|
In Reply to: Re: I understand posted by Acheick on September 04, 2004 at 17:23:07:
I understand your point too. Sam was NEVER accused of a sex crime involving a child. I was sent that information directly, probably because of the preception that I don't like Sam. Even so, I concluded myself that it was not even worth bringing to the boards.
He was charged under:
"647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:
(a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view."
He plead guilty to a lesser charge of disturbing the peace.
Sam might be a lot of things, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a child molester, or was ever charged with any crime involving a child.
Anyone who says that he was involved in a crime involving a child should be called on that.
But, when Sam demands that others "come clean" in public, I think he has a responsibility to do the same. Especially when he preaches morality via his website, but was arrested in Hollywood for a "lewd or dissolute conduct".
