The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar. 24, 2012
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    No matter how long you have been a lawyer, this statement is still incorrect.


    The article states that an electric shock device was found in the tack room, and there was no explanation offered for its presence. That would be enough to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
    .
    Last edited by Crockpot; Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:58 PM. Reason: fixed quote



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2005
    Location
    The Prairie
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crockpot View Post
    Even so I think you would still have a problem nailing the culprit unless there is only one person at the barn which is why, again, I assume they must have had more evidence than just that.
    A state equestrian society is an administrative body and administrative bodies essentially make their own law and apply their own rules. They do have certain legal principles they have to adhere to (i.e. you have a right to be heard, there has to be an appeal process etc) but if the presence of an electric prod is good enough for them to nail the rider and the owner than it is good enough for them. Typically, the decision of an administrative body can be appealed to a court. Absence of sufficient evidence would be a ground of appeal but the court would still apply a "balance of probabilities standard" v a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard

    Again, I am making a bit of a leap re: Austrian law. What I find confusing is the wording of the article. It says the decision was made by the Tyrolean Equestrian Society (and that would be the body that could suspend her from sport) but that the decision came from the the Innsbruck court. I think something was lost in translation or not entirely correctly reported on. Would not be the first time.
    I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar. 24, 2012
    Posts
    1,976

    Default

    Even with administrative law/regulatory bodies, if it is anything like NA law, as counsel for a regulatory body I would need more than the existance of an object in the tack room to connect it to a specific individual in the barn unless, as I said, there is more evidence or only one person at the barn. I assume there was more evidence.

    Admin bodies may be more lax than the courts re admissibility of evidence but they are still subject to principles of fairness and subject to judical review.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov. 1, 2005
    Location
    The Prairie
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crockpot View Post
    Even with administrative law/regulatory bodies, if it is anything like NA law, as counsel for a regulatory body I would need more than the existance of an object in the tack room to connect it to a specific individual in the barn unless, as I said, there is more evidence or only one person at the barn. I assume there was more evidence.

    Admin bodies may be more lax than the courts re admissibility of evidence but they are still subject to principles of fairness and subject to judical review.

    And yes, I'm very familiar with admin law :-)
    We are at a disadvantage in that we are trying to decipher what the case against her was on the basis of a oddly worded and translated news item. I certainly agree with you that regulatory bodies are subject to principles of fairness and are subject to judicial review. However, I think you have to take into account the purpose and function of the regulatory body. If you are a state equestrian society responsible for the administration of equestrian sport and one of your members gives no reasonable explanation for the presence of an electric prod in the tack room and they don't have any other livestock on the property....I think I would make a finding against them and say...go ahead and appeal if you don't like my ruling. But maybe that's just me
    I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crockpot View Post
    No matter how long you have been a lawyer, this statement is still incorrect.
    Sigh. There was obviously a complaint filed that contained an allegation. The allegation was then substantiated by the finding of the weapon in possession of the suspect.

    I agree with Mozart, however. You cannot come to any any conclusions about the details based upon a short journalistic report. Nevermind one that has been translated from another language.

    My post was a shorthand reponse to people who were saying that there was no evidence and that anyone can make an allegation against anyone. That simply wasn't true. There was more than an allegation here, and there is no reason not to assume that the trier of fact had sufficient evidence to make a finding of responsibility and to punish the responsible party.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul. 23, 2008
    Location
    Da UP, eh
    Posts
    767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectic Horseman View Post
    amm2cd-The article states that an electric shock device was found in the tack room, and there was no explanation offered for its presence. That would be enough to convict anyone beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
    My barn has a bear trap in it left over from my great grand parents. It's presence has no purpose, but that doesn't me that I'm using bear traps (or the nails and screws in the tool chest) as some sort of medieval torture training.

    Quote Originally Posted by War Admiral View Post
    Really? When most of the posts on the thread so far have been DEFENDING her? I think that tells you a lot right there. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

    She should have been set down FOREVER.
    Guessing that was directed at me. See my first sentence. The reread it. Possibly a third time just to be clear.
    Nevermind, I'll link it for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by amm2cd View Post
    I am in no way, shape or form condoning,promoting or in other ways supporting the rider if the accusations are true....
    I was wondering what, in the words of Paul Harvey, is "the rest of the story".

    Quote Originally Posted by meupatdoes View Post
    I completely don't understand what putting screws and nails in the withers is supposed to accomplish?

    Is that somehow a training shortcut toward some end or just for giggles?
    I'm with you and cant see how any of these things could be used to produce a better dressage horse...


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar. 12, 2006
    Posts
    2,165

    Default

    My comment wasn't about the abuse alone, it also seems to me that like big lick, dressage horses gaits are becoming more and more "freaky". Especially the trot. Why does a horse need such a leg flinging trot to win?
    "All top hat and no canter". *Graureiter*



Similar Threads

  1. Abuse and Cruelty case in OK
    By Barn Diva in forum Off Course
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Dec. 15, 2011, 08:13 AM
  2. Another sad abuse case
    By spotnnotfarm in forum Off Course
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Apr. 22, 2011, 12:51 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Apr. 13, 2011, 09:47 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec. 4, 2009, 07:21 PM
  5. Horse abuse case with happy ending...
    By PONY751 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jul. 24, 2009, 08:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness