Cadet Suspended from West Point after getting beaten by Singers entourage

Here's the latest update.

http://www.khou.com/news/Attorney-w...inst-Patti-LaBelles-bodyguards-123274128.html

According to the police report, King is named as the suspect, but officers are taking a second look at the case after King’s attorney released surveillance video of the alleged beating.

"I’m encouraged by that because anyone who is seeking the truth in this will see clearly that Richard was attacked by these people with no provocation whatsoever," said Houston attorney John Raley. "The video confirms it, witnesses confirm it and now the police are looking at it."....Meanwhile, police say they could launch an internal investigation into the officers’ actions after two of the officers were seen on the same surveillance video taking pictures with LaBelle just after the alleged beating.....According to Raley, after the incident, someone from HPD called West Point to report a cadet was drunk and involved in an assault.

As a result, the attorney says his client – an Army football player—was suspended.

When West Point learned about the incident, they told King he would have to serve 18 months on Army deployment before he could re-apply to West Point to finish school.

But now, Raley said the officers are taking a second look at the case, too.

"Officers now who have seen the videotape and know that he is innocent have come forward and said, ‘We’re on your side,’ so it’s possible that West Point will reconsider this decision," said Raley. "We’re hopeful."
 
West Pointer who sued diva LaBelle leaves academy

Monday June 6, 2011

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- The U.S. Military Academy says a cadet who is suing R&B diva Patti LaBelle over a scrape at a Houston airport has left the academy at West Point.

A West Point spokeswoman says Richard King left the academy Monday. Lt. Col. Sherri Reed cited privacy laws that prevent her from saying if his exit was related to the lawsuit or the altercation.

The official West Point statement:

"The U.S. Military Academy completed a thorough investigation regarding the incident that occurred at the Houston Airport on March 11, 2011, involving Cadet Richard King. Following this investigation, the Academy chain of command took appropriate administrative action in accordance with Army Regulation 210-26.

"At this time, the specific details of Cadet King's case are protected by the Privacy Act, and are therefore not releasable.

"Cadets who are placed on a suspended separation status (similar to probation in the civilian judicial system) for an honor violation or an act of misconduct are required to meet a number of conditions in order to continue at the Academy. Failure to meet this condition results in separation from the Academy.

"Cadets who are separated from the Academy after the beginning of their junior year are typically obligated to either pay back the cost of their education or serve on active duty as a specialist (E-4) in the Army for a period of three years.

"Additionally, the Superintendent may recommend separated cadets to participate in the Academy Mentorship Program. A cadet who participates in the AMP may apply for readmission to the Academy after serving eight to twelve months of active duty service. The decision regarding readmission is based on their complete record at West Point and successful performance as a Soldier while on enlisted duty.

"West Point trains, educates, and inspires future leaders of the U.S. Army and Nation, in keeping with the highest traditions of professional military service."
 
Clearly the USMA "completed a thorough investigation regarding the incident". I'm sure a "thorough investigation" constitutes far more than just accepting the version of events the USMA heard during a telephone call from "someone" in the HPD.
 
Don't assume that because WP is stating that "they thoroughly investigated the incident" means that they had access to the video. According to the cadet's attorney HE released the video to HPD and that is why the investigation is continuing. The video was the property of the airport and not the PD and they probably would not release it without a subpoena. I said it before and I'll say it again, the officers should not have contacted WP on the day of the incident.
 
Don't assume that because WP is stating that "they thoroughly investigated the incident" means that they had access to the video.
How else do you think they might have "thoroughly investigated the incident"? USMA along with the rest of the world knew about the existence of the video before they released the "thorough" investigation statement. Certainly the "thorough" investigation would have been more than just accepting someone at the HPD's statement and then tossing one of their own cadets out like yesterdays trash. I would hope that the USMA has more loyalty to their own than that.
 
Because according to the Cadet's attorney HE released the video to the Houston Police Department and prior to that release the police had not seen it. There are lots of ways for the media to gain access to video/documents without first obtaining a court order. And just because we have been watching the video for the last couple of weeks doesn't mean that Mr. Raley, Attorney at Law of Houston, Texas did not have it in his hands the next day. If he released it to the media he is a very, very smart guy. The video is all over the internet now and don't think the police or WP was putting it out to the news and Youtube because they are good old boys. Public opinion is now firmly on the side of Cadet King.
 
The video is all over the internet now and don't think the police or WP was putting it out to the news and Youtube because they are good old boys.
Understood. However, the USMA released a statement that they had thoroughly investigated this incident AFTER the existence of the video was well known. How smart (and accurate) would it be for the USMA to release a statement like that without reviewing the video?
 
Well, that's the $64,000 question. Did the academy know about the existence of the video. Apparently the police didn't know about it which is really scary. But, the attorney knew about it and maybe he has been holding it close to his heart to see where the cards would fall. Mr. Raley was quoted in the paper stating that officials are taking a new look at the case after seeing the video. It didn't help the other side's case when the state's star witnesses story does not match what is happening on the video. Remember. a civil lawsuit has been filed on the behalf of the cadet and the damages have been adding up day by day since March.
 
Well, that's the $64,000 question. Did the academy know about the existence of the video.
One fact that seems indisputable is that the USMA knew about the video at least by Thursday - June 2nd when Mr. King's attorneys filed suit. The "thorough" investigation statement was not released until Monday - June 6th. Plenty of time to determine how thorough (and even handed) the initial investigation was before releasing the June 6th statement.
 
I am 100% behind you on that.
 
Really? "Because someone from the Houston PD or Airport Security contacted the school"? I submit that the phone contact initiated at least a tiny bit of investigation (and I suspect more than a tiny bit).

So if the incident was never reported erroneously, or even if it had been phrased differently, we would not be where we are today. The phone call was the catalyst to the chemical reaction. Take away the catalyst, no chemical reaction.

As for no BAC taken, we don't know that, and I doubt that it was not done. I'd be quite surprised if someone taken to the hospital after such an incident would not have their blood checked for all manner of chemicals. Especially if the person smelled of alcohol.

So why wasn't he charged with public intoxication? After all, the HPD was so keen to name Cadet King a suspect. I would have to imagine that if someone drank so much that they were not in control of themselves...an hour or two later isn't going to significantly change the BAC level where it wouldn't have been obvious. But I agree, maybe it was done and inconclusive, which then you can't make that accusation on a suspect.

BT

Back to WP's press release -- I was a collateral duty PAO -- I know how it works. If you take every press release as 100% factual truth (especially in this instance), you might want to reconsider. I really am intrigued by WP's definition of "thoroughly."

I'd also be curious to find out when the decision was made to take administrative action. That is the real tell-tale sign of whether the investigation was "thorough." My guess, it was significantly before 2 Jun.

If I was Cadet King's Congressmen or Senator...I'd be making a call to WP. This is definitely not good PR for WP -- it is now being covered on many major networks. Just visit the WP Facebook page, not too many happy people either.
 
http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=20142

See post #3. Every one of us is speculating...except for the cadets that know him. There obviously is way more to this cadet's history than any of us will likely ever know. Makes me wonder if the incident at the airport and his separation (not really separation; mentoring program) are actually two totally separate events.
 
Jadler03 Well stated. Something to know about a PI arrest in Texas. It is very subjective. If I think you are a "danger to yourself" I arrest you. PI is a ticketable offense, just like a traffic violation and nobody is going to pay for a blood test for PI when there are probably 100 PI arrests on a given night in Houston. Gets expensive.

That's what is so aggravating about this. Nobody can say he was intoxicated because no decision was made to arrest so it becomes a non-factor.

Momof3boys I refer you to post #38.
 
I'd also be curious to find out when the decision was made to take administrative action. That is the real tell-tale sign of whether the investigation was "thorough." My guess, it was significantly before 2 Jun.
While it is IMHO likely that WP decided to take administrative action before June 2nd, they still had an opportunity to "rethink" that decision after finding out about the video and before releasing a statement about their "thorough" investigation. Hopefully WP had actually done it's due diligence before the "thorough investigation" statement was released on June 6th.
 
Well I know I certainly trust a lawyer representing someone to present the video "discovered" as his....
 
Actually WP would have had a lot of time to thoroughly investigate since the altercation occurred March 11. The news broke in June because of the lawsuit. I would bet my dog the lawsuit came about because he was suspended by WP.

Now, maybe the cadet didn't realize the video existed until he hired an attorney, thus, WP never had it and based their judgment purely on he said, they said, including the HPD.

Cadet King for his part states he respects WP's decision and plans on "driving on" from here wherever it takes him.
 
Does leaving hurt his case about the damages the incident has on his future? It was his decision to leave. He may have been brought back after the year-suspension....or was he just sad he couldn't play football?
 
Speculation and assumption...that is all any of us have to go on. I am choosing to believe that no academy would suspend a cadet for one incident, regardless of video, alcohol, etc. I have more faith in all of our academies than that. I do not know this cadet; he might be a model citizen and perfect cadet. He might not be. I do know that in my naivete I used to think cadets were all pretty stellar. I have learned over the last 3 years, as a USMA mom, that some are pretty awesome, and some are just regular kids, who sometimes make stupid choices with long term consequences. Maybe one day all the facts will come to light-maybe not. In the mean time, I am suggesting we stop crucifying the academy because we do not have all the facts.
 
I don't think football had anything to do with it.

Let's be honest, even if he came back, he would have a ding on his records. It would be a tough road to hoe for promotion with that type of ding. That would cause financial hardship for him. All the attorney would have to do is rip out pay charts to prove that being passed over would cause severe financial hardship.

Nobody knows if he wanted to fly Helo's. The ding may cause him not to get Helo's, thus the financial pain starts minute one. Nobody knows if there are long term issues regarding the concussion, so maybe he can't qualify medically. Again, long term financial issues.

There are a lot of ways he can prove in civil court that beyond the emotional issue, he could be losing financially due to the suspension which resulted from the attack.

I am not a lawyer, but I thought for civil cases the level of proof is lower than criminal. He was not charged or arrested, so I would assume, and we know what that means, he at least has a better edge than had he been charged. Wouldn't the opposing counsel have to prove that he wouldn't have graduated either way?

I highly doubt this case will ever see the light of day in a courtroom. I am sure there is an out of court settlement floating between the two of them right now. In this day and age of the internet, I bet the attorney's are monitoring the court of public opinion to see how it is being viewed from the outside.
 
Speculation and assumption...that is all any of us have to go on. I am choosing to believe that no academy would suspend a cadet for one incident, regardless of video, alcohol, etc. I have more faith in all of our academies than that. I do not know this cadet; he might be a model citizen and perfect cadet. He might not be. I do know that in my naivete I used to think cadets were all pretty stellar. I have learned over the last 3 years, as a USMA mom, that some are pretty awesome, and some are just regular kids, who sometimes make stupid choices with long term consequences. Maybe one day all the facts will come to light-maybe not. In the mean time, I am suggesting we stop crucifying the academy because we do not have all the facts.
HERE HERE!!
 
Back
Top