Randy Nelson with Colts

[Plan9]

Putting this aside for a monent WHY would they want him .He did not a thing for Spirit, him or his buds

At the risk of dragging this out longer I just had to respond to this. Mr Nelson's designs brought Spirit to finals in 2007 and his "bud" Shane Gwaltney has had a tremendous impact on the quality of Spirit's battery, which consistently scores higher than the corps itself. Now perhaps if you characterize that accomplishment as "not a thing", one wonders just what you find as worthy of your accolades.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Plan9

[DAvery]

Educators are help to another standard. If he were an accountant, this would not be an issue. At worst he was attempting to engage in a sexual act on public property. Whether you agree with it or not, that's against the law. At best, he was urinating on public property in the proximity of an unknown adult. Why would you urinate in a public place within sight of an adult that you do not know? At best this is a case of very poor judgement. Either way I would not want my kid around this person. Oh and by the way, he will probably teach again. He will go to another state and will be able to say he hasn't been never been found guilty of any charges for anything. His former principal will only be able to say he resigned. If there were any reasons listed in the resignation, she would be able to communicate that. My guess is the resignation says nothing about the incident in the park. But no one from the school district will be able to say anything about the charges in the public park. Which is probably why he resigned and pleaded "no contest". He was not fired. He was not found guilty. He will teach again in another state.

[glory]

I spent 20 years as a journalist, much of that time covering courts and cops. From my experience there and beyond, I can tell y’all a couple of things relevant to this discussion.

The first is pleas of guilty, not guilty and no contest aren’t statements of truth necessarily. Murderers plead not guilty all the time. We know that. Likewise, innocents plead guilty. Yes, it’s true. Everyday many people innocent of the crime charged plead guilty (or no contest) because they’ve made an evaluation that the potential repercussions of a guilty plea are less than the potential risk of trial even with the chance for acquittal.

Think about your own predicaments. How many of us were dealt parking or traffic tickets for which we genuinely felt blameless? Yet we paid them anyway – and thus admitted guilt – because the $40 or $90 cost us less than the time and effort in court with its inherent risk of even greater fines and costs.

The second point is about sexuality. I suspect many of those outraged by this behavior are concerned primarily with the suggestion of homosexuality. While I regret that’s the case because I don’t think it’s relevant, I don’t expect to persuade those for whom that’s the issue. For the rest of y’all, from my experience in the courts and jails and life in general, I will suggest that this notion of sexual deviancy is more rationale than reality. In reality, the variations in our sexual preferences and practices is profound to the point where “normal” is difficult to define. Liaisons in parks and other public places aren’t as rare as arrests such as this make some of us think. And the participants – like those who frequent S&M clubs, swing clubs, etc. – aren’t aliens in our midst; they are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

The difference in this case is paperwork. The fact of his arrest didn’t make this man better or worse. He is who he is and should be judged for that, not for his arrest as if that’s all that defines him now and forever.

Finally, some here continue to reference “registered sex offender” in this situation. You either are a registered sex offender or you are not. There is no evidence that he is, which is why we should drop it. There are legitimate, scary predators out there. We shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted by a man who made poor choices but made them in the company of adults and with the intent for adult consent. It’s an important distinction.

HH

Edited November 13, 2009 by glory

[Bruckner8]

Educators are help to another standard. If he were an accountant, this would not be an issue. At worst he was attempting to engage in a sexual act on public property. Whether you agree with it or not, that's against the law. At best, he was urinating on public property in the proximity of an unknown adult. Why would you urinate in a public place within sight of an adult that you do not know? At best this is a case of very poor judgement. Either way I would not want my kid around this person. Oh and by the way, he will probably teach again. He will go to another state and will be able to say he hasn't been never been found guilty of any charges for anything. His former principal will only be able to say he resigned. If there were any reasons listed in the resignation, she would be able to communicate that. My guess is the resignation says nothing about the incident in the park. But no one from the school district will be able to say anything about the charges in the public park. Which is probably why he resigned and pleaded "no contest". He was not fired. He was not found guilty. He will teach again in another state.

I stopped reading after that. WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN. You're assuming the undercover guy was correct IN HIS CONCLUSION, and you're denying Nelson his Due Process. Lucky for Nelson, Due Process was followed and he moved on.

[DAvery]

I stopped reading after that. WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN. You're assuming the undercover guy was correct IN HIS CONCLUSION, and you're denying Nelson his Due Process. Lucky for Nelson, Due Process was followed and he moved on.

That's why I said "at worst". The officer stated in the report that Randy unzipped his pants. Yes I am assuming that is correct. You are right in saying "we don't know for sure". I wasn't there. Everything I know about this is second hand. But then, everything I know about China is second hand also. I've never been there. Maybe it doesn't really exist. Maybe he didn't unzip his pants. Maybe Randy decided pleading "no contest" was easier, and maybe better for him, than fighting the charge. I do know that by pleading "no contest" and resigning his teaching position it will allow him to teach again. And by the way I didn't deny him "due process". He denied himself "due process" when he pleaded "no contest". This sounds like a calculated move to retain his ability to teach. The details will never be known. That's the whole point.

