Breaking the Silence

@FCarr said in #292:
> Your remarks make no sense, If these men represented a threat to their lives, that is more reason to go to the police, not less. And they would still have plenty of reason to become violent if they lost their livelihoods. Your assumption that police "support the predator" is beyond absurd. You have no understand of or experience with the US justice system.

Maybe some fear the cop responding isn't one of the good ones?

highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/police-domestic-violence

@spidersarepeople2 said in #293:
> Maybe some fear the cop responding isn't one of the good ones?
>
> highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/police-domestic-violence

You could literally ask to speak to a female officer, often one who specializes in these sorts of cases. Sorry, I disagree.

@FCarr said in #291:
> The USCF handled this correctly. These incidents are matters for the government to handle. That is how law works.

I support lichess 100% in this decision. This is not about law. This is about basic human decency. And that goes for all of us. We must do our part by raising awareness. Thank you lichess for making this difficult, but important decision.

@bolszakdikbuht said in #263:
> From US Chess president Randy Bauer:
>
> "I disagree, but I'm not going to debate this point by point. US Chess conducted an independent investigation (meaning we hired two law firms and paid them about $90,000 of member dues money to conduct it), and they reached conclusions related to US Chess that are different than Lichess. These are law firms with professional responsibility related to their work. Their findings are embodied in our original release on the investigation."
>
> Posted on FB today 8/11/23

This is actually an important update. However, saying the findings are "embodied in the original release" makes me wonder... was this investigation done to protect the girls or women who made complaint, or was it done (and thus lawyers hired) to protect US Chess?

If there are proofs, then show it and sue them, if there are no proofs they must be treated normal.

@jose1122 said in #298:
> If there are proofs, then show it and sue them, if there are no proofs they must be treated normal.
Did you know that individuals' testimony - which is what is being given here - is considered "proof" in a legal case? They are showing it. Right now. By speaking out.

@thefrickouttaherelol said in #299:
> Did you know that individuals' testimony - which is what is being given here - is considered "proof" in a legal case? They are showing it. Right now. By speaking out.

So... sue them and wait for the verdict?

Great decision, USCF and STLCC need to do better. Women (and all players) deserve to be able to play chess safely and comfortably.

Gareyev specifically is a serial attacker and needs to be sanctioned and banned on a larger scale.

@jose1122 said in #300:
> So... sue them and wait for the verdict?
This is a severe burden to place on victims. I've been through court and it's a horrible process.

Also, court isn't the only place where justice can be sought. Public discourse is important and a lawsuit can fall far short of justice.

I think it's fine that victims talk about their experiences and that the community and chess organizations are willing to hear them and potentially take action.