EPTCheerleader Removed for Not Cheering her Rapist - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Mellotron
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On October 28 2010 00:57 Krigwin wrote: I don't think you guys understand. This man plays football. Do you know what that means in Texas? He might as well be wrapped in the flag with the Ten Commandments tattooed onto his forehead. Football athletes contribute so much to our society - football, their dashing good looks, more football. What do rape victims contribute? Nothing. They just cost society money when they think they're entitled to such things as a "trial" and "rape victim counseling" (damn entitlements!). But seriously, "he had not been convicted of anything yet!" is not a valid argument for why he was still allowed to be on the team, much less even remain at the school. Do you know what happens to, say, a teacher who gets charged with molestation or a doctor who gets charged with rape? Forget if they actually did it or not, they lose their jobs, even if the trial ends in their favor and they get to keep their licenses, their reputation is forever tarnished and they're never going to get a job in that field again. People lose their jobs everyday over false allegations (or even threats of false allegations) and there are countless people who served prison terms or are serving prison terms right now for rape that later DNA evidence exonerates them of. This silly favoritism we have in the US towards athletes is ludicrous and disgusting. And it doesn't even end at leniency towards the perpetrators - now we're punishing the victim? "Don't go to homecoming"? That is just sickening. He was only allowed back into school once the Grand Jury failed to indict him. Do you think that is unfair? | ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
If you think about it like that, the courts verdict makes perfect sense. I wonder what lawyer they used, any good lawyer would've realised that sueing for violation of free speech wouldn't fly. If they wanted justice, they should've filed a lawsuit that attacked the schools decision of letting a rapist back into the school and the basket ball team. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 28 2010 00:57 thehitman wrote: If he isn't convicted doesn't that make him innocent? So basically he may not even raped her and she is mad at him for having sex with her and then dumping her and not wanting to cheer for him. If there is more information about the legal processes and verdicts I would like to re-examine my view, but really who can tell if she really got raped or not, especially if the court overthrown his charges of rape. It may not be the most humane thing to do, to throw the girl out of the cheerleading team for not cheering her possible rapist, but its not against the law. Sure, he could be innocent - except he fled through a window and left clothes behind when other people tried to get into the bathroom and then later plead guilty to the charges. Now, I suppose it could've been possible he was stripping down to his underwear and physically restrained her to have some tea and a civilized discussion about globalization and how it will affect future generations, but why flee if that's the case? I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this one to me. Also, the charges were not thrown out - they were withdrawn, most likely because this is Texas and we can't afford to tarnish a football athlete's reputation with something silly and insignificant like a rape charge. On October 28 2010 01:05 zerglingsfolife wrote: He was only allowed back into school once the Grand Jury failed to indict him. Do you think that is unfair? Yes I do think it is unfair. Let me explain why. Firstly, the grand jury did not "fail to indict him". They withdrew the charges. Again, probably because it was a grand jury made up of Texans. That is not the same as if a judge threw out the charges. Second, having the charges withdrawn is not the same as being proven innocent. It would be different if he had an entire fair trial and then a jury or a judge found him innocent, or a judge dismissed the case or something. That would not be the same, that would be him going through the system and defeating it, as is his right. Having the charges merely being withdrawn means he could be charged again for the same crime at any time, as was the case. Finally, even if he was proven innocent, there was still circumstantial evidence as well as other circumstances. Fleeing through a window? Leaving his clothes behind? The homeowner, the people who witnessed him entering and exiting the bathroom? And then him threatening to shoot the homeowner (wtf)? Even if he was proven innocent in a trial, he would never be truly innocent. The civilized thing to do would be for the high school to expel him, much less kick him off the football team. Punishing the victim instead? Disgusting. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
| ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:07 Krigwin wrote: Sure, he could be innocent - except he fled through a window and left clothes behind when other people tried to get into the bathroom and then later plead guilty to the charges. Now, I suppose it could've been possible he was stripping down to his underwear and physically restrained her to have some tea and a civilized discussion about globalization and how it will affect future generations, but why flee if that's the case? I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this one to me. Also, the charges were not thrown out - they were withdrawn, most likely because this is Texas and we can't afford to tarnish a football athlete's reputation with something silly and insignificant like a rape charge. Those were all allegations at the time. This meant they may not have been true. After he plead guilty he wasn't allowed back in school. If you want a plausible scenario for why he would flee. 1) He is black, let's assume the girl is white (likely). In small towns in the south, it is still somewhat taboo. Jealous white guy hears them having sex in the bathroom or whatever, and they are beating down the door to beat him up so he runs. 2)She has a boyfriend and is cheating on him. Boyfriend hears she is cheating on him, rallies his friends to the party and say they are going to kick his ass. He flees through the window. Also, at what point would you allow him back to school if he isn't convicted? | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:17 zerglingsfolife wrote: Those were all allegations at the time. This meant they may not have been true. After he plead guilty he wasn't allowed back in school. If you want a plausible scenario for why he would flee. 1) He is black, let's assume the girl is white (likely). In small towns in the south, it is still somewhat taboo. Jealous white guy hears them having sex in the bathroom or whatever, and they are beating down the door to beat him up so he runs. 2)She has a boyfriend and is cheating on him. Boyfriend hears she is cheating on him, rallies his friends to the party and say they are going to kick his ass. He flees through the window. Also, at what point would you allow him back to school if he isn't convicted? As I just stated, greater men lose their jobs and even careers over allegations, even just false allegations. Legal favoritism is not acceptable. As for your preposterous Law and Order SVU (post season 7 of course) scenarios: okay, so they were hooking up in the bathroom and the guy fled to avoid getting mobbed or something. Why was there another guy in the bathroom then? Why did he threaten to shoot the homeowner? Why did he have to physically restrain the girl? Why would she later provide testimony to all of this (in true L&O:SVU fashion, I'm guessing you're going to say to hide the relationship or something completely ridiculous)? And how does that excuse the school punishing the girl instead? And what point would I allow him back at the school? Good question. I would allow him back at the school if he had an entire trial and was proven innocent and the girl was later brought up on charges of filing false sexual assault charges. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
"In September 2010, Bolton pled guilty to a lesser charge of Class A Assault and was sentenced to one year in prison, a sentence that was suspended by the judge in lieu of two years probation, a $2,500 fine, community service and an anger management course." Kids get hit harder for possessing drugs, without assaulting anyone or hurting anyone but themselves. The reason it's not getting attention is because it's completely fucking normal in the USA. That's why we have more people in prison for drug related charges than all violent crimes COMBINED. The whole country is fucked up, not just Texas. I've almost been hit harder than this kid for TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS! ...and it's not even that they went easy on him because the evidence was questionable, he fucking pled guilty! The entire justice system in the US is a joke. The courts are a joke, the lawyers are a joke, the judges are a joke, and the law enforcement is a joke, and the jurys are hand picked by these jokesters to ensure they too are a joke. That's why we have endless bogus TV dramas about all of these things to make the thoughtless masses think of them with respect with they deserve none. | ||
|
Danzepol
United States211 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:38 Treemonkeys wrote: I've almost been hit harder than this kid for TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS! ...and it's not even that they went easy on him because the evidence was questionable, he fucking pled guilty! That's exactly what's got me so upset. Sexual assault should seriously have some harsher consequences than minor drug violations... T_T | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:46 Haemonculus wrote: That's exactly what's got me so upset. Sexual assault should seriously have some harsher consequences than minor drug violations... T_T Sexual assault, theft, murder, rape, physical assault, you name it - pretty much anything that actually hurts other human beings is punished far less. Oh and to the people who blame this on a "texas jury" try actually going to jury duty and seeing how the lawyers get to hand pick the jury after selective interviews. | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
And pleading guilty is usually a mitigating factor during sentencing. Not saying I agree with it, but that's usually how it works from what I know. | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
| ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:51 selboN wrote: This piece of shit got 2 years of probation and a fucking 2500 fine? Fuck that. And anger management classes. You forgot that  | ||
|
zerglingsfolife
United States1694 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:34 Krigwin wrote: As I just stated, greater men lose their jobs and even careers over allegations, even just false allegations. Legal favoritism is not acceptable. As for your preposterous Law and Order SVU (post season 7 of course) scenarios: okay, so they were hooking up in the bathroom and the guy fled to avoid getting mobbed or something. Why was there another guy in the bathroom then? Why did he threaten to shoot the homeowner? Why did he have to physically restrain the girl? Why would she later provide testimony to all of this (in true L&O:SVU fashion, I'm guessing you're going to say to hide the relationship or something completely ridiculous)? And how does that excuse the school punishing the girl instead? And what point would I allow him back at the school? Good question. I would allow him back at the school if he had an entire trial and was proven innocent and the girl was later brought up on charges of filing false sexual assault charges. I don't agree with the school punishing the girl. We can also make up stories all day to fit the allegations. I'm just trying to state that the school faces some tough decisions into if/when they accept him back(and he is innocent). Especially because false reports of rape are such a problem. Wikipedia suggests false reports of rape are at about 10%. This not only hurts the accused like you were saying, but it causes people to question whether or not legitimate victims were actually raped. If you were in charge( and he was innocent), he probably doesn't graduate with his friends from his high school on time. Either way it sucks. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:50 Ferrose wrote: First off, judges are elected by voters, not appointed. At least, that's how it works in Michigan. In Texas they're probably chosen by God or something. And pleading guilty is usually a mitigating factor during sentencing. Not saying I agree with it, but that's usually how it works from what I know. Which is just another reason why the whole system is a joke. This is not a fucking kid admitting he stole a cookie and getting bonus points for being honest. This is a sick freak that is harmful to other people. I can't even comprehend planning to have someone hold down a girl while I feel her up LET ALONE ACTUALLY DOING IT. So they are elected? So you have to blame a few hundred idiots/corrupt people for giving some corrupt jokester power instead of just one guy who appointed him. Doesn't make a god damn difference. What matters is that the judges are garbage, how they got there doesn't make a lick of difference, outside of maybe a motivating factor to find a better way to appoint judges. Oh but most of the country is taught to believe that voting is automatically good regardless of the outcome, just because people got to vote. Hey lets vote on if your whole family gets put to death for no reason other than public spectacle, you can't complain because you get to vote too. Don't like it? Better go vote! See how moronic this can be? | ||
|
Ferrose
United States11378 Posts
| ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On October 28 2010 02:01 Ferrose wrote: I said I wasn't agreeing with it, didn't I? It is totally wrong, and needs to be fixed. Last year, I went with my parents when they voted, and for the judge elections, it literally said "Vote for eighteen choices." And guess how many candidates there were? Seventeen. So everyone got elected, no matter how corrupt they were. : / Sorry my rage is not directed at you. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On October 28 2010 01:53 zerglingsfolife wrote: I don't agree with the school punishing the girl. We can also make up stories all day to fit the allegations. I'm just trying to state that the school faces some tough decisions into if/when they accept him back(and he is innocent). Especially because false reports of rape are such a problem. Wikipedia suggests false reports of rape are at about 10%. This not only hurts the accused like you were saying, but it causes people to question whether or not legitimate victims were actually raped. If you were in charge( and he was innocent), he probably doesn't graduate with his friends from his high school on time. Either way it sucks. I'm not the one making up any stories here - I'm stating facts taken directly from the evidence and testimony. If reports of rape are later proven false then the person who filed them are to be punished. That's what a filing false rape report charge is. If you're now going to say they don't get punished enough then I agree, gender favoritism is also unacceptable. But to continue this kind of leniency on the accused (particularly of athletes) - sooner or later we're going to end up having to tell women, "if you're getting raped, just don't fight back and let it happen because we need the physical evidence to do anything about it. And if he uses a condom, you can forget about filing a rape charge, might as well just move on with your life." And not graduating on time or with his friends? Oh dear lord no, we can't have that, those are REAL problems, not like a silly case of rape or this girl losing faith in the justice system for the rest of her life. Yeah, how about you just stop posting now. You're oversimplifying the situation to try to turn it into some kind of minor legal misunderstanding or something - you wouldn't happen to be from Texas or this guy's defense attorney, would you? | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
| ||
