Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 4501

I don't think many people understand what liability truly means, so I'll share a story with ya'll, and hope that you can gauge from my own experience what extents the law will go to, in order to gauge what happened, and who is responsible.

First, let me state a few assumptions and facts, so that we're on the same page. tack has already said that he understands what people have against his sanctioned presence, and is willing to stay away from the event. He has apologized for causing any trouble, and I applaud him for that. He, unlike many of his supporters, has realized how serious this situation could become, in the world of probabilities. I do not think tack had any intention of setting off bombs, or knifing people, or whatever. But who, on the internet, can possibly know, 100% WITHOUT A DOUBT whether someone is serious or not?

Pardon the long-winded story, but details are essential...

Ok, four years ago when I first began teaching, I had a student with a serious alcohol problem. He missed over one month of classes, turned in vastly inferior work when he did turn it in, and was obviously failing the course. I informed him of this when he approached me to say that a "C" was unacceptable to him. He was drunk at the time, and threw a desk. I calmed him down, and talked to him about his alcohol problem. I told him that if he agreed, upon his honor, to enter upon some form of treatment and to stop drinking, that I would give him what is called a "PR" grade here. Basically, that allows the student to retake the course for a final grade, without having an "F" figured in to their GPA. Nota bene: I haven't given any PR's since.

During the next semester, I was reading the student newspaper and discovered that he was arrested for attempted murder. In a drunken rage, he attacked an ex-girlfriend at a bar, bit her finger off, and smashed a glass bottle over her head. He was going to stab her with the broken bottle. While the police were dragging him away, he said, "I was going to kill her; why did you stop me." I was completely shocked, and felt naively betrayed. A few office mates were in the room while I read, and I said, "I should have known he wouldn't stick to the honor code, that he'd start drinking again." Unfortunately, a fellow colleague mentioned to her student, in seriously misrepresented terms, that I was AWARE that he was going to try to kill his ex. This student happened to be a friend of the victim, and passed this info on to police.

Next day, I received a phone call from the police. I had to cancel a class to meet with them, and discuss my "involvement" in the case. I called my lawyer immediately, and was advised on what to say and do, in the situation. I provided a written statement, subjected myself to the interview without complaint. My involvement was immediately dismissed because the investigating lieutenant surmised my lack of guilt in the case.

Thank God.

In this case, there was nothing but hearsay to indicate any supposed guilt on my part. In the case of "THE ASYLUM vs. tack" (as many of you would have it), there are chatlogs that would lead to an investigation of the website admins and the owner, if tack had done something nasty. This is evidence of prior knowledge, and therefore constitutes accessory to murder. Accessory to murder doesn't just mean "oh, I didn't tell the police where the body was buried."

People with responsibilities to themselves and others cannot afford the risk of an investigation or an indictment. That's reality. I highly doubt any of you would pony up the money that it would take to hire a good enough attorney to protect the site's administrators. You would, instead, turn around and say, "Why didn't you take him seriously?" How fickle is public opinion when something does go wrong. Can you imagine JoeyCat having to take on the feds in this case? She has chat logs. She would lose her child, her freedom, and her ability to make an honest living. Same with MstrG, wonderaz, and dingle. They all have children.

You might say, "but I have kids too." Do you not worry about their safety? About your ability to provide for them and give them a good name? If not, I ask you to re-evaluate your priorities and to examine your consciences. Think about what really matters.

It has occurred to me, in watching from a distance, the arguments about tack's presence, whether phorbie is safe bringing her children to a cheap motel on a weekend night, or whether our foreign travelers should switch hotels, that many of you feel very little responsibility for others. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you're either young or feel invulnerable personally, or that you haven't yet had the opportunity to take responsibility for others. I don't want to believe that you're bad people.

It is, though, exactly this type of thing, more than the money, that makes my decision not to attend the asylum meet-up in Philly.

Please take responsibility for your actions, and for the welfare of others, and don't do anything stupid. You'll regret it for the rest of your life.

edit: I forgot to mention...an investigation of this sort would also lead to charges or investigations of corruption of minors, due to the content of this site and chatroom.

Last edited by bunkum on 02-24-2002 at 09:47 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Dumbfucksville!
Posts: 12164

BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10152

Thanks bunkum, point well made, again.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2001
Location:
Posts: 153

I find this whole subject gayer than aminal in a dress, but of course, that is because I am not liable. I am not playing any part in organising this meet and (Thnak Gnod) I am by no means the eldest.

I have made several poor taste jokes regarding this meet and various unwholesome activities I would commit, and of course they are all taken as jokes (waiver: which of course they are, Guv'nor), but I am of age and responsible for my own actions. And whilst tack's comments were obviously jokes, Bunkum's comments hold particularly true (especially for G who can be seen a a patriarchal figure), because he is a minor and not responsible for his own actions. That responsiblilty could easily be passed onto G, and no no doubt would be (especially if harm befell tack) by his parants.

It is ridiculous to me (because I am so young, hot and carefree), but completly understandable.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9455

Bunkum has excellently stated the issues we should be concerned with here. I applaud her for stating it so well and I also applaud the admins for dealing with the situation very well. They were absolutely correct in their judgement to make this subject known and start discussion about it.

My question though is this: What is the intended plan if tack were to show up?

I think we all agree that you can never be sure of anyone's actions, especially when coming out from behind the monitor to meet IRL. I consider everyone going to the meet to be safe within a 0.00000001% margin of doubt. This means that I am aware that anyone, regardless of what they have or haven't said, has the potential to cause harm or be someone they aren't here; I just consider it to be extremely unlikely.

I'm interested to know how likely people think it is that tack would do something. 1%? 30%? 50%? Guaranteed?

I completely sympathize with and understand the sceptism that is being served on the real life meeting and the seriousness with which the comments made are being treated, but it feels that some people are granting a small uncertainity with undeserving value in a skewed way.

My other question: Who did tack say this stuff to? I'd like to hear from them what it was about tack's demeanor that made them think he might be serious, as opposed to the thickly layered joking and comments that are perpetually bandied about in chat.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged