Game On? Solo DV Charges Dropped

Game On

Domestic violence charges against American fútbol star Hope Solo ended today when a judge dismissed the case. Chris Daniels↱ of KING 5 television explains:

The U.S. Women's National Team goalie and Olympic gold medalist was scheduled to stand trial next week, faced with two counts of fourth-degree assault after Kirkland police said she assaulted two family members at a Kirkland home in June.

Solo has maintained her innocence and her attorney has argued that the alleged victims had been uncooperative during pre-trial investigation. Attorney Todd Maybrown claimed the alleged victims failed to show up for scheduled interviews and have changed their stories about the night in question. Maybrown made a motion to dismiss the case, based on that point.

Prosecutors disagreed and said the victims had cooperated.​

The Associated Press↱ adds the following observation:

In court documents, Solo said she was defending herself against her nephew, who is 6-foot-9 and weighs 280 pounds. She claims she was hit over the head with a broom handle. Solo's relatives have claimed she attacked first.​

Hope Solo released the following statement after dismissal, as posted by KING 5:

Today's decision brings closure to what has been one of the most difficult and emotionally draining times of my life. I always had faith that once the facts of the case were presented, I would be cleared of all charges and I am so happy and relieved to finally have it all behind me.

I would like to thank my legal team, the U.S. Soccer Federation, my coaches and teammates on the U.S. National Team, and the Seattle Reign organization, all of whom, under great pressure to do otherwise, chose to stand by and believe in me.

I am so grateful for the support of my husband Jerramy, my mother, grandmother and members of my extended family who surrounded me with love and reassurance each and every day. I would also like to thank my incredible fans who consistently sent positive, heartfelt messages of encouragement and kept my spirits lifted throughout this entire ordeal. I look forward to joining my team with a clear mind to train, compete, and help bring a World Cup title to the U.S. in 2015.​

The melodrama that is the life and times of Hope Solo has probably not seen its last farcical chapter, but for now it's simply enough to look forward to next month when USWNT meets France in Lorient, and then England at Milton Keynes. Seattle Reign FC open their season in April.

Game on.

Sadly, of course, there remains the question of what actually happened and why Solo was charged. What we have in this outcome is a procedural decision with some negative implications toward the original accusation, but nothing definitive.

In the Puget Sound area, this will generally be enough for most people; the spectre remains but this whole episode had a curiously surreal tone about it. To the one, she has a history verging up against and the borders of domestic violence, to say the least. To the other, it was always a weird story of what happened. To the beeblebrox, it probably didn't help her standing in the public eye to have married a known rapist convicted in the court of public opinion in a case that happens to be close to the heart of accusations regarding corruption and collusion between law enforcement and university officials. And to a fourth, we might also note that nobody really cares about the resolution of this case outside of the question of whether Solo will be available for the Cup later this year.

And now she will.

So life goes on and we all go back to not caring.

But for what it's worth―

The case has garnered national attention in the wake of the NFL's handling of the Ray Rice domestic violence case.

Critics have questioned why U.S. Soccer has allowed Solo to play while facing charges. She was called up by the team to participate in training camp this month and Kirkland Municipal Court Judge Michael Lambo agreed to let her attend camp rather than Tuesday's hearing.

(Daniels)​

―there are substantial differences. It is unclear what happened; there was apparent mutual combat involved; there is no video showing a brutal, undefended assault; Solo does not at this time have the appearance of lying to either NWSL (Seattle Reign FC) or US Soccer (WNT) officials; the question of "domestic violence" in these cases has a controversial history in the area, including arresting developmentally delayed minors on DV charges for having, say, struck their mother amid a temper tantrum. The only problem with putting those two paragraphs in Daniels' report is that they suggest, for reasons unclear that the two cases are similar.

And, yes, for what it's worth: Hope Solo, drunk, deciding to fuck it all and taking after a 6'9, 280 pound guy for whatever reasons that have her pissed off at the moment? Yeah, I can see that happening.

No, seriously, that's the thing about her history; we always presumed one day it would be Jerramy under arrest while everyone stood around and wept over a dead soccer star. And then the eternal question would persist: What? We have a women's soccer team in town?

And it's true, Hope Solo lives on some edge, somewhere, somehow, and if we have a human concern toward potential criminality or simply her health and wellbeing, this never quite seemed the way to go about it.

But because nobody watches the WNT unless they're in a World Cup final, and because Reign FC draws less than a tenth of what Sounders FC gets through the gate, nobody really cares. And if they do care, the answer seems to be, "Oh, that's all taken care of, now? Good. Game on."
____________________

Notes:

Daniels, Chris. "Domestic violence charges against Hope Solo dismisssed". KING. 13 January 2015. KING5.com. 13 January 2015. http://www.king5.com/story/sports/2015/01/13/hope-solo-charges-dismissed/21708321/

Associated Press. "Domestic Violence Assault Charges Against U.S. Soccer Star Hope Solo Dismissed". The Huffington Post. 13 January 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 13 January 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/hope-solo-assault-charges-dismissed_n_6465938.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Part the First

Honestly, I think a couple of things happened here: First, there are likely details to what happened that we haven't heard. I'm not going to speculate, but I will say the bit about the kid being too fat to be an athlete rings a bell, and there are a number of problems with women's professional soccer in the United States that are very frustrating to the athletes, are met with hostility by others, and can contain fighting words.

Part of the reason the young man's size matters is that it's Hope Solo, and the general attitude surrounding her is that her reputation precedes her and she gets what she deserves. And in this, the first reports were that Solo had attacked a child. And people were appalled at the idea of beating a poor, defenseless little kid. So compared to that idea, yes, the question of being 6'9, 280 lbs., which still seems like it should be a typo, becomes at least relevant to the public discussion.

To split a hair with words, I'd look to the sentence, "She also apparently attacked her half-sister." I mean, what does that mean to you? The question of whether she committed assault and, in the resulting fracas fought with more than one person is one thing, but the phrasing―which is not unfamiliar to the local discourse―has resulted in the idea that Hope Solo was walking around drunk just randomly smacking people.

It's one of those things; something happened, but what happened?

And as I mentioned, we have a weird application of DV laws. A Seattle City Council member gets busted smacking his wife around and no charges are filed. A developmentally delayed teenager throws a temper tantrum in a foster home and gets charged and convicted of DV. This happens occasionally, and it disgusts people. Did Hope Solo commit assault? Frankly, my money would be on yes. But charging her with DV doesn't sit well.

And the Devil may well be in the details. The problem is that we don't presently know.

But when we add into the consideration the allegations that the stories against Solo that the prosecutor would be bringing to court were changing too much, and that the witnesses were failing to show up for legally-obliged interviews, the judge had mostly procedural issues before him. Unreliable stories, avoiding attorneys and skipping obligatory dates, so what does he do? Probable cause is at that point near to exploding, the witnesses aren't helping, and the thing is that I know a little about how the local judges work around here and can see a pathway by which tossing the charges was the only choice he had.

The question of why she was allowed to play may well be legitimate; the answer is pretty straightforward, though. That is, read the first two paragraphs of Ryan's second article ("Hope Solo Shouldn't Be Playing Professional Sports, Either")↱; they are an example of the problem:

The NFL's handling of the Ray Rice domestic violence case has opened a belated discussion on how professional sports enable crap behavior in their athletes, and the private horror of domestic violence for its victims. But in the flurry of firings and bannings and panel appointings in the NFL, one professional sports league has done nothing to discipline its own high-profile athlete accused of domestic abuse. After all, she has a World Cup to qualify for.

The Washington Post's Cindy Boren rightfully takes the Seattle Reign and US Soccer (and their fans) to task for largely brushing aside domestic violence charged faced by superstar goalie Hope Solo. Earlier this year, Solo was accused of physically attacking her 17-year-old nephew and half sister in their home during a drunken disagreement (the nephew tried to fend her off with a broom). When she was ejected from the home, she hopped a fence and circled around to an unlocked sliding door, re-entering against their wishes. She's pled not guilty to two gross misdemeanor charges.​

That first sentence wrecks everything about that article.

In the Ray Rice case, where we are at is what did the NFL know and when did it know it? Naturally, the NFL's in-house investigator has cleared the League of any wrongdoing despite evidence suggesting the League knew the video existed. The big question about Rice's discipline in this context is whether the symbolic suspension he was originally issued was appropriate (i.e., the League really didn't know) or the NFL is lying about not knowing how severe the issue was.

Secondly, yes, U.S. Soccer's response was pretty terrible even considering the constraints. But, to the one, no collective entity like a sports league, regardless of the stupid "corporate personhood" idea, is going to come out and say, at that point, "Well, we reviewed the evidence available to us, and whatever happened, we can tell you the charges are complete bullshit".

There was something amiss about this case from the moment this hit the public awareness. USS could always say that the whole thing stunk from the outset, so they trusted their player; that would have been a better response than the one they gave. And whatever else really happened, USS would be on solid ground for that claim as of yesterday.

End Part I​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Part the Second

Consider Ryan's article; it convicts her based on Jezebel's own reporting, an article that presumes her guilty from the outset.

You and I both know overcompensation when we see it. And it appears to be a factor here. We have a female superstar athlete accused of DV, so of course people are going to take the opportunity to rally around an important point about how violence between men and women goes both ways. But what is the detail?

My response to the Jezebel articles in that context is that Erin Gloria Ryan was wrong and owes Hope Solo an ass-kissing public apology. Then again, it's also Jezebel; I attend the writing there for its editorial content, not its alleged "reporting". And in this case, I disagree not with the principles of the editorial outlook, but the apparently shitty reporting it relies on. You know, that was reported by the same person writing the editorial content.

As it is, formally, Erin Gloria Ryan was wrong. And the comparison to Ray Rice is entirely superficial.

We know there's more to this story, but compared to Ryan's Queen of Hearts routine ("Sentence first! Verdict later!"), what we have now is an accusation against a professional athlete that the victims cannot or will not support.

What do we get out of this as a society? Not much, to be honest. The opportunity that presents itself right now is not one our public discourse is refined enough to accommodate. And that is the question of what happened between arrest and dropping of the charges that caused the state's case to fall apart.

We know there are reasons why victims stay. Or why they leave. Or why they won't press charges. Some aspect of this could be a factor.

We know the witnesses are alleged to be telling unstable stories. If true, this would definitely be a factor.

And from that, yes, there are reasons the witnesses would be trying to avoid depositions and interviews with lawyers. We can say with great confidence that whatever was going on, this appearance of dodging the lawyers was definitely a factor.

To presume Solo absolutely guilty for a moment, we could still salvage some societal good from this episode. Why is the accusation falling apart? Why are the witnesses behaving as they are? Right there are two important questions that tie into our larger, dysfunctional societal discussion about domestic violence. If Solo is absolutely guilty, then why are the witnesses apparently coming apart? This is a discussion our society has over and over again, about how it isn't really rape or isn't really domestic violence because the victim stays, or abets, or in whatever other way is somehow guilty of causing someone else to assault. There is an opportunity to dive into that issue, but our society also lacks the sort of refinement required to undertake such an endeavor responsibly.

To presume Solo partially guilty―having done something wrong, but being charged inappropriately or the incident reported wrongly in the press―the details become incredibly important insofar as we need to know just how things went down.

To presume Solo innocent is almost impossible for one reason: By reputation, Hope Solo is a reckless fucking bitch who gets what she deserves. And that's why the idea that Hope Solo got loaded and decided to randomly start attacking defenseless children is so easy to sell, even around here where people can offer more reasons to not give a shit than usual.

If you were a judge―

• with shifting, unstable accusations, and,

• accusatory witnesses refusing to cooperate according to their legal obligations, and,

• (apologies, as this does require a small amount of speculation) even the best construction of what assertions of fact we have on record suggest Solo has a defense under the law​

―then what would you do?

As I noted, we know there are legitimate human reasons why victims can be uncooperative with authorities in such a manner as to result in charges being dropped. But the details available to the public also leave a gaping hole for Solo to sail a fleet through.

And on the point of speculation, it's just that I can see a pathway by which all of this really did take place, and about the only thing Solo is guilty of is trespassing for having returned to the residence. But we don't know, yet. I haven't found those details. If they emerge, I'll be happy to acknowledge them one way or another, as connected to that speculation, but there is a pathway by which the victims could feel really, really stupid, and end up looking even worse.

But if you're a judge in the U.S., then those first two points really do make it hard to allow the prosecution to continue. If, furthermore, there is even a whiff of the potential defense I speculated, then the judge really doesn't have much of a choice at this part.

And if that potential defense exists in reality, then SRFC and USS are fully justified in their decisions to keep Solo on active duty.

But therein lies the question. We don't actually know those answers; there is a thick fog blanketing that part of the story right now.

And if it emerges that Hope Solo does, in fact, have a proper defense under the law (regardless of our feelings on how the law works), Erin Gloria Ryan will not only be left feeling stupid, but owing us her resignation from Jezebel and retirement from any pretense of journalism as well.

And if it turns out that Hope Solo just got away with one? Well, she's Hope fucking Solo, so we're not at all surprised.

I expect emerging details will show she should have been convicted of something, even if it's just trespassing and D&D. But there is also the possibility that the detail will suggest the whole case was a wreck from the outset.

This is America. Add up the presumption of innocence and the standards of guaranteed process, and a course emerges by which the judge had no real choice under the law but to drop the charges. And if ... if, if, if ... the detail of what happened is more nuanced than reports available to the public presently suggest, it well could be that the decision to let Solo keep playing was fully justified.

In which case, yes, overcompensation becomes a factor, with even Jezebel jumping on the bandwagon because the opportunity presented itself, and yes, this really is an important issue.

If Hope Solo is actually legally not guilty, this whole episode could set the DV discourse back ... er ... um ... well, I guess it doesn't really make much progress in this society, anyway, does it?
____________________

Notes:

Ryan, Erin Gloria. "Hope Solo Shouldn't Be Playing Professional Sports, Either". Jezebel. 19 September 2014. Jezebel.com. 14 January 2015. http://jezebel.com/hope-solo-shouldnt-be-playing-professional-sports-eith-1636783014

Fin​

 

Part the First

Note at the outset: I actually had not intended to litigate the case in-thread, but, you know, I also managed to pretty much invite it in the topic post. Don't cry for me, Argentina; I did this to myself.​

Between questions and answers, there is a bounty of the one and dearth of the other. It is one thing that we might be concerned or even disgusted by procedural outcomes, but there really does seem to be a lot more going on here than the public narrative apparently allows for.

After the incident in June, it took until 19 December before defense could depose the alleged victims (Daniels↱). According to defense attorney Maybrown, the alleged victims refused to give a proper deposition:

Maybrown's latest objections stem from a struggle to extract information from the two alleged victims in preparation for trial.

He argued in November that the witnesses refused to be interviewed with a court reporter present to record the discussions. Judge Michael Lambo ordered that a court reporter be provided at each interview.

(Burton↱)​

Additionally, there is a claim that the question of whether the alleged seventeen year-old victim was under the influence of medication at the time of the incident is protected under patient confidentiality. Suffice to say, this is innovative.

There is also a dispute whereby defense claims prosecution withheld evidence from their own depositions of the alleged victims that would, according to Lynsi Burton of SeattlePI.com, "rebutted the witnesses claims".

Procedurally, Judge Lambo was running out of time. In the U.S., defense has considerably more opportunities and justifications for requesting continuance; this is a constitutional matter under Amendment VI↱. The emerging chronology suggests that it took from June to late October or early November for defense to merely get the chance to depose the alleged victims; because of their refusal to sit for proper deposition at that time, the judge ordered them to do so. On 19 December, Mayberry attempted to depose the alleged victims according to a court order; they allegedly refused to answer questions. On 30 December, Lambo delayed his decision on a motion to dismiss and ordered a new deposition to take place three days later.

And this is where we come up against time. With the 2 December deposition missed, Judge Lambo decided to once again, on 6 January, to delay his ruling on the motion to dismiss for another week. That puts us at the 13 January hearing that dismissed the charges. The alleged victims had refused two depositions previously and missed the court-ordered third; with one week until trial, Lambo was very nearly up against the wall. He would have to delay trial for the sake of the prosecution, and prosecution did not have cause. The argument that the alleged victims didn't have time to make the court-ordered deposition only holds if we exclude from consideratioon their prior refusals.

If we choose to view this aspect as an unfair privilege of the power play, the actual problem would be that other people do not get what Hope Solo got, because what she got is exactly what the Constitution intends.

State, in this case, had no leverage under the law for continuance.

And from the judge's perspective? I can promise you that Judge Lambo was facing a Constitutional barrier. Additionally, like I said, judges are human. There comes a point when they lose sympathy for uncooperative alleged victims, and, furthermore, are generally not pleased when an attorney's response to those concerns is to tell the judge to his face that he's doing his job wrongly.

I mean, really. Defense attorneys know better. What's up with State, on this occasion?

A question that needs to be asked: In the Rice case, there was no question that he did something, and what seems to have happened is that he deliberately understated what happened; questions remain about what League officials knew about the disparity, and when they found out. In the Peterson case, we know that he beat his kid's nutsack because he actually said so. In the Solo case, nothing is so clear; from the outset, her attorney has argued that she was defending herself. Is it absolutely impossible, in your opinion, that she's telling the truth?
____________________

Notes:

Daniels, Chris. "Judge delays decision on Hope Solo assault charges". KING. 30 December 2014. KING5.com. 15 January 2015. http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/2014/12/30/judge-hope-solo-soccer-kirkland/21078991/

Burton, Lynsi. "Witnesses ordered to talk before Hope Solo assault trial". SeattlePI. 6 January 2015. SeattlePI.com. 15 January 2015. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Witnesses-ordered-to-talk-before-Hope-Solo-5997500.php

Constitution of the United States of America. 1992. Law.Cornell.edu. 15 January 2015. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview

End Part I​

 

Part the Second

A hair-splitting detail: How do you mean the phrase "close familial relationship"? To the one, it's Solo's sister and her kid. To the other, though: "The boy told police, 'We just let her back into our lives,' and said Solo 'always does this'." (Associated Press↱)

Beyond that, however, there are other questions about witness behavior. That is to say, I wouldn't argue against your general point about victims and fear, but there seems to be a bit more to it than that.

In a motion to depose the complainants, Solo's attorney Todd Maybrown argued at Tuesday afternoon's hearing that the alleged victims refused to allow a third-party court reported document an interview during repeated attempts to schedule a meeting.

That's a problem, Maybrown said, because he can't testify himself to what the complainants told him and it's not realistic for him to record their statements with a paper and pen.

"What the witnesses are hoping to do in this case is to have an off-the-record discussion," said Maybrown, who accused the alleged victims of "gamesmanship."

"That's just not right," he said.

Kirkland city attorneys argued that the alleged victims are willing to talk to Maybrown and never refused to speak to him.

Judge Michael Lambo ruled that recording interviews with key witnesses is a "reasonable" request and granted the deposition.

A motion hearing was set for Jan. 6 and the trial for the four-day week of Jan. 20.

(Burton↱)​

In truth, I don't recall ever hearing of an "off-the-record" deposition before this; the functional problem Maybrown expressed is exactly the problem with such a procedure. But there is an additional issue about that question that arose when Maybrown finally attempted to depose them on the record on 19 December:

'Right from the beginning, the witnesses were refusing to answer my questions when they were very relevant to the case,' Solo's attorney Todd Maybrown said.

Maybrown says the teen told him that Solo slammed his head onto concrete multiple times in the altercation - which he did not report to police at the time.

The teen's mother also says she witnessed the entire incident, which she did not claim in her first interview.

Maybrown believes the teen may have been under the influence of medication at the time as well, and that the alleged victim refused to answer his questions about medical history.

(Collman)​

What those paragraphs suggest is a looming prosecutorial disaster; had this gone to trial, we would be having a similar discussion about points of order and procedure versus societal prejudice in DV and celebrity cases, because Hope Solo would be acquitted regardless of her actual guilt or innocence.

After all, we have competing assertions, and we can say what we want about the idea that of course the accused would claim self-defense. But when we add into that a growing unreliability about the alleged victims' claims, these witnesses will be eviscerated on the stand.

But if you're a judge, looking at the question of when and whether this goes to trial? In truth, I would like to see more detail on the 4 November hearing, because Maybrown is pretending to be furious with prosecutors, alleging they have some role in preventing access to the witnesses; Burton's report for SeattlePI.com tells us what Maybrown said, and what the judge said, but offers nothing about the prosecutorial response to defense arguments. So here's an interesting question: Did State support the argument that witness depositions should be off the record?

Maybrown is correct that he cannot testify; without the court reporter present, there is no record. And there is evidence that the witnesses are changing their story. It is easy enough to acknowledge the challenges such witnesses face, but how do we reconcile the strangeness of this behavior with that concept, and what are its implications under law?

And what happens when the elements you would recognize in not dropping the charges run up against your obligations as a judge?

Our justice system is generally in a state of disgrace. Addressing the general question of the imbalance you're discussing is hard enough, and in this case there appear to be complicating factors about that consideration.

Additionally, our Constitution was structured toward this kind of outcome; it's a reaction to our British heritage. It is actually supposed to be very hard to convict the accused in this country. I would also argue, in the question of celebrity privilege, that what Hope Solo received in the dismissal is actually what our justice system is supposed to look like. Part of the disgrace about our justice system is that Americans are generally willing to erode constitutional standards for prosecutorial convenience. And in other recent issues wracking our justice system, you've seen some of what that compromise brought us.

I'm not going to tell you the system isn't a disgrace. Nor will I try to proclaim Solo's specific innocence. But, yes, a specific constitutional issue arises, the judge slated two extra hearings because of these issues (cf., Burton, 4 Nov. 2014: "A motion hearing was set for Jan. 6 and the trial for the four-day week of Jan. 20."), namely 30 December and 13 January, and at that point he has to make a decision about whether or not he can delay trial for the sake of recalcitrant prosecutorial witnesses.

And in truth, if it ever occurred that you had occasion to just sit around in the gallery and watch everyday proceedings in the courts around here, you would probably be horrified. But part of what makes it horrifying is how we've twisted the system to make it easier for the state to convict people. I've seen a judge reject a plea deal to protect three lawyers, including the defense, from E&O (malpractice) exposure. It's true that judges do eventually put their proverbial foot down around here, and in terms of procedure in municipal courts, that sounds like what Lambo did, here.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Hope Solo Enters Not Guilty Plea". ESPN-W. 24 June 2014. ESPN.Go.com. 15 January 2015. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-comme...lo-pleads-not-guilty-domestic-violence-charge

Burton, Lynsi and SeattlePI.com Staff. "Hope Solo back in court; trial set for Jan. 20". SeattlePI. 4 November 2014. SeattlePI.com. 15 January 2015. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Hope-Solo-back-in-court-trial-set-for-Jan-20-5869698.php

Collman, Ashley. "Hope Solo could be CLEARED over drunken brawl with sister and nephew: Olympic goalie appears in court as 'victims' are accused of making up their story". The Daily Mail. 31 December 2014. DailyMail.co.uk. 15 January 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tantially-changed-accounts-drunken-brawl.html

End Part II​

 

Part the Third

What if the nephew was under arrest for assaulting Hope Solo with a broom?

That question does exist, and one of the problems the prosecution would have faced at trial is that with competing claims, their witnesses would be eviscerated.

So if the question at hand was originally a man breaking a broomstick over his aunt's head, would you still think his size was irrelevant?

That depends largely on the public narrative, which I'll come back to in a moment.

There are some things in those sentences that don't quite ring correctly to my mind:

(1) Why focus on the boy? Because that's the center defense, that she was defending herself against him.

(2) Why ignore the sister? I'm uncertain at this point how to take that notion, because the role of the sister is pretty clear: Something happened causing physical combat, and she joined in and apparently didn't fare well as a fighter. I don't think it's a matter of ignoring the sister, unless I've completely missed your context on that phrase―a reasonable possibility―but, rather, the fact of the heart of the defense, and also an issue about the public narrative I'll get to briefly.

(3) Something about the stereotype; it doesn't quite fit with other parts of the public narrative.​

Are you absolutely certain about that?

I wouldn't disagree that it's a disgraceful case. But I'm not ready to call it a disgrace because of the dropping of charges.

Are you certain about that? Are you certain that nobody rushed to convict her in the court of public opinion because, hey, look, a woman just committed domestic violence?

And I use that formulation ("just committed") because this is also the part where the public narrative arises. And here the public narrative is important because it is what people know and believe about the case, and is the narrative fueling the outcry.

When this story first reached us, it was that Hope Solo beat up her kid nephew. But what does that mean?

His size is important to the defense because that's their defense. But it is also relevant to the public narrative, which was more along the lines of Hope Solo beating up a small, defenseless child. And here I'm going to borrow one of your statements in order to make the point:

"After all, she had a big game coming up."​

And in the public narrative, of course Hope Solo is guilty; after all, she's Hope fucking Solo, a nasty bitch whose reputation precedes her.

There really are times, for instance, when the black guy with a record is telling the truth and the cops are just shaking him down. Doesn't mean all thoses suspects are innocent; nor does this decision doesn't prove Solo's innocence.

But the public narrative driving the outcry is not nearly so definitive as the outrage treats it.

And I do find the idea that, "The reason even writers at Jezebel found this case galling is because it played directly into the stereotype of 'oh, look at her, she's so small compared to him, how can anyone conceivably believe she would have attacked him, he is the big brute of a man'", somewhat odd. I can certainly see elements of it, but I'm not certain where it comes from, and frankly that's because this is Hope fucking Solo we're talking about. As I noted in the topic post:

And, yes, for what it's worth: Hope Solo, drunk, deciding to fuck it all and taking after a 6'9, 280 pound guy for whatever reasons that have her pissed off at the moment? Yeah, I can see that happening.​

So let us return to an earlier question: What if the kid really did attack her with a broom? What if she really was defending herself?

So, yes, even in a context that acquits her, if some guy of that size really was swinging a broomstick at her head, the odds are well better than even that she would not back down, but instead go straight through him.

She's an arrogant, ill-mannered asshole who did not get to where she is by being afraid of people. As it stands right now, it is entirely possible that she really was defending herself, but in the public narrative the presumption is against because she is Hope fucking Solo, a nasty bitch whose reputation precedes her.

And the thing about our dispute here regarding facts, rumors, and how we regard them is that―well, okay, at least in my opinion―it doesn't change anything about the disgrace of our justice system in general, or its handling of DV in particular.

Something about not intending to litigate in the thread? Oh, hey, we get to that part next. At last.

End Part III​

 

Part the Fourth

The first thing to note is RCW 26.50.010(1)—(2)↱:

(1) "Domestic violence" means: (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.

(2) "Family or household members" means spouses, domestic partners, former spouses, former domestic partners, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past, persons sixteen years of age or older who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past and who have or have had a dating relationship, persons sixteen years of age or older with whom a person sixteen years of age or older has or has had a dating relationship, and persons who have a biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.​

Charging Solo with domestic violence actually would pertain to charging her with assault against her half-sister. The charge pertaining to her nephew should have been something else.

Secondly, I would point to RCW 9A.36.041↱, defining Assault 4, the charges filed against Hope Solo.

A question arises: Why is Domestic Violence Assault 4, a gross misdemeanor?

And here we see a number of problems with our law enforcement and justice systems.

Consider the idea of DV as a Class C felony; in Washington state, that's our bottom-tier felony.

That simple difference between gross misdemeanor and felony could make all the difference in the world.

Kirkland is a small city on Lake Washington, by which I mean it's bigger than a large town. While it is comparatively afffluent, it is also a population of just over fifty thousand.

King County, of course, the state's most populous; its estimated population of just over two million constitutes approximately 29.3% of the state population. While it is not so affluent as Kirkland, demographically speaking, its governance has considerably more funds to spend.

The comparison is important. Solo was charged with gross misdemeanors; those stayed in Kirkland Municipal Court.

According to the State of Washington↱:

Violations of municipal or city ordinances are heard in municipal courts. A municipal court's authority over these ordinance violations is similar to the authority that district courts have over state law violations. The ordinance violation must have occurred within the boundaries of the municipality. Like district courts, municipal courts only have jurisdiction over gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors and infractions. Municipal courts do not accept civil or small claims cases. As with district courts, municipal courts can issue domestic violence protection orders and no-contact orders. A municipal court can issue antiharassment protection orders upon adoption of a local court rule establishing that process.​

Comparatively, the same resource advises:

District courts have jurisdiction over both criminal and civil cases. Criminal jurisdiction includes misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors cases that involve traffic or non-traffic offenses. Examples include: Driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DUI), reckless driving, driving with a suspended driver's license and assault in the fourth degree ....​

Do we all see where this is leading?

While the district court jurisdiction includes gross misdemeanors, those cases usually come from unincoporated county areas not within the jurisdiction of a municipal court.

If DV was a Class C felony, the case would have landed in King County District Court. All the difference in the world.

Different prosecutors. Different judge. Heavier charges. Better funding for the prosecutors.

The fact that DV is subsumed under Assault 4 is more than a little problematic in general, and it might well have affected the outcome of State v. Solo. Some might talk about penalties and deterrents, but in such a question I would focus more on why these complicated cases with tremendous human stakes are left to the municipal courts and city attorneys.

Kirkland's prosecutors are probably good enough attorneys on any given day. Judge Lambo is most likely a fine judge. But this case turned into a disaster for prosecutors, and we can only wonder about what might have happened in a larger, better-funded jurisdiction.

King County prosecutors are under the supervision of Dan Satterberg; you've seen me denounce him before, but as relates to the challenges facing the prosecution in the Solo case ... okay, I don't know, but they're a stronger operation with more budget and labor availability to fend off a powerhouse like Maybrown―there's a reason he's the Stevens-Solo family attorney. And Satterberg himself? If a high profile case started falling apart like that, he might well take it over himself, and if he did, that would certainly have an effect. Satterberg is even more arrogant an asshole than Hope Solo, and he has a strong rapport with judges.

He could probably have kept the case in court at least a little longer, or maybe even seen it to trial; judges are less willing to dismiss felony charges over issues like we see in the Kirkland Municipal outcome.

† † †​

There remains an obvious, functional question: What actually happened? Court records will allow journalists and others to piece together some of the story, but not as much as they could had the case gone to trial and the accusation either succumbed to or escaped the wrath of Todd Maybrown, a defense attorney of wicked talent whose history includes winning a dismissal of charges against Ahman Green, a former running back for the Seattle Seahawks, who was accused of ... yeah, you guessed it, assaulting his intimate partner. Then again, that was a strange case insofar as it combines domestic violence with walking into a door; it's hard to find details on that, but the state might not have been able to prove probable cause to charge assault insofar as ... er ... ah ... right:

Police said Green was walking out the apartment door to take his teenage nephew to school when he swung the door back, striking Shalynn Vance, 22, in the face. She suffered a chipped tooth and cut on the lower lip but required no medical attention, police said.

(Corsaletti↱)​

(Charges were dropped after Vance moved to Florida and advised prosecutors she would not return for trial↱. Unfortunately, it turns out Green has a penchant for slamming doors during arguments with domestic partners; he ducked DV chares in Wisconsin in 2006↱; DA John Zakowski cited changing testimony and lack of physical evidence that presented "extreme likelihood of an acquittal". It might be there that he's just an asshole, but didn't actually attack her; besides, they eventually reconciled.)

Oh, right. I digress. Sort of.

Oh, hey, there's a tie-in: If convicted in Wisconsin, Green would have faced less of a penalty than Solo would if convicted here. It's not any notion of inequity between the cases, but, rather, why the fuck is DV a misdemeanor?

Last year, the legislature managed to pass a DV bill restricting gun sales, but I'm having trouble finding any indication that DV in itself will become a felony anytime soon. And I really do think the case would still be on the docket if it was in District Court. One of the things we can't know, for instance, is how prosecutors handled their own witnesses. Would different prosecutors have advised the alleged victims differently, perhaps in a manner that would have gotten them through a deposition so that this question would not have existed three weeks before the trial? One week before the trial?

This is part of the problem with the system, and it likely played a factor.
____________________

Notes:

Revised Code of Washington. 12 December 2014. Apps.Leg.WA.gov. 15 January 2015. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx

Washington Courts. "Courts of Limited Jurisdiction". (n.d.) Courts.WA.gov. 15 January 2015. https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/...tMenu=Citi&folderID=jury_guide&fileID=limited

Corsaletti, Louis T. "Hawk Running Back Charged in Assault". The Seattle Times. 5 March 1999. Community.SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. 15 January 2015. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990305&slug=2947653

"Judge dismisses case against Green". Bangor Daily News. 16 June 1999. News.Google.com. 15 January 2015. http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...IKZJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mQ0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4854,184161

Associated Press. "Domestic abuse charge against Green dismissed". ESPN. 21 March 2006. Sports.ESPN.Go.com. 15 January 2015. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2378929

End Part IV/tbc​

 

Part the Fifth

I would hope to finally wind my way back down to the whole "Game on" theme. That is to say, I'm not entirely sarcastic about the eternal question joke.

The fact that we have a professional women's soccer team in town? Comparatively few people are aware, and among thoses who are, comparatively few care. With Hope Solo, Megan Rapinoe, and Sidney Leroux―all USWNT stars―on the roster, one might think the celebrity value alone would draw some attention. ReignFC hopes to draw 6,000 a game at home this season, nearly a two-thirds increas over last season; they are relocating to a new facility so that Sounders FC can have a home field for their third-league developmental team.

The National Women's Soccer League, like some other professional leagues in the U.S., has a salary cap. By comparison, the MLS minimum salary is just over thirty-five thousand dollars; the NWSL maximum salary is thirty-thousand even.

In August, Seattle Reign FC hosted FC Kansas City for the league championship, selling all of 4,252 tickets to see FCKC take the prize. That's slightly over ten percent of Sounders FC was averaging as of that week in the season (42,489).

