Posts by Chaserious

71

TO THE STUPID ATHEISTS:

by atheist_R_stupid in

being that this is not "ex jws" and in fact, more driven by atheists talking a bunch of crap, im not even going to address you people like you know anything about jws because you dont.

nor am i going to assume you know the bible because none of you do.. and yes, im speaking down at you all because you men have actually went out your way to make a site to speak down at an entire group of people.

yet i bet you cant even handle a single uswer talking down at you, like you talk down about jws can you?.

Chaserious

Another day, another fresh posting limit. Glad to see you are getting your money's worth with the all caps.

48

American Sniper - courage or cowardice?

by Simon in

the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.

some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".

it seems unfair to me.

Chaserious

Well, silly me. The person I referred to in my earlier post must have been Michael Moore. I overheard it on the TV in the background and must not have realized it was him. What an idiot.

48

American Sniper - courage or cowardice?

by Simon in

the movie american sniper is breaking box office records and of course there is some irony that a movie about a sniper is released on martin luther king day (who was shot by one).. but of course there is a world of difference between an assassin and a military sniper ... or is there?.

some are making a big stink about it and claiming that "snipers are cowards".

it seems unfair to me.

Chaserious

I saw someone being interviewed on TV and complaining about the movie because his grandfather was killed in war by a sniper, or something like that. While it's sad that his grandfather died, I think the distinction is dumb; war is war. Would it make a difference if he was killed by a land mine or a grenade? Are bomber pilots cowards because they drop bombs on unsuspecting people?

Taking the criticism to its logical conclusion, any person shooting a gun at someone in war would be a coward, since the target is unable to directly repel the attack, and only those who fight with swords and bayonets are true war heroes.

I suppose the distinction people would draw is that they kill without being in the line of fire themselves, but war is dangerous. I'm sure there is a real risk of their positions being compromised and being killed on any given mission.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

Chaserious

I believe that Elders and Ministerial Servants are considered employees of Watchtower by Law.

Absolutely not. What makes you think that? A volunteer does not equal an employee.

A conclusion is not reasonable when there is no support for it. The most we could hope to reasonably support is the liability claim, but everything else is merely assumption and speculation based on no evidence. I would not say that they intended to protect children, but I would also not say that they didn't intend to protect children. I simply can't read minds or personal intentions.

Well, the trial judge believed there was enough evidence that they disregarded the risk of harm to send punitive damages to the jury, and the jury accepted Rick Simons' argument that the WTS was at least indifferent as to preventing abuse. I think you have it backwards; you say the most we can reasonably hope to support is the liability claim. I think that there is a good chance that the entire verdict is tossed because the appeals court finds no special relationship existed as a matter of law. On the other hand, I would be surprised if the verdict is allowed to stand but punitive damages alone gets reversed. I think if a duty is found to exist there is enough evidence to support the punitive damages award; regardless of whether or not the appeal court thinks the jury got it right.

Anecdotal accounts are not to be used when making general conclusions. Their value is next to nothing. But what we do know for a fact is that at least in this case, nobody was discouraged from reporting to police; and indeed, the parents of the first teenager did report to police after meeting with the elders, though they never told anybody about it. And if memory serves correct, the Boer case had similar accusations of Elders warning not to report to police, but the appeals judge threw those claims out and sided with Watchtower.

I realize that anecdotal evidence is not relevant to this or any other case. However, I was responding to another poster who seemed to want to discuss moral culpability, rather than legal. And based on what has been reported and my own experience in the organization, I don't doubt for a second that elders have been told by headquarters to discourage victim reporting without explicitly saying not to. There is a reason that the instructions are to call legal on the phone, and not to write or email. At least in the past, their fear of "bringing reproach on Jehovah's organization" practically rose to the level of being a fetish.

You acknowledge that your examples are irrelevant to the case at hand yet you go with them anyways. That is no bueno. Intentional causing of confusion in the mind of the lay reader. The more relevant Principle of Law (that you yourself even hint at) is:
There exists no general duty to protect others from harm, absent a clear special relationship.

I was asked to explain the standard for punitive damages and I did so, acknowledging (as I did in my OP) that damages for failure to act is unusual and has only been applied historically in limited circumstances. If anyone is causing confusion, it is you. A judge in a court of law found that in this case, there IS a duty to protect others from harm. Unless and until that is overturned by an appeals court, that is the law. There may well be examples of punitive damages being awarded in a failure to warn case, but I am not going to research that issue to answer a question on a forum. My examples answered the question that someone raised and didn't mislead anyone.

I myself haven't been a Witness for years, and I still find the Conti ruling terrifying, as should you, being a Man of Law yourself.

I agree that it will be difficult to formulate a general rule upholding the verdict that will not have unintended and unfair consequences when applied to other situations. If such a rule can be formulated, I will leave that to the appeals justices, who I am sure are smarter and more experienced than I am. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the verdict is overturned on the basis of no special relationship. But putting legal principles aside, I believe that the WTS deserves to eat this one. It is unconscionable to teach that this is the one true religion, the congregation is the safest place there is, JWs are the most moral and trustworthy people and everyone else is bad association, and then to keep your lips sealed and eyes closed when you know there is a predator loose in the small group who God has allegedly declared to be the only good and approved association.

13

Revise Tax Code to Protect Children from Sexual Abuse

by ABibleStudent in

over the last five years, i have read lots of threads complaining about the wtbts, but few threads about becoming involved to help jws to critically think for themselves so that they can decide whether to stay, change the wtbts, or fade.

i'm curious if anyone is willing to write to their political representatives like i did today?.

before someone writes that the bill that i wrote would infringe on rights of either the establishment or free excercise clause of the u.s. constitution, i already checked with a lawyer and she said that the concept sounds promising.

Chaserious

Interesting- it seems like you've put a lot of work and research into this. I don't know that it would be unconstitutional, although if something like this were to be enacted, I'm sure it would be challenged on that basis. I do think it would be a hell of a challenge to draft this so that it would not be void for vagueness. I know you can't post the entire 25 pages here, but I'm curious if you've come up with a way to define who the "applicable" organizations and adults are?

Applicable tax-exempt organizations would be required to ensure that applicable adults pass a criminal background check and complete sexual abuse awareness training

I'm certainly no expert on legislation, but having done an internship on the hill, I suspect that to get any results from a grassroots lobbying effort like you propose would require support broader than even the entire active ex-JW community.

Also, I would suggest that it is more meaningful to call your representative's office rather than send a letter. If a legislator's office receives calls from various people on the same issue, it's more likely that issue will get surfaced up the chain. I think there is a belief that when someone is willing to make a phone call and have done enough research to explain why legislation is important to them, they are more likely to remember that issue on voting day than someone who sends a form letter or email that was composed by someone else. Just my two cents.

6

High school basketball coach suspended for running up the score--162-2

by James Mixon in

jw
friends

how in the hell can a girl basketball team score that many points??.

in san bernardino arroyo valley high, coach m. anderson was suspended 2 games for running up the score.. anderson said his team had won four previous games by at least 70 points and the team they beat had already lost a game by 91 points.. this remind me of the college calif inst of tech.

a few years ago they won their first basketball game and was front page in the sport section.. some of the brilliant minds in the world attend caltec, basketball is not first on their list.

Chaserious

They probably have a girl who is a foot taller than everyone else and can score at will and collect every rebound. It's poor sportsmanship to run up the score like that. Even at the college level this shouldn't happen, much less high school.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

Chaserious

I am just looking at it from a point of view of common sense. Common sense tells me that; IF the elders believed in any way that Kendrick was going to re-offend, they would have put in place some other provisions where this would be minimized.

Putting the law aside, and just looking at this from a common-sense point of view, anyone who has been a JW knows that the elders will do whatever those higher up in the chain of command tell them to do, whether that's the CO, letters from the branch, WT legal, etc. So whether or not they believed he was going to re-offend, I think that the most reasonable assumption is that they would do whatever they were directed to do.

