glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Apparently the arresting officer was NOT a CONSENTING adult, and this was not in a private place. Surely you're not suggesting coersion? If it were, the crime charged would have been different and far more serious. No, that fact isn't in dispute. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BozzlyB Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Why? All he did - ALL HE DID - was attempt consenting sex with another adult. Yes, it might have been on public property, which despite the apparent seclusion of the spot, might make this a crime. But what is the relation to children and teaching? Isn't the answer none?Keep in mind that the crime with which he was charged was a misdemeanor, not a felony. It's also an order of magnitude or two below the categories for DWI and most drug offenses. How many teachers whom we respect have have had their names recorded on the police blotter for misdemeanors? Are they all ineligible for teaching? HH So if I walk up to you and start playin solitary wiffle bat thats just me attempting to have consenting sex with you , no big deal. You would think it completely normal and either move on or join in without giving it a second thought. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meaghatron Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Why? All he did - ALL HE DID - was attempt consenting sex with another adult. Yes, it might have been on public property, which despite the apparent seclusion of the spot, might make this a crime. The fact is he WAS in a public park (not might have been), which is public property... which makes the alleged act illegal. He showed extremely poor judgment on his part, regardless of whether he actually committed the act or not. As someone who is student teaching next semester and plans on teaching for a long time, I am constantly told by my professors and cooperating teachers that you must be smart in every decision you make. You don't give anyone a reason- administration, staff, students- to assume you are doing something illegal or unethical. Mr. Nelson obviously has been in education for a long time, and he should have known better than to put himself in that situation. Like someone else said, it takes little time to ruin a reputation that took twenty years to build. The greatest of people can have a small blemish on their record (not necessarily a criminal one) that can nullify everything else they have done. Is it fair? Probably not. But people are reserved the right to be concerned. I'm sure the Colts organization knew this issue would come up when they announced him on their staff. Hopefully they are prepared for the backlash (at whatever level) and have some kind of response for those who are concerned about Mr. Nelson's hiring. Regardless, the best of luck to the Colts during their camps and next summer. Edited November 15, 2009 by Meaghatron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daave Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I love playing the "what if game" and speculation being just that... Could you imagine how many pages this thread would have been if his first name began with a J and he had been hired by the Mason Entertainment Group and this announcement had come from Madison? What if, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 So if I walk up to you and start playin solitary wiffle bat thats just me attempting to have consenting sex with you , no big deal. You would think it completely normal and either move on or join in without giving it a second thought. Right. That's not what happened. They engaged in conversation in a place where these sorts of liasons take place. Based on that conversation in that location, he first moved away, then made the offending gesture. Nothing aggressive or coercive or even public beyond the eyes of a single individual. The facts are quite different from the scenario you present, particularly since we don't know what the officer said and how it might have encouraged the alleged offense. But to answer your question anyway, I likely wouldn't be too put out by a display where there was no contact and no attempt to coerce. I take far more offense at the aggressive, loutish behavior I've witnessed at professional football games than any misguided overtures directed at me in public restrooms and parks. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Disclaimer: below response is only dealing with how this might affect the corps recruiting efforts.My understanding is pleading "No Contest" comes down to "I'm not going to admit guilt but I'm not going to fight the charge". Yes he wasn't found guilty but he didn't deny the charges in court. This in itself raises eyebrows in a lot of people. Personally if I had a kid wanting to join Colts I'd be emailing with a lot of very specific questions (I have some in mind). Then depending on the response I'd decide if my kid could join. Again, not condemning the man but would be more careful in dealing with corps. And how the corps management handles the situation and the questions that come with it would mean a lot. Edit: Actually corps response would carry more weight than the charges.... Yes, I think your understanding of No Contest is pretty much the same way I understand it. I must say I don't know Randy Nelson and until this thread really knew absolutely nothing about this incident. (I know your referencing recruiting efforts but I did want to address this part of it)....While I agree with you that the no contest plea raises eyebrows.... I can think of many reasons why he was probably advised that this was his best legal avenue and made that choice even if he was innocent. Also, from what I have read he has claimed his innocence and denied the charges that he was attempting to even approach a consenting adult for sex or committed the acts he was charged with. It seems that many on both sides of the argument have assumed he is guilty of this. Perhaps their is something indicating that he is but to me the no contest plea in this case is not an admission of guilt. Only Mr. Nelson knows the truth and so far from what I can see he has claimed to be innocent. As far as the corps goes, my experience is that they have always answered any questions or concerns addressed by parents and would do no less than that in this situation should a current or prospective parent have a concern they are encouraged to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 He showed extremely poor judgment on his part, regardless of whether he actually committed the act or not. If no act was committed, how was there poor judgment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The Colts will fill ranks and there won't be an issue. If you honestly cannot stand the idea of this hire, contact the Colts and voice your opinion. Don't sit on DCP playing armchair lawyer until June comes along and armchair judging time begins. DO SOMETHING such as contacting Greg about your concerns. Yes, I know the purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss things. But honestly, this isn't necessary. Several Colts, former Colts, and individuals associated with the corps have voiced their trust in the leadership of the organization. If you decide not to march Colts based on this thread, well, the organization will probably be OK; especially considering the number of posters of marching age/with children of marching age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 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 Give me a break, he pleaded no contest to avoid an embarrassing trial. Any one with a brain knows what he was up to in that park that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjordansc Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 That's not what happened. They engaged in conversation in a place where these sorts of liasons take place. Based on that conversation in that location, he first moved away, then made the offending gesture. Nothing aggressive or coercive or even public beyond the eyes of a single individual. The facts are quite different from the scenario you present, particularly since we don't know what the officer said and how it might have encouraged the alleged offense.But to answer your question anyway, I likely wouldn't be too put out by a display where there was no contact and no attempt to coerce. I take far more offense at the aggressive, loutish behavior I've witnessed at professional football games than any misguided overtures directed at me in public restrooms and parks. HH Finally, we have boiled it down to the root issue between posters to this thread. Some, like this poster, have no problem that a public park is used in what other posters feel is in a deviant manner. Some defending Nelson say he was simply looking for consensual sex by showing off his tool. Others, think this is just a little to strange and illegal to set aside for the good of a drum corps. I would not let my child march in the Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts