The Cadets are being sued by a former member for alleged sexual abuse in the 80s

[scheherazadesghost]

6 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

I'm not victim blaming. I'm merely stating facts. This case is seeking compensation. The organization simply doesn't have the funds to be paying out compensation. Therefore, the organization will have to file bankruptcy and fold. It's simple facts. 

I didn't say you were. I said your argument is proximal enough to it to make me unwilling to agree to your line of thinking... which includes several assumptions about plaintiff motivation. Including those based on the opinions of the defendants.

Further, there are several steps along your line of thinking wherein the defendants hold some accountability for potentially folding the org anyway. I simply can't agree that said accountability is all the plaintiff's.

Edited November 16, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[TheOneWhoKnows]

3 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I didn't say you were. I said your argument is proximal enough to it to make me unwilling to agree to your line of thinking... which includes several assumptions about plaintiff motivation. Including those based on the opinions of the defendants.

Further, there are several steps along your line of thinking wherein the defendants hold some accountability for potentially folding the org anyway. I simply can't agree that said accountability is all the plaintiff's.

One can't just buck the reality that without the case at hand the organization had a greater chance of being able to continue within an activity that isn't easy to keep afloat monetarily. Whether right or wrong, factual or not, the case will be the ultimate downfall. That isn't victim blaming. This could have been a case regarding negligence for a horrific car accident the organization happened to be involved in that would have brought down the organization. The fact is a case was brought and it will be the downfall. 

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, fsthnds said:

And the exodus from Cadets begins. Brian Murphy now working with Academy on their design team.

well if you wanna work, gotta go elsewhere

[scheherazadesghost]

16 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

One can't just buck the reality that without the case at hand the organization had a greater chance of being able to continue within an activity that isn't easy to keep afloat monetarily. Whether right or wrong, factual or not, the case will be the ultimate downfall. That isn't victim blaming. This could have been a case regarding negligence for a horrific car accident the organization happened to be involved in that would have brought down the organization. The fact is a case was brought and it will be the downfall. 

The organization, and others like it, avoided numerous opportunities to seek out more financially stable routes that would've made them more resilient to the necessary accountability headed their ways. That's not on the plaintiff.

The organization, and others like it, missed or avoided opportunities to mediate and resolve heinous issues like this... for decades. That's also not on the plaintiff.

Again, I literally never said you are victim blaming. I said your arguments are proximal to it, in the sense that ultimately by bringing forth such a necessary call for accountability, they are catching blame for the downfall of a whole activity. I'm trying to point out ways in which defendants and their cohort/contemporaries should be catching some of the blame too.

Cause your argument still has a likelihood of deterring victims from stepping forward, and I want to differentiate myself and my arguments from that.

Edited November 16, 2023 by scheherazadesghost
typo

[dbc03]

Even if the victim is primarily motivated by money or just wants to completely take down the org that she believes enabled the assault I don't blame her, I blame the piece of #### who assaulted her 40 years ago.

Those motives are completely understandable given the circumstances even if I think it is ultimately punishing the wrong people for the crime

[craiga]

Yes, considering that NONE of the current Cadets members and most likely most of the instructional staff wasn't even born when this all took place.

The plaintiff should sue the actual offender, not an entirely different organization 40 years removed.

There absolutely IS money driving this, and the word on the street is that this same attorney is lining up additional defendants to belly up to the bar and get a windfall after this first case is settled and the precedent is set.

I have no contacts at Cadets; I just think they are about to be sued into oblivion.

Edited November 16, 2023 by craiga
Spelling

[scheherazadesghost]

Without including the org as a defendant, couldn't the 10 John Does have wiggled out of accountability? Are those 10 John Does the "others responsible" described by posters on this page... the ones posters here are saying should be held accountable?

Doesn't naming the org ensure that some entity can be held accountable ultimately?

I can't exactly give credence to rumors about this case, but isn't it possible that the total harms over time were greater than any this single case could cover? Thus necessitating additional cases?

Edited November 16, 2023 by scheherazadesghost
typo

[TenHut]

40 years later??? 40years???

No.

[MikeN]

46 minutes ago, craiga said:

The plaintiff should sue the actual offender, not an entirely different organization 40 years removed.

There's a bit of a legal argument going on about that, based on the records available.

Mike

[HockeyDad]

3 hours ago, TheOneWhoKnows said:

I'm not victim blaming. I'm merely stating facts. This case is seeking compensation. The organization simply doesn't have the funds to be paying out compensation. Therefore, the organization will have to file bankruptcy and fold. It's simple facts. 

Unless their insurance policy covers it. Or unless the court proceedings don’t end with Cadets having to pay. This is not a forgone conclusion is it?