Charles Pugh found in NY. Confronted about crude texts. Oh my....

**SpartanDawg** · May-05-14, 10:08 PM

This should be interesting... really shocked to see he even cooperated and gave any sort of interview..

http://deadlinedetroit.com/articles/...w#.U2hSMV7CO9Y

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-05-14, 10:27 PM

I despise Mr. Pugh for the wrongdoing and also for perpetuating terrible and generally untrue stereotypes about gay men. If I met him in NYC I would grab his skinny ass, throw him in a van, and drive him back to Detroit to face the press, his accuser, and a little shame for the cowardly way he skipped town after at least trying to woo and buy a teenage boy. Creepy as all hell.

**Pazen Hingree** · May-05-14, 10:58 PM

from the looks of it, he was not cooperating with the interview. more like he was trying to get the heck away and the reporter stuck with him.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local-news/...p-with-student

**stasu1213** · May-06-14, 07:00 AM

I am beginning to feel that is is another reason why he left. I don't condone what he had done. He should had never been a mentor especially if he could not control his urges. How did the reporter was able to find him in that big city? The reporter should had asked why did he leave without giving an apology for bailing ship to those who voted for him and the rest of the city to whom he was responsible for. He had taken an oath

**Django** · May-06-14, 07:21 AM

Just another man who let his dick do the thinking, its not all that uncommon. Im sure Pugh meant well starting the leadership program but fell for another man he was mentoring. I'm not saying it was right but Ross Jones going all the way to NY City to air out his dirty laundry for a paycheck is kind of a dick move in itself. Let the man be. I think its pretty obvious he knows he f upped. On the other hand maybe it would be best if he made an apology for his actions and just came clean. Was the young man not an adult ? Im not sure if he was ever 17 when it happened.
He was definitely mugged for that interview. I wonder if he will be able to keep his job waiting tables now. Ross got paid and got a trip to NYC which IMHO is the real story here. Like I said, let the man be.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-06-14, 08:11 AM

Django, I could not disagree more. Part of being a grown up is taking responsibility for your actions. After you've done that, you get to make your fresh start. At the very least, he engaged in professionally inappropriate contact with the young man. What we don't know- because he left town and attempted to thwart any investigation- is how old the young man was when the inappropriate texting began, whether there was contact beyond texting, whether he was inappropriate with anyone else [[sex predators almost never act only once), and whether he properly worked as a mentor at all or if it was just an attempt to meet young men.

Aside from that, he of course abandoned his responsibilities with regards to his city council seat, and I presume, may have left other obligations unfulfilled [[he didn't even return to his house to get his things). His irresponsibility [[let alone potential sex offenses) has yet to be dealt with, apologized for, or have any other resolution. He should return to town, cooperate with any investigations, specifically answer any and all allegations, apologize to the city's voters, and settle any remaining affairs in Detroit. Then, and only then, would I agree that we should let the man be. You don't get to screw up lots of things [[including your own life, yes, but lots of things affecting others, too) and walk away without consequences.

**Hypestyles** · May-06-14, 10:08 AM

In an issue of Between the Lines some months ago, http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=64699 there was a feature article about the Pugh situation. It included a lot of the text messages, and gave a brief overview of his career leading up to the texting incident. There were observations on his“dual role model” status as a black, gay public figure in Detroit [[i.e., hiring LGBT folks to work on his staff, participating in certain “Pride”-related events). Toward the end of the article, it offered the rhetorical question of whether Pugh could “make a comeback” in Detroit at some point.
I don’t think that he can make a comeback in Detroit, and it would be best for him to move on, geographically. The way that he “vanished” was ethically indefensible, to me. But at this point, he’s not under any kind of criminal indictment [[and who knows how the civil suit will proceed), so he’s technically entitled to not engage at all with Detroit anymore. As much as a Barbara Walters-style “coming clean” interview might be cathartic for anyone who felt burned by the guy, I just don’t see it happening in the immediate future.

**iheartthed** · May-06-14, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Hypestyles

In an issue of Between the Lines some months ago, http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=64699 there was a feature article about the Pugh situation. It included a lot of the text messages, and gave a brief overview of his career leading up to the texting incident. There were observations on his“dual role model” status as a black, gay public figure in Detroit [[i.e., hiring LGBT folks to work on his staff, participating in certain “Pride”-related events). Toward the end of the article, it offered the rhetorical question of whether Pugh could “make a comeback” in Detroit at some point.
I don’t think that he can make a comeback in Detroit, and it would be best for him to move on, geographically. The way that he “vanished” was ethically indefensible, to me. But at this point, he’s not under any kind of criminal indictment [[and who knows how the civil suit will proceed), so he’s technically entitled to not engage at all with Detroit anymore. As much as a Barbara Walters-style “coming clean” interview might be cathartic for anyone who felt burned by the guy, I just don’t see it happening in the immediate future.

IAWTC. Detroit media has a tendency to follow political figures well past the expiration date of the story, for whatever reason.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-06-14, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

IAWTC. Detroit media has a tendency to follow political figures well past the expiration date of the story, for whatever reason.

Detroit media follow stories people will watch or read. When battling personal demons, you can choose when, where, and how to start over. When you've wronged other people [[teenagers, taxpayers, voters, creditors, etc), those people have a say in the disposition of your past. Pugh cowardly ran away, and I would bet good money that he is working at a restaurant where he takes home cash, so that he has no lien-able assets. That is ongoing avoidance of responsibility. I will respect the man's right to move on to a new future for himself when he confronts the people and problems he left behind. He is in no way a victim; he is a miscreant, embarrassment, potential felon, and coward. If anyone wants to pursue him about the abandonment of his responsibilities, debts left behind, and lingering questions about completely inappropriate and potentially criminal dealings with one or more minors, more power to them.

As for the assertion that he faces no criminal investigation, we have no appropriate way of knowing that. Detroit and/or state police or investigators would not be doing their job if they didn't investigate the phone records of Pugh and any boys he has mentored, and interview the boys and their parents. And sending or soliciting sexual content to or from a minor over the phone is a federal felony regardless of a state's age of consent. Refusing to speak to officials and moving out of state [[so quickly you left all your stuff behind!) is not proof of wrong doing, but it is suggestive of a need to dig further. Charles Pugh would be a true anomaly if he only targeted this one boy, and only after he turned 18. Not the m.o. of sex offenders.

**SDCC** · May-06-14, 11:30 AM

The article stated the victim was 18

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-14, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by SDCC

The article stated the victim was 18

Not @ the time of the tex'n he wasn't. He turned 18 shortly after.

**SDCC** · May-06-14, 12:51 PM

I wasn't sure...so what is the age of consent for a male in the state of Michigan?

**iheartthed** · May-06-14, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

Detroit media follow stories people will watch or read.

Probably. I wonder what it says about the audience that stories about public figures who have long left Detroit behind continue to get so much attention...

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-14, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

IAWTC. Detroit media has a tendency to follow political figures well past the expiration date of the story, for whatever reason.

I'm sorry but I don't consider this situation a "whatever reason", or the story "expired". You have the former City Council president, propositioning a minor, he was supposed to be mentoring, then fleeing the State.

**iheartthed** · May-06-14, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I'm sorry but I don't consider this situation a "whatever reason", or the story "expired". You have the former City Council president, propositioning a minor, he was supposed to be mentoring, then fleeing the State.

What new information has been added to the story that we haven't known for the past 10 months?

**bailey** · May-06-14, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by SDCC

I wasn't sure...so what is the age of consent for a male in the state of Michigan?

Age of consent for sex for anyone is 16 in Michigan. Problem in Pugh's case is that he was connected with the school where the kid went while the kid was there. in that case, it's 18 for the kid. But again that is for the actual sexual conduct...which i think i read that if it happened, didn't happen until he was 18. skeevey text messages are not CSC...

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · May-06-14, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Age of consent for sex for anyone is 16 in Michigan. Problem in Pugh's case is that he was connected with the school where the kid went while the kid was there. in that case, it's 18 for the kid. But again that is for the actual sexual conduct...which i think i read that if it happened, didn't happen until he was 18. skeevey text messages are not CSC...

I didn't convict Mr. Pugh of the young man's accusations. But the public does not know [[the police may or may not know) for certain what the boy's age was at their first contact, and when the creepy texts began [[and other contact; he definitely had alone time and phone conversations with the boy, in addition to the texts). The information now known about the texts is also just cause to vigorously look into his relationship with the other boys Pugh had contact with. Mr. Pugh- by instantaneously fleeing the jurisdiction and refusing to willingly set foot back in Michigan- is hardly demonstrating the behavior of someone who has not committed a crime. Age of consent is relevant to statutory rape charges; it is not relevant to charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, soliciting a sex act, or federal telecommunication anti-child abuse laws [[sending or soliciting nudie pics of someone under 18 will get you federal time, even if it was the day before his 18th birthday and happened only once). If he has nothing to fear, he should return to answer the charges. I suspect he has not returned to avoid arrest, and to avoid being served in a lawsuit by either creditors or boy[[s) he may have taken advantage of. He can prove neither of those things will happen by returning.

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-14, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What new information has been added to the story that we haven't known for the past 10 months?

He's a waiter in NY. I think what he did is wrong, [[and apparently so does Mr. PU) and I don't think this should be "let go", or the law should "let him be".

**Honky Tonk** · May-06-14, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

Age of consent for sex for anyone is 16 in Michigan. Problem in Pugh's case is that he was connected with the school where the kid went while the kid was there. in that case, it's 18 for the kid. But again that is for the actual sexual conduct...which i think i read that if it happened, didn't happen until he was 18. skeevey text messages are not CSC...

What's the legal age for offering a kid, @ least half your age, money to show you a close-up of his naked body and private parts? Am I now allowed to proposition 16 year old cheerleaders? I can just see the posts on this forum from that.

**iheartthed** · May-06-14, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

He's a waiter in NY. I think what he did is wrong, [[and apparently so does Mr. PU) and I don't think this should be "let go", or the law should "let him be".

Was finding out that he's a waiter worth sending a news crew from Detroit to New York? What insightful news did you learn that you did not know about him last summer, other than he's a waiter now? Is he charged with a crime? Does he owe Detroit money? Or is this just a ratings gimmick by the news media?

To each their own but I think this is just a distraction. If the prosecutors aren't going to charge him with a crime then the story has run its course.

**bailey** · May-06-14, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

I didn't convict Mr. Pugh of the young man's accusations. But the public does not know [[the police may or may not know) for certain what the boy's age was at their first contact, and when the creepy texts began [[and other contact; he definitely had alone time and phone conversations with the boy, in addition to the texts). The information now known about the texts is also just cause to vigorously look into his relationship with the other boys Pugh had contact with. Mr. Pugh- by instantaneously fleeing the jurisdiction and refusing to willingly set foot back in Michigan- is hardly demonstrating the behavior of someone who has not committed a crime. Age of consent is relevant to statutory rape charges; it is not relevant to charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, soliciting a sex act, or federal telecommunication anti-child abuse laws [[sending or soliciting nudie pics of someone under 18 will get you federal time, even if it was the day before his 18th birthday and happened only once). If he has nothing to fear, he should return to answer the charges. I suspect he has not returned to avoid arrest, and to avoid being served in a lawsuit by either creditors or boy[[s) he may have taken advantage of. He can prove neither of those things will happen by returning.

First of all, the police know. They know because it's what the "victim" has told them. They know because they have all the text messages between them and the contact happens after 18. IIRC, Pugh says as much multiple times.

look, you can't contribute to the delinquency of a minor when they are over 18...because THEY AREN'T A MINOR.

Second, you have convicted him of child molestation because you want to drag him here and investigate any relationship he may have had. the issue you've continually ignored is that there are no "charges" he needs to return to answer for and there are no other accusations for the police to investigate. That ends the investigation. Even chicken hawks have rights....until he's charged, he's under obligation to do exactly jack and shit about his reputation here.

I'd be there with you if any prosecutor brought a case or we were talking about questionable contact with 9th graders, but come on.. the kid was 18 and even the Oakland county prosecutor didn't bring charges. And if you think they wouldn't bring charges on the slimmest of chance of getting the scalp of a Detroit city councilman for something like this...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Who has done anything? the second or third lawyer Mom was able to get to take it. And IIRC all that has been filed a year later is a notice filed in the BK court that they might file suit sometime in the future against the city.

Pugh short circuited the process, sure. But really, if there are no charges coming, what did he do but cut to the chase? No one is getting a payday. Everyone knows what happened....and it's nothing that isn't going on right this second all around the world. A guy with some tiny bit of celebrity and cache [[and cash) bought some barely legal tail.
How much more flogging of this dead horse are we going to do at this point? he'll never have a career, life, or any influence to peddle in exchange for tail anywhere ever again. He went from local celeb, to City Council President to a waiter.

I'm not defending his galactically stupid actions, just saying there is no "there" there. It's a dead issue. It's click bait.

**bailey** · May-06-14, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

What's the legal age for offering a kid, @ least half your age, money to show you a close-up of his naked body and private parts? Am I now allowed to proposition 16 year old cheerleaders? I can just see the posts on this forum from that.

Um. well, re: the pictures, anything under 18 is "child" for purposes of the Michigan statute. So yes, a little strange that you can proposition that 16 yr old for sex but not make a sex tape of your legal sex act.

[[although, more to your question of propriety, I think the common rule of thumb is don't go younger than half your age+7... you just end up looking creepy)

Pursuant to the kids own testimony and the text messages, he was 18 when he made the video.

**SDCC** · May-06-14, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by MikeyinBrooklyn

If he has nothing to fear, he should return to answer the charges. I suspect he has not returned to avoid arrest, and to avoid being served in a lawsuit by either creditors or boy[[s) he may have taken advantage of. He can prove neither of those things will happen by returning.

What was he charged with?
or do you mean return to answer accusations?
If he was charged then he is a fugitive from justice.
Also Mikey I hear your concerns, and I'm not debating his poor choice of judgement.

**sumas** · May-06-14, 03:18 PM

Frankly hope he stays the hell away from. He would surely get mugged. The only value to this story is the assurance he isn't here lurking in our alleys.

**softailrider** · May-06-14, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by bailey

First of all, the police know. They know because it's what the "victim" has told them. They know because they have all the text messages between them and the contact happens after 18. IIRC, Pugh says as much multiple times.

look, you can't contribute to the delinquency of a minor when they are over 18...because THEY AREN'T A MINOR.

Second, you have convicted him of child molestation because you want to drag him here and investigate any relationship he may have had. the issue you've continually ignored is that there are no "charges" he needs to return to answer for and there are no other accusations for the police to investigate. That ends the investigation. Even chicken hawks have rights....until he's charged, he's under obligation to do exactly jack and shit about his reputation here.

I'd be there with you if any prosecutor brought a case or we were talking about questionable contact with 9th graders, but come on.. the kid was 18 and even the Oakland county prosecutor didn't bring charges. And if you think they wouldn't bring charges on the slimmest of chance of getting the scalp of a Detroit city councilman for something like this...well, I don't know what to tell you.

Who has done anything? the second or third lawyer Mom was able to get to take it. And IIRC all that has been filed a year later is a notice filed in the BK court that they might file suit sometime in the future against the city.

Pugh short circuited the process, sure. But really, if there are no charges coming, what did he do but cut to the chase? No one is getting a payday. Everyone knows what happened....and it's nothing that isn't going on right this second all around the world. A guy with some tiny bit of celebrity and cache [[and cash) bought some barely legal tail.
How much more flogging of this dead horse are we going to do at this point? he'll never have a career, life, or any influence to peddle in exchange for tail anywhere ever again. He went from local celeb, to City Council President to a waiter.

I'm not defending his galactically stupid actions, just saying there is no "there" there. It's a dead issue. It's click bait.

I agree with what you wrote but he should have come back and done a mea culpa. Give the people something like Kwyme's "imperfect servant" line of bullshit. Everybody ate that up with a spoon - remember?