Simone Biles, Aly Raisman Suing FBI for $1B over Larry Nassar Investigation | Hacker News Reader

Simone Biles, Aly Raisman Suing FBI for $1B over Larry Nassar Investigation

cbsnews.com

52 pointsjonwachob9195 comments

Seems like a good time to remind everyone that in general the police have no legal obligation to protect you or to file charges against someone.

Yep. Here are the relevant Supreme Court cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonza...

And a federal appeals court: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columb...

The police are the ones who ultimately arrested him, not the FBI.

The FBI are a police agency. "The Police" is not a single organization, it's a collective term to refer to any government agency tasked with policing society for law breakers. The FBI are a federal police agency tasked with a broad scope of investigations into federal crimes. The FBI office in Michigan is the group that dropped the ball on this investigation, but the FBI office in Los Angeles was the first agency to begin a serious investigation, and it was soon after that investigation got rolling that the Michigan State University Police Department started their investigation and arrested Nassar. The FBI later filed charges as well, but idk if it was the LA office that filed charges or if the Michigan office decided to save face and file charges.

I understand the distinction. I was mostly refuting what seemed to be a suggestion that the collective police did nothing because they technically didn't have to.

One organization (FBI) failed, another (MSU Police) did not.

no, it's a terrible time to bring up what is, charitably, a non-sequitur. "oh, it's ok, it just women, so let's not care if they get protection and justice under the law. and it's not even guaranteed, harhar!"

the same with the discussion about the amount demanded elsewhere. "it's just women, why so much?!"

there's yet to be any discussion about the merits of the case, just sideglance comments like these. try to be a little more empathetic and thoughtful.

You seem to be pretty confused about the comments you’re reading.

The point is that this can happen to others. That people should know that they are the only ones truly responsible for their safety, and that these systems people put their trust in can fail.

For example, many states allow an individual to press charges without going to the police. If the police or FBI decline to charge, the person can file it themself. They can also file board complaints to have his license revoked. Most states also have exceptions to secret recording when serious crimes are committed so you have evidence. That's not to say this is always necessary or that it will always work. But it's important for people to know their rights and options.

the point is that this is a deflection, whether consciously intended or not. you didn't have anything more relevant to say so you succumbed to subconscious biases to post this random factoid.

How is it a deflection? This same topic has been seen when it was victims of other demographics. Most recently there has been scrutiny of the actions where a homeless man jumped into water and drowned while talking to police, and the delay in entry for the Uvalde school shooting.

This "factoid" is not random. This is a pattern that we continue to see, that affects many demographics. We need to eliminate these misconceptions so that people know their rights and options. Maybe that will help curb the future damage, or at least allow people to make decisions based on reality.

no, you're posting all over this thread about random other factoids rather than focusing on how systemic sex abuse was fostered in not one, but multiple, public institutions, or about how and why the legal system should attack such affronts with the vigor they go after gang members with. why don't you talk about the mechanics of police looking the other way around sexual violence? anything that's actually relevant, rather than these sidelong glances.

Why do I have to focus in one small piece - the only piece you are interested in? Is it not possible that other pieces are more interesting to other people? Perhaps I'm already well aware of police looking the other way on sexual misconduct, including legally raping those in their custody. To me its old news and throughly explored, and thus, uninteresting to me. (Unless we're talking new ways to change that)

I brought up the "police looking the other way" in the grander context - that they can do this for things other than just sexual assault. This is relevant.

Sorry that you think everyone needs to think nd feel exactly like you, and that other people's opinions and views aren't as important as your's.

i'm challenging you to do better. how you respond to that challenge is up to you. it also reveals who you are, if you care to self-examine.

What would the world be like if they did have a legal obligation to protect you?

If you're beefing with neighbor Bob, should the police station an officer outside your house in case Bob gets violent?

I'm not saying that they should. It's common for people to believe that police are obligated to protect them. I'm pointing out that is a misconception in the hope that will empower people to look out for themselves when the system fails them (like filing a private criminal complaint).

Police may not be obligated, but almost always, if you call the police and tell them someone broke into your house and is holding you at gunpoint, the police will come and deal with the situation.

Who exactly are you helping by sowing FUD about police behavior? Even if it is technically true that police have no obligation to help you, putting that statement out there without any kind of context of how often they will help you even without the obligation is engendering uncertainty and doubt.

