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:
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!
Someone who isnt convicted of rape is a rapist? But yeah, this is is sick, we hear similar news all the time, mostly about how bullied kids are forced to move, not the bullies... Biggest problem is like you say, that they think he's so important becaus he plays fucking BASKETBALL to be above the law.
On October 27 2010 16:48 Catch]22 wrote: Someone who isnt convicted of rape is a rapist? But yeah, this is is sick, we hear similar news all the time, mostly about how bullied kids are forced to move, not the bullies... Biggest problem is like you say, that they think he's so important becaus he plays fucking BASKETBALL to be above the law.
Unfortunately thats the way it is. At my high school, when I was a freshman, several players were caught on campus with drugs etc., whereas most students would be expelled and given legal punishment, these people were let off easy because they were the star football players on the team. Shouldn't be that way.
While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
It is pretty ridiculous that the kid wasn't expelled from school though, and even more so that he was allowed back on the team. He better be the next lebron james or something is real messed up
I agree completely with the judge on te last case. Please tell me why in the FuCK would you stay in the same school as your rapist, never mind cheering for his team... Heck I'd move city or even country.
That's unfortunate.. but you know, I mean if I had to choose.. cheer for the guy or not? Well I'd just quit. I dunno maybe she really likes being a cheerleader but I sure as hell wouldn't stick around to cheer for my alleged rapist.
That's another thing while it's at best insensitive and at worst just disgustingly he was proven innocent in a court of law so he's not a rapist. He's at best an "alleged rapist" which in these times is pretty much the same thing in a lot of places. Doesn't matter if he did it or not he's going to be stuck with that for a very long time.
Seriously, she really should of just stepped down from the team. I just can't see how anyone could prioritize cheering being more important then not being around someone who possibly raped me. Hell if I was the father of this young lady I'd make damn sure she was placed in a school away from the possible scumbag.
i understand their logic about all of this...but the point of law and logic is to keep people safe and this country happy and good. forcing a girl to cheer her rapist is not that. this is so counterproductive to them and the plight of victims. