Lance Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 That's not the root of the issue for most people on here, really, mcjordan. It would be scary to see the legislation some on here would try to pass if they were in positions of power, that's for sure. The guy charged with the crime availed himself of the legal system available to us all, and a judgement was made. Nobody on here knows the specifics of the incident. We just know what the legal assessment and punishment of his crime was. Based on that, anybody on here can choose to march or not march with the Colts, or let their children march or not march with the Colts. Simple. Attacking anybody over either decision is childish and stupid. I do wonder if the people showing such outrage over this guy being allowed on a corps staff ever go the distance and find out what other staff might have on their records...I'd be very surprised if there weren't people on staff in some corps who will work with kids all day every day who actually have been proven to put other people in danger, such as with a DUI. One person answered me about their corps doing some sort of a background check, and I've always wondered to what extent corps do that. Unless it's a national agency background check, a lot of criminal activity wont show up, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 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. You're incorrect as far as I - the poster to whom you refer - is concerned. What I have been saying is what transpired in that incident has no bearing on his suitability for teaching drum corps (or school, etc.). Though prosecutable, his behavior wasn't aggressive, coercive or threatening in away. His alleged crime is a misdemeanor in the category of nuisance crimes - something far removed from the sex offender class that many here have referenced directly or obliquely and irresponsibly. No one so far has made the assertion everyone ever who violated the law should be blocked from a staff position in drum corps. That's because most violations aren't relevant to the situation. Neither has anyone made the case why his particular crime poses a realistic threat to young people. And that's because it isn't. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsoprano Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I would feel much better about the situation - and be more willing to stand on the side of this argument with others who feel that one lapse in judgment should not tarnish a career - if, after entering the no contest plea, he hadn't gone around representing himself as having been completely exonerated (and yes, I have been told by mutual close friends that this is what he did). Whether he's innocent or not, a plea of no contest (and being ordered to pay $1,000 in court costs) is a FAR cry from being completely exonerated, and I'm sure he knows the difference. To misrepresent something as serious as this to his peers who have respect for him, and for whom he supposedly has a mutual respect, says as much about character as the original "offense." If he had tried to tell Colts management before he was hired that he was totally exonorated, or that the charges had been dropped, then if I were them, I would be rethinking my decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 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. You are very incorrect in this statement. People make no contest pleas every day on misdemeanor crimes that they were innocent of for many reasons not just reserved for those who are embarrassed by prosecution. You do not know what happened in the park that day only Mr. Nelson does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meaghatron Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) If no act was committed, how was there poor judgment? In the officer's report, he stated that Mr. Nelson was fondling himself in a public park. Mr. Nelson denies he did this. So, therefore, regardless if he actually did what he was accused of doing, he showed poor judgment by even going to a public park in the middle of the afternoon and soliciting the man (in this case, an undercover officer) in any way. He showed poor judgment by putting himself in a situation that could be misconstrued as illegal sexual activity. Again, use intelligence and common sense. Especially as an educator, you do not put yourself in a situation that can be deemed illegal or unethical. You have to be a step ahead of the game because simple accusations can ruin your career. Fortunately for Mr. Nelson, he can still find work (and can still theoretically teach). I'm sure he has learned that he must be more careful with what he does on his own time. Edited November 15, 2009 by Meaghatron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmroth1 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) Whether he's innocent or not, a plea of no contest (and being ordered to pay $1,000 in court costs) is a FAR cry from being completely exonerated, and I'm sure he knows the difference. To misrepresent something as serious as this to his peers who have respect for him, and for whom he supposedly has a mutual respect, says as much about character as the original "offense." I was about to agree with you then I looked up the definition of the word and realized that what he said was correct. exonerated 1) to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating 2) to relieve, as from an obligation, duty, or task. As far as I know, and feel free to correct this if I am wrong but doesn't a no contest plea free him from a conviction? Which goes back to perhaps the very reason he may have taken the plea to begin with if innocent. Perhaps you weigh the benefits from going through a trial and winning. What do you gain from winning at trial? Your rep is already tarnished, you've already resigned your job and all you possibly gain is an exoneration that you get through the plea anyway. I can see how an innocent person would take this route. Edited November 15, 2009 by bmroth1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I would feel much better about the situation - and be more willing to stand on the side of this argument with others who feel that one lapse in judgment should not tarnish a career - if, after entering the no contest plea, he hadn't gone around representing himself as having been completely exonerated (and yes, I have been told by mutual close friends that this is what he did). Whether he's innocent or not, a plea of no contest (and being ordered to pay $1,000 in court costs) is a FAR cry from being completely exonerated, and I'm sure he knows the difference. To misrepresent something as serious as this to his peers who have respect for him, and for whom he supposedly has a mutual respect, says as much about character as the original "offense." If he had tried to tell Colts management before he was hired that he was totally exonorated, or that the charges had been dropped, then if I were them, I would be rethinking my decision. OK then, from your point here, I suppose you consider OJ Simpson to be "more innocent" than Nelson, since he had a real trial, real jury and a clear outcome, "not guilty." The $1000 court cost is basically a "fee" charged by the judge for "poor judgment." Nelson was not convicted of any crime. Period. I've had serious lapses in judgment too, like knowingly driving the wrong way down a one-way street. Note that my lapse in judgment actually put others' lives at risk, honking horns and all! (Trust me...I NEEDED that shortcut to get to the gig on time! lol) 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." Some of you just can't let go of the drama, the salacious nature of if. In your mind that's Case Closed. Q.E.D. For the rest of us, we look at the entire picture. We look with skepticism on the state. We tend to give every break to the common man, and NOT the state. Nelson trusted the judge to look at the entire picture too, and he came out a little light in the wallet. The undercover person came out a little smarter too. In the long run, this can only be Win/Win, because [by all accounts] a very creative and competent educator can try to put it all back together, and the state might improve its tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 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. I think we're seeing this pretty much the same then. Have a distant relative who pled "no contest" a few years back when he was caught up in a state run "sting" on the medical profession. His options were basically: 1) Plead Guilty - hefty fine, long probation and lose his license (and other stuff I forgot) 2) Plead Innocent - long trial of his word against the word of person doing the sting. Possibily stronger penalty as pleading guilty if found guilty. 3) Plead "No Contest" - same penalties as pleading guilty but keep his license. His day in court lasted five minutes. His lawyer plead "No Contest" for him and the judge asked the prosecution if "terms have been agreed" to. Prosecution splled out the amount of fine, length of probation and the stuff I can't remember. Judge asked if this was agreeible with the defense. When told it was, judge said "So ruled" and my relatives' butt was out of the courtroom a minute or so later. In the coming months all his customers knew about the court case. Some believed him and some didn't care as long as he did his job, these people stayed on. And some went to someone else because the case bothered them for various reasons. Personally some things about the sting didn't smell right to me but some of things he told me didn't sound right either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAvery Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 The guy charged with the crime availed himself of the legal system available to us all, and a judgement was made. But a judgement was not made by the legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 (edited) If you find this iffy, don't let your child march with Colts. [/thread] Edited November 15, 2009 by DrillmanSop06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts