glory Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 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. Is there? In one article? What if everything else in that man's life pointed only to kindness and his genuine and innocent affection for kids and people of all sorts? What if the record revealed his unqualified, unsullied devotion to bands and band members and his positive influence in their lives. What if he had but one blemish, one instance in which he strayed from the conventional and engaged in one public and stupid act? What's a legitimate judgment? What are the facts? HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Quoting from the officer's statement: as I walked on a dirt trail ... within a wooded area of the park ... seated on a broken tree ...walked to an area behind me ... approximately 10-12 feet away I wasn't there and don't know the park but it doesn't sound to me as if this particular spot was selected to be in the general view. I mention this only to suggest the "children's view" concern might be a bit exaggerated. Further, to the extent that we rely on the police report for facts, we should make note of the fact that the report twice records that Nelson denied the wrongdoing alleged. So while he might have plead no contest, his denial is on the record. I'll say it again. This single police report is a flimsy balance on which to weigh the entirety of one man's life. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I wasn't there and don't know the park but it doesn't sound to me as if this particular spot was selected to be in the general view. I mention this only to suggest the "children's view" concern might be a bit exaggerated. If it's in a place that can be accessed or seen by the general public doesn't matter how secluded it is. Had two big cases of public lewdness in my area over the years. One took place in the public restrooms of a mall. Other was on the back trails of a city park during lunchtime. Consenting adults but still sexual activity that was out in the open. Open = place where anyone could stumble in on it. First case was broken up with a bunch of arrests and second one by the local newspaper taking pictures around the "pick up" area. Edited November 13, 2009 by JimF-3rdBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 If it's in a place that can be accessed or seen by the general public doesn't matter how secluded it is. Had two big cases of public lewdness in my area over the years. One took place in the public restrooms of a mall. Other was on the back trails of a city park during lunchtime. Consenting adults but still sexual activity that was out in the open. Open = place where anyone could stumble in on it. First case was broken up with a bunch of arrests and second one by the local newspaper taking pictures around the "pick up" area. As I said: I mention this only to suggest the "children's view" concern might be a bit exaggerated. As for what you're saying - putting aside the inherent contradiction between "public" and "secluded" - are you saying that because he allegedly chose that venue for that kind of activity that he should be branded with the scarlet A and forbidden forever from drum corps? I think we could be more forgiving than than that. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) As for what you're saying - putting aside the inherent contradiction between "public" and "secluded" - are you saying that because he allegedly chose that venue for that kind of activity that he should be branded with the scarlet A and forbidden forever from drum corps? I think we could be more forgiving than than that. Where did I ever say he should be banned from working with a corps? My quote regarding the RN part of the conversation was: "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." IOW - up staff management to decide, just like any other hiring decision. Either ya ain't reading who said what too well or ya wanna lump everyone who disagrees with you in one big pile. Now for the non-RN part. There is no excuse (except latent stupidity) to <bleep> around in a place where someone might stumble in on you and whoever doing it. And I know of many places that are secluded yet readily (and legally) accessible to the public. Examples from my posts above: bathrooms and back paths in a city park. At least in my part of PA the emphasis is on public property vs private property. If the public area is secluded is immaterial. IOW using public and secluded are not contradicting, they refer to two totally different things. The term "Get a room" would have stopped a lot of problems before they occured. Edited November 13, 2009 by JimF-3rdBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Where did I ever say he should be banned from working with a corps? My quote regarding the RN part of the conversation was: "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." IOW - up staff management to decide, just like any other hiring decision. Either ya ain't reading who said what too well or ya wanna lump everyone who disagrees with you in one big pile. My mistake then. Sorry. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRandomSax Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 As a member of the Colts, I am thrilled to have this talented man be part of designing a show for me. I trust Greg and the rest of the staff. I also trust Mike Grimes WITH MY LIFE. I haven't the slightest worry about this guy's past, true or not. I also agree with a prior post that if Nelson even had the slightest thought of committing such an act, Mike would have him sent as far away from us members as physically possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadMadMan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Please! Cops in the park wasting tax dollars pursuing a social agenda instead of genuine crime. Nothing at all in that article calls into question his ability to teach drum corps. HH This HAS to be sarcasm because you can't seriously believe what you just said. lol Not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 My mistake then. Sorry.HH OK, and I take back the smart tailed last sentence at the end. Rough ###ed Friday afternoon debugging nasty computer code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Marcher Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 As a member of the Colts, I am thrilled to have this talented man be part of designing a show for me. I trust Greg and the rest of the staff. I also trust Mike Grimes WITH MY LIFE. I haven't the slightest worry about this guy's past, true or not. I also agree with a prior post that if Nelson even had the slightest thought of committing such an act, Mike would have him sent as far away from us members as physically possible. Seconded for Mike Grimes. If Mike got wind of any funny business the dude would be canned so fast his head would spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts