| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
 Posted: 07/18/19 8:11 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Davis4632 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| advocating private tribunals is really dangerous IMO. |
Private tribunals? As in, courts not open to the public? Or another forum?
Unsure to what you are referring. |
as in, if the courts find someone innocent, going on to prosecute them thru the workplace or some other group of people deciding that they are guilty anyway, so punishing them based on 'evidence' that was thrown out or inadmissable in court for whatever reason. I don't think our legal system is perfect, but it's the best we have, so I find it odious to think that a group outside the legal system should decide to penalize someone who is not legally found guilty. It's how lynchings have happened. Some group of people decided to take matters into their own hands. |
The NFL has been doing that for years now. |
Honestly curious, could you please name your examples that comport with Myrtle's scenario -- namely, an NFL player being penalized AFTER being found not guilty in the legal system. |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/18/19 8:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SDHoops wrote: |
| So justintyme, an honest question. If this comes out to be that Jackie was the abuser or manipulator (I'm just speaking hypothetically), would it have been appropriate for you to have reached out to Jackie on Twitter and basically dehumanized Howard? I could see some good info that you provided, but it's your unwillingness to see both possibilities here that make me look at it sideways. |
Yes, it would have been.
If someone comes forward with a very credible claim of abuse (which this is, based upon what we are seeing, and if you can't see that, I've nothing for you), you give them support and understanding. It is no different than if a woman comes into a shelter with a claim that she is being abused. You don't parse what she did or why, you ask "how can I help".
You then give her whatever assistance you can, and get her in touch with people who can offer the assistance that you cannot. And most importantly: you believe her. Because the fear of not being believed is what keeps survivors from seeking help in the first place. And we've buried too many people already.
It is really not any more complicated than that. If eventually it comes out that it was a false report, you would feel disgusted by the person for doing it, and hope that they get whatever mental help they need. And if they filed a false report or perjured themselves, the police will take care of that. If the person ends of having been the actual abuser (something that I have never seen, nor even heard about occurring within our group) then you would hope that the person they were abusing also sought help somewhere and someone was giving them the support they need.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/18/19 8:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
SDHoops, how about I turn this same question around for you:
Say you work in a woman's shelter and a woman comes in one night with bruises on her body and face like in the pictures posted. She shows you the videos and text messages that she shared online, and she tells you that she has been emotionally and physically abused.
What do you do? Would you feel it appropriate to question her motives for seeking support? Would you doubt her story? Would you require her to prove something more to you? Would you tell her to wait there because you have only heard her side of the story, and you want to make sure that she is not, in fact, the abuser trying to manipulate the situation, because...well...you never know, it could happen? Or would you advocate for her in any way you could, offer the resources at your disposal, and treat her with empathy, respect, and all out support?
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/18/19 11:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Davis4632 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| advocating private tribunals is really dangerous IMO. |
Private tribunals? As in, courts not open to the public? Or another forum?
Unsure to what you are referring. |
as in, if the courts find someone innocent, going on to prosecute them thru the workplace or some other group of people deciding that they are guilty anyway, so punishing them based on 'evidence' that was thrown out or inadmissable in court for whatever reason. I don't think our legal system is perfect, but it's the best we have, so I find it odious to think that a group outside the legal system should decide to penalize someone who is not legally found guilty. It's how lynchings have happened. Some group of people decided to take matters into their own hands. |
The NFL has been doing that for years now. |
Honestly curious, could you please name your examples that comport with Myrtle's scenario -- namely, an NFL player being penalized AFTER being found not guilty in the legal system. |
You do know that the NFL can suspend a player even though they haven't been charged of a crime right?
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 1:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Davis4632 wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Davis4632 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| advocating private tribunals is really dangerous IMO. |
Private tribunals? As in, courts not open to the public? Or another forum?
Unsure to what you are referring. |
as in, if the courts find someone innocent, going on to prosecute them thru the workplace or some other group of people deciding that they are guilty anyway, so punishing them based on 'evidence' that was thrown out or inadmissable in court for whatever reason. I don't think our legal system is perfect, but it's the best we have, so I find it odious to think that a group outside the legal system should decide to penalize someone who is not legally found guilty. It's how lynchings have happened. Some group of people decided to take matters into their own hands. |
The NFL has been doing that for years now. |
Honestly curious, could you please name your examples that comport with Myrtle's scenario -- namely, an NFL player being penalized AFTER being found not guilty in the legal system. |
You do know that the NFL can suspend a player even though they haven't been charged of a crime right? |
Yes, I do, since I've read the written policies of the NFL, NBA and MLB, in which the players have contractually agreed that the league/team can punish them before the legal process is finished, or even where there has been no arrest, under certain defined circumstances and with specified due process rights.
But the reason I bolded my post the way I did is that league punishment per a negotiated policy before the legal system acts, or when it doesn't act, is not what Myrtle was objecting to. She specified a scenario where "courts find someone innocent, [then] going on to prosecute them thru the workplace . . . deciding that they are guilty anyway". She's talking, I think, about workplace punishment levied only after and despite a legal acquittal.
You said: "The NFL has been doing that for years now." I again would be interested in examples of precisely that: no prior league punishment, then a legal acquittal, then league punishment. |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 1:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I think some distinctions are being blurred. Failure by the courts to convict someone can be due to...
...the case never going to trial, because the accuser decides not to press charges, or the DA feeling he can't win because the accuser or witnesses may not appear "credible," etc.
...the trial not being continued to a verdict due to some technicality, like the arresting officer not showing up in court, which can happen in DWI cases, or somebody fouling up the paperwork, etc.
...or the judge/jury finding the defendant not guilty, either because the defendant is actually innocent or the case wasn't adequately proven.
I can see plenty of reasons a league might decide to take action against a player even if he hasn't been convicted in court. The Patriot's punt returner and serial assaulter/rapist David Meggett was effectively backballed by the NFL 20 years before the legal system was able to convict him and send his *** to jail for a long time. And other non-athletic professions police their members all the time for unethical behavior.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 9:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
An excellent point, especially about a case not going to trial.
Prosecutors are judged, in great part, by their conviction rate, and they do not want to bring cases to trial they cannot win. And often in domestic abuse -- especially if the abuser has significantly more financial resources than the other partner -- getting the victim to testify is not a guarantee.
As justintyme and others have said, the system is not really designed to handle these kinds of cases, and they are difficult to prosecute (he said/she said) and it's often unclear who really is pulling the strings. But regardless, there's a major difference -- at least to me -- between provoking someone and hitting someone (or even threatening to hit someone with a weapon in hand).
So I think waiting for the wheels of justice to slowly turn is very problematic -- and just as any employer could suspend an employee who violated work rules but didn't get charged or convicted of a crime, so the WNBA can legitimately suspend an employee who never faces charges.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24356
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 10:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| So I think waiting for the wheels of justice to slowly turn is very problematic -- and just as any employer could suspend an employee who violated work rules but didn't get charged or convicted of a crime, so the WNBA can legitimately suspend an employee who never faces charges. |
In fairness, it's also possible that they could investigate, find out more than we've heard via media reports, hearsay and Twitter, and decide not to suspend someone who's been accused of something. |
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 11:10 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I'd be surprised if some of the current and former teammates of all these accused players aren't privy to a lot of information about their activities. Certainly Russell and Zellous have some insights into Howard's behavior. And according to NHTSA's statistics, the average drunk driver has actually driven drunk 80 times before being arrested for it. Some teammate knows about Sims' behavior as well. Whether the team/league can extract that information is another story.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 11:45 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| So I think waiting for the wheels of justice to slowly turn is very problematic -- and just as any employer could suspend an employee who violated work rules but didn't get charged or convicted of a crime, so the WNBA can legitimately suspend an employee who never faces charges. |
In fairness, it's also possible that they could investigate, find out more than we've heard via media reports, hearsay and Twitter, and decide not to suspend someone who's been accused of something. |
Yes. NFL did just this with Hill.
Obviously this all only works if everyone acts in good faith (which is why the lynching comments are problematic--that is people taking life and liberty away from someone without due processs--and historically for racist reasons--not an employer potentially taking wages away or firing someone after the due process of an investigation). But that is also what the arbitration process is for--to make sure of the good faith.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 1:16 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ... Obviously this all only works if everyone acts in good faith (which is why the lynching comments are problematic--that is people taking life and liberty away from someone without due processs--and historically for racist reasons--not an employer potentially taking wages away or firing someone after the due process of an investigation). But that is also what the arbitration process is for--to make sure of the good faith. |
I had wanted to say this, myself (I probably would have been a little harsher in my language), but I didn't want anyone to think that I was "playing the race card," or some bullshit.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 2:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| advocating private tribunals is really dangerous IMO. |
Private tribunals? As in, courts not open to the public? Or another forum?
Unsure to what you are referring. |
as in, if the courts find someone innocent, going on to prosecute them thru the workplace or some other group of people deciding that they are guilty anyway, so punishing them based on 'evidence' that was thrown out or inadmissable in court for whatever reason. I don't think our legal system is perfect, but it's the best we have, so I find it odious to think that a group outside the legal system should decide to penalize someone who is not legally found guilty. It's how lynchings have happened. Some group of people decided to take matters into their own hands. |
Myrtle, as I have explained earlier in this thread (and in the Riquna Williams thread --and will cut and paste my most recent post from that thread into this one):
A criminal conviction is not the same process as an administrative disciplinary action in the workplace, nor does it have nearly the same burden of proof.
In the criminal context, it is possible that Williams may not be convicted on any or all of the criminal charges. Perhaps witnesses refuse to testify. Maybe there was a procedural defect. Perhaps the government-obtained physical evidence was obtained improperly/illegally/under coercion, thus making any after-acquired evidence "fruit of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible. Or maybe a jury simply finds Williams to be a more credible witness, should the case proceed to trial.
Even if Williams is found to be "not guilty," that does not mean she is "innocent." A "not guilty" criminal verdict simply means that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to the tribunal.
In the administrative discipline process, I have always suggested to clients that investigations have specific categories of terminology for their findings, pertaining to the specific allegations: -- unfounded, exonerated, unresolved, or sustained. This is how I define (generally speaking) those terms.
Unfounded
It is found the reported misconduct (or conduct) or behavior did not occur or did not occur as alleged
Exonerated
The incident occurred, but the conduct or behavior was lawful and proper.
Unresolved
There is insufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the allegation.
– OR –
The inquiry into this allegation is inactivated pending development of further information.
Sustained
The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to justify a reasonable conclusion the alleged misconduct/inappropriate behavior occurred.
For Williams to be "innocent" (using the word from the SI article from Michael McCann, linked and discussed in the Riquna Williams thread) -- which means the allegations would be unfounded in the administrative context and she could thus avoid any punishment -- she must have an argument akin to: "I was not there (or it was not me). Here is indisputable proof that I was nowhere in the vicinity of the residence where this incident took place on that date/time or at any point relevant to the allegations involved here."
An employer can impose an administrative disciplinary action, irrespective of whether there is a conviction in the criminal context. The issue is whether an employee engaged in the underlying conduct (or there is reasonable evidence to demonstrate that he/she did) and whether that conduct violates the employer's policies or employee handbook provisions.
In other words, a "sustained" allegation in the administrative context can occur before the criminal proceedings have taken place or reached a conclusion, or it can occur even if there is a "not guilty" finding in the criminal proceedings.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/19/19 7:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
An employer can impose an administrative disciplinary action, irrespective of whether there is a conviction in the criminal context. The issue is whether an employee engaged in the underlying conduct (or there is reasonable evidence to demonstrate that he/she did) and whether that conduct violates the employer's policies or employee handbook provisions. |
I shouldn't speak for Myrtle, but I don't think she was focused on technical distinctions like proof burdens and process. Rather, I think the spirit if her comments is that employers shouldn't be involved in most of this stuff at all.
Anyway, I agree with that proposition. The employer's handbook and policies shouldn't involve the employer in policing private matters such as routine domestic problems or drunk driving or fist fight arrests, unless those things affect the employee's job or present a danger to the workplace. Which could be possible -- for example, if Odyssey Sims were the company bus driver or pilot.
But I do recognize exceptions to my hands-off philosophy, and a big one is major league men's sports. The employer-employee relationship is those sports is so visible, so publicized, so much on TV, so susceptible to social media scrutiny, the players have such gigantic salaries and violence potential, and steroid/PED abuse is so prevalent, that league disciplinary policies are prudent for good public relations reasons alone. Whether a small women's league has the same incentives, and whether the low paid players would actually want disciplinary policies that can only hurt them, I'm not sure.
