N.E. Brigand Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 27 minutes ago, MikeD said: Ah, no. Not remotely the same thing. Actually, Hopkins has the better legal position than the fellow with the camera. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, MikeD said: . SA was arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor that was not a sex-based crime at all. . Well, again, we are not debating " legal " here. That point was established and not in dispute. Is an adult school" Professional " that secretly videotapes a female minor without her knowledge in a school shower " a sex crime " in the eyes of most parents in the country? The normal ones ? Yes. Its " a sex crime" all right. Do people who pass " legal " muster belong in schools, youth organizations, because they pass " legal" muster ? Not on my watch, they wouldn't. The legal system has one standard. But as a hiring person in any youth activity, my standards are much higher. I don't hire any person that secretly videotaped a female minor in a shower with his camera placed behind box shelves where the young female he thought could not catch him videotapimg her. Whether it was 2 years ago, or 35 years ago. I don't care. I don't hire the guy.. No matter how " qualified " he might be, or even tha he passes a " background check " . Organizations that willingly do let such creepy people into their organization, or allow current creeps to remain in their organization, generally find eventually that such irresponsibilty becomes their ultimate undoing as an organization.. It doesn't matter if its YEA. DCI, or any Corps, or MB... Eventually such irresponsibilty will catch up to you, and things are going to almost inevitably and predictably go terribly wrong one of these days for your organization, and your youth that were exposed to such irresponsible hires and/ or retentions of personnel with checkered pasts around youths. Doesn't matter the youth organization, school, Corps, or MB either. Any outfit that hires these types of creeps are eventually setting themselves up for a fall, imo. Edited May 3, 2018 by BRASSO 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, N.E. Brigand said: Actually, Hopkins has the better legal position than the fellow with the camera. I’m sure he enjoyed the daily show on tour last year. He didn’t even need a camera. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, BRASSO said: Well, again, we are not debating " legal " here. That point was established and not in dispute. Is secretly videotaping a female minor without her knowledge in a shower " a sex crime " in the eyes of most parents in the country? ... To be fair to Mike: it wasn't a shower, was it? Mike says it was a closet; is that right?. And do we know if anyone was actually taped or if it was just that the camera was found? I thought it was the latter. But it was a room where the students sometimes changed clothes. (Did Atchison ever offer a defense as to why the camera was there? To catch someone stealing something, for instance? Not that I believe that, but I am curious.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Well, again, we are not debating " legal " here. That point was established and not in dispute. Is secretly videotaping a female minor without her knowledge in a shower " a sex crime " in the eyes of most parents in the country? The normal ones ? Yes. Its " a sex crime" all right. Do people who pass " legal " muster belong in schools, youth organizations, because they pass " legal" muster ? Not on my watch, they wouldn't. The legal system has one standard. But as a hiring person, my standards are much higher. I don't hire any person that secretly videotaped a female minor inn a shower. Whether it was 2 years ago, or 25 years ago. Organizations that do let such people into their organization, or allow current creeps to remain in their organization, generally find eventually that such irresponsibilty becomes their ultimate undoing. We agree on the above. However, this case was not about videotaping in a shower. He passed "legal muster" because what he did was not a sex crime, period. You don't get to make up your own facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, GUARDLING said: I don't think Mike is doing this. He's a pretty level-headed guy and doesn't fall into the sometimes emotional, DCP rants. He seems like a fact-based person and as a teacher has skin in the game. I'm sure he has seen a lot of this over the years and has to assess truth from the court of public opinion.. They can be quite different. I'm not specifically talking about this situation BUT am talking about Mike...JMO Would I have hired the guy? Probably not BUT would have found another reason not to if there was even a question that this would potentially be an issue with other students or even drama. I find it shockingly predictable that there will be those who defend sexual offenders. It comes across like - who are you trying to convince me or himself. I don’t endorse perverts and creeps misdemeanor or felon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Just now, N.E. Brigand said: To be fair to Mike: it wasn't a shower, was it? Mike says it was a closet; is that right?. And do we know if anyone was actually taped or if it was just that the camera was found? I thought it was the latter. But it was a room where the students sometimes changed clothes. (Did Atchison ever offer a defense as to why the camera was there? To catch someone stealing something, for instance? Not that I believe that, but I am curious.) It was a music suite storage closet, from what I read. I don't know why the camera was there, but it was against the law at the level of a misdemeanor regardless of the motivation. None of us know Scott's intent. Was stuff missing that he was trying to catch? No idea. Was he trying to tape a female changing? It of course is possible. We do not know the 'why' at all, is my only point. We just know the 'what' in the case. Trying to equate this to GH is just not something I would ever be wiling to do. I want those who commit crimes like GH to pay the price, and for the activity to clean itself out wherever these things are found. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Jim Schehr said: I find it shockingly predictable that there will be those who defend sexual offenders. It comes across like - who are you trying to convince me or himself. I don’t endorse perverts and creeps misdemeanor or felon. I don't defend sexual predators or creeps. They need to be exposed and handled as harshly as possible. IMO this case, as determined by the legal system, does not fit remotely what GH has been accused of doing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said: I find it shockingly predictable that there will be those who defend sexual offenders. It comes across like - who are you trying to convince me or himself. I don’t endorse perverts and creeps misdemeanor or felon. I would totally agree with you on this and YES it happens often. I do think we do have to be careful though in these situations. Facts do matter, accusers need to be believed, and as much as I'm very sure there are those who won't believe it BUT there also have been those accused and were quite innocent....OH and I'm not talking HOP... I don't think Mike is doing this BUT YES there are those out there that are. Edited May 3, 2018 by GUARDLING 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
year1buick Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 Regardless of the level of legal severity, it sounds creepy as hell to me and shows extremely poor judgement and lack of common sense. That alone would keep me from hiring him. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts