Opinion: Dumler bashing's out of control
By Marlene Condon
I don't know Chris Dumler. But I do know that the community's response to his sexual battery conviction could have come right out of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. However, you needn’t go back that far in time to see the seemingly inherent cruelness of people.
Supervisor Dennis Rooker's comment that Chris should move and start his life over makes me think of the 1960s when I was growing up. Girls pregnant out of wedlock were sent away so they and their families wouldn’t have to bear “the shame” forced upon them by the community.
Probably most folks feel that such judgmentalism is necessary to control people's behavior and to keep everyone in line with society’s values. Thus I recognize that Mr. Rooker is only being realistic, but his suggestion is a sad commentary on society.
The vehicle for ensuring societal judgmentalism is gossip—the offering of personal opinion not based upon factual knowledge of the situation being talked about, often with the additional insinuation of worse acts than the one actually being judged.
For example, on February 28, WINA conservative talk show host Rob Schilling said that he would prefer to have seen “a police escort” with a female TV reporter as she interviewed Mr. Dumler. Mr. Schilling has no basis in fact for making such a negative moral assessment of Chris Dumler as the supervisor has not been found guilty of attacking strangers.
When Mr. Schilling infers that he himself would supposedly have sent police protection with the female reporter for that interview, he’s attempting to raise his own moral stature in relation to a supposedly negligent TV station.
As Professor of Philosophy Caroline J. Simon writes in the journal, Faith and Philosophy, by “making [a] negative moral assessment of others [i.e., the TV station]…one believes one’s own moral worth is enhanced...”
Mr. Schilling also suggests that Mr. Dumler is a child predator. He asked school board members if they had “any concerns regarding Mr. Dumler being on Albemarle County school property while children are present?”
Mr. Schilling deliberately planted negative and unwarranted thoughts about Mr. Dumler into those people’s minds. Taking satisfaction from the devious smearing of another person is evil. And this from Mr. Schilling who wears his religion on his sleeve!
One might not be surprised that a talk show host seeking publicity would make such comments. However, I would have hoped people serving on the school board would have the ability to apply critical thinking before answering the question.
But no, according to Mr. Schilling’s blog, “[Jason] Buyaki suggests changing school board policy on sex offenders so that: ‘any individual who has been convicted of sex crime should be escorted at all times as a precaution and preventative method.’ [Eric] Strucko says he’s ‘open’ to considering such a revision.”
And “Ned Galloway is nauseated by the experience and has requested that Chris Dumler not visit Albemarle County Schools.”
Hello? Mr. Dumler was involved with an adult female— not a child. Why should anyone be concerned about him being around children? This kind of innuendo serves no purpose other than to demonstrate a real meanness of spirit that reveals hatefulness in people.
In Mr. Dumler’s case, all anyone knows is that he pleaded guilty to a charge that legal expert David Heilberg explained in the Hook produced “a certain [emphasis mine] outcome. It doesn't ruin the rest of his life, he doesn't lose his law license. He won't be a registered sexual offender.”
Many people, such as callers to WINA talk shows hosted by Coy Barefoot and Rob Schilling, have made comments illustrating their ignorance of our legal system, which is flawed and does not guarantee justice to anyone. People– including host Barefoot– claim if they were innocent of this crime, they would spend all of their money to clear their name. But it's not that simple.
How likely do you think it that a jury of Mr. Dumler's so-called peers would deny their emotions and instead use their brains to be fair to this man? Truth be told, people are so full of condemnation about this case because they think the alleged sex act is aberrant among heterosexual couples.
But any psychologist or psychiatrist familiar with the literature could testify that this behavior among heterosexuals is more common than society acknowledges (though more commonly performed by couples who have been together a long time).
If you really think that you would place your future into the hands of the people of this community in spite of the judgmental behavior they’ve demonstrated when they’ve had no access to all of the facts of this case, you're a braver (wo)man than I, or perhaps just more foolish.
It should be up to Chris Dumler’s constituents who voted him into office as to whether or not he should vacate his seat on the board of supervisors, and it’s not clear that the majority of them are indeed eager for him to leave. If they were, they would have flocked to sign the petition started by Earl Smith at the beginning of February to ask a judge to remove Mr. Dumler.
But Mr. Smith was still trying to collect voter signatures on March 1, 2013, when he phoned The Schilling Show. The squeaky wheel in this case does not deserve to get the grease.
Marlene A. Condon is an author and photographer who lives in Albemarle County.
183 comments
Ms. Condon has such tender concern for the birds and the bees and the insects, but none for women victims of sexual battery or forcible sodomy:
Is It Time to Halt Bird Banding?
By Marlene A. Condon
Night Lighting Is Harmful to Our Insects
By Marlene Condon
http://www.crozetgazette.com/2012/04/night-lighting-is-harmful-to-our-in...
I thought Ms. Condon's piece sounded like deja-vu-all-over-again.
This commentary begins with "I don't know Chris Dumler." A commentary from her in The Hook last April began with "I don't know Ric Barrick":
http://readthehook.com/103130/schilling-was-witch-hunt
Apparently, Ms. Condon doesn't seem to know much about anything except taking any opportunity she can to bash WINA talk show host Rob Schilling - the meat of both of her "commentaries".
She quickly dismisses offenses like bid-rigging and sexual battery to get to her real target. If only local government were so transparent.
As the local naturalist who raised a stink years ago to oppose frogs being used for jumping contests at the county fair - and one who admittedly doesn't keep up with personalities, facts, or details about the subjects of her writings - would any of us be surrprised to discover that Ms. Conden is both a supporter of and apologist for Democratic officials and positions?
I'll give my answer in a single word. Ribbit!
Ms. Condon you disgust me. To state that "Truth be told, people are so full of condemnation about this case because they think the alleged sex act is aberrant among heterosexual couples" is the textbook definition of IGNORANT. The only condemnation I've encountered since this began is the fact that is was a FORCED sex act. I shudder to think that an unwanted, forced sex act is "more common than society acknowledges."
I agree completely, Ms Condon. Thank you for writing this.
Then again, Ms. Condon is a big friend of poisonous snakes...:
"Yes, Virginia, You Can Coexist with the Northern Copperhead"
by Marlene A. Condon
http://www.crozetgazette.com/2012/08/blue-ridge-naturalist-yes-virginia-...
I actually think the public bashing has been very mild considering his admission of guilt in a sex offender case.
She is correct on the facts.
She is correct that Schilling has gone from a decent guy who painted his house pink because the government was harrasing him to being a loudmouth with very little to back it up. His opinions are shallow, misinformed, often exxagerated and his "facts" are often anything but.
Coy Barfoots croidile tears were a joke, he was trying to go after Dumler and Dumler was trying to make nice. cory would have none of it because he had no intention from the beggining but to attempt o sandbag Dumler.
I think the people in his district have heard enough and will simply "vote" by not letting the vigilantis get to them.
Of course there could always be a huge backlash when people from outside try and take away their rights to be represented by the person they voted for. The irony is that the older folks who are probably most offended by his behaivior are the ones who know who Patrick Henry and George Mason, and even cleisthenes (the original father of Democracy) were and understand the rules of law. They may hate him but respect the nessessity to preserve the system at all costs.
When the prosecution accepted the plea deal that the victim and the other complaintants agreed to it, it was game over as far as do overs go.
If you do not believe he is contrite enough for you then too bad. His plea deal did not include kissing your backside.
Very glad to read someone with common sense on the subject: taking a plea means that you're choosing to take an easy out and avoid a trial. Offering a sweet plea, like the state did, is an acknowledgement they did not have a case.
Serve on, Supervisor Dumler, we'll reelect you in three years.
Ms Condon, You have embarrassed yourself beyond belief with this one. Chris Dumler is arrogant and uncaring. Have you watched the TV news? After he plead GUILTY, Dumler sent an email to Channel 29 ending comment with :-).
Get used to it Marleen. In light of the obvious, public outcry regarding this spoiled man-child isn't going away. Schilling and Barefoot, Keep up the fine work.
Marlene, you are a great promoter of gardening and protecting the natural flora and fauna, for which I applaud you and for which I am endeared to you. I too want to protect the Copperhead. The protection of women against sexual attack, where "no" means "no", is far more important than the lives of our wildlife friends. I know that deep within you is a beautiful soul, who honors the importance of life. You wouldn't harm a frog! So, with that, I implore you, do not turn away from the women who were the victims of Chris Dumler's mistreatment. He harmed them. Period! They deserve the same sentiments and care you would afford the wildlife. How do you feel, Marlene, about the people who kill snakes? How do you feel about the people who hunt deer with dogs? How do you feel about shooting crows, or doves, or quail? Or just chasing a fox with hounds and horses, harassing and haranguing it for sport? Now think. Chris Dumler allegedly sodomized or otherwise sexually battered several women from 2006 through 2012 in our area. What about them? I know you are a strong liberal Democrat, and an environmentalist of the highest order. However, to use this case to blast Rob Schilling is awful! Do you care for your plants and animals more than real women in your community? Do you care more about protecting a convicted sex offender than the victims? Do you care about your vengeful spite against a political talk show host than you do against justice for victims of sex abuse? Please join the women of Albemarle and Charlottesville, Marlene, in this fight against the violent injustices brought upon women by Chris Dumler. Please join those who have asked him to resign, who have admonished him for his behavior, liberal people like Delegate David Toscano, Board Chairman Ann Mallek (your Supervisor I believe), The Albemarle County Democratic Committee (you're a member, yes? if not, join!), The Charlottesville Democratic Committee, and liberal Independent Supervisor Dennis Rooker. Don't for one instance think that just because some Teapublicans like Schilling are criticizing Chris Dumler that by joining the chorus of Dumler critics that you are joining him. You would be joining the vast sea of Democrats and Liberals who have rallied against him and even kicked him out of the Democratic Party, they were so disgusted with him.
Ms. Condon asserts that Mr. Dumler is being criticized "for an alleged sex act." Sex acts are wonderful when they are consensual. Mr. Dumler, however, is being criticized for an act of violence for which he has plead guilty and been convicted.
Dear Marlene,
I loved your reference to The Scarlet Letter. It was one of my favorite books growing up. Those Hawthorne characters were a little harsh, weren't they? I can see why you think the public is piling on poor Chris Dumler, but he brought this on himself! Really, Marlene, every single time he talks to the press, the stories about him get worse and worse. He did plead guilty after all. That should have been the end of it, but Chris just kept on denying that he did anything wrong, and hen those poor girls, well they just came forward too and now it's like a soap opera. If he had just kept his mouth shut, or resigned. I too think he should go away and start his life over. Social ostracization is the punishment one receives when they do harm to society. When a girl got pregnant back in the day, her family would ship her off, and tell the neighbors she was taking care of an aunt out of town. She would have the baby, and maybe return. She would be asked to leave school. But Marlene, there was no victim there, so to ostracize her was considered a moral punishment to keep the other girls from getting pregnant. It seems wrong, because no one was actually hurt by her pregnancy. Chris Dumler hurt these poor women, and he should go. His time here is done. His reputation is ruined. He needs to go see his mother. This man needs his mother. He hurts women, he said so, and his mother can set him aright.
Ms. Condon is right to presume Mr. Dumbler's innocence, except that he himself admitted that he was guilty of sexual battery.
She claims that sexual battery is not uncommon among heterosexual couples.
THIS is how dumbler's defenders wrap their heads around what they're doing: by saying that forcibly penetrating another person's anus with their penis is normal.
has ms. condon even followed this case? it doesn't seem so at all. if she has, she shows a complete lack in the area of critical thinking and analysis. a few points:
"But I do know that the community's response to his sexual battery conviction could have come right out of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter."
--funny. i have an MA in literature, am very familiar with Hawthorne, and admire his work. to compare the outrage over dumler to 'the scarlet letter' is facile-minded and cavalierly dismissive to dumler's victimes. what people are outraged over is that a serial sexual predator is in a position of authority in the community--the inverse of the dynamic at play in the 'the scarlet letter'--and that several other people of authority supported the man (for a while at least). apparently, a (very) little knowledge of hawthorne can be a dangerous thing.
"How likely do you think it that a jury of Mr. Dumler's so-called peers would deny their emotions and instead use their brains to be fair to this man?"
--very likely. as a matter of fact, his position on the BoS would've served in his favor had he taken the case to trial.
"Truth be told, people are so full of condemnation about this case because they think the alleged sex act is aberrant among heterosexual couples."
--this is the most absurd statement about this case i may have ever read, indicating condon's thorough lack of understanding of the case. also, how old is ms. condon? times have changed. i don't know anyone who's even alluded to any taboos surrounding anal sex, much less said the act bothered them. what they're objecting to is FORCIBLE ANAL SODOMY. a vicious act, for certain. does ms condon not understand the difference in consensual kink and FORCIBLE ANAL SODOMY?
i dont fault people too much for saying idiotic things. i've grown used to it, at this point. however, i have to wonder about any publication that would employ someone this glib and uninformed as a columnist. especially when, at last count, there are eight women who have made similar allegations against dumler.
satchel... an MA in literature.?... well we at least know how to get you off the porch.... (pay you for the pizza)
Cvillian, do you think there is a chance that the reason tea party types and democratic types banding togeher is because they have different agendas with a common cause.. the Dems don't want the guilt by association and the Republicans want his seat and to make Dems look bad. None of them give two cents about what happend in her bedroom. If they did they would have been outraged the day it happened not when it was politically nessasasry or advantageous.
Rough sex does go on all around us everyday and lots of people like it. She didn't. He went too far and broke the law. The law punished him for his actions and took steps to insure that he doesn't reoffend. That is not enough punishment for some of the people in this town who think they are perfect because their twisted side stays in check . I think he will survive this vitriol as more and more people realize it is ugly vigilantis who are out for blood leading the charge. who cpuld not care less about the collateral damage to the residents of his district.
Hate him on the street but don't stop him from reperesenting his district. They didn't commit the crime.
Satchel is right on. Haven't noticed (anyone from anywhere) criticising dumpler's choices (style/positions for the act). The objection: The selfish thug took women by force, harmed them, and then confessed/admitted guilt in court. Resign
as mr. huja likes to say, thanks for your thoughts marlene.
you know people have never stopped letting me know i lost
clete boyer's throw in the sun during the "63 world series.
i offer to marlene and dumler a copy of my biography.
hard to find on ebay titled "mom ; i could have made you proud "
and give ms condon some free advice.
a nod's as good as a wink; to a blind horse.
joe
This woman is not a journalist buy any definition of the word. She needs to keep her head with the birds, that she appears to care more about than human beings. Even if she read the comments on this website, she would know more about this case and therefore might not make a fool of herself. wow. stupidity does not seem to take a break.
Is this the Marlene Condon who wrote the piece in the Crozet Gazette about happily sharing her patio with a family of copperheads? I'm a nature lover too but not at the point of endangering my family, pets, or unsuspecting visitors to my home. Seems logical that she would be supportive of another snake in the grass like Dumler! When I read the article in the Gazette I told my wife I think this woman is a kook. Now I know she is!
Here is a judgement for ya: This woman is not a journalist buy any definition of the word. She needs to keep her head with the birds, that she appears to care more about than human beings. Even if she read the comments on this website, she would know more about this case and therefore might not make a fool of herself. wow. stupidity does not seem to take a break.
The first day of the spring season is almost here. Years ago, Virginia elected officials chose "Virginia is for Lovers" as a slogan to attract visitors, students and others to our fine Commonwealth.
Years later, today, we see that not-so-successful elected officials can extend the meaning of that slogan. Instead of "Virginia is for Lovers", one can add, 'And if you take them home and they don't love you, you're allowed to pin them down and take them by FORCE'.
It is disturbing to know that I live in a town where people will defend the actions of those who testify to forcing another human being to submit to a sex act. No one should be FORCED to submit to sex acts - not under any conditions.
"Virginia is for Lovers. Resist and get taken by force." Print that on our license plates and campus recruitment fliers.
JB you prove the point exactly.. by sayingthere have been no repercussions is just false.. the fact is the punishment is just not good enough FOR YOU.
Well to effing bad...... 30 days in jail, two year probation, his military and law issues at risk and public humiliation may not be enough for you but they are enough for the Court of law and that is all that matters. You can be as outraged as you want and follow him down the street but you don't get a do over and you don't get to punsih the people in his district because you are not intelilgent enough to under stand the law.
Ms. Condon thinks vacuuming up stink bugs is off limits: " 'It's cruel,' cautions Condon. 'People need to stop thinking of insects as pests' "
http://readthehook.com/66544/bugged-out-albemarle-swarming-stink-bugs
But not sexual battery.
Maybe we just need to stop thinking of sexual predators as pests?
As a naturalist, Ms. Condon shows a profound ignorance in that even birds get to choose their mates. Why shouldn't people be afforded the same freedom of choice?
"Virginia is for Lovers. Refuse, and get taken by FORCE."
The most important point was not addressed by the writer -- she said NO!
There is nothing to debate after that point.
Yet another "Celebrity Spokesperson" for La Dumler.
A drunk driver: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
An ardent supporter: "Why are you wasting your time and town resources on something that doesn’t mean a hill of beans to the town?”
A stink bug and poisonous snake hugger who thinks that nighttime light is more of a threat than a sexual batterer.
Quite the P.R. campaign.
I am never amazed at the lengths people in Charlottesville go to to protect a predator and how little care they give a victim of sexual assault.
I don't know the writer, but I'd like to ask her -- if he had assaulted her daughter, what would she do? What would she expect others to do? What would she expect from him?
Ms Condon, the young woman said NO and was assaulted. Every action after that was a criminal action.
The reason no one is ever prosecuted in your town for sexual assault is because of people like you. The victims' rights are never, ever the priority in a sexual assault/rape case - especially when the pervert is UVA educated.
Susan R., much gratitude for your important, vital commentary.
It frightens ones order/way of being when we see someone we have looked up to
admit to a horrible crime. Those who have the ability to cope, and have emotional wellbeing will have the ability to see the victim and hear her pain. Those who are not able will hold on to the order they thought they had with false hope.
Chris Dumler, step down. Our society and our children deserve a role model who does not engage in violence towards women.
"The most important point was not addressed by the writer -- she said NO!
There is nothing to debate after that point."
How do you know she said "no"? Were you there because I sure wasn't. You armchair quarterbacks that constantly call this guy a rapist and everything else under the sun are typical of Cville. Do you actually know the details of this case or are you simply assuming and waving the rape flag? Maybe she consented and felt guilty when she sobered. Does anyone other than those two really know?
There is nothing to debate after that point."
How do you know she said "no"? Were you there because I sure wasn't. You armchair quarterbacks that constantly call this guy a rapist and everything else under the sun are typical of Cville. Do you actually know the details of this case or are you simply assuming and waving the rape flag? Maybe she consented and felt guilty when she sobered. Does anyone other than those two really know?
The identified woman "Meredith" posted on the other main Dumler article and said she said "No". I accept her statement to be the truth. The fact he did not fight her in Court leads me to believe that she was telling the truth. But you're right, I wasn't there. I have spoken with many rape victims over the past 7 years and one thread is always the same .... Rape is not about being ambiguous when providing consent for sex. Rape should not be confused with sex. Rape is an act of empowerment. Rape is classified as a Felony crime in Virginia.
@The worst (9:14pm): Of course we don't know exactly what went on in that room. However, what Dumler's supporters seem to forget is that he plead guilty to sexual battery. One cannot plead guilty under oath in a court of law and expect to be treated as innocent by society. Since I don't have full knowledge of the case, I don't know whether or not Dumler is guilty of something more serious than sexual battery, but even if sexual battery is the worst thing he did, the public is still understandably outraged. Committing a sexual battery isn't just a mistake or a lapse of judgment; it's an intentional violation of another person's rights.
whose idea was it to have marlene condon weigh in on this issue, anyway? somebody at the hook has to take responsibility for that. courtney stuart? was this your idea? i can imagine the editorial meeting:
"this dumler situation is causing quite a stir. it puts several important issues into quite a focus: sexual violence against women, local politics, our justice system, the silence of local women's groups on the subject, the outrage of the public in the wake of inaction from local leaders..."
"i couldn't agree more, courtney. there's a lot of territory here for you to write one heck of an editorial!"
"i don't know about that. it's a pretty dicey subject. i wouldn't want to stick my neck out too far."
"ah...gotcha. yep, you're right, courtney. it's a small town after all. we dont want to get the hook in hot water over a little thing like an elected official committing focrible sodomy. hmmm... how about we seek out an interview with one of the victims? maybe talk with SARA about their views on the widespread problem of rape in our culture? examine the damaging long-term effects of rape on its survivors? or maybe john whitehead could write a column--he's a bright, informed person who'd probably provide an interesting perspective on--"
"--no! i've got it! there's only person for this job! get Crazy Bird Lady on the phone right now!"
Satchel, I'm in full agreement, but that's been the M.O. here in the past. Sad, isn't it? Charlottesville needs a publication that will take a proactive stance and make a positive difference in people's lives, not simply feed the controversies like posting these types of ignorant pro-sexual abuse opinion pieces, especially in the absence of interviews from respected professionals. Sickening.
@satchel and Say This Isn't Really Happening: Are you suggesting that the Hook shouldn't have published this editorial by Condon? While I don't personally agree with Condon's opinion, I don't take issue at all with the Hook's decision to publish her opinion. The First Amendment protects both speech we like, and speech we don't like (with reasonable restrictions on both, of course). I think the media should give an opportunity to both sides to express their opinions, and then let the public decide for themselves.
fair & reasonable-- no, they can publish an opinion piece on whatever they want, whether i agree with it or not. all i'm saying is that the person who writes it should, at the very least, understand the situation they're writing about, and have an intelligent perspective to offer. neither of which applies to Crazy Bird Lady's goofy commentary. i still cant believe someone actually wrote--and some newspaper actually published-- this sentence: 'Truth be told, people are so full of condemnation about this case because they think the alleged sex act is aberrant among heterosexual couples.' that comment just shows conlon's absurd and inexcusable lack of understanding of the subject matter she's giving her opinion on. it's downright goofy, if you ask me.
satchel.. He was not convicted of forcible sodomy and he did not plea to that.You can keep saying it but it won't make it true. His stance is that he agreed to sexual battery because he believes he did cross the line to that offense. He has said that he believes he would have prevailed had it gone to court and the fact that a prosecuter ( with two women in the wings )cut a deal, means that the prosecuter pretty much agreed, even if he didn't like it.
Get Rutherford to write a column, he would surely point out the law to some of these people who even after a month still do not understand basic civics. You can hate the guy, you can berate the guy, but it is wrong to hound him out of a duly elected office. If he were working as an appointed offical I would tell you to go for it. But he doesn't and people with an agenda to lynch him like this is 1952 are just plain wrong. If he were black would any of you have the stones to speak up? Don't think so.
He is serving his sentence and will have probation. If his resignation had been put on the table he may have decided to take his chances and he may have just prevailed. Imagine how outraged you people would be then.
This woman may be a little eccentric but she is not putting a womans abuse below her love for nature. If you read what she writes with an open (non lynchmob mentality ) mind you will see that she is actually trying to believe in the human spirit.
Some of you peoples thirst for his blood to satisfy your own personal sense of justice deserves to be examined as much as his sexual issues do. You say you want to protect the world from him but who is going to protect the world from you? I don't thnk any of you are qualified to serve on a jury and actually hear evidence.
We are a country of laws and the law worked. If you want a man to go to jail for 20 to life just on a womans say so (which is what you are asking for here as there is no physical evidence) then you need for every woman to be prepared to go to jail for anytime they resex an ex after running into him at a club. Should he be able to come forward 6 years later and say that she crawled in his bed while he was wasted and gave him oral sex when he had already told her he didn't want to get back together? According to your rules all he needs to "say" is that he said "no" and she took advantage of him when he was too wasted to make an informed decision. I realize that that is different than what is alleged here but the LEGAL principles are exaclty the same. One persons WORD against another with no physical evidence. The previous accusations from exes would lack credibility on their face.( I mean really who believes an ex? ) How many of you woman can honestly say that your exes wouldn't call you out for being a biaaatch? We cannot live in a country where you go to jail on the say so of a scorned lover. If women don't like it then get a gun, preserve evidence, call 911 instantly, and do a little more research on potential bedmates.
so many things wrong with your post, as per usual, ponce. you've even taken to copping a bill marshall technique, comparing those of us who want dumler off the board to a 'blood thirsty' 'lynch mob' and then asking questions like 'if he were black, would any of you have the stones to speak up?' hyperbole much? why dont you, dolores rogers and cynthia neff back off the lynchmob nonsense. you've been running that out there for several months now and it's getting old. calling for someone to resign is hardly analogous to lynch mob violence.
as for the racial issue you're trying to invent, yes of course if someone were black, on the BoS, and forcibly sodomized a woman (i'll take meredith's first-hand account), i'd want him off the board. why would race matter? you dont seem to understand one basic point: rape, forcible sodomy, or sexual battery--whatever you want to call it (we know what happened...meredith has explained that)--we dont want a serial sex predator representing us on the BoS.
as a matter of fact, NOBODY wants him on the board. everyone's disowned him at this point: the board, toscano, his own party...done with him. as for your legal concerns, that's a separate territory. there are legal routes available for his ouster, and they are being pursued.
dumler's already committed political suicide in virginia, and this e- trail will follow him everywhere he goes, so his political career is over. i'm fine with that, of course, and, actually, part of me is fine with him keeping this story out there by refusing to step down. fact is, the longer this story is perpetuated, the better the chance another of his many victims will come forward. it takes a while for some people to get over being intimidated. but they do. ask meredith.
Ponce, if you want to get Rutherford to write about the matter being debated and to provide opposition to our view, then get him to write that people should be FORCED to submit to sex acts.
Women, men, black or white, dating, married, young, old, wearing a short skirt or mentally ill and prancing around buck naked - no one should be FORCED to perform or submit to a sex act. Now go run off and ask Rutherford to voice an opinion to the contrary on that. See if he'll write the issue being debated - see if he'll write that women should be FORCED to submit to sex acts!
The victim testified. She said 'No'. She was not a willing participant. Sadly, her story is typical of many victims. The outstanding thing about her is her bravery and courage for coming forward, filing a complaint about the assault and now speaking more publicly about it, as on the Coy Barefoot talk. Most victims are too intimidated to come forward publicly. They are intimidated because people seem to do everything short of blindfolding themselves and shoving in earplugs rather than admit that such rapes and abuses are commonplace in this town.
What the Hook should do is take an active role in educating the community about such abuses. Instead of feeding the controversy by only publishing this misinformed opinion piece, they should run a series on domestic and sexual violence and abuse. They should educate take a proactive role in educating the community about what is abuse, and more importantly, they should educate people about what is acceptable behavior. They could start with emphasizing the meaning of "consensual".
I would not allow a right wing radio talk show host around my children without a police escort.
I would not allow a right wing radio talk show host to be around my children unless a police escort was present.
The prosecutor did not accept the plea because he thought Dumler would prevail at trial. He did so because Meredith decided she could not go through with testifying. That's her choice and I respect and understand it. The implication that the plea bargain happened because the prosecutor thought he had a weak case is simply wrong. Mr. Haislip had every intention of going to trial, but could not do so without a complaining witness.
The Board of Supervisors meets 4/13/13 at 6 p.m.
Please attend and make it clear that sexual battery;
repeated sexual battery ; is not a matter parsed out with a
pathetic apology by the scottsville supervisor.
with each public explanation mr. dumler sinks into the gravity
that awaits him.
Please attend next week and support the victims ;
both known ; and standing in the shadows; afraid and cowered by
the dumlers of the world.
support our community ;which has suffered greatly.
no need to speak ; just your presence at that meeting during public comments
will send a message to those we elect and appoint.
if necessary this message will have to repeated ; again and and again and again.
The Blue Spade sings it best. Check out the audio version.
Chris-Dumler Should Be Leaving
(to the Mamas and Papas Tune: California Dreamin’)
All our faith’s been blown
And thrown in disarray
He’s become the talk
Quite to SARA’s dismay
Caught up in a storm
That isn’t going away
Chris-Dumler should be leaving
But says he wants stay
Showing such besmirch
One night he had his way
Sentenced plea bargaining – please
To serve on Saturday
What breaks for news or so we’re told
Upon the board he’ll stay
Chris-Dumler Should be leaving
But insists he will stay
All our faith’s been blown
And thrown in disarray
He’s become the talk
Quite to SARA’s dismay
And hasn’t gone away
If only he’d defer
Chris-Dumler should be leaving
by stepping down today
Chris-Dumler says he staying
But really needs to leave
Chris-Dumler claims he staying
But ought to really leave
speaking up... you can't have it both ways..
Meridith said he asked for the plea deal.
If he thought she was ready to fold he would have held out for a better deal or even a walk.
which is it?
Either way those going after his job on the Board are in the wrong.
@Say This Isn't Really Happening (7:39am): Agree that people need to be more educated on domestic and sexual violence. I think the area where people are most sorely misinformed is on the criminal justice process from the victim's perspective (alleged victim, if you prefer that term). Unless you've been through it, you have no idea what it's like to go through the process.
Imagine having the defense team's investigators follow you around to find out all kinds of information about you: where you live, what kind of car you drive, where you go. When they don't find out any useful information that way, the defense attorney goes on a fishing expedition, issuing subpoenas for your school records, your counseling records, and even your personal diaries. Just before the trial, the defense attorney subpoenas everyone in your extended family (including out-of-state family), your teachers, and some of your friends, not because they are relevant to the case, but because she doesn't want them in the courtroom as moral support for when you testify. In fact, she doesn't call a single one of them to the witness stand even though they are all on her witness list. At trial on cross-examination, the defense attorney tries to destroy your credibility on anything and everything: like whether you ever threw a temper tantrum, or whether you ever made a bad call in a game of tennis.
At the end of the trial, 9 of the jurors believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and 3 believe he is probably guilty but vote not guilty because they feel like they need more evidence to convict. So, the trial results in a hung jury, and you have to go through the entire process all over again. The whole process takes a full 3 years.
And you wonder why more victims don't come forward?
Hahahaha I thought witch hunts stopped with Salem, Massachusetts. Nice to know they're still alive and well with an ignorant population whose mindset can't ever get past the colonial times, ironically the last time the area was actually relevant.
Ms. Condon, you state: "Truth be told, people are so full of condemnation about this case because they think the alleged sex act is aberrant among heterosexual couples."
This may be your "truth", Ms. Condon; however, it is not the "truth" of the legion of individuals who have decried Dumler's criminal behavior.
Let us be abundantly clear. The issue that most individuals have with Dumler's actions, resulting in calls for his resignation, is *not* (as you would have readers believe) the *type* of sex act. To imply otherwise is to yet again attempt to minimize the very criminal nature of Dumler's actions.
[You will recall that the *only* difference between a charge of rape and a charge of sodomy is the orifice used during the crime.]
The issue at hand is that Dumler *forced* another individual into a sex act--*not* which orifice he chose to use during said act.
A forced sexual act of any stripe--oral, vaginal, or anal--is abhorrent.
Truth be told, Ms. Condon, *that* is what has horrified the public, and has resulted in the hue and cry for his resignation.
-------------------------
Ponce, you state in part "...His stance is that he agreed to sexual battery because he believes he did cross the line to that offense."
Precisely. He pleaded guilty to sexual battery. And, according to your statement above, he believes he committed that crime.
Citizens of the Albemarle community--whether in Scottsville or not--do not wish to have a convicted sexual batterer serving in a position of leadership.
Period. Full stop.
You go on to say "...If you want a man to go to jail for 20 to life just on a womans(sic) say so (which is what you are asking for here as there is no physical evidence)..."
Hyperbole does nothing to support your position on behalf of Dumler's remaining on the BOS.
This listener/reader is neither asking nor suggesting that Dumler be given 20 to life. Instead, I am suggesting that, given his criminal conviction and the consummate distraction that has resulted, he is well-advised to resign his position on the BOS.
Bear in mind that his colleagues on the BOS and senior leaders of his own political party--among countless others--have suggested the same. Would you categorize all of these individuals as bloodthirsty vigilantes who have formed little more than a lynch mob?
Beware of the broad brush you use to paint those who have called for Dumler's resignation.
What Dumler pled guilty to:
§ 18.2-67.4. Sexual battery.
A. An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses, as defined in § 18.2-67.10, (i) the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse,
B. Sexual battery is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
§ 18.2-67.10. General definitions.
As used in this article:
6. "Sexual abuse" means an act committed with the intent to sexually molest, arouse, or gratify any person, where:
a. The accused intentionally touches the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts;
b. The accused forces the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts;
c. If the complaining witness is under the age of 13, the accused causes or assists the complaining witness to touch the accused's, the witness's own, or another person's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts; or
d. The accused forces another person to touch the complaining witness's intimate parts or material directly covering such intimate parts.
It's quite a stretch to call that rape as many have.
As I understand it, Dumler requested the plea deal. The prosecution agreed to it because Meredith had decided not to testify, although Dumler did not know that. I'm not trying to "have it both ways" -- I'm trying to inject this discussion with a few actual facts.
@ not buyin' it: While others may, this reader is not accusing Dumler of rape. My reference to rape (as it relates to sodomy) reflects only the original charge faced by Dumler.
As you aptly point out, Dumler pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of sexual battery, whose definition includes "An accused is guilty of sexual battery if he sexually abuses, as defined in § 18.2-67.10, (i) the complaining witness against the will of the complaining witness, by force, threat, intimidation, or ruse."
The issue for this reader is Dumler's use of "force, threat, intimidation, or ruse" to perform a sexual act upon (read: "sexually abuse") another against their will.
Given the written and now public statements offered by the victim ("Meredith") to include: a) being choked by Dumler; and b) physically restrained against her will during the couse of the assault, I would submit that the use of "force" (rather than "threat, intimidation, or ruse") apply in this case. [As Dumler assaulted and choked the complainant, let us not forget his words whispered in her ear "Who's in control?"]
The issue remains, i.e., Dumler's choice to force a sex act upon another.
There have been statements in public, on the radio in fact, by a relative of the case that Mr. Dumler is a rapist.
If this were not true, Mr. Dumler should sue for slander. I have not heard any report that he were pursuing this. He would have heard the statement as it occurred right after an interview of him.
His silence speaks volumes.
Those that compare the progress society has made in regards to sexual assaults to more regressive times have it backwards. It used to be easier for men to get away with sexual assaults. The fact that society is up in arms against an admitted sexual batterer who will be reporting to jail today is a good thing.
discerning listener says:Citizens of the Albemarle community--whether in Scottsville or not--do not wish to have a convicted sexual batterer serving in a position of leadership."
He is only correct if you use the word "wish"
The laws were written by elected people and are the legal "wish" of the people. The laws do not call for his dismissal for this offense. There may be plenty of people in the county who "wish" he would resign and that is their right. Fortunately we have laws to prevent witch hunts and retribution, revenge and self righteous indignation zelots from prevailiing for what they "wish" for. Like it or not this is an issue for those in his district and no one else. No different than if he worked at a gas staiton and the owner decided to keep him. If people don't like it don't buy produce from farmers in the district, don't tube the river, don't even use the post office. That is your choice. But the way it looks now is that most of the people in his district are okay with the way this situation played out. He is doing jall time . he is on probation, his military and law careers are at risk and he will surely suffer public scorn and scrutiny. Some of you still want blood. I don't care about him but I care about the process. Those not in his district pushing for his resignation are wrong. They made their point, they had their say and there is nothing speaking up at the board meeting can accomplish because the Board cannot go beyond the censure. It is simply an attempt to terrorize the Board and interupt important buisness of the entire county to satisfy an ugly need for payback.
All the politicians still harping on this are self serving at this point.
Fair and Reasonable explains the process as if it was crafted by rapists to protect themselves. It was not It was crafted by people who believe and understand the Constitution and the fairness of due process. We make a supposition that people are innocent until proven guilty and the falsely accused deserve at least the same rights as a victim of a crime. People in this case are cocksure of all the facts so their thinking is clouded, but suppose it was your daughter who was accused of child molesation based on the word of a 7 year old? Should she go to jail for 20 to life because the child "says" something happended?
I have advocated repeatedly for an easier way for reporting rapes and a more respectable and less intrusive way of securing evidence and people have repeatedly ignored that with rebuttlals that say there is no statute of limitaitons on rape and that they apperantly believe that a womans word is good enough to take away another persons freedom. Well its not and thats a good thing.. Ask the duke Lacrosse players how they feel about it.
Just because this person was was an actual victim does not waive the accusers right to due process.
@Meanwhile - the amount of slander and libel that has been committed over the past few months against Mr. Dumler has been tremendous. Even with the heightened standards that speech re: public officials is afforded, many of the statements I see on this very comment thread would likely be enough to force a settlement out of some of you hypocritical, self-righteous windbags.
You know - a settlement. One of those things you take when it's not worth the amount of time, money, energy, effort, latent risk, and collateral consequences to take a case to trial in order to ... oh, I forgot, everyone on here is a legal scholar who clearly understands the intricacies of the plea bargaining and civil settlements (the equivalent of plea bargaining in the civil system).
I never knew this community had so many soapboxes hidden away.
Agree with Discerning Listener @11:36. You folks can all it whatever you want, but it is clear that it was Dumler's choice to force a sex act upon another. I find it reprehensible and applaud Meredith for standing up to him. The rest of you who are ok with it -- I just shake my head and wonder how you can be so cavalier about the issue.
Think About the Facts: You might think that ignorance and blind outrage are flaws. Not so. In Charlottesville they are not only virtues but their pinnacle, as facts can be confusing, and whipping oneself into a frenzy of self righteousness construes that something important has happened, especially being that this is practically the Mecca of the East Coast (despite the fact no one on the outside has ever heard of it). It also fuels the self delusion of relevance that the town has never really had for the last 150 years or more, and lets the gentry pretend they are something more than squawking chickens trying to get to the top of the hen house.
trying to wrap my mind around that last comment. confused if it's pro or con. kinda awesome in its frenzied blind outrage, actually
Cruncher, your sarcasm is duly noted. Are you jealous of Charlottesville for some reason? Who has declared Charlottesville the "Mecca of the East Coast"? You can have it, call it Mecca, if you wish, but the reason it's 'whipped into a frenzy' is not because it's constituents are "squawking chickens trying to get to the top of the hen house". Rather, it's constituents, including countless men, are expressing moral outrage that certain individuals can forcibly and sexually assault others, and through the use of intimidation and legal skills avoid serving a sentence that most others would serve were they not so cunning and sociopathic-minded.
What is indeed awesome is the amount of excuses being given to support those who force others to endure sex acts. Just cram an elbow in the back of someone's neck, pin them down, do your your thing while they scream, then call it a day and be surprised when people 'squawk'. Awesome.
What's really awesome is the fact that Virginia, the "Common Wealth" considers it as being for the common wealth that such offenders can retain public office. Awesome, indeed.
What's next, Virginia?
Think about the facts, if what you were saying were true, that Mr. Dumbler had grounds for slander, then ask yourself why he is not pursuing these cases?
I'll give you some time. The answer is obvious to all but those that think forcing a sex act on another is ok... Which side are you on?
Check out the agenda for the next BOS meeting:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of...
Discussion/Action Items:
4. To establish a public process for appointing an interim Board member to hold office until a special election is held if a vacancy occurs on the Board.
10. Boards and Commissions:
a. To remove Chris Dumler from all Board appointed positions on boards, committees and commissions and to appoint replacement members.
Here's what I know as factual:
1. Mr. Dumler pled guilty to a sexual offense against a woman.
To me, supporting Mr. Dumler remaining in office is a subtle way of saying "I agree with sexual violence."
Bill, you state "The laws were written by elected people and are the legal 'wish' of the people. The laws do not call for his dismissal for this offense."
We are all abundantly aware of the distinctions between "wishes" and "laws".
The people of the Scottsville district duly elected Dumler to be their representative. They followed the laws that allowed them to vote, and allowed Dulmer to be placed in office.
Indeed--the law does not call for Dumler's dismissal based upon his criminal conviction of sexual battery. On that there is no argument to be made, so it's helpful in furthering the conversation to omit the obvious and points not in dispute.
You go on to say that "There may be plenty of people in the county who "wish" he would resign and that is their right."
Again, we are all on the same page here inasmuch as there are countless numbers of individuals both inside and outside of the Scottsville district who would like Dumler to resign. Among other reasons, they believe that it is the right thing for Dumler to do under the cloud of his criminal conviction for sexual battery.
As you point out, that--their wish or desire--is their right.
You go on to say "No different than if he worked at a gas staiton(sic) and the owner decided to keep him. If people don't like it don't buy produce from farmers in the district, don't tube the river, don't even use the post office. That is your choice."
To liken Dumler's very public position on the BOS--a leadership position in the fifth largest county in the Commonwealth and home to the premier public university in these United States--to someone who worked at a local gas station and the owner decided to retain him post-conviction seems an apples-to-pomegrantes comparison.
Try as you might, Bill, to persuade readers that they are wrong to feel...wish...believe...that Dumler should voluntarily step down, well, yours is a fool's errand.
While some may be out for blood, others--myself included--wish only for Dumler to respect the outcry--an outcry that includes the voices of his colleagues on the BOS--and step down.
Remember: Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. Just because Dumler can--at this juncture--remain on the BOS does not mean that he should. This is not about a lust for blood, mob mentality, self-righteous, indignant zealots, or group think.
This about what in the minds of many is simply doing the right thing.
This is not, as you assert in other of your comments above, a request for a "do-over" or "kissing (anyone's) backside. This not about attempts to "terrorize" the BOS. This not about others whose "twisted side stays in check". This not about attempts to "punish people in (Dumler's) district", "failing to understand the law", or wanting to "have it both ways".
This about doing the right thing.
Ms Conlon wrote: 'As Professor of Philosophy Caroline J. Simon writes in the journal, Faith and Philosophy, by “making [a] negative moral assessment of others [i.e., the TV station]…one believes one’s own moral worth is enhanced...” '
Maybe she should take a long hard look in the mirror, because from where I sit, her entire article is a "negative moral assessment of others", particularly of Schilling and Barefoot. So what does that say about her?
The majority of posts calling for Dumler to resign have been based on the sentiment that our elected civic leaders should be upstanding, honorable citizens, not jailbirds. None of us were there in the bedroom that night, that is true, but the victim was, and Dumler was, and they both have stated that the victim was forced into a sexual act against her will. If Dumler only plead guilty because he wanted to avoid attorney fees and a lengthy trial, why didn't he take an Allford plea, where he maintains his innocence? He plead guilty, period. In a court of law. Under oath. Guilty, guilty, guilty. As part of his sentence, he is required to undergo psychosexual evaluation. Why would an innocent person agree to that? And he was required to apologize, but if he continues to maintain his innocence in front of the cameras, indicating a lack of sincerity of his apology and truthfulness in his plea, I hope the judge and prosecutor reconsider the plea deal. He is not holding up his end of the bargain.
I sincerely doubt that Mr Dumler is fool enough to file a slander or libel suit, but I do hope that the victim(s) consider a civil suit, since battery is both a crime AND a tort.
And Ms Conlon- FYI- the word is 'cruelty' not 'cruelness'. But then again, a professional author would know that.
[For some (unknown to me) reason The Hook deleted my original post from yesterday, so here is a shorter, I hope less objectionable version:]
I don't know Marlene Condon, but I do know that she is ignorant of the facts in this case and devoid of any understanding of the reasons for the community-wide outrage. In her ignorance, she appears to be excusing sexual violence against women, with no repercussions for perpetrators.
This situation has nothing -- zero, zilch, nada, rien -- to do with The Scarlet Letter, which concerned a loving, consensual, mutually respectful relationship, however illicit that relationship was according to the laws, mores and religion of that community.
Gender violence, sexual battery, rape, whatever term one wishes to use for Dumler's violent crimes, is a different animal altogether. Rape and sexual assault have NOTHING to do with love or even sex. They are crimes of violence, intended to intimidate, render powerless, injure, and shame victims, and they express hatred and contempt toward ALL women and girls.
Multiple victims have come forward against Dumler, and Albemarle County is home to at least hundreds and probably thousands of other women, men and children who are survivors of violence and trauma at the hands of other sexual offenders. Yet Conlon thinks it is somehow inappropriate for citizens to speak out against him?
It is both ignorant and insensitive for Conlon to argue that such a person should be held up as a role model for the children in our schools, or be allowed to continue in the position of honor, respect and authority which he has disgraced.
And Happy International Women's Day!!
Bill Marshall -- your patronizing insults notwithstanding, as it happens I have a law degree as well as extensive volunteer, research and work background in the area of gender violence. I certainly know enough about both to understand that there is a vast chasm between “the law” and “justice” in this field.
Legal process was followed here, but justice has not been done for Dumler’s victims or for the larger community. Justice – not the law – is what the public clamor is all about.
A slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence to be served at Dumler’s convenience, in a cushy setting protected from the general inmate population, hardly compares with the severe, lifelong trauma he deliberately inflicted on multiple victims. And for him to continue to be in a position to say he represents and acts for this county and everyone in it by virtue of his office is simply despicable.
(BTW, I did not say there had been no repercussions for Dumler, but that Conlon – by falsely equating sexual violence to consensual sexual acts, and falsely equating the public outrage here to some moralizing desire to police the type of sex acts consenting adults engage in – seems to be advocating no repercussions for those guilty of sexual violence. But perhaps you lack the intelligence to comprehend plain English.)
Most rapes are not reported, and most that are reported do not result in criminal charges or ANY kind of a conviction. That Dumler was charged, confessed and was convicted speaks volumes about the violent nature of Dumler’s crimes, and shows that these were not merely "relationships" gone awry, as he and his defenders maintain. He deliberately and repeatedly inflicted very real harm on very real women, attempting to dehumanize and terrorize them through physical force, threats and intimidation. His victims and the community at large – particularly the many other survivors of sexual violence and trauma – are suffering continuing additional harm from having someone like him occupy a very public position of authority. And, of course, Dumler knows all of this.
It is disheartening that some people have such vast concern for violent sex offenders yet apparently none at all for survivors, to say nothing of the tremendous potential danger to the public if such crimes become normalized as acceptable behavior (which apparently is what Dumler and his defenders want). But I am very glad that the great majority of people in this county do not agree with you.
Bill Marshall -- your patronizing insults notwithstanding, as it happens I have a law degree as well as extensive volunteer, research and work background in the area of gender violence. I certainly know enough about both to understand that there is a vast chasm between “the law” and “justice” in this field.
Legal process was followed here, but justice has not been done for Dumler’s victims or for the larger community. Justice – not the law – is what the public clamor is all about.
A slap-on-the-wrist jail sentence to be served at Dumler’s convenience, in a cushy setting protected from the general inmate population, hardly compares with the severe, lifelong trauma he deliberately inflicted on multiple victims. And for him to continue to be in a position to say he represents and acts for this county and everyone in it by virtue of his office is simply despicable.
(BTW, I did not say there had been no repercussions for Dumler, but that Conlon – by falsely equating sexual violence to consensual sexual acts, and falsely equating the public outrage here to some moralizing desire to police the type of sex acts consenting adults engage in – seems to be advocating no repercussions for those guilty of sexual violence. But perhaps you lack the intelligence to comprehend plain English.)
Most rapes are not reported, and most that are reported do not result in criminal charges or ANY kind of a conviction. That Dumler was charged, confessed and was convicted speaks volumes about the violent nature of Dumler’s crimes and the danger he poses to women and girls in the community. He deliberately and repeatedly inflicted very real harm on very real individuals, attempting to dehumanize and terrorize them through physical force, threats and intimidation. His victims and the community at large – particularly the many other survivors of sexual violence and trauma – are suffering continuing additional harm from having someone like him occupy a very public position of authority. And, of course, Dumler knows this.
It is disheartening that some people have such vast concern for violent sex offenders yet apparently none at all for survivors, to say nothing of the tremendous potential danger to the public if such crimes become normalized as acceptable behavior (which apparently is what Dumler and his defenders want). But I am very glad that the great majority of people in this county do not agree with you.
@Bill Marshall (11:53am): You stated: "Fair and Reasonable explains the process as if it was crafted by rapists to protect themselves. It was not It was crafted by people who believe and understand the Constitution and the fairness of due process. We make a supposition that people are innocent until proven guilty and the falsely accused deserve at least the same rights as a victim of a crime."
I am sorry if my description of the legal process (at 9:50am) indicated that I was trying to give the impression that the legal process was designed by rapists to protect themselves. That is not at all what I intended to convey. I was merely describing my experience with the legal system as a sexual assault victim to illustrate that the system is not at all stacked against the accused like some of you have been saying. In fact, in many ways, the process is still very unfair for the victims. (By the way, since some of you are so picky about the rape/forcible sodomy distinction under Virginia law, I made sure to use the proper legal term - sexual assault, since the jurisdiction in question doesn't have terms like rape or forcible sodomy on the books; it's all just sexual assault).
While I believe in the Constitution and support the full due process rights of the accused, I don't think that the defendant's due process rights and the victim's rights are mutually exclusive. A defendant does not need to unduly harass or unduly infringe on the accuser's privacy in order to have a full and robust defense.
With regard to the Dumler situation, I believe that the legal process, which ultimately ended up in his sexual battery guilty plea, was fair. I do think that people are going overboard by calling him a serial rapist in such a public way since that is not what he was convicted of or even charged with, but it is right for them to be upset that a convicted sexual batterer is on the Board. I certainly don't want a sexual batterer representing my interests (and yes, I live in the Scottsville District).
"To me, supporting Mr. Dumler remaining in office is a subtle way of saying "I agree with sexual violence.""
mel-- yes absolutely, i get the same subtle message from a few of the posters here. but these are just miserable men with mommy issues getting their frustrations out. bill marshall is the king of that territory. the rest of the pro-dumler crowd, which consists of about 3 people posting here, have been posting from the original announcement of the charges against dumler. one is dolores rogers, his campaign manager--i can tell by the way she writes-- and one's a friend of his it's not like a lot of other people are posting in his favor, but they try to create that illusion.
And what about his girlfriend? According to news reports, she dropped him off at the jail tonight to begin his confinement. She is either one very sick person with no self-esteem, or delusional, or both. I don't know whether to feel sorry for her, pray for her, or thank the heavens that those two found each other.
A few days ago, there was a quote from Rodney Thomas admitting he was looking to achieve political gain from this situation. THAT is why I am supporting Dumler and will be dismayed should he resign (which I understand will not happen; thank heavens!)
It seems that Anyone demanding resignation or removal of Supervisor Dumler (D-Albemarle) must ALSO DEMAND removal or resignation of DELEGATE FARISS (R-Albemarle) for the same reasons: gender violence!
The Daily Progress reported in October 2011, during the campaign that Mr Fariss won:
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/article_38e ...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011.
(quote)
Republican candidate Matt Fariss of Rustburg was named in an emergency protective order in 2002 that required him to stay away from a Lynchburg woman. Fariss campaign manager said Wednesday that Fariss was not available for comment....
Fariss, who has refused to talk to The News & Advance of Lynchburg about any of his legal issues, is getting financial support from state Republican Party officials for his campaign, which is making heavy use of mailed brochures. Some of them describe his family values.
A Lynchburg police officer asked a city magistrate to issue an emergency protective order on March 9, 2002, that required Fariss to stay away from a Lynchburg woman.
The officer request said the woman stated to me that Fariss broke through her back door to gain entry into her house when she told him to leave. History of violence.
(unquote)
The Police report notes 'History of violence'.
The salient governance issue is the same in both cases: elected and appointed officials involved with VIOLENCE (not sexuality or sexual behavior). IF either Mr Dumler or Mr Fariss - or any elected or appointed official was involved sexually in ways that involve conflict of interest (with staff, employees, other members of the Board, etc) the issues would be SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. But, that is not the case with Mr Dumler or Mr Fariss; the issue is VIOLENCE.
If anyone has not demanded the resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Fariss - for history of violence - one wonders about motivations in demanding resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Dumler - for history of violence.
Dear TEA Parties and other Republicans, Democrats, Rob Schillings and other similar hypocrites, and others raving about sexual behavior, but not peeping a peep about VIOLENCE, please explain why you've NOT DEMANDED the REMOVAL or RESIGNATION Of Delegate Fariss! Forgiving the violence of one and not the other?
Are there clearly and objectively non-partisan moral reasons to demand one resignation and not the other?
Whoa, can't wait to see the reaction to this stuff. Let's see, "this is not about politics," " the democrats support sexual assault," " the republican's are not trying to capitalize on this unfortunate victim's situation." Those puppet masters in Richmond must have a groan fest every time one of these local guys is interviewed. Personally. I find it very entertaining. The only bright spot in this whole mess. Look, I'm not saying the assault was a republican conspiracy, that's just crazy, but they sure want to take advantage of it. Maybe they shouldn't be so obvious, though. . . not. Keep 'em coming, boys.
Oh, and the deal with Fariss? Ask Senator Newman, he should know.
As a Democrat I don't want this guy associated with my party. As an Albemarle taxpayer I don't want to be payin his salary or to have him on the BOS. Of course the GOP will try to take advantage, which is precisely why he should have behaved better. County staff are fired for far less egregious behavior, why shouldn't he be held to the same standard?
Anyone that believes that the BOS decides anything that is more important than these victims is a petty, selfish, dare I say it evil person. Don't conspire with oblivion.
'Anyone that believes that the BOS decides anything that is more important than these victims is a petty, selfish, dare I say it evil person. Don't conspire with oblivion.'
--well said, meanwhile. that's the bottom line. btw, 'scottsville democrat' is dolores rogers, who is indeed a petty, selfish, evil person who's been conspiring with oblivion for months now. as for rodney thomas, somebody needs to talk to him quick, as he doesnt quite seem to know what he's dealing with here. we've got our own long local nightmare happening, and it would be wise to find a way to end it. find a moderate democrat to replace dumler and move on.
ponce de leon--- i'm trying to remember if you said you knew dumler or not. sorry, but that's somehow slipped my mind, and i dont want to go through all these posts to find it. i have a legit, non-argumentative question to ask. also, are you an attorney? just curious.
Be aware: Dumler is likely to "do it again." Because "he just can't help it."
Toni, "Real men" don't have to FORCE women to have sex with them.
toni--thanks for speaking up for all the other sexually spastic, and developmentally stilted men out there. they need a voice, and you're obviously qualified to speak for them.
Has Marlene Condon actually ever READ the Scarlet Letter? The belettered woman is punished for her CONSENSUAL sexual relationship by a deeply judgmental Puritan society. The "community's response" to an elected official's conviction for sexual battery bears no resemblance - and to suggest a similarity, as though the community's response to this crime is just a result of their prudish sensibilities? - is disgusting (as well as, of course, literarily inaccurate).
How is this not obvious?
FINALLY, the conversation is being guided ( if grudgingly) to the REAL ISSUE at stake: VIOLENCE history in elected and appointed officials. SEX, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (that is not workplace sexual harassment) is not the REAL ISSUE. Is sexual battery violence, YES! THAT is the real issue. And, in this proper light why are not local people demanding resignation of Honorable Mr Fariss, with a documented 'History of violence' (gender violence, against a women, nonetheless!)? And, why isn't history of violence and violent beliefs and support for policies engendering or relying on violence key targets of voter assessment and citizen discussion of elected and appointed officials?
... and btw, considering the great early American novel, The Scarlet Letter, the REAL ISSUE according to the writer, and to thousands of readers, WAS NOT THE SEXUALITY or SEXUAL BEHAVIOR of Hester Prynne but THE VIOLENCE, especially the SOCIALLY ORGANIZED VIOLENCE, AND RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY ABOUT VIOLENCE among the powerful and social elites and in local government! ... So, why can't we take a lesson from one of the earliest American thinkers about justice in society? VIOLENCE is the key issue. And, hypocrisy about violence in social control. So, dear people - including TEA PARTIES and other Republicans, where is your honesty (rather than hypocrisy) about Honorable Mr Fariss' (R-Albemarle) 'history of violence'?
... and another issue of hypocrisy about violence:
WHY are Virginians
- who honorably love their Second Amendment right to own a gun(s) privately for common purposes such as sport shooting, hunting for sport, hunting for sustenance, and protection of the home (and THAT IS ALL that the US Supreme Court says is the Second Amendment right - NOT overthrowing governments, NOT prepping a private militia for race war, or some other apocalypse, etc -
NOT ALSO DEMANDING protection of the rights of their neighbors, to have access to best mental health care, 24/7, in order to prevent the NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF GUN VIOLENCE: SUICIDE, including SUICIDES OF YOUTH!
The number one (BY FAR!) cause of gun deaths is SUICIDE, not homicide. AND the number one WAY people - including INCREASING NUMBERS OF VETERANS, ELDERLY MEN, and YOUTH - kill themselves is with guns!
We've engaged Virginia Libertarians in the conversation about this, but most continue to chant utterly FALSE AND STUPID 'faux facts': that most gun violence is in crimes (NO!, most gun violence is in suicide) and that more suicides are by pills, knives, jumping off bridges, etc (NO!, most suicide is by guns!).
ONCE AGAIN, VIOLENCE AND HYPOCRISY ABOUT VIOLENCE!
GOD WILL SURELY BE YOUR JUDGE! and perhaps suicide will come to your family (a gay youth, a depressed and untreated wife, an abandoned veterans, etc). LEARN AND CHANGE before God's judgement comes.
Well, I am happy we can all have a calm, rational discussion about a topic of community concern. The level of community discourse and compassion for one another demonstrated in so many of these posts is perhaps why public service is held in such low esteem.
Chris Dumler's actions and this discussion should be a lesson to each one of us that we all can use more self-reflection. Holding on to our anger, arrogance and isolation is what seems to justify our terrible treatment of one another. We need to face our devils with a lot more compassion than puritanical zeal if our purpose is to uplift the community.
We may want to start with this discussion.
This lady's article is right on point. This town has obsessed on sex. Just a new way to bash men. The commentary of the "punishers" above is worrisome because it reflects their psychological dysfunction . In short, they are half nuts Just read it.
The Hook continues to do our community a service
by publishing stories about matters that are not always agreeable to all.
Certainly the comment section of any story is moderated in the most inclusive way.
This is not the case with other local media.
That writers and comments might be passionate , extreme ; disagreeable , hateful ; is part of
the freedom we enjoy in our country.
That freedom and others is how we define and express ourselves as a community ; as a country.
Hoping The Hook continues to shine the light on the place we call home.
max brando--that you dont have the capacity to differentiate between sex and rape is your problem, not ours. the community's outrage has absolutely nothing to do with sexual prurience. it has to do with sexual violence.
pete zenger--that the hook solicited an opinion piece from someone who cant differentiate between sexual prurience and outrage over sexual violence is unfortunately the community's problem, as the hook is muddying the waters by publishing uninformed commentary. that's hardly a community service. fact is, they know better. say what you will about courtney stuart, "stupid" is not a term that springs to mind in relation to her. she had to recognize immediately that conlon had little understanding of the situation. the hook published it anyway in an effort to obfuscate matters, hoping to get more play out of the story...for their own personal gain. it's pretty shameful actually.
greg kane--calling community reaction "puritanical zeal" minimizes what is at the root of this community's outrage. worse, it's a shallow characterization of a serious matter. i have met the people who spoke at the BoS meeting, a few of whom are posting here. i saw no "puritanical zeal" in them; what i saw was thoroughly rational people appropriately outraged over having a serial sexual predator on the board of supervisors...not to mention the support he received for a while from fellow board members and officials in the democratic party. thankfully that support has evaporated. if we had, as you advise, "held on to our anger," that unacceptable support shown by the cynthia neffs of the world probably would have been the final word--rooker and malleck showed support for dumler until members of the public spoke that monday night. had that support continued, the story would have probably gone away, dumler remaining entrenched on the BoS. what a horrible message that would've sent to the community. if our leaders could not find the courage to send the right message, i'm thankful at least that people in our community did. you should be, too.
personally, i may well be the least sexually prurient person you're likely to meet. i'm fine with whatever two (or more) consensual adults wish to do. it's none of my business. however, when 'consensual' crosses over into 'non-consensual,' shouldn't we all be concerned about that? ie, child sex abuse: would you characterize me as 'sexually prurient' because i object to the molestation of children? i would hope not, but then again, you've minimized the viciousness of forcible anal sodomy already (and the reaction against it) so i guess i shouldnt put anything past you. feel free to clarify.
Just wow.
While Dumbler is rotting in jail, his buddies infest the comment board with their pro-rape sentiments....
Sad.
Cruncher, something tells me you aren't popular with the ladies yourself, with this attitude you have.
I do have a pertinent question: when, exactly is "forcible sodomy" not rape? Under what circumstances, exactly, does the Commonwealth of Virginia's legal system consider that some perpetrator has crossed the line from "forcible sodomy" into rape? Or is "forcible sodomy" only a legal fiction that can be used when a woman (or man) has been raped, and would prefer not telling her (or his) tale in court? For the life of me, I just don't see how it is possible to plead guilty to "forcible sodomy" without admitting that a rape took place.
@Christian Gehman: Under Virginia law, forcible sodomy is never the same thing as rape. The statutory distinction is based on the orifice attacked. Rape includes only vaginal attacks. Outside of the legal world, most people would probably think of forced anal sex as rape, but under Virginia law, it is not considered rape; it would be forcible sodomy. Also, Dumler did NOT plead guilty to forcible sodomy. He was originally charged with forcible sodomy, but plead guilty to the lesser charge of sexual battery, which is a misdemeanor.
Fair and reasonable is correct. He was charged with repeatedly forcibly inserting his penis into the victim's anus, and the prosecutor believed he had enough evidence to convict on this charge. On the street, this is called "anal rape". For whatever reason, the men that made the laws in the state of Virginia did not want to call forcibly inserting your penis into another person's anus "rape".
Chris Dumbler, when confronted with the prosecutor's case, asked if the prosecutor would allow for a plea deal. After the victim agreed to this, the prosecutor agreed.
We all have been sodomized by elected officials. We are all victims.
Christian, you can search online for the legal definitions used in Virginia.
The definition of forcible sodomy: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-67.1
According to the reporting on this story, Virginia uses the older definition of rape. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center abides by the federal laws, which define rape as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://www.nsvrc.org/news/9937
i'm glad cruncher thinks he knows me. i'm neither prurient nor prudish. those are probably big words for cruncher to understand, so i'll say it this way: as far as i'm concerned, anybody can have sex with anybody they want, with as many people as they want, and they can do whatever kinky stuff they want--as long as it is consensual (that means they both agree to it, cruncher) and it doesn't involve children. but what dumler did was non-consensual (that means she didnt agree to it, cruncher), and THAT is what i --and all the people i met who spoke at the BoS meeting--object to. if you consider that perspective 'limp wristed,' i'd advise you to wait a few years. when you graduate junior high school, you might change your mind.
So in other words you don't have sex much, and certainly have not had it with many (if any) people, since that is the ONLY sort of person who would describe their views on sex as "prurient". Don't worry, the rest of us who know how to handle women will treat the chicks who've friend-zoned you fine in your absence.
i was quoting the people who had previously used the term 'prurient.' try to keep up. and really, nothing bespeaks lothario status quite like typing up self-congratulatory posts on the comments section of a news site. you're 12 years old, right?
Actually, on the contrary, I'm too old for that sort of stuff now, but I can still get a charm and a bang now and again. I'm pretty sure even that meager effort will remain lost to you forever.
AGAIN, the issue is NOT Sexuality or non-workplace Sexual Behavior. It is VIOLENCE.
It seems that Anyone demanding resignation or removal of Supervisor Dumler (D-Albemarle) must ALSO DEMAND removal or resignation of DELEGATE FARISS (R-Albemarle) for the same reasons: gender violence!
The Daily Progress reported in October 2011, during the campaign that Mr Fariss won:
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/article_38e ...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011.
(quote)
Republican candidate Matt Fariss of Rustburg was named in an emergency protective order in 2002 that required him to stay away from a Lynchburg woman. Fariss campaign manager said Wednesday that Fariss was not available for comment....
Fariss, who has refused to talk to The News & Advance of Lynchburg about any of his legal issues, is getting financial support from state Republican Party officials for his campaign, which is making heavy use of mailed brochures. Some of them describe his family values.
A Lynchburg police officer asked a city magistrate to issue an emergency protective order on March 9, 2002, that required Fariss to stay away from a Lynchburg woman.
The officer request said the woman stated to me that Fariss broke through her back door to gain entry into her house when she told him to leave. History of violence.
(unquote)
The Police report notes 'History of violence'.
The salient governance issue is the same in both cases: elected and appointed officials involved with VIOLENCE (not sexuality or sexual behavior). IF either Mr Dumler or Mr Fariss - or any elected or appointed official was involved sexually in ways that involve conflict of interest (with staff, employees, other members of the Board, etc) the issues would be SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. But, that is not the case with Mr Dumler or Mr Fariss; the issue is VIOLENCE.
If anyone has not demanded the resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Fariss - for history of violence - one wonders about motivations in demanding resignation or removal of Honorable Mr Dumler - for history of violence.
Dear TEA Parties and other Republicans, Democrats, Rob Schillings and other similar hypocrites, and others raving about sexual behavior, but not peeping a peep about VIOLENCE, please explain why you've NOT DEMANDED the REMOVAL or RESIGNATION Of Delegate Fariss! Forgiving the violence of one and not the other?
Are there clearly and objectively non-partisan moral reasons to demand one resignation and not the other?
Marlene- Your article is disgraceful. Why a mother of a teenaged daughter would stand up and vehemently defend an ADMITTED SEXUAL BATTERER is beyond my comprehension as a mother. Dumler confessed that he sexually battered a young woman. How dare you defend him. Keep defending the birds, stink bugs, and poisonous snakes, but let the sexual batterers run free. Unbelievable. What are you teaching your own daughter?
@Concerned Mom...Marlene is likely teaching her daughter the same lessons the Gadients taught their daughter.
As for Marlene Condom's gibberish above, she has been ejaculating nonsense for years, so why is this a surprise? From stink bugs to snakes, she pens what could be interpreted as subtle parodies. This commentary itself could be read as humor. She speaks of "judgmentalism" as though, in one's life, no judgments should ever be made. Perhaps she will exercise her free mind next time her daughter shows up with Dumler as her date.
For all of you posters of epics, simple equation here: Guilty party + hugh public outcry = gone. One way or another, this guy is done on the BOS.
R.I.P.: Huntz Hall
Guilty party + hugh public outcry did not = gone in Helen Dragas's case. I'd say Dumler has at least as good of a chance to hang on.
If the Board wants to marginalize him then thats okay. When someone needs his vote they will learn what quid pro quo means.
It is obvious that this is all about supposed "justice" for many... they are unhappy with the decison that the law gave them and they want more.. I hope you are as righteous when something like this happens to a black man or a teacher bangs a teenage boy.
Lord of the flies....
Helen Dragas was not brought to trial on a felony sex crime, nor pleaded it down to a misdemeanor, nor spent any time in jail.
Mr. Dumbler is both a criminal according to the courts he supervises and a prisoner of the jail he has authority over. This is an untenable situation and the other supervisors are correct to strip whatever authority away from this sexual batterer that they can.
"Helen Dragas was not brought to trial on a felony sex crime, nor pleaded it down to a misdemeanor, nor spent any time in jail." has what to do with "Guilty party + hugh public outcry did not = gone in Helen Dragas's case?"
Nothing about Dumler's guilty plea or sentence legally results in a loss of his current elected position.
"Nothing about Dumler's guilty plea or sentence legally results in a loss of his current elected position"
Agreed, no matter how I or anyone else feels personally about him. Pure emotion and political posturing in these posts. If you do not like the current system get it changed.
@Fair and Reasonable: Under Virginia law, forcible sodomy is never the same thing as rape. The statutory distinction is based on the orifice attacked. Rape includes only vaginal attacks. Outside of the legal world, most people would probably think of forced anal sex as rape, but under Virginia law, it is not considered rape; it would be forcible sodomy. Also, Dumler did NOT plead guilty to forcible sodomy. He was originally charged with forcible sodomy, but plead guilty to the lesser charge of sexual battery, which is a misdemeanor.
So since he wasn't charged with rape, there are a couple of possibilities here:
1. There was no agreement to any sex. He took it upon himself and he only entered the anus and no other orifices were breached. Forcible Sodomy.
2. He entered vaginally, with her permission for that particular orifice. When he moved to the neighboring orifice just North, South, East or West depending on the orientation/position (presumably without her permission) he committed sodomy.
I am starting to wonder if this was a Scottsville swinger's party gone wrong....
@Bill Marshall:
I can only speak for myself, but I would feel exactly the same if this were a black man, and a teacher would have been gone MONTHS ago.
You posted on one of these things that the victim (Meredith) had given her side of the story, and you put the ball in Dumbler's court to call her a liar. Has he done so?
Also, and this is an honest question from someone with no ax to grind, but because your opinions seem focused (and rightly so) on the representation you elected, AND because there are so many important issues before the BOS, is there an issue that you are concerned with? And, given the agenda for the next meeting, if so, who do you believe would make a fair replacement in the event Dumler resigns or the court gives him the boot?
I think he will resign before going to court, (if he's using his logical brain) but I suppose we'll see. My questions are not intended to offend in any way. I am sincerely curious.
HOPEFULLY the conversation will GET TO the REAL ISSUE at stake: VIOLENCE history in elected and appointed officials. SEX, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (that is not workplace sexual harassment) is not the REAL ISSUE. Is sexual battery violence, YES! THAT is the real issue. And, in this proper light why are not local people demanding resignation of Honorable Mr Fariss, with a documented 'History of violence' (gender violence, against a women, nonetheless!)? And, why isn't history of violence and violent beliefs and support for policies engendering or relying on violence key targets of voter assessment and citizen discussion of elected and appointed officials?
... and btw, considering the great early American novel, The Scarlet Letter, the REAL ISSUE according to the writer, and to thousands of readers, WAS NOT THE SEXUALITY or SEXUAL BEHAVIOR of Hester Prynne but THE VIOLENCE, especially the SOCIALLY ORGANIZED VIOLENCE, AND RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY ABOUT VIOLENCE among the powerful and social elites and in local government! ... So, why can't we take a lesson from one of the earliest American thinkers about justice in society? VIOLENCE is the key issue. And, hypocrisy about violence in social control. So, dear people - including TEA PARTIES and other Republicans, where is your honesty (rather than hypocrisy) about Honorable Mr Fariss' (R-Albemarle) 'history of violence'?
... and another issue of hypocrisy about violence:
WHY are Virginians
- who honorably love their Second Amendment right to own a gun(s) privately for common purposes such as sport shooting, hunting for sport, hunting for sustenance, and protection of the home (and THAT IS ALL that the US Supreme Court says is the Second Amendment right - NOT overthrowing governments, NOT prepping a private militia for race war, or some other apocalypse, etc -
NOT ALSO DEMANDING protection of the rights of their neighbors, to have access to best mental health care, 24/7, in order to prevent the NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF GUN VIOLENCE: SUICIDE, including SUICIDES OF YOUTH!
The number one (BY FAR!) cause of gun deaths is SUICIDE, not homicide. AND the number one WAY people - including INCREASING NUMBERS OF VETERANS, ELDERLY MEN, and YOUTH - kill themselves is with guns!
We've engaged Virginia Libertarians in the conversation about this, but most continue to chant utterly FALSE AND STUPID 'faux facts': that most gun violence is in crimes (NO!, most gun violence is in suicide) and that more suicides are by pills, knives, jumping off bridges, etc (NO!, most suicide is by guns!).
ONCE AGAIN, VIOLENCE AND HYPOCRISY ABOUT VIOLENCE!
GOD WILL SURELY BE YOUR JUDGE! and perhaps suicide will come to your family (a gay youth, a depressed and untreated wife, an abandoned veterans, etc). LEARN AND CHANGE before God's judgement comes.
Are the Dumler arrest records/court documents sealed or has anyone released them via Freedom of Information Act? If yes, can someone post the link. Also, the link to the story the woman gave to detail his comments .... I think everyone's mind needs to be refreshed what he said to her as he forced her....people are too hung up on where he put it vice the force and anger of the words he used when doing it.
not ponce says:I can only speak for myself, but I would feel exactly the same if this were a black man, and a teacher would have been gone MONTHS ago.
sorry.. hit enter by mistake...
not ponce says:
"I can only speak for myself, but I would feel exactly the same if this were a black man, and a teacher would have been gone MONTHS ago."
So you are saying that if Dumler were black you believe that people would be as high and mighty and as free with the anal rapist taunts? You would have the streets of Cville loaded with Al and the gang before sundown and the liberal press and churches would be demanding forgivness.
As for a teacher being "already gone" .. are you saying that if a female teacher had sex with a 17 year old male student (still statutory rape.. remember rape is rape) and didn't want to resign from the board that all the same people here would be spending this much time and energy trying to get rid of her because constituents would be "afraid" for her to near their children?
Or would we have a double standard going on where people would quietly turn away and say that he wasn't raped... (like goes on ALL the time)
It would be so much nicer if Bill Marshall would proofread his posts.
There really is no point in arguing with the pro-dumbler crowd. They make a point, you refute that point directly, and then they act all obtuse.
Helen Dragas and Chris Dumbler are different people and it is two different situations. Helen Dragas was never elected. Helen Dragas also was never arrested. Helen Dragas was also never convicted of a sex crime. Helen Dragas, as far as I know, is not a jail bird.
We all know that the letter of the law and Dumbler's plea deal allow him to serve his term, just as Helen Dragas legally was allowed to fire Theresa Sullivan's. Watch what happens, though.
Anyone that thinks Dumbler is going to finish his term are the same dullards that thought UVa would be getting a new president.
In fact, there is a very similar dynamic at work here. Just as last summer there was a vocal minority that said, "The BOV has the right to fire Sullivan. There is no point in protesting, the decision's been made. There is nothing anyone can do, it's over."
There is now a vocal minority that is saying, "The BOS has no right to remove Dumbler. There is no point in protesting, the law is the law. There is nothing anyone can do, it's over."
Both case are examples of truth to power: pressure bought to bear on a situation by people exercising their rights. Just as Sullivan was saved, Dumbler will be ousted.
Ponce, not sure why you're trying to inject race into this issue, but your hypotheticals are ridiculous!! Show me where a black man was convicted of sexual battery and then allowed to serve on an elected municipal board. And who cares, anyway? Why are you so obsessed with the potential for a racial double standard? What does your obsession have to do with the Dumbler situation?
And your attempt to equate this with a teacher committing statutory rape is equally ridiculous. Why on earth do you think these imagined scenarios have anything to do with the facts of this case?
Why is it so hard for you to deal with the actual facts? Is your argument so pathetically weak that you must make up a false situation and then argue one side of that situation?
I believe that is called "creating a strawman" and it is a classic logical fallacy. Please respond with facts or opinions about facts. Everything else is pointless.
So this Meredith sounded kinda old in an interview. Was she a cougar that got conquered by a hiena?
Geeeezus freakin' Christ you're a thick headed one meanwhile! Did you used to post under the name Nancy Drew?
For one thing, I'm hardly a Dumler supporter. (BTW, that intentionally misspelling of someone's name is cute, if you're 12. It's really kind of embarrassing for an adult to do though.) I'm pretty sure Dumler's an a-hole, he is a politician and a lawyer so I just assume he is. But, and it's a big but (pun only slightly intended) we have laws. Those laws matter and in this state they offer very limited options for removing an elected official from office.
Dumler seems to want to stay in office and seems to be on the right side of the law if a recall does make it to court. You can cry and whine and carry on all you want, but ultimately there is little you can do if he doesn't want to go. In fact the more people see shrill freakshows like the one Jamie Morgan put on the more sympathy he's likely to get from people who see a witch hunt in progress and feel sorry for him. If she's what a jury of "peers" looks like then what sensible person would risk trial rather than cop a plea? It's an easy step, step, step, from that to "well maybe he was innocent but knew he would never get a fair trial." If you don't think that the public is that fickle, then you clearly aren't paying much attention to the world outside of your head.
The simpler, more natural, and more likely analogy is not Sulivan/Dumler, but Dragas/Dumler. (You must not do to well on standardized tests if you don't get that one) Lots and lots of people all around the world spoke out against Dragas's re-appointment, but guess what, she's still there. If Dumler wants to stay, then he probably can and I'm sure that just like Dragas, he would get a huge kick out of winning this battle. The bigger you make it, the bigger his win.
meanwhile, the other examples point out the hypocracy.
The differeence between the dragas case and this is that those protesting what happened to Sullivan had a chance of lobbying the government for her removal.. and failed... but the process still functioned like it was supposed to. All the "lobbying" in the world will not remove dumler. People are calling him a rapist which is a legal term and he legally is not. I don't care if you villify the guy. He did what he did and everyone can bellieve what they want about how far it went and whether he committed the felony. For many it does not matter. The minor offense is enough for them. That is their right. Interupting board meetings to harrass him is an attack on all of the residents of Albemarle as their is only so much time.People made thier point and he is being tried in the press.
My point is threefold, first, this is a decison for the people in his district whether he stays or goes. If they had gotten more than a majority of the eligible voters and petitioned the judge then the judge could very well remove him, Regardless it is their choice and no one elses.
Secondly, those calling for his ouster are imposing their will on the voters in his district and that is wrong. There is enough turmoil without them sticking their nose in. His now exposed past does not affect his ability to decide most decisions and if he neds to abstain from a vote then so be it. All concillors abstain at some point.
Thirdly, The rest of the board are being total jerks. If he goes, the balance will go from 3-3 to 4-2 because the board members left get to decide... not the voters. This is wrong and the two democrats should have enough integrity (yes INTEGRITY) to put the county first and not their own" which way is the wind blowing" convictions. Their refual to deal with him is not representing their districts as their responsibility is to gather all relevant information possible to make an informed decision on whatevr matter is before them. They have an OBLIGATION to know how those in his district feel about the issues. The board memebers that have said they won't listen may just find themselves in a bind when he is the deciding vote on an issue ,which like it or not ,he will be at some point. They had better hope that he has more respect for his constituency than they do for theirs and makes the decision based on the facts and not punishment, retribution, political gain and pettyness. The board censured him and they should simply say that their hands are tied and that it is up to the people of his district to deal with.him further. If they want to send a letter to everyone in their district to cover their backside about their feelings about the law that is fine, but messing with the proces to marginalize him is dirty pllitics and the democrats should stand up for that process and explain that the frickin Constitution comes first.
Its not like the guy walked because the cops didn't mirandize him.
So go ahead and hate the guy, follow him around with cardboard signs, come up with a nickname for him. I don't care. That is everyones right even the nut job from brooklyn, but back off pressuring the board to marginaize him.
And I stand by my assertions.. if he were black people in this town would be AFRAID to harrass him like that. As far as examples come to mind Marion Barry was nickenamed the "teflon Mayor" and while he is remebered for the crack cocaine, he was also arrested for beating his wife and was caught getting a BJ in prison from a hooker.. which is a "misdemeanor sex crime" and last I heard domestic abuse does involve "violence"
In the end his constiuency relected him because under the law it was their choice.
And why is the statutory rape example "ridiculous" ? Numerous on here claim "rape is rape "and is ALWAYS about "power domination and violence" Are they wrong? You can't have it both ways.
We are continually puzzled why it is that the petition takers STILL HAVEN'T announced having the correct and adequate number of signers. With all the anger and rage being spoken, shouldn't they have set up a single table in the shopping center in Scottsville, or outside the restaurants in the town, and had enough signatures in one weekend? WHAT IS GOING ON!? Many questions can be asked: perhaps there is an obvious bad attitude in the petitioners? perhaps there is still support for Mr Dumler? perhaps there is suspicion of the BOS, particularly the 3 'STUPID WASTEFUL BYPASS' advocates? This process should ALWAYS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED on the courts process, from the authentic voters of the District: not name calling blabber at BOS meetings, not wailing in the streets, not BOS back-room shenanigans.
I think if her were black, the black community would demand his resignation and scream much louder than in this case, and a teacher would have been fired.
BUT, he is a white guy, and not a teacher, so those points are irrelevant here.
This case will go before a judge. There is NO DOUBT about that. I think the statements Dumler himself has made will be more damaging to his chance of remaining on the BOS than anything said or done by his detractors. He admitted to breaching the public trust for Gods sake!
I also believe that he could have redeemed himself were he not so thick headed. If he had ANY COMMON SENSE WHATSOEVER he would have resigned, gone though counseling, donated time and money to educate others on the true damage sexual predators inflict on victims and become a victims advocate. He is young, and had he done this, he could have come back in a few years and resumed his political career. People are very willing to forgive when someone is GENUINELY sorry for their actions. I have run enough political campaigns, and seen it several times. In fact, remorse for a mistake that was dealt with honestly and completely is difficult for an opponent to overcome. For the life of me I can not understand why his advisers and/or the party are not beating him over the head with this. Campaign strategy 101.
Instead, with every passing day, every remark, every post, he adds another nail in the coffin. He is sinking his own ship, and because he does not seem to have any common sense, he has put his political career, legal career and military service in jeopardy.
I am still hoping Bill will answer my questions though.
@ god- fearer:
FYI...The petition has more than the required number of signatures. At this point, the officials are making sure they follow the correct process because this has never happened before, but it WILL be filed. The man who started the petition has looked at this from the LEGAL process perspective since the beginning. He is not really associated with the others, although he supports Scottsville residents doing whatever they can. That said, he does not condone the behavior of some people. All he can do is follow the process as stated in the code, and that is what he is doing.
What really stinks is that Dumler will be gone between now and November. So, having moved our clocks forward by one hour, he actually gets one hour less on the BOS. That's why I always tell my friends: "If you're going to die, do it between November and March, after you have moved the clocks back one hour." That way, you get an extra hour of life instead of being ripped off by one hour less.
R.I.P.: Ted Knight
Not buyin' it, I'm sorry you are so upset!
I saw exactly the point you were trying to make, answered it directly, and rejected your logic. I am very sorry that you are reacting so emotionally.
Once again I will repeat that technically you are correct and Dumbler could stay if he wanted. But watch what happens. This is the real world, not your or Ponce's hypothetical alternate universe.
Part of growing up is learning how to deal with the world. Observe what comes next in this story as a lesson. When things don't turn out the way you predict, instead of lashing out at others, try to learn from it.
NOt Ponce asked me this question:
Also, and this is an honest question from someone with no ax to grind, but because your opinions seem focused (and rightly so) on the representation you elected, AND because there are so many important issues before the BOS, is there an issue that you are concerned with? And, given the agenda for the next meeting, if so, who do you believe would make a fair replacement in the event Dumler resigns or the court gives him the boot?
I think he will resign before going to court, (if he's using his logical brain) but I suppose we'll see. My questions are not intended to offend in any way. I am sincerely curious.
My answer: It is not so much about any particular issue as it is about the the system being corrupted by people who DO have an axe to grind. I have seen it in business and politics both. When there is blood in the water sharks gather round looking for an easy meal. I think that between the zealots and the polititicians the people of his district are going to get shafted if they don't protect themselves. Any one issue.. no, but I think that it is their decision who they want to represent them and not an appointee of Ken Boyd from a back room deal. If he does leave then I think HE should hold an all day open forum for only people in his district and let people speak and then take a straw poll to see who they want, and then make that recomendation to the Board. That way if the Board goes against their choices it will at least be transparent and the chips can fall where they may.
I am assuming that the victim in this case agreed to the plea to make this go away so that she could fade to obscurity and move on. The zealots attacked dumler to bring him down to satisfy their sense of justice at her expense. The same could be said for me because while I feel like I am defending the process most believe I am defending his behavior. I am not.
I am sorry that this prolongs her suffering but I also feel that the process is more important than that at this point because we do not know how far the pendulum can swing. If a Board member were caught in an affair that is adultery and I think still on the books. The spouse is the victim so it is not a victimless crime. Do we remove a member for that? I don't know, but I don't want it so that it is too easy to get a member removed for the simple reason that good people will stay away from a very important job. I also don't like zealots running the game. Would these people be happy to have the Christian right Westboro church here protesting crimes against god right along side of them?
I have continually said that what is important is a reduction in the number of incidents of any kind of sexual assault and given suggestions for how to help. The response I got from some of these people is that and I quote "it is never the womans fault" (no matter how much she drinks dresses or puts herself in harms way) and that "men are the RAPISTS and need to learn to NOT RAPE" well they are technically correct on both points, but that does not change the facts on the ground and shouting that mantra will never make a dent in the problem. My suggestion to make reporting and evidence gathering as private and unhumiliating as possible will. My suggestion for women to be diligent and look out for each other will. My suggestion to reach the percentage of men who are not stalkers but opportunists with education will. Hounding him out of office may satisfy some peoples need to find justice where the Courts could not but it does so at the expense of the people in Scottsville who have a RIGHT to the representative of their choice.
"meanwhile" doesn't like straw man arguments but we could be here ten years from now because someone got away with running over a dog or was ACCUSED AND AQUITTED of using a racial slur or telling a fat joke. The process needs defending and I am disappointed that more people are so willing to set the process aside for vengance because in this instance it didn't satiate their appetite for blood.
The sadness for me is that all politicians haven't been held to a higher standard- the standard that as long as they don't break the law then that is OK is a lazy one. What is legal for a public servant is a minimum code of behavior one not the gold standard.
What this has become isn't a hounding out of office but an issue of free speech and voicing ones displeasure at what is unacceptable. It is the collective of "enough is enough". There may be no legal way to remove Dumler. OK fine, than just because he won't leave doesn't mean I just have to accept his decision to stay. When a public servant has disgraced his office and shown what is clearly a lack of shame and real remorse; it is the duty of the people to oppose him at every turn- regardless of his party.
Anyone who wants Dumler to finish out his term is an apologist, the hardest core of democrats, or an internet troll. He's now a man without a party on an island.
And when you've elected to represent your people and have broken their trust, the last honorable thing you can do is resign. I still believe that somewhere Chris Dumler - former Eagle scout and Military officer, has some small shred of of remembrance of the phrase of "Duty, Honor and Country". All Dumler speaks of his these days is his "duty" but without his honor it is a empty and hollow pledge.
Why is it so hard for seemingly educated people (I mean most of them can sort of write their thoughts out) to understand the difference between thinking that Dumler can hold out as long as he wants and thinking that he ought to? There is also quite a distinction between thinking that Dumler is himself worth preserving and thinking that the people of his district deserve some protections. As I've pointed out above, it's no wonder someone facing the charges that Dumler faced originally would cop a plea if distinctions like those are so difficult for his potential jurors to understand.
@Bill:
Thank you, and I agree with you 100%. When a similar situation occurred where I used to live, the BOS created an application process to fill the vacancy. Anyone in the district could apply, the applicants were all interviewed by staff and the BOS in public. There was a public hearing prior to the appointment. The applicants had to agree to NOT seek election in November,. They chose an outstanding woman who happened to be Independent, in a locality where the lone Democrat was the one who resigned. But the process was very inclusive precisely because they understood a duly elected official was being replaced by an appointment, even though for less than a year.
I also agree with your suggestions about reporting. The only problem is that so many women that are raped are (unnecessarily) ashamed of themselves (they feel they should have been able to stop it, or used better judgement), and they are terrified about the notion of reporting a sexual assault. I would love to find a way to change it, but I'm not sure it could be legislated. I sure as hell would be willing to try though. I think any effort would need a HUGE public education campaign to educate women about the importance of reporting it.
St Halsey, you are free to speak your displeasure about the man, but attempting to corrupt the process of elected representation because you don't like someone IS dishonorable to the "country" even if it only one subsection of one county.
If you think gettting him to resign will stop all the back room deals, quid pro quos, Bisquit Run fiascos and the like you are sadly mistaken.
It will just encourage people to ignore and disrespect the rule of law. If you don't like the law change it. But do so within the established framework. Otherwise you just get occupiers in the park consuming tax money that could go for rape prevention.
Bill Marshall,
I have not attempted to corrupt any process and your groundless accusation to the contrary is testament to your toll like nature.
I have not given any any indication that a backroom deal is preferable to Dumler simply resigning- that would be your 2nd inaccurate reading of my words.
I am not asking the law to be changed- that is your 3rd non sequitur rant related my post.
If you were not referring to my post then I have very little understand of you posing arguments that I have not been making.
Perhaps you could respond to my actual post rather than the simply re-spinning your circular logic and morally deficient post you have laboriously made us read multiple times with just a few sentences rearranged.
But if the slippery slope of free speech vexes you so terribly that you can say that protesting moral bankruptcy should not occur lest money be misallocated, I must note that you are a fool.
halsey-- there's little point responding to bill marshall or ponce de leon. first off, marshall is an obvious misogynist with some serious mommy issues. second, marshall just recycles his posts over & over again with little regard to what you've written him. and when you back him into a corner, he just switches into hyperbole mode, calling everyone "blood-thirsty vigilantes" or some such nonsense. as for ponce, he's one of about 3 people who are part of dumler's little PR team. they post all over various news sites. ponce isnt interested in clarity at all. his role is to throw out as many things as possible to distract people. he's basically using a criminal defense attorney's approach--throw out enough possibilities and maybe you'll fool the stupid people. or at least distract them.
ST halsey, where you and I disagree is in the first statement you made is that these attacks are not people trying to hound him out of office. You can believe that it is not but that does mean it is not. I think that people here are unabashingly trying to hound him out. So it is on that basis that I believe people doing that are corrupting the process. . If you are calling for his resignation that is okay with me... if you are supporting disruption of Board meetings and supporting the politicians trying to hound him out that is wrong. They have agendas not in the interest of the voters as do most of the people hounding him. The voters should not be pawns nor victims of selfrighteous people who are upset because the Prosecuter couldn't hang him.
If he resigns a "backroom " deal will be made because there will be a 3-2 split in favor of the opposite party. hense a backroom deal. Supporting his resignation without an upfront deal which Ken Boyd said won't happen is supporting the backroom deal by default. Your inability to not follow the flow chart doesn't make you right.
I didn't say that YOU were trying to change the law I said IF you don't like the law then change it otherwise show proper respect for the voters in his district.
I do repeat the same argument and will do so as it needs to be said. It is easy to attack dumler.. he is a villian.... and I am not worried about the slippery slope of free speech, I am worried about the unbelievable amount of ignorance shown by the community for the most basic right of the voters to be represented by the person of their choosing.
Oh, give me a break. Bill Marshall says people are self-righteous because they want Dumler out of office. I think most people want Dumler out of office because he's a criminal. Nobody wants to hang Dumler, we just want him to slink back to his deserved oblivion.
not Ponce, thanks for considering my thoughts. Contrary to satchels argument about me being a mysoginist and women hater I would be saying the exact same things if he had done this to a gay man. I don't care.
I also agree that public education would do way more than attacking this guy ever would.
Marshall said, "You can believe that it is not but that does mean it is not."
We're entitled to our opinion, but you consistently reject that fact.
Marshall said, " I think that people here are unabashingly trying to hound him out."
But you expect us to honor your opinion without objection. Your opinion that he is being "hounded" is just that, your opinion. Our opinion is that he should resign. Some people consider voicing their opinion as being within their rights, and they choose to hold community leaders to a certain standard of ethics. Ethics, which clearly would not include embracing the leadership or decision-making 'skills' of perpetrators of sexual battery or assaults.
Backroom deals? How do you know if constituents aren't calling their representatives and voicing their opinion that Dumler should resign? Or are you just paranoid and think that any objection made by other BOS members that he resign are solely based on backroom deals about anything other than the subject --- Dumler being charged with sexual battery while holding a position as an elected official in the Commonwealth.
I still don't quite understand why the parents of the first of Dumler's unfortunate sex partners victimized by his forcible sodomy -- as well as the siblings and friends of all the victims -- didn't take care of the problem long before it arrived in court. Will anyone stand up in a Board of Supervisors meeting holding a placard that reads "Forcible Sodomy" or "Forcible Sodomy Tolerated Here" ... ?
Disgraceful Va... I respect your right to have an opinion of him and have said to go ahead and follow him down the street with a cardboard sign. .. again I don't care.
If Constiuents from other districts are calling their representatives as you say then that is exactly what I am talking about... people in other districts trying to remove the representaive from a different district then their own over moral issues is a corruption of the system and an attack on the voting rights of those within his district.
I don't need nor expect my opinions honored, but just like people who post to garner support for attacking him I want to convince them that the Constitution is bigger than this issue and there are other ways to achieve the goal than the method touted by too many in this town.
I am ALWAYS suspect of political backroom deals as it is the very nature of politics. It is hardly an unusual stance to take.
Lynne people do want to hang him and the reason I call them self righteous is that at least one of loudest people who squawled about him has a felony record for drugs. but wants to judge him for his mistakes... My point is that they want to do so at the expense of the voters in his district and yet claim to be defending victims rights... So they are defending one victim and attempting to create thousands more. If he gets replaced with ken Boyds choice that is wrong.
HOPEFULLY the conversation will GET TO the REAL ISSUE at stake: VIOLENCE history in elected and appointed officials. SEX, SEXUALITY, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR (that is not workplace sexual harassment) is not the REAL ISSUE. Is sexual battery violence, YES! THAT is the real issue. And, in this proper light why are not local people demanding resignation of Honorable Mr Fariss, with a documented 'History of violence' (gender violence, against a women, nonetheless!)? And, why isn't history of violence and violent beliefs and support for policies engendering or relying on violence key targets of voter assessment and citizen discussion of elected and appointed officials?
... and btw, considering the great early American novel, The Scarlet Letter, the REAL ISSUE according to the writer, and to thousands of readers, WAS NOT THE SEXUALITY or SEXUAL BEHAVIOR of Hester Prynne but THE VIOLENCE, especially the SOCIALLY ORGANIZED VIOLENCE, AND RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY ABOUT VIOLENCE among the powerful and social elites and in local government! ... So, why can't we take a lesson from one of the earliest American thinkers about justice in society? VIOLENCE is the key issue. And, hypocrisy about violence in social control. So, dear people - including TEA PARTIES and other Republicans, where is your honesty (rather than hypocrisy) about Honorable Mr Fariss' (R-Albemarle) 'history of violence'?
To Bill Marshall, Ponce, et. al.
The required percentage of voters of the Scottsville district (i.e., Dumler's constituents) have officially spoken.
The political fate of the Albemarle supervisor Chris Dumler will go into the hands of Albemarle County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Higgins. A petition to remove Chris Dumler from office is ready to move forward.
Earl Smith started a recall vote petition after Dumler pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery. The petition requires signatures from 10 percent of voters in the Scottsville District, totaling 372 needed signatures. Those required signatures have been obtained. Once Judge Higgins is presented with the petition to remove Dumler, she will have to verify the signatures. That will be done by the county voter registrar. After that Judge Higgins will decide if a hearing should be held.
Dumler will be served with the petition and allegations within 10 days of its filing and then a trial can happen.
The process--according to the law and code--is working.
Discerning Listener - Excellent! Thank you for your contributions to justice and the American way.
General question of curiosity: How many of you live in Boyds district? I ask only because if you live in that district, you could possibly call him and request him to back off his stance that appears to say he'll only support a Republican. I am making no attempt to tell anyone what to do. It just seems to me that is a serious issue, and with everything going on in the county, I can see why it is an issue. I don't like it, I don't think it's right. BUT...that does not mean the "split" issue isn't a serious one. So, could that be addressed so the calls (including mine) for Dumler to resign can be addressed more equitably for Scottsville residents?
Judge Higgins? HUUUMMM. He might just be...OUTTA HERE!
Concerning the petition...My name is Earl Smith and I have collected more than enough signatures to start court proceedings. When I contacted the correct people about turning in the signatures I was asked to wait a few days so they could prepare themselves, have the proper paperwork on hand, advise me about court procedures that would be expected of me and prepared the voter registration folks who would have to verify every signature. That was last week and then we had the snow storm and no power for almost the whole area. Everything is back to normal and we are working again towards my goal of turning in the petition and signatures. As for the discrepancies in the petition numbers..that was my fault in not being able to express myself to the reporters in a way they could understand. Most of the time when asked I would reply with the numbers I had in my hand at that moment. I would also express to them I still had other folks collecting and this is what they have reported to me. Evidently this was confusing. As it stands I have over 475 signatures in my hand waiting to be verified. One last point and this is concerning a statement in the article above...the person questioned why people just didn't flock to sign the petition. Well they did to a point. You have to remember this effort was taken on by myself and a handful of others. No political party helped. No registered voter list were given or used to call folks and let them know when and where to sign. I wasn't afforded that luxury. The almost 500 signatures collected were by word of mouth, FB post's, my email given out on the Rob Schilling Show, and the few newspaper articles and TV appearances that were good enough to include just my name so people could find me and of course many hours set up at a location with signs on the road pointing the people to me. No money was donated or given to me for gas, signs, pens, paper, ink, etc. I am not a political person and hate the bickering between party members. All that does is muck up the whole system and nothing gets done. I never wanted to be on the Board, be Dumlers replacement or help one particular party. I believe what I have done to be right and I stuck to my word in obtaining the signatures needed to recall the vote of an elected official. I was also quoted as saying on the Dumler FB page that I didn't think this was gonna fly but at least it will cost Chris more money to defend himself. That's Horseshit! I did say I do not know if this will work but hopefully this will change the law so it doesn't happen again.
That's why I love ya Earl!!!
But love notwithstanding, Scottsville residents (including you) need to make sure the BOS does not screw you after the recall is a success. That's the nasty part of this that should never be.
@ god-fearer:
Was Mr. Farris convicted of a crime after he was elected? If it was prior to the election, the people who ran his opponents campaign should be THROWN OUT OF POLITICS FOREVER for total lack of competence, and to a lesser degree, people who voted for him should have done their homework. AND he will have a difficult time come next election. However, I know nothing about Farris or what he did, but I DO NOT THINK THE VIOLENCE IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. This is about a sex crime; about control. I would also be inclined to tell you, because you are as apparently passionate about him, to start a recall, just like Earl did.
@ god-fearer:
Was Mr. Farris convicted of a crime after he was elected? If it was prior to the election, the people who ran his opponents campaign should be THROWN OUT OF POLITICS FOREVER for total lack of competence, and to a lesser degree, people who voted for him should have done their homework. AND he will have a difficult time come next election. However, I know nothing about Farris or what he did, but I DO NOT THINK THE VIOLENCE IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE. This is about a sex crime; about control. I would also be inclined to tell you, because you are as apparently passionate about him, to FIND SOMEONE BETTER SUITED TO SERVE, who has a campaign manager who knows how to run a campaign.
It will be interesting to see the stance Dulmer takes now given this pending legal challenge to his seat on the BOS. He may well continue to dig in his heels, saying in essence "Ya can't *make* me." [My money is on that.]
He's right; no one can...at least not at this juncture.
However, the legal process that allowed voters to place Dumler in office may well be the same one that results in his removal.
[In thinking about this further, I am wondering if perhaps Dumler's primary reason for refusing to step down is financial more than philosophical, political, or pathological.
His primary source of income is his solo criminal defense law practice. His compensation for his BOS service is $14,542 per year. He *may* also be entitled to coverage under the County's health insurance plan at a premium cost that is far more favorable than what he would find if he sought solo coverage on the open market.
I'd hazard a guess that, with the events of the last few months, clients are not flocking to his fledging practice. Even outside of the earlier cost of his own defense, he may now be hard-pressed to make ends meet. With that, he may feel like he has little to lose by trying to remain on the BOS; with his refusal to resign he at least is guaranteed his BOS income and potentially health insurance.]
Mr. Smith of Scottsville thanks for all your hard work
Chris evidently doesn't recognize that he is a HUGE sleaze factor in terms of his status as an elected official. Let the particulars of his offense play out as they may; he simply should have avoided any behavior which would cast a shadow over his own credibility, and that of the various agencies with which he is associated. So now the deed is done. If he doesn't understand that his constituency would be better served by his exit, than the time has come for his constituency to show him the door.
Thank you, Discerning Listener . . . no doubt he's dug in his heels for the BOS salary, benefits, etc. Meager though those revenues may be, I'm sure it's more than he's dragging through the door in downtown Scottsville. And, truly, Scottsville, Keene, and all the other communities in his district deserve more.
Thank you, Earl Smith ....
Why not just construct a giant bunghole at the next BOS meeting?
Dumler like a moth to the flame will enter it, and be launched into orbit and become space junk.
I still want to know how Dumler's plea deal compares to deals other sexual batterers have received.
Susan R - I am in complete agreement with you here and most of those posting their insane "reasonings" and protecting these low lifes, I guarantee they are men and not from this area at all.
If Drumler was an honorable person (I could care less what party affiliation he is) he would resign, get mental help to learn woman are not objects and move on. But he is not. Apparently this isn't the first time but the first time someone had the gumption to report it to the authorities. You see, woman and victims of sexual assaults are more likely not to do that based upon the bias and contempt by citizens as above. We need to change that.
We need to raise our young men to know NO means NO and that if they force themselves that is rape and not acceptable.
As for all this crap about taking the plea deal to avoid costly attorney fees and a trial - bull - if I was innocent of a crime, truly innocent, I would fight tooth and nail through the criminal justice system. I would never take a plea deal period.
Hey, folks. There are many reasons people plead guilty to lesser crimes. Often they are guilty of greater crimes but the Commonwealth worries about proving it. BUT often they are not guilty at all of anything, but they are the ones worried about what a jury might do when facing a greater charge -- juries often do crazy things; just look at all the death penalties handed down against people later exonerated by DNA.
So -- the question should really be: how is he handling the job of supervisor? That's what we elected him for, not sex ed teacher.
As Bill Marshall noted, however, everyone's jumping on them likely because they have "different agendas with a common cause." And yet, he may in fact be guilty of nothing.
Cvillereader2, you are correct. There are many reasons people plead guilty to lesser crimes. Often they are guilty of greater crimes but the Commonwealth worries about proving it. Sometimes they are not guilty at all of anything, but they are worried about what a jury might do when facing a greater charge.
I would posit that in more cases than not the accused is indeed guilty of *something*, else the Commonwealth would not have indicted them in the first place.
You go on to say that the question should really be how Dumler is handling the job of supervisor. In response it appears that Dumler is now ham-strung, a lame duck, and to a large extent compromised in the performance of his duties.
I would suggest that, with the consummate distraction resulting from Dumler's criminal conviction for sexual battery, coupled with his inaccessability during the 15 periods of his incarceration and his forced removal from all BOS committee assignments, his performance as a member of the BOS is significantly and negatively impacted.
To believe otherwise is to say that the ever-increasing level of distraction and disruption of the BOS proceedings has been only minimal and passing...that a Board member's consistent and involuntary inaccessibility for 15 weekends is at best a minor annoyance...that a BOS member's enforced removal from all committee work--where the real analytical work occurs--is unimportant.
I think this entire issue was well-framed by a gentleman yesterday who asked (and I am paraphrasing here) ***why should the taxpayers in Albemarle County expect that the individual sweeping the floors outside of Lane auditorium be held to a higher standard than the individuals on the dais where sit the members of the BOS.***
Cvillereader2, you close by saying "he (Dumler) may in fact be guilty of nothing."
And just as easily, he--Dumler--may well be guilty of sexual battery or felony forcible sodomy. Recall well that he admitted guilt to the former.
The Board of Supervisors may not be able to remove him, but one of them could certainly propose a vote of "No Confidence" in Dumler or a vote to Censure Dumler. The Rules for the Board of Supervisors could be amended without a county-wide referendum to reflect the Board's sense that it would be improper to allow a person convicted of sexual battery to take part in any of the Board's deliberations, sit on any of the Board's Committees or attend any meetings of the Board, effective as of the date when the Board was given official notice of the misconduct by the Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney. The Board, to protect the interests of the citizens of the Scottsville District, could then increase the number of Supervisors for that district by one until such time as Mr. Dumler is no longer a member of that august body.
The Board of Supervisors may not be able to remove him, but one of them could certainly propose a vote of "No Confidence" in Dumler or a vote to Censure Dumler. The Rules for the Board of Supervisors could be amended without a county-wide referendum to reflect the Board's sense that it would be improper to allow a person convicted of sexual battery to take part in any of the Board's deliberations, sit on any of the Board's Committees or attend any meetings of the Board, effective as of the date when the Board was given official notice of the misconduct by the Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney. The Board, to protect the interests of the citizens of the Scottsville District, could then increase the number of Supervisors for that district by one until such time as Mr. Dumler is no longer a member of that august body. Alternatively, they could put him in charge of the collection of canine fecal material along the county's byways. Dumler could personally supervise a group of felons convicted of sex crimes in the collection of said material as part of his atonement duties.
Guilty is a legal term. No one is guilty of anything until he or she pleads guilty or it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
Considering that, see if you can spot the contradiction in the following quote: "And just as easily, he--Dumler--may well be guilty of sexual battery or felony forcible sodomy. Recall well that he admitted guilt to the former."
Consider also that as an accused sitting on trial before a jury that you would be very lucky to have one composed of people as clear thinking as that poster. Even if you could clearly prove your innocence, (something not required of the accused by the way) there is still some risk that your message just won't get through. In a he said/she said case where emotion is as likely to play as great of a role as logic, there is even more uncertainty. And, you don't get your money back whether you win or lose.
Any honest attorney in town (there are some, really) will tell you that they have had clients they thought were innocent plead guilty to a misdemeanor rather than go to trial for a felony either because the accused couldn't afford the cost of a good defense or might not present well to a jury and was a greater risk of being found guilty because of that.
Indeed; guilty is a legal term. As you indicated, "No one is guilty until he or she pleads guilty..."
Dumler was not deemed guilty until he pleaded guilty.
Dumler pleaded guilty.
Indeed: "Any honest attorney...will tell you that they have had clients they thought were innocent plead guilty to a misdemeanor rather than go to trial for a felony either because the accused couldn't afford the cost of a good defense or might not present well to a jury and was a greater risk of being found guilty because of that."
To your first point: Dumler is a trained and practicing criminal defense attorney. One might reasonably believe that, given his own legal training at a top ten law school, in conjunction with experience specifically in criminal defense and as a JAG officer, Dumler would be able to assist Mr. Sneathern well and readily in his own defense. [Dumler would have every reason and motivation to do so.] That alone might help to offset to at least to some degree what could otherwise be a significant cost. [There is also professional courtesy to consider.] Recall that Dumler is not a poor, disadvantaged individual struggling in an entry-level position making mimium wage, unable to contribute in any tangible way to his own defense. or afford same.
To your second point above, Dumler is otherwise an articulate, well-presented, and educated individual. He is well-dressed, presentable, and seemingly affable--certainly affable and congenial enough to be elected to hold one of the highest seats in County government. It is difficult to imagine that he would be unable to present well to a jury.
All of the above might reasonably be expected to mitigate what would be an increased risk of being found guilty on the bases you present. Your reasoning does not hold water when it comes to Dumler's choice to plead guilty to sexual battery rather than face a jury and fight the charge of forcible sodomy.
Well-played, but I'm not buyin' it.
as the prosecutor, jeff haislip, said: "That a sittiing supervisor would plead guilty and agree to jail time speaks volumes about his actions that night."
as the prosecutor, jeff haislip, said: "That a sittiing supervisor would plead guilty and agree to jail time speaks volumes about his actions that night."
It also speaks volumes about the prosecuters case. Fisherman cut the line when they think they have caught a boot, not a prize bass.
If you were charged with dui and were facing certain jail time and certain loss of your license and job, or you could plead guilty to speeding and get a few points and a fine then why would you not do the prudent thing? Guilt or innocence is irrelevant to the equation. Only a fool would go down with the ship when there is a lifeboat handy.
Placing ones future in the hands of the liberal idiots and crazy zealots in this town by choice is too big of a gamble when the alterantive is to pay yourself 1500 a day to sit in jail for 30 days instead of spending 45k on a defense. Plus, if he were convicted the appeal would be twice as much.
I doubt there is a criminal lawyer that would have advised him otherwise with the crazies in this town.
@Discerning and @ I'm not buying and @ Bill Marshall -- I think you all make or concede the point that it would not be unusual for Dumler to have pleaded to a misdemeanor though he had in fact not committed any sexual crime at all, given the charges he faced.
But Discerning you make the separate point that regardless, Dumler is now a distraction (in answer to how he performs as a supervisor). Yes and no. Do we let the rest of the board beat the drum and then blame him for the noise? So yes, there's noise, but no, not sure he should be judged on it. All said, I concede it is all a most unfortunate situation regardless of how it ends.
no way, bill. if a woman brings false charges against me, and i know i haven't done anything wrong, i'm fighting it in court, and then, i'm suing her for bringing the charges in the first place. we're talking about rape here, not a dui. you fight for your honor tooth and nail. especially if you're an ambitious "rising star" in the world of virginia politics. that he chose NOT to fight the charge tells you everything you need to know. that and the reports from several other women who have said he's done the same thing to them. is that a coincidence? a conspiracy? or is chris dumler actually a dangerous sexual predator who first assaults women, and then contacts and threatens them into public silence?
The reason we are all talking about sodomy and rape in this thread is because Dumler, when he chose not to try these charges in court, decided AFTER his guilty plea to Sexual Battery, that he would try his case in the court of Public Opinion. So Ponce and Bill, YOU can stop your legal-eagle presentations about hearsay etc, because it was Dumler who started with HIS hearsay evidence. He has NEVER admitted outside of Court that he is even guilty of Sexual Battery. He NEVER apologized for committing Sexual battery. Check out ALL his words. They are the weasel words of a man trying to LOOK like he's apologizing for something without actually apologizing for that very thing. The worst apology of his was the one where he said (paraphrased here) I apologize to the woman (he NEVER calls her victim) for my actions which caused a reaction in her...SERIOUSLY? Hey Chris, say this: "I am sorry for assaulting this woman sexually". So as soon as Chris Dumler started denying the sodomy charges in the Court of Public Opinion, his VICTIMS spoke up and spoke out, as did the public, and so did the commenters on this site. So Bill and Ponce, since you all just love your legalese, then you'll understand all too well that once one side opens up a subject to testimony, challenging it by the other side IS fair game. The terms Sodomy and Rape as applied to Dumler are fair game now, for he DENIED and continues to deny the original charges. It was DUMLER who denied himself his day in real Court, so, now he wants to deny those charges in the Court of Public Opinion. So flush your notions of "legal" down the toilet, for Dumler is the one who CHOSE this Court. The citizens who give testimony to their assaults by Dumler, their treatment otherwise, those who call into question his character - these comments are simply testimony in this Court. DUMLER chose the venue. So no more hiding Dumler behind our system of jurisprudence, because he abandoned that Court for another.
"Hell hath no fury, Chris!"
my favorite quote of his was when he described his actions--forcible sodomy--as 'discourteous.'
Bill Clinton raped Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and God knows how many other women (we would also know if all those State Troopers who ran security while he raped them hadn't commited suicide). I wonder how many Dumler bashers love Bill Clinton. I would imagine quite a few.
i'm glad "someone" has confirmed that he believes many democrats are in favor of dumler's resignation--which furthers the point that this is in no way a "political conspiracy," as dumler and his (few) supporters have alleged.
Waal, perhaps Dumbler will wind up in jail where he can pursue a graduate studies in all types of sodomy? How many women has he victimized so far? That we know of?
Or, put differently -- How many women now claim he was guilty of forcible sodomy?
three have gone to the police. five more have contacted the 'chris dumler, resign' page on FB.
itmpodcasttrack.com/podcast_track.mp3?iTunes=play&stationId=1950&episodeId=6261881&url=http://podcast.wina.com/wina/3881312.mp3
Since the Chris Dumler Rape Scandal page didn't fly in Wikipedia, just a "Chris Dumler" page in the Wikipedia noting the main facts of his career and the one conviction and several accusations might have a better chance.
So, Satchel: Bill Clinton. What do you think of the man?
As for me, I think Clinton was a great president. "Finding" that box of Whitewater files "at the back of the closet" was really a masterful stroke of genius. Politics is about who gets the money. Clinton managed to give more of the boodle to ordinary middle class folks than any other president since Lyndon Johnson. But after all ... what does Clinton have to do with Chris Dumler? Are you thinking maybe Chris Dumler will run for President ... of what, exactly? He couldn't get elected president of a hunt club in Buckingham, and likely won't get elected for the Scottsville District again. "No longer popular" ....
"But after all ... what does Clinton have to do with Chris Dumler?" -
They're both rapists. Thought that would be obvious. Apparently my point that most "Democrats" ignore Bill Clinton's raping because he's Bill Clinton and instead focus on Dumler's raping because he's no Bill Clinton, whereas if he had conned his way up to the level that Bill Clinton had before doing his raping all these Diplomatic Democratic Dumler bashers would be saying "all this over a blow job?"
Is that you John G.? Are you sure you really want to write libelous comments when you are so readily identifiable as the person who did it? Oh, that's right, that's your preferred MO!
I don't have the time to read all these blogs right now, ( so the answer may be in there somewhere), but i would like to know how someone gets themselves in a position to be raped multiple times over a time frame of several months? Whatever happened to locking the door or getting a restraining order? Am I missing something because I can't figure out how that happens?????
@Icepick: I don't know about the specifics of that particular accuser who alleged that Dumler raped her multiple times over a time frame of several months, but assuming the truth of the allegations, I think the most plausible explanation would be that the accuser did not know at the time of the incidents that Dumler's actions constituted rape, but later realized that what happened was rape. From what I have read, that accuser and Dumler were in a dating relationship at the time of the alleged incidents. Perhaps she consented to certain sexual activities, but did not consent to others, and Dumler did those other things that she did not consent to. It is possible that she thought that because she had consented to some sexual activities, that it was legally permissible for Dumler to do other sexual things despite her protestations.
Another possible explanation is that Dumler had some kind of psychological hold on the accuser which prevented her from getting out of the situation after the first incident, but I think that this type of explanation would be more likely in a child molestation or domestic violence situation (where the perpetrator and victim are living together), than here. If the allegations are true, I think the first explanation that I mentioned is the more plausible one. But again, this is all speculation.
The person who wrote that last comment is an idiot. (S)he makes it sound like anything a guy does that a female doesn't like is rape. what nonsense.
Not buyin' it, it's become apparent that your preferred MO is making ignorant comments that betray the fact that you don't what the hell you're talking about. It's not libel if the subject of the attack on character is a public figure such as, for example, a former President of the United States or a soon-to-be former County Supervisor. I'm not a public figure and that's why when people such as yourself accuse me of a crime I was never charged with nor convicted of, they are committing libel and/or slander against me.
Somenone, If you have something weighing on your conscience please elaborate on it if it helps to ease your mind, but I haven't accused anyone of criminal conduct. Libelous statements calling Dumler a rapist would be a civil matter not criminal if he chose to pursue the issue. BTW, it is most certainly libel in the case of a public figure to write comments in a public forum that exhibit a reckless disregard for the truth. The burden of proof is higher in that the plaintiff must prove actual malice, for example knowingly publishing a falsehood. You did know that Dumler plead guilty to sexual battery and not rape didn't you? Did you also know that he was never even accused of rape?
Forcible sodomy is what he was charged with and that is rape that never "changed with the times" because some sodomite judge or politician changed the definiton in a code book.
"Did you also know that he was never even accused of rape?" --not buying it
he was accused of 'FORCIBLE SODOMY,' as you well know. also, as you well know, the difference in VIRGINIA between 'RAPE' and 'FORCIBLE SODOMY' is simply the 'LOCATION' of the forced penetration. ie, if the penetration occurs in the VAGINA, it is termed 'RAPE,' however if the penetration occurs in the ANUS, it's called 'FORCIBLE SODOMY.' so the complaint against dumler--AGAIN--involved DUMLER FORCING ANAL SEX ON A WOMAN. glad i could clear that up again for the 500th time. you DUMLER SUPPORTERS (the four of you left, at least) are as DISINGENUOUS as can be.
@spanky - In California, "the girl said No" rule applies at all times, even after intercourse has started. We assume that the victims of Dumler's forcible sodomies were all women. We might also assume that some said no quite loudly ... to no avail. To the notion that these episodes may follow Dumler around for the rest of his life, I can only say: "What's wrong with that."