It reminds me of when I was a Guardian ad Litem. A parent would be reported
as abusing or neglecting their child or children. HRS would start an
investigation and of course, the parent was remorseful. They would say things
like, "I didn't know" (that bathing an infant and leaving them in the tub
could cause them to drown even though it was child number 5) and "How could
I DO this to my baby!", (after the child was rushed to the hospital because
the boyfriend beat the child until near death while the mother was in
an alcoholic stupor.)
Yep, real sorry those parents would be.
And then of course they would remove the children, sometimes just
temporarily. The parents or parent would have to go to parenting classes,
(which I attended as part of my training and thought they were very basic. Then
again, I KNEW better than to leave an infant unattended in a tub.) and become
"educated". That would be the process for about, oh say the first 4
times.
I know I am very cynical of this whole protest process. Maybe because I
believe in a higher standard of accountability. What is the point to having
rules, when they are not enforced consistently? I know it doesn't work very well
in parenting, or on the job or in life in general.
Mike, you say you don't think this person
will return to a ride. Why couldn't the P&G have made sure of that? If this
rider was so sorry, and understanding, he would have surly understood that there
had to be consequences and that he would not be allowed to return for
a year. Would that have been so wrong in light of the condition of
the horse? Since he was being schooled about how NOT to kill a
horse, how come he couldn't learn the lesson of accountability as well?
Would that really have been so wrong?? I find it sooo hard
to believe that this person just came off the street not knowing a damn thing
about horses and had no idea that spurring a horse for the last ten or so miles
of a ride was wrong.
I just can't buy that. Again, maybe it's just me.
If AERC is not a policing force, why do we have rules, the P&G
committee and the HWC? If the only option the P&G had was to lecture this
guy, why do we have rules, the P&G and the HWC? I wish you would stop
putting such a nice spin on this situation and stop making it sound like justice
was served. Do I want the guy hung? No. Justly punished? Yes. I don't think that
is asking too much. So the horse was taken away. So the guy was lectured
about not killing horses. So what. According to the protest, the horse
was "gravely ill" as a result of what this person did.
There was no consequences for his actions.
Since I won't be a member next year, does that mean I will be shielded from
any accountability? Or will it just depend?
