I hereby refuse to support DCI in 2019... who's in?

[Stu]

15 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

First off if you are waiting for immediate danger before you call law enforcement you are waiting too #### long. And I am talking in general not any specific instance.

Second I am only talking about notifying first level law enforcement meaning police. I said nothing about FBI or child welfare.

Lastly you can call the police to report third party contacts for suspected illegal activities. IOW someone told me that... But you’d better tell law enforcement that it is third hand but you think there might be something to it. BTW what is an “invarified gripe”? IMO it’s law enforcements job to verify, not the person hearing it to check then maybe call

Still waiting for you to cite the actual damaging information rececived by Dan and the DCI front office, other than letters and voicemails of innuendo third party or disgruntled people, which had actually risen to the level for them at the top corporate level to actually call local police in jurisdictions where the corps were located. Please cite.

[JimF-LowBari]

10 minutes ago, Stu said:

Still waiting for you to cite the actual damaging information rececived by Dan and the DCI front office, other than letters and voicemails of innuendo third party or disgruntled people, which had actually risen to the level for them at the top corporate level to actually call local police in jurisdictions where the corps were located. Please cite.

And for the second or third time I am not talking about specific instances. I am talking about the general idea that DCI should not be the ones to determine if reported possible illegal actions are actually illegal. If you don’t understand that idea I can’t help you.

For the record I have no idea if any specific instances were reported. But DCI should have procedures in place in case it does happen. And those procedures should not say “we will check it ourselves”. 

To put it another way, if a member reports a rape should DCI check it first to make sure it’s valid or should they call the cops first?

[Stu]

19 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

And for the second or third time I am not talking about specific instances. I am talking about the general idea that DCI should not be the ones to determine if reported possible illegal actions are actually illegal. If you don’t understand that idea I can’t help you.

For the record I have no idea if any specific instances were reported. But DCI should have procedures in place in case it does happen. And those procedures should not say “we will check it ourselves”. 

To put it another way, if a member reports a rape should DCI check it first to make sure it’s valid or should they call the cops first?

The contention is that Dan dropped the ball. Please show where a rape was reported to Dan and he did nothing.

[JimF-LowBari]

Just now, Stu said:

The contention is that Dan dropped the ball. Please show where a rape was reported to Dan and he did nothing.

Stu I never said anything about how DCI handled anything. What I am saying is I totally disagree with the idea that DCI should investigate any possible illegal activity that occurred under its umbrella. 

And where exactly did I say a rape occurred and it was reported and ignored? Twisting words does not help....

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

I will respond to this one stu as saw the same line of thought with Penn State and I totally disagree with it. It is not DCI or any higher authority to determine if there is enough evidence to get police involved. It is the responsibility of the police and legal system to investigate and determine if further action is needed. Your line of reasoning is making DCI a criminal investigating agency which they are not. It is DCIs job to report (which corps should have done anyway) any suspected wrong doing. And to be clear I am talking about anything possibly illegal.

Not to mention the bias involved of an entity (PSU/DCI) investigating something knowing it could hit their bottom line.

Penn State had evidence. They chose to bury. DCI didn't have nearly as much hard proof to work with

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, MikeRapp said:

Don’t know about that related to Cadets, pretty much everyone knew what a wrecking ball he was on and off the field.

was Hop a personality that caused carnage? Oh yes.

 

did the office no he was possibly a serial rapist? No

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Still waiting for you to cite the actual damaging information rececived by Dan and the DCI front office, other than letters and voicemails of innuendo third party or disgruntled people, which had actually risen to the level for them at the top corporate level to actually call local police in jurisdictions where the corps were located. Please cite.

outside of Stuart Rice in 2002 or 2003, we know of nothing given to Dan or the Board to refer, and Rice's info was so vague, the cops would have brushed it aside. Jim, I know you like to tie everything to Penn State, but the circumstances are wildly different. In fact, Sandusky had been investigated in 98, people had gone to the Central Mountain School District with stuff, you name it. DCI has none of that. You can't keep trying to link the two together because for every similarity, there's some major differences.

 

Now that said...should DCI have had policies in place since, oh I dunno, that meeting in August of 1971? uh, duh. Yes. But unless you know of a DCI version of McQueary, the two need situations aren't close to comparable.

[JimF-LowBari]

19 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Penn State had evidence. They chose to bury. DCI didn't have nearly as much hard proof to work with

Again I’m not talking about any specific incident. Just the idea of an entity checking itself for illegal activity goes against my beliefs. And that is ALL I am talking  about. Too many years of conflict of interest training  probably. And brought up PSU as they are the poster child for self checking and saying “nah we’re good”, iow CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

And DCI checking itself... well DCI is the corps lol

seriously how did any one get the idea I was posting about DCI investigating specific incidents. Especially since I kept saying I wasn’t.

Edited March 12, 2019 by JimF-LowBari

[Stu]

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Stu I never said anything about how DCI handled anything. What I am saying is I totally disagree with the idea that DCI should investigate any possible illegal activity that occurred under its umbrella. 

And where exactly did I say a rape occurred and it was reported and ignored? Twisting words does not help....

And I never said DCI was the authority investigative body. All I said was that there was no verifiable credible evidence whatsoever presented to Dan which would warrent him calling the police. And the DCI policy set up by the member corps prevented him from dealing with individual internal affairs with individual corps. Thus his actions, or non actions, were correct.

[JimF-LowBari]

37 minutes ago, Stu said:

And I never said DCI was the authority investigative body. All I said was that there was no verifiable credible evidence whatsoever presented to Dan which would warrent him calling the police. And the DCI policy set up by the member corps prevented him from dealing with individual internal affairs with individual corps. Thus his actions, or non actions, were correct.

Ok here is the crux of my disagreement: you say DCI had no verifiable credible evidence. Who decides that what they have is credible? I’m reading that “who” as Dan since it was presented to him. Or what am I missing. There needs to be an outside group to oversee checking allegations of a criminal nature. That’s all I’m trying to say. 

And I won’t say Penn State to keep Jeff happy lol

See it no different than going to a company and saying something illegal is going on in the company. And their response is “the company president looked into it and we’re clean”. Give ya a warm and fuzzy feeling yet...

Edited March 12, 2019 by JimF-LowBari