For those of you who remember a previous thread regarding two local HS basketball coaches - here is an update from today's local newspaper.

Kathleen Erickson is due to go to trial Nov. 15 on three counts of delivering a controlled substance to a minor, two counts of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse involving a teenage girl she had coached. Kathleen was a volunteer asst. girls coach and a paid track and field coach.

Ken Johnson, a HS teacher and head girls basketball coach, is now the subject of a criminal investigation. The school district received a complaint on Sep. 12 that Johnson "had violated professional standards" and the district reported it as required by Oregon law to the police.

As I have said before, I have known Ken for many years and it is staggering to me that he might be involved in anything untoward. I have met Kathleen in her capacity of coaching but do not "know" her.

Neither the police or the school district will say if the two investigations are related. They both coached at the same school and Johnson technically was Erickson's supervisor.

Juulie also knows Ken and both of us have officiated in a summer league he organized.

It's quite possible they are related. Oregon's suspected abuse reporting requirements for teachers, helth care professionals, etc. are pretty strict & he may somehow have run afoul of that......guess time will tell.....

Other than being incredibly dis-organized, Johnson is a great guy, and I still can't imagine what he would have been involved in that would be criminal. As Tim says, time will tell.

Hey Mark, I feel bad for your friend, really.

But as an uninvolved bystander posting in the intraweb from 2,500 miles away I have to ask:

You, as a middle aged male, are completely and utterly surprised by some untoward behavior he might have exhibitted towards teenaged girls?

As I said, I feel bad & I hope he gets off...but...well, you know...

As a middle-aged female, I understand your point of view. I had some friends who I respected and admired very much. I liked them, trusted them, thought I knew them. One day, we got a phone call. Someone had attempted to murder the wife. The long and the short, which took several weeks to discover, was that it was the husband. He also had been sexually abusing the 7 adopted children. He was my son's soccer coach for two years. He was an elder in the church. My own "radar" , which I've always felt was highly sensitive, never bleeped once. You just never know.

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. Hey, he's male. What do you expect?" I want to believe that some people are above reproach, and that there are still folks out there that know the difference between right and wrong. That say, "Yea, it's tempting, but I'm not going to." I guess it's naive, but I don't like the way I feel when I'm suspicious of everyone, and never fully trust anyone. So, at this point, I'm still willing to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt. I'm waiting for time to tell.

I'm also wondering, if the allegation involves an inappropriate relationship with a teenage girl, why the wording is "violating professional standards" rather than "sexual abuse". I wonder if he had an affair with the young woman who stands accused. But then, that wouldn't need a criminal investigation, would it? Very puzzling.

I fixed your post.

And yet, I find myself resisting the cynicism that says, "I"m not surprised when Johnson is accused of whatever. <font color = red>Hey, he's male.</font>
[/B][/QUOTE]What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 13th, 2005 at 09:52 PM]

Every night, when I walk the dextering beagle, I pass a car with a bumper sticker that says "I believe in dragons, good men, and other fairy tale creatures". Seems appropriate for this thread. :)

Is your beagle male or female?

My daughter's beagle is male. I merely get the joy of walking him a couple times a day. :rolleyes: His first birthday is Saturday.

I don't understand why you need to walk the dog with a bumper sticker.

Hey, I dont even wanna think about passing a car with a bumper sticker either. Makes me shudder just to think about it.

What's your dog's name, Chuck?

You <b>know</b> what Dan's dog's name is, don't you?- the dumb slobbering beast.

The dog- not Dan.

Hey that aint nice...I don't slobber.

Any more.

(You're pretty quick for an old guy.)

Then you sure don't want to know what he passes!! :eek:

His name is Buster Baxter Brady Beagle. I told you. . . it's my daughter's.

His name is Buster Baxter Brady Beagle.

[/B][/QUOTE]That's ....... cute.

When you ride him, do your feet touch the ground?

Kind of related, but telling comment. I teach 5th grade and we're starting a program to get more dads into the school setting and I'm the school liason. We have a lot of stay at home mothers that voluteer frequently. When we started talking about getting the men into the school, a teacher, and many agreed, that we should make sure we get background checks on the volunteers just to make sure none are on the sex offender registry. I've never heard anyone suggest that with any of our predominately female volunteers. I just found that kind of interesting.

That's a very smart move for the school to cover it's a$$. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the vast majority of sex offenders are male. Although they should also check the background of the females, when you think sex offender, isn't it a man's image that comes to mind?

I agree Smitty. I just thought it was kind of funny (as in interesting) since we have mothers in here all the time and it's never been brought up, but as soon as men are coming in, we need to check them out. A nice illustration of stereotypes.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it?

My point wasn't that I don't trust men, or that it's okay to assume that men are abusers. My point was that it's cynical to assume that, and I don't want to think that way. I resist that kind of "bottom line", because I don't like what it does to my own life. Get it? [/B][/QUOTE]I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize.

I went back and re-read your post...and found that I misread it and missed your point. I apologize. [/B][/QUOTE]

Apology accepted.

...and speaking of Dexter, anyone know where he's been lately?

Apology accepted. [/B][/QUOTE]

Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

Wait a second here.

If I'm Mr. Annoying Grammar Guy, what twisted version of Emily Post does that make you?!?!?! :D

Mr. Keeping it real.

What's your rationalization for Kathleen Erickson?

Or doesn't that matter? [/B][/QUOTE]

Don't forget about Mary Kay Laterneau, the teacher that was bangin the elementary school kid, went to jail, popped out a couple kids at state expense, and is no MARRIED TO HIM!!

Don't forget about Mary Kay Laterneau, the teacher that was bangin the elementary school kid, went to jail, popped out a couple kids at state expense, and is no MARRIED TO HIM!! [/B][/QUOTE]

I almost forgot about her. How old is he now? Must be about 14 yrs old

I almost forgot about her. How old is he now? Must be about 14 yrs old [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, I think he's about 19 or 20. And they're living happily ever after. I had a brother that worked with her ex-husband at Alaska Airlines in Anchorage. After that whole mess, he left Washington and moved to Alaska.

Wait a second here.

It is customary, even required in some circles, that when someone takes offense to something said it us up to the offender to make an apology before any explanation is offered. And regardless of how badly the offending comment was misinterpreted the offended person is never, ever required to say anything stronger than "next time be more sensitive".

[/B][/QUOTE]Shut up.

Shut up. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm offended.


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com...px-Crybaby.png

I'm offended.


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com...px-Crybaby.png
[/B][/QUOTE]

Oh boy...is this gonna end up in one of those weird internet group hug kind of things...cause if it is, I'm not sticking around! Gross!!