A minor cannot give consent. At least in my state.
7 Likes
Obviously. But this is so much more than that.
2 Likes
Yes it is.
1 Like
Is it just me, or has nobody pointed out how tone deaf and horrifying and also completely nonsensical and potentially chilling this quote is?
âThe Plaintiff and those supporting her are seeking to destroy a young manâs rising career for the sake of advancing othersâ unwarranted gain. We believe that judges, juries and arbitrators now understand that lives should not be destroyed by sordid stories. That is why there will be no compromise in resolving this case.â
On what planet does accusing someone of rape lead to âunwarranted gainâ, or to âgainâ of any type? If anything, it exposes you to undue scrutiny, which is why most donât disclose. (Not, because of, as @hut-ho78 claims, murder/beatingsâŠ)
43 Likes
Lawyers work hard to spin the story to their clients favor. In these kind of cases it can look icky.
Facts will prevail I hope.
12 Likes
Thatâs not a very fair comment on your part.
My own history aside I speak from the point of view of having been involved with these types of cases during my long career in law. My responses are measured, accurate, and are made for informational purposes only without favor to either side. How can I favor a side? I donât have enough information. But as always I pray for justice to prevail.
20 Likes
It seems to me that this lawyer has a habit of filing civil suits when the victims do not get the SS outcomes they wanted. The real question, is this a flaw in Safe Sports process or does it indicate some particular motivations of the lawyer?
3 Likes
Hugs @erinmeri .
This case likely triggers much for many folks.
With my generation, as a teen, it was not uncommon for kids to party. And bad things did happen at times. Awful things. And the way that works, sometimes, is that only the two people directly involved know what happened in private.
I know that some teen girls from my generation didnât bother to report any of the bad things that happened when underaged kids were drinking, etc. Because they had no hope of any prosecution. Or civil suit. There was no SafeSport. Speaking up almost always gets messy and really ugly in situations like this.
Anyways⊠take a deep breath. Try and tune out the negative, and focus on some of the positive changes in society. Many people are more careful and empathetic when talking about these situations. Not all. But many.
And though SafeSport is imperfect⊠itâs something. Hopefully they can effectively investigate this situation, and an appropriate outcome is the result.
16 Likes
I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully they wonât ruin this thread.
8 Likes
Ok. I am going to disengage. Some of what you have said, I find offensive but I wonât rise to your bait.
6 Likes
Isnât he also representing Maggie Kehring, whose abuser was Investigated by safesport and ultimately banned and also is being prosecuted criminally? The family is suing for damages for their daughterâs profound emotional and physical distress, as well they should.
3 Likes
Iâm sorry if you were offended. That was not my intent.
10 Likes
I was under the impression it was one of the McDonald victims. That ban was overturned. However, ultimately it stands to reason that if both civil lawsuits and SS use a âpreponderance of the evidenceâ then the outcomes should, in theory, be the same.
1 Like
Ah, see, no, they shouldnât because the finders of fact in the two cases are not the same. âA preponderance of the evidenceâ means different things to different people which is why juries have more than one member.
Here, one is a determination made by investigators and is not necessarily a unanimous decision. The other must be at least a majority of a selected group of individuals from society at large.
If what you said is true, every defendant in a criminal trial would be found guilty, because in every case the prosecutor and the grand jury thought there was enough evidence of guilt. And yet in many, the jury disagrees.
16 Likes
A quick Google shows he was a lawyer for one of the complainants against Flintridge/Jimmy Williams. As well as a suit against southern CA Catholic churches. This seems to be an area of specialty, equine and not.
I hope that leads to the victimâwho if my math is correct could still be a minor?âfinding justice.
4 Likes
Fair. I deleted the post. Sorry, I found the whole thing to be triggering.
2 Likes
Criminal trials have different standards in what it takes to be indicted and what it takes to be found guilty at trial. And even criminal trials seem to be highly manipulated into getting specific verdicts these days.
As for different fact finders = different outcomes, then I guess that is why I donât like SS. If you are going to ban someone, your evidence had better be clear cut enough that everyone will see it your way otherwise itâs a pretty arbitrary decision.
1 Like
Thank you, and I apologize! I was disgusted by their quote and that biased my interpretation of what you had said. Iâm sorry.
As for their quote⊠Rapes are hugely underreported and studies suggest only about 5% of reported rapes may be baseless. Victims have little to âgainâ coming forward. IMO, in this day and age, better to deny the allegations and say youâre cooperating and leave it at that. I donât think the quote did them any favors.
18 Likes
Thatâs what it was Heâs the one representing people suing Flintridge, as well as the Jane Does suing Bob McDonald.
And yes⊠this is his specialty. Heâs a serious lawyer.
2 Likes
The McDonald case is really weird. It fell apart behind the scenes, and from news reports, it sounded like the victims lost faith and trust in the SafeSport investigator, and stopped cooperating. The case was administratively closed by SS. The victims found an attorney to represent them instead, and are going the civil route. Depending on the outcome of that, SafeSport might reopen the matter . It remains to be seen.
3 Likes
