Sherrif Clarke

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

His office was sued by a woman who was raped five times by one of his employees.  Suppose you managed a bakery (you know, one of those bakeries that doesn't sell cakes to gay people).  One of your employees turns out to be a serial rapist.  His victim sues your company.  How can you NOT know that you have a personnel problem?

Boru

If we could all tell who all the people are who are raping others, then we wouldn't have as much of a problem, now would we?

I could go to the grocery store, shop for a good hour, pass 200 people, some of which probably raped, or likely even experienced rape at some point, and I most likely couldn't point out one of them to you.  I would gander you couldn't do it either.  Throw it that people who rape don't generally do it out in the open.   So how do you know?  Maybe you catch them, maybe you don't.  Maybe the victim says something, but many times they don't because of fear, and the nature of rape.  Rape is less about sex, and more about exerting power over someone else.  When someone is overpowered, they are less likely to fight back or tell.

When I was in college, domestic violence, especially against women, was one of the focal points of my education.  Part of it was because I volunteered in a homeless shelter and I got to see many of the effects up close.  A lot of your "bad guys" seem friendly, but that's also part of what makes them dangerous.  They present well, they don't appear to be suspicious, and they know how to manipulate.  Those very things are what they use to overpower other, and more times than not they'll use it to shift blame to their victim.  That's why you get women saying "Well it was just one mistake because I upset him, so he won't do it again."  He flatters her, apologizes, buys her gifts, then back at it once she drops her guard.

No one is arguing that rape is a bad thing, so maybe you could stuff your little lecture on that and let's get back to Sheriff Clarke.

NOTHING you just said applies to Clarke.  He ran what was, by all accounts, a medieval prison.  But let's stick to the rape case.  He had to know his sheriff's department was being sued.  There is no way he could not have known - the victim launched her lawsuit in 2013, Clarke didn't resign as sheriff until 2017.  In the intervening years, there were numerous complaints filed (pregnant inmates being denied care, women shackled during childbirth, a mentally disabled inmate dying after being denied water for a week, a infant born in the jail died) and there is no evidence that Clarke showed the least inclination to address these issues, the treatment of inmates, or the conditions at his jail.

To be clear, no one is accusing the sheriff of personally committing these atrocities.  But being sheriff means the decent treatment of inmates (i.e., providing medical care and not letting them die) was his responsibility.

He's a monster.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

If we could all tell who all the people are who are raping others, then we wouldn't have as much of a problem, now would we?

I could go to the grocery store, shop for a good hour, pass 200 people, some of which probably raped, or likely even experienced rape at some point, and I most likely couldn't point out one of them to you.  I would gander you couldn't do it either.  Throw it that people who rape don't generally do it out in the open.   So how do you know?  Maybe you catch them, maybe you don't.  Maybe the victim says something, but many times they don't because of fear, and the nature of rape.  Rape is less about sex, and more about exerting power over someone else.  When someone is overpowered, they are less likely to fight back or tell.

When I was in college, domestic violence, especially against women, was one of the focal points of my education.  Part of it was because I volunteered in a homeless shelter and I got to see many of the effects up close.  A lot of your "bad guys" seem friendly, but that's also part of what makes them dangerous.  They present well, they don't appear to be suspicious, and they know how to manipulate.  Those very things are what they use to overpower other, and more times than not they'll use it to shift blame to their victim.  That's why you get women saying "Well it was just one mistake because I upset him, so he won't do it again."  He flatters her, apologizes, buys her gifts, then back at it once she drops her guard.

No one is arguing that rape is a bad thing, so maybe you could stuff your little lecture on that and let's get back to Sheriff Clarke.

NOTHING you just said applies to Clarke.  He ran what was, by all accounts, a medieval prison.  But let's stick to the rape case.  He had to know his sheriff's department was being sued.  There is no way he could not have known - the victim launched her lawsuit in 2013, Clarke didn't resign as sheriff until 2017.  In the intervening years, there were numerous complaints filed (pregnant inmates being denied care, women shackled during childbirth, a mentally disabled inmate dying after being denied water for a week, a infant born in the jail died) and there is no evidence that Clarke showed the least inclination to address these issues, the treatment of inmates, or the conditions at his jail.

To be clear, no one is accusing the sheriff of personally committing these atrocities.  But being sheriff means the decent treatment of inmates (i.e., providing medical care and not letting them die) was his responsibility.

He's a monster.

Boru

Maybe. Or he was supervising monsters.

I don't want to downplay this because of "rape" being involved, but sometimes  you can end up working with people who aren't quite what we had hoped they would be.  If Clarke was directly at fault, I also don't want to suggest something else.  What I'm getting at is how did he know, or how was he supposed to know?  If he did know, then to what degree did he have knowledge of who and to whom the problems were directed at?  I'm certainly not saying he's innocent, because he may not be, but to what extent could he have acted based on what was reasonably known (or knowable) to him?  He could be a "monster" but I won't assume he is until I know more.  If he is, then bring on the torches.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No one is arguing that rape is a bad thing, so maybe you could stuff your little lecture on that and let's get back to Sheriff Clarke.

NOTHING you just said applies to Clarke.  He ran what was, by all accounts, a medieval prison.  But let's stick to the rape case.  He had to know his sheriff's department was being sued.  There is no way he could not have known - the victim launched her lawsuit in 2013, Clarke didn't resign as sheriff until 2017.  In the intervening years, there were numerous complaints filed (pregnant inmates being denied care, women shackled during childbirth, a mentally disabled inmate dying after being denied water for a week, a infant born in the jail died) and there is no evidence that Clarke showed the least inclination to address these issues, the treatment of inmates, or the conditions at his jail.

To be clear, no one is accusing the sheriff of personally committing these atrocities.  But being sheriff means the decent treatment of inmates (i.e., providing medical care and not letting them die) was his responsibility.

He's a monster.

Boru

Maybe. Or he was supervising monsters.

I don't want to downplay this because of "rape" being involved, but sometimes  you can end up working with people who aren't quite what we had hoped they would be.  If Clarke was directly at fault, I also don't want to suggest something else.  What I'm getting at is how did he know, or how was he supposed to know?  If he did know, then to what degree did he have knowledge of who and to whom the problems were directed at?  I'm certainly not saying he's innocent, because he may not be, but to what extent could he have acted based on what was reasonably known (or knowable) to him?  He could be a "monster" but I won't assume he is until I know more.  If he is, then bring on the torches.

How was he supposed to know?  He was being SUED, fer chrissakes. Please outline for me the conditions under which you would be sued and not know about it. FWIW, I've been sued more than once, and it's a pretty hard thing not to notice.

It was his fucking job to know what was going on.  We aren't taking about a single incident, but a pattern of abuse and neglect that went on for years. ON HIS WATCH.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Maybe. Or he was supervising monsters.

I don't want to downplay this because of "rape" being involved, but sometimes  you can end up working with people who aren't quite what we had hoped they would be.  If Clarke was directly at fault, I also don't want to suggest something else.  What I'm getting at is how did he know, or how was he supposed to know?  If he did know, then to what degree did he have knowledge of who and to whom the problems were directed at?  I'm certainly not saying he's innocent, because he may not be, but to what extent could he have acted based on what was reasonably known (or knowable) to him?  He could be a "monster" but I won't assume he is until I know more.  If he is, then bring on the torches.

How was he supposed to know?  He was being SUED, fer chrissakes. Please outline for me the conditions under which you would be sued and not know about it. FWIW, I've been sued more than once, and it's a pretty hard thing not to notice.

It was his fucking job to know what was going on.  We aren't taking about a single incident, but a pattern of abuse and neglect that went on for years. ON HIS WATCH.

Boru

Being sued doesn't indicate guilt, responsibility, or anything else.  You go to a trial and evidence is presented.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  What I'm looking for is at what point did he personally have all the said evidence to process?  Was it during the court hearing?  Was it after he even had a chance to act on it?  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying "I" can't conclude he's a monster because I don't know enough details.  Also, was he sued directly?  Like he was ruled against, and he had to fork out the cash?  I understand he was "in charge", which often defaults the responsibility to the supervisor, but that doesn't always mean it was directly their fault, just that they must assume fault for their employee.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How was he supposed to know?  He was being SUED, fer chrissakes. Please outline for me the conditions under which you would be sued and not know about it. FWIW, I've been sued more than once, and it's a pretty hard thing not to notice.

It was his fucking job to know what was going on.  We aren't taking about a single incident, but a pattern of abuse and neglect that went on for years. ON HIS WATCH.

Boru

Being sued doesn't indicate guilt, responsibility, or anything else.  You go to a trial and evidence is presented.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  What I'm looking for is at what point did he personally have all the said evidence to process?  Was it during the court hearing?  Was it after he even had a chance to act on it?  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying "I" can't conclude he's a monster because I don't know enough details.  Also, was he sued directly?  Like he was ruled against, and he had to fork out the cash?  I understand he was "in charge", which often defaults the responsibility to the supervisor, but that doesn't always mean it was directly their fault, just that they must assume fault for their employee.

I have to ask - are you legitimately stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse? 

He's in charge of the jail.  One female inmate is raped multiple times.  She sues and is awarded $6.7 million by the court.  Between the time the lawsuit was filed and the time Clarke resigned, there were multiple incidences of abuse and neglect at the jail, which he did nothing to stop.  This isn't a case of a 'few bad apples', it's a case of a horrific culture that the guy in charge did nothing to prevent. I'll try another analogy, maybe that'll sink in.

Suppose you run a daycare centre - 5 adults caring for 50 kids.  One of your staff beats a child in your care so badly that they child has to be hospitalized.  The parents sue your business.  While the case is winding its way through the courts, you are made aware of children at the centre not being properly fed, or given their meds, and in some cases going home with bruises.  You continue to run your centre the same way, with the same staff, with no increased training or oversight, with no changes in policy.  This would make you a horrible, horrible person.

The is precisely the case with Clarke.  He failed to fix problems he knew existed.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Being sued doesn't indicate guilt, responsibility, or anything else.  You go to a trial and evidence is presented.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  What I'm looking for is at what point did he personally have all the said evidence to process?  Was it during the court hearing?  Was it after he even had a chance to act on it?  Again, I'm not saying you're wrong.  I'm saying "I" can't conclude he's a monster because I don't know enough details.  Also, was he sued directly?  Like he was ruled against, and he had to fork out the cash?  I understand he was "in charge", which often defaults the responsibility to the supervisor, but that doesn't always mean it was directly their fault, just that they must assume fault for their employee.

I have to ask - are you legitimately stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse? 

He's in charge of the jail.  One female inmate is raped multiple times.  She sues and is awarded $6.7 million by the court.  Between the time the lawsuit was filed and the time Clarke resigned, there were multiple incidences of abuse and neglect at the jail, which he did nothing to stop.  This isn't a case of a 'few bad apples', it's a case of a horrific culture that the guy in charge did nothing to prevent. I'll try another analogy, maybe that'll sink in.

Suppose you run a daycare centre - 5 adults caring for 50 kids.  One of your staff beats a child in your care so badly that they child has to be hospitalized.  The parents sue your business.  While the case is winding its way through the courts, you are made aware of children at the centre not being properly fed, or given their meds, and in some cases going home with bruises.  You continue to run your centre the same way, with the same staff, with no increased training or oversight, with no changes in policy.  This would make you a horrible, horrible person.

The is precisely the case with Clarke.  He failed to fix problems he knew existed.

Boru

Stupid because I'm not passing judgment on someone?  Whatever guy.  Well then I guess I'll be "stupid" because I don't go around passing judgment of people just because someone insists I should based on what they believe.

I just spent a few minutes reading up on it.  The person who was accused was a corrections officer name Xaview Thicklen.  He denied the incident and later resigned.  No indication that Clarke had anything to do with it directly, but it was at the jail, so it had to pay $6.7 million.

The separate incident with the guy dying for no water.  It was three officers who were responsible.  The inmate had some mental health issues he was receiving medication for, and in light of his condition, he was attempting to turn on the water to flood his cell.  As a result, the officers turned off the water, then never turned it on.  It was also noted that they did not report their actions to any supervisor.

So unless you have something else, on what basis does this make him a monster?  Some people did some pretty bad stuff, but they acted independently and without informing others.

Although I don't agree with his position on everything, I still don't think it validates going as far as to call him a "monster."

[Amarok]

Right he had no understanding of the abuse 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Right he had no understanding of the abuse 

I take it you've never visited a jail or prison.  They're not always the friendliest of places.

I'm not going to blame someone for choices others make.  The people who actually committed the acts against the inmates are more of a concern.

[Amarok]

Right he had no understanding of the abuse 

I take it you've never visited a jail or prison.  They're not always the friendliest of places.

I'm not going to blame someone for choices others make.  The people who actually committed the acts against the inmates are more of a concern.

I have worked in a prison and being unfriendly is neither here nor there 

I don't believe for a second he was ignorant of the abuse and if he was that's on him too .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I take it you've never visited a jail or prison.  They're not always the friendliest of places.

I'm not going to blame someone for choices others make.  The people who actually committed the acts against the inmates are more of a concern.

I have worked in a prison and being unfriendly is neither here nor there 

I don't believe for a second he was ignorant of the abuse and if he was that's on him too .

Sure it is.  You can get unruly inmates and it impacts the officers.  Some taunt or maybe even go as far as to threaten.  It's not everybody, but it happens a lot.  Not surprising that someone would feel hostility.  It doesn't mean they are justified, but sometimes people aren't looking for justification.

I don't believe he's totally innocent, but I don't think it's fair to call him, or anybody else, a monster just because you don't like them. When people make mistakes, my hope is always that there is correction.  That includes myself.  If I legitimately flub up, hopefully I'll find a way to remedy the problem.