I read this over at Angel H.’s about the manager of a homeless shelter assaulting a woman and I got to the part where she reveals that this fucker had already served time for sexually assaulting another woman at that exact same shelter where he somehow was still the manager!!! and my brain just melted down.
What the fuckity-fuck-fuck?
You work at a homeless shelter. You sexually assault a woman. You go to jail. And then you…
…go back to work at that same homeless shelter?
How does that happen?
Where is the investigation into that?
Tiny Cat Pants 
another fox in the hen-house…
Maybe all the women foot-soldiers were busy clamoring to take down a would-be misogynist. After all, everyone knows fondling a cardboard cut-out and actually assaulting a woman is worthy of the same amount of energy!
Oh, the choices!
My money’s on some guy unable to let go of some minor blog incident where he got his little feelings wounded. If you feel the need to continue about that issue, why don’t you comment on the original thread and not derail this one?
Yah, women can pay attention to one thing at a time, anyway.
Now, back to B’s post: that whole board needs to be fired. Rehiring him after he served jail time for an earlier assault? Is he some big donor’s cousin or something? WTF?
I know! How does that even happen? I mean, I literally cannot comprehend it. What kind of utter disrespect would you have to have for the people you are supposedly helping to give this guy another chance to victimize one of them?
I don’t know anything about how the oversight and funding of that particular place are organized. But was there no one in a position to say “no” to the rehiring who could be bothered?
The initial allegation might have been aggravated sexual assault, but it looks like he pled to aggravated assault, which is a felony, and got three years (of which he served about a year, counting his time in county lockup) The statutory specifics of the AA charge say nothing about sex per se, but are all about causing serious bodily injury with a weapon. It might have been one of those cases where the prosecutor figured it would be hard to prove lack of consent or something, maybe something where they didn’t want the character of the victim or her sexual history dragged through court or whatever. Sexual assault cases always get nasty and so they went for the straightforward conviction.
What that means, though, is that while he was a felon (which should have come up on his background check and should have been sufficient disqualification), the sexual content of the initial allegations would not have necessarily shown up. Surely to hell the staff knew about it, though.
But, Bridgett, surely to goodness even assault on a resident with no sexual component whatsoever ought to have disqualified him for the position.
Yes, a felony should have been sufficient disqualification had anyone given a damn enough to look, provided it wasn’t expunged.
Hi Aunt B! Thanks for the link!
Bridgett, I doubt that the files were expunged so soon. Also, even if he pled to guilty to a lesser charge, the original charges – as well as the original petitions and any incident reports the officers wrote – -would still be on his court papers. Either somebody just didn’t do their homework, or there is some serious nepotism going on.