Aaron Imholte / Steel Toe Morning/Evening Show / "The Toe Boys" / r/steeltoeboringshow - Disgraced Minnesotan radio host turned racist Internet shock jock. Cuckold chef de Spaghetti-os, "2-2" boxing "coach". Has a legion of a-logs. Lost his wife to a coke addict he played "Strip Twister" with. Fined $50 for sharing nudes of Kayla Rekieta.

[Captain Manning]

I think the result of a jury trial is unpredictable. This is why Aaron should take the low risk option of the misdemeanor. It is not like he will be besmirching some reputation white as the driven snow. He's a known fuckup.

I agree.

The only thing I can think of is that he either doesn't want to give Nick the satisfaction of a slight W, or the prosecutor insists on some sort of jail time because of his prior recent conviction over the HRO.

But whatever they offered him as punishment for the misdemeanor, it certainly pales in comparison to what he could potentially get for the felony. Along with everything else a felony conviction entails. Nick was lucky that his fuck up, though significantly worse, is his first one. Aaron does not have that luxury anymore.

Also, he needs to STOP DOING RETARDED SHIT ON AIR. That's why he got fired from radio. That's why he was convicted of an HRO violation (him and April talking shit about his ex-wife). That's why he's in this mess.

I don't have some deep seated hatred of Aaron like some people, but it's not hard to see why he's a lolcow and deserving of this thread.

i dont know if you guys know this, but Nick isnt the one on trial. His degeneracy will likely have no effect on Aarons case.

I don't know if you know this or not, but what happened and was agreed to (or not) in that degenerate polycule, and their degenerate Signal group, is at the very heart of this case.

 

[AnOminous]

i dont know if you guys know this, but Nick isnt the one on trial. His degeneracy will likely have no effect on Aarons case.

You're dumb. You're just dumb. Do you not grasp that if a jury hates the witnesses against you more than they hate you, they're going to find in your favor? You're just a stupid dumbfuck.

But let's just quit pretending this is going to trial. Aaron, unless he is a total moron, will take whatever deal they're offering so long as it doesn't involve prison.

 

[Legato]

According to Ethan Ralph the prosecutor for Aaron is the same prosecutor he had and in his words "Theyre sick of this internet shit"

Make of that what you will.

 

[Dixieland Buckaroo]

According to Ethan Ralph the prosecutor for Aaron is the same prosecutor he had and in his words "Theyre sick of this internet shit"

Make of that what you will.

Why would anyone believe Ralph? On anything? And why would they tell Ralph anything? I'm sure they were sick of Ralph's womanly whining to the court. There's no way they talked about Aaron's case to a feral hog.

Typical piggertits bullshit. Maybe that also came to him in a dream.

 

[AnOminous]

Why would anyone believe Ralph? On anything? And why would they tell Ralph anything? I'm sure they were sick of Ralph's womanly whining to the court. There's no way they talked about Aaron's case to a feral hog.

Nevertheless, it was actually the same prosecutor who went after Ralph, and the same judge who brought Ralph to heel (something Ralph doesn't mention nor how he groveled to that judge).

I have no opinion about any other of his statements other than that they come from a hollerin hog.

 

[Potentially Criminal]

i dont know if you guys know this, but Nick isnt the one on trial. His degeneracy will likely have no effect on Aarons case.

I don't know if you know this, but the degeneracy of all four losers is the underlying situation that led to these charges being filed. It's the context of the story.

 

[AnOminous]

Are either Kayla or Nick going to testify? If not, how does this work? At least one of them has to testify as to the supposed expectation of privacy. Nick is a completely uncharismatic asshole at this point and a twitching ghoul for that matter.

Is Kayla going to appear? Will she appear acting like a normal person or as the absolutely insane freak everyone has seen on Nick's streams? The one who has basically abandoned her children to a realm of drugs while living a zombified, pilled-out existence. She watches Star Trek while they starve and stink. Because they can't even get in to do the laundry in the bathroom off the master bedroom, which is reserved for drug ingesting activities.

So they just have to wear whatever they have already. They're afraid to traverse the dangerous territory from the rest of the house, through the drug ingestion area, into where the washing and drying machines are.

