JKatzmellophone Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Since when are police arrest reports and newspaper articles "drivel on DCP". Downplaying how serious people might take this does not help the corps either. Especially when the parents expect the corps to take care of their kids over the summer. Personally I'd be highly PO'ed if corps was not open with this and I found out after tour started and the due were paid. The article only states the policeman's point of view..And a cop has never EVER shot first and asked questions later. Right!! point is... If he was labeled a sex offender of any kind by the municipality who tried him, he would have to be registered in that state... I don't think anyone would have hired him had this been a factor. Like some already said he was exonerated from that charge! This information is available to the public.. I checked both Pensacola and Fort Walton Beach and... He isn't there!! Edited November 15, 2009 by JKatzmellophone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwmoore001 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It makes me sick how fast you people will throw a police officer under the bus just because you like the guy that he caught breaking the law. And you know what? that same police officer would not hesitate to protect your behind if you were in danger. Now I am not saying that there aren't bad officers out there, but based on these reports the claims of innocence are all emotionally based. The fact is that he was in a PUBLIC park exposing himself to another person. That is illegal and calls into question his judgement in a serious way. I, personally, would not let my child march for a corps that had him on staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) The fact is that he was in a PUBLIC park exposing himself to another person. That is illegal and calls into question his judgement in a serious way. Has he admitted to this? Was he found guilty of this? Is that so, where do your facts come from? The only facts that I have seen is that he denied the charges but pleaded "no contest". Perhaps you have seen something I haven't? Edited November 15, 2009 by bmroth1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwmoore001 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Has he admitted to this? Was he found guilty of this? Is that so, where do your facts come from? The only facts that I have seen is that he denied the charges but pleaded "no contest". Perhaps you have seen something I haven't? UGH!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) UGH!!! No really, I'm being serious. Where have you seen this? If you have I would like to know. I'm not being sarcastic. Edited November 15, 2009 by bmroth1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKatzmellophone Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 It makes me sick how fast you people will throw a police officer under the bus just because you like the guy that he caught breaking the law. And you know what? that same police officer would not hesitate to protect your behind if you were in danger. Now I am not saying that there aren't bad officers out there, but based on these reports the claims of innocence are all emotionally based. The fact is that he was in a PUBLIC park exposing himself to another person. That is illegal and calls into question his judgement in a serious way. I, personally, would not let my child march for a corps that had him on staff. And its equally sickening when people put other people under the bus because a "media" article is used as fact!!! You only see the policeman's point of view through the journalist's perspective.. Had the Journalist been weighing things on the side of Randy Nelson.. That picture that everyone has painted in their minds of this guy would be completely different. One would hope that those of you responding on here are adults or at least grown up enough to realize that the media is not the best way to determine the guilt or innocence of anyone! That's what the court is for. Due Process!!!! He didn't do jail time.. He is not listed on any sex offender registry.. Move on people.. I'm sure there is something on here more intriguing to bash.. like woodwinds or something!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 And just to reiterate. I'm not at all saying he's a bad guy, bad friend, evil, poor designer, etc. I don't know him. He could absolutely be one of the nicest persons I could ever meet. Once again, that's not the issue. He could be absolute one of the nicest persons .... That's not the issue. Isnt' it though? The people who know - which you don't - have faith in him. You - who don't know him - are casting the "risk" stone about. Whom should we believe? The ones who know nothing of this man except that he made the alleged mistake of attempting a sexual liason with an adult in a secluded spot in a public park? Or should we believe the people who know him, his character and ultimately the few risks and more prominent opportunities of associating with someone who is defined by more than one day in a long life? I'm betting on the Colts, against risk and against judging one man by his worst day. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daave Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Based on ones upbringing and individual moral compass, one tends to believe in a particular viewpoint. Believe media, police, court system, authority figures, etc. Given that belief or point of view: "For those who do believe, no explaination is necessary... for those who don't, no explaination will do." ($1 to whatever guy said this first) Based on where you fall in the topic, it is my observation that on DCP (as with most discussion boards), arguing with the opposite is not unlike talking with a Q-tip. You individual mileage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 So let me get this straight. Even though he did not plead innocent, I am to assume he is innocent? What are the facts? The facts? Here it is. He is absolutely and unequivocally innocent until proven guilty. That is fundamental and irrefutable fact in our judicial system. There was no finding of guilt. He is not guilty. That's the legal fact. That fact should be the one aspect of this discussion not in displute. Not guilty under the law. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 That's great. But it still doesn't answer the question of whta's the need of taking such an utterly unecessary risk? It's not as if there is any kind of shortage of qualified individuals available. The risk? You mean the risk you and others would make assumptions about the fundamental character of a man based on that man's desire for a casual sexual encounter with another consenting adult in a secluded part of a park? Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that this man in any way is a threat to the well-being of children or young adults. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts