 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Seminoles pay Jameis Winston Rape Victim 950,000 |
Nature Boy Florida |
Why in the world doesn't Jamies have to pay?
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/25/16 6:07 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Because it was a Title IX suit against FSU and didn't involve Winston. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/25/16 6:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Has Winston been in court for the civil lawsuit yet?
I know he got away with the criminal penalty already.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/25/16 6:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Both the state attorney and FSU found the allegations unworthy of charges. I don't think "getting away" is the way that is described unless you are an arch feminist who believes every allegation of sexual assault is true no matter what. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/25/16 6:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Hey, you and Hillary can never believe the woman if u want - but if FSU had to pay - why doesn't Jamies?
Doesn't no mean no?
Doesn't incapacitated mean no?
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/25/16 6:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| He probably should not have to pay anything in relation to a case for which he wasn't a defendant, no. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/25/16 7:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | He probably should not have to pay anything in relation to a case for which he wasn't a defendant, no. |
I guess not.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
1/25/16 7:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
But is obvious someone believed someone did something wrong. That is a lot to pay if you are 'NOT SURE'. That situation is confusing, for sure~ 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
1/26/16 1:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Cojak wrote: | | But is obvious someone believed someone did something wrong. That is a lot to pay if you are 'NOT SURE'. That situation is confusing, for sure~ |
That doesn't really follow, and the settlement specifically included language that there was no admission of fault. A Title IX case can be extremely expensive, and there's no way for an organization to tell if it will be victorious, even if the facts are on their side. (I'm not saying the facts are on FSU's side, I'm just presuming innocence absent any convincing evidence to the contrary, as we all should.) $950k is a lot to us, but it's a pretty meager sum for a university to pay to ensure 100% that the risk of a much larger verdict is eliminated.
Keep your ears open for news about settlements -- you see them all the time for cases that are absolutely ridiculous (again, not saying this case is ridiculous, or not ridiculous; just saying that you see settlements for ludicrous cases all the time), because when you're trying to manage your risk, much of the time it makes more sense to just pay to make the risk of a much larger verdict go away.
As an example, if I told you you have a 10% chance (not very high) of having to pay me $120, but you could make all of that go away for $10, would you give me $10? You should, every single time. It's the most cost effective way for you to manage the risk I am presenting. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/26/16 2:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | But is obvious someone believed someone did something wrong. That is a lot to pay if you are 'NOT SURE'. That situation is confusing, for sure~ |
That doesn't really follow, and the settlement specifically included language that there was no admission of fault. A Title IX case can be extremely expensive, and there's no way for an organization to tell if it will be victorious, even if the facts are on their side. (I'm not saying the facts are on FSU's side, I'm just presuming innocence absent any convincing evidence to the contrary, as we all should.) $950k is a lot to us, but it's a pretty meager sum for a university to pay to ensure 100% that the risk of a much larger verdict is eliminated.
Keep your ears open for news about settlements -- you see them all the time for cases that are absolutely ridiculous (again, not saying this case is ridiculous, or not ridiculous; just saying that you see settlements for ludicrous cases all the time), because when you're trying to manage your risk, much of the time it makes more sense to just pay to make the risk of a much larger verdict go away.
As an example, if I told you you have a 10% chance (not very high) of having to pay me $120, but you could make all of that go away for $10, would you give me $10? You should, every single time. It's the most cost effective way for you to manage the risk I am presenting. |
I see your point, BUT I STILL DON'T LIKE IT!   (The $10 is in the mail) 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
1/26/16 7:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
georgiapath |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Cojak wrote: | | But is obvious someone believed someone did something wrong. That is a lot to pay if you are 'NOT SURE'. That situation is confusing, for sure~ |
That doesn't really follow, and the settlement specifically included language that there was no admission of fault. A Title IX case can be extremely expensive, and there's no way for an organization to tell if it will be victorious, even if the facts are on their side. (I'm not saying the facts are on FSU's side, I'm just presuming innocence absent any convincing evidence to the contrary, as we all should.) $950k is a lot to us, but it's a pretty meager sum for a university to pay to ensure 100% that the risk of a much larger verdict is eliminated.
Keep your ears open for news about settlements -- you see them all the time for cases that are absolutely ridiculous (again, not saying this case is ridiculous, or not ridiculous; just saying that you see settlements for ludicrous cases all the time), because when you're trying to manage your risk, much of the time it makes more sense to just pay to make the risk of a much larger verdict go away.
As an example, if I told you you have a 10% chance (not very high) of having to pay me $120, but you could make all of that go away for $10, would you give me $10? You should, every single time. It's the most cost effective way for you to manage the risk I am presenting. |
Nope, if I wasn't guilty I wouldn't give you the $l0.00. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7604
1/28/16 2:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| georgiapath wrote: | | Nope, if I wasn't guilty I wouldn't give you the $l0.00. |
Then you definitely don't have a future as a risk manager.  That guy couldn't care less, he just wants to choose the path that will cost his organization the least because that's his job.
In my example, the cost of giving me $10 is $10, and the cost of not giving me $10 is $12 (that is, once you have valuated the probability, the average cost of that decision is $12). Therefore, you should always give me $10, irrespective of any other facts. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/28/16 2:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | irrespective of any other facts |
That's a mouthful. There are some situations when the other facts might mean something worth more than money. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
1/28/16 3:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | That's a mouthful. There are some situations when the other facts might mean something worth more than money. |
Not to a risk manager who is evaluating a settlement which includes no admission of fault. That's my point. I'm not talking about you and me, for whom your statement would definitely be true. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
1/28/16 3:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