This isn't FUD - it's just the facts. It's quite common for police to decline to get involved, especially in lessor cases. The example you gave is of a particular type of serious situation. They are likely to get involved, but the outcome is still uncertain (plenty of people killed in their own home due to a call to police by a neighbor thinking they're a burglar). You don't have to be in fear. You just need to understand that the police won't always help you and there are other approaches one can take if they don't help you.

> if you call the police and tell them someone broke into your house and is holding you at gunpoint, the police will come and deal with the situation.

Very likely, the cops would declare that a "hostage situation" and wait outside instead of coming in to save you.

I'm fairly confident you can't accurately quantify "very likely".

I'm fairly confident that you can't produce a quantifiable metric backing up your position either.

Sure I can. We can do a literature review, identify say 1000 relevant events, and determine the likelihood through that method.

s/can't/won't/

Either way makes no difference because you aren't going to produce quantifiable data that shows police waiting outside during hostage situations is unlikely.

You're right, because I wouldn't waste my time on that to merely convince you of reality, when there is a very low chance you would actually update your viewpoints with the information I could present.

You can't and won't because the truth of the matter is that police very frequently wait outside during anything even remotely resembling a hostage crisis, and a gunman holding a gun to your face inside your house isn't even ambiguously a hostage situation. The street cops who respond to this won't have any interest in running into the building to get shot, and they'll use concern for you as their excuse not to do it. They'll wait outside and call a hostage negotiator if you're lucky, or just yell at the building with loudspeakers until the gunman gets bored and gives up or shoots you in your face. If you're very lucky, an hour or two later a SWAT team might show up, but there is a good chance they'll stall for time too.

I think most people have more of a problem with the fact that “no legal obligation to protect you” means that the cops can watch you get stabbed by an assailant from the safety of another subway car, and only come out once you’ve subdued the criminal and they can get the credit for capturing them.

I don’t think anyone reasonable expects the police to protect the citizenry from all danger. We do expect them to protect us from _something_ however, and the police are currently indicating that they will not even meet that low bar

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree

Yeah, it sucks that those cops were cowards, and Lozito is lucky to be alive. However, even if those cops did have a legal requirement to intervene, they probably still would have just watched it all go down. That would affect their careers after the event, but it would have no bearing on the outcome of the attack for Lozito for example.

Let's look at it from a statistical perspective though - what percentage of knife attacks or assaults do you think occur where cops observe it happening, but do nothing about it?

Your comment distracts from the argument of the case that the FBI failed in their duty and lied. This isn't just not showing up.

In every country?

I find it really painful to see these kinds of catastrophic, systemic failures. All the warning signs were there, a fairly large number of people were aware of the problem, and he was just allowed to continue.

I find it hard to avoid conspiratorial thinking in cases like this (did someone powerful shut down the investigation?), and in some cases (e.g. Epstein) that thinking seems to be vindicated. In other cases (e.g. Cosby) it seems like more of a failure of our collective conscience.

I abhor the conspiratorial tendencies of people when considering abuse, especially in the context of powerful people. Abuse is predicated on being able to effectively pick victims that the rest of us don’t care about: Epstein et al. don’t need a grand conspiracy to execute their abuse, they just need us normal folk to ensure that there’s a fresh supply of victims.

A great example of this in action is the fantasy a lot of people hold that middle class white women are being snatched off the street to be trafficked: they’re not in any volume, most trafficking victims are vulnerable people who nobody notices are missing, but nobody cares about them and so the cycle continues.

If we accept that Epstein was just an abuser who killed himself, we have to confront the reality that we enable abuse, and that’s too scary a thought.

Driven athletes are the perfect victims, because they feel they have so much to lose if they’re not believed.

When Epstein was originally convicted in Florida, it's pretty clear that Higher Powers intervened to get him:

* a laughably short sentence

* the ability to spend his days _in his home office_ instead of prison

* protection from having his victims present at his sentencing

https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-florida-e2a4431f7...

(edit: victims, not accusers)

He had a lot of money and he was a well connected, powerful white guy. I think plenty of past experience tells us that you don't need some mysterious higher power to dodge responsibility for criminal behavior if you meet that criteria.

I think this is more semantics than anything.

I used "Higher Power" in a slightly tongue-in-cheek way. Obviously there were one or more people who Epstein was "connected" to, who pulled the right strings, not some sinister black-robed cabal that meets every Tuesday to discuss their plans for world domination.

The mystery is exactly who these people are, and what kinds of pressure were applied to get them to act this way. Was it a courtesy to a friend? Blackmail? A quid-pro-quo?

The world is dominated by hidden, informal power structures (friendships, alliances, etc). They are quite normal and natural, but at the highest levels can lead to the same kinds of anti-democratic, anti-social outcomes you'd expect from a sinister black-robed cabal.

C.S. Lewis did a good job describing this dynamic: https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/

I take your point. But I think the people that helped him avoid prosecution are mostly right out in the open. Several very highly paid attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, who was lobbying his contacts behind the scenes (it seems he may have had personal motivation to help his client get a lenient sentence). And then we have Alexander Acosta, the US Attorney who has claimed he persued a lenient sentence because some "higher ups" in government told him to. Which seems about as flimsy as an excuse gets unless/until he reveals who these "higher ups" were.

I have never once heard it suggested that "middle class white women" are kidnapped off the street and trafficked in any volume. I've only ever heard it spoken about in terms of (mostly adolescent/very young) homeless people, immigrants, prostitutes, etc. As you said, people who for the most part are not noticed when they go missing.

It’s been a weirdly prevalent theme in conservative political circles the past several years.

The only trafficking I've heard conservatives talk a lot about is trafficking of kids, particularly Epstein, Rotherham rape gangs, and also deep-end stuff like pizzagate. Conservatives being outspoken about trafficking of middle class women is news to me.

There's a ton of fearmongering over people getting snatched up off the streets and being brought into trafficking in QAnon circles.

There was a "white slavery" panic back in the day, a century or more ago. It was mostly driven by the puritanical assumption that any woman engaging in sex work must be imprisoned against her will, but it often went hand-in-hand with racism towards the supposed perpetrators.

I think the idea that random middle-class people were abducted off the street and forced into prostitution hasn't been mainstream in a long, long time, but it seems like a perfect fit for the current appetite for right-wing fantasy, so I won't be surprised if we start hearing about it again.

I think it's a bit crazy to take for granted that Epstein abused those girls alone and didn't involve any of his rich and powerful associations in it, beyond Ghislaine. I'm not convinced by your line about people being scared of the thought they enable abuse. Many are reasonably scared that Epstein had associates who, in the end, got away with it. I don't assume it's true but consider it a distinct possibility and perhaps even likely.

It feels extremely likely that there were many other powerful people who were involved. The fact that many of them (Dershowitz, Trump, Prince Andrew) were publicly accused at a time before the Miami Herald’s reporting made all this common knowledge feels pretty damn credible. I find it highly unlikely that these multiple women could independently fabricate similar stories that then perfectly align with information and photographs that subsequently emerge once the media started digging.

The fact that Epstein’s original deal contained a ridiculous provision that shut down any FBI investigation into co-conspirators just seems to confirm that there were, in fact, co-conspirators. Otherwise there would have been no reason to put that in the agreement.

Oh wow, I didn't know about that provision. It makes more sense that no one else was charged, knowing that. It's disappointing, too.

What about something like the penn state football scandal? Wasn't that a conspiracy, given that the leaders of an organization knew about the abuse, and let it slide?

I also just have to say that if you really think Epstein killed himself, and that all the horrible things he (and all his ultra wealthy friends) did is our fault, then you are uninformed or naive.

I'm generally not one to believe conspiracies. Usually incompetence is a much bigger factor. But there comes a point when the coincidences add up and the idea of it being a conspiracy becomes a legitimate possibility. For example, all the things that had to add up to get to the hanging with equipment failures. Then a related person was hanged in a French jail... again with the security cams not working. And there are enough powerful people linked that it could be feasible for one of them to order this.

All the factors lining up once is a coincidence. Twice is a pattern. That's not proof, but it does increase the likelihood to a reasonable point of investigating that angle.

Doesn't $1B seem a bit high? I mean no offense, it just sounds so out of left field, to demand $1B from your government.

It's there to make a statement, I'm sure there are limitations on suits like this.

According to the article nearly $900M has already been paid out over this guy. These numbers are mind-boggling.

"Michigan State University, which was also accused of missing chances over many years to stop Nassar, agreed to pay $500 million to more than 300 women and girls who were assaulted by Nassar. USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee made a $380 million settlement."

It blows my mind that places like this even have that kind of money. Or maybe they have some sort of insurance.

