Jump to content

A Great Article on The Cadets


Recommended Posts

47 minutes 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.

And if it’s “all about the money” then why are Cadets included if they’re broke? Lot of effort and lawyer fees to get a bunch of old trophies and crap the creditors missed.

statutes may have driven the reason they went civil. But civil is usually money driven or a way to find justice when the criminal options no longer exist. I've often wondered why after 2018 no one went the civil route when the criminal trial failed to produce serious results.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

You shouldn’t need a policy that states DFTK. 

no you shouldn't. but like many things in life, if you don't have it on paper, it gets ignored even more than when you do. And unfortunately it was a very different world 40 years ago.

Edited by Jeff Ream
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

That guy who was your lab partner in High School 40 years ago? Turns out he did something awful back then that just came to light. Why didn't you stop him? You should have known, after all, you worked together. 

Right? I mean, if ignorance isn't a defense. 😎

The Michigan case has zero bearing on this. A mother of a disturbed kid bought him a weapon designed to (checks notes) kill people, after which he (again, to the notepad) killed people. She provided him the tools and had direct responsibility for what happened. 

DCI's office in Chicago had no knowledge of the hiring of the alleged attacker, and certainly no control over the specific incident in which the situation occurred. They had no more implied or specific culpability at that period of time than you did over your lab partner.  The whole suit is filled with "should have knowns" as the basis for the complaint, and in front of a jury, if it finally gets that far, they are going to have to prove that belief with something besides shoulda/coulda/woulda.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

statutes may have driven the reason they went civil. But civil is usually money driven or a way to find justice when the criminal options no longer exist. I've often wondered why after 2018 no one went the civil route when the criminal trial failed to produce serious results.

Yep and I was thinking the “way to find justice when criminal options no longer exist” given Cadets financial situation.

When Westshore let lot of minors and females in it scared bunch of people. Worry was “little Billy and Suzie get busy on a corps trip and we get sued. What the #### are they going to get? A broken drum stick and couple of trophies?”. Think a Bill Light quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MikeN said:

I get your point, but I'd argue yes you should.  

Mike

This is a classic example of the difference between theory & practice 

In theory you shouldn’t need a DFTK policy 

In practice, you do (and this is sad). 
 

This said, I do have personal knowledge of an example from 40 years ago when administrators stepped in and put up barriers so a DFTK situation could not develop.  Not all Corps were negligent.  And no, I will not give details on this forum as individuals involved are still alive & I do not have their permission.  So don’t ask. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

no you shouldn't. but like many things in life, if you don't have it on paper, it gets ignored even more than when you do. And unfortunately it was a very different world 40 years ago.

Was working when Navy started cleaning up its act on sexual harassment, etc. Was told have it on paper and have people sign that they read so no one can pull the “no one told me I couldn’t” BS excuse. Makes it easier legal wise to nail the idiots

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

In theory you shouldn’t need a DFTK policy 

In practice, you do (and this is sad). 
 

This said, I do have personal knowledge of an example from 40 years ago when administrators stepped in and put up barriers so a DFTK situation could not develop.  Not all Corps were negligent.  And no, I will not give details on this forum as individuals involved are still alive & I do not have their permission.  So don’t ask. 

Jim’s Dad did, too.  I think I’ve told the story of a big time staff guy who came to Pride of Cincinnati drum corps, started flirting with the young women and he caught wind of it. He told the guy he was done and took him to the airport.  But he didn’t tell anyone else, as in the other drum corps as far as I know, so the guy probably did the same thing at the next stop. Didn’t even last a weekend. Sicko.

This guy is dead but I’m still not going to say his name.  His wife is still around. 
 

 

Edited by Terri Schehr
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

This is a classic example of the difference between theory & practice 

In theory you shouldn’t need a DFTK policy 

In practice, you do (and this is sad). 
 

This said, I do have personal knowledge of an example from 40 years ago when administrators stepped in and put up barriers so a DFTK situation could not develop.  Not all Corps were negligent.  And no, I will not give details on this forum as individuals involved are still alive & I do not have their permission.  So don’t ask. 

When I marched in the early 1990's, a 26 year old percussion instructor (caption head) from my corps was in an active relationship with an 18 yr old guard member. The relationship was known to corps leadership and nothing was done. I don't know if they legally COULD do anything, given the age of the member. The corps is highly successful and still active, as is the former instructor. No barriers, apart from "the speech" about separate sleeping for male and female members, were ever established at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ykw said:

 

Of course it's about the money.   

Sometimes, Money is the only way some individuals or organizations feel or get any punishment for wrongdoing. Statute of Limitations likely has run out. What other recourse is there if one wants any sense of justice to occur?

 

As other have said, regardless of the eventual outcome, a lot of dirty laundry will be aired....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...