Josh Duggar, Admitted Child Molester - Part 8

[pega127]

Oh gee whiz, running scared Smug? According to Extra, he has hired Kate's body guard. Could it be all ego on Smug's part or do to his awesome parents now feel God can't protect him?

[MatthewDuggar]

Someone pointed out in another thread that this bodyguard has been used by many of the TLC families. Kate, Little Couple, even Mama June for a bit. If anything it shows that TLC still has a vested interest.

[gustava]

I believe the bodyguard was at Jill's.

[zebra #13]

Right. Ma and Pa Duggar will talk to Fox News, but not to the Arkansas Department of Human Services until the armed police forces are called in to assist. :clap:

We don't know WHO REFUSED TO TALK. Could have easily have been one of the kids. We also don't know that it hasn't been settled. Don't suppose that it's likely we ever will, barring nosy neighbors. But it really *shouldn't mean* that we get to just run with it, eh? Patience is a gorgeous and productive thang.

edited because boondoggle

[Mama Mia]

Did you seriously just ask what benefit it is for an employer to have access? Uh it is called Risk Mitigation.

Employers are private people. They aren't govt. They only have access to that which we all have access to.

And yes, employers can break EEOC. They do it all the time for a thousand reasons. Using epmployer misapplication of public records access or nosy neighbors as an excuse to demolish a basic first amendment right is just baffling to me.

So prospective employers should have the right to any police interview, because of Risk Mitigation? Well that certainly goes against the whole " innocent until proven guilty" thing doesn't it? Yea, yea, I know - ithat concept "only" applies to the judicial system. However it certainly can impact people extremely negatively. It seems, to me, that in your quest to reign in police and court over- reach you are just empowering corporations to engage in the same sort of unfounded power play.

And the right I'm concerned with is the right to privacy, particularly in the current environment where private citizens , or corporations, since they are now " people" can effectively rummage through your life and spread information - and mis- information just as easily as any unreasonable search by the police.

But, dead horse.

[doggie]

Oh gee whiz, running scared Smug? According to Extra, he has hired Kate's body guard. Could it be all ego on Smug's part or do to his awesome parents now feel God can't protect him?

more like why is God not protecting him since head it sounded godly.

[Kantrarian]

So prospective employers should have the right to any police interview, because of Risk Mitigation? Well that certainly goes against the whole " innocent until proven guilty" thing doesn't it? Yea, yea, I know - ithat concept "only" applies to the judicial system. However it certainly can impact people extremely negatively. It seems, to me, that in your quest to reign in police and court over- reach you are just empowering corporations to engage in the same sort of unfounded power play.

And the right I'm concerned with is the right to privacy, particularly in the current environment where private citizens , or corporations, since they are now " people" can effectively rummage through your life and spread information - and mis- information just as easily as any unreasonable search by the police.

But, dead horse.

I think there is a lot of confusion going on in this thread. I'm going to start with employers don't have to follow the law. Sure they don't, but then they risk fines and that is really not a good way to go when EEOC seems rather litigious. The Supreme Court held a decision that the EEOC failed to meet conciliatory efforts with employers.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't really apply outside the court. It doesn't really apply when you're poor and bail is posted and you can't pay it and are then forced to stay in jail for a crime that you didn't commit. Or are forced to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit because the alternative if you lose is worse and you have a court appointed legal aid who is overworked and overburdened.

Largely employers rely on a third party to conduct the background screen. In other words, they pay a provider to check the person's background. It's quick and easy. The company orders a background and the candidate is sent an email with their rights and to release and validate their information. As that third party, they become a certain term under a certain law which is going to cause confusion so I'll gloss over it. In sum the law generally does not allow reporting of arrest records that did not result in entry of a judgment of conviction, where the arrests occurred more than seven years ago. These third parties may report convictions indefinitely unless otherwise prohibited. State law applies as well.

You do not understand employment law, which is understandable because it sounds like you don't work in employment law, labor relations, or in HR but let me tell you it's not quite that easy. My above referenced two different federal agencies, three federal laws, and countless state laws. If they chose not to hire you based on your background, you are sent a pre-adverse action letter in the mail. This contains the report and summary of your rights under the fair credit reporting act. This gives you a chance to dispute any inaccurate information to the credit reporting agency, which is that third party I mentioned above. Following that letter you get mailed another letter called the adverse action letter. Employers have a responsibility to protect their employees from danger. If they don't do this it falls under a tort law so I prefer to call it a tortfeasor.

Anyway, none of this applies or affects Josh. IMO It'd be far more interesting to discuss how religious organizations are exempt from many employment laws and can go out being harassing and discriminating towards candidates and employees yet claim to be beacons of morality.

