Some of you may remember this story from earlier this year. The goalkeeper for the Stanford women's soccer team, Katie Meyer, committed suicide shortly after receiving a letter regarding a disciplinary hearing from the University.

Her parents have now filed a wrongful death suit against Stanford.

It has now come out that the incident that sparked all this is that she "spilled coffee" on a football player who had previously been accused of sexually assaulting one of her teammates. She was on a bicycle at the time of the alleged accident.

I'm going to go ahead and assume, for the purposes of argument, that the football player in question did what he was accused of doing (obviously I don't know that, but this is putting her actions in the best possible light).

Seems to me that what happened here is that she committed a vigilante act in retaliation. If she dumped an iced latte down the front of the alleged rapist's pants, that's assault. If she threw a cup of scalding hot coffee on top of him, that's potentially a felony.

Regardless, and I feel like the grinch of the world for saying this, seems like what happened here is that Katie had to face the natural consequences of her actions and chose to kill herself instead of doing so. I think that Stanford should tell her grieving parents to pound sand.

But anyway, I come to F16 for reasonable and informed takes, so am I the a-hole here?

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35098221/katie-meyer-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-stanford

Stanford killed her!?!?

Oh, wait, she killed herself…

Yep. Agree with you OP. Sometimes vigilante justice can be necessary, but it's a crime and it comes with consequences.

I get hurting as parents, but that lawsuit is pathetic

Guilty or not, receiving a notice of disciplinary hearing should not be enough to kill yourself. However, people in general have not had to face the consequences of their actions recently and sadly someone thought being dead was better than being investigated.

I believe if this person was held accountable throughout their lives, this would have turned out differently. But the parents are blaming Stanford for this, so they obviously blame others and probably never held their daughter accountable for much of anything.

I don't believe any female "accusations of sexual assault" anymore, without clear evidence. Too many females have been proven to lie about it. When the movement has a slogan like "believe women", you should default to opposite.

#MeToo has more often than not been a dog whistle to solicit unsubstantiated allegations with strong incentives, and virtually no downside for the accusers.

It's truly sad. We have a neighbor with a different story with a similar outcome. My heart goes out to the family left behind. I've seen how deep and lasting the scars can be.

She should be suing Starbucks for am overcafinnated coffee.

BlueTaze said:

---

I don't believe any female "accusations of sexual assault" anymore, without clear evidence. Too many females have been proven to lie about it. When the movement has a slogan like "believe women", you should default to opposite.

#MeToo has more often than not been a dog whistle to solicit unsubstantiated allegations with strong incentives, and virtually no downside for the accusers.

---

I do when it involves blacks because stats say it's almost certainly true. I don't when the accused is white, asian, or Hispanic especially when the accuser is someone from another race.

I could see this happening. Some students are so enthralled in the social side of school in HS and college that their entire world is upset and they are embarrassed by such events.

We use to get called into the coaches office or principal for spats with a board then sent back to the room.

Sad for the family.

DallasAg 94 said:

---

So, let me understand.

Football player is accused of sexually assaulting a soccer player.
Football player remains on the team and continues to participate while "investigation" ensues.

--

Football player continues to be on the team undisciplined?

---

This was the first that I heard about the football player angle. That person's identity, AFAIK, has not been revealed.

But anyway, yeah, he's entitled to due process. Even if he's guilty. Which, objectively, sucks if he's a rapist.

That doesn't mean that you can expect to assault him without consequence.

vigilante justice is such a double edged sword. on the one hand if the person is guilty and some one takes the law into their own hands to deal with that person it is a crime and yet seems moral in some ways. it is against the law and yet in many cases if the law just did their job their would not be a need for vigilance justice.

to answer your question i do not think someone else should be liable for a person taking their own life.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Some of you may remember this story from earlier this year. The goalkeeper for the Stanford women's soccer team, Katie Meyer, committed suicide shortly after receiving a letter regarding a disciplinary hearing from the University.

Her parents have now filed a wrongful death suit against Stanford.

It has now come out that the incident that sparked all this is that she "spilled coffee" on a football player who had previously been accused of sexually assaulting one of her teammates. She was on a bicycle at the time of the alleged accident.

I'm going to go ahead and assume, for the purposes of argument, that the football player in question did what he was accused of doing (obviously I don't know that, but this is putting her actions in the best possible light).

Seems to me that what happened here is that she committed a vigilante act in retaliation. If she dumped an iced latte down the front of the alleged rapist's pants, that's assault. If she threw a cup of scalding hot coffee on top of him, that's potentially a felony.

Regardless, and I feel like the grinch of the world for saying this, seems like what happened here is that Katie had to face the natural consequences of her actions and chose to kill herself instead of doing so. I think that Stanford should tell her grieving parents to pound sand.

But anyway, I come to F16 for reasonable and informed takes, so am I the a-hole here?

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35098221/katie-meyer-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-stanford

---

Yes…In what world would it be okay to tell any grieving parents to "pound sand"? You could have stayed it a million ways…but why that way? Maybe the school isn't responsible but why in the world would that be your go to phrase? I'm sure you'll get some stars though

DallasAg 94 said:

---

So, let me understand.

Football player is accused of sexually assaulting a soccer player.
Football player remains on the team and continues to participate while "investigation" ensues.

Soccer player gets frustrated by the inaction of the school/team and retaliates by dumping coffee on the player.
Soccer player gets sanctioned/disciplined by HER team while nothing happens to the guy accused of sexual assault.

Soccer player is basically threatened to be kicked off the team and out of school... panics and commits suicide.

Football player continues to be on the team undisciplined?

IIRC, Demas was kicked out of school and off the team for basically what transpired, changing Soccer with Softball.

---

Your own post contains the key to why nothing is out of line here.

Dude is ACCUSED. If guilty, there's still the opportunity for him to suffer consequences. But there's a process.

I don't think anyone, even her family, is claiming that she DIDN'T dump the coffee on him. She got her process, and it resulted in consequences.

Where's the outrage? It's a shame she committed suicide, but she didn't have to do that, NOR did she have to dump the coffee on him. Two poor choices in succession, which aren't at all the fault of the school.

You assumed a ton of facts not in evidence here

Looking for a settlement so Stanford doesn't have to answer questions in the deposition.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Yes…In what world would it be okay to tell any grieving parents to "pound sand"? You could have stayed it a million ways…but why that way?

---

Many nicer, many worse. They all amount to the same thing: the school's position (apparently) is to tell the parents that the amount of compensation to which they are entitled, is nothing.

(I expect they will eventually pay them off to make this disappear, but that's a whole other story.)

What made this stick out in my mind is that the original narrative when this happened was that the player had "stuck up for a teammate". I imagined that she had told a coach who was bullying a teammate to F off, or something, and was going to be disciplined by the team. The whole vigilante angle was unexpected.

Everyone knows that you need a costume and mask to be a real vigilante

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

Some of you may remember this story from earlier this year. The goalkeeper for the Stanford women's soccer team, Katie Meyer, committed suicide shortly after receiving a letter regarding a disciplinary hearing from the University.

Her parents have now filed a wrongful death suit against Stanford.

It has now come out that the incident that sparked all this is that she "spilled coffee" on a football player who had previously been accused of sexually assaulting one of her teammates. She was on a bicycle at the time of the alleged accident.

I'm going to go ahead and assume, for the purposes of argument, that the football player in question did what he was accused of doing (obviously I don't know that, but this is putting her actions in the best possible light).

Seems to me that what happened here is that she committed a vigilante act in retaliation. If she dumped an iced latte down the front of the alleged rapist's pants, that's assault. If she threw a cup of scalding hot coffee on top of him, that's potentially a felony.

Regardless, and I feel like the grinch of the world for saying this, seems like what happened here is that Katie had to face the natural consequences of her actions and chose to kill herself instead of doing so. I think that Stanford should tell her grieving parents to pound sand.

But anyway, I come to F16 for reasonable and informed takes, so am I the a-hole here?

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35098221/katie-meyer-family-files-wrongful-death-suit-stanford

---

University investigative bodies are typically nothing but star chambers and they should not exist. If a crime was committed, call the police and let due process run its course. I hope Stanford loses every penny of its endowment for authorizing and executing extrajudicial proceedings that do not protect the rights of the accused.

