Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Fondling Tigger aka Goofy Shover

Sounds like Disney is trying to get rid of the man for tarnishing their name. Geez if people only knew the real **** Disney does....
My kids for one will never visit Disneyland and never own a Disney flick.
 
When the t.v. news broke the story, I was amazed that anyone would know that Chartrand was doing that character. It's almost as if they pointed out who he was or people have been following his every movement.

I'm still surprised that they put him back in a character costume but I suppose his face is too well-known now for anything else.
 
Disney just doesn't seem to be able to stay out of the negative news arena. There is usually two sides to every story, we will just have to see how this plays out. Michael should have listened to his lawyer and not return. He is bound to be a target based on the previous fondling charge of a minor.
 
The charge of "fondling a 13 year old girl" makes the guy sound sick, but being a perv is totally unrelated to random violence, even if its just walking up to people and pushing them.

Sick? Yes. Violent as well? Me thinks this charge is bs.
 
Abstract said:
The charge of "fondling a 13 year old girl" makes the guy sound sick, but being a perv is totally unrelated to random violence, even if its just walking up to people and pushing them.

Sick? Yes. Violent as well? Me thinks this charge is bs.
Click to expand...

Of course. I'm not sure how you can fondle anyone with big floppy gloves which don't really let you feel anything.

I also can't imagine that barely pushing someone in fun is really violent.
 
Really want to see how this one plays out. As it was said there are always two sides to a story. Yet, I can't believe that this guy would do anything to jeopardize his job.

No matter what the courts decided some will always think him as a pervert. And the Kodak employees may harbor those feelings, and used it as an excuse to get him fired. They most likely would know who was in costume at the time.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
Really want to see how this one plays out. As it was said there are always two sides to a story. Yet, I can't believe that this guy would do anything to jeopardize his job.

No matter what the courts decided some will always think him as a pervert. And the Kodak employees may harbor those feelings, and used it as an excuse to get him fired. They most likely would know who was in costume at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks, that's very possible. Many people around here seem quite closed-minded and might do that.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
Really want to see how this one plays out. As it was said there are always two sides to a story. Yet, I can't believe that this guy would do anything to jeopardize his job.

No matter what the courts decided some will always think him as a pervert. And the Kodak employees may harbor those feelings, and used it as an excuse to get him fired. They most likely would know who was in costume at the time.
Click to expand...

I happen to be open minded about the story. He was found not guilty and I accept that decision. I give him and Disney for continuing his job. Probably the Kodak employees were aware that it was him, they were out to try and cause trouble. I think that type of action is wrong, but that closed minded type is among us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back