In BC, there was a guy who murdered his children to keep them from his ex-wife. There was no dispute in the case - he pleaded guilty. Then he got shipped off to prison as expected.
However, within a short time he’d applied for permission to be allowed to go to the local swimming pool and to Starbucks.
He was granted permission to do so because you know, swimming and Starbucks are a basic human right.
There was no warning to the public that the guy in the pool or behind you in line for his venti iced something might be a multiple child murderer.
Oh - and one more thing - the prison they’d moved him to was in the town his ex-wife was living in.
Would you be able to point me to resources that could describe the details and nuances of those cases for better understanding? I would be interested in reading about then in more detail than what an internet search where I can’t tell article with bias from those without.
Look up John Schneeberger. Perfect example of Canadian Justice.
Rapes his patient. She knows but can’t remember. She’s smart enough to save her underwear in her freezer. Cops don’t believe her. They DNA test him, but he injects someone elses blood into a vile into his arm. Case goes no where. They think shes nuts.
Schneeberger starts abusing (raping) his 12 year old step-daughter. By drugging her in her sleep, then rapes her at night. Keeps a box of sex toys lube etc beside her bed. Mom has NO idea. Finally one day, mom finds out, can’t remember how exactly.
Police involved. DNA match to the rape victim. Finally get a supeona to get a DNA test from his mouth (prior ones were at his OK - with his choice of blood and which arm). Get a match, goes to trial and hes found guilty of sexual assault and obstructing justice. Given 6 years.
Total time served? FOUR YEARS. For raping a patient, falsifying DNA tests, and raping a child repeatedly for years.
He’s free, and gone back to South Africa. Canadian Justice.
Not that I’ve read all responses but there’s certainly the factor of assumed risk in the case of course design. The riders get to inspect the course and weigh the risk of injury to their horse and themselves. Its a stretch to conflate that with assuming that competitors should similarly inspect their co-competitors and assess them for risk of sexual assault.
BFNE, I absolutely understand where you’re coming from - but, I don’t think it’s necessary for the various governing bodies to vet every competitor. The way I see it, the goal isn’t to “keep criminals out of the sport” proactively - it’s to give the governing bodies the ability to keep them from competing AFTER they’ve been found “guilty” of behavior that reflects negatively on the sport. (I’m putting guilty in quotes here because it doesn’t require full on legal prosecution.)
By way of example, my main sport nowadays is dog agility. In order to participate, I, as an owner/handler, don’t have to join the AKC - my dog has to be registered, but that’s it. But every single time I enter one of my dogs in a trial, I have to sign an official entry form, which (among other things) says that I “agree to abide by the rules and regulations of the American Kennel Club in effect at the time of this event”. One of those rules (cut and pasted straight from the “Dealing with Misconduct” book is:
CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE SPORT
Proceedings under Article XIV, Section 1, of The Charter and Bylaws of the American Kennel Club, Inc., may involve different types of conduct. One test in connection with any kind of scene or altercation occurring during an event is whether a family attending an event for the first time would be likely to decide, after witnessing such an incident, that the sport is not for them. While the number of people witnessing the incident should be taken into consideration, conduct that is known to only one or two people at an event can also be prejudicial to the sport. Among the kinds of conduct that may occur are: a demonstration of dissatisfaction with a judge’s decision, including refusal to accept a ribbon or throwing a ribbon on the ground;* altercations with officials or participants; abusive or foul language in public; and mistreatment of a dog. If there is any indication that a purportedly abused dog is physically injured, it is the duty of the committee to have it examined as soon as possible by a veterinarian, and a detailed report made of the physical injuries. As in any sport, conduct that may, in the opinion of the committee, be prejudicial to the sport, can take other forms that do not fall within these descriptions.
That last bit that I bolded is the part that covers this kind of issue. I includes activity that takes place away from the direct environment of a trial - it could include things like being convicted of animal abuse or neglect. It doesn’t say that the AKC is going to do background checks on every competitor, but it gives them the right to suspend or ban me from entering their events if I act in ways that make their sport look bad. Their sandbox, their rules. If I don’t like them, then I can go find another sandbox to play in.
I think what you are missing is I’m NOT challenging whether the governing body can ban or suspend someone. Under our existing rules…they absolutely can. For any number of reasons. Just that once you go down that slippery slope of suspending people either when accused or found guilty…you create and expectation that they will be filtering or doing that sort of behavior. Then when they miss someone…it opens it up to liability. THAT is more my point. I don’t want the governing body of my sport expanding their role any more beyond the very basics of rule making for the particular sport. With safe sport now and now suspending people if they have criminal complaints or hell, found guilty of something (where do we draw the line)…I feel it goes too far and exposes themselves too much.’
I’m ALL for society values getting better…rape is horrible. Bullying is bad too. But I have concerns when people start expecting a small mostly volunteer governing body of a very small specialized sport to now also act as an additional police and watch dog.
They just don’t like him. But they faced absolutely no repercussions, after being caught red handed.
There’s always Brian Banks, as well. An NFL career salary - gone. Who should pay that?
It’s not common, sure. But with estimates between 3-10% of claims being demonstrably false (each group having conducted a study has a different number, and understandably the numbers aren’t real because you aren’t 100% sure one way or the other), it’s enough to make sure that we are prepared to answer to those who ARE falsely accused, and have procedures in place for how to handle it. Plus saying “it’s a minute number” and dismissing it is the same as saying “it doesn’t matter.” It does matter. One person stood on the ledge of their entire life being over. The other got a slap on the wrist. That’s wrong.
Let’s say someone is falsely accused. The individual admits they accused Trainer X, and it was an outright lie. What happens to the individual? Should they also be banned/suspended indefinitely? Or do we tell Trainer X “tough cookies, take her to civil court, we don’t deal with this”? How is that fair, do you want someone like the individual competing in the sport?
In a nutshell - are the sport’s governing bodies to police people’s character? Or just particular aspects of their characters? Or just criminal parts? Where does the line get drawn, where you can confidently say “it’s none of their business”?
There’s a good ESPN documentary on the Duke lacrosse thing. It’s part of the 30 for 30 series.
Yes, false accusations are rare. But that needs to be qualified. A rape accuser will make statements about what he/she believes happened. Sometimes there’s physical evidence and violence involved. Sometimes not. Sometimes there’s no evidence besides their word.
The accused might have a very different view of what happened and a different recollection of events.
So yes, we can say false accusations are rare but disputed accusations are not uncommon. This is where the legal process is expected to sort it out.
The most in depth look at the case is a massive book, but it’s well researched. There was a huge political component to the situation. Here the author gives a bit of background and notes that one of the movies made about it was utterly false and simply took all his information, used little of it, and ultimately settled for pushing the story the defense pushed.
With regards to the McDonalds case, yes we all know coffee is hot. The short version is the heater for the carafe was malfunctioning and the coffee was much hotter than was safe. When I worked in a place with similar coffee pots, we had to take the temperature of the coffee every hour to ensure this wouldn’t happen. There was a range. Over the range we didn’t use that warmer.
So while yes yes coffee is hot, it shouldn’t cause those types of injuries if you spill it on yourself.
It’s not about agreeing, rather you arguing a sentence that has been handed down due to a guilty plea because of your perceptions. Maybe I wasn’t clear.
I am also amazed at the disparity people have when it comes to sympathy for violent offenders vs their victims. Not a single person who knows this guy gives one whit if he’s killed in prison. Why would we?
In the USEF Notice of Penalty archives, I can’t remember the date but I’m guessing sometime in the 1990s, there’s a juicy little item about a penalty for two people “acting in an unsportsmanlike manner” when the accused, as members of the Hospitality Committee for a show at Flintridge Riding Club, proceeded to physically assault and beat up one of the competitors. (I understand it was because they were angry that she was using the same music for her freestyle as someone else.) It’s a pretty terse recitation of the situation as they always are, but there was just a little hint of extra facepalm/outrage that snuck through. I imagine the transcripts of that hearing would be pretty interesting.
And that the false reporting rate for rape appears to be about the same as the false reporting rate for all other serious crimes - burglary, armed robbery, assault, murder, etc.
Well, I dont believe anyone deserves to die from blunt force trauma or being stabbed with a shiv, no matter what they did to end up being there.
maybe that makes me a sympathizer. Or maybe that means I have empathy to the end. Who knows.
what I dont agree with is leaving someone who has no hope of rehab to spend 70 years of tax payer dollars. But he/she deserves to go humanely, no matter what.
I’m not sure where you saw me argue anything the the effect you’ve stated. Some conversation in regards to terms served, maybe, in regards to focusing efforts on lengthening rape sentences.
A couple of points that I think are worth making, that perhaps go to the question of if SafeSport and similar accountability efforts are worth doing at all.
I don’t agree with this viewpoint, at all. To me, this sounds like not wanting to do anything at all because we know we can’t do it perfectly.
Our sport is not able to do the job of taking these predators out of circulation on behalf of all society. But that’s not a reason to do nothing. Dam straight it’s worthwhile to at least limit their access to this sport and put a warning label on them.
There is a term, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. In this case, don’t stop adding accountability and protecting the sport just because we can’t do the same beyond the sport.
Actually it’s an interesting idea for background checks generally, in any walk of life - is someone associated with an organized sport, and if so, does that sport have an accountability function. The sport may be picking up on things that the justice system is not.
I really, really disagree with this. Not only do certain predators have leverage, predators abundant opportunity in horse sport, which may mean even more for a predator.
Just based on life experience, there are so many opportunities for predators in equestrian sport to prey on victims that I firmly believe that some of them choose horse sport for that reason. That alone makes SS worthwhile, if only more victims will report.
The barns and show grounds, even day trailers, are a maze of small hidden spaces where a predator can trap a victim. Even if only for a few minutes. Although these spaces may appear to be open and filled with people who would see something, in fact there are many visual obstructions, and everyone is so intensely focused on whatever they themselves are doing that they don’t see or hear what others are doing.
That physical space was apparently a prime function of the Flintridge problems. Young girls were trapped in the stalls, tack rooms and similar spaces. That can happen anywhere in horse sport, and unfortunately it often does.
Parents frequently don’t closely supervise their children at the barn and show grounds. And, trainers often have tremendous leverage because they determine which riders have access to which horses and show opportunities (very much the case in some top h/j show barns). Trainers own those kids who are with them at shows with no parents, and sometimes not even enough money for a hot dog.
Etc. - I could go on. This sport is not a safe place for kids whose parents aren’t paying attention. I deeply wish all parents understood that, it could make such a difference if they did. And it’s not safe for adults who are unknowingly working with the wrong trainer at the wrong time.
We are still waiting for shoes to drop. There are still some big names that may - or may not - join the list of those outed for reprehensible behavior within horse sport. Such behavior is not as uncommon as many of us would like to think, predators have so many opportunities to prey, and because too many predators have known that there is no real accountability for it in horse sport … until recently.