According to the article, which ostensibly quotes the suit,

Quote:

---

The lawsuit states that on the night of her death, Stanford "negligently and recklessly" sent her the formal disciplinary notice that "contained threatening language regarding sanctions and potential 'removal from the university.'"

---

and

Quote:

---

"Stanford's after-hours disciplinary charge, and the reckless nature and manner of submission to Katie, caused Katie to suffer an acute stress reaction that impulsively led to her suicide,'' the lawsuit states. "Katie's suicide was completed without planning and solely in response to the shocking and deeply distressing information she received from Stanford while alone in her room without any support or resources.''

---

The second statement in the second quote sort of contradicts the first: was it SOLELY in response to the INFORMATION she received (i.e. the allegations), or was it the way Stanford delivered it? Either way, Stanford likely (I don't know California law on the issue) doesn't have a duty to deliver a notice of a disciplinary proceedings in a certain manner and I'm not sure ANY delivery manner can be shown to NOT be troubling to anyone (I'd love to hear expert testimony in that regard).

In Texas, at least, without such a duty, there'd be no cause for negligence or wrongful death and no liability. Plus, you'd have issues of proximate cause -- many people receive disciplinary notices and don't commit suicide.

While I'm sure this could have been handled better, there's no case here. For something where a suicide is involved to rise to the level of wrongful death, there must be something that really shocks the conscious (sp??), like the school involved in a fraud or conspiracy against the person. Or, repeated harassment of the student. The problem here for the parents is that if Stanford did something to their daughter WITHOUT due process, she'd have cried unfairness. So they typed something up and sent it to her. Now, they're claiming what they sent was too harsh to read. You can't have it both ways.

With all that said, university disciplinary proceedings tend to be kangaroo court-like in nature and need serious reform. Private schools included (if they receive any sort of public money, directly or indirectly).

RWWilson said:

---

University investigative bodies are typically nothing but star chambers and they should not exist. If a crime was committed, call the police and let due process run its course. I hope Stanford loses every penny of its endowment for authorizing and executing extrajudicial proceedings that do not protect the rights of the accused.

---

1) Under Title 9, universities really have no choice about holding disciplinary hearings in re sexual assault cases unless they are willing to refuse federal funding (and no semi-serious research institution has any choice in that regard).

2) Moreover, what you're asserting is odd. No one has a "right" to associate with Stanford or any other institution. If a student cheats on a math test I don't think that's a criminal action, but certainly the university has a right to enforce standards of conduct in that regard.

Even in the courts themselves there are very different standards for civil versus criminal actions. It seems unreasonable to conclude that the the highest possible standard of evidence (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) needs to apply in every situation.

From the article

Quote:

---

"Stanford's after-hours disciplinary charge, and the reckless nature and manner of submission to Katie, caused Katie to suffer an acute stress reaction that impulsively led to her suicide,'' the lawsuit states. "Katie's suicide was completed without planning and solely in response to the shocking and deeply distressing information she received from Stanford while alone in her room without any support or resources.''

---

That's all you've got to do to get somebody to commit suicide is send them a six page letter? Obviously she was so focused on going to Stanford Law that her life was going to be over if she didn't get in.

What funny from my perspective as a hiring manager is the value people place on Stanford credentials and will list any association with Stanford on their resume.

So even if she didn't get in to Stanford Law, her life was far from over. She could have milked her Stanford soccer credentials for the rest of her life.

Quote:

---

A senior studying international relations and history, Meyer made two key saves in a penalty shootout to help Stanford win the national championship in 2019. She was a part of the prestigious 2022 Mayfield Fellows Program -- which is geared toward developing students to lead technology ventures -- and was awaiting acceptance into Stanford Law School.

---

It's also weird because the action may have even been lauded in the law school circles.

Not sure if Stanford is as far left as most elite law schools but she could have spun the story in her favor as an intersectional battle of sex, etc.

tremble said:

---

It's also weird because the action may have even been lauded in the law school circles.

Not sure if Stanford is as far left as most elite law schools but she could have spun the story in her favor as an intersectional battle of sex, etc.

