West Alton Marina manager arrest for alleged sex crimes

[dickiej]

I’m confused….admittedly, I haven’t been reading following all the details…is the police chief male or female?

[mcdude]

what difference would that make?

[SailinAway]

Originally Posted by dickiej

I’m confused….admittedly, I haven’t been reading following all the details…is the police chief male or female?

I believe the reference is to Gilford police chief Anthony Bean Burpee, so male. Mcdude asks what difference that would make. I guess some jobs have some kind of "morality clause" but I don't know what those standards are. Morality can be hard to determine. In this day and age homosexuality is no longer immoral for more than half of the country (judging from the acceptance of gay marriage both legally and in the public perception). But having a relationship with a pedophile (a criminal) would impugn a public servant. Apparently people who violate morality norms are at risk of blackmail, which impairs their ability to perform their duties. Heterosexual relationships between employees of the same company or agency are sometimes prohibited because they create boundary issues like favoritism and power imbalances. Legally, I don't think it matters whether the Gilford police chief is male or female or gay or straight, but I think a connection to a pedophile would matter a great deal, which may be why he resigned.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by SailinAway

I believe the reference is to Gilford police chief Anthony Bean Burpee, so male. Mcdude asks what difference that would make. I guess some jobs have some kind of "morality clause" but I don't know what those standards are. Morality can be hard to determine. In this day and age homosexuality is no longer immoral for more than half of the country (judging from the acceptance of gay marriage both legally and in the public perception). But having a relationship with a pedophile (a criminal) would impugn a public servant. Apparently people who violate morality norms are at risk of blackmail, which impairs their ability to perform their duties. Heterosexual relationships between employees of the same company or agency are sometimes prohibited because they create boundary issues like favoritism and power imbalances. Legally, I don't think it matters whether the Gilford police chief is male or female or gay or straight, but I think a connection to a pedophile would matter a great deal.

Also at the same time, the police chief was allegedly having an affair with another man, it cannot be expected that he knew what the other man was doing as well.
I would imagine he stepped down due to the investigation on the sex crimes revealed his infidelity and as stated above, from a morality standpoint not a good look for the Police chief to be stepping out in any circumstance, and then the possible connection to what the other person on top of it.

[John Mercier]

Possibly the off chance that a charge of Official Oppression could be registered.
If further investigation revealed that the Chief was doing as the accused stated and setting aside complaints rather than investigating them.

None of us will really know for some time as cases take a while to make it through the court system.

[jeffk]

As far as I know, the owner is still in charge of the marina. As a young person, would you want to be working for this terrible excuse for a human being? Would a responsible parent want their kids working there? Would you want to be working there if you were an adult? Grant that an adult may need a steady paycheck but other options have to be available and I would be looking for another job ASAP.

As a customer, I would be worried about reliable service amidst the chaos, as well as moral concerns of supporting such a group of owners.

A sale of the marina might resolve these problems but that is not happening right away.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Possibly the off chance that a charge of Official Oppression could be registered.
If further investigation revealed that the Chief was doing as the accused stated and setting aside complaints rather than investigating them.

None of us will really know for some time as cases take a while to make it through the court system.

It is not within the scope of the Gilford Chief's authority to investigate crimes in Alton. He wouldn't be setting aside complaints because they allege crimes committed in Alton, out of his jurisdiction.

[John Mercier]

Then using his official status to interfere.

It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to resign for something that isn't going to magically go away... nor would it be criminal on his part.

What are they going to do... fire him for being bi/homosexual?
Not like the Town of Gilford could afford that lawsuit.

[tis]

I heard on tv that he couldn't do his job because somebody could threaten to "out" him. Sort of like blackmail I guess so they couldn't be charged with a crime.

[John Mercier]

Well, technically... he is outed.
So why leave?

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Well, technically... he is outed.
So why leave?

I think he left before he was outed.

[upthesaukee]

Back in 2014, he discussed being gay and was one of the first gay police chiefs. It's not like he was being "outed" by all this.

Dave

[tis]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

Back in 2014, he discussed being gay and was one of the first gay police chiefs. It's not like he was being "outed" by all this.

Dave

I think by outed they meant more than just the fact he is gay. More like they knew what was going on.

[John Mercier]

Outed mean homosexual.

If he knew more, and didn't act, he could be criminally charged.
That could even put the Town of Gilford in the sights of the lawyers.

If the marina's insurance won't cover the suit, and the marina may not be as deep a well as some think, moving toward the ex-Chief and the town would be the next well.

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Outed mean homosexual.

If he knew more, and didn't act, he could be criminally charged.
That could even put the Town of Gilford in the sights of the lawyers.

If the marina's insurance won't cover the suit, and the marina may not be as deep a well as some think, moving toward the ex-Chief and the town would be the next well.

