|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2010 14:21:01 GMT -5
In another instance, when a known CSA perp, hidden by the workers in charge, was at a conv. and a parent who tried to warn other parents at the conv. about the presence and danger of this perp., the parent was excommunicated on the spot. IS that showing the right kind of spirit? I think not. Workers that "know" of other worker's "crimes" and these are "crimes" and hide them, do not report them should be charged as "accessory after the fact." Then that would be something to make overseers and other workers and even friends start obeying the laws of the land like the Bible instructs us to do You seem to have left out the responsibility of the parents of the children. This was a parent of a "near miss" who tried to forewarn other parents. His child was perhaps lucky in that it didn't get as intimate as the man had been known to get....she removed herself before that happened...and being excessively shy, the father didn't feel he had enough to go to the law about, but he was aware of this man's history.....he was being as responsible as parents can be under his own circumstance...but he was excommunicated on the spot....
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 10, 2010 14:22:01 GMT -5
Thanks eyedeetentee. Greek and Roman History about adult child realtionships in bible days is quite easy to find online. It seems it was open and maybe even accepted in society. I don't think it would have made a difference to Jesus if the thief on the cross had been what's now called a CSA offender - I believe Jesus would have forgiven him. That's what's so stunning about pre-emptive repentance, loving, and forgiving others, when we live that and repent of our wrongdoing God will forgive, and it's as if the sin never even happened. That trumps everything.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2010 14:29:09 GMT -5
Thanks eyedeetentee. Greek and Roman History about adult child realtionships in bible days is quite easy to find online. It seems it was open and maybe even accepted in society. I don't think it would have made a difference to Jesus if the thief on the cross had been what's now called a CSA offender - I believe Jesus would have forgiven him. That's what's so stunning about pre-emptive repentance, loving, and forgiving others, when we live that and repent of our wrongdoing God will forgive, and it's as if the sin never even happened. That trumps everything. Jesse, it takes true repentance to obtain that forgiveness and true repentance usually begets modified behaviour....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 10, 2010 14:40:45 GMT -5
You seem to have left out the responsibility of the parents of the children. This was a parent of a "near miss" who tried to forewarn other parents. His child was perhaps lucky in that it didn't get as intimate as the man had been known to get....she removed herself before that happened...and being excessively shy, the father didn't feel he had enough to go to the law about, but he was aware of this man's history.....he was being as responsible as parents can be under his own circumstance...but he was excommunicated on the spot.... No, if he was being as responsible as he should have been he would have gone to the police and filed a report. In some states not reporting this is a crime. I find it interesting that people jump all over the workers when they do not report suspicion of child abuse but excuse other people who know of the abuse and do not go to the authorities. Shyness is a defense?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 10, 2010 14:53:27 GMT -5
Jesse, it takes true repentance to obtain that forgiveness and true repentance usually begets modified behaviour.... How do you or anyone else here know if the behavior has or has not been modified? That's something you can judge across a computer screen? Paul ask for the thorn to be taken away, God said his grace was sufficient. Since we all are yet carnal, look instead at the spirit, is it the spirit of a just man being made perfect by God? I have more faith in what God says and does than in anything I read here, even my words!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 10, 2010 15:04:09 GMT -5
Cute! Yes I've been known to be compassionate from time to time. I feel compassion for everyone involved in this mess. Including the person who committed it. He's in for a real hard time in jail and I really do feel for him. I have worked with Corrections in a halfway house and know exactly what it will be like for him. I also had great compassion for those people, but I never tried to justify or defend what they did. However, I'm not sure you would be so defensive of him if he was just a regular person and not a worker. He has committed a crime and it's not alright to defend his actions that have caused him and many others pain. People are concerned and they have that right imo. Don't you think they have the right to be concerned? Of course they do! Don't I have to right to be concerned about those who allege I'm defending criminal sexual assault/contact when I'm not? Or be concerned when I see a harsh, unforgiving, and incompassionate attitude towards a fellow human being? I would be just as compassionate towards anyone, victim, agressor, falsely accused, even you when you imply I'm defending criminal sexual conduct just because the offender is a worker!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 10, 2010 15:18:19 GMT -5