---

What I find weird?
1. People on here calling a woman who spilled a beverage on a grown man a vigilante.

2. With all seriousness, attributing the term "assault" and possible "felony" to the act of spilling a caffeinated beverage down the front of (again) a grown man that plays a violent sport at the collegiate level.

3. Thinking she deserved what she got?

What has our society become?

Some student drama, throwing cold coffee on another student in an isolated incident, doesn't deserve removal from the university. Maybe if it's a pattern with repeated incidents, or hot coffee causing pain and burns.

I don't think Stanford should have any liability. I do wonder if she was suicidal before or is it possible she had some kind of undiagnosed mental health issues if a letter sent her over the edge? Is there more to this story?

Kind of surprising she was bold enough to throw coffee on someone, but not bold enough to handle the university response? Although expulsion would have been excessive that hadn't yet occurred.

You know, a contributing factor to suicide could be the fact that her playing days were over.
Looks like she enjoyed playing soccer based on the pix on her Stanford player page.
https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-soccer/roster/katie-meyer/18138

I know it can be difficult for athletes once they hit the end of the road and have to get a real job.

13B said:

---

What I find weird?
1. People on here calling a woman who spilled a beverage on a grown man a vigilante.

2. With all seriousness, attributing the term "assault" and possible "felony" to the act of spilling a caffeinated beverage down the front of (again) a grown man that plays a violent sport at the collegiate level.

3. Thinking she deserved what she got?

What has our society become?

---

A) Nobody said she "deserved what she got". She made a terrible decision at the cost of her life, which is a tragedy.

B) Throwing a drink at someone is, legally, assault. And there's a whole lot of different levels of assault.

If we're talking about a 180 degree cup of coffee thrown in someone's face, yep, that's a felony. (I presume that this is not what happened, or she would have been in a lot more trouble that she actually was, but all of this is speculation.) Whatever she did, she apparently felt that the consequences were bad enough that death seemed preferable to facing them. That doesn't make her seem very innocent.

C) Yes, I think the term vigilante fits. What's wrong with it? She took physical retribution on someone she perceived as a guilty person.

Their argument was that it was done defending a friend. It offers no description on hot or cold, but if they are talking the defense angle, basic logic would dictate it to be hot. So assault unless the guy was in the act of his own assault

bmks270 said:

---

Kind of surprising she was bold enough to throw coffee on someone, but not bold enough to handle the university response? Although expulsion would have been excessive that hadn't yet occurred.

---

My daughter was around a few sexual assault incidents at her university (Class of 2020).

You can argue about what's fair and what's justice but, you've got to let the system play out. In my daughters case, some of the females were BSC (female v. female) and maybe had some unfounded and/or unprovable allegations. But on the other hand there were some horrific actions and at least one of the males went to jail while a couple others were quietly dismissed from school and sent home.

Rich kids, athletes, etc. usually get the benefit of the doubt but, that's just life.

Since it's Stanford, I wonder if the late Soccer Goalie had any knowledge of the swimmer rape case there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7112587/Pictured-Stanford-rapist-Brock-Turner-working-factory-12-hour.html

I'm guessing that what happened here is that she tossed a beverage on the guy without serious injury and then either:

A) Lied about it. (That seems likely. She expressed some worry about her life being ruined over 'an accident', and no, I don't buy that you 'accidentally' spilled coffee on someone you are mad at, from a bicycle, in some bizarre coincidence.)

B) Was unrepentant about what she did. If this is what occurred, I'm fine with the action, and the reaction. People have done a lot of illegal things that, in retrospect, were right and proper.

What I don't get, and see quite a bit in young people, is the idea that "if I broke the rules for what I see as a good reason, I don't have to face any consequences."

Muy said:

---

Everyone knows that you need a costume and mask to be a real vigilante

---

You take that back right now!

Suicide is a cowardly act.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Suicide is a cowardly act.

---

Knowing a couple of people who suffered most of their adult lives battling depression and bipolarism, I don't agree with this thought process.

The person who is in financial or legal trouble that does it, yes. But the person who just can't take the suffering of the roller coaster they go through, it's much much deeper and sadder than merely being "selfish".