Life sentence for Stanley Gerald Champ

[Ken]

Then journalists need to do a better job.

They are doing their job. It is a commercial TV station. Their job is to report news stories that attract and interest viewers. A religious angle does that. Without viewers they have no jobs. As long as they get the facts correct they are free to spin the story with whatever human interest angle they see fit. That is what the news does.

And when plain Mennos pack courtrooms it creates news whether they intend it or not.

[Ken]

I’ve been asked to do the same things. It would be extremely inaccurate to paint me as a “church leader”. Virtually all of the brethren in my church end up Sunday school teacher at some point.

In the Washington/Franklin conference, the Dicscipline reads that Sunday School teachers are to be "strictly in order."

But that doesn’t make them “church leaders” to the outside world, does it?

Let’s say you find out that, for example, somehow I got mixed up in some illegal act - perhaps selling raw milk across interstate lines. I would hope my religious affiliation would be irrelevant to the case. (Particularly in light that multiple members in my congregation have conventional dairies and won’t sell raw milk, even legally within state lines.) And it would be quite improper to say “powerful church leader caught in illegal food scandal”.

Well it depends. Are you making a defense of your actions based on religious freedom? If so then you are bringing religion into it. If not then it should be irrelevant.

If you are referring to the Amos Miller case then some of the coverage from right-wing sources like FOX and Tucker Carlson have portrayed him as, and I quote: "An Amish farmer “being persecuted by the federal government for religious freedom to raise and prepare food the way he believes food to be raised and prepared.” If Mr. Miller has fostered that impression in the news coverage and in his defense then he is bringing his religion and religious identity into the case, not the state. And it is entirely fair to cover the case that way. If the media is adding that spin entirely on their own without his tacit encouragement then his religion shouldn't be so relevant.

[temporal1]

It is quite likely he would have been asked by other congregations to come and give a topic, teach adult Sunday School class, or teach a youth or adult Bible School class. He was not ordained.

I’ve been asked to do the same things. It would be extremely inaccurate to paint me as a “church leader”. Virtually all of the brethren in my church end up Sunday school teacher at some point.

In the Washington/Franklin conference, the Dicscipline reads that Sunday School teachers are to be "strictly in order."

This used to be the common way. School teachers were highly regarded, it carries special responsbility.
(Unfortunately, respect without accountability can open doors to abuses.)

A couple of years ago my family+i visited a small reconstructed pioneer village with a 1-room school house, it was near Mt Rainier, in WA. The teacher was provided a tiny residence next to the school. The list of requirements for teachers required high morals and ethics. i believe this was common, expected. It was not a designated Christian school.

My mil, born in 1916, began teaching in a 1-room schoolhouse at age 16!
i’m sure she and others expected adult maturity of her at that time! i’m sure she did her best for her students! she told us, some were bigger and older than she. in the past, it was not unusual to view 16-18 as “grown,” ready to work, marry, step into adult life.

Perceptions of maturity have changed drastically in my lifetime.
i believe gov guaranteed student loans, “college degrees for everyone!” are the central reason for this huge change.
in the past, there was practical need for teens to “grow up.”
today, there is resistance to growing up, into the 30’s-40’s. i think of it as a Peter Pan effect. the college fraternity mentality,
“i’ll never grow up, and you can’t make me.”

[Judas Maccabeus]

What are you saying?

Are you saying Mennonites shouldn’t sit and observe open courtrooms?

Or are you saying they should wear worldly clothes when they do?

I am saying none of those things.

What I am saying is that when ordinary reporters who cover the courthouse beat day in and day out show up for a trial and the audience is full of people in plain dress they are going to jump to the immediate conclusion that the trial has something to do with religion since there are all those overtly religious Menno or Amish people sitting there which is highly unusual. You wouldn't usually ever see them in the courtroom. And the reporter's interest will perk up and the resulting story will most likely have some sort of Menno or Amish angle. That is Journalism 101. The religious angle becomes the article's "hook" whether you think it is justified or fair or not.

They would jump to the same conclusion if the courtroom were full of Hasidic Jews in their black coats and hats, or full of Muslim folks in headscarves and such. However if it was just some generic Southern Baptist or Methodist congregant the audience would not be dressed in any distinctive religious way and the reporter would not necessarily draw any connections to the perpetrator or victim's church unless that was central to the trial. Apparently it was central to this trial if the perpetrator was using a position of religious authority to find and groom victims.

In effect, by packing into the courtroom in plain dress Mennonites or Amish make the trial about their faith because it becomes such an obvious and easy "hook" or angle for the reporter to spin off of. I'm not making any judgement one way or the other, just explaining why it happens. And that is why a trial of a plain Menno is more likely to be covered from a religious angle than a trail of someone who attends a mainstream church.

In addition to the above principles, I just noted for the first time that in this screenshot Champ is wearing his plain suit. Might reporters have taken it to be a sort of clerical collar?

I was yelled at once for being a “priest “ sitting with my arm around a “nun” (my wife in a grey cape dress and hanging veil). This and other “experiences” caused my wife to switch to a traditional Capp.

I seldom wear my suit in cases where misidentification is likely to occur. In short the reporter may not know we all dress that way.

[Ernie]

So why did this case go to jury trial?

[Ernie]

It must be a rough time for the family. It looks like a year and a half ago his son and namesake was killed in an accident.

https://leader-statesman.com/stanley-champ/

[Ken]

So why did this case go to jury trial?

Why? Presumably because the defendant chose not to negotiate a plea bargain.

[mike]

Then journalists need to do a better job.

They are doing their job. It is a commercial TV station. Their job is to report news stories that attract and interest viewers. A religious angle does that. Without viewers they have no jobs. As long as they get the facts correct they are free to spin the story with whatever human interest angle they see fit. That is what the news does.

And when plain Mennos pack courtrooms it creates news whether they intend it or not.

In the course of their efforts to attract viewers reporters do often jump to conclusions, misunderstand, sensationalize, and other things. Sometimes this is because they are rushing to get the information out by their publishing deadlines and they literally don’t have time to research properly. And not all stories are equally worth devoting much research to. This doesn’t make reporters bad people necessarily unless you actually bring bad motivations into this mix which sometimes happens because human nature is what it is. It just means we have to keep these things in mind when consuming the news.

[steve-in-kville]

So why did this case go to jury trial?

Why? Presumably because the defendant chose not to negotiate a plea bargain.

If you take a guilty plea, you are admitting guilt.

If you let it go to trail, one can say he was "found guilty" but never admitted the guilt himself.

Basically a game that is played. Understand?

[Ernie]

So why did this case go to jury trial?

Why? Presumably because the defendant chose not to negotiate a plea bargain.

If you take a guilty plea, you are admitting guilt.
If you let it go to trail, one can say he was "found guilty" but never admitted the guilt himself.
Basically a game that is played. Understand?

Yes I understand.

But I am wondering if Champ is claiming innocence... or didn't like the wording of the charges brought against him... or somehow thought the jury would take his side... or????

Does his church think he is guilty or innocent?