Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by RainWeasley View Post
    Personally I didn't see anything wrong with the "alleged victim", isn't that just the verbage they use in court ("alleged victim", "accused", "alleged shooter", etc) until the final judgement is made? Not a law person at all, but I always understood that to just be the term they are required to use. Like, Michael Barisone shot that LK chick, but he is still called "alleged shooter" even though it's not uncertain that he shot her. It's not uncertain that the victim is actually a victim.
    Wouldn't you raise an eyebrow to read that Lauren was an "alleged victim" of a shooting?

    Of course you would. Same with "alleged victim" of any other crime - car theft, robbery, kidnapping. It implies doubt that we don't assign to any other crime, normally. It's only your word that you had $500 cash on your person, and if you did actually have it, that you didn't give it over willingly.

    SafeSport uses the term "Claimant" which I think is carefully chosen and very neutral and all-purpose.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


      I see nothing in Horsegirl’s Mom’s posts that suggest to me that her motivation is defending GHM or any other BNT. I read her posts as very legitimately trying to engage in a discussion of whether, how, and to what degree SafeSport procedures could or should be modified to provide better protection for the accused. She even alluded to designing a system based on the Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

      Unless you know for a fact that 100% of the respondents are guilty, it is not only OK but it is necessary to refer to the reporter as the “alleged victim” instead of “victim”. We need a term that allows for the possibility that the alleged crime did not occur. Makes no difference at all if the probability of non occurrence is 1% or 6% or 50%. If the language of the legal procedure implies that it is known that the crime in fact occurred in the midst of the process which purports to determine whether the crime occurred, that is huge problem.

      Suppose that you are so woke and sensitive to the plight of victims that you personally want a system designed to maximize the extent to which you succeed in getting rid of the bad guys. That’s all you care about.

      Paradoxically, that goal is NOT achieved by rigging the system against the accused. If the balance of rights and protections of the accused vs rights of the accuser is struck at a position that favors the accuser “too strongly” by some metric, then there could, theoretically, be instances in which an innocent person is wrongly sanctioned. There could be cases, albeit rare, in which an innocent person actually is sanctioned. If the process is perceived as not providing enough protection to the accused, it loses credibility and legitimacy, and it cannot succeed in its mission of protecting the victims most of the time.

      Personally, I am OK with the level of protection afforded respondents in the SafeSport process, although I don’t claim to understand it fully. For myself, as a private and possibly anonymous person, I think RG and GM are guilty as hell, to use the legal term.

      For myself, I have provisionally decided to view the SafeSport process as a legitimate one, and view those who are banned as fairly determined to be guilty. It not everyone has.

      If you want SafeSport to succeed, you should be engaging in discussions on whether SafeSport can or should improve protections for the accused, because by doing so SafeSport possibly could solidify its legitimacy further. Not among the ISWG crowd, but among the broader population.

      Horsegirl’s Mom raised questions of fact on specific procedures. I’ve been diligent reading here, and don’t fully know the answers to them. They are legitimate questions. Asking them does not paint her a GM apologist. You were particularly out of line when dumping on her for using the word “alleged” in a specific context in which it was necessary.
      My big point and I should have left it at that was, protections for victims in the legal system are new relatively speaking. That is why I raise an eyebrow at those posts. Protections for the accused are much older. Again, protections for the victims are new, and I do not like when people try to turn back the clock nor do I like when people try to make SS into something it’s not. Also, he’s already been found guilty or whatever word you want to use. I’m also willing to bet that when people get the notice of being accused, they can and do send in any information that exonerate them.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post
        And you may know that the Innocence Project has exonerated dozens and dozens of men falsely convicted of rape. I suppose you think that is some kind of scam too? Those men must have really done it since they were accused?
        True for robbery and murder too. Even arson. Usually the Innocence Project is a matter of confirming that the wrong person was arrested, not that the victim fraudulently made up being dead.

        For what it's worth, it's estimated that 2% of all crime reports are false across all felonies, and that sexual assault has about the same rate as those other crimes.
        If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

        Comment


          Also for people who bring up what if it was your son.... well teach your sons not to put themselves in situations where this might happen and teach them that no means no. Teach them that rape and sexual assault is bad.

          That doesn’t sound too good does it? Well that’s what women have been told for years... “you put yourself in that situation, you were drinking, you were wearing a skirt.”

          Comment


            Originally posted by HLMom View Post

            SS needs to have procedures that are fair and effective for all types of claims, and all reporting parties and alleged perpetrators, that might come before it in the future.

            My problem with this is that I have yet to see anyone come on here and actually identify the specific SS procedures that are unfair and ineffective or propose specific reasonable changes in procedures that would be more fair and effective without crippling the organization. No one has made a cogent argument that does this.

            The near-universal themes of those complaining about SS and calling for "improvements" in the process have been:

            1. A litany of complaints that aren't true (e.g. the accused doesn't get a chance to defend himself or have his own witnesses until after he has been sanctioned by SS, which anyone who bothers to read the SS procedures can plainly see isn't correct); and/or

            2. A demand that SS operate under the rules and restrictions of the legal system, when SS was explicitly created as an extra-judicial process and intended to operate outside the existing criminal/civil justice system.

            If you (generic) want to convince me to support your position, you're going to have to come up with better arguments.
            "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
            that's even remotely true."

            Homer Simpson

            Comment


              Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can't match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

              For those who think enhanced procedures would favor abusers over victims: We should all be very concerned over the Lopez case (as reported in the press). That appears to be a case where a guilty party went free (so to speak) because SS did not meet the preponderance standard when it got to arbitration.

              It is legitimate to ask: What flaw, if any, in SS's processes contributed to this result? The news articles indicate that SS was unable to get any witnesses to come and testify against Lopez. As you know, I have raised a concern about the lack of subpoena power in SS arbitration for exactly this reason: there is no way to get key witnesses to come and testify, unless they volunteer to do so out of the goodness of their heart!

              So this appears to be a case where SS's "abridged" procedures came back to bite it in the butt.

              Fair procedures do not only protect the accused. They also protect victims by ensuring that the truth comes out and the guilty are punished.

              Comment


                For me, these two statements seem at odds with one another. But that is just me. Perhaps you could elaborate.

                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                I’m fine with still presuming GM innocent until he loses the appeal.
                Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post
                For myself, as a private and possibly anonymous person, I think RG and GM are guilty as hell, to use the legal term.
                ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                  Except we see the policies for what they are and don’t try to fit them in some neat little box that involves the court system. Safe Sport has established a Human Resources department for sports. If you don’t like the rules and required conduct expected of the members, nor the disciplinary route that is taken if one violates the rules, don’t become a member. Easy Day. And yes before Rob Gage and George Morris there were a host of people convicted in court and not on that list and y’all were silent.
                  I genuinely do not understand why you are dismissing Horsegirl’s Mom as some fellow traveler of the ISWG group.

                  Nowhere did she sloppily say that SafeSport would never be legitimate unless it morphs into the criminal justice system. You are being intellectually sloppy in accusing her of doing so.

                  While SafeSport is not, will never be, and should not be the criminal justice system, we should be discussing the possible relative merits of advocating some well defined specific changes that might move it incrementally in the direction of the standards of the criminal justice system.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                    I genuinely do not understand why you are dismissing Horsegirl’s Mom as some fellow traveler of the ISWG group.

                    Nowhere did she sloppily say that SafeSport would never be legitimate unless it morphs into the criminal justice system. You are being intellectually sloppy in accusing her of doing so.

                    While SafeSport is not, will never be, and should not be the criminal justice system, we should be discussing the possible relative merits of advocating some well defined specific changes that might move it incrementally in the direction of the standards of the criminal justice system.
                    I didn’t accuse her of being sloppy. I just don’t agree with her. I personally don’t think the policies will be struck down or modified by a court. Also she just says it’s not exactly fair. Okay well how? What specifically is unfair? From words not a dippy flow chart to dumb down the literature.

                    Also, I really want to know, has she asked TPTB? Or does she just like to pontificate on a BB?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                      Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can't match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

                      For those who think enhanced procedures would favor abusers over victims: We should all be very concerned over the Lopez case (as reported in the press). That appears to be a case where a guilty party went free (so to speak) because SS did not meet the preponderance standard when it got to arbitration.

                      It is legitimate to ask: What flaw, if any, in SS's processes contributed to this result? The news articles indicate that SS was unable to get any witnesses to come and testify against Lopez. As you know, I have raised a concern about the lack of subpoena power in SS arbitration for exactly this reason: there is no way to get key witnesses to come and testify, unless they volunteer to do so out of the goodness of their heart!

                      So this appears to be a case where SS's "abridged" procedures came back to bite it in the butt.

                      Fair procedures do not only protect the accused. They also protect victims by ensuring that the truth comes out and the guilty are punished.
                      You are completely misreading what happened in the Lopez case. It is not that SafeSport did not have that evidence during their investigation. It's that the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process under the timeline that was allotted, and under the conditions the arbitration panel set up.

                      In part this is because during this process, the claimants were also pursuing a civil case against USA Taekwando for deliberately suppressing evidence. They have also sued SS and the US Olympic Committee IIRC.

                      I cannot personally untangle all the pieces here to know how much was SafeSport being awkward in one of their first big cases, SafeSport intentionally throwing the case due to the lawsuits, claimants having a fair beef about being treated poorly, claimants unwilling to be in the room with the abuser, schedule issues, the arbitrators being stupid, etc. IE, there's some combination of stupid, incompetence, hurt feelings, and malice going through that case and I can't tell you which is predominant. The only thing I am sure of is that the Lopez brothers used their position to assault multiple women in their sport.
                      If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                        It's that the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process under the timeline that was allotted, and under the conditions the arbitration panel set up.


                        .
                        I'm not misreading anything. That's exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

                        Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

                        In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

                        So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn't there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                          I'm not misreading anything. That's exactly what I understand happened. As you state: the claimants were unwilling to testify live again during the appeal via arbitration process

                          Giving the arbitrators the power to subpoena witnesses (which JAMS arbitrators routinely have in non-SafeSport arbitrations) would have prevented this problem. The claimant and any supporting witnesses would have been subpoenaed to testify.

                          In a criminal case, do you think the prosecutor just hopes the alleged victim will show up to tell what happened? Of course not; the prosecutor subpoenas the victim and all supporting witnesses. (Yes, I was a deputy DA). Same thing happens in regular JAMS arbitrations; same thing happens in small claims cases.

                          So I return to the question I raised many posts ago: shouldn't there be a mechanism to subpoena witnesses in a SS arbitration?
                          No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.

                          Subpoenas, discovery etc is a thing in the courts because of the ramifications to one’s liberties and constitutional rights. Safe Sport has no impact on that. Safe Sport can only say you can’t be a member of the NGB and compete at their events.

                          Please stop equating not being able to be a USEF member and attend their horse shows with actual punishment that is handed out by the legal system.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                            My big point and I should have left it at that was, protections for victims in the legal system are new relatively speaking. That is why I raise an eyebrow at those posts. Protections for the accused are much older. Again, protections for the victims are new, and I do not like when people try to turn back the clock nor do I like when people try to make SS into something it’s not. Also, he’s already been found guilty or whatever word you want to use. I’m also willing to bet that when people get the notice of being accused, they can and do send in any information that exonerate them.
                            I did not see that she was “trying to turn back the clock” on the protection of victims or “trying to make SafeSport into something it’s not”.

                            1. The ISWG people insist that the SafeSport process does not provide sufficient procedural protection for the accused.
                            2. The ISWG people are semi-literate morons who know GM is guilty, but want to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport in order to overturn his ban, either because they want to ride with him, or because they fear they are “next”.

