JimF-LowBari Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Unless it's a national agency background check, a lot of criminal activity wont show up, either. When our church got serious about protecting kids from abuse lot of people went thru the "basic" PA background check. Consisted of PA state police checking if the person ever had any criminal charges filed against them in PA. (No idea if this checked out of state.) Also checked if you were on the national sexual offenders/preditor list. Cost $20 per person back then (ca 1999), $10 for each check. Then again SOME of us had the FBI check our ##### because of where we work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) Nelson did not put others' lives at risk. He was not convicted of any crime. He was not even TRIED on any crime (he trusted the system enough to forgo the speedy trial.) He told his story, and the judge "threw it out"...just as the judge in my night-time-no-headlights-on-accident case had done...but for a price: $1000.If I were Nelson, I'd call that "exonerated" too. It doesn't change what he agreed to (unzipping, pulling it out), but it certainly changes the intent (from illegal thing to not illegal thing). So, if you want to "indict" Nelson on "unzipping and pulling it out," more power to you. We don't actually know his intent....only he does. The court said "no illegal intent, but he sure was dumb. Hopefully our undercover agents learned a few things too, so they'll be more careful next time." In pleading "No Contest" the charges are not thrown out and it doesn't change the legality of what was done. You can still be penalized and have the charges appear on your record if that is the judges decision. As for my relative he didn't even get to tell his story and I understand that is the norm. Everything was worked out between the attornies of the opposing sides before he went to trial. All that was needed was the judges "blessing". My relative was not exhonarated and the only difference for him between "not guilty" and "no contest" was that was allowed to keep his license with a no contest plea. (My understanding is his medical license would have been revoked on a guilty plea.) Edit: to clear up my bad logic Edited November 16, 2009 by JimF-3rdBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagenh Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 How is this an issue? He (probably) wanted sex and got in trouble for trying to get it in public. So what? How could this possibly affect the kids? And how is what this guy did legally any different than what membership does? I guarantee that a huge percentage (more than a third) of marching members have sexual relations in public at some point during the season. If they like someone in another corps there is nowhere else to go. Ever been by the Citrus Bowl tennis courts after a show? Deviants! If you don't trust your kid to make smart decisions in this area they should not march any corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasualFan Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 How is this an issue? He (probably) wanted sex and got in trouble for trying to get it in public. So what? How could this possibly affect the kids?And how is what this guy did legally any different than what membership does? I guarantee that a huge percentage (more than a third) of marching members have sexual relations in public at some point during the season. If they like someone in another corps there is nowhere else to go. Ever been by the Citrus Bowl tennis courts after a show? Deviants! If you don't trust your kid to make smart decisions in this area they should not march any corps. Most of them are heterosexuals; therefore they are NOT considered to be deviants. I wonder how many of the complaining heterosexuals in this thread have ever engaged in public sex? Just because you won't be arrested for it doesn't mean that it isn't just as illegal as a couple of gay guys doing it. In the city where I grew up, there was a park infamous for both gay and heterosexual adult hookups. Every time the cops rolled through, they told the heterosexuals to put their clothes on and go about their business. But if you were engaged in same-gender activities, then you were arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Most of them are heterosexuals; therefore they are NOT considered to be deviants. I wonder how many of the complaining heterosexuals in this thread have ever engaged in public sex? Just because you won't be arrested for it doesn't mean that it isn't just as illegal as a couple of gay guys doing it.In the city where I grew up, there was a park infamous for both gay and heterosexual adult hookups. Every time the cops rolled through, they told the heterosexuals to put their clothes on and go about their business. But if you were engaged in same-gender activities, then you were arrested. What a joke. It is not homosexuality that is being called deviant, it is the mating dance that seems to occur in these public places. You really think a heterosexual male spends a lot of time exposing himself to strange women to gauge their interest? It is crazy that anyone can come on here and defend Nelson's behavior. The fact that there are so many posting to this thread who think there is nothing wrong with what he did and can even hint at police harassment for arresting him is remarkable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euponitone Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) yeah,....public sex......who in drum corps has ever done that?!?!?!?!?! Edited November 16, 2009 by euponitone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Most of them are heterosexuals; therefore they are NOT considered to be deviants. I wonder how many of the complaining heterosexuals in this thread have ever engaged in public sex? Just because you won't be arrested for it doesn't mean that it isn't just as illegal as a couple of gay guys doing it.In the city where I grew up, there was a park infamous for both gay and heterosexual adult hookups. Every time the cops rolled through, they told the heterosexuals to put their clothes on and go about their business. But if you were engaged in same-gender activities, then you were arrested. Oh cry me a river with your self imposed everybody hates homosexuals ########. Nobody is making this into an sexual preference issue but you. You're experiences growing up have zero bearing on this issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 What a joke. It is not homosexuality that is being called deviant, it is the mating dance that seems to occur in these public places. You really think a heterosexual male spends a lot of time exposing himself to strange women to gauge their interest? That’s not what happened. There’s no allegation he was exposing himself at random. On the contrary, by the officer’s account, the exposure happened in a place where such encounters are known to happen and then only after the officer engaged in conversation with him. The only “victim” in this case is the police officer who, we must remember, was there specifically to see what he ultimately saw. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccBDevil Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 yeah,....public sex......who in drum corps has ever done that?!?!?!?!?! hahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 That’s not what happened. There’s no allegation he was exposing himself at random. On the contrary, by the officer’s account, the exposure happened in a place where such encounters are known to happen and then only after the officer engaged in conversation with him. The only “victim” in this case is the police officer who, we must remember, was there specifically to see what he ultimately saw.HH OK, no problem then. I will make a note that if someone talks to me it is OK to show them my member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts