Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
UCSC Claimed Kerr Hall Damages and May Have Gotten Reimbursed
UCSC students are being charged for things that have may already been paid for by insurance, which raises questions about the validly and legality of those restitution charges.
SANTA CRUZ, CA - In the recently released itemized receipts (which can be found here ) from Kerr Hall there are a few interesting things that may at first go unnoticed but may provide evidence that the UCSC administration has at the very least filed a claim for damages that occurred at Kerr Hall because of the occupation and possibly even was reimbursed for the costs. This may mean that UCSC students are being charged for things that have already been paid for, which raises questions about the validly and legality of those restitution charges.
On pages 1-17 there is a hand written note "Claim #2010102980" and on some pages there is also a hand written note "W000339640" accompanying the claim number.
Furthermore when American Technologies Inc. (ATI) sent their invoice to UCSC for their cleaning services, found on page 18, they sent a courtesy copy of the invoice to "Sedgwick Claims Management Services" at a P.O. box in Lexington, KY.
It would make sense for an institution as large as UCSC to carry property insurance especially on a property as valuable and important to the administration as Kerr Hall. Further research on the UC Office of the President (UCOP) website turned up information about "Sedgwick Insurance Claims Services". The UCOP website describing the systemwide property insurance policy which covers all buildings and their contents owned the Regents, found here, states the third party claim manager as "Sedgwick CMS" with a listed address that is the same as the Lexington, KY address on the ATI invoice.
Based on this, one can easily infer with some confidence that UCSC administration filed a claim with Sedgwick for the damages that occurred at Kerr Hall during the occupation in November. If this is true the next question would then be, is it likely that UC's insurance accepted the claim and reimbursed the school for damages?
Many commercial insurance policies do not provide coverage for damages that result from riots or other public disturbances and on further inspection of the UCOP property insurance page there is a list of what is generally covered and excluded from the property insurance plan, found here. It lists that vandalism is covered under the University's insurance policy. While we cannot be sure as we do not have access to the actual policy terms for the University's insurance it appears that the damage at Kerr Hall would be covered by the University's property insurance. Furthermore, the University describes the damages that occurred at Kerr Hall as the result of "vandalism" (this can be found on the ATI invoice).
If the University's claim was approved by the insurance company and was reimbursed how much then did the University pay out of pocket? The same website which lists what is generally covered and excluded from the University's property insurance plan also lists the deductible for the plan. The deducible is how much an entity must pay out of pocket before their insurance kicks in and pays for costs. In this case the deductible is 1,000 dollars meaning that if the total costs of the damages were reimbursed by insurance then the total cost to the University would be only 1,000 dollars.
While at this point it is impossible to know for sure if the insurance company approved UC's claim for damages at Kerr Hall it seems likely that at least some of the costs were reimbursed. Even if only some of the costs were reimbursed it does not make sense that restituion being charged to alleged participants is based upon the total $34,739.95 cost and not the actual out of pocket costs incurred by the University.
On another note, if the costs were reimbursed by the insurance company the insurance company usually has the legal right to collect on those charges. This legal concept is called subrogation. According to a commercial real estate lawyer familiar with this concept, it would be unusual for the insurance company to use a proxy like the University to recuperate those costs instead that would be done through a civil proceeding. It is important to note though that many policies written recently contain a waiver of subrogation rights.
The University should be clear and transparent about this matter. Students should not be charged for costs that have already been paid for by insurance and restitution should reflect the actual out of pocket expenses of the University. Saladin Sale from the UCSC Office of Risk Services, the person and department responsible for handling claims to the University's insurance, should release information either confirming or refuting these accusations. You can contact Saladin Sale at (831) 459-3261.
On pages 1-17 there is a hand written note "Claim #2010102980" and on some pages there is also a hand written note "W000339640" accompanying the claim number.
Furthermore when American Technologies Inc. (ATI) sent their invoice to UCSC for their cleaning services, found on page 18, they sent a courtesy copy of the invoice to "Sedgwick Claims Management Services" at a P.O. box in Lexington, KY.
It would make sense for an institution as large as UCSC to carry property insurance especially on a property as valuable and important to the administration as Kerr Hall. Further research on the UC Office of the President (UCOP) website turned up information about "Sedgwick Insurance Claims Services". The UCOP website describing the systemwide property insurance policy which covers all buildings and their contents owned the Regents, found here, states the third party claim manager as "Sedgwick CMS" with a listed address that is the same as the Lexington, KY address on the ATI invoice.
Based on this, one can easily infer with some confidence that UCSC administration filed a claim with Sedgwick for the damages that occurred at Kerr Hall during the occupation in November. If this is true the next question would then be, is it likely that UC's insurance accepted the claim and reimbursed the school for damages?
Many commercial insurance policies do not provide coverage for damages that result from riots or other public disturbances and on further inspection of the UCOP property insurance page there is a list of what is generally covered and excluded from the property insurance plan, found here. It lists that vandalism is covered under the University's insurance policy. While we cannot be sure as we do not have access to the actual policy terms for the University's insurance it appears that the damage at Kerr Hall would be covered by the University's property insurance. Furthermore, the University describes the damages that occurred at Kerr Hall as the result of "vandalism" (this can be found on the ATI invoice).
If the University's claim was approved by the insurance company and was reimbursed how much then did the University pay out of pocket? The same website which lists what is generally covered and excluded from the University's property insurance plan also lists the deductible for the plan. The deducible is how much an entity must pay out of pocket before their insurance kicks in and pays for costs. In this case the deductible is 1,000 dollars meaning that if the total costs of the damages were reimbursed by insurance then the total cost to the University would be only 1,000 dollars.
While at this point it is impossible to know for sure if the insurance company approved UC's claim for damages at Kerr Hall it seems likely that at least some of the costs were reimbursed. Even if only some of the costs were reimbursed it does not make sense that restituion being charged to alleged participants is based upon the total $34,739.95 cost and not the actual out of pocket costs incurred by the University.
On another note, if the costs were reimbursed by the insurance company the insurance company usually has the legal right to collect on those charges. This legal concept is called subrogation. According to a commercial real estate lawyer familiar with this concept, it would be unusual for the insurance company to use a proxy like the University to recuperate those costs instead that would be done through a civil proceeding. It is important to note though that many policies written recently contain a waiver of subrogation rights.
The University should be clear and transparent about this matter. Students should not be charged for costs that have already been paid for by insurance and restitution should reflect the actual out of pocket expenses of the University. Saladin Sale from the UCSC Office of Risk Services, the person and department responsible for handling claims to the University's insurance, should release information either confirming or refuting these accusations. You can contact Saladin Sale at (831) 459-3261.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
You're premise here is that, if the UC got reimbursed via insurance coverage for damage that you or your cohorts did, then it's unfair for them to charge you for the damages as they're essentially earning double payback?
Either I don't understand your premise, or else I do; in which case I find your stance that the responsible parties should only be charged if the UC proves that it didn't file a claim laughable.
Do you really mean to suggest that, if somebody illegallly occupies a building and vandalizes it and gets busted for it that they should only have to pay for the damage IF there's no claim filed? Flip that around: are you willing to take responsibility for possible/probable increases in the cost of the owners premium?
And on the related topic of "grow up"? Criminals (and yes, that's what the charged individuals are. Trespassing, vandalizing, criminals) don't get to demand to see any documents from the individual or company whose property they violate.
Welcome to the real world kids. Hope you eventually understand how it actually works out here.
Either I don't understand your premise, or else I do; in which case I find your stance that the responsible parties should only be charged if the UC proves that it didn't file a claim laughable.
Do you really mean to suggest that, if somebody illegallly occupies a building and vandalizes it and gets busted for it that they should only have to pay for the damage IF there's no claim filed? Flip that around: are you willing to take responsibility for possible/probable increases in the cost of the owners premium?
And on the related topic of "grow up"? Criminals (and yes, that's what the charged individuals are. Trespassing, vandalizing, criminals) don't get to demand to see any documents from the individual or company whose property they violate.
Welcome to the real world kids. Hope you eventually understand how it actually works out here.
The University shouldn't collect on expenses it was reimbursed for. The students should be made to pay the insurance company directly, and then they should be kicked out of school.
The author also misses the fact that since the UCSC filed the claim for the damages to the insurance company, that most likely the rate UCSC pays in the future for this insurance will increase (most likely jump significantly). Much a kin to personal car/home/renters issuance when you file claims you then are usually view has an increased risk for future claims thus your rate goes up (most likely jumps significantly). To this end UCSC may need to factor in this increase in cost when trying to recoup the cost of damages from the protest activity.
Wait a minute, how come everyone is placing blame on the protesters.
What if workers went on strike demanding an 8 hour workday, and part of that strike involved an occupation of a building? Who would you want to charge then?
It's funny how you all want to see these protesters as 100% guilty all of the time, but what you don't realize is how your position reflects your inner prejudice.
You first must realize what function the judicial system holds, in this case--as in almost every case--the function of the judicial system is protecting private property. If protesters are found guilty within the walls of these courts, they are found guilty of crimes against private property.
But what is it that the students were demanding? Those issues will never find themselves into the court rooms, and subsequently, anyone demanding anything aside from the protection of private property will always be found guilty of a crime.
So now you must ask yourself the question of where you stand. Do you really want to be the kind of person who supports a system built around the mass accumulation of wealth--a system that is, at this very moment, exploiting you and leaving your dead carcass of a soul--or would you rather be the kind of person who wants to live in a just and equable world?
Its ok, you don't have to answer, I have a pretty good idea of what you'd say anyway.
What if workers went on strike demanding an 8 hour workday, and part of that strike involved an occupation of a building? Who would you want to charge then?
It's funny how you all want to see these protesters as 100% guilty all of the time, but what you don't realize is how your position reflects your inner prejudice.
You first must realize what function the judicial system holds, in this case--as in almost every case--the function of the judicial system is protecting private property. If protesters are found guilty within the walls of these courts, they are found guilty of crimes against private property.
But what is it that the students were demanding? Those issues will never find themselves into the court rooms, and subsequently, anyone demanding anything aside from the protection of private property will always be found guilty of a crime.
So now you must ask yourself the question of where you stand. Do you really want to be the kind of person who supports a system built around the mass accumulation of wealth--a system that is, at this very moment, exploiting you and leaving your dead carcass of a soul--or would you rather be the kind of person who wants to live in a just and equable world?
Its ok, you don't have to answer, I have a pretty good idea of what you'd say anyway.
The issue isn't occupation of the building. The issue is damage. There was physical damage within the building. The place was left a mess and required cleaning. Who should pay for that? Perhaps the folks who support the student's actions would like to chip in to help them defray their costs. Put your money where your mouth is.
who.the.fuck. cares about the pockets of the UC. Do you think they've got something hidden in there for you? Because if you do, well, you're wrong.
The US doesn't care about you, the police don't care about you, nor the capitalist. So stop aligning yourselves with them. No amount of aligning with the power will make you have any power, will make you any less of the biggest pawn in their game.
Admit it, the kids are fighting for what you've given up, and that makes you upset. They want more than the petty lives you've traded your morals, your hopes, your dreams for. So you hate them and hope some cash will spill out of the coffers of the rich into your bank accounts. But it won't and you know this and you're mad about that, too.
Why are you so obsessed with them paying $900 in "restitution," or anyone who supports them paying it? What does that money represent to you? Who.the.fuck.cares?
Seriously.
I know who doesn't give a fuck, and that's the US, and the fuck is you.
The US doesn't care about you, the police don't care about you, nor the capitalist. So stop aligning yourselves with them. No amount of aligning with the power will make you have any power, will make you any less of the biggest pawn in their game.
Admit it, the kids are fighting for what you've given up, and that makes you upset. They want more than the petty lives you've traded your morals, your hopes, your dreams for. So you hate them and hope some cash will spill out of the coffers of the rich into your bank accounts. But it won't and you know this and you're mad about that, too.
Why are you so obsessed with them paying $900 in "restitution," or anyone who supports them paying it? What does that money represent to you? Who.the.fuck.cares?
Seriously.
I know who doesn't give a fuck, and that's the US, and the fuck is you.
I'm obsessed with them paying $900 in restitution because I'm obsessed with accountability for ones actions. You are too, but only when it comes to large, evil "corporations". When it comes to your pals in facemasks and bandanas, well, not so much.
And no, I'm not expecting any of that money to come back to me. I just want it to leave the pockets of the hypocrites who trashed that building and now are trying to skulk away in the night without having to deal with the consequences, namely that we are all now going to have to pay to make this right.
Unless they do, that is.
And no, I'm not expecting any of that money to come back to me. I just want it to leave the pockets of the hypocrites who trashed that building and now are trying to skulk away in the night without having to deal with the consequences, namely that we are all now going to have to pay to make this right.
Unless they do, that is.
Since you signed your post as "Fuck", why are you calling someone else a "Fuck"? No wonder people are so pissed off at anarchists around here. Read your anarchist history, newbies.
Let's be clear about who is actually being faced with these restitution charges. People have an image of those being charged as bandana wearing hoodlums who deserve what's coming to them. This is untrue for a number of reasons.
1. Many people who have been charged were identified as having been in the building by pictures or video footage. This is because they WEREN'T wearing masks, and so could be identified.
2. We are being charged simply for having been in the building at any point in time over the 66-hour occupation. That's right, any point in time. The director of Student Judicial Affairs has admitted in a meeting with me that he understands I did not commit any property damage and was only in the building for 20 minutes (my admission). But, since they can't find out who did the damage, anyone who is linked to having been in the building at any point in time is being held responsible for the physical damage. This is called corporate responsibility, it is total bullshit and would never hold up in an actual court of law. But since this is the UC judicial system, it's not a real court of law and the school can do whatever they want.
3. Many of the students charged are not "anarchists", or black block members or whatever other stereotype you have in your head of who students are. There were literally hundreds of students who participated in some level of the Kerr Hall protests. A very small group of people committed property damage. Many of those getting charged are simply students who care about their education and the future of the UC and were angry about the 32% fee increases.
Don't demonize students you have never met. We are faced with a confusing and time consuming legal process, trying to fight charge we have been found "responsible" for even though the university admits they know we didn't commit the acts. We have to deal with this on top of taking classes, working to pay for school, and continued activism against all the BS currently going on in this country (the oil spill, SB 1070, among others). We are doing the best we possibly can and I would hope that people would support us, or at least our cause, even if you don't agree with the negative side effects of the tactic.
1. Many people who have been charged were identified as having been in the building by pictures or video footage. This is because they WEREN'T wearing masks, and so could be identified.
2. We are being charged simply for having been in the building at any point in time over the 66-hour occupation. That's right, any point in time. The director of Student Judicial Affairs has admitted in a meeting with me that he understands I did not commit any property damage and was only in the building for 20 minutes (my admission). But, since they can't find out who did the damage, anyone who is linked to having been in the building at any point in time is being held responsible for the physical damage. This is called corporate responsibility, it is total bullshit and would never hold up in an actual court of law. But since this is the UC judicial system, it's not a real court of law and the school can do whatever they want.
3. Many of the students charged are not "anarchists", or black block members or whatever other stereotype you have in your head of who students are. There were literally hundreds of students who participated in some level of the Kerr Hall protests. A very small group of people committed property damage. Many of those getting charged are simply students who care about their education and the future of the UC and were angry about the 32% fee increases.
Don't demonize students you have never met. We are faced with a confusing and time consuming legal process, trying to fight charge we have been found "responsible" for even though the university admits they know we didn't commit the acts. We have to deal with this on top of taking classes, working to pay for school, and continued activism against all the BS currently going on in this country (the oil spill, SB 1070, among others). We are doing the best we possibly can and I would hope that people would support us, or at least our cause, even if you don't agree with the negative side effects of the tactic.
I think you've painted a pretty broad brushstroke in defending your postion and viewpoint.
You say anybody associated was charged, and you say hundreds were involved. But not hundreds were charged, only dozens. That math doesn't add up. From what I've heard, only those who did the overnight stays are being charged. And them based upon their self-reported presence there. And imo, if you illegally enter a building, the entire group is responsible for what happens, not just the person doing it.
And please, don't expect others, or make it our responsibility, to support you as you conduct your actions for issues you support. I don't support some of your issues, I do support others. But nobody makes it your responsibility to engage in these actions but yourself, so it strikes me as a bit petulant to tell me how time consuming it is and how as a result I need to support your or sympathize. Personally, I don't support the takeover concept at all. Legal, non-violent protest; absolutely. Trashing a building and/or letting others do it while you're in there with them; absolutely not.
You say anybody associated was charged, and you say hundreds were involved. But not hundreds were charged, only dozens. That math doesn't add up. From what I've heard, only those who did the overnight stays are being charged. And them based upon their self-reported presence there. And imo, if you illegally enter a building, the entire group is responsible for what happens, not just the person doing it.
And please, don't expect others, or make it our responsibility, to support you as you conduct your actions for issues you support. I don't support some of your issues, I do support others. But nobody makes it your responsibility to engage in these actions but yourself, so it strikes me as a bit petulant to tell me how time consuming it is and how as a result I need to support your or sympathize. Personally, I don't support the takeover concept at all. Legal, non-violent protest; absolutely. Trashing a building and/or letting others do it while you're in there with them; absolutely not.
I agree with the majority of the posters here. The students do deserve to be charged for standing up for what they believe in, and those being charged do deserve to be made into examples for those, in the future, who wish to stand up against the power and demand a better world to live in.
The UC is right. The Sentinel is right. And you, too, dear commenters are right. These students were, and continue to, acting childish. They should be more like us, hopeless, lifeless worker bees, just trying to get our piece of pie-in-the-sky.
Dear students and activist alike: just give up, its what we did, and we'll be dammed if we ever change our position or heed to another's views.
The UC is right. The Sentinel is right. And you, too, dear commenters are right. These students were, and continue to, acting childish. They should be more like us, hopeless, lifeless worker bees, just trying to get our piece of pie-in-the-sky.
Dear students and activist alike: just give up, its what we did, and we'll be dammed if we ever change our position or heed to another's views.
In the midst of this strange and derailed debate, I would like to express my solidarity with the students. I know you are working for the greater good of students and workers. It's sad but expected that people will pass judgement on your actions but sit quietly on the sidelines as the UC targets students and workers by raising tuition dramatically, keeping wages stagnant, pushing the privatization of education, and generally promoting the race and class homogenization of the student body. It seems they want to hold you accountable for the occupation and lump you all into one body, but don't support holding the UC accountable for the rising costs of an originally free right to education or the targeting of political activists. Regardless of these posters clear leanings toward an authoritarian politics, know that you are not alone in your struggle.
I did not stay the night. Please reference what I said, I was in Kerr Hall for a minimal amount of time.
The idea of "collective responsibility" is completely illegal. It would never hold up in a court of law. Courts must provide evidence that you committed a crime, not that you were there when it happened. Otherwise witnesses to theft who did nothing to prevent it would be held responsible for the theft. While morally you should not stand by while others commit a crime, unless that crime is murder (and even then it depends on the situation), you are not committing a crime yourself. However as students we do not have the same rights we would have in a court of law. In fact, we have little to no constitutional rights. Therefore they can hold us responsible for the actions of a "group". The vice chancellor gave me the example of living in a residence hall on campus. If your floor gets trashed on a Saturday night, the university can charge the damages to the entire floor, even though people may not have even been home when it happened.
I did not say "anyone associated was charged", I said anyone they could FIND was charged. So any name they could get that they had reasonable suspicion was present at Kerr Hall they charged with responsibility.
I am also pretty sick of this rhetoric that paints the UCSC students as whiney children, with the overuse words like "childish" and "petulant". We may be young adults, but we're not idiots. We are allowed to make our own decisions. While we have to deal with those consequences, we are dealing with them in the way any of you would if you were in the same situation. You would fight for your innocence if you knew you were innocent, and we know that we did not commit the violations we have been held responsible for. Also, many prominent activists at UCSC are grad students and faculty allies, so not everyone who supported the Kerr Hall occupation are even undergrads. It would be pretty embarrassing for you to call Bettina Apthekar, prominent civil rights activist and UCSC Feminist Studies Professor, who was present at Kerr Hall and advocated for the students, "childish." Or the over 100 faculty that have signed a letter against the student judicial process and in support of dropping all charges against the protestors.
The idea of "collective responsibility" is completely illegal. It would never hold up in a court of law. Courts must provide evidence that you committed a crime, not that you were there when it happened. Otherwise witnesses to theft who did nothing to prevent it would be held responsible for the theft. While morally you should not stand by while others commit a crime, unless that crime is murder (and even then it depends on the situation), you are not committing a crime yourself. However as students we do not have the same rights we would have in a court of law. In fact, we have little to no constitutional rights. Therefore they can hold us responsible for the actions of a "group". The vice chancellor gave me the example of living in a residence hall on campus. If your floor gets trashed on a Saturday night, the university can charge the damages to the entire floor, even though people may not have even been home when it happened.
I did not say "anyone associated was charged", I said anyone they could FIND was charged. So any name they could get that they had reasonable suspicion was present at Kerr Hall they charged with responsibility.
I am also pretty sick of this rhetoric that paints the UCSC students as whiney children, with the overuse words like "childish" and "petulant". We may be young adults, but we're not idiots. We are allowed to make our own decisions. While we have to deal with those consequences, we are dealing with them in the way any of you would if you were in the same situation. You would fight for your innocence if you knew you were innocent, and we know that we did not commit the violations we have been held responsible for. Also, many prominent activists at UCSC are grad students and faculty allies, so not everyone who supported the Kerr Hall occupation are even undergrads. It would be pretty embarrassing for you to call Bettina Apthekar, prominent civil rights activist and UCSC Feminist Studies Professor, who was present at Kerr Hall and advocated for the students, "childish." Or the over 100 faculty that have signed a letter against the student judicial process and in support of dropping all charges against the protestors.
"What if workers went on strike demanding an 8 hour workday, and part of that strike involved an occupation of a building? Who would you want to charge then?"
As someone pointed out, it is about the *damage* done to the facility. Most workers going on strike these days (in the US) are not damaging the plants, factories or offices where they work. I realize most anarchists wish they were, but this does not change the fact that they are not. So the strike example is inapt.
If we agree that these students are idealistic people working for the good of UCSC and society as a whole (and I realize a lot of people do not agree with this assessment) than a much better comparison would be how MLK and other non-violent civil rights activists behaved back in the day. The strength and power of that movement was activists were willing to openly oppose laws they felt were unjust, but they were also ready, willing and able to do the time and face the consequences for breaking those laws.
Today, activists have no problem openly disobeying the law. But as soon as they get busted, they call the ACLU or their family lawyer. If you really believed that what you were doing was right, you would be willing to pay the cost. You would also find a much larger community of people willing to assist you in paying these fines. Perhaps that should tell you something about your actions.
As someone pointed out, it is about the *damage* done to the facility. Most workers going on strike these days (in the US) are not damaging the plants, factories or offices where they work. I realize most anarchists wish they were, but this does not change the fact that they are not. So the strike example is inapt.
If we agree that these students are idealistic people working for the good of UCSC and society as a whole (and I realize a lot of people do not agree with this assessment) than a much better comparison would be how MLK and other non-violent civil rights activists behaved back in the day. The strength and power of that movement was activists were willing to openly oppose laws they felt were unjust, but they were also ready, willing and able to do the time and face the consequences for breaking those laws.
Today, activists have no problem openly disobeying the law. But as soon as they get busted, they call the ACLU or their family lawyer. If you really believed that what you were doing was right, you would be willing to pay the cost. You would also find a much larger community of people willing to assist you in paying these fines. Perhaps that should tell you something about your actions.
When the person above says "collective punishment" is illegal, they are not being completely honest. Or, to put it another way, I think the way the DA will approach their situation by viewing them as an accomplice in the property damage. Which they were unless they did something to stop it. If they just sat by and did nothing while people they were protesting with did the damage, they are pretty much screwed. Happens all the time in all sorts of other cases: robbery, burglary, car jacking, etc. It's no defense to say "but I didn't rob the bank, I was just sitting in the car. I had no idea what my homeboy was doing in there..."
GK, I just saw your latest/third post, which appears to reply to my original one, so I wanted to respond to it. And I know you won't like it, but my second post is similar to my first: grow up, and accept the reality of life.
You say now that you resent being called petulant or childish. But you leave me little choice when you post things such as " I would hope that people would support us, or at least our cause, even if you don't agree with the negative side effects of the tactic." That, imo, is the quintessential childish/petulant post. It's akin to saying that I should respect a tantrum (metaphor for childish vandalism) even if I think it's a childish and petulant recourse. And I do.
I agree you are not idiots. I also agree you are allowed to make your own decisions. But do you not also see that they are indeed YOUR decisions, and that others have no responsibility to salute them, or defend you for them when we consider them ill-advised?
As for the issue of not guilty if they can't prove you did it? Oh man. Harken back to my statement of "grow up and face reality", because you're about to; fast and hard.
Ever heard of circumstantial evidence and reciprocal guilt? Ever heard of being guilty for being "an accessory to" a crime? If you haven't, you;re about to.
So in closing, sorry. I support the ideals of this protest, but absolutely don't support the action that resulted in stupid damages. Nor do I feel its my responsibility too because YOU felt it was justified.
You say now that you resent being called petulant or childish. But you leave me little choice when you post things such as " I would hope that people would support us, or at least our cause, even if you don't agree with the negative side effects of the tactic." That, imo, is the quintessential childish/petulant post. It's akin to saying that I should respect a tantrum (metaphor for childish vandalism) even if I think it's a childish and petulant recourse. And I do.
I agree you are not idiots. I also agree you are allowed to make your own decisions. But do you not also see that they are indeed YOUR decisions, and that others have no responsibility to salute them, or defend you for them when we consider them ill-advised?
As for the issue of not guilty if they can't prove you did it? Oh man. Harken back to my statement of "grow up and face reality", because you're about to; fast and hard.
Ever heard of circumstantial evidence and reciprocal guilt? Ever heard of being guilty for being "an accessory to" a crime? If you haven't, you;re about to.
So in closing, sorry. I support the ideals of this protest, but absolutely don't support the action that resulted in stupid damages. Nor do I feel its my responsibility too because YOU felt it was justified.
In civil cases there is the concept that if you have 1% of the responsibility for an event you can be liable for 100% of the damages. So consider yourself lucky that the university is only charging you $900 and not for the whole bill.
That asside, I support the students and their cause. Now if we can just occupy a building without trashing it we may get somewhere.
That asside, I support the students and their cause. Now if we can just occupy a building without trashing it we may get somewhere.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network