Re: RC: Oakland Hills Incident

[Tivers@aol.com]

Thanks, Lisa, that's the first full account of what happened. Except that 
we're still not sure if the horse died, are we? The initial poster stated 
that, but was too busy with moral grandstanding to provide any details. 

So, we have a rider that rides hard, is competitive. And wins occasionally. 
You don't win by killing horses. Unless you can buy and train dozens all at 
once. 

Still, this fellow takes a different approach, that is more aggressive than 
most. Yet, he appears to love his horse and appears to have spent 
considerable time preparing the horse to be competitive. This is supposedly 
an athletic event, and the horse is winning, so you have to assume some basic 
preparation.

And the horse falls, then falls again. And it takes hours and hours to rescue 
him. Regarless of any possible internal injury, that event, in itself, is a 
severe stressor. A stressor that the rider is helpless to prevent. 

So, at this pont, there is certainly reasonable doubt that the rider is 
guilty of murder, as was suggested by the first poster and some subsequent 
posters.

But then, we don't have a body yet, do we? And no autopsy to determine if 
there were any internal injuries. So, we don't yet have a certified death, 
nor a certified cause of death. Still, some of the Ridecamp jury is out 
looking for a hangin' tree already--more of a reflection on them than on the 
supposed criminal they want to save the world from.

So, for the rest of us, more information is needed. Is the horse dead? In US 
courts, it's real difficult to hang someone for murder if you don't have a 
dead body. And if the horse is dead, what do the diagnostics and autopsy say. 
And sign of shock, for example? Any sign of internal injury? It appears that 
the medics on the scene observed nothing critical once the horse got back to 
the camp. Or did the initial poster observe the rider beating the horse over 
the head with a baseball bat when no one was looking? Sure sounded as if the 
initial poster had some inside informaton far in excess of what we've been 
told so far. 

Maybe the guy rides too hard. But then, the perspectives of this particular 
group range far and wide as to what is "riding too hard". For some, anyone 
who desires to "top ten" is the Devil incarnate. Picking an unbiased 12 
member jury here would be a difficult job. I mean, the initial poster was 
exhuberant, on the verge of speaking in tongues, over the perceived "justice" 
finally handed out by Mother Nature against this rider. 

It is my experience in life that those who rush to judgement tend to have 
hidden character defects. That those who stridently accuse do so to cover 
their own weaknesses. 

On the other hand, judgements can and should be made, cooly, calmly, and with 
all available information on the table. Opinion is not information. Feelings 
are not information. Prejudices are not information. Religion is not 
information. Information is the collection and interpretation of facts. 

Based on the facts presented thus far, the rider in question is clearly 
innocent of intentionally killing his horse. And, judging from the quality 
(or lack of quality) of the information presented thus far, innocent of all 
else as well. It may be that he exhibited, now and in the past, bad 
judgement--but that is far from demonstrated here with these silly emotings. 

Isn't there a law against defamation of character somewhere on the books?

ti