TheOneWhoKnows Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, JimF-LowBari said: What exactly is this trial going to be about? Is it “we know who did or didn’t do what when, this is only about punishment”? Or is it Cadets and DCI didn’t do what they should have and it needs to be determined what that was? And there still are people out there victim blaming, not that a guilty verdict would change their minds The court documents state the complaint is that the organization knew it was going to happen and didn’t stop it from happening. So really it isn’t even about whether or not it happened, it’s about whether or not those in the organization at the time knew about it and intentionally didn’t stop it. The case skips over whether it actually happened or not. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: The court documents state the complaint is that the organization knew it was going to happen and didn’t stop it from happening. So really it isn’t even about whether or not it happened, it’s about whether or not those in the organization at the time knew about it and intentionally didn’t stop it. The case skips over whether it actually happened or not. And we know what was going on at the top of the organization when the events of the lawsuit were happening …. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 Just now, TheOneWhoKnows said: The court documents state the complaint is that the organization knew it was going to happen and didn’t stop it from happening. So really it isn’t even about whether or not it happened, it’s about whether or not those in the organization at the time knew about it and intentionally didn’t stop it. The case skips over whether it actually happened or not. Thanks for the clarification. So this case is trying to determine who was negligent. (Penn State flashbacks coming back.) Sounds like trying to hold people in the organization responsible. And if can’t have a criminal trial to hold them responsible then hit them in the pocketbook. Or other option of ignoring it. 👎 Personally I’d prefer the individuals be sued and not the current organization. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 One would hope that this kicks DCI in the nether regions and they wake up to what needs to be done. Not holding my breath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOneWhoKnows Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 minute ago, JimF-LowBari said: Thanks for the clarification. So this case is trying to determine who was negligent. (Penn State flashbacks coming back.) Sounds like trying to hold people in the organization responsible. And if can’t have a criminal trial to hold them responsible then hit them in the pocketbook. Or other option of ignoring it. 👎 Personally I’d prefer the individuals be sued and not the current organization. I agree. I could see wanting to sue the organization in terms of forcing them to acknowledge, apologize, and establish practices for prevention. But going after them for compensation is skirting the personal responsibility of those involved. Granted, there are 10 “John Does” listed on the lawsuit. I can only assume that includes individuals that were prevalent back then. But the big name at the top is Cadets and DCI. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBugler Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, HockeyDad said: Ignorance as a defense. Interesting strategy. Seems like society is increasingly not buying this excuse. As an example, just two weeks ago a school shooter’s mom was found guilty of manslaughter. I know no details about it other than the headlines but I see a parallel. In one case the parent held responsible for the crime committed by the child. In Cadets case the umbrella organization (DCI) being sued for the crime of one of its members. This was, indeed, a landmark verdict against the mother of a disturbed 15 year old who murdered four of his classmates with a gun given to him by his awful parents. They evaded law enforcement when they learned of pending charges against them, and now they're up against it. The father will likely try to plea, based on the mother's conviction, however he's not likely to be offered the opportunity by the prosecution. The mother was represented by the same attorney who represented Larry Nasser, BTW. That attorney was THE WORST in court. These parents were directly responsible for this kid having access to a firearm, and that directly led to the shooting. They're 100% responsible and guilty of manslaughter. The jury bought none of the defense's arguments, nor should they have. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: One could argue loss of money forces better behavior so one doesn’t lose any. I fear the chickens are about to come home to roost for DCI. If they lose they will likely have to put up bond to cover award before any appeal can take place. And this will be happening during the 2024 season. How this would impact their working capital for the season is unclear. But they have travel & facilities to pay for before the gate receipts start to flow in. i just wonder, given the age of the complaint, and the fact DCI had zero policies in place for that back then how hard or not hard they will be hit. let's face it, in that period of time, few if any places had those kind of policies or reporting programs in place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 1 hour ago, Slingerland said: A settlement was almost assuredly offered, and the complainant rejected it. CAE right now doesn't have a pot to pee in, which is why, when the attorney on this suit saw DCI getting added to the SOA case, they decided to follow that path too. But the relationship between DCI and the corps now is very different than it was in 1982, when it could be argued DCI worked for the member corps, rather than having as much oversight as they do today. It'll be a push to make the case that DCI has any liability now for something that happened 40 years ago at an event they had no oversight, knowledge, or control over in the first place. there is a difference between CAE and SOA. DCI had policies in place when it hit Spirit, and they knew and did little to nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 48 minutes ago, TheOneWhoKnows said: It’s just society hungry for lawsuits. If you get into the details of that case regarding the Mother, I think they went way too far in charging her and subsequently a jury finding her guilty. Recklessness? Maybe. Manslaughter in regards to their claims against her? It’s a stretch. And before anyone wants to say “well a jury found her guilty”, a jury verdict isn’t necessarily pure fact, it’s an opinion based on persuasion. so a jury verdict is GE judging? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted February 20 Share Posted February 20 2 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: i just wonder, given the age of the complaint, and the fact DCI had zero policies in place for that back then how hard or not hard they will be hit. let's face it, in that period of time, few if any places had those kind of policies or reporting programs in place. You shouldn’t need a policy that states DFTK. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.