The Cadets and GH history of sexual abuse (news article)

[cowtown]

I'm reminded of some quotes for some old, dead guy:

There are no facts, only interpretations.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

[Tim K]

45 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

In some states, it is perfectly legal to monitor a store's dressing room by surveillancecamera or two-way mirror. ... Moreover, in every state, video surveillance in sensitive areas, such as a dressing room or restroom, for purposes other than theft prevention is illegal. In every state, video monitoring in sensitive areas, such as a dressing room, for purposes other than theft prevention is illegal. Such conduct could fall under laws prohibiting voyeurism, which is the act of observing unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who may be naked or disrobing, for the purpose of seeking sexual excitement. I'm not sure if a school would permit the placement of a camera in a dressing room without school district and public approval. 

In many schools parents have to sign permission for their child to be photographed, and can opt to not have their child’s photos posted to school social media sites. Many schools do not allow students to bring cell phones or cameras with wi-if capabilities on field trips because of concerns predators or non-custodial parents might see posts on social media and attempt to kidnap the child. If this is common with still photography, I am sure videotaping would be prohibited. I cannot think of any reason cameras would be in locker rooms or dressing areas unless the DA’s office is involved and they are trying to catch a predator or some other illegal activity such as drug dealing.

[GUARDLING]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

It should change one thing: perception. 

Yes, you're right BUT if we judged everyone on perception and persecuted them ( not this scenario of course ) there wouldn't be many in drum corps, WE got some strange characters for sure. Many on this site also.,

 

[BRASSO]

36 minutes ago, Tim K said:

I. The point about the department stores is there are laws regarding videotaping. The second point, which deals with the school situation, there are procedures that should be followed. Perhaps he did not know the law, but he should have at a minimum known the school procedures, . 

 

 I find it pretty much impossible to believe that this former male school teacher did not know that it is impermissable to utilize a portable camcorder to secretly videotape a female student in an area of the school that is often utilized for changing attire and where there is the presumed expectation by students, parents, school officials alike, of student attire changing to be done in privacy .... and free from the prying eyes of a portable camcorder hidden purposely behind stationed boxes so as to avert detection by the potential female victims.

 " Perhaps he did not know the law " with this. ?  No. I don't think so, Tim K. . Besides, that was not his defense at trial either. He denied he ever did what he was arrested and prosecuted for. He never claimed " Ignorance of the Law ". He denied the charges. He claimed he did not do what he was charged with  But the Jury thought otherwise, with their unanimous conviction return verdict after hearing the detailed testimony and the evidence presented from both sides.

Edited May 3, 2018 by BRASSO

[GUARDLING]

28 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Its amazing, isn't it Jim.

 The silver lining in all this discussion however is that undoubtably this Philly Enquirer female reporter is checking in periodically to this site, and reading the thoughts, sentiments, of DCP'ers to get their pulse on what the thought process is regarding DCI Corps rather questionable hires/ retentions of late, and the defense put forth for these hires in some quarters. AND..... the chilling observation put forth by a DCP poster yesterday that we should " not be too sure"  these creeps with past horrific behaviors in DCI won't be allowed back into DCI at some point, presumably after this all blows over.  I really do hope she has read the last 24 hours worth of discussion on this thread to see how much further work remains in YEA/ DCI/DCA to  make the neccessary changes for a more safer environment that all Corps tell us they are committed to seeing improve.. 

NM...definately not worth it

[JimF-LowBari]

8 minutes ago, Tim K said:

In many schools parents have to sign permission for their child to be photographed, and can opt to not have their child’s photos posted to school social media sites. Many schools do not allow students to bring cell phones or cameras with wi-if capabilities on field trips because of concerns predators or non-custodial parents might see posts on social media and attempt to kidnap the child. If this is common with still photography, I am sure videotaping would be prohibited. I cannot think of any reason cameras would be in locker rooms or dressing areas unless the DA’s office is involved and they are trying to catch a predator or some other illegal activity such as drug dealing.

Years back we were working on a website for our church and found out we should ask permission before we show anyone’s faces. Never know if someone is in hiding  and/or staying away from a stalker or person with issues. Never heard of this case but idiotic if permission not asked for from the school. And doubt if school would agree. 

[GUARDLING]

13 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

:Years back we were working on a website for our church and found out we should ask permission before we show anyone’s faces. Never know if someone is in hiding  and/or staying away from a stalker or person with issues. Never heard of this case but idiotic if permission not asked for from the school. And doubt if school would agree. 

2

2

Jim:

It may( not sure )  still might be the same BUT I do several HS programs and a few college programs around the country and clinics and I have found rules may be different from place to place. I have been places literally with no security and places with more rules than you would imagine.

I was at a school once that had video cameras everywhere including the band room and even in equipment rooms. KIds knew this yet were doing some things not allowed when staff wasn't around. A few minutes later a staff person ran in saying " you do remember you're being taped don't ya " the kids laughed.

 just a point on video I guess.

Edited May 3, 2018 by GUARDLING

[JimF-LowBari]

Ok on different policies but haven’t seen if school know about the camera or agreed. Or legalities of posting signs saying camera is in use. This could by school policy or local/state law.  Like I said this one is new to me. Know Uncle Sam has those signs all over where I work but haven’t found the cameras yet unless they want to be ready just in case

[garfield]

22 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 I find it pretty much impossible to believe that this former male school teacher did not know that it is impermissable to utilize a portable camcorder to secretly videotape a female student in an area of the school that is often utilized for changing attire and where there is the presumed expectation by students, parents, school officials alike, of student attire changing to be done in privacy .... and free from the prying eyes of a portable camcorder hidden purposely behind stationed boxes so as to avert detection by the potential female victims.

 " Perhaps he did not know the law " with this. ?  No. I don't think so, Tim K. . Besides, that was not his defense at trial either. He denied he ever did what he was arrested and prosecuted for. He never claimed " Ignorance of the Law ". He denied the charges. He claimed he did not do what he was charged with  But the Jury thought otherwise, with their unanimous conviction return verdict after hearing the detailed testimony and the evidence presented from both sides.

3

I'm convinced, based on the facts of the case, that A) He knew what I bolded above, and B) that's not why he set up the camera.

But you can keep pushing a different line with the hopes that others will believe you, and I'll stay around to correct your facts each time you embellish them.

 

 

[BRASSO]

 An adult in a position of auhority that knowingly violates their sacred trust with a minor ... even once.... is not merely engaged in just a criminal isolated " incident " either. Its much more than that, imo. It reveals perhaps a major character flaw with such an individual. it asks us to consider if he has done these despicable things before, but was simply not caught. Its not inconceivable. A serious breech of trust such as this can manifest itself in other ways too around people... adults included. It portends that this guy can not be trusted. Recall, he denied the charges altogether. He made the prosecution have to take his denial of any illegal acts to a Jury Trial. Such an individual is fundamentally untrustworthy, imo.. The fact that he apparently was brought back to Drum Corps is a mistake, imo. Additionally, The fact that he apparently did not get arrested again for misdeeds around minors may just as much be a function of luck, than redemption. He denied breaking any laws around this female minor, lest some of us might perhaps overloook here. 12 people heard the full testimony. Presumably, none of the 12 were involved in DCI Drum Corps however. Maybe that might help us understand that as far as they were concerned anyway, he was neither truthful nor believable to any of the 12 of them that listened to him in Court.

Edited May 3, 2018 by BRASSO