Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 13 hours ago, MusicManNJ said: Thanks! I tried to embed the tweet but it kept showing the code and not the spiffy image you were able to get. And I agree... this is a TERRIBLE look. Bad job on the communications side. My hunch: lawyers advice 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, MikeD said: GH has been accused of rape and other serious felonies. SA was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor that was not a sex-based crime at all. It did not matter who was in the closet where the camera was, or what they were doing. It was against the law to record anybody secretly. That is what he was charged with and convicted of, and then later set aside, as it was that low of level. I hate to mix up that situation with the horrific acts GH has committed. IMO they are not remotely equal. Yeah. It wasn't a crime. He's just a perv. (Allegedly). Let him back in! Edited May 3, 2018 by HockeyDad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 11 hours ago, MikeD said: Wow, that is a total misrepresentation of what took place with the guy. Not to mention, since the misdemeanor conviction was not for a crime the level you state above, it was later set aside, as any misdemeanor may be upon successful completion of any imposed sentence. The verdict was this... "…guilty of unlawfully attempting to view, by means of any instrumentality, to wit a camcorder, the interior of an area in which the occupancy has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside…" The statute broken was not a sex-based crime at all, actually, but could have applied to filming a custodian going about his/her daily duties. Plus, after the case, the person was both the Troopers and Cavies brass caption head before the verdict was set aside, and was also a college band director at two different universities in that time. He passed the PA credential check performed by YEA, as he has no record. I've never met the man, and I have no idea why he was taping in the closet, but your description does not fit the actual situation in this case. There is enough real stuff to fill page after page in the thread. Well...... the full details of the case were linked in here. Reading the details and seeing the charges, the guys lawyer did a great job. But from a PR perspective hiring the guy, even if legally clean was dumb as ####### hell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 10 hours ago, MikeD said: Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor of that level is entitled to have the verdict set aside. It is not an appeal process as you indicate in the above. He was not convicted of a sex crime at all, actually, something you seem to ignore. Yes, he may have been run out of town by the people with pitchforks storming the barricades, but there are enough REAL issues to bring out that this particular one seems to me to have been unfairly handled. Again with the shower....the camera was in a closet in the music suite, not a shower, Was it stupid? Yes...and it was illegal no matter who was filmed, be it a student or as I said a custodian...or anyone. He is not a sex offender however, in the eyes of the law, which is all we should be going by. You are ascribing all sorts of personal motivations and accusations of intent without one piece of evidence. Neither of us has any idea just WHY the camera was there,but it is not relevant to the case...taping as he did was illegal. It is not sad that the law allows misdemeanors to be set aside. I would not want to see anyone's life ruined forever for a low level misdemeanor conviction if it followed the person forever. Was it bad PR to hire anyway? Yessssss 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 10 hours ago, MikeD said: Ah, no. Not remotely the same thing. Smh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetiredMusTeach Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Here on page 455, after reading over & over the actual confirmation of this scripture: "Whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be shouted from the housetops for all to hear!" - it seems to me that all of us have had to examine our hearts. That's the good and the hard thing. And it is a good time to repent, if needed - turn and run the other way! Repentance no longer justifies wrong and evil, it just says "this was wrong, this was evil" - and THEN repentance sets about trying to rectify the damage that was done to another, if that is at all possible, and to work on the restoration of all who were harmed. So now that we are admitting to decades of "nodding & winking" or worse at bad and evil behavior, after "coming clean" we can work at a new era where gentlemanly and gracious behavior is expected and is the norm, where the strong protect the weak, where we bite our tongues before talking dirty, where we look down instead of leering, and where we regularly examine our hearts to make sure we are contributing good to society and to this awesome activity. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 10 hours ago, MikeD said: GH has been accused of rape and other serious felonies. SA was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor that was not a sex-based crime at all. It did not matter who was in the closet where the camera was, or what they were doing. It was against the law to record anybody secretly. That is what he was charged with and convicted of, and then later set aside, as it was that low of level. I hate to mix up that situation with the horrific acts GH has committed. IMO they are not remotely equal. No offense but Scott was convicted for video taping an area where students are known to change clothes and be able to be seen in various states of undress. That to me is visual rape. And from an optics standpoint knowing it’s public record, regardless of legally cleared off the record or not, I don’t give a #### how good he is, he shouldn’t be allowed near kids. Would you hire him to work with your band knowing what he did? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 9 hours ago, MikeD said: We agree on the above. However, this case was not about videotaping in a shower. He passed "legal muster" because what he did was not a sex crime, period. You don't get to make up your own facts. He videotaped a place where it’s known kids change clothes. That’s bad enough 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoSurfBass Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, cube said: Sorry, I've been living under a rock for the past few months, forgive my lateness. As a person still in eligibility, this kind of revelation is something that makes me not want to participate in DCI. I have a friend (a DCI rookie) marching Cadets this year. I wonder how he feels. Can't be good. DCI is absolutely worth marching. Don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch. If the Cadets as a corps don't feel safe for you, there are plenty of other opportunities in the same area, in every level of the activity too! EDIT: Also, please stay far, FAR away from this site while you are still considering things. Despite the knowledge and history these posters bring to those new to the activity, so many clashing opinions and views on all these different aspects almost always devolve this site into one giant pissing match, and it's honestly not worth newer fans and members of the activity to come here. Edited May 3, 2018 by MotoSurfBass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, garfield said: What facts is he making up? How about the fact that what he was doing is wrong! Do you support this individual? Would you hire him? Would you want your daughter in the same room with this person? Or are you just slinging your typical nonsense to get a response? Perhaps you also believe that if those (11) women were not with GH nothing would have ever happen. Afterall it's their fault right? Edited May 3, 2018 by Jim Schehr 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts