Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dorn09 said:
This is such an over reaction.

1. No one died.
2. No one was sexually assaulted.
3. The coach was forced out 45 days after being reported.

We are making so much more of this than needs to be.
Click to expand...

How much more can we lack compassion for the human race? ^THIS

1. No one died. Nope, but as I will highlight below, someone sure the hell could have. But to tell a condensed version, by letting Tumpkin know the victim had told his employer, he could have killed her. He could have also killed the next woman that he beat as a coach IF go to bullet 3/read synopsis below.

2. No one was sexually assaulted. Well, actually if you read CUs own freaking policies domestic violence is listed under sexual assault.

3. The coach was forced out 45 days after being reported. Envision this little scenario, shall we?! The victim NEVER goes to the authorities. She doesn't talk with friends/family and only has the conversations she has with MacIntyre and Banashek. Then what? Does he get fired? Do we find out or do we not hear the whole story until someone gets wind of all of it and breaks the story a year or later longer?

Someone was beat the **** out of numerous times and she reached out to the one person attached to the situation she felt she could trust, Mike MacIntyre. That person has been trained how to handle situations. i.e. Let your boss know and file a report with OIEC if you are unsure. Step 1 followed, 2nd step not followed. People continue to say Mac did what he could. Wrong. He could have followed what he learned in training which is widely been talked about but we skip over here in Buffs land.

See LINK: http://www.colorado.edu/institutionalequity/training-and-education (BTW, Tumpkin took this training!)

His superior, Rick George, who also has the same protocol matches what MM did. He reports to his boss but doesn't report to OIEC because his boss, Phil DiStefano tells them he does not see fit.

This is where I let MM and RG off the hook a little at in not reporting to OIEC.

What I don't let off the hook are these things that keep coming back up but so many skirt around or say "We are making so much more of this than needs to be.":
A. MacIntyre put the victim at risk and showed a lack of his Christian morals by shutting out the victim. He also looks like **** for giving Tumpkin duties of play calling. I don't care how any of you spin it. MacIntyre should have taken these responsibilities. Should have said he just feels more comfortable with calling defense and Tumpkin has too many other duties on his plate. Mac told his superior, both shot him down on doing more. I don't hold much against him other than compassion as a Christian man and friend to victim.
B. Rick George and Banashek/law firm. WHY? Why was he speaking for CU in any capacity. Try to say he wasn't but read the SI article AGAIN. Really read it. He says he spoke with Rick George and she had the group on pins and needles. This is one tie that is probably a big question mark. I believe Rick George isn't one to be malicious and act like say a disgusting Dave Bliss, but his job is to make the athletic department thrive. It appears there is a tie to CU athletics and Banashek's law firm. I believe Rick George was not acting to maliciously and when he heard more truth, he felt like he was blind sided. Or Lord, that is my HOPE!
C. Phil DiStefano is done getting defended. My guess is handling his exodus is a huge key to this and why this is taking so long for the regents. Forcing a Chancellor out is kind of a huge deal. Phil ****ed up. It's not his first time. He holds that academic staff to a high standard. It will look like an utter hypocrisy if he is spared while kind of helping force the hand of the other two men.

The biggest question I have for your lack of compassion and CU direction here is this, WHAT IF?! What if she doesn't tell the authorities? What if Joe is allowed to keep coaching beyond because nothing comes of it. What if the next woman he beats the **** out of ends up being killed?

Then the reverse. What if MacIntyre and company had said they were putting Joe on leave for some help he needed as the woman asked. What if they had communicated and shown compassion to her and Joe? She may have not gone to the authorities. We may not be having to wait to find out what this is all about and not make excuses for a situation where CU ****ed up and they have admitted!!! The question I hope gets answered is how bad did they mess up and how are they going to fix it going forward?!
 
Nobody is saying domestic violence is not a major issue. Four weeks does not seem very long to investigate and fire someone. I think it would take longer at my organization under similar circumstances. The whole "Christian values" talk is silly. Alleged victim was out of state, safe, and the incident was reported up the chain. Again, in a similar situation, I can guarantee you that my HR department would tell me not to have any further contact. They'll handle it.

If the process didn't work well, it's on Phil Distefano.

I also feel the CU Regents are relative lightweights compared to their peers at other universities, and it shows on many fronts.
 
Big Jim said:
Which universities did you have in mind specifically?
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread I linked the bios of the CU regents and the UGA regents. In my opinion, CU has three qualified regents, three that are very marginally qualified, and one that's completely unfit. Further, many of those on the Board have overlapping experiences heavily weighing toward education and not for profit. There should be double the number of regents and their core skills should also include individuals with diverse backgrounds that encompass real estate, finance, information technology, organizational transformation, law, Human Resources, or marketing.

CU has been fortunate to have Bruce Benson in place. I fear for the university when he retires, and another Judith Albino is put in place.

By the way, I chose UGA merely because I own several properties in the Athens area and will likely retire there, so I feel connected to that community.
 
Creebuzz said:
Nobody is saying domestic violence is not a major issue. Four weeks does not seem very long to investigate and fire someone. I think it would take longer at my organization under similar circumstances. The whole "Christian values" talk is silly. Alleged victim was out of state, safe, and the incident was reported up the chain. Again, in a similar situation, I can guarantee you that my HR department would tell me not to have any further contact. They'll handle it.

If the process didn't work well, it's on Phil Distefano.

I also feel the CU Regents are relative lightweights compared to their peers at other universities, and it shows on many fronts.
Click to expand...

That's the point. 4 weeks wouldn't be long to investigate....if you investigated. They did not. They did nothing at all. That's not entirely true. The only ACTIONS taken were:
1. Stop all communication with the victim.
2. Tell her abuser she told on him, but not warn her.
3. "Elevate" him to linebackers coach and defensive play caller for upcoming bowl
4. Act surprised and release a statement on the day the DBC released a 3 week old TPO saying they were upset by hearing these allegations and were going to sit down together and decide what to do. That sit down conversation had occurred 4 weeks earlier and they decided to do #1 and #2 above. This time, they decide to immediately suspend him.

I do not know why there are people who are so angered by finding out the truth. "Nothing better happen to RG or MM". How can anyone make that statement without hearing their side along with the victim's? I guess that means you either believe (without hearing what happened) they are innocent or you just don't care even if they are more involved than anyone knows.

I, too, am glad this woman told Mac she was safe the day she told him. He never bothered to find out if she was safe after he told the abuser. She is not the only woman in danger either. Sounds like JT had many women around....none of whom were safe if what the victim told MM was true. Based on 8 charges including assault with a deadly weapon and a signed PPO by JT....her story is true and she was not "safe" after she hung up with MM.

I don't think the Christian argument is silly. MM has based his coaching of young men on character and doing the right thing and respecting women. I do not know how the actual actions taken in 1, 2 show respect and care towards an abused woman.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
That's the point. 4 weeks wouldn't be long to investigate....if you investigated. They did not. They did nothing at all. That's not entirely true. The only ACTIONS taken were:
1. Stop all communication with the victim.
2. Tell her abuser she told on him, but not warn her.
3. "Elevate" him to linebackers coach and defensive play caller for upcoming bowl
4. Act surprised and release a statement on the day the DBC released a 3 week old TPO saying they were upset by hearing these allegations and were going to sit down together and decide what to do. That sit down conversation had occurred 4 weeks earlier and they decided to do #1 and #2 above. This time, they decide to immediately suspend him.

I do not know why there are people who are so angered by finding out the truth. "Nothing better happen to RG or MM". How can anyone make that statement without hearing their side along with the victim's? I guess that means you either believe (without hearing what happened) they are innocent or you just don't care even if they are more involved than anyone knows.

I, too, am glad this woman told Mac she was safe the day she told him. He never bothered to find out if she was safe after he told the abuser. She is not the only woman in danger either. Sounds like JT had many women around....none of whom were safe if what the victim told MM was true. Based on 8 charges including assault with a deadly weapon and a signed PPO by JT....her story is true and she was not "safe" after she hung up with MM.

I don't think the Christian argument is silly. MM has based his coaching of young men on character and doing the right thing and respecting women. I do not know how the actual actions taken in 1, 2 show respect and care towards an abused woman.
Click to expand...

Let's say that it's all this. So what? What would you like to see happen?

If this is the truth, I still see it as a whole lot of nothing.
 
Buffnik said:
Let's say that it's all this. So what? What would you like to see happen?

If this is the truth, I still see it as a whole lot of nothing.
Click to expand...
If you see 1,2,3 and 4 as a "whole lot of nothing", then we have very different standards of conduct towards the people we pay millions of dollars to and put in charge of leading young men.
To me, it is a whole lot of something and will be incredibly sad to me that a man with a wife and daughter treated an abused woman this way. To me, it's unconscionable. To you, it's nothing. We will not agree on this.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
If you see 1,2,3 and 4 as a "whole lot of nothing", then we have very different standards of conduct towards the people we pay millions of dollars to and put in charge of leading young men.
To me, it is a whole lot of something and will be incredibly sad to me that a man with a wife and daughter treated an abused woman this way. To me, it's unconscionable. To you, it's nothing. We will not agree on this.
Click to expand...
Unconscionable? Wow. I'm honestly trying to understand you here. Maybe it's because we have different experiences forming our way of looking at something like this. Having been in corporate environments my whole life, I see it as completely unrealistic (and patently stupid) to continue speaking to someone who has made these kinds of allegations unless instructed to do so by company attorneys. I see it as completely normal and proper to report it up and follow instructions. I see it as completely normal and proper to confront the employee who was accused, tell him to get a lawyer, and to have that lawyer contact her to see if there's anything that can be done that would satisfy her as a resolution without getting the courts involved. I see it as completely normal and proper to, in the absence of a legal action or active police investigation and in the presence of a denial by the accused employee, to use that employee's talents on the job to the greatest extent possible until his contract was up. And I think that the follow-up call by MM was going above and beyond what he should have done, but he wanted to make sure he understood the situation while ensuring that she wasn't in danger (also keeping in mind that he was in control of JT's travel schedule and JT wasn't going to be getting on a flight to Michigan). So I see a whole lot of nothing except for the fact that there was probably a procedural error by Phil D with the wrong decision made on reporting requirements, and that error didn't materially change a thing on the timeline of JT's suspension. In fact, that error might have caused more problems for CU since it sounds like "Jane" didn't want to go to the courts but wanted to make sure that JT was getting help, that CU was fully aware of the issues, and that internal action was being taken -- OIEC involvement would have satisfied a lot of that, maybe all of it.

P.S. I've said what I think should be done: "mea culpa" statement by Phil D and some new OIEC training for AD employees. What do you think should be done? You haven't answered that. Sounds like you want to see George and MacIntyre fired over this.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
How much more can we lack compassion for the human race? ^THIS

1. No one died. Nope, but as I will highlight below, someone sure the hell could have. But to tell a condensed version, by letting Tumpkin know the victim had told his employer, he could have killed her. He could have also killed the next woman that he beat as a coach IF go to bullet 3/read synopsis below.

2. No one was sexually assaulted. Well, actually if you read CUs own freaking policies domestic violence is listed under sexual assault.

3. The coach was forced out 45 days after being reported. Envision this little scenario, shall we?! The victim NEVER goes to the authorities. She doesn't talk with friends/family and only has the conversations she has with MacIntyre and Banashek. Then what? Does he get fired? Do we find out or do we not hear the whole story until someone gets wind of all of it and breaks the story a year or later longer?

Someone was beat the **** out of numerous times and she reached out to the one person attached to the situation she felt she could trust, Mike MacIntyre. That person has been trained how to handle situations. i.e. Let your boss know and file a report with OIEC if you are unsure. Step 1 followed, 2nd step not followed. People continue to say Mac did what he could. Wrong. He could have followed what he learned in training which is widely been talked about but we skip over here in Buffs land.

See LINK: http://www.colorado.edu/institutionalequity/training-and-education (BTW, Tumpkin took this training!)

His superior, Rick George, who also has the same protocol matches what MM did. He reports to his boss but doesn't report to OIEC because his boss, Phil DiStefano tells them he does not see fit.

This is where I let MM and RG off the hook a little at in not reporting to OIEC.

What I don't let off the hook are these things that keep coming back up but so many skirt around or say "We are making so much more of this than needs to be.":
A. MacIntyre put the victim at risk and showed a lack of his Christian morals by shutting out the victim. He also looks like **** for giving Tumpkin duties of play calling. I don't care how any of you spin it. MacIntyre should have taken these responsibilities. Should have said he just feels more comfortable with calling defense and Tumpkin has too many other duties on his plate. Mac told his superior, both shot him down on doing more. I don't hold much against him other than compassion as a Christian man and friend to victim.
B. Rick George and Banashek/law firm. WHY? Why was he speaking for CU in any capacity. Try to say he wasn't but read the SI article AGAIN. Really read it. He says he spoke with Rick George and she had the group on pins and needles. This is one tie that is probably a big question mark. I believe Rick George isn't one to be malicious and act like say a disgusting Dave Bliss, but his job is to make the athletic department thrive. It appears there is a tie to CU athletics and Banashek's law firm. I believe Rick George was not acting to maliciously and when he heard more truth, he felt like he was blind sided. Or Lord, that is my HOPE!
C. Phil DiStefano is done getting defended. My guess is handling his exodus is a huge key to this and why this is taking so long for the regents. Forcing a Chancellor out is kind of a huge deal. Phil ****ed up. It's not his first time. He holds that academic staff to a high standard. It will look like an utter hypocrisy if he is spared while kind of helping force the hand of the other two men.

The biggest question I have for your lack of compassion and CU direction here is this, WHAT IF?! What if she doesn't tell the authorities? What if Joe is allowed to keep coaching beyond because nothing comes of it. What if the next woman he beats the **** out of ends up being killed?

Then the reverse. What if MacIntyre and company had said they were putting Joe on leave for some help he needed as the woman asked. What if they had communicated and shown compassion to her and Joe? She may have not gone to the authorities. We may not be having to wait to find out what this is all about and not make excuses for a situation where CU ****ed up and they have admitted!!! The question I hope gets answered is how bad did they mess up and how are they going to fix it going forward?!
Click to expand...


Its not lack of compassion its wanting to see things play out in court. The fact is the coach was fired 45 days after being reported(also this was not what the victim wanted in the first place). Tumpkin was given time for due process and CU decided to move on with the evidence they had at the time. 45 days is not an egregious amount of time considering there was no police report when this was reported to Mac. As for putting the victim in more danger that's BS. There is nothing that Mac, PD or RG can do to keep Tumpkin away from the victim. They can't lock him up which is the only way to guarantee her safety. Police can't even keep him away until a restraining order is granted. And even then the victim is not always safe.

If you want to play the what if game, what if he went to Tumpkin and he denied the entire thing? Not sure about you but I have never heard of anyone admitting to assaulting there significant other being questioned the first time. Most will deny deny deny. At that point what do you do? Suspend the guy on an accusation and take away his due process and open yourself up for being sued? Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't at that point.

Here is another what if, this one will blow you away so buckle in. What if Tumpkin is innocent? After all he has not had his day in court yet and has not been convicted except in the case of public opinion. There are always two sides to every story and we have not heard Tumpkin's yet.

In my opinion we came to the right conclusion in 45 days. We limited our liability and now the court will decide the fate of Tumpkin. Can this be analyzed and the process be approved upon yes.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
If you see 1,2,3 and 4 as a "whole lot of nothing", then we have very different standards of conduct towards the people we pay millions of dollars to and put in charge of leading young men.
To me, it is a whole lot of something and will be incredibly sad to me that a man with a wife and daughter treated an abused woman this way. To me, it's unconscionable. To you, it's nothing. We will not agree on this.
Click to expand...

There you go again. No, nobody is saying it's a whole lot of nothing to be an abuser. I'm saying 4 weeks is not a whole lot of time to fire someone. You, apparently, think that was too much time. But when others suggest that 12 weeks is too much time for the regents to investigate, that's not enough time for you.

Look, I manage people and if someone's girlfriend called me up claiming abuse, I'd ask them if they were safe, tell them to go to the authorities, and let my HR know about it. I would not ask my employee about it, and I would not immediately suspend him. It would be up to HR to deal with it. I'm out. Not my job and I'd screw it up since I have no expertise in that. Effectively, that's what MacIntyre did.

I certainly do not see my opinion on domestic violence as "To you, it's nothing." I'm actually incredibly offended that you suggested that. Perhaps, the most offended I've ever been on this site.
 
Creebuzz said:
There you go again. No, nobody is saying it's a whole lot of nothing to be an abuser. I'm saying 4 weeks is not a whole lot of time to fire someone. You, apparently, think that was too much time. But when others suggest that 12 weeks is too much time for the regents to investigate, that's not enough time for you.

Look, I manage people and if someone's girlfriend called me up claiming abuse, I'd ask them if they were safe, tell them to go to the authorities, and let my HR know about it. I would not ask my employee about it, and I would not immediately suspend him. It would be up to HR to deal with it. I'm out. Not my job and I'd screw it up since I have no expertise in that. Effectively, that's what MacIntyre did.

I certainly do not see my opinion on domestic violence as "To you, it's nothing." I'm actually incredibly offended that you suggested that. Perhaps, the most offended I've ever been on this site.
Click to expand...
In fairness, he was responding to me. I said that the accusations he's making against MM/ RG/ CU amounted to a whole lot of nothing.
 
Buffnik said:
Unconscionable? Wow. I'm honestly trying to understand you here. Maybe it's because we have different experiences forming our way of looking at something like this. Having been in corporate environments my whole life, I see it as completely unrealistic (and patently stupid) to continue speaking to someone who has made these kinds of allegations unless instructed to do so by company attorneys. I see it as completely normal and proper to report it up and follow instructions. I see it as completely normal and proper to confront the employee who was accused, tell him to get a lawyer, and to have that lawyer contact her to see if there's anything that can be done that would satisfy her as a resolution without getting the courts involved. I see it as completely normal and proper to, in the absence of a legal action or active police investigation and in the presence of a denial by the accused employee, to use that employee's talents on the job to the greatest extent possible until his contract was up. And I think that the follow-up call by MM was going above and beyond what he should have done, but he wanted to make sure he understood the situation while ensuring that she wasn't in danger (also keeping in mind that he was in control of JT's travel schedule and JT wasn't going to be getting on a flight to Michigan). So I see a whole lot of nothing except for the fact that there was probably a procedural error by Phil D with the wrong decision made on reporting requirements, and that error didn't materially change a thing on the timeline of JT's suspension. In fact, that error might have caused more problems for CU since it sounds like "Jane" didn't want to go to the courts but wanted to make sure that JT was getting help, that CU was fully aware of the issues, and that internal action was being taken -- OIEC involvement would have satisfied a lot of that, maybe all of it.

P.S. I've said what I think should be done: "mea culpa" statement by Phil D and some new OIEC training for AD employees. What do you think should be done? You haven't answered that. Sounds like you want to see George and MacIntyre fired over this.
Click to expand...
As I said, we will not agree. Yes, unconscionable. No, MM did go "above and beyond" and call the victim. The article says that she placed 2 calls that he picked up. The second call was not placed to her. The second call was placed to him to let him know there was evidence of abuse that could come out. There was a 911 call of a neighbor hearing her getting beaten by his coach. He also said he 100% believed her account. JT, the man he believed went against values he personally holds dear and preaches....was elevated in his job and the woman who WAS in danger after MM told JT was never once contacted again is disgusting to me. Not to you. Agree to disagree. I will always side on protecting an abused woman. I guess if they would have acted behind closed doors and immediately suspend him pending "investigation" like they did when the story actually broke in the paper, we wouldn't have to be awaiting a meaningless report about a whole lot of nothing. It is a huge issue to me if that is indeed how MM, RG and PS responded to this situation. You will be angry if they are held responsible even if it's true.
We view abuse differently.
 
Creebuzz said:
There you go again. No, nobody is saying it's a whole lot of nothing to be an abuser. I'm saying 4 weeks is not a whole lot of time to fire someone. You, apparently, think that was too much time. But when others suggest that 12 weeks is too much time for the regents to investigate, that's not enough time for you.

Look, I manage people and if someone's girlfriend called me up claiming abuse, I'd ask them if they were safe, tell them to go to the authorities, and let my HR know about it. I would not ask my employee about it, and I would not immediately suspend him. It would be up to HR to deal with it. I'm out. Not my job and I'd screw it up since I have no expertise in that. Effectively, that's what MacIntyre did.

I certainly do not see my opinion on domestic violence as "To you, it's nothing." I'm actually incredibly offended that you suggested that. Perhaps, the most offended I've ever been on this site.
Click to expand...
Good news. You don't have to be the most offended you have ever been on this site. I was putting in quotes an actual quote made by someone else who said even if it is all true it's a "whole lot of nothing."
 
Bufffalo1 said:
Good news. You don't have to be the most offended you have ever been on this site. I was putting in quotes an actual quote made by someone else who said even if it is all true it's a "whole lot of nothing."
Click to expand...
Here I go again....accurately quoting a statement made to me. Fortunately, I do not get offended by people wrongly accusing me. Have a great night.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
Good news. You don't have to be the most offended you have ever been on this site. I was putting in quotes an actual quote made by someone else who said even if it is all true it's a "whole lot of nothing."
Click to expand...

No, your "whole lot of nothing" was in reference to abuse. Not process. You have reading comprehension issues.
 
Bufffalo1 said:
As I said, we will not agree. Yes, unconscionable. No, MM did go "above and beyond" and call the victim. The article says that she placed 2 calls that he picked up. The second call was not placed to her. The second call was placed to him to let him know there was evidence of abuse that could come out. There was a 911 call of a neighbor hearing her getting beaten by his coach. He also said he 100% believed her account. JT, the man he believed went against values he personally holds dear and preaches....was elevated in his job and the woman who WAS in danger after MM told JT was never once contacted again is disgusting to me. Not to you. Agree to disagree. I will always side on protecting an abused woman. I guess if they would have acted behind closed doors and immediately suspend him pending "investigation" like they did when the story actually broke in the paper, we wouldn't have to be awaiting a meaningless report about a whole lot of nothing. It is a huge issue to me if that is indeed how MM, RG and PS responded to this situation. You will be angry if they are held responsible even if it's true.
We view abuse differently.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we view abuse differently. I doubt that we do. It seems that what we view differently is how an allegation of abuse should be handled. I'm still not sure what you wanted done. I mean, nothing would have increased her danger more than immediately suspending JT. That was the thing she was afraid would happen, for crissakes. It was the very thing that would have put her in the most danger if the allegations against JT are true. Burying him with work while putting the situation in the hands of attorneys, police and courts was the absolute best thing that could have happened for her safety. And then, once she had court ordered protection which opened an active police investigation... only then was it time to cut JT loose because it was both justifiable as an employer in case he is innocent of the charges and moral as a citizen since she now had actual protection in the event the accusations are true.

I'm shocked that you think that someone who might be an abuser should be removed from his job over it against the wishes of this woman (due to her expressed fears) and while she had no legal protections against any action he might take in reaction. Wow. If it wasn't clear to me that you are genuinely concerned, I'd wonder if you were trying to get her hurt.
 
Creebuzz said:
No, your "whole lot of nothing" was in reference to abuse. Not process. You have reading comprehension issues.
Click to expand...
No, you have issues responding to comments that are not being made to you. Even the person who said "even if it is all true, it is a whole lot of nothing" told you it was his statement I was responding to...not yours. That's why my response was written directly under his statement. It's how message boards work when used correctly.
This is not a simple issue of process, in my opinion. It is absolutely about saying that even if everything stated in the SI article is true it is a "whole lot of nothing". I wasn't responding to you so I'm not sure why I am the one being called out for having comprehension issues. It's fine. I have never stooped to personally attacking passionate people for their views even when they are diametrically opposed to line and I will not begin tonight. Nik, i do appreciate the debate even though we see it differently. I do not think that either of us will move much on our stances, but a healthy intelligent debate makes everyone better, in my opinion.
 
@Dorn09. You bring up a what if if Tumpkin is not guilty? He signed a PPO. He resigned. If he had a reasonable explanation for the numerous incidents then he'd be on extended leave.

Tough reasoning with a blind man.
 
Buffnik said:
I'm not sure we view abuse differently. I doubt that we do. It seems that what we view differently is how an allegation of abuse should be handled. I'm still not sure what you wanted done. I mean, nothing would have increased her danger more than immediately suspending JT. That was the thing she was afraid would happen, for crissakes. It was the very thing that would have put her in the most danger if the allegations against JT are true. Burying him with work while putting the situation in the hands of attorneys, police and courts was the absolute best thing that could have happened for her safety. And then, once she had court ordered protection which opened an active police investigation... only then was it time to cut JT loose because it was both justifiable as an employer in case he is innocent of the charges and moral as a citizen since she now had actual protection in the event the accusations are true.

I'm shocked that you think that someone who might be an abuser should be removed from his job over it against the wishes of this woman (due to her expressed fears) and while she had no legal protections against any action he might take in reaction. Wow. If it wasn't clear to me that you are genuinely concerned, I'd wonder if you were trying to get her hurt.
Click to expand...
I know you do not believe that I would want her to get hurt. I have a background in abuse. The most dangerous time for the abused person is when they tell on their abuser. She was in danger. I do not expect MM to know that fact. I would expect the counselors at the OIEC to know that. All 3 were trained in reporting and not one person had ever had an explanation as to why not once...did MM, RG or PS pick up the phone and place ONE call during any of their meetings on how to handle it, (which included a discussion on not responding to the victim and going over the OIEC policies and reading/interpreting them incorrectly) and say, "We have a situation that we are not sure how to handle..."
PS helped establish the OIEC for ALL employees to use in any and all questions of sexual abuse/domestic violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top