Then there's the fact that any individuals responsible (besides the actual perpetrator) have no financial responsibility. The cost gets passed on to future students or other consumers of insured organizations.

"MSU's endowment had a market value of $3.9 billion in June 2021".

Usually the endowment is protected though. They can only withdraw so much at a time because it lives in a trust, right?

Its an interesting thought experiment to imagine if we had a world where, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, that someone knew of something like this taking place, they bore some real responsibility as well.

While I don't know anything about legal nuances to sufficiently say its a good idea (or bad, honestly), I have to say that my armchair take is this would mitigate a lot of bad in our society, as the incentives to allow things go unnoticed or effectively ignored would be gone

There are laws about reporting suspected abuse. But I think those are mostly around minors and primary/secondary schools. It's also probably hard to prove they knew, so they go after them on a failure to supervise in civil trials. The burden of proof is also much lower in civil cases.

I had no idea he assaulted over 300 women. How on earth did he not get arrested sooner?

In 2019, Michigan State University's endowment was $3.93 Billion.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...

Usually the endowment is protected though. They can only withdraw so much at a time because it lives in a trust, right?

wouldn't be necessary if merit & citizens rights were enough to get the agency to do the right thing, god knows their exuberant salaries aren't making them do it.

The article says there are approximately 90 claimants. $11m per victim doesn't sound that outlandish a number. It goes to highlight the enormous scale of the crime that the total amasses to $1b.

Maybe I'm weird, but $11M still sounds high. It's also not about the damages that the actual perpetrator caused, this seems more like a punitive case against the government.

You’re not wrong, it is a punitive case against the government. It’s also about the actual damages that perpetrator caused, but those are difficult to quantify. I’m sure the prosecution is just starting what they consider to be the high side, knowing there are good odds a judge or jury might reduce it from there, if they win.

What is the lifetime median salary for an American?

Hard to pin down a figure but say $2million.

So taxpayers will pay over 5x the normal lifetime income to the victims.

I think there may be an issue with this because I think there is a lot of evil bad stuff that happens and if the government pays for all of it (the trend is to right all injustice), aren’t we risking economic collapse with these massive settlements? If this pays out, there will be more…

>I think there is a lot of evil bad stuff that happens

They aren't suing because evil bad stuff happened. They are suing because (they believe) the government caused evil bad stuff to happen.

Not even "caused" but "allowed"

A semantic distinction at best. There is no real practical difference from the perspective of a victim. Remember, that is all this is at this point. No verdict has been returned, no settlement reached. These are purely claims from victims.

I beg to differ. There is a huge difference between the person raping you and the other people on the train not getting involved, even from the victim's perspective. From a legal perspective, there are very clear distinctions (criminal vs civil, responsibility by party, etc).

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/suspect-arrested-...

From the perspective of a victim, there is also a huge difference between stopping a crime in progress and preventing a crime from ever even being attempted. Being the victim of an attempted crime can still be traumatizing. People likely wouldn't even know if they would have been the victim of a crime that is successfully avoided.

Either way, this discussion doesn't matter at this point. As I already said, this is not a legal decision being handed down. These are claims by victims and the accused haven't even responded yet.

I consider the current path much, much riskier for society, where qualified immunity and SCOTUS precedent essentially shield cops entirely from the consequences of their misbehavior and malfeasance

"The approximately 90 claimants include Biles, Raisman and McKayla Maroney, all Olympic gold medalists,"

You'll note these aren't normal average Americans that were abused. For those that weren't high profile, many probably had the potential to become elite athletes were it not for the abuse. There is also an argument to be made that their endorsement opportunities were limited due to the controversy surrounding the abuse. I'm sure there is a reticence to put an athlete on your cereal box that is embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal, even though they are the victim. It's just not what you want brought to mind when your customers see your marketing material.

Damage calculations are part of due process and should never consider "the poor taxpayers" for any purpose. Most or all plaintiffs are taxpayers, too.

Of course. The interesting part is how the damages are calculated to get to that number.

But there is not justice to victims or society if the government is bankrupted by the judgement.

Money doesn’t erase the harm.

I don't think that judgments risk bankrupting the government, nor do I believe that bankrupting the government risks denying justice to the victims, or by extension, society. Remembering of course, that victims are the part of society that matters when a judgement is issued in their favor.

If society crumbles who protects the victims?

If debt to satisfy settlements, causes the currency to collapse, the settlements to the victims are useless.