Cute! Yes I've been known to be compassionate from time to time. I feel compassion for everyone involved in this mess. Including the person who committed it. He's in for a real hard time in jail and I really do feel for him. I have worked with Corrections in a halfway house and know exactly what it will be like for him. I also had great compassion for those people, but I never tried to justify or defend what they did. However, I'm not sure you would be so defensive of him if he was just a regular person and not a worker. He has committed a crime and it's not alright to defend his actions that have caused him and many others pain. People are concerned and they have that right imo. Don't you think they have the right to be concerned? Of course they do! Don't I have to right to be concerned about those who allege I'm defending criminal sexual assault/contact when I'm not? Or be concerned when I see a harsh, unforgiving, and incompassionate attitude towards a fellow human being? I would be just as compassionate towards anyone, victim, agressor, falsely accused, even you when you imply I'm defending criminal sexual conduct just because the offender is a worker! No, once again, you have it wrong. I don't think you are defending criminal sexual conduct. I think you are defending the "person" because he was a worker, not the act. There is a big difference. Also, just so you know, I deleted that post (not quick enough because it didn't feel like what I wanted to say. However, I do believe people have the right to be concerned and voice those concerns and you have agreed with me, so all's good there.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Feb 10, 2010 18:11:41 GMT -5
Just days before Darren was taken home, he was in the home of the family, with the Russian children, that had been accused, in the basement with the young boys wrestling. His companion BD was in the home also. This was in the last part of Nov., 2006, just after he had been in the home with the child he abused . After him and the companion left that home, he was gone in a very short time. Apparently, the overseer was contacted about the conduct in the home with the Russian children. Jerome and BD then took him away.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Feb 10, 2010 20:17:19 GMT -5
From the news article www.michigansthumb.com/articles/2010/02/09/news/police_-_courts/doc4b715c17bc564579368752.txthe charges occurred on or about Nov. 12, 2006once Briggs learned the child had told his parents of what went on, Briggs fled to New YorkHe said his office first received this case on April 15, 2009It doesn't put a date on when the child had told his parents. How long did the parents AND (head) workers know about this before someone finally reported it to the police. And who finally did the reporting? However, because he was no longer in the state, it was difficult for officials to find Briggs until he turned himself inReally? last fallSo even once this was reported to the police, "people" still weren't really being helpful??
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Feb 10, 2010 20:43:17 GMT -5
(Also posted on the convention thread) C. Clergy
1. The clergy-penitent' privilege under Michigan law provides as follows:
No minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner, shall be allowed to disclose any confessions made to him in his professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such denomination.
2. The case for confidentiality is clearest in a confessional setting.
a. Counseling sessions involving standard clinical counseling methods, standard clinically recognized mental conditions, or non-clergy are not covered by the privilege.
b. When the privilege does not apply, the counselor may be compelled to disclose the personal secrets of the client.
Comment: It is not clear what is meant by counseling which is "in the course of discipline" of a cleric. Most likely, this is not a reference to the narrow circumstance of when a person (the client) may be subject to formal church 'discipline,' but rather refers to any communications in the course of religious practice according to the rules and discipline of the church which the cleric is bound to observe. However, there is no case law interpreting this language.
3. For counseling activities performed by non-licensed and non-ordained counselors, or spiritual counseling performed by clerics which is non-confessional in nature, the issue of confidentiality will largely depend on the existence of an implied or express contract requiring confidentiality which is established at the commencement of the counseling relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 10, 2010 20:47:51 GMT -5
(Also posted on the convention thread) C. Clergy
1. The clergy-penitent' privilege under Michigan law provides as follows:
No minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner, shall be allowed to disclose any confessions made to him in his professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such denomination.
2. The case for confidentiality is clearest in a confessional setting.
a. Counseling sessions involving standard clinical counseling methods, standard clinically recognized mental conditions, or non-clergy are not covered by the privilege.
b. When the privilege does not apply, the counselor may be compelled to disclose the personal secrets of the client.
Comment: It is not clear what is meant by counseling which is "in the course of discipline" of a cleric. Most likely, this is not a reference to the narrow circumstance of when a person (the client) may be subject to formal church 'discipline,' but rather refers to any communications in the course of religious practice according to the rules and discipline of the church which the cleric is bound to observe. However, there is no case law interpreting this language.
3. For counseling activities performed by non-licensed and non-ordained counselors, or spiritual counseling performed by clerics which is non-confessional in nature, the issue of confidentiality will largely depend on the existence of an implied or express contract requiring confidentiality which is established at the commencement of the counseling relationship.In other words, it would result in a lengthy court battle to establish the case law. Imagine the spin that could be applied by either side while addressing point #3!
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Feb 10, 2010 21:03:30 GMT -5
I don't think you can consider it counseling, when, parents come to a worker and says that their son was abused not once but three times. So, that is what is called a complaint, not a counseling session. The parents were totally wrong to go to the overseer and not to the police first. They then could inform the overseer and by then it would have been to late to just ship him out.
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 10, 2010 21:11:17 GMT -5
From newspaper article-'' He said his office first received this case on April 15, 2009. Briggs was charged April 21, 2009. However, because he was no longer in the state, it was difficult for officials to find Briggs until he turned himself in last fall, Rutkowski said-"
wonder what or how or who made DB turn him self in last fall? also, I find it hard to believe that it was difficult for officials to find DB-after he left several years ago-he sent his address to people back in Mi
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Feb 10, 2010 21:40:43 GMT -5
also, I find it hard to believe that it was difficult for officials to find DB-after he left several years ago-he sent his address to people back in Mi It should have taken about three phone calls and less than 24 hours. 1) Call MI head worker 2) MI head worker calls NY head worker 3) NY head worker calls MI police
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2010 21:46:07 GMT -5
This was a parent of a "near miss" who tried to forewarn other parents. His child was perhaps lucky in that it didn't get as intimate as the man had been known to get....she removed herself before that happened...and being excessively shy, the father didn't feel he had enough to go to the law about, but he was aware of this man's history.....he was being as responsible as parents can be under his own circumstance...but he was excommunicated on the spot.... No, if he was being as responsible as he should have been he would have gone to the police and filed a report. In some states not reporting this is a crime. I find it interesting that people jump all over the workers when they do not report suspicion of child abuse but excuse other people who know of the abuse and do not go to the authorities. Shyness is a defense? read the statement again..." A near miss" The Father's child separated herself before the act could be considered "reportable" and why if you have a "near miss" would one want to subject the child to such investigations when there is nothing to investigate though the perp had been known in the distant past ot have committed such lewd behaviour? It would come down to harassing the child and simply ended up a false allegation, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 10, 2010 21:49:03 GMT -5
From the news article www.michigansthumb.com/articles/2010/02/09/news/police_-_courts/doc4b715c17bc564579368752.txthe charges occurred on or about Nov. 12, 2006once Briggs learned the child had told his parents of what went on, Briggs fled to New YorkHe said his office first received this case on April 15, 2009It doesn't put a date on when the child had told his parents. How long did the parents AND (head) workers know about this before someone finally reported it to the police. And who finally did the reporting? However, because he was no longer in the state, it was difficult for officials to find Briggs until he turned himself inReally? last fallSo even once this was reported to the police, "people" still weren't really being helpful?? Strange that some of the workers/friends couldn't have told authorities where the man was, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 10, 2010 21:50:23 GMT -5
all i will say is i saw him at convention and he couldn't even look me in the eye-he knew that i knew about him...
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 10, 2010 21:51:25 GMT -5
at the time DB left Michigan-I was not aware of what was going on-only certain ones knew
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 10, 2010 21:53:09 GMT -5
also, I find it hard to believe that it was difficult for officials to find DB-after he left several years ago-he sent his address to people back in Mi It should have taken about three phone calls and less than 24 hours. 1) Call MI head worker 2) MI head worker calls NY head worker 3) NY head worker calls MI police Better yet call his parents or do a police search on drivers license A lot here that doesn't seem kosher. Where was Wings on this?
|
|
|
Post by degem on Feb 10, 2010 22:43:27 GMT -5
i am not lying about what i posted lin
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 10, 2010 22:49:13 GMT -5
I'm glad you are back too, Gem. I missed you! fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2010 23:22:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure what this has to do with 35 year old men wrestling with 11 year old boys. And regarding your post about restricting various activities, yes there are many restrictions I would advocate. One is organized wrestling and boxing should be banned until age 16 and require parental consent until 18. No masseuse or chiro should be allowed to practice on minors without an parent consenting and present (what chiro or masseuse in their right minds would do so anyway?) I think Edie is spot on with her insistence on having a parent present when doing home inspections. Just as she is super careful to minimize the risk of false accusations, so should all parents be super careful not to put their children at any risk which they can proactively reduce significantly. Our children have never been in a room alone with a worker. Are we going overboard? Not a bit in my view. I watch my kids' coaches like a hawk, not just their relationship with my kids, but with others on the team. So far, all that has done has raise my esteem for all of them for their highly developed sense of propriety, but a parent should not cease to watch. Parents should always be present when there are activities that involve significant adult touching of minor children. You can send your little Johnny off to spend Saturday afternoon alone wrestling with Joe Podunk the wrestler, I won't be sending mine. Absolutely, no joking. Kids should wrestle in their own age and weight categories, but any non-parental adult who chooses to wrestle with kids as a sport or "fun" has a screw loose. If that is what is going on in those studios and teams, shut them down..... it's not even physically safe let alone sexually safe. Clearday, how does one learn how to defend themself against an attacker if one only grabbles with people thier own size? When a woman wrestles with a large man at the karate studio, is she cheating on her husband? freespirit
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 10, 2010 23:35:42 GMT -5
Clearday, are you saying that children under the age of 16 shouldn't be allowed to take self-defense classes?
freespirit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2010 23:53:57 GMT -5
Clearday, are you saying that children under the age of 16 shouldn't be allowed to take self-defense classes? freespirit I said organized (ie competitive) wrestling and boxing. Parents should monitor self-defense classes for minors. If you can't commit to attend the classes with your young kids, don't treat the classes as babysitting times and put your kids at risk. We monitor piano lessons......but I know, we are definitely hardcases on this issue. I should note that our monitoring has more to do with it than CSA only, there are other reasons as well.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 11, 2010 0:09:20 GMT -5
Clearday, are you saying that children under the age of 16 shouldn't be allowed to take self-defense classes? freespirit I said organized (ie competitive) wrestling and boxing. . And earlier you said this: No 30+ year old man should be wrestling with an underaged kid under any circumstances. IMO you appear to be skipping around all over with your opinion. Are you saying it is okay for boys to wrestle with each other as long as it's not "organized"? fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 0:31:09 GMT -5
I said organized (ie competitive) wrestling and boxing. . And earlier you said this: No 30+ year old man should be wrestling with an underaged kid under any circumstances. IMO you appear to be skipping around all over with your opinion. Are you saying it is okay for boys to wrestle with each other as long as it's not "organized"? fs Spontaneous wrestling of boys couldn't be banned even if someone wanted to, that's why I said ''organized (competitive)" wrestling. Hope that clarifies it for you. Spontaneous wrestling is a parental choice to control and monitor, but at the risk of repeating myself, any parent who allows a 35 year old man to wrestle with an 11 year old boy is irresponsible. The issue of young boys wrestling with each other spontaneously is primarily, in my view, an issue of physical safety, not a sexual issue. For both competitive boxing and wrestling, the physical demands of both are physically risky, then with wrestling you add the sexual dimension in early puberty. Our choice as parents? No wrestling on our watch, no physical altercations of any kind where someone has a high risk of getting hurt and wrestling is one of those. We don't do hitting, spanking or body throws, period.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 11, 2010 0:55:28 GMT -5
No, that doesn't clarify it at all. Dads and boys wrestle. Moms and boys wrestle. Boys and boys wrestle.
IMO you seem to have some sort of idea that non-sexual human touch or movement is somehow immoral.
freespirit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 1:21:00 GMT -5
No, that doesn't clarify it at all. Dads and boys wrestle. Moms and boys wrestle. Boys and boys wrestle. IMO you seem to have some sort of idea that non-sexual human touch or movement is somehow immoral. freespirit So you are mindreading now. It's ridiculous to suggest that I think non-sexual touch is immoral. That's an oxymoron. I have stated that my primary concern with most wrestling is physical safety, unless you think that has something to do with immorality? I notice that you didn't include Dads wrestling with girls. Do you have a problem with that? How about a Dad wrestling with a 14 year old girl? Do you feel it is appropriate for a mom to wrestle with a 13 year old boy?
|
|