I mention all this because, while I usually lament the disgrace of how little respect women's soccer gets in these United States, it is also important in understanding why this is a bigger deal elsewhere. People in Seattle don't care because she's Hope fucking Solo. We're talking about women's soccer, here. I shite thee not, that one of the main effects of this episode is that a bunch of people found out we have a women's professional soccer team in town.

As far as her guilt or innocence? The story that went around drew revulsion because Hope Solo attacked an innocent, defenseless child in a drunken rage! And, yeah, you'd think that would count for something, but it doesn't. Well, sure, to some people this entire chapter of the Solo Saga is rather quite important, but around here? Really? People care? I hadn't actually noticed.

† † †​

While some of us might argue over legal standards and procedures, and the significance of certain behavior by the alleged victims, the idea that their stories are changing to shore up with one another and add new, sinister details to what Hope Solo allegedly did matters none in the public narrative. She was convicted in the court of public opinion as if she got drunk, walked into the house, and randomly beat the hell out of a ten year-old. And in the wake of charges being dropped, that's a really contentious issue.

There is plenty of reason to denounce and revile the simple fact of having gotten into a fight with a seventeen year-old. An interesting twist developed in November, when defense attorney Todd Mayberry raised the question of whether or not the nephew was medicated at the time of the incident; furthermore, in addition to the two controversial depositions (one apparently demanded to be "off the record", one skipped), there is a deposition properly missed because the victim was hospitalized.

I'm sorry, but did Hope Solo just get in a fistfight―regardless of who did what first―with a medically impaired minor? I mean, one would think that fact alone should be sufficient to suspend or dismiss her from teams on the basis of character issues.

But we're really caught up in the DV aspect, and comparing the case to Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson. As I noted in Part I, this is a considerably different set of circumstances from either of those cases; the comparisons are based on a very superficial regard for domestic violence.

She was charged with DV as Assault 4, which does seem a stretch of the statute. There has been much talk about DV, men and women, equality, and all that, but at some point this might have worked in her favor insofar as even with the charges dropped, USS and SRFC have every reason to send her packing.

And yes, I even missed this the first time; to amend a statement from #4↑ above, well, okay, "then SFRC and USS are fully justified in their decisions to keep Solo on active duty ... in the context of a DV charge." In other words, amending the statement to the point of being meaningless. Because, well, let me try this again: Mayberry questions medication; the nephew was hospitalized on one of the deposition dates; and what is not in question is that Hope Solo at some point told her nephew he was 'too fat and overweight and crazy' to ever be an athlete.

Wait, wait, wait. Crazy? I'm sorry, but did Hope Solo just get in a fistfight with a psychiatrically impaired minor? Set orbit to the "Holy Shit!" valence.

But the public discourse on this seems to be focused on domestic violence and comparisons to the Rice and Peterson cases, among others. And, yes, in that issue, given her alleged defense, sure, SFRC and USS might say, "Well, if she was defending herself, we owe her the benefit of the doubt, and we can always drop her if it turns out she wasn't." However, I'm uncertain what could possibly explain, "Well, she just taunted a psychiatrically impaired minor into a fistfight, so we owe her the benefit of the doubt."

The thing is that yes, one can imagine a scene in which Solo is actually defending herself, but ... really? Did she just throw down with a psychiatrically impaired minor?

Consider this, then: As it stands, the alleged refusal to deal with the question of medication, as well as the possibility of having withheld that information from police and prosecutors, is a tremendous legal problem for the prosecution if true.

However: Doesn't that raise a whole new set of questions?

Then again, there is, statistically speaking according to the range of possibilities in this Universe, a chance that the answers to these questions would still play out in Solo's favor regardless of suspicions about the influence of her celebrity. It's slightly better than the chance that the Universe will spontaneously cease to exist next Tuesday right before tea, but come on, what, really, does it amount to?

Indeed, it makes less and less sense to me, as I go, why she was charged with DV. And maybe there's the answer of her privilege, that she's so damn famous and powerful that prosecutors deliberately tanked the case by charging her with DV.

And why not? Tanking a prosecution for personal reasons is hardly unheard of.

Then again, compared to our child abuse statutes, DV might be the most spectacular crime they can charge her with under the circumstances; the nephew is too old for felony child abuse charges↱ against Solo, and given the narrative of open hostility escalating to physical violence, Assault 4 might have been the best they could figure. Adding the domestic violence aspect, which is not inherent to Assault 4, a catch-all assault charge, might in the end prove to be what preserves Hope Solo's place on the teams, because nobody seems to be looking at the question of the nephew's prior medical or psychiatric condition in terms of whether or not Solo threw down with an impaired minor.

† † †​

The difference between every day life and the rarified atmosphere of juristics is often striking.

As a purely legal question, the dismissal of charges actually does seem appropriate under the law.

But in a more functional context, yes, people seem to have little problem counting this as domestic violence; the difference between statute and living function actually presents a separate challenge.

As angry as people might be over the incident, there does seem to be significant local apathy toward this case; I mentioned the dropping of charges to a friend yesterday, and the response was, "Hope ... Solo ...?" It took a second to register. Obviously, that's not indicative of everyone in my circles. Most don't care about statute, they just want to see Hope fucking Solo, the nasty bitch whose reputation precedes her, get her due.

And if Jerramy ever beats her to death or something stupid like that, well, okay, he's a foul, raping prig who got away with it ... but then again, she married him hours after he allegedly assaulted her ... so, yeah, there will probably be plenty who will be satisfied with the outcome. Call them sick, or call me cynical, if you want, but no, most Americans don't give a damn about statute.

† † †​

In a way, that apathy toward statute is a powerful indictment against American society in general. Assault 4 DV is a gross misdemeanor in Washington. There does not appear to be a bill anywhere on the horizon that will escalate it to felony classification.

At some point, yes, we look to voters on that question. What, this state's legislature is presently in contempt of court because they refuse to properly fund the schools. Like they're really going to raise DV to a Class C felony without being browbeaten at the ballot box?

So Hope Solo just got away with one? Okay, under the law, according to the process we just saw, that's actually how it's supposed to go, sort of. But a Class C felony? State has a little better chance in those circumstances; sometimes a much better chance.

We in the Evergreen State can make that change, but it's on us to do so.

That we haven't already speaks volumes about how society regards domestic violence, and it is not a happy testament.

Holy shit, I think I managed to finally finish.

I dunno, next round?
____________________

Notes:

Revised Code of Washington. 12 December 2014. Apps.Leg.WA.gov. 15 January 2015. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx

Fin​

 

Part I

Here's the thing: SRFC and USS are also employers.

So is the NFL.

Now, let us just start there.

As an employer, what the NFL had was a specific episode in which Ray Rice was arrested for alleged Domestic Violence.

Rice admitted that he struck his fiancée, made some boilerplate statements, and took a two game suspension. Later, evidence emerged that Rice understated his role in the situation, and, furthermore, that the NFL might have known this at the time; in any case, it would appear that they should have known, as reporters have notes from interviews suggesting that NFL officials were already referring to the infamous security video.

The NFL as an employer suspended Rice for two games upon his admission that he assaulted his wife.

USS and SRFC are employers facing a specific claim of self-defense. If they suspend Solo and she is acquitted, then they face massive lawsuit exposure. As it is, with the charges dismissed as they were, Solo would be able to haul them into court and likely win.

You made a point earlier↱:

"And for those who fight tooth and nail to document how the legal system treats domestic violence in the first place, then really, this case is disgraceful."​

I don't disagree, but it's starting to look like this was no longer a case that could be won under the law.

So I would put before you a possible outcome: Solo acquitted, her employers sued for way more than they can afford, and the alleged victims facing potential jail time for perjury.

None of those possibilities exist in either the Rice or Peterson cases.

What would such an outcome do to the question of how the legal system treats domestic violence in the first place?

It's not that I don't see the elements in the narrative, but I do question its presence. To wit:

"The reason even writers at Jezebel found this case galling is because it played directly into the stereotype of 'oh, look at her, she's so small compared to him, how can anyone conceivably believe she would have attacked him, he is the big brute of a man'."​

And perhaps that sort of thing is present, but in truth I find it problematic. It's one thing to say it's insulting to Hope Solo, but what about other women?

One of the reasons I'm trying to isolate a certain moment is not that it specifically acquits Solo, but the public discourse actually seems to willfully avoid it.

At some point, right before the physical combat began, Solo called the nephew fat and crazy. He responded by calling her a cunt.

The best detail we have is that at this point they were in a separate room, and seemingly face to face.

