Senator Schoen

[Jackpine Savage]

If I remember right he's one of the gun banners isn't he?

https://lptv.org/minnesota-state-senator-accused-of-sexually-harassing-women/

Minnesota State Senator Accused Of Sexually Harassing Women

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A Democratic state senator from Minnesota is facing calls to resign amid allegations that he sexually harassed several women involved in state politics.

The allegations against state Sen. Dan Schoen, who has served in the Legislature since 2013 and also works as a police officer in the Minneapolis suburb of Cottage Grove, were first reported by the online news outlet MinnPost . Schoen, 42, is accused of having made unwanted advances toward women and groping a woman from behind.

[MJY65]

I recall the same about his Anti 2A stance

[Rip Van Winkle]

I wonder who he PO'd that they're throwing him under the bus.

[Ghost]

I wonder who he PO'd that they're throwing him under the bus.

Maybe he wanted to move to Hollywood and thought that's just how it's done?

[BigBlue]

Even if he may be on the other side politically I would hope that it takes more than someone's unsubstantiated claim to wreck anyone's career and force them to resign. Though 'due process' may not legally apply (or does it?) here there should be some investigation and facts substantiated before everyone flies off the handle.

[Ghost]

Sorry it's yuge

[ttousi]

Sorry it's yuge

it's also huge

FYI............ pic size of 600x800 works well if you can resize

[yukonjasper]

Even if he may be on the other side politically I would hope that it takes more than someone's unsubstantiated claim to wreck anyone's career and force them to resign. Though 'due process' may not legally apply (or does it?) here there should be some investigation and facts substantiated before everyone flies off the handle.

I don't disagree, however, in today's political climate and the uproar over sexual harassment, I think the mere implications of misconduct is enough to sink most people. The more you profess your innocence, the deeper you dig yourself and the guiltyer you appear. The protesting only draws more attention to the accusations. The threshold for what constitutes sexual harassment is also a moving target.

[MJY65]

Even if he may be on the other side politically I would hope that it takes more than someone's unsubstantiated claim to wreck anyone's career and force them to resign. Though 'due process' may not legally apply (or does it?) here there should be some investigation and facts substantiated before everyone flies off the handle.

In general, I'd agree with you. However, I make exceptions for politicians that spend their days trying to screw people over and take away their rights. Karma

[BigBlue]

I don't disagree, however, in today's political climate and the uproar over sexual harassment, I think the mere implications of misconduct is enough to sink most people. The more you profess your innocence, the deeper you dig yourself and the guiltyer you appear. The protesting only draws more attention to the accusations. The threshold for what constitutes sexual harassment is also a moving target.

What really torques me off is this dredging up of ancient stuff (not exactly related to Schoen, but a lot of similar allegations). Really, you're going to start bitching about something from 1979 now? Those were different times and the world has changed. People smoked in the office, they let kids ride without seatbelts, you roadtripped with a case of beer and, yeah, some slapped women on the ass and made crude comments. The key is whether these people do these bad, sexist things TODAY or recently. Just like experimenting with drugs. Didn't one of our illustrious former presidents smoke a little weed in college? He was forgiven. One recent article about some (non-MN) state supreme court judge the woman making the accusation said "I didn't really think much bad about it at the time but looking back now I know it was wrong." Yeah, that's called times changing. People change too.

[Ghost]

Lindsey Port

[Ghost]

Erin Maye Quade, have to click this one due to her language.

http://stmedia.stimg.co/ctyp+jimenez+hopper+maye+quade+wine.jpg?w=800

[mrp]

One recent article about some (non-MN) state supreme court judge the woman making the accusation said "I didn't really think much bad about it at the time but looking back now I know it was wrong." Yeah, that's called times changing. People change too.

If you're talking about Roy Moore and how he, as a 32 year old, talked a 14 year old into sneaking off with him to his house, well, I don't know that I blame those young teens if they didn't realize at the time how screwed up that was. I was in high school in 1979. I had a 14 year old sister in 1979. I can't think of anyone who would have thought that it was OK for a 32 year old guy to do that to a 14 year old girl. Where did you grow up that that was OK?

(It was also a felony, btw, even in Alabama.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... b026c4ef9c

[yukonjasper]

I agree that there are some cases that are absolutes and those extreme cases should be looked at and dealt with as it shows a clear pattern of predatory behavior and underlying psychological issues. There are, however, societal "norms and morality" that become out of date and are difficult to isolate as specific to one person if an entire population isn't sensitive to it. If through the lens of time, an old behavior is seen to be unacceptable by today's standards, is it helpful to retroactively seek retribution?

Somewhat analogous to this would be slavery - at one point it was both legal and common place, but by todays standards and by most western cultures it would be inconceivable to permit it and it is looked upon with disdain. The people living at that time accepted it and didn't think much of it - they didn't wrestle much with the morality of it. Same with ancient Rome and the Orgies that were commonplace among the aristocracy - cannibalism in some societies that was commonplace fairly recently - the list goes on and on.

Where do you draw the line and what behavior, however reprehensible today, is over the line enough to retroactively punish. There are clearly some lines most if not all could agree on - rape, incest, murder etc. - but some behavior was relatively harmless in the context of the day - was it good behavior, no - was it civilized and intelligent behavior in the context of a more "enlightened" society, no - but should it be enough to end a career or black ball someone?

I'll wait for an absolutist to start sniping here. I get the zero-tolerance culture that exists today, I just don't think it should apply to in some cases where time has passed and there is little demonstrable damage.

Flame suit on.

[BigBlue]

Also, why isn't anyone mentioning defamation? Unless these past claimed offenses have any factual backup (or corroborating witnesses) I'd think any public figure would be suing for defamation against folks claiming these things. Isn't that why so much of this anecdotal stuff that apparently happened behind closed doors and didn't have a police report at the time was kept quiet? You can't make claims against someone that destroys their career/life without any actual justification. Sucks if it happened and sucks that it wasn't dealt with at the time, but xx years later just because everyone else is talking about similar things doesn't change the legal aspect. I guess it just cows the accused into shutting up and taking it.

Now I'm not excusing what may have happened, I'm just pondering why all of a sudden these claims are acceptable and free from liability.