Katie Meyer’s Parents

Homepage Forums Current Events Board Katie Meyer’s Parents

Viewing 6 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #6658
      LegendLegend
      Keymaster

      I see the thought police closed the thread on the cardboard. So let’s have it out here.

      my take?

      Tragic circumstances. Katie was obviously far more fragile than anyone knew.  She also sounds like a person who perhaps lacked some self control (and, yes, that includes both in throwing coffee and in killing herself).

      But.  She was an adult…a 22 year old adult who was accused of assaulting another student. You take big girl vigilante actions you must be ready for big girl consequences.

      All the stuff about “football player” and “sexual assault” and “when the note was sent” is all window dressing.  The basic accusation was that she assaulted a fellow student by throwing hot coffee on them.  This would be an honor code violation and in most places an actual criminal assault.  In other words, she placed herself in disciplinary peril and probably faced some legal peril as well.

      That she was distraught about how the potential discipline she faced would affect her future plans is irrelevant to me.  She appears to have screwed up.  She appears to have been going through an extended (due) process to determine discipline for her alleged screw up.

      Katie’s parents have just dragged their daughter’s legacy through the mud, and it’s hard to see based on their own press blitz what Stanford should have done differently.  If they just want money, then their actions make some sense.  But they have chosen to put their daughter in a much less favorable light.

      They have lost an adult child to suicide. It is a tragedy. Why make it worse?

      • This topic was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by LegendLegend.

      ____________________________________________________________
      Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

    • #6660
      rjnwmillrjnwmill
      Participant

      Perhaps a little myopic in our justice system…see Durham results with DC juries?

      Stanford is in a tough spot in front of a jury. They must convince the jury that their processing on two disciplinary cases was prudent, timely and appropriate. Their position is compromised if the jury concludes they fall short in either case.

      The university has to make the case you have regarding their treatment of the soccer player, but don’t they also need to convince the jurors that they handled the football player appropriately as well, that he should have been on campus to “trigger” Katie?

      From my limited understanding here, I believe the problem for the university is the circumstances around the processing of the football player. I understand he was a known bad actor. Does the timeline establish that the university acted prudently in protecting the community?  Did they exit a bad actor promptly?  Can they defend their processing of an entirely unsympathetic character?  Who can speak convincingly, sympathetically for the football player?  Who will convince the people in the box that fault lies solely on Katie?  In defending the male athlete, that he should have been admitted, that he should have remained a member of the community when he “earned” the contempt of coffee, how does the university look “good”?  Do they want to put the football player on the stand?  They want him subjected to cross examination?

      I wouldn’t want to try and make that argument with the available witnesses. I’d be interested in how you might deal with the other side of the story if you were representing the University.

      I don’t think you’ll get away with, “She was an adult…a 22 year old adult who was accused of assaulting another student.”  That isn’t the record the University must defend is it?

      Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
      Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

      • #6666
        cardcrimsoncardcrimson
        Participant

        [quote quote=6658]I see the thought police closed the thread on the cardboard. So let’s have it out here. my take? Tragic circumstances. Katie was obviously far more fragile than anyone knew. [/quote]

        Yeah, I got banned for awhile because of my take. I thought one post was incredibly egregious and I called him/her out, saying he/she was callous and ignorant of mental health issues faced by kids today. Ad hominem attack, so said the powers that be, though one poster, a pediatrician, thanked me privately for the post.

        Not wanting to go into the details, my daughter is an athlete, and for a variety of reasons has really struggled the last year or so, on top of covid and the lockdowns. A major surgery, a club team that offered no support to help her recover (actually put in barriers), a second separate medical issue, an abusive and threatening high school coach and just being a high school girl.

        She seems to be weathering the storms, but the last week of the polo season, I’d never seen her as fragile as she was. A mere mention of the coach and team created a visceral reaction. To the other parents on the team who know what’s she’s be through, and put through put through by the coach, she’s incredibly strong. I do too, but have seen a side that makes me pretty concerned and protective.

        One more big thing to deal with and . . . .

        I very much feel for Katie’s parents and wish them the best as they deal with unimaginable grief.

         

    • #6661
      LegendLegend
      Keymaster

      “Triggering” someone to go kill themself seems like a pretty high bar to me for wrongful death.

      I’m not a lawyer but find it hard to believe that your argument (which reduces to “the school may have made her attack the other student”) is even relevant to whether the school made her kill herself. If “wrongful death” can mean “set off a series of events that led to despair and ultimately suicide” then I suspect a lot of companies are going to need to lawyer up, not to mention municipalities and employers of high suicide rate professions, and spouses for that matter.

      In a world where individual adults are responsible for their actions, we have to separate the assault on another student from the “reason” for the assault. No one has claimed it was self defense, and self defense is one of if not the only argument for use of force (including throwing hot coffee on someone).

      I will say it again:  the circumstances are tragic but hardly novel. Young men are accused of “sexual assault” at a fast pace these days, and that accusation gives exactly noone the right to assault them in kind…No matter how “triggered” they are.  And, you know what? No matter how inept the university is in disciplining others, you still don’t get to avenge your friend.

      So, I think the university could move to suppress discussion of the sexual assault as irrelevant to Katie’s assault on another student, since the two incidences are not concurrent and Katie was not truly “defending” her teammate from a sexual assault as I understand it.

      Now, let’s talk about what the actual claimed proximate cause was:  they notified her of a hearing via an allegedly brusque email delivered in an evening email.  Seems like a fairly adult thing to have to deal with to me. I have seen process servers walk into a person’s private garage at an evening time and serve far more ominous papers than the email KM received.  Does that make such a person liable for the recipients next actions?

      ____________________________________________________________
      Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

    • #6662
      rjnwmillrjnwmill
      Participant

      Let me be clear, I’m not arguing right or wrong, black or white. I’m speaking only to the make up of the jury and which argument I’d rather present. One party, the university has both monetary exposure and reputational risk, with the jury and the public telling of the tale. The other party, not so much.

      As to your thought, “If “wrongful death” can mean “set off a series of events that led to despair and ultimately suicide” then I suspect a lot of companies are going to need to lawyer up, not to mention municipalities and employers of high suicide rate professions, and spouses for that matter.” let’s watch the cases that will be filed against Walmart in Virginia. But briefly I think they better lawyer up.

      Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
      Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

    • #6671
      LegendLegend
      Keymaster

      Btw, given how the other boards are going full censorship, if you guys have people email ceb.lord@gmail.com I can add people to the board. I get so many spam username request that I basically reject them all.

      the Stanford discussion place on this board could be a lot livelier

       

      ____________________________________________________________
      Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

    • #6674
      rjnwmillrjnwmill
      Participant

      A third party telling of the tale after some independent investigation.

      https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2022/11/30/soccer-stars-parents-sue-stanford-university-after-her-death?utm_source=express-2022-11-30&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express

      Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
      Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

      • #6676
        LegendLegend
        Keymaster

        Tragic stuff, as expected.

        How tragic is it that a stolen kiss is now the basis for a sexual assault charge?  It used to just be a reason to get kicked in the balls…or lucky.

        The commentary on women and perfection does not align with either my view of elite female athletes at stanford (I married one) nor professional women in the workplace.

        It’s too bad that she was misled so badly about men, women, and the realities of life.  While, yes, a disciplinary proceeding could be a reason not to get into Stanford Law, it’s not the end of the world.  She could have been criminally charged and wasn’t.

        ____________________________________________________________
        Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

    • #6681
      AvatarMick
      Participant

      Two thoughts. First, with respect to the wrongful death aspect of suicide, it needs to be examined whether Stanford owed Katie Meyer a “special duty of care,” which covers a fairly broad ground. If Katie was on prescription meds, or under the care of a psychiatrist, therapist or doctor and Stanford was aware of same, then Stanford would be wise to construct a thorough legal defense. And in fact, Katie did seek care at Stanford’s Sports Psychology Clinic, she talked about considering suicide and was prescribed medication.  Similar goes if Katie felt bullied, either by the school or the football player. Bullying isn’t just person-to-person, institutional bullying can be argued as well, particularly since they didn’t hold the football player to the same level of (semi)legal scrutiny. If any administrator at Stanford ignored a direct or indirect plea for help, well…

      Soccer star’s parents sue Stanford University after her death | News | Almanac Online | (almanacnews.com)

      Separately…I worry about the “always believe women” position. When I grew up, my mother hated men (with good reason), and she would predictably take my sister’s side over that of my brother and me, every single time. That led to some monstrous behavior on the part of my sister. Professionally speaking, I’m aware of numerous situations in which women were believed completely, and incorrectly. In that environment, when a woman can speak no wrong, is it a far jump to imply that she can do no wrong; e.g., throwing a cup of coffee on someone who offends you is perfectly acceptable. Gives rise to “Karens” everywhere, is my concern.

      One final point…as Harvey Weinstein is about to go down for the third time, it’s easy to point out what a reprehensible lizard he was. Imagine, demanding sexual favors in trade for career advancement. Horrific, I agree.  And yet…while it is awful for the gander, it’s acceptable for the goose? How is that different from what Kamala Harris did? She carried on a public affair (so public that it was discussed in Herb Caen’s column) with a highly placed public official, Willie Brown, who gave her the first two political positions she had.  And a BMW, as Willie proudly noted. Like a budding actress, she slept with a powerful man and received favors. Why no public outcry? Why was it off-limits during the campaign?

      • This reply was modified 2 months ago by AvatarMick.
Viewing 6 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.