Cadet Suspended from West Point after getting beaten by Singers entourage

[aglages]

Some here believe that the USMA suspended the cadet without cause and without a thorough investigation of the facts. Some believed that the USMA NEEDLESSLY rushed to judgment in this case. Some believe that Cadet King was OWED more loyalty and support than he received from his brothers at West Point. Some are thankful that Cadet King retained a lawyer to get ALL the facts (and video) that should have been considered before a needless rush to judgment out to the public. Some are thankful that the powers that be at WP were NOT the final decision makers in this case and that the "system" allows for the Department of the Army to review bad decisions and overturn those that were wrong. Some feel that this process has actually renewed their faith in the Army despite the poor decisions made by WP in THIS matter.

Some believe an appointment to WP DOES matter. That appointment doesn't just say "you are going to be held to a higher standard" but it also says "you are now one of us and we'll be there for you when the rest of the world is kicking you (or beating you in an airport)".

Of course maybe some people just believe what they want to believe.

 

[Christcorp]

I was ok with your post for a while. You were basically saying that we all have a different opinion. That all in all, these opinions should be respected albeit differing from others. But whether or not you admit it, you showed your bias.

e.g. "Some feel that this process has actually renewed their faith in the Army despite the poor decisions made by WP in THIS matter."

Who says that West Point made a "Poor Decision"? You say they did, but that doesn't make it so.

It seems to me that you would prefer that an investigation go on for possibly years, if it happens that the decision made at the time, isn't one you'd agree with. What would you have said if some additional evidence had been presented by the Houston PD that showed Cadet King instigated the altercation, and now they are going to file charges? Would you say that WP made a good decision in suspending him?

WP's decision has to be based on the evidence at the time, and Cadet King's past performance as a cadet. If new evidence comes about in the future to alter or change that position, then so be it. But you can only make decisions based on the facts and history at hand. Not what might come up months or years from now.

So while I appreciate your attempt to admit that we all have differing opinions, your post if obviously laced with the opinion that we are wrong, and you are right. That's a little more than just an opinion.

I still stand by my opinion that "At the Time"..... and "Based on the evidence at the time"...... and "Based on Cadet King's past performance at West Point"..... and the fact that "Cadet King personally said that he respected West Point's decision to suspend him"..... That WP made the right decision at the time. I also commend West Point, (West Point and the Army are one and the same, DON'T THINK OTHERWISE), for being willing to allow Cadet King to pursue and present new evidence as appropriate, and to change their position and allow Cadet King back into West Point.

 

[aglages]

Well....seeing as your post was directed to me specifically, please allow me to respond.

"Some feel that this process has actually renewed their faith in the Army despite the poor decisions made by WP in THIS matter."

Who says that West Point made a "Poor Decision"? You say they did, but that doesn't make it so.

My saying that WP made a bad decision does not make it so, anymore than your saying that they didn't makes it so. Those are our opinions. Mine seems verified by the fact that the WP decision was reversed when reviewed by the Department of the Army.

It seems to me that you would prefer that an investigation go on for possibly years..

Years? That seems like quite an exaggeration. I seem to recall previous posts of yours that indicated that a decision had to be made quickly before Cadet King graduated (and was commissioned). Now it seems as though Cadet King wasn't supposed to graduate until December of this year. I have yet to see any reason why the investigation had to be rushed when WP had from Easter Break until Christmas to get it correct. I also don't understand why WP chose to release a statement AFTER the video was released that said they had done a "thorough" investigation. They very easily could have decided at THAT point that MORE investigation was required instead of circling the wagons and releasing a statement claiming they made the correct decision.

What would you have said if some additional evidence had been presented by the Houston PD that showed Cadet King instigated the altercation, and now they are going to file charges? Would you say that WP made a good decision in suspending him?

What if? Seriously? The idea is to get it done correctly...not fast. How about WP assumes their cadets are innocent until AFTER they check ALL the sources of their information? This wasn't an honor violation at WP, this happened TO ONE of their own. If Cadet King was GOOD enough for WP to keep him enrolled BEFORE the incident then he should have been worthy of a fair, non rushed thorough investigation.

WP's decision has to be based on the evidence at the time, and Cadet King's past performance as a cadet. If new evidence comes about in the future to alter or change that position, then so be it. But you can only make decisions based on the facts and history at hand. Not what might come up months or years from now.

See above note about what WP did AFTER the video was released and AFTER Cadet King hired a lawyer to sue LaBelle and company. At that point it seems reasonable to FURTHER investigate and question your sources of information.