I would have to be living in a cave if I didn't know what outed means.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Outed mean homosexual.

If he knew more, and didn't act, he could be criminally charged.
That could even put the Town of Gilford in the sights of the lawyers.

If the marina's insurance won't cover the suit, and the marina may not be as deep a well as some think, moving toward the ex-Chief and the town would be the next well.

He cannot act on something that is outside his jurisdiction. The Gilford Police Chief has no power in Alton so there is nothing for him to act on.

The town of Gilford has no liability in this matter. What an employee does on his own time in a different town is not the responsibility of the town.

Being named in the investigation as having been somehow involved in this out of town matter may reflect poorly on him but unless his conduct was criminal it will end there. If there was no criminal conduct on his part, and what happens between two consenting adults is not criminal, then it will end there.

It remains to be seen if there is more to the story.

Attachments of more than $6 million worth of assets are being sought against West Alton Marina and its owners by four plaintiffs who have filed civil suits. The plaintiffs are asking the court to seize a total of $6,750,000 in assets to ensure there will be funds available to pay any any damages that might be awarded as part of the final judgment in their cases.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...23ec8eb3b.html

[John Mercier]

Sorry, but as a part of his office... he must forward the complaint.
So yes, he would have had the power to act and chose not to... if it is determined that he knew of the situation.

''A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.''

The town would have an employee that committed a crime, just like the marina.
The town could be held liable for the actions of the employee, just like the marina.

The nature of his employment, in this situation, does not allow for ''personal'' time.

[SailinAway]

In any case, under NH law everyone is required to report abuse of a minor or elderly person.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Sorry, but as a part of his office... he must forward the complaint.
So yes, he would have had the power to act and chose not to... if it is determined that he knew of the situation.

''A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.''

The town would have an employee that committed a crime, just like the marina.
The town could be held liable for the actions of the employee, just like the marina.

The nature of his employment, in this situation, does not allow for ''personal'' time.

Your post is full of speculation. You are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence. There has been no evidence thus far that the Chief broke any laws.

Forward the complaint? There has been nothing revealed so far to determine that the Chief got any complaints.

This was in the news: "One of the suits alleges that Murray told the plaintiff that it would be useless for him to go to police because he was having sex with the Gilford police chief and another officer and so was “untouchable.”

That sentence doesn't say that the Chief did anything wrong or illegal. He is not responsible for Murray's claims, and may not even be aware of them. It is legal for the Chief to have a relationship with Murray.

The town would have an employee that committed a crime? What crime? There has been no evidence thus far that the chief knew of the illegal activities of Murray and his partner, only a claim by Murray that had had a relationship with the chief.

The nature of his employment does not allow for personal time? So in a jurisdiction where he has no police powers, when he is not at work, and where you have no facts to show he knew of any crimes, you still think he "refrained from a duty imposed upon him by law?" And, you think the town of Gilford is somehow liable?

If, as you claim, he has no personal time, and the town is somehow liable for his actions all the time, and must report crimes, would you say the town of Gilford was somehow responsible if the Chief failed to report a violation of law, say, while vacationing in California? You know, like saw a speeder in a car but didn't report it?

[John Mercier]

If you have been reading... we are speculating why the resignation?

It wasn't because he was homosexual. So what was it?

If he knew... or even suspected... do to interaction with any of the parties... his duty is to move it to the Alton Chief and the AG.

And no, a police chief can not state ''I was off duty when the crime happened''... ''I was off duty when suspicion of a crime was happening''... ''I heard the rumor when I was off duty''.

The law does not allow for that.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

If you have been reading... we are speculating why the resignation?

It wasn't because he was homosexual. So what was it?

If he knew... or even suspected... do to interaction with any of the parties... his duty is to move it to the Alton Chief and the AG.

And no, a police chief can not state ''I was off duty when the crime happened''... ''I was off duty when suspicion of a crime was happening''... ''I heard the rumor when I was off duty''.

The law does not allow for that.

"We" are not speculating. I am speaking of known facts and pointing out where your speculation does not agree with the facts.

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Possibly the off chance that a charge of Official Oppression could be registered.
If further investigation revealed that the Chief was doing as the accused stated and setting aside complaints rather than investigating them.

None of us will really know for some time as cases take a while to make it through the court system.

You are the only one speculating, and doing so with a lack of information and distortion of the actual facts. Among other errors, the accused (Murray) never stated that the Chief was setting aside complaints. Murray said that there was no point in going to the police because of his relationship with the Chief. You turned that into the accused stating the chief was setting aside complaints, and added the possibility of official oppression.

At this point, what is known is the Chief may have had a relationship with Murray. That is all. There has been no public accusation of anything illegal on the part of the Chief. Turning that into liability for the town is, at this time, a stretch. More information will certainly come out as the legal process continues.