Edited November 13, 2009 by DAvery

[Bruckner8]

That's why I said "at worst". The officer stated in the report that Randy unzipped his pants. Yes I am assuming that is correct. You are right in saying "we don't know for sure". I wasn't there. Everything I know about this is second hand. But then, everything I know about China is second hand also. I've never been there. Maybe it doesn't really exist. Maybe he didn't unzip his pants. Maybe Randy decided pleading "no contest" was easier, and maybe better for him, than fighting the charge. I do know that by pleading "no contest" and resigning his teaching position it will allow him to teach again. And by the way I didn't deny him "due process". He denied himself "due process" when he pleaded "no contest". This sounds like a calculated move to retain his ability to teach. The details will never be known. That's the whole point.

Well said, thanks.

[JimF-LowBari]

Please! Cops in the park wasting tax dollars pursuing a social agenda instead of genuine crime.

HH

Had the same problem in my home area and disagree. Don't see a social agenda in keeping kids and grown ups seeing someone playing with himself in public. And see nothing in the article that suggested homosexuality. (Note: Some posters hinted at Homosexual acts in other posts. Good thing my lesbian friends didn't see those comments )

Hope he took his lumps and is able to move on. If I was corps director I'd be concerned about the incident but is up to him/her if that would be a reason not to hire.

Edited November 13, 2009 by JimF-3rdBari

[Phantombari1]

I've had a chance to look over all the posts and have come to this conclusion. If he rsigned from the school he was teaching the resignation pressure would have come from the Superintendent. If it had gone any further the school board would have dealt with it in executive session and it would remained in executive session. If a vote had taken place to remove him it would be on his record. The resignation would have kept any information confidential.

Based on the fact that he did not recieve a sexual preditor tpe of label their wasn't enough evidence to prove that so the charge was a slap on the wrist. If he would have been charged with a major offense he would never be allowed in another school district.

As a school board president I have seen things like this come up from time to time and we are bound by law to uphold our teacher and administrative rights no matter how guilty we believe the person to be. In the end we must protect the children first. When the evidence isn't followed up with prosecution we are left in a bad situation. Most school districts find a way to get the person out of the district without breaking their contract. In this case, if I understand it correctly he resigned. The bad part of this is if he really was guilty and now he's in another school district or working with kids.

Only Mr. Nelson knows the truth. At this point it doesn't matter what the police suspect. Maybe he is innocent?

At this point I think his character isn't ruined by the incident. Time to move on with both eye's open.

[BozzlyB]

I don't see anyone defending any "kind of behavior." I see people saying that we, who are not directly involved and have no first hand knowledge, shouldn't be passing judgment. Apparently, some of you have no problem making a judgment without all the evidence. I hope you never serve on a jury where you can do real harm.

It is not passing judgment to voice legitimate concerns. There are plenty of facts available here to make an educated decision as to whether or not there is an increased POTENTIAL for concern relative to this man's past. When you are dealing with the education of minors you don't take these kinds of risks, period. It's not as if he was hired to run a hydro press in some factory.

[BozzlyB]

I spent 20 years as a journalist, much of that time covering courts and cops. From my experience there and beyond, I can tell y’all a couple of things relevant to this discussion.

The first is pleas of guilty, not guilty and no contest aren’t statements of truth necessarily. Murderers plead not guilty all the time. We know that. Likewise, innocents plead guilty. Yes, it’s true. Everyday many people innocent of the crime charged plead guilty (or no contest) because they’ve made an evaluation that the potential repercussions of a guilty plea are less than the potential risk of trial even with the chance for acquittal.

Think about your own predicaments. How many of us were dealt parking or traffic tickets for which we genuinely felt blameless? Yet we paid them anyway – and thus admitted guilt – because the $40 or $90 cost us less than the time and effort in court with its inherent risk of even greater fines and costs.

The second point is about sexuality. I suspect many of those outraged by this behavior are concerned primarily with the suggestion of homosexuality. While I regret that’s the case because I don’t think it’s relevant, I don’t expect to persuade those for whom that’s the issue. For the rest of y’all, from my experience in the courts and jails and life in general, I will suggest that this notion of sexual deviancy is more rationale than reality. In reality, the variations in our sexual preferences and practices is profound to the point where “normal” is difficult to define. Liaisons in parks and other public places aren’t as rare as arrests such as this make some of us think. And the participants – like those who frequent S&M clubs, swing clubs, etc. – aren’t aliens in our midst; they are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

The difference in this case is paperwork. The fact of his arrest didn’t make this man better or worse. He is who he is and should be judged for that, not for his arrest as if that’s all that defines him now and forever.

Finally, some here continue to reference “registered sex offender” in this situation. You either are a registered sex offender or you are not. There is no evidence that he is, which is why we should drop it. There are legitimate, scary predators out there. We shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted by a man who made poor choices but made them in the company of adults and with the intent for adult consent. It’s an important distinction.

HH

Absolutely not. He can have sex with monkey's for all I care. I don't view homosexuality as deviant sexual behavior. Trying to hook up with a stranger for sex in a public park at a time of day where children could be exposed to your actions is EXTREMELY DEVIANT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, and in my opinion there is enough to go on here to at the very least make an educated decision and come to the conclusion that there is a probability of truth to the details of the arrest.