire flipping you the finger:
(Illegal) Using.profanity,.insulting.or.vulgar.language.and/or.gestures

Is there a link to the photo of the illegal gesture?

[Bill Cummings]

Is this what you were looking for? If you need close ups they are also on this website.
http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1385#p6330

[Bill Cummings]

Is this what you were looking for? If you need close ups they are also on this website.
http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1385#p6330

Here are better (if anyone can call this better) pictures captured from the video.

finger 1.JPG (33.19 KiB) Viewed 4063 times

and:

finger 2.JPG (51.02 KiB) Viewed 4063 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bill, you beat me to it    . . .    and you did a better job!!!

         (oops ... wrong finger)

[wingspan33]

DH,

Rules in sports have no relevance to the behavior of citizens in public.

Example: The activities that take place in a Boxing Ring are allowed there - as a sporting activity (and agreed to by the participants). But if two people in a public place start striking each other, each trying to knock the other out, that's (extreme!) "Battery". It could even rise to the level of "Attempted Murder". Very much illegal!

Illegal "Assault" can be as simple as a threat by word or action which implies/indicates possible violence against/toward another person.

"Battery" can involve simple, unwanted physical contact. That includes someone chest butting you when they do not have your permission or consent to do so. If someone is displaying anger toward you and pushes or shoves you, or pokes you in the chest with their finger, that's "Battery". If those actions are preceded with threatening words or actions (like a raised fist), the two acts together = "Assault and Battery".

From this document:
https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default/fi ... onduct.pdf

states: Jump.and.chest.bumping.with.teammates (As Legal) . . .

[Jacmac]

Oh, I get the gist of the "plot". But like Rick, I just don't get what he did "wrong". Or more importantly how what he did could be twisted to be perceived as wrong.

Bingo ... that's because I didn't do anything wrong.   

The problem at Torrey is that the concessionaire(s) have convinced themselves that they set the standards of right and wrong. David Jebb, Gabriel Jebb, and Robin Marien have been judge, jury, and executioner for so long that they've lost sight of the fact that we do indeed have a REAL justice system in this country.

The whole matter only proves the point that there needs to be some sort of City managed oversight. The Judge agreed, but it is obvious that the Judge sees you as being provocative (her reaction to the video). I don't think the Judge has a good grasp of the situation as a whole, and who could? It's a problem that has built up over years and she only gets to hear bits and pieces from people that are clearly biased one way or the other.

However, she has gotten to the heart of the matter; that there are very specific things the Plaintiff needs to prove and has not proven so far. I expect that the next hearing will be the final one as she basically told the Plaintiff's lawyer that he needs to focus on proving his alternative theory and that is about it. The testimony in the previous two hearings went off on all kinds of tangents, which shows that there are very strong opinions as well as a lot of complexity. It all very much boils down to what the rules (both informal and strictly legal) actually are at the park and in what way(s) Bob supposedly has violated the rules, such that Robin has or should have the authority to prevent Bob from being there. Although they are trying to use this stalking theory to get around the violence requirement, we all know what is going on. Bob has been a thorn, on and off for many years, and now they want that thorn permanently and legally banned from the site.

There are some precedents that could be set:
Is it OK to record video in a park of activities on a regular or irregular basis without asking for permission?
Can a waivered pilot walk around on launch or the LZ without permission?

One of the allegations being proffered is that Bob has been some sort of safety hazard by video recording and/or walking around on the launch/LZ (recording or not). Depending on the specific situation this is certainly arguable. But there are many other issues that could be argued along these same lines of thought. I had to overshoot a landing one day because another pilot below me came in at the same time from the south (me from the north). There was no overshoot lane that day because there were students all over the place, so I had maneuver violently towards the spectators and came down just the right of the PG setup area. This was a busy summer day with tons of spectators and pilots. The practicing PG pilots were a huge safety hazard. Although all of the Hang Glider pilots are advanced, we should not have to deal with no clear overshoot lane just because they are running a flight school there. But I don't feel like I have anywhere to bring this up or any way to report this problem, other than with the Concessionaire. Robin would certainly listen, but he's running a business. Clear overshoot lanes are going to come in second to making money. This park needs City managed oversight where something like my experience can be reported to and considered by. At least if an accident occurs in the future that is similar to the scenario, the issue would be known to have been officially reported.

[wingspan33]

Jacmac,

Your post covered just about every aspect of the situation. And as an "outside" observer it gives me more appreciation of the dynamics involved (even if I have already found out a lot from various sources!).

One thing I would say about the "right" for anyone to video record in any public park (anywhere in the US) is that it is, indeed, a PUBLIC place. There are laws about capturing people's images if you intend to make money off of such a recording. But in Bob's case that has no relevance.

There are also some laws (in most States?) regarding the recording of other people's "private" conversations. But, again, there is some vagueness here in that the audio recorded with Bob K's videos is occurring, once again, in a PUBLIC place. With even the possibility of one or more Park Visitors hearing a conversation (in other words, not taking place behind closed doors) such a conversation becomes PUBLIC. If the conversation has something to do with managing the site - that also gives it PUBLIC relevance.

Bob can also, legitimately, claim rights under Constitutional Freedom of the Press statutes.

Taken in total, I would say that if any (local) law was passed that disallowed video (with audio) recording in ANY or ALL City of San Diego Parks, havoc would ensue. Foreign Visitors can't video the gliders flying - or a beautiful sunset? (! ! !) Parents can't video tape their kids reacting to gliders soaring overhead? (! ! !) Family members can't video record their loved one getting a tandem "lesson"? (! ! !) The concessionaire can't video tape DURING a tandem "lesson"? (! ! !)

Get the idea? And creating a "law" that singles out Bob K, . . . ? Probably amount to a Civil Rights violation.

As to the "Safety" concerns of the concessionaire regarding Bob K's presence at the site? That's very doubtful unless some solid documentation could show that that has actually already (and repeatedly?) happened. You can't limit a person's freedoms on unfounded "What Ifs".

[Bob Kuczewski]

The whole matter only proves the point that there needs to be some sort of City managed oversight.
  :
  :
This park needs City managed oversight where something like my experience can be reported to and considered by. At least if an accident occurs in the future that is similar to the scenario, the issue would be known to have been officially reported.

       Brian for President!!!