                            Even if you grant these two statements are “true”, it does not logically follow that
                            3. Anyone who wants to engage in a discussion of whether certain well-defined aspects of SafeSport’s procedures could or should be altered in the direction of strengthening the protection of the accused, such as Horsegirl’s Mom, is therefore a semi-literate moron who adores GM and is trying to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport.

                            I read your posts as sort of saying statement #3. It does not look like the moral high ground to me.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                              Yankee Duchess, I am awed and exhilarated by your posts. I will be the first to admit that I can't match your level of reasoning and writing ability, but I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.
                              There sure seems to be a lot of overlap, backslapping, and defending between what YankeeDuchess, HLMom, and Horsegirl'sMom are posting. Just sayin'.

                              "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                              that's even remotely true."

                              Homer Simpson

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                No people should not be forced to testify. No one’s freedom and constitutional rights are on the line. Safe Sport isn’t awarding punitive damages. ITS NOT A COURT.
                                Exactly.
                                "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                that's even remotely true."

                                Homer Simpson

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                  You do acknowledge there can be false allegations, don't you?

                                  Or is everyone accused of sexual misconduct definitely guilty? If that's what you think, then I assume you would favor dispensing with criminal rape trials altogether and just automatically convicting anyone who is accused?

                                  Even SS has publicly acknowledged research showing that 2-10% of allegations are false. (I will try to find the citation for you). I guess they are wrong about that?

                                  And you may know that the Innocence Project has exonerated dozens and dozens of men falsely convicted of rape. I suppose you think that is some kind of scam too? Those men must have really done it since they were accused?
                                  How many of the exonerated through the innocence project had victims actually accuse them though? Many I have read about were overzealous prosecutors or faulty evidence not victims actually accusing them. .

                                  And how many of the false allegations that SS acknowledge resulted in bans?


                                  These are important questions and make a huge difference to your argument.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                    I did not see that she was “trying to turn back the clock” on the protection of victims or “trying to make SafeSport into something it’s not”.

                                    1. The ISWG people insist that the SafeSport process does not provide sufficient procedural protection for the accused.
                                    2. The ISWG people are semi-literate morons who know GM is guilty, but want to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport in order to overturn his ban, either because they want to ride with him, or because they fear they are “next”.

                                    Even if you grant these two statements are “true”, it does not logically follow that
                                    3. Anyone who wants to engage in a discussion of whether certain well-defined aspects of SafeSport’s procedures could or should be altered in the direction of strengthening the protection of the accused, such as Horsegirl’s Mom, is therefore a semi-literate moron who adores GM and is trying to destroy the legitimacy of SafeSport.

                                    I read your posts as sort of saying statement #3. It does not look like the moral high ground to me.
                                    I can’t engage in a discussion about “fairness” if people can’t pin point what they see as not exactly fair.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by roseymare View Post

                                      How many of the exonerated through the innocence project had victims actually accuse them though? Many I have read about were overzealous prosecutors or faulty evidence not victims actually accusing them. .

                                      And how many of the false allegations that SS acknowledge resulted in bans?


                                      These are important questions and make a huge difference to your argument.
                                      Hence discovery rules, subpoenas etc

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                                        Exactly.
                                        Why am I explaining these basic concepts to a lawyer?

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                                          There sure seems to be a lot of overlap, backslapping, and defending between what YankeeDuchess, HLMom, and Horsegirl'sMom are posting. Just sayin'.
                                          Hey, I am HL Mom and Horsegirl's Mom. I have both my desktop and laptop running, and I only now noticed the logins are different. I believe that is a relic from when I was hospitalized and only had my laptop (and no passwords!) and had to create a new log-in. Not trying to confuse anyone.

                                          I don't know who Yankee Duchess is--but I would love to know his or her background! I have no shame in stating this appears to be a more learned person than I am.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X