Jeff Ream Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: The police report says that the corps director told them that four members were assigned to a room with two beds, but that two of them were supposed to be sleeping on (separate) air mattresses. (Which I think is covered by the "Roll-away cots are permitted" line above.) However, apparently in such cases, the two people assigned to air mattresses often sleep on the beds anyway -- with the permission of their roommates. That's how I read it, at least. right...so now do corps have to police this with middle of the night spot checks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, garfield said: I would disagree. It helps to know the poster personally but it's not necessary. You said yourself, and I whole-heartedly agree, that his post history proves his credibility is intact. Yes, we're friends and friendly rivals on different sides of many aisles, but I admire and appreciate his line of thinking on most all issues even if we disagree. His credibility is solidly intact from my perspective. Thanks! (But if someone thinks I'm wrong, I certainly want him or her to tell me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, ndkbass said: I am not arguing that. I am just trying to confirm that they would have been able to consent in the first place. That is all. That would be different than a 21 year old and a 14 year old, where age-gap and age of parties and age of the younger individual would prevent consent from being allowed legally in the first place. Ok now I follow you and good point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, wvu80 said: I used to work for DHHR. CPS records involve minors and are sealed, by law! Those are NOT in the public record. 😮 I wonder how that report got out? Man, that is a lawsuit easily won if they can figured out who violated a child's right to privacy. Don't know if this matters, but both the police report and the CPS report (which were (1) attached to the mother's letter that was mass emailed to many Cadets parents and volunteers and then posted online (by one of the recipients, presumably) via Reddit; and (2) also seen by the TV news team in the link in this thread's first post -- again presumably they got the material from one of the emailed recipients) have all minors' names redacted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: Don't know if this matters, but both the police report and the CPS report (which were (1) attached to the mother's letter that was mass emailed to many Cadets parents and volunteers and then posted online (by one of the recipients, presumably) via Reddit; and (2) also seen by the TV news team in the link in this thread's first post -- again presumably they got the material from one of the emailed recipients) have all minors' names redacted. not quite. Reddit version gave boy's first name and instrument and current corps when one reads several sentences mother wrote and failed to protect. So yes, official papers are blocked, but mother gives the name anyway and elsewhere fails to block his hometown in PA. Since both boy's first names which weren't very common, all the mms, faculty, and volunteers know...in both corps. Edited July 10, 2019 by xandandl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, xandandl said: not quite. Reddit version gave boy's first name and instrument and current corps when one reads several sentences mother wrote and failed to protect. So yes, official papers are blocked, but mother gives the name anyway and elsewhere fails to block his hometown in PA. With the both boy's first names which weren't very common, all the mms, faculty, and volunteers know...in both corps. Yes, but she's allowed to print her own son's name, isn't she? (Even if it's a terrible idea in this case.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, N.E. Brigand said: Yes, but she's allowed to print her own son's name, isn't she? (Even if it's a terrible idea in this case.) I agree it's a terrible idea. In some States, she would be discerned to be sabotaging her child's best interests and negating the power of her argument against those not correctly protecting him. it only makes me more curious of why there is a supposed Guardian (not the drum corps.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PamahoNow Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 32 minutes ago, ndkbass said: So that means they both could have legally consented to sexual activity with each other depending on local statutes, correct? I don't know the legal situation of "could have" but the claim was "I was asleep and didn't consent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 23 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: No seriously, defamation can be pretty hard to prove. Lots of things that laypeople (of which I am one) tend to think are defamatory are not. Anyway, here are some resources for those who wish to argue in more detail about whether or not Cadets would have a case here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/defamation https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation I know it's hard to prove, which suggests to me (along with with the facts) that they didn't just get lucky. Nor should difficulty of proof be used to embolden people to be careless with the reputations of others. But I did not mean to hijack the thread. You are right that this is a very serious topic. These situations are often so fluid, confused, charged, and full of conflicting information, requirements and objectives, that I think it is a lot harder to do the "right" thing in the moment than it is for people with limited information to assert retroactively what the right thing would have been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 Just now, skevinp said: I know it's hard to prove, which suggests to me (along with with the facts) that they didn't just get lucky. Oh, the bakery bit was a joke aimed at garfield because I knew he grew up in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts