Should he stay or should he go?

[evmori]

Yeah if the woman says she feels threatened by her man! But what is threatening? Is he violent? Or does she just not want him around? Big difference!

 

If this guy is a danger to the Scouts, he should not be around them.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[nldscout]

 

No judge I know issues orders without some basis. There has to be an official complaint, police report or justifiable reason why before one is issued.

 

Regardless if it was later vacated, the issue is he was given an order to stay away and he (according to what you said he admitted to) choose to ignore it. Nice guy or not, he broke the law.

 

The issue of if it was later vacated is of no bearing what so ever. He was told to stay away and choose to ignore it. So what rule is he going to ignore next because he thinks its not necessary or does not apply to him??

 

If it was my order he violated, his butt would be sitting in Jail.

[Gold Winger]

Lawyers use restraining orders as a bargaining chip in divorces and women use them for leverage as well.

 

A friend and his wife split up about a year ago. Her lawyer ran to the judge and got a protection order. She claimed that he beat her and the kids and even though there was no evidence he order was issued. The judge said, "I'd rather err on the side of caution."

 

My friend was told that he could make arrangements to get his stuff, so he called, the wife said, "I won't be here Saturday afternoon so come over then." She changed her mind, called the cops and they were waiting for him when he showed up. Off to the clink for the night. Fortunately, he had a witness to the conversation so the wife got a lecture from the judge.

 

I need more information before I can make up my mind.

[Eamonn]

"Before you talk to the CO, you need to get ALL the facts from an unbiased party, police, the Court or the DA. "

 

Not exactly sure why?

But I'm unsure who the "You" in the "you need to get .." Is?

From what has been posted the guy here has not tried to hide anything.

He brought this to the CC.

The CC and GernBlansten (I'm not sure what position he holds?) have decided to bring it to the up to the CO's IH and COR.

To my way of thinking this places the ball firmly with the CO.

What happens next? If anything is up to the CO.

Everyone else should back off.

Let the Executive Officer of the CO do what he or she thinks is needed.

If getting more details is what the Executive Officer wants let him get them or appoint someone to get get them? That is his call.

If he wants to call the SE or the DE and find out what the local Council thinks? Again this is his call.

Having a group of people or even one person with some sort of a bias (Either way.) Playing Dick Tracy is not what is needed.

I wonder what might happen or would have happened if the guy involved had just not said anything?

I'll admit to not knowing anything about RO's or Temp RO's.

So far as I see it e has only been charged and no one has said if he is guilty or not?

It might be that the CO might want to wait and see what happens?

It might be that the CO sees this as a storm in a tea-cup?

It might be that the CO feels that the best thing is to ask this guy to take a leave from Scouting until the court decides what happened?

It might be a lot of things?

But at the end of the day it is up to the CO.

 

Of course I'm not the CO but if I were I think asking the guy to step down until the court has decided what really happened is what I'd go for.

This however carries as much weight as my predicting who the winner of the next race at Belmont will be.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

[erickelly65]

If the unit asked me to step down until my name was cleared.....Even after it was, I wouldnt be back(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

[Vicki]

Friend of mine back in the day had a wife similar to GW's description. He's a real gentleman. She got a temporary restraining order just on her say-so. He scheduled a time to go back and get his stuff, she was waiting for him with the police. I had prevailed upon him to call the police ahead of time (knowing her and being just a little older and less trusting) and let me accompany him.

 

He didn't have to spend the night in jail and the police got to see her screaming at him with absolutely no provocation from him. They also got to see how she had torn up the place with a butcher knife - pretty sure she was going to try to blame him for that in order to get custody of their daughter.

 

Lots of variation in how judges behave across jurisdictions, nldscout.

 

Vicki

[nldscout]

I said

"Before you talk to the CO, you need to get ALL the facts from an unbiased party, police, the Court or the DA. "

 

Simply because you only have one side of the story. before you make any decision isn't it always prudent to get the whole story.

 

I also said this because we hear this in court all the time "its not my fault, I didn't do it, It was her fault". Mostly from people who have just done a dumb thing, as may be the case here. Regardless if you like it or not he broke the law and he knew he was doing it when he did it. Now he is trying to justify that it really wasn't that bad. Maybe I am a little bit, or a whole lot cynical, but when you read an order to someone that says stay away from this person and place or your going to jail and then they just say to them selves, " Gee, Maybe he really didn't mean it", and you go there anyway. Be prepared to suffer the consequences. One of which would be me as a leader questioning your stability and fitness.

 

 

 

 

[acco40]

The CC & SM only have one simple decision to make - inform the CO. After that, it is the CO's decision.

 

That said, IMHO, if the guy in question if a committee member why on Earth remove him? If a SA, I still would be hesitant to remove him just on the incident stated.

 

A few years ago a Scout in our troop had parents who had restraining orders against each other. I had to monitor who could and who could not pick up the Scout on certain days. Not one of my fonder memories.(This message has been edited by acco40)