But they should totally have figured out how to get past semi-conscious drug addicts like some kind of gauntlet quest to reach the laundry machines past the master bedroom, without getting screamed at insanely by the deranged cocaine troll. You know, this one.

And then obviously they'd have had to face this insane Polyphemus level monster not just to get their clothes washed. They'd have had to move them to the dryer and face this monster again. And since this guy was their dad, they couldn't just finish him and scream "I AM NEMO!" like Odysseus.

But yes, let's just blame Nick's kids for showing up filthy and stinking to school with unwashed clothes. I mean it's totally the Koreans who are responsible for what Nick did, since Nick is NEVER responsible for ANYTHING he does.

 

[Captain Manning]

According to Ethan Ralph the prosecutor for Aaron is the same prosecutor he had and in his words "Theyre sick of this internet shit"

Make of that what you will.

Ethan Ralph?

You're using Ethan Ralph?

Really?

And you've had an account since 2016?

Holy shit.

I chose to make very little of it, actually.

I don't know if you know this, but the degeneracy of all four losers is the underlying situation that led to these charges being filed. It's the context of the story.

Exactly.

Look, I know the people who really hate Aaron (especially the half braindead "it's just jokes, brah" Meltonites) would love this to be a story of evil Aaron victimizing some poor innocent housewife, and mother of five, who bakes apple pies like June Cleaver.

The full truth is this a bit more sordid than that, and they are all covered in shit.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

over-the-hill Gen Xers

God damn; why you gotta do me like that??

(Lol, not in the Dabbleverse, but GenX )

Late on some of the below, but whatever:

I do not believe that is true at all. Nude pictures are illegal to share by default, Aaron has to prove he had a reason to assume otherwise.
At least under Minnesota law that is how I understand the legal standard.

The State has to prove there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.

My point was that whether he got the pic from: the Signal chat, snapping a nude of Kayla, or Kayla sending him a nude is irrelevant if there is evidence that there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and that he wasn't permitted to share it

That part after "privacy" isn't necessarily correct. You don't have an affirmative obligation to say sharing isn't permitted. Circumstances of the photo (did you take it, receive it as a personal "gift," or did you pull it off a public site?) matter. A picture sent to or taken by an intimate partner in a personal/ private space is going to be presumed a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Don't have citations handy, so forgive the 5th-tier reference, but the MN Lawyer Referral service (primary referral service supported by the MSBA and major county bar associations that "provides guided assistance from our staff by phone or online to help you find and hire a private lawyer in the Twin Cities and surrounding metro area") says, on the topic:

The perpetrator knew or should have known the person in the film had a reasonable expectation of privacy based on how the media was recorded. For example, commercial pornography that was made for public and legal sale can’t be considered revenge porn

(emphasis added) Why do they add that flourish? Idk. I'm assuming based on some understanding of the MN caselaw I'm not going to go hunting for...probably. Taking or sharing a pic for intimate partners' enjoyment seems reasonably to have the same expectation of privacy as taking or sharing a pic for an intimate partner's enjoyment. The nature of the relationship(s) is the key: intimate and private to them.

Once you have it in an online group having group sex with each other, I think that seriously dilutes any expectation. Would four people having access to it reasonably expect it to be private? Eight? Twelve? At what point does it become completely unreasonable to expect everyone receiving it to keep it private?

I think your moral view is obscuring the legal one. Two, or four, people can be a "private" scenario - for nudes or otherwise. Nothing about it suggests an implied "cool" about sharing it with others not involved in those intimate interactions.

Aarons going to go to trial in Blue MN, the jury is going to be a bunch of angry liberal blue hair women who are extra mad at men because of Trump.

Aarons fucked.

Outstate MN is Red. And rest of comment is ritardo, not legato.

I think normies would be disgusted by it enough to lack sympathy for anyone involved.

But then you could get some bluehaired jury of redditors or something by pure bad luck. And they'd love the whole idea of polycules and cuckoldry and degeneracy in general. Man this world is fucked up lately.

You don't have to love or hate swinging to understand intimate relationships, or the intimate nature of sexual relationships. Even assuming this was a Signal-shared photo, there is absolutely nothing [that we know of] suggesting that permission was granted to share with others.

An intimate photo taken in a non-public place is basically presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We don't know who in the group had previously seen it, if any, or even whether it was shared among them via Signal. But again, even if it had been, find something that says sharing a nude in a closed text group, even without protest, suggests consent to wider dissemination.

 

[Legato]

It can probably also be argued that by sharing the picture on his internet show in front of hundreds (lol) of listeners, This can be seen as an act of vengeance and harassment thus satisfying the felony requirements.

 

[Captain Manning]

It can probably also be argued that by sharing the picture on his internet show in front of hundreds (lol) of listeners, This can be seen as an act of vengeance and harassment thus satisfying the felony requirements.

You are absolutely ridiculous.

He did not share the photo on his internet show in front of (whatever number) of listeners. That claim, worded that way you just did, has a very specific meaning. That the audience saw the photo.

He sent it to Geno's phone, from his phone, in the course of doing his Internet show. The audience never saw the photo.

Had he actually shared the picture widely on his show, you would have a point, but that's not reality.

As an aside, YouTube would have likely effected a community guidelines strike. Nudity for the purposes of sexual gratification is not permitted.

 

[Legato]

You are absolutely ridiculous.

He did not share the photo on his internet show in front of (whatever number) of listeners. That claim, worded that way you just did, has a very specific meaning. That the audience saw the photo.

He sent it to Geno's phone, from his phone, in the course of doing his Internet show. The audience never saw the photo.

Had he actually shared the picture wisely on his show, you would have a point, but that's not reality.

As an aside, YouTube would have likely effected a community guidelines strike. Nudity for the purposes of sexual gratification is not permitted.

Your boy didn't do too bad did he?

 

[Folgers Can]

The first time he got fired as a coach was on September 3 2024, hours after he was arrested on felony charges. I am curious how you missed this.

I'm curious how you missed my not having missed it, as the exact September 3rd clip you mention is the very next one I'd linked with a summary that Aaron was "cut from Thursday nights because he was arrested for a felony earlier that day," not to mention the clip right after that again referencing the September 3rd firing that Scott demonstrably changed his mind about:

2. 9/3/24 Scott's pep talk informs students that Aaron would be cut from Thursday nights because he was arrested for a felony earlier that day, and more or less corroborates Aaron's claim that Scott wasn't so much concerned with Aaron keeping a key to the gym and was more concerned with the key ending up in the hands of a certain drug addict he was associating with, namely "the girl he brought in that was half-ass naked running around" (LOL):

(Timestamp 46:03)


3. 9/26/24 Aaron's assurances that the naked whore will never return apparently changed Scott's mind about cutting Aaron from Thursdays beginning September 3rd, because on Thursday September 26th there's footage of Coach Aaron teaching students in the ring again:

(Timestamp 51:09)

How is this short-lived dustup even interesting? If anything it just shows a prior pattern of Scott being fickle, which makes the apparent 180° from his roasting of Aaron last week to his friendly promo with Aaron yesterday all seem that much less surprising. This is going to get exhausting with Scott becoming as much an unreliable narrator as Aaron.

There it is: the definitive proof of how Aaron lied. None of the below can apply to Arnold, or any other mystery person whose name starts with A.

The first statement applies to Aaron because he coached Thursday nights.
The second statement applies to Aaron because Scott clearly says "Aaron".

1. "You too will not have a Thursday night other(?) coach. USA Boxing background check shut down one of our people." (0:15)
2. "Aaron messed around with me? NO MORE! He screwed it up for you guys trying to get away with anything." (2:01)

The confusion here seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what Aaron claimed about Arnold in the first place. In the context of responding to Pants Maestro and other a-logs claiming that Scott's rant meant that Aaron was "kicked out" of the gym entirely (as opposed to being demoted from coaching duties to an "attendee" as we're learning now), Aaron responded that "a couple other people at the gym" told him that someone else (whom we now know to be Arnold) was indeed "kicked out," and so they surmised that any talk of someone "kicked out" must have been referring to Arnold's troubles going on around the same time.

