Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Convicted, registered predator attends Troop fundraiser

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Late to this party. Sorry. Camping all weekend with the troop.

    Bare minimum, this man and his wife's attendance at a Scout function was grossly inappropriate and incredibly insensitive. Do you think a convicted KKK member should be welcomed at a NAACP meeting? It is inconceivable the wife, as a BSA employee, could be so amazingly tone deaf. From there one can speculate on what his ultimate motives may be. Personally I don't think those speculations are out of line, but they are speculation nonetheless.

    Absolutely, he should have been asked to leave. Absolutely the wife should be held accountable with her employer for her incredible lack of judgment.

    Comment


    • #62
      The police stated no laws were broken. The event was held in a church venue. A lot of information was withheld from the news article.

      One can speculate all they want and it doesn't change anything.

      And now a BSA employee needs to be hassled because she supported a BSA activity with her husband that some parents didn't like? That's a pretty bogus guilt by association vigilante attitude. She did nothing wrong.

      The news article does not state whether this couple are members of the Presbyterian Church, but the message sent out to the community by scouts wanting to toss out church members of their CO church would be interesting and "speculation" on omitting such information peaks my interest.

      Next time the scouts have a dinner, find a less inflammatory setting, where Merlyn says the scouts can toss out anyone willy-nilly as they see fit. Sell pre-event tickets only and make sure everyone sells only to the "right people" or do background checks on them. No ticket sales at the door. That will solve any and all problems. If one is going to "protect the boys", then such matters need to be implemented. Sure, it's going to cost the troop a lot of potential funds, but hey, that's what's necessary to do due diligence.

      And as far as asking anyone to leave, one also has to remember, NO is an valid answer one would have to be considered in such circumstances. To physically remove anyone who has not broken any laws will draw the police in very quickly.

      One has to look beyond one's own prejudices and look at the whole picture before committing to a knee-jerk reaction. I'm thinking felony assault by a Scout leader is going to make more media attention than just the local rag.

      I'm thinking that until some of the parents made a stink about this, none of the scouts would have known a thing about this guy. A 17 year old Eagle Scout would have been 2 years old when this guy went to prison. Just like any of the boys menu shopping for the next campout, having a convicted child molester or any convicted felon for that matter, walking down the same aisle in the grocery store with them, it happens all the time.

      Stosh

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
        And as far as asking anyone to leave, one also has to remember, NO is an valid answer one would have to be considered in such circumstances. To physically remove anyone who has not broken any laws will draw the police in very quickly.
        Wrong. If you can legally refuse to serve someone (and in this case, it's perfectly legal), if you ask them to leave and they say no, you call the police and have them removed.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Merlyn_LeRoy View Post

          Wrong. If you can legally refuse to serve someone (and in this case, it's perfectly legal), if you ask them to leave and they say no, you call the police and have them removed.
          We're not talking about someone who has had too much to drink at some bar, here. We're not talking about anyone disturbing the peace either. We're talking about someone quietly showing up for an event and a few people don't happen to like him. If my neighbor is a jerk, I can keep him out of my yard because it's private property. But he can stand peacefully all day long on my front sidewalk, because it is public property. The church owned the property, yet nothing is said about what they thought of the whole thing. We're not talking about what someone or some agency can technically do legally. There are a lot of other factors, that come into play as to whether or not it is a mature, responsible action to take.

          On what grounds are the police going to act if no laws have been broken? He is in a public place and has a legal right to be there. If the scouts don't serve him, he can sit quietly next to his wife and she can finish her meal.

          The point being, the parents were up in arms about this guy and called the media, not the police. Sounds like more of a political agenda than any legal concern for the boys. Had they called the police, what law are they there to enforce when they have stated themselves that no laws were being broken? Maybe it was at that point they called the media when they didn't get their way. The parents have no legal stand on making up their own little laws as they go along. It's called vigilantism. We have laws that protect us from such people.

          Maybe the angry parents should have taken their boys and gone home if they were all that upset about it. That's what a responsible parent is expected to do and they didn't. I don't think they were as concerned about their children as they were about hassling this guy.

          And by the way, when was the last time anyone has heard of the police showing up at a church to throw someone out that is basically minding their own business and not hassling anyone? That's gotta be a PR nightmare for the police, church and the scouts.

          Stosh
          Last edited by jblake47; 05-05-2014, 01:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
            We're not talking about someone who has had too much to drink at some bar, here. We're not talking about anyone disturbing the peace either. We're talking about someone quietly showing up for an event and a few people don't happen to like him.
            Presumably including the people running the event. Yes, they do have the legal power to refuse to serve him and tell him to leave the premises.

            Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
            We're not talking about what someone or some agency can technically do legally.
            I am.

            Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
            On what grounds are the police going to act if no laws have been broken?
            Once he has been legally told to leave, it's simple trespassing.

            Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
            The parents have no legal stand on making up their own little laws as they go along.
            Make up your mind, ARE you talking about what people can do legally, or not?

            The parents not running the event can't throw him out, but the people running the event sure can.

            Comment


            • #66
              Not if they are not the property owner or someone who legally speaks for the property owner.

              I cannot legally go over to my neighbors and have someone evicted from their property.

              Obviously the police declined to pursue anything in the circumstances described.

              It would seem this is nothing more than a publicity stunt instigated by a few "angry parents" who had no say so in the matter either way. That's why they turned it into a publicity stunt by contacting the media.

              Stosh

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
                Not if they are not the property owner or someone who legally speaks for the property owner.
                I'm assuming they rented the space from the church, so yes, they can evict people.

                Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
                Obviously the police declined to pursue anything in the circumstances described.
                From the story, it doesn't look like anyone realized the situation until later, after the fundraiser was long over. The police quote wasn't from on the scene.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Pack18Alex View Post
                  However, in general, the sexual crime lists are useless. We all want to know of a child predator moves in, and instead we get notified of everyone that urinated in public and pled out to indecent exposure and every guy who turned 18 and was reported to tr cops by their girlfriend's dad. It's a generally useless event.
                  Or how about that six-year old that slapped his classmate on the bottom? And will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                    Or how about that six-year old that slapped his classmate on the bottom? And will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life?
                    Well that is just silly and you know it.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                      Or how about that six-year old that slapped his classmate on the bottom? And will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life?
                      The offender involved was a scouter who preyed on one of his Scouts, not a victim of PC like you mention above. Dundas is one of the men who are deeply involved in the decline of Boy Scouts.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The man also was CONVICTED and it included penetration of one of his scouts FOUR different times starting at when the boy was 12 to 14. So he didn't slap on the but but raped a boy he was Scoutmaster to. He used to babysit and have boys over at his house, His parents considered him a good friend--obviously he was grooming the boy. I hope that is plain enough.

                        Yes there were no danger to boys with lots of parents in the room BUT it took a lot of nerve for him to show face around there.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by perdidochas View Post

                          The offender involved was a scouter who preyed on one of his Scouts, not a victim of PC like you mention above. Dundas is one of the men who are deeply involved in the decline of Boy Scouts.
                          I was commenting on the idea that the registered sex offender lists are a problem. NOT the idea that this offender was some sort of misunderstood victim.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Merlyn_LeRoy View Post

                            I'm assuming they rented the space from the church, so yes, they can evict people.



                            From the story, it doesn't look like anyone realized the situation until later, after the fundraiser was long over. The police quote wasn't from on the scene.
                            Assume? Who rented? The angry parents or the Troop? Sounds like the troop was using the church hall. Assuming it really doesn't explain it away.

                            After the fact is pretty much a moot point. No laws were broken, nothing happened, and life goes on. End of story.

                            Stosh

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              "The man also was CONVICTED..."

                              Yep, and paid in full (no probation, maximum sentence) his debt to society.

                              Until something happens, life goes on.

                              Just remember the convicted felon DUI driver is driving up and down the residential streets of your neighborhood and if he/she's been drinking, they might get convicted again, but they might just kill someone along the way there. Maybe you, maybe your kids, or maybe one of your neighbors. Really doesn't make a whole lot of difference does it? Why don't we keep these people on a public list? Or the convicted murderers in your neighborhood. They're there as well. No list for them? Kinda makes it hard to get worked up about it, doesn't it?

                              If one were to really know all the convicted felons in their neighborhoods, they would move to the woods and become a hermit.

                              Stosh

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
                                Assume? Who rented? The angry parents or the Troop? Sounds like the troop was using the church hall. Assuming it really doesn't explain it away.
                                I assume the troop put on the fundraiser, which means they had the authority to refuse service to anyone.

                                Originally posted by jblake47 View Post
                                After the fact is pretty much a moot point. No laws were broken, nothing happened, and life goes on. End of story.
                                That's what I've been saying. Kicking him out would also have been perfectly legal with no laws broken.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X