Sounds like you are analyzing victim payouts in a vacuum.

The society that would ostensibly crumble under the burden of victim settlements was already lost to government that victimized its members. Remember these are the terms the government set forth for itself, which it broke.

This is the number they are starting at. There is little incentive to start with a lower number. Lawsuits specifically about this crime have already had $1m+ payouts per victim. $11m isn't outlandish given that context.

Maybe you aren't looking at the loss of $11M earning potential in your career. Trauma can end a person for all practical purposes.

Literally killing someone is only valued at $10M. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...

But the crimes had already happened - is this about pre-crime ?

I feel for these women, but the truth of the matter is that the FBI will only investigate if it is likely that something will be turned into a case by prosecutors. And the reality of the way things work in America is, if you’re rich and powerful — or connected to a rich and powerful institution — it’s likely that prosecutors (many of whom have ambitions for elected offices or private sector jobs) are not going to be very interested in pursuing a case. Remember, it’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not Prosecution.

The not-so-secret truth of how things work in America is, it’s still really really easy to “get away with it” if you have enough money and power. The FBI has lots of flaws, but this isn’t really their fault — you might want to reform campaign finance, or close off revolving door jobs for government employees, if you actually want to solve these problems. Since many of these issues can be solved at the state level, it’s not actually impossible if enough people cared enough. But alas, that’s not how America works in 2022.

Believed by NPR is the podcast you should listen to if you want to hear the story of the Larry Nasser's victims: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510326/believed

This series was haunting.

The article says the FBI knew of the accusations by 2015, but didn't have Nassar arrested until late 2016 more than a year later. Does anybody know if a year of delay is typical or atypical? I don't know much about these processes, but my general cynicism towards the federal government has me thinking less than two years was actually fairly quick to act, by federal government standards. But I'm curious to hear what others think.

It's not unusual for large investigations to take a year or more. It's arguable about whether that makes sense in many cases, especially when damage continues to happen.

Finite state resources beit policing, health care, education, can always be used as a cover for targeting and harassment by those in positions of power, its why privacy is important.

The tough part prosecutors sometimes find themselves in is the need to collect ongoing evidence to build a case. Not sure what all the conditions were in this case but I feel like having several victims would be cause enough.

I do not understand: the FBI makes a decision but if you want to compel the authorities to do something, should you not have to denounce a crime?

An investigation is not the pursuing of a criminal (albeit it may end there). It is the role of the FBI to decide when to pursue.

I am not defending the FBI, just trying to understand. I know denouncing the abuse formally is practically impossible without help. So, I am not trying to criticize the victims here.

The crimes this guy committed almost beggar belief. That he got away with it for so long with such prominent and visible victims is shocking. I don't really understand what precedent would allow them to sue for failure to enforce laws though. There's ample precedent that says you can't actually do that.

There are some egregious facts in the USA Gymnastics case - they have a big hill to climb to overcome precedent but there were a number of huge issues;

- The agent who first interviewed Aly never actually wrote up a 302 until a year and a half later. This happened regularly where the FBI protocols for documentation were just ignored.

- The head of the Indy FBI office leading the investigation was at the same time, applying and interviewing to be the head of security for the US Olympic Committee. working with the woman who was running USA Gymnastics.

- When that Agent didn't get the job and people questioned whether that was appropriate given the investigation - he lied to his coworkers and superiors insisting he never actually applied for it.

- The Indy office never forwarded the reports to local or state police because they assumed there would be Federal jurisdiction -- but then took nearly a year to follow-up during which several more girls were assaulted. They only took additional steps when USA Gymnastics went to a different FBI branch and that branch called Indy to see wtf was going on.

The IG report is completely damning in a way that might extend beyond "regular duty": https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-093.p...

I remember reading about these points in articles at the the time. Very much an "evil is a form of incompetence" sort of affair.

Good for them. This could be a chilling wake up call that sometimes especially brave citizens push back against government malfeasance.

I don’t have a very good understanding of the legal framework here. Is there some reason the FBI was not supposed to handle this? I know there is a complex system involved and I’m not sure if the FBI is at fault or if the framework itself is severely in need of repair.

Either way I hope this gets fixed so it doesn’t happen again.

The DOJ's OIG Executive Summary is a great primer on the relevant facts.[0]

[0]https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/21-093.p...

Does not bode well for the I part of their motto, much less the other two letters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com