What he did not say is that none of Scott's rant was about Aaron, as his saying that Scott "was saying two different names" is an explicit acknowledgment that at least some of it admittedly had to be about Aaron, such as your two quotes above that Aaron did not contradict. If anything was a lie (or arguably a brain fart not autistically remembering Scott's clip word-for-word and not bothering to refresh memory by rewatching it), it would only be as narrow as his claim that Scott ever actually said Arnold's name. I'm not hearing Scott saying Arnold either, but it just as easily could have been heard by "a couple other people at the gym" during the part of the clip that was inaudible with people talking over each other, or might have been heard by "a couple other people at the gym" who conflated something said off-camera with what was captured on-camera, resulting in the "couple other people at the gym" relaying to Aaron the claim that he passed along on his show without having any idea whether it was true.

Regardless of whether Arnold's name was ever uttered, there's nothing proving definitively that none of Scott's rant was said with both Arnold and Aaron in mind, and at least two parts of it could have had Arnold in mind:

Also, Wednesday night, Wednesday afternoons are now officially cancelled. We will not have a coach for that. You also too will not have a Thursday night other coach. USA Boxing's background check shut down one of our people.

That's what we're going to do. They do it in prison, we can do it here. They do it in boot camp, we can do it here, and that's how we're going to channel that energy because we're going to get something out of the screw-ups that we have.

I thought Aaron was more of a Thursday guy? Clearly "USA Boxing's background check" would have been referring to Aaron as you note, but why would he refer to "a coach" nixing Wednesdays and then move on to refer to Thursdays being nixed by Aaron, some "other coach," unless he was distinguishing two people that he had in mind? And why would invoking the imagery of boxers training in prison suddenly segue to "the screw-ups that we have" unless it was foremost on his mind that he just lost one guy going back to prison (Arnold) and lost another (Aaron) potentially on the way to prison? No wonder any "couple other people at the gym" telling Aaron about it secondhand might have been confused.

What about on the most recent stream, after Scott said "no more"? Aaron specifically said good things were said about him on this stream. I searched the subtitles and found nothing. I'm sure you'll find something, right?

Funny thing about that: it definitely was on Aaron's Thursday morning show that he said Scott had nice things to say about him in Jon's most recent stream on Wednesday night, and I couldn't find that either, whereas the clip of Scott that definitely fits Aaron's description wasn't until Jon's Thursday night livestream recorded after Aaron's description.

The bungled timing is puzzling, but one scenario I could see happening was that in one of Aaron's conversations with Scott supposedly "every day," Aaron lamented that Scott's pep talk last week really fucked him because the "internet people" Scott despises were reading too much into it, and Scott felt bad enough for Aaron (or just hated Aaron's a-logs enough) to promise Aaron that he'd sneak a retraction of sorts into Jon's next livestream on Wednesday. Then one of two things happened: either A) Scott did do as he promised but boomered it too far off camera to be audible, followed by Scott or Jon texting Aaron something along the lines of "it's done" without bothering to check the video for whether it was audible, or B) Scott forgot to do it altogether and Aaron just relied on Scott's promise when bragging on Thursday morning's show without bothering to check the video first.

In either case, after embarrassing himself on Thursday morning bragging about the clip that never was, Aaron would have had to desperately beg Scott and Jon on Thursday to do it all over again later that night, and be there with them this time so he could make sure that it's done right, resulting in the overly staged "promo" between the three of them on Thursday night. If I'm right that this was their second attempt, or even if it was the first, either way Scott's patience with becoming a pawn in Aaron's PR efforts is all the more reason to expect that he'll be coaching again within days of reinstatement.

• No record of Arnold appears in the SafeSport centralized disciplinary database, as it does for Aaron.
• This person would have been flagged as a result of USA Boxing background check anyway if he was convicted of a felony in 2022.
• His arrest on a parole violation has no relation to passing or failing the background check, as he already would have been flagged due to the felony conviction.

Out of curiosity, has anyone had any luck finding a way to search for USA Boxing registrations in particular with a database like SafeSport's? From Aaron's case we've already seen Scott's lackadaisical approach behaving as if USA Boxing registration is "good enough" while just putting off SafeSport checks as long as humanly possible, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if he treated Arnold the same way. It would appear that he did since he's on tape recently saying "Arnold's insured" when reminding others to get their registrations caught up:

(Timestamp 39:59)

When you're due for dues, same way too. December 31st every one of you are not insured. Right now, Arnold's insured. I see that him and Anthony are the only two. I know if you guys win at the state tournament, you have to be insured by December 29th for next year.

 

[Captain Manning]

Your boy didn't do too bad did he?

And that comment is harassment how?

Specifically, how does it (and I use the official language here as defined under 617.261) "cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person"?

 

[Legato]

And that comment is harassment how?

Specifically, how does it (and I use the official language here as defined under 617.261) "cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person"?

Ask the Stearns county prosecutor.

 

[AnOminous]

I think your moral view is obscuring the legal one. Two, or four, people can be a "private" scenario - for nudes or otherwise. Nothing about it suggests an implied "cool" about sharing it with others not involved in those intimate interactions.

My view may have a moral tinge to it, but it's about how reasonable the expectation of privacy is as the number of intended recipients goes up. I wouldn't say there's some magic number, and four probably wouldn't be it if there were, but when the four involved are all hyper-public exhibitionists who continually overshare about their bizarre, degenerate sex lives, isn't it practically inevitable that this shit is going to become public?

What reasonable person wouldn't have foreseen this and would act shocked when it did?

But again, even if it had been, find something that says sharing a nude in a closed text group, even without protest, suggests consent to wider dissemination.

For all I know, nobody's ever filed such a ludicrous case. And it would really have to be in a relevant court of appeals even to matter to this case, which so far as I know, is a case of first impression in Minnesota.

 

[Melty Butter]

@Potentially Criminal, Geno's really mad at you for you on-point legal explanations.

 

[Gobermental Supervisor]

@Potentially Criminal, Geno's really mad at you for you on-point legal explanations.

These two morons make zero sense.
Geno can't make a fucking point in 15 minutes of clips.

Who can watch this garbage?

 

[Balldo's Gate]

You are absolutely ridiculous.

Specifically, how does it (and I use the official language here as defined under 617.261) "cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person"?

I mean, Aaron's lawyer didn't find that argument ridiculous either since Aaron waived an omnibus hearing where he could have challenged probable cause. Reading the document, the only things that could possibly apply are the various references to Aaron's comments on his show. I don't really understand the point of waiving the hearing like that, but whatever.

It would appear that he did since he's on tape recently saying "Arnold's insured" when reminding others to get their registrations caught up:

I think that just referred to his athlete membership. If you go to where Scott divides the coaches into "tier one" and "tier two", with Aaron being in the latter category, I believe the "tier one" category are all ones with their non-athlete coach membership including the background check and SafeSport test.

Quite a few people got absolutely buck broken by Rackets' W in court that they've started alogging the Toe extra hard in hopes of getting the felony conviction drama they wanted from Nick.

Other than Nick, I don't think many people expect that to happen. Aaron will eventually take the plea when his delusions that eventually everyone involved in the case will magically decide to love him and the case will go away evaporate shortly before trial.

 

[Captain Manning]

Other than Nick, I don't think many people expect that to happen. Aaron will eventually take the plea when his delusions that eventually everyone involved in the case will magically decide to love him and the case will go away evaporate shortly before trial.

I hope so.

@Haru Okumura just made a damn good point in chat.

The more applicable comparison here is actually to Ralph's crime, and not Nick's. Given the subject matter of the charge.

It'll be ridiculous if Ethan Ralph can spread a video far and wide of himself shoving his thumb up an autistic girl's asshole, followed by him either sniffing and/or eating da poo-poo, and get off on a misdemeanor with probation, but Aaron goes to prison for what he did.

You can go watch the Faith sextape right now (I don't recommend it, BTW). Nobody has seen this Kayla pic because it was apparently only shared with Geanu and they apparently deleted the image.

I think the key here is knowing when to fold. A skill Ethan has learned well. Aaron is now at that point.