Who in their right mind would WILLINGLY allow such a danger to exist? (same goes for the WTS)

People who are trying not to bring shame on their organization and are trying to minimize liability - that's who. The Catholic Church willingly allowed dangers to exist when they transferred pedophile priests from parish to unsuspecting parish, didn't they? What is the purpose of letters to the bodies of elders telling them to call Watchtower legal when child abuse occurs? Is it really to protect anyone besides the Watchtower? They don't have to call legal in cases of fornication or drug abuse, do they? A reasonable conclusion (and I think the one that was arrived at in this case) is that this process was in place to attempt to protect the organization from bad publicity and legal liability, with any concern for protecting children a distant afterthought, even though headquarters knew or should have known that its policy was not in the best interests of the children.

Also, while it is not contained in any official letter, there are numerous anecdotal accounts indicating that at least in the past, elders were told to discourage parents in such a situation from going to the authorities, without forbidding it or putting it in writing (out of fear of liability I'm sure). Again, anyone who has been a part of this organization knows that people will follow what the elders recommend a majority of the time.

But you and I and any reasonable person can surely see that this was not deliberate.

I don't think that any elders or the WTS wanted any child to be molested, and I think everybody acknowledges that, even those posters who may be a little over the top with the pedophile rhetoric. But getting back to the law, what the jury found (and I think appropriately), is not that it was "deliberate" as you say, but that it disregarded a significant risk of harm, and put concern for its image above legitimate safety measures.

Just one question: when you said that the jury found that “the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences” can you explain what that means in practical terms? And what was the evidence of that if you can remember.

This is very close to the legal definition for recklessness. It means that you aren't trying to cause harm, but you should know that what you are doing is dangerous, to the point that it would be fair for a jury to conclude that you don't care very much if someone is hurt. If you accidentally get into a collision while doing 70 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, that is not going to support punitive damages (absent some other factor). If you are doing 110 MPH, on the other hand, there is a good chance you could be exposed to punitive damages, as even if you didn't want to hurt anyone, you deliberately ignored the risk. Or firing a gun without looking where you are shooting. These analogies don't exactly hold up because they deal with affirmatively causing harm, whereas the Conti case involved failing to prevent harm, which is unusual in the law. The evidence is that when the elders informed Watchtower legal about Kendrick and his stepdaughter, it instructed the elders to keep the information about him secret, in accordance with its national policy.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

Chaserious

In a court of law, ignorance does not equal innocence.

That's not necessarily true, but this case was not about guilt or innocence; it was about negligence or lack of negligence, and unreasonable ignorance is certainly enough to support a negligence finding.

111

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious in

with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

Chaserious

Nitty-Gritty: Your point seems to be that the elders were well-intentioned rubes who didn't realize that their actions would put any children in danger. That may well be true, but it's enough to support the jury's findings against the congregation (at least assuming that a duty exists); the jury's award against the congregation was only for ordinary negligence. That doesn't require any kind of evil motives or intent to cause harm, any more than a negligence award for not driving a car carefully enough.

On the other hand, if you read the entire trial transcript, you know that the jury awarded punitive damages against the Watchtower, which required that the jury find that the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences. This has nothing to do with holding the Watchtower liable for what the local elders did, or even for what Kendrick did; it related to the way Watchtower set its national policy by requiring elders to contact Watchtower legal upon learning of cases of child abuse and to otherwise keep judicial proceedings secret. The jury didn't buy that they could just transfer all of the risk to parents by publishing articles on child abuse prevention.

15

Resolutions to send money to society

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

during the course of the year congregations pass a number of resolutions to send money to the branch.

this year i've resolved to count all money grab endeavors.

so far for the month of january there were two locally:.

Chaserious

Our cong resolved to send $300 a month after the new arrangement was announced. Our Hall had just finished a $130K remodeling project. Everyone saw this as the biggest blessing ever. We had not send the first payment for the project and the loan was "forgiven". Never mind that we would now donate $300 for who knows how long. Not a year later, in December, another resolution was passed to up the amount to $500 a month.

That's actually not a bad deal - even at a modest interest rate, it would take 40-50 years to pay off a $130k at $500 per month. The ones who got screwed were the congregations that have paid off or almost paid off loans and are now asked to keep paying them forever (I mean until the big A).