Paul-the new guy Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) If you are asked to be on an arbitration committee, who's side are you on? Edited February 18, 2013 by Paul-the new guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Hatfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 the rule's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul-the new guy Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 (edited) My understanding is that they are not saying that the rule was not broken but that there were extenuating circumstances that led to the infraction that could happen to anyone... So if that is the case, how do you just use the rules? Would you be more shooter biased or R/O biased? Edited February 18, 2013 by Paul-the new guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 There is no bias. You look at the facts as presented, and make a call based on the rulebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Biased for the truth! There are all kinds of treatises on deciding which side is correct in arbitrations. Having worked them in the Civil litigation side, there are many tests that must be applied. One is called the "Reasonable Man" test which seeks to understand what a normal person would do or decide given similar circumstances. Reasonable rules should not seek to "trap" a person acting in good conscience and exercising due care. However, creating circumstances that invite a person to break a rule that is widely known or held in common knowledge is not an excuse, no matter how inviting...even if the majority of people would break the rule. For example, if a suitcase of money is left on the seat of a car and you take it, you would be prosecuted even if you were convincing that it was tempting and everyone else would do the same thing. In our sport, breaking ANY of the 4 rules of gun safety should be no mercy under these kinds of tests. If a piece of 1" fault line is laid in a depression and a fault occurs as a direct result, then that may pass the test of a reasonable man. However, there are people who will not concur with the common usage of the English language in an attempt to get their way, so you have to be wary of that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I wouldn't be biased either way. I'd be interested in determining what happened. Once that becomes clear, consider the rules.... Keep in mind that that some rules do govern how you evaluate the testimony -- for instance the RO's testimony regarding a safety infraction is not subject to challenge. Why? Because it's the RO's job to observe, and then verbalize what occurred. You can certainly ask questions to ensure that the RO is certain of what he observed, but if he is, than any contradictory statements from the shooter are moot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul-the new guy Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 Thanks for the explanations. This weekend was my first experience with the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I was once overruled by an arb committee. And i can tell you, as a seasoned CRO, I was absolutely sure of this one. Didn't matter. Lost faith as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now