One thing that bothers me about this case, and I forgot to mention it in my last post is that he has been suspended from his position as principal of the high school, before his case has even gone to trial.

Now if he had been caught in bed with one of his students I would say that would be justified, since the safety of the students should always come first. In this case however there seems to be no such justification. As far as his employer is concerned, it seems there is no need for due process.

These days one need only be accused of a crime before paying with their career. I have a hard time understanding how this trend fits in the context of a nation that professes the accused are innocent until proven guilty, but then I have a hard time understanding Guantonimo, extraordinary rendition and Vice President Dick Cheney's 1% doctrine [ If there's a 1% chance they are a threat we take them out ]

To me this case is completely different from that of Sen. Larry Craig who pled guilty and gave up his right to a trial. My issues with Sen. Craig stem not from his perceived sexual orientation, or even from his personal conduct, but rather from his pontificating finger waving and hard core homophobic legislating ways. Sen. Larry Craig has adversely affected the lives of of millions of sexual minorities in this country, and as such his short[cum]ings are of particular interest. In contrast Schum seems to have led a rather quiet life, and has not had much of an impact beyond his home town.... at least until getting busted in an alley one dark Tuesday night.

If the principal had been a woman and was moonlighting, turning tricks on the weekend, I would not want her to be my kids' principal. Some people are -- and should be -- held to higher standards. No...he hasn't been convicted, and as a result has not yet been fired. It has little to do with whether he cross dressed. Given his position, he shouldn't have been hanging out with whores and drug dealers.

If you took the time to read the story you would have noticed he was not in the company of whores and drug dealers, in fact he was not in the company of anyone. He was arrested in the alley by himself without, according to the arresting officer, a good reason for his presence. This sounds like a dubious arrest at best. Ever been in an alley after dark, taking a leak or having a smoke or just chillin, if you had been crossing dressing and in Louisville on the arresting officers beat you would more than likely ended up in jail too. He was not trespassing, or breaking into a store or soliciting anyone and I'm pretty sure that a male dressing as a woman isn't a crime in any american city, at least not yet anyway.

Schum, 50, was

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:25 pm wearing fishnet stockings, fake breasts, and "all black leather" when officers discovered him "loitering in high drug trafficking and prostitution area.

" The citation notes that

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:25 pm Schum, who heads Bethlehem High School,

had "no reason for why he was in alley...

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:25 pm dressed up in women's leather other than for prostitution." Schum, now on paid leave from his school post, is due in court on November 27 to answer a misdemeanor charge of loitering for the intent of prostitution.

Actually, I did take time to read it. I'm not saying he's guilty of anything he should be arrested for, but he is guilty of bad judgement; and I would question whether he deserves to keep his job. I, too, would ask, "What the fuck were you doing in that alley?"

One of the key issues here is that he was employed by a religious institution. One with an abysmal track record for being open-minded, accepting, and tolerant of things such as this. And that's not even getting into the traditional RC hierarchy opinion on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

He should have just molested an altar boy. Then he could have had it covered up for years, denied it all along, and kept his position...oh wait, that only works for priests.

Slammr (imported) wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:31 pm I'm not saying he's guilty of anything he should be arrested for, but he is guilty of bad judgement; and I would question whether he deserves to keep his job. I, too, would ask, "What the fuck were you doing in that alley?"

Who here has not been guilty of "bad judgement"? I personally believe in the freedom to be dressed as I please, and be where I want without the encumbrance of justifying my presence in a public place, to any law enforcement officer.

1) If he was dressed as a man would he have been as likely to drawn the attention of the police in the first place? I doubt it.

2) Was there some sort of indication such as a sign or placard stating that one might have to justify their presence to the police? I doubt it.

3) How does not being able to justify one's presence become "intent" to commit a crime. It doesn't.

To hell with anti loitering laws. They are the most poorly written and and unequally enforced laws on the books.

I taught in a coed Catholic High School for three years, 1969-1972, and all the principals were priests and a third of my fellow teachers were nuns or brothers. See, you can't trust a non clerical leader. The principal there the last year I taught there was a Dominican. I really came to dislike the Dominican order if he was a typical represenative.

As we all know, when you wear the collar, your morals are beyond reproach Then again, I attended standard high school and never even met a priest or a nun till 1969.

jemagirl (imported) wrote: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:42 pm Who here has not been guilty of "bad judgement"? I personally believe in the freedom to be dressed as I please, and be where I want without the encumbrance of justifying my presence in a public place, to any law enforcement officer.

1) If he was dressed as a man would he have been as likely to drawn the attention of the police in the first place? I doubt it.

2) Was there some sort of indication such as a sign or placard stating that one might have to justify their presence to the police? I doubt it.

3) How does not being able to justify one's presence become "intent" to commit a crime. It doesn't.

To hell with anti loitering laws. They are the most poorly written and and unequally enforced laws on the books.

All great points and powerfully articulated.

OH MY GAWD!

PLEASE! somebody warn Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8) and Donald Trump to stay the hell out of Louisville!