[Arabella-Vivienne]

Hi. I'm pretty new here, but I believe I'm up to speed on most of the info. I've read this entire thread. The first police report. Several articles. And several other threads here. Didn't get to see the interviews though. No TV.

I just wanted to post some thoughts and get some feedback. :wink-kitty:

1. I believe there is without a doubt more 'inappropriate actions' regarding Josh out there. Why? Because he is hiding. If everything had already been brought to light....and the statute of limitations was really over.....JOSH would be the one getting interviewed on the TV shows, apologizing and repairing the damage. His absence smacks of guilt and unrevealed secrets.

2. I think Anna Duggar may/may not have known the full extent of Josh's molesting history....but I believe her father DID know the full truth. Josh was previously engaged to a senator's daughter....and then his family is suddenly is interested in a preacher who evangelizes to hardened criminals? Quite a comedown.

Come on. Along with the rumors, Anna's dad had to know his family was marked by JB for their acceptance of those with great personal failures. And that Josh MUST fall into that category....or else why wasn't he romancing another high caliber daughter? I also believe that he did not allow Anna to marry until she was 20? Sounds like a probation period for Josh to make sure his molesting days were behind him to the satisfaction of Anna's dad.

3. My guess for Anna's new daughter. M-pathy.

[VelociRapture]

Hi. I'm pretty new here, but I believe I'm up to speed on most of the info. I've read this entire thread. The first police report. Several articles. And several other threads here. Didn't get to see the interviews though. No TV.

I just wanted to post some thoughts and get some feedback. :wink-kitty:

1. I believe there is without a doubt more 'inappropriate actions' regarding Josh out there. Why? Because he is hiding. If everything had already been brought to light....and the statute of limitations was really over.....JOSH would be the one getting interviewed on the TV shows, apologizing and repairing the damage. His absence smacks of guilt and unrevealed secrets.

2. I think Anna Duggar may/may not have known the full extent of Josh's molesting history....but I believe her father DID know the full truth. Josh was previously engaged to a senator's daughter....and then his family is suddenly is interested in a preacher who evangelizes to hardened criminals? Quite a comedown.

Come on. Along with the rumors, Anna's dad had to know his family was marked by JB for their acceptance of those with great personal failures. And that Josh MUST fall into that category....or else why wasn't he romancing another high caliber daughter? I also believe that he did not allow Anna to marry until she was 20? Sounds like a probation period for Josh to make sure his molesting days were behind him to the satisfaction of Anna's dad.

3. My guess for Anna's new daughter. M-pathy.

1. Josh hiding indicates nothing other than he is hiding. It is not a sign that there are additional crimes that have yet to be discovered - it simply means that he doesn't want to deal with the media attention at this time. I can't say I blame him either. Anything he says now is just going to make matters worse for all of them and cause him to be torn apart even more by the media.

2. I believe Pa Keller asked Anna not to marry before 20 well before Josh came into the picture and that he asked his other daughters to do the same. I have no opinion on why the Kellers were seen as a good choice - many other ATI families have the same forgiving views towards this sort of thing as the Kellers do. I would guess that Josh wound up with Anna partly because her family is accepting of his past (if they knew the full extent) and partly because there was some sort of attraction between them at one point in time.

3. No. If anything, I see them going for a name more Biblical in nature. Or something extremely trendy.

[apple1]

I doubt Anna really knew the extent of Josh's actions. I also don't believe she really had any choice. I blame her father for (in effect) selling her off. (He has done - IMO - just as badly for Esther Shrader and for Priscilla Waller). L.O.S.E.R. (Mr. Keller, I mean).

Please don't re-start the whole mess - in which posters tried to outdo each other with names - of names for the child. That degenerated so badly that the helpmeet had to remove the thread. :( (I'm glad you read before posting, and you may not be aware of the removed thread).

[VelociRapture]

I doubt Anna really knew the extent of Josh's actions. I also don't believe she really had any choice. I blame her father for (in effect) selling her off. (He has done - IMO - just as badly for Esther Shrader and for Priscilla Waller). L.O.S.E.R. (Mr. Keller, I mean).

Please don't re-start the whole mess - in which posters tried to outdo each other with names - of names for the child. That degenerated so badly that the helpmeet had to remove the thread. :( (I'm glad you read before posting, and you may not be aware of the removed thread).

Excellent point about the names. I considered bring that up, but Arabella-Vivienne didn't suggest something seriously inappropriate or wrong. But yeah, the whole name discussion for M4 should just be allowed to die.

[happy atheist]

It's about time for Part 9: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26314