*************
On edit: If an employer wants or needs an investigation process, the one you summarized and the definitions you use are excellent. |
|
threadkiller1201
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 423
Back to top |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21929
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 3:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
More than one side to the story, huh. How about that.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
Force10rulz
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Posts: 1966
Location: Puget Sound
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 12:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
More than one side to the story, huh. How about that. |
Some people love to jump to conclusions before hearing both sides of the story. I hope she can get the medical records for proof.
_________________
Seattle Storm 3 times Champions
|
|
MuneravenMN
Champion Tipster
Joined: 01 Jun 2008
Posts: 3990
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 12:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I still think Howard should have been suspended with pay and required to go to counseling. When there is abuse like this, BOTH parties are messed up. Both parties need to get help so that they can learn to have healthy relationships.
My wife was in an abusive relationship before I met her. Having paid time off to get untangled from her abuser and to get counseling would have helped her so much. And it CERTAINLY would have been great if her ex-husband had been required to get counseling (his life is still messed up).
I wish that all pro sports had a program in place that required players to take time away and get top-notch counseling when there are signs of real trouble like this.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here and, really, it isn't my business. But I feel like there needs to be clear cut policies putting the health of the player first when a player is in trouble, whether the trouble is self-inflicted or not.
_________________
Winning takes talent; to repeat takes character.
--John Wooden
|
|
zune69
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 8183
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 12:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So many questions?
At the very least. Howard deserves to be suspended for being stupid.
|
|
ucbart
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 2815
Location: New York
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 12:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yikes. This is ugly. I hope this all gets sorted out because as of now, Natasha looks really bad simply because Jackyy spoke first.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 1:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ucbart wrote: |
| Natasha looks really bad simply because Jackyy spoke first. |
She looks bad because she kept her private life private? I would hope that would be the norm.
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 1:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
This is very concerning, and while it is not untypical for an accused abuser to try and turn around the story on the person they were abusing, it is atypical for them to swear under oath to things that can easily be proven on way or another. That does add credibility to what she is saying here to some extent. We will have to see what Jackyy's sworn response.
This is also why paid suspensions are so important of a tool. The league needs to have time for these things to develop fully before punishing, but they also need to be able to not ignore the fact that there is still significant evidence out there that Jackyy was abused. Will that evidence hold up under further scrutiny? That's what the investigation is for. The initial reaction to what was presented is also important.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 1:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Shades wrote: |
| ucbart wrote: |
| Natasha looks really bad simply because Jackyy spoke first. |
She looks bad because she kept her private life private? I would hope that would be the norm. |
No. She looks bad because the pictures, Jackyy's hospital visit, vidoes, text messages, and accusations all look bad.
Flip this around. If Natasha had posted the exact same things as Jackyy did, would people not have supported Natasha?
If it were to come out that these are manipulations or fakes, that support will change dramatically.
As for "keeping private life private", people can only offer support when someone seeks it. People supported Jackyy because she asked for support.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
SDHoops
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 1183
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 1:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Yup I knew it! Thanks for speaking up Tasha, via your statement. So justin, your "client" took 600k..what do you say to that? Victim's fund? This had hogwash written all over it! Someone said Tasha should be suspended for being so stupid? Okay now THAT is victim blaming, justintyme will school you on all of that. Have a good day.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 07/20/19 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SDHoops wrote: |
| Yup I knew it! Thanks for speaking up Tasha, via your statement. So justin, your "client" took 600k..what do you say to that? Victim's fund? This had hogwash written all over it! Someone said Tasha should be suspended for being so stupid? Okay now THAT is victim blaming, justintyme will school you on all of that. Have a good day. |
I agree, saying that Natasha should be suspended for allowing someone to take money from her is inappropriate. And if it is true that Jackyy stole her money, she should face the consequences.
You really just have zero idea about what support means, don't you? Don't really understand advocacy? About how my reaction would have been exactly the same in support of Natasha had she been the one who posted everything Jackyy did and had asked for support.
I answered your "honest" question, but I noticed you ignored mine, which makes me think you're not really interested in an honest dialog.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
mavcarter
#NATC
Joined: 02 Sep 2010
Posts: 5935
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
|
|
