|
On October 28 2010 02:07 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I completely agree with the false rape report charges. I don't know how I would handle the situation if I was the school. Your sarcasm is not necessary.
You already stated being accused is terrible, I don't know why you're arguing that it's not a big deal and hassle for someone being accused of rape. Not graduating on time with his friends is just a small part of that.
|
I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of people posting in this thread either forgot about or never heard of the Duke lacrosse rape case. All the people that want to string this kid up before there is even a trial should read up on what happened to the prosecutor in that case.
|
On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote:Show nested quote + Cheerleader Required to Cheer for Man Who Assaulted Her
If someone assaulted you, would you want to then cheer for his performance on a basketball court? A 16-year-old Texas high school student sure didn’t.
High school football star Rakheem Bolton and two others were indicted for sexual assault of a child–identified only as H.S.–at a post-game party in 2008. According to H.S.–a fellow student and cheerleader at Silsbee High–Bolton, football player Christian Rountree and another juvenile male forced her into a room, locked the door, held her down and sexually assaulted her. When other party-goers tried to get into the room, two of the men fled through an open window, including Bolton, who left clothing behind. Bolton allegedly threatened to shoot the occupants of the house when the homeowner refused to return his clothes.
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.
Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.
Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad.
H.S.’s parents sued the school for violating her right to free speech, but an appeals court dismissed her case earlier this month. The bizarre reasoning: “In her capacity as cheerleader, [she] served as a mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech–namely, support for its athletic teams.” Not cheering for Bolton “constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.” In other words, the “work of the school” is basketball, and H.S. was obligated to put on a robotic smile and cheer for the man who had assaulted her.
Silsbee High School officials should be held accountable for their actions. Richard Bain, Jr., the superintendent of schools, allegedly ordered H.S. to cheer for her attacker. Why don’t you tell him what you think? You can join this petition I made, to Bain and the school’s new principal, Eldon Franco:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/15/cheerleader-required-to-cheer-for-man-who-assaulted-her/Gross miscarriage of justice in so many ways I don't even know where to begin on this one. Only in Texas I suppose. I understand that, somehow, in the eyes of the law he is not a rapist. For all we know the girl may have cried rape or what have you. That aside, they actually told the victim to stay away from events and remain low key. Bewildering. He was convicted of assault. Only in Texas is the varsity basketball team this important. I'm amazed that they let him continue on the team, let alone force the girl to cheer for him after it was proven in court that he was a violent criminal. I refuse to believe this is real. Hopefully it is just media sensationalism or something!
Ill probably get at least a warning for this.
No sometimes American's are just that plain dumb. Common sense seems to be a fail in the American mind. I don't know about for you guys but if somebody did that to me I would do exactly what she did and continue through her life just as she was TRYING to do. Honestly the shame his that both their asses didn't get more time and enough prison rape to know what it feels like.
IF the story is true, she should be reinstated to the cheer-leading squad, and the school district should be forced to pay her damages.
Now IF this is a media hoax, then its sad what we have come to to produce a "good" story.
-PandaBlunt
Edit: Added:" IF the story is true.. line for relevancy"
User was warned for this post
|
Don't we already have a gigantic thread where we can bash America?
|
On October 28 2010 02:19 PandaBlunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 16:44 Phaint wrote: Cheerleader Required to Cheer for Man Who Assaulted Her
If someone assaulted you, would you want to then cheer for his performance on a basketball court? A 16-year-old Texas high school student sure didn’t.
High school football star Rakheem Bolton and two others were indicted for sexual assault of a child–identified only as H.S.–at a post-game party in 2008. According to H.S.–a fellow student and cheerleader at Silsbee High–Bolton, football player Christian Rountree and another juvenile male forced her into a room, locked the door, held her down and sexually assaulted her. When other party-goers tried to get into the room, two of the men fled through an open window, including Bolton, who left clothing behind. Bolton allegedly threatened to shoot the occupants of the house when the homeowner refused to return his clothes.
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.
Silsbee school officials had two responses to the incident. First, they urged H.S. to keep a low profile, such as avoiding the school cafeteria and not taking part in homecoming activities. With the support of her family, she refused to do so, rejecting the notion that she had anything to be ashamed of. Secondly, school officials kicked her off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for Bolton. No kidding.
Bolton had been allowed back on campus during a brief period when one grand jury withdrew the charges before another grand jury reinstated them. During a basketball game, H.S. cheered for the entire team but refused to cheer “Rakheem” during his free-throws, so she was off the squad.
H.S.’s parents sued the school for violating her right to free speech, but an appeals court dismissed her case earlier this month. The bizarre reasoning: “In her capacity as cheerleader, [she] served as a mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech–namely, support for its athletic teams.” Not cheering for Bolton “constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, [she] was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.” In other words, the “work of the school” is basketball, and H.S. was obligated to put on a robotic smile and cheer for the man who had assaulted her.
Silsbee High School officials should be held accountable for their actions. Richard Bain, Jr., the superintendent of schools, allegedly ordered H.S. to cheer for her attacker. Why don’t you tell him what you think? You can join this petition I made, to Bain and the school’s new principal, Eldon Franco:
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/10/15/cheerleader-required-to-cheer-for-man-who-assaulted-her/Gross miscarriage of justice in so many ways I don't even know where to begin on this one. Only in Texas I suppose. I understand that, somehow, in the eyes of the law he is not a rapist. For all we know the girl may have cried rape or what have you. That aside, they actually told the victim to stay away from events and remain low key. Bewildering. He was convicted of assault. Only in Texas is the varsity basketball team this important. I'm amazed that they let him continue on the team, let alone force the girl to cheer for him after it was proven in court that he was a violent criminal. I refuse to believe this is real. Hopefully it is just media sensationalism or something! Ill probably get at least a warning for this. No sometimes American's are just that plain dumb. Common sense seems to be a fail in the American mind. I don't know about for you guys but if somebody did that to me I would do exactly what she did and continue through her life just as she was TRYING to do. Honestly the shame his that both their asses didn't get more time and enough prison rape to know what it feels like. Now IF this is a media hoax, then its sad what we have come to to produce a "good" story. -PandaBlunt
Actually they aren't dumb , in a sense they are smart. The athlete is useful to them , while the victim is an easily replacable person. So victimising the victim is totally understandable from an standpoint of interest.
If anything , we could say that their moral values are totally messed up. To them , there is no Right and there is no Wrong. There is only profit and interest.
And sad to say , but that is what has become to this world in general , and especially so in certain countries, with the states leading the pack.
|
On October 28 2010 02:02 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It's all good.
But another thing, is that people aren't always informed. This year is my first year voting, and I'm considering not voting, or just voting for the independent who is gonna get 1% of votes anyway. Because no one has made a legit case for why they deserve my vote.
Every ad is like "Don't vote for my opponent because he hates America." or "Vote for me, because I voted for whatever bill and made two hundred jobs in our state over the past twenty years."
Just saying "I deserve your vote because I voted to approve this bill" doesn't make a fair case, because it doesn't even tell us the ulterior motives behind why the candidate voted that way.
|
On October 28 2010 02:21 Ooshmagoosh wrote:
Don't we already have a gigantic thread where we can bash America?
What, is there a one-thread limit? Is that a rule? "Only one thread at a time can criticize anything US-related"? Are you here to provide a sterling defense? Do you have some startling argument for why this thread should not exist? If you have a point to make, then go ahead and make it. If you do not and have only minor observations to contribute, then maybe you should keep them to yourself?
|
On October 28 2010 02:18 BlackJack wrote:
I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of people posting in this thread either forgot about or never heard of the Duke lacrosse rape case. All the people that want to string this kid up before there is even a trial should read up on what happened to the prosecutor in that case.
Did you even read it? He pled guilty.
|
On October 28 2010 02:26 Ferrose wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:02 Treemonkeys wrote: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. It's all good. But another thing, is that people aren't always informed. This year is my first year voting, and I'm considering not voting, or just voting for the independent who is gonna get 1% of votes anyway. Because no one has made a legit case for why they deserve my vote. Every ad is like "Don't vote for my opponent because he hates America." or "Vote for me, because I voted for whatever bill and made two hundred jobs in our state over the past twenty years." Just saying "I deserve your vote because I voted to approve this bill" doesn't make a fair case, because it doesn't even tell us the ulterior motives behind why the candidate voted that way.
Yeah political campaigns are all about who can lie to and fool the most people. At one point in my life I was an idealist and worked for political campaigns for people who I thought were good until I realized that even they were only interested in catering to stupidity and fooling people to get as much votes as possible instead of actually educating people and fairly convincing them towards their point of view.
Your point is only more valid when you consider how almost every bill is extremely long to the point of thousands of pages of non-sense, the whole system is designed to confuse and trick the layman, so you are forced to choose between dedicating all your free time to wading through the bullshit or just take someone's word for it.
|
Just have the entire basketball team rape the rapist on the team.
Heh heh.
|
On October 28 2010 03:30 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:26 Ferrose wrote:On October 28 2010 02:02 Treemonkeys wrote: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. It's all good. But another thing, is that people aren't always informed. This year is my first year voting, and I'm considering not voting, or just voting for the independent who is gonna get 1% of votes anyway. Because no one has made a legit case for why they deserve my vote. Every ad is like "Don't vote for my opponent because he hates America." or "Vote for me, because I voted for whatever bill and made two hundred jobs in our state over the past twenty years." Just saying "I deserve your vote because I voted to approve this bill" doesn't make a fair case, because it doesn't even tell us the ulterior motives behind why the candidate voted that way. Yeah political campaigns are all about who can lie to and fool the most people. At one point in my life I was an idealist and worked for political campaigns for people who I thought were good until I realized that even they were only interested in catering to stupidity and fooling people to get as much votes as possible instead of actually educating people and fairly convincing them towards their point of view. Your point is only more valid when you consider how almost every bill is extremely long to the point of thousands of pages of non-sense, the whole system is designed to confuse and trick the layman, so you are forced to choose between dedicating all your free time to wading through the bullshit or just take someone's word for it.
I just think that our system is really poor.
|
On October 27 2010 16:47 Disarray wrote:
technically its correct, however I fail to see how the fuck a felon would be allowed back at the same school
Yeah I mean I'm on the side of the girl but unfortunately I have to agree with the school's decision.
|
Man .. that is so sick .. I mean this guy should be expelled at least. Instead of doing that, the school somehow made the girl suffers due to mistreatment.
If I were a martial artist and being in the same school, i will give him a good kick in the legs so he can have no football anymore.
Err, on the 2nd thought, ruining myself for this guy is not a good idea. There should be some better ways to fuck his life.
|
On October 28 2010 03:27 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:18 BlackJack wrote:
I can't help but get the feeling that the majority of people posting in this thread either forgot about or never heard of the Duke lacrosse rape case. All the people that want to string this kid up before there is even a trial should read up on what happened to the prosecutor in that case. Did you even read it? He pled guilty.
Yeah, a month ago. A lot of people that posted wanted him expelled as soon as the accusations surfaced. In other words, guilty until proven innocent.
|
What parents would let their 16 year old daughter go to an after-game party with probably (drunk) sports players?
|
On October 27 2010 17:00 Qzy wrote:
Of course she has to cheer for the team, if it's her job - else she should get another. Case closed?
I might have misunderstood the article, but I can't see the problem that she gets thrown off the cheerleader team.
It's like a singer wont sing at a concert, cos a former rapist is in the crowd. Just ignore the bastard? You are singing for the crowd, not single individuals.
Yea, this kind of a cold hearted thing to say, but if we're looking at it from a legal stand point you're 100% correct. She is not being forced to be a cheerleader. She is CHOOSING to be a cheerleader, and if she decides she doesn't want to do what is asked of her as a cheerleader then she shouldn't be one anymore.
On the other hand, If he was not convicted of rape, whether she said it or not, he is not a rapist. It's really, REALLY easy for girls to convince a jury that she was raped, not to mention any type of dna left behind. So if he wasn't convicted, I doubt he actually raped her.
just my $0.02
|
On October 28 2010 03:58 Fa1nT wrote:
What parents would let their 16 year old daughter go to an after-game party with probably (drunk) sports players?
What 16 year old girls tell their parents they are going to a party that has alcohol?
|
On October 28 2010 04:14 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 03:58 Fa1nT wrote:
What parents would let their 16 year old daughter go to an after-game party with probably (drunk) sports players?
What 16 year old girls tell their parents they are going to a party that has alcohol?
Most people would assume it's a given 
|
Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here. The problem I see is that this isn't about the moral repugnance of sexual assault, but rather concerns whether an 'employee' (for lack of a better word) should be required to perform his or her job duties despite stressful personal reasons.
To judge that the girl should be allowed to refrain from cheering (essentially, her job duty) because of a personal reason, no matter how severe it might be, essentially makes the employer bear the penalty of the assaulter's act without justification. Also, the law works in terms of precedents, so you can't just look at the case at hand when making a call like this. A judgment in favour of H.B. here puts a lot of similar employers at risk because this case could be used as a precedent to shirk job responsibilities.
The free speech argument does not work because you waive those rights when you volunteer into a position that restrains speech. You don't sign up to be a cheerleader so you can just cheer however you want. Imagine a cheerleader spitefully cheering against her own team and using a free speech claim to justify her action. If such a claim succeeded, the result would be absurd because schools would be forced to hire cheerleaders that don't cheer for them. Finally, free speech claims can only be made against the state, and I'm not sure whether the school that the girl attends would meet that definition.
Anyways, I am not denying that what happened to the girl is repulsive. However, if her job requires her to do tasks that cause her mental stress and suffering that was not imposed by the employer, then I think the onus should be on her to leave the job rather than to force the employer to retain her.
|
On October 28 2010 04:10 Moody wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 17:00 Qzy wrote:
Of course she has to cheer for the team, if it's her job - else she should get another. Case closed?
I might have misunderstood the article, but I can't see the problem that she gets thrown off the cheerleader team.
It's like a singer wont sing at a concert, cos a former rapist is in the crowd. Just ignore the bastard? You are singing for the crowd, not single individuals. Yea, this kind of a cold hearted thing to say, but if we're looking at it from a legal stand point you're 100% correct. She is not being forced to be a cheerleader. She is CHOOSING to be a cheerleader, and if she decides she doesn't want to do what is asked of her as a cheerleader then she shouldn't be one anymore. On the other hand, If he was not convicted of rape, whether she said it or not, he is not a rapist. It's really, REALLY easy for girls to convince a jury that she was raped, not to mention any type of dna left behind. So if he wasn't convicted, I doubt he actually raped her. just my $0.02
She didn't actually get raped , unless I totally misread.
She has held down , sexually assaulted , and the guy was naked when the partygoers went to stop it , so unless I totally misread, the attempted rape was stopped by the party goers.
Which he confessed to.
Now , I'm pretty sure that every country that isn't named United States of America has a jail sentence to attempted rape/sexual assault even if the guy confessed.
Now in this case , not only did that not happened , but the school involved even urged the victim to be low profile and so on and so on.
Honestly, such and such , is just simply mindboggling to prolly anyone living outside the states.
While I do agree with you that kicking her off cheerleading team was right and totally the right thing to do , cos she didn't perform her duties.
Everything beforehand that led to such an incident is just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