Oh, look at her. She's so small compared to him! How can anyone conceivably believe she would have attacked him, he is the big brute of a man.

To be clear: Whatever else was actually happening in that moment, if she really perceived him looming over her, she's Hope fucking Solo. Regardless of whether a sober, rational mind would interpret a threat at that moment, if Solo did, in fact, perceive threat or―and here's a catch, of sorts―mere offense, she's not backing down from the (ahem!) big brute; she's going through him.

Doesn't acquit her. Probably would help convict her. But I'm uncertain why we need that element in the narrative, since it recasts Hope Solo in a completely different light that exactly nobody on the planet will accept.

Maybrown argued, and apparently in court, that Solo sustained a concussion when struck with a broomstick. (That's part of the reason I want the transcripts from the hearings; this part should be pretty clear.)

If Maybrown made that argument and has no evidence to support it, then his license to practice law will evaporate. There is plenty of room to argue that evidence of a concussion is inconclusive, that she could have sustained the injury elsewhere shortly before the incident. But if there is no demonstrable concussion that can be characterized within that period, Maybrown's stellar legal career is over.

It is my opinion that he was prepared to make that case; it's a hell of a gamble to throw that on the table in hopes of getting the case dismissed, although, yes, it can be done.

I just need to make this point: Around here, if police respond to a violent disturbance, and multiple witnesses say one thing while one witness says something else, and that one witness is intoxicated, then that witness will be the one disbelieved.

End Part I​

 

Part II

I wouldn't go so far as to make that a formal assumption. There are two sets of arguments, at least, to be considered; here I mean there is the legal argument, and also the societal argument. Thus: (1) This is how it goes under law, and (2) you are exactly correct to call it disgraceful.

We will revisit that point almost immediately.

This is a technical question, and it absolutely sucks: What is the current disposition on victims of such violence exaggerating their stories later?

I have doubts about charging Solo with DV as she was, except those can be reconciled or not if we get the whole hearing record. It's a technicality under law.

(And the answer to another question is that it wouldn't be DV if Jerramy had done it; it would be something else, and more severe.)

The DV charge comes through her sister, as near as I can tell without seeing the actual court record. There's a strange gray zone around the nephew, but, again, that question might be answered in the records.

Legally speaking, if the DV charge comes through the sister, then suddenly all of these questions about whether the nephew was looming over Solo or did actually initiate physical violence become incredibly important.

But at the same time, as I noted previously, you don't throw down with a minor like that. And I really, really, really want to know what medication Maybrown is asking about, because right there might be the rope that would hang Hope Solo. Did she really just bully a medically or psychiatrically dependent minor? If so, it doesn't matter if the charges were dropped or she was acquitted; that's a conduct and fortitude violation that any sports league would be foolish to treat lightly, especially in times like these when DV and bullying have what attention they do in the public discourse.

Still, though, here's the thing about exaggerating a story: Did the nephew really escalate his story later, and claim that Solo slammed his head into concrete several times? (cf., Collman, in #7↑ above, "Maybrown says the teen told him that Solo slammed his head onto concrete multiple times in the altercation - which he did not report to police at the time.")

If that claim had been made initially, Solo would have faced a felony, which brings us back to #9↑ above.

But the way it comes up leaves the prosecution in a bad spot.

By the courtroom perspective, the sister has damaged her credibility by admitting that what she told police is incorrect and overstates what she witnessed. By the courtroom perspective, the nephew is losing credibility over shifting (escalating) descriptions of what happened.

Acknowledging the issues of witness and victim behavior that I do not contest, how does one account, as a prosecutor, for these questions during trial? What defense argued it had in this case would have been enough.

Trying to reconcile the legal situation with reality is not what either of us would call an easy task. What is the statistical reality of escalating narratives like this? As a prosecutor, how do you protect your witnesses? How do you preserve the narrative with this specific kind of instability about what the witness is saying?

And let me dance on a limb for a moment, please: Let us presume the revised narrative is true. Would the omission from the police interview represent a mere omission, or part of the multivalent victimization in which the alleged victim is still protecting the accused by understating the crime? But that only leads back to the question of how a prosecutor accounts for all this in a way that doesn't confuse the hell out of a jury.

As to the sex reversals you suggest, I'm uncertain to what degree a self-defense narrative would hold. There are circumstances when it would or wouldn't.

At some point, I do wonder what you are injecting into the discussion; for example:

What is on record is that Solo allegedly attacked the nephew, not the sister. Generally and colloquially speaking, this is nearly a distinction without a difference. Under the law, however, it is all the difference in the world.

Maybrown and his client want to run with a self-defense narrative. Victims and accused alike agree that the first physical combat occurred between Solo and her nephew. By any account, the sister joined the fray in defense of her son. The heart of the legal defense is Solo's alleged self-defense against the nephew. You undo that charge and the charge concerning Solo's half-sister evaporates.

Your insistence on one-dimensional consideration of the victim's size is problematic. I'm trying to consider it in the context of what actually happened, regardless of guilt or innocence. If his size played into Solo's mind, I would estimate it only tweaked her pride and made it less likely she would back down.

I find this a curious argument, as you're assigning it to me.

The reason Solo's reputation as a nasty bitch is important is that because of who she is, it is apparently exactly impossible that she has a defensible case under the law. And, again, under the law is a separate circumstance from reality. Once upon a time, this worked okay for other things, but Justice itself is observably running up against walls; I don't dispute that the system is in a state of disgrace.

End Part II​

 

Part III

What, in your estimation, is the statistical probability that the case would have evolved such that the question would exist?

Yes, the defense is going to play on it. And, yes, the public narrative at the outset would have you believe she just decided to take after some small, defenseless child. Very well. All you're asking is that a defense attorney tank the case for his client, which is all well and fine according to broader perspectives on right, wrong, and justice, but is specifically problematic in the context of American juristics; and, furthermore, that the public discourse is better suited for such purposes if it runs with complete myth.

In this specific case, this particular issue is inevitable.

And if we didn't have a number of factors complicating the legal question, it would be a lot easier to set aside. And if Hope Solo wasn't widely considered especially horrible because she's a woman who behaves in a way that is seen as merely distasteful when it's a man, it would be a lot easier for us to set aside. Sex discrimination works both ways in this case.

And I finally found it: RCW 9A.36.080 Malicious harassment. More and more, this appears to be what they should have charged her with. It's a Class C felony, would cover the alleged verbal abuse, and would not at this time be dismissed. To the other, there is still a huge gap in the statutes; I shouldn't have had to look so hard (I found it while trying to add battery to the charge).

Like I said, I'm not going to tell you Hope Solo is innocent. But this case is a disgrace (A) unto itself, (B) in the context of American juristics, and (C) according to the state of the American public discourse.

Those who insist that Solo should have been suspended from play do, in fact, have a legitimate complaint. But the DV angle was a difficult justification because (A) it is a gross misdemeanor, and (B) unlike other infamous cases over the last year, this one at least posited a defense. Under 9A.36.080, I am not certain that defense would exist because it is absolutely clear that she harassed him about his body shape, and it also appears she might have ridiculed a medical or psychiatric condition. In other words, society did, it appears, have a way to tack Hope Solo to the wall, and it would also appear that we blew it.

Which, of course, leads us back to disgrace.

Figuratively, it's like walking along a narrow pathway trying to keep one hand on each rail. To the one side, the juristic. To the other, the societal. And no, it's not easy travel, but are the reasons pertaining to celebrity and empowerment and legitimate witness syndromes complicating prosecution really sufficient to simply blend those two separate narratives into one? To wit, it's a stretch to compare this to, say, Ferguson or New York City, but there are reasons why we Americans have a stake in preserving the distinction between the narratives. Part of it is our paranoia about slippery slopes. Part of it is structural, derived from and shaped by our history.

And those who fight tooth and nail to show the travesty of how legal systems treat domestic violence, this was, as it was for society, a no-win case. Conviction under DV/A4 seems nearly impossible under the circumstances; I can't promise you my understanding of the definitions in MH would hold all the way through, but they at least could have charged it under a specific circumstance―was the escalation of the narrative, the slamming of the head on concrete, a lie or was it an inclusion of a point formerly omitted for various reasons we grant as legitimate―and people wouldn't be fretting over whether Hope Solo just skated on a DV charge.

Going forward, the narrative of self-defense continues to exist.

The point of bullying a minor, and potentially one of medical or psychiatric dependency, seems somewhat lost in the noise at this point.

What does society get out of the present outcome? Not much, frankly. But at the very least the failed prosecution of Hope Solo reiterates the need to raise Domestic Violence from gross misdemeanor Assault 4 to a Class C felony. The psychology involved in juristic resolution of cases involving family violence and the complications added when celebrity is a consideration might well be standing center stage, taking a bow, but in truth I think most people are looking right past it. That is to say, you and I can talk and type until our lungs fail or our fingers fall off, but the average participant in American society isn't going to spend much time on something that seems so huge and menacing and incomprehensibly obscure.

I promise you, sex stereotypes played both ways in this case.

And look at this; what we're getting is a grocery list of things wrong with our society and its judicial institutions.

And perhaps that is the greatest potential we have left, to try to use this celebrity moment of shame to spotlight our systemic societal failures toward each other.

Which, you know, isn't much given how little the general public seems to care about resolving these issues.

It's an ugly grocery list, not so much unappetizing as downright repulsive.

And at this point I would simply reiterate the final paragraph of the topic post:

But because nobody watches the WNT unless they're in a World Cup final, and because Reign FC draws less than a tenth of what Sounders FC gets through the gate, nobody really cares. And if they do care, the answer seems to be, "Oh, that's all taken care of, now? Good. Game on."​

And this is a problem.
____________________

Notes:

Revised Code of Washington. 12 December 2014. Apps.Leg.WA.gov. 20 January 2015. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx

Fin​

 

Something Just Happened

U.S. Soccer has suspended superstar goalkeeper Hope Solo for unspecified reasons, though hinted that the thirty day furlough has something to do with current events; her husband, Jerramy Stevens, was arrested in Manhattan Beach, California Monday night on suspicion of driving under the influence.

According to Anne M. Peterson↱ of Associated Press:

Goalkeeper Hope Solo has been suspended from the U.S. women's national team for 30 days.

U.S. Soccer did not specify the reason for the suspension, announced Wednesday night ....

.... "During our current National Team camp, Hope made a poor decision that has resulted in a negative impact on U.S. Soccer and her teammates," coach Jill Ellis said in a statement. "We feel at this time it is best for her to step away from the team."​

Meanwhile, Eric M. Johnson↱ of Reuters reported earlier this week:

Stevens was pulled over by a Manhattan Beach police officer who saw him driving without headlights early on Monday and was arrested, police spokeswoman Stephanie Martin said in a statement.

Solo, who has played on U.S. Olympic gold medal-winning teams in 2008 and 2012, was in the car with Stevens at the time, Martin said.

"Based on the conversations and the observations the officer had with Mr. Stevens, he was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence," Martin said. "The toxicology results will either confirm or deny that and to what degree."​

† † †​

There really are too many possibilities at this time to speculate responsibly, but there are potential routes by which this is U.S. Soccer's response to the domestic violence charges dropped earlier this month. The problem with such speculation, of course, is that this is Hope Solo.

To wit, it is easy enough to imagining her cussing out the cops. Yet the AP report on her suspension notes Solo was not arrested or detained, so it appears she didn't do anything specifically criminal.

Additionally, the question remains at what point her teammates are simply sick of putting up with the sick melodrama that seems to follow wherever she goes; even her staunchest defenders in the public arena eventually find themselves overwhelmed with incidents to justify.

Still, though, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that this incident provided an excuse for USS to do what it did not do last year amid the domestic violence case.

† † †​

One of my favorite pop albums in the world is Introducing Happiness by Rheostatics; there isn't another like it.

But what has a Canadian pop band to do with Hope Solo?

The song "Me and Stupid"↱ actually orbits a proposition of youth in crisis and tragedy: "Then on a night in the North Ontario summertime, I heard a sound from the lake like the rage of a pike in the shallow reeds. (Something is about to happen.)"

And that parenthetic sound bite is the earworm echoing in my head right now.

Yes, something just happened.

But another something is about to happen.

Or so it feels.

Stay tuned.
____________________

Notes:

Peterson, Anne M. "Hope Solo Suspended From U.S. National Team". The Huffington Post. 21 January 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 22 January 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/hope-solo-suspended_n_6520190.html

Johnson, Eric M. "Jerramy Stevens, Ex-NFL Player And Husband Of Hope Solo, Arrested". The Huffington Post. 20 January 2015. HuffingtonPost.com. 22 January 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/20/jerramy-stevens-nfl-hope-solo-arrested_n_6511800.html

Rheostatics. "Me and Stupid". Introducing Happiness. Sire, 1994. CD.

(Postscript: Always check the thread, first. I missed that the story had already arrived here. Still, I'm leaving this intact because it is, in fact, my initial reaction to the news.)​

 

(sigh ....)

The headline? "Hope Solo's husband was driving U.S. Soccer van when arrested for DUI"↱.

And, yep, that'll do it.

As things stand: The biggest offense a player can commit is to denigrate the game in general, such as we might be wondering about a certain scandal in the other game called "football". The second biggest offense a player can commit is to harm or dishonor the team, and it would appear this principle is finally what got Hope Solo suspended from the U.S. Women's National Team.

Meanwhile, this happened on Facebook:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

For its part, SRFC's decision is reasonably appropriate, but there is a context in which it also begs further questions.

In other times and circumstances, we might have said of an athlete or rock star that, one's behavior is "out of control". And, quite clearly we are well past that point.

At this rate, one of the burning questions is whether the failure to suspend Solo over domestic violence will be rendered moot insofar as, well, think of SRFC's position―not reporting until April.

I don't know, do you think Hope Solo can make it another two and a half months without another ... er ... um ... episode? ... ah ... well ... you know, without fucking up again?

As for process and procedure, the problem is that the problem just leads back to the problem. While USS and SFRC seem to have chosen to split hairs on the question of domestic violence, it seems they and many others missed the established fact in all the mess that Hope Solo bullied a teenaged minor. This question becomes even worse when we consider the question of medication raised by her attorney, Todd Maybrown. Medication for what? Acne? Or did she just bully a medically or psychiatrically dependent minor? One would think that regardless of splitting hairs over DV accusations, this should be sufficient. But in the real world, under the real circumstances really existing right now, yes, the sins of letting your husband drive a company car while allegedly intoxicated and being rude to the police is the breaking point. Certes, this is how it goes, and largely how it has always gone: Do not fuck with the game, and do not fuck with your team.

But this only leads back to the problem.

We all laughed when wide receiver Golden Tate, then a Seattle Seahawk, narrowly avoided arrest for B&E after he stole maple bars from a Top Pot doughnut shop, and why not? The store chose to forgive, not charge, so he skated.

But crimes against people are a different sort of thing, and while we can raise questions about any one given case, the general phenomenon is such that the old standards falter. Most around the Puget Sound region who know anything about Hope Solo would be willing to convict her just for being Hope Solo, but even if there somehow turned out to be some mysterious evidence proving she defended herself, that doesn't change the fact of a drunken pro athlete bullying a teenager in the way that seems clearly established.

In the end, it may be that Hope Solo's professional sports career will come to an end because her teammates are simply sick of all the distractions she brings, and that might be the only measure of justice any of these questions about her conduct brings.

Quite frankly, she needs at least a year off and a serious intervention program before she kills someone or winds up dead herself.

But the question of how to deal with pro athletes and other celebrities caught up in accusations of crimes against people is starting to shake the foundations of certain societal standards. It is one thing to say that this is how it goes and this is why, but quite another to try to claim one cannot see the functional problem.

And it is certainly well enough in its own right to wonder why DV is limited to Assault 4 gross misdemeanor in the state of Washington, and why the solution to a gun control issue was to include certain misdemeanors as if they were felonies prohibiting gun ownership and possession instead of simply a felony valence for these crimes, but in the end it is those faltering standards, and their trembling presupposed foundations, that need to change.

There is nothing I've said in Hope Solo's defense under the law that pleases me. This might be how I see reality, but it is also a grim reality. And the fact that it took her all of seven days to increase her infamy really does leave us wondering whether she will make it until the April camp, or the FIFA Womens' World Cup tournament in June and July.

The DV case is over. A Cup win for the USWNT would functionally mean all is forgotten at least until the next ugly chapter. And that's the thing; there will be another ugly chapter unless her ongoing collapse is interrupted. And at this rate, it's not a matter of next year, or even April. Can she make it, say, through another week without another sordid outcome? How about next month?

And if this intervention falls to her teammates, just how much damage can she do before they throw up their hands and walk away?

And, you know, it is also very easy, as the scandals break, to keep watching the spectacle and leaving the people she damages, whether physically or mentally, to fade into the dust of trivia. But if we at least keep a candle lit on their behalves in our consciences, we can still look at the problem that simply leads back to the problem.

It's easy enough to say, "Raise DV to a Class C felony". But that doesn't help the survivors who saw their assailants slip away, or suffer the merest tap on the wrist. What the tragic tale of Hope Solo highlights are glaring iniquities in society. And if we keep staring at the spectacle without any thought for the damage she causes her fellow human beings, the larger injustice will find refuge. The societal challenge is massive, and even when we make real progress, society will still take casualties along the way. Each day we wait only means more people sacrificed for the sake of ineffable objections and unease.
____________________

Notes:

Kay, Stanley and Molly Geary. "Hope Solo's husband was driving U.S. Soccer van when arrested for DUI". Sports Illustrated. 22 January 2015. SI.com. 22 January 2015. http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/01/22/hope-solo-jerramy-stevens-dui-us-soccer-van

Solo, Hope. "I accept and respect the Federation's decision". Facebook. 21 January 2015. Facebook.com. 22 January 2015. https://www.facebook.com/hopesolo/posts/10152856099219822

Seattle Reign FC. "As many of you have already heard". Facebook. 21 January 2015. Facebook.com. 22 January 2015. https://www.facebook.com/ReignFC/posts/732074050234029

 

And what if, in the end, this is how they get to do it?

Wesley Snipes went to prison on tax evasion charges because he was stupid enough to believe a lawyer or accountant or someone like that who told him a bunch of bullshit he wanted to hear, and thus he either convinced himself or was so intellectually bereft as to be convinced by others that he didn't have to pay his taxes.

When Al Capone went to prison on tax evasion charges, though, it was what the government had that they could nail him on.

Bribery and trafficking? That made Capone somewhat popular. Of course, so did the soup kitchen.

When his gang murdered seven members of a rival operation, some people started to doubt him.

In 1929 he was arrested for allegedly faking illness. Shortly after he was arrested and convicted within sixteen hours for allegedly carrying a firearm across state lines. In 1930, he was arrested for vagrancy.

Thirty-three murders weren't enough; but faking illness, carrying a firearm across state lines, vagrancy, and tax evasion were.

Or, rather, the truth of the matter is that this was all they could get him for. And it was the tax evasion conviction that utterly destroyed him.

If you're an employer, you're in a tough situation with a case like a DV accusation with a self-defense response. If you discipline the employee and no conviction results, you're exposed to massive liability. U.S. Soccer would survive the financial hit, but that would kill SRFC, and if NWSL loses SRFC, it might be enough to lose the league; there are only ten teams right now, and they're all financially precarious.

So this is how you do it. At least, this is how you're supposed to do it at this point.

You now have a team offense. Being in the car isn't really the problem, here. Rather, letting an allegedly intoxicated person drive a company car is the first problem. And then being so rude to the cops that you are compelled to publicly apologize? Yeah, that's a conduct problem attached to the team offense. But still, it's not ... well, it's not like domestic violence, is it? So, sure, a thirty-day suspension. But that's also a thirty-day minimum suspension. If she causes any more noise between then and now, she won't be coming back after thirty days, and SRFC will have cause to re-examine their decision.

Note the phrasing; even after thirty days, reinstatement is subject to review by both the parent organization and the head coach. And if you're Jill Ellis, at this point you have to start considering team morale. There are twenty-nine other women on that team; statistically projecting, between seven and twelve of her teammates have experienced intimate violence. Setting aside the rest of the insanity that seems to follow Hope Solo, just this DV case will have had an effect. And when she can't seem to stay clear of stupidity for all of a week? Yes, this is going to grate on her teammates.

If she is not reinstated by USS, then SRFC will likely take another look at how this goes. In truth, I don't know the periods on her current contracts, but it is likely the WNT can simply bench her if that's what it comes to, and not renew after the period. SRFC might well be stuck with her, in which case they might simply look for an international club to loan her out to. Contract structures will be important.

The question is: Is this really what's about to happen?

And, yes, at this point, everybody knows that this is on the table. And it's not the money for playing that will count; for a pro athlete, that money sucks. But Seiko? Simple Skincare? Nike? Well, okay, one can only wonder what's left of the BlackBerry endorsement. Ubisoft? Electronic Arts? Western fucking Union, for heaven's sake? (Speaking of Al Capone ....) Mobio? That's where this is going to hurt her, and you'll hear talk of it if she isn't reinstated. If she doesn't start the NWSL season, that talk will start to show some action, as well. And if she's benched for the World Cup, it's over, and the sponsors will start pulling their endorsements.

NWSL isn't like MLS. You can't just send someone on their way and call up someone else. The player pool is there, but the financial limitations are problematic to say the least, and, you know, it's not just that the salary cap said $6,000 maximum for the league's first year; that's all the money there was. And it appears that the way it works is that there is a team salary cap and the money is distributed generally equally. Sure, it kicked up to $15,000, and I heard $30,000 from one of the players in August, but the point isn't unfair pay; rather, it is that there's no more money to bring anybody up.

The justice system did what it did, and this is what comes next.

Or, rather, the question is whether this is what's about to happen.

But if this is how it's going to go, they don't do it in a day.

Consider, please: If Solo gives them a reason, USS won't really be able to reinstate her after thirty days. If that happens, SRFC won't really be able to not take any additional action at this or that time. At which point, all eyes turn to the World Cup. If she doesn't play in the Cup for any reason other than legitimate, documentable injury not resulting from misbehavior or other off-field melodrama, she likely won't return to the WNT next season.

And here's a thing about review and approval of reinstatement: Her teammates are already thinking about the question, and if they march into Ellis' office as a team and say, "Fuck this, we don't want her back", that will be enough to not reinstate her. The team came completely apart in Brasilia last month; if they come apart in June, it's Ellis' job.

Her teammates stood with her. I can promise you they're horrified, and some of them have probably long since made up their minds and don't want her around.

At this point in story, yes, this is how you do it. You take your (ahem!) "first next" opportunity to get a lever, and work from there.

And USS is fully conscious that their decision over the DV issue, while it can be justified in both business and juristic contexts, really rankles. And they are entirely aware that Hope Solo is a threat to the stability of the US Women's National Team; not just in the question of her teammates, but in terms of public support. Underlying this all is a broader concern about women's sports, and while it's true that shouldn't really matter, there's a reason for the shitty finances in NWSL, and the widespread apathy toward the USWNT when it's not in the World Cup. There will come a point where USS will have to choose.

But this is how you do it. You have leverage that doesn't require a court, needs nothing of prosecutors. But it's not somehting that happens overnight. The risk is that even if she cleans up her act and even gets religion to show how good a person she really is, or whatever―you know, Jesus saves and all that―she will have the rest of her career, maybe another five or eight years, in which everything could blow up in the organizations' faces.

Meanwhile, SRFC has one extra goalkeeper on roster, and while I am certainly excited to hear about this week's signing, Katrine Veje is a forward. The signing period runs until 31 January, so keep an eye on what the club does over the next eight days; I don't know the NWSL trade structure, but it looks like the trade deadline lands at the end of July.

Whether these organizations are capable of taking this situation seriously will be indicated in stages, and at some point, they absolutely must.

The calendar to watch:

• 31 January ― End NWSL signing period; does SRFC sign another keeper?

• 20 February ― End USS suspension period; is Solo reinstated?

• 12 April (?) ― NWSL regular season opens; will Solo report in April or sit under disciplinary action?

• 6 June ― 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup tournament opens; what is Solo's player status at this time?

• 31 July ― End NWSL trade period; where is Hope Solo?​

In truth, I expect we won't have to wait until April to figure out where the organizations' brains are at, but it is entirely possible this could carry out to July. It would be disappointing, to say the least, if they keep her around for the tournament and then drop her immediately after.

Or they might get through the tournament and then loan her overseas. That's fine with me as long as they tweak the buyout option and make it mandatory: If she finishes the loan period, you must buy her contract. Make her somebody else's problem. Just, you know, somewhere they take DV seriously.

Oh.

Damn.

Look, it's not that I disagree. But I also learned long ago that no matter what symbolism we attach to sports, these are still businesses. As a result, business is the paradigm to watch, not the mythology of sports or even the general concept of human dignity. Like any business, sporting clubs can talk a nice talk but it's all bullshit. The decision to not suspend at the time of arrest and charge was a business decision, and it makes sense in that context; if there is one thing businesses fear, it is juristics.

And just like the cold mechanics that dropped the charges, it is actually very easy to follow the impersonal business logic of what USS and SRFC have done, or failed to do, or are doing. And of course it sucks. While this episode stands out like a Presbyterian drag queen, this is how it goes. And, yes, it points back to the larger problem.

But when it comes to the question of Hope Solo's place on the club rosters, yes, this looks very much like the beginning of the end; this is how you do it.