So while I appreciate your attempt to admit that we all have differing opinions, your post if obviously laced with the opinion that we are wrong, and you are right. That's a little more than just an opinion.

Interesting. How is it different than a "little more" than an opinion? Unless of course you think it is actually a fact.

I still stand by my opinion that "At the Time"..... and "Based on the evidence at the time"...... and "Based on Cadet King's past performance at West Point"..... and the fact that "Cadet King personally said that he respected West Point's decision to suspend him"..... That WP made the right decision at the time.

And I will respectfully disagree.

I also commend West Point, (West Point and the Army are one and the same, DON'T THINK OTHERWISE), for being willing to allow Cadet King to pursue and present new evidence as appropriate, and to change their position and allow Cadet King back into West Point.

I will disagree once again and do not believe that decisions made at WP are made by the same people as review those decisions at The Department of the Army. I believe the officers at WP actually work (come under the command) for the Department of the Army. I'm not sure that the reverse is true.

 

[patentesq]

Mine seems verified by the fact that the WP decision was reversed when reviewed by the Department of the Army.

ag, I thought your earlier post reflected restraint. Thank you for that.

I think your quote above places too much weight on a press release annnouncing an order that no one has ever seen. What if the order read something like "On the recommendation of the Superintent and in light of new-found evidence, the Department of the Army review board has determined that it will respect the judgment of USMA and order that Cadet King be reinstated . . ." (or words to that effect). Would that alter your opinion? In my experience, DOA rarely does things concerning the punishment of a soldier without very close consultation within the chain of command (at least this my recollection from my experience working for a general officer who had analogous issues presented to him).

And why do you not find fault with the rapidity of the DOA decision, while at the same time asserting the view that West Point rushed to judgment? Is your view about the thoroughness of the WP investigation guided by your view of what you think should have been the proper outcome?

 

[aglages]

ag, I thought your earlier post reflected restraint. Thank you for that.

You are welcome.

I think your quote above places too much weight on a press release annnouncing an order that no one has ever seen. What if the order read something like "On the recommendation of the Superintent and in light of new-found evidence, the Department of the Army review board has determined that it will respect the judgment of USMA and order that Cadet King be reinstated . . ." (or words to that effect). Would that alter your opinion?

In the scenario you outline above, yes it would alter my opinion of the decisions made at WP about this matter. I would still question how thorough the investigation was initially, and why WP chose to release the "thorough" investigation statement AFTER the video instead of taking a step back and evaluating the flawed first decision (and possibly allowing Cadet King to continue while they got it right), but at least it would have been SOME sign that WP was interested in taking care of one their cadets.

In my experience, DOA rarely does things concerning the punishment of a soldier without very close consultation within the chain of command (at least this my recollection from my experience working for a general officer who had analogous issues presented to him).

While this may USUALLY be true, I wonder how often it occurs when the Army's image is on the line. Would WP actually argue with the DOA (during the "possible" consultation) when their own investigation was flawed? And of course neither of us will know if this actually happened....only what/how The Department of the Army chose to release their decision.

And why do you not find fault with the rapidity of the DOA decision, while at the same time asserting the view that West Point rushed to judgment? Is your view about the thoroughness of the WP investigation guided by your view of what you think should have been the proper outcome?

I do not find fault with the supposed "rapidity" of the DOA decision. My view of the investigation is influenced by my opinion of right and wrong, fairness, due process and the support of your brothers in arms when you are being victimized. I am sadly disappointed in how little WP did to help this cadet and how quickly they assumed he was guilty and rushed to dis-enroll him.

 

[patentesq]

My view of the investigation is influenced by my opinion of right and wrong, fairness, due process and the support of your brothers in arms when you are being victimized.

I share that view.

 

[Christcorp]

Ag; I believe u r reading into my posts. I said many times that we didn't know all the facts. I said it was possible that he was suspended at that time because of commissioning. Not that it was the defining reason. 90% of our opinions have been speculation. Including yours. Don't quote speculation as fact and use it to argue with. WP felt it was appropriate to suspend King at that time, based on evidence and past performance. I'm ok with. Apparently King was too. WP/army felt reinstating him recently based on new evidence was also appropriate. I'm ok with that too. Apparently so is King.

So the question begs to be asked. If King respected both decisions WP/army made, then who r u to not respect the decisions. After all, it affected King, not you.

 

[aglages]

Lets assume for a second that WP didn't make an immediate decision, and decided to investigate FULLY first. Well; 2 months later; the individual would have been commissioned as a 2LT. What happens then, if he was found guilty. Now, instead of suspending a cadet and making them serve time as an enlisted person, you're having to deal with disciplining a 2LT Commissioned Officer....

...Had this happened during the individual's C3C year, (Whatever West Point Calls a 3rd year), WP would not have been in a rush. They could have let him continue on at the academy until the investigation was over. But because the individual was scheduled to graduate and be commissioned in 2 months, they risked the possibility of having to reprimand/punish/etc... a 2LT Commissioned Officer instead of a Cadet.

.. And there was no way they were going to be able to do a complete investigation in 2 months...

..Again; considering the circumstance, proof at hand at that point, time constraints prior to graduation and commissioning.....

Allowing him to finish 2 months of school and become commissioned would have been the WRONG answer had he been found guilty.

I don't know about you, but if it were me, and I felt that I was being rail-roaded and unjustly punished, I would have been fighting tooth and nail. Especially with only 2 months to go wit graduation and commissioning.

I said it was possible that he was suspended at that time because of commissioning. Not that it was the defining reason. 90% of our opinions have been speculation. Including yours. Don't quote speculation as fact and use it to argue with.

Did you also only SPECULATE about whether he would be commissioning in two months?

So the question begs to be asked. If King respected both decisions WP/army made, then who r u to not respect the decisions. After all, it affected King, not you.

I have answered this question a number of times. I feel that you're simply trying to find a way to not admit you're wrong. And that's OK. You can believe what you want. Apparently you've forgotten some things. You will be expected to find my other answers yourself. I won't do your homework for you. But I won't list all of them. You can search for them.

 

[Christcorp]

And I stand by that had he been graduating in May and had been commissioned, that COULD have been a reason for coming up with the decision when they did. Apparently, that wasn't the reason. Your point?

Apparently, you know all the facts about this case. Apparently, West Point totally screwed up. They were after this kid and was trying to crucify him. Fortunately for cadet King, there were enough people like you that knew all the facts, and the army was called on it. Congratulations. I don't even know why there was even an investigation. It's apparent that all the facts were available to all of us. Most of us just weren't able to see it I guess.

 

[aglages]

Apparently, that wasn't the reason. Your point?

Apparently you were wrong. The rush to judgment was not because cadet King was commissioning in two months. Didn't make much sense when you suggested it.

Apparently, you know all the facts about this case.

As has been the case a number of times in this thread you attempt to insult with sarcasm and hide behind exaggeration. Patriotism and prior service is no excuse.

Apparently, West Point totally screwed up.

Yes....apparently they did.

They were after this kid and was trying to crucify him.

More sarcasm and exaggeration when you have no mature response. Considering all the quality posts you have contributed to this forum (and there have been quite a few)....I'm embarrassed for you.

Fortunately for cadet King, there were enough people like you that knew all the facts, and the army was called on it.

Fortunately for Cadet King he hired an attorney that made sure that the Cadet was given a FAIR evaluation. Also fortinetely for Cadet King the Department of Army reviewed the decision of those at WP and reversed it.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

I don't even know why there was even an investigation.

Sounds pretty much like WP's attitude. Why investigate....just kick the cadet to the curb.

It's apparent that all the facts were available to all of us. Most of us just weren't able to see it I guess.

Clearly some people had all the facts. I doubt either you or I did however. Unfortunately those at the USMA that were responsible for discovering ALL the facts did a pretty poor job. And there is NO putting lipstick on that pig.

 

[Christcorp]

There is no sarcasm here. Simply that no one here had all the facts. But because King was eventually allowed back into west point, you believe that your beliefs are somehow substantiated. That west point screwed up. Well, just because King is allowed back in, dorsnt mean WP screwed up. Just means additional evidence was provided and WP overturned their prior decision. This further evidence could have come a year from now.

You simply refuse to believe that just possibly, WP had just cause for their previous decision, based on the facts at the time. Instead, you harp on the conspiracy that WP is and was incompetent. Sorry, but I happen to have more respect and faith in our military than you obviously do.

 

[usnabgo08]

I agree deference should be given to USMA and DOA.

However, if USMA believed that Cadet King's previous conduct should have resulted in separation (or being sent to the Army unit), then why would the DOA have a reason to overturn? In the June press release by WP, they CLEARLY indicated that the airport incident had little to no influence on their separation decision. There would be very few reasons for DOA to overrule a 3-star decision. Maybe an MOC getting involved, however, a quick review of the conduct record might have settled that. According to the June PR, what would have been the game changing decision between April 10th and August 19th, if his previous conduct hadn't changed?

If you go back a few years ago, when Navy QB Lamar Owens was awarded "no punishment" at a GCM, the Superintendent decided to ADSEP Owens in a highly contested action, in which the DON (CNO/SECNAV) upheld that decision. While this isn't the same offense, there was quite an outcry on many levels....and the decision still stood, regardless!

I also don't think USMA was the one to ask DOA to redact their initial decision. If that was the case, they would not have released the June press release a few days after new evidence was presented (saying that one was not related to the other). Also, the press release a few days ago would have said, "after DOA's careful review of Cadet King's record and with input/endorsement from USMA, Cadet King will be reinstated."

 

[patentesq]

Uncle.

 

[aglages]

There is no sarcasm here.

Please....don't even TRY to claim that there was no sarcasm in your posts.

Simply that no one here had all the facts.

I believe both of us have said that repeatedly. Not even an argument. The question is not who had the facts, but whether the people (USMA) that were responsible for determining and investigating the facts did an adequate job. Obviously we disagree on this issue.

But because King was eventually allowed back into west point, you believe that your beliefs are somehow substantiated. That west point screwed up.

Yes. If WP dis-enrolls a cadet and then the DOA reinstates him I would say that WP screwed up.

Well, just because King is allowed back in, dorsnt mean WP screwed up. Just means additional evidence was provided and WP overturned their prior decision.

Again we disagree. First - you don't know that ANY new evidence was "provided". Perhaps the DOA just spent adequate time evaluating ALL the information and the parties involved instead of rushing to judgment.
Second - there is absolutely no indication that WP overturned "their" prior decision.

You simply refuse to believe that just possibly, WP had just cause for their previous decision, based on the facts at the time.

I refuse to believe that WP evaluated all the information (including the video) and the sources of that information BEFORE making a decision. I want to believe that WP would believe one of their own ahead of a couple thug bodyguards for a washed up R&B artist. I am disappointed that they chose not to.

Instead, you harp on the conspiracy that WP is and was incompetent.

Are you sure you understand the meaning of "conspiracy"? I've asked this question before but please let me do YOUR homework for you and provide a definition:
con·spir·a·cy (k

n-spîr

-s

)n. pl. con·spir·a·cies 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Again....what conspiracy have I ever suggested involving Cadet King?

..WP is and was incompetent.

Was in this case incompetent. Is incompetent? I don't believe I have ever said that.

Sorry, but I happen to have more respect and faith in our military than you obviously do.

Oh no.....say it isn't so. Please tell me that you are not playing the "patriotism" card because we disagree on how WP handled THIS issue. Seriously...just because I think that WP mishandled this issue doesn't have ANYTHING to do with how much respect and faith I have in our military. As a matter of fact it would seem that my expectations of our military are higher than yours. Probably why I am so disappointed in how they handled Cadet King's incident.

 

[bruno]

The folks posting on here have two completely non-intersecting orbits. Neither side really has a clue what actually transpired here yet each "side" continues to try mightily to convince the other that their assumptions are more valid than the other. Personally from the outside looking in at this I have to believe that after about 20 iterations each- the arguments have become cut and paste affairs and neither one of you has much original to say about this anymore. There have been about 217 posts on this topic- personally I think that you all have run out of steam though I believe that we have made a scientific breakthrough and discovered that "speculation" is the long sought after fuel to power the economy going forward- like the perpetual motion machine, it recharges itself with it's own movement with no energy lost in the transaction.

So if folks don't mind- before somebody, in their haste to regurgitate their argument yet one more time winds up running afoul of the rules or says something they might regret later, why don't you allow this thread to die a natural death from neglect and consider posting about some of the myriad of military news topics that actually might involve large numbers of current or future Military members or dependents?There are a number of them out there. Here is a handy link to the Army Times for some possible news items:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/news/

It's only a suggestion but one that I believe many would agree with gladly.

 

[Idzak]

Most emphatically agreed!!!

 

[LineInTheSand]

When I lose interest I stop looking. Don't need someone else telling me when I've lost interest. Plus, now we're getting dictionary references...it's become educational.

 

[aglages]

I agree with Bruno. However, I am willing to continue posting dictionary references for those in need.

 

[LineInTheSand]

Can I get the origin of the word?

Can you use it in a sentence?

 

[fly boy]

Can I get the origin of the word?

Can you use it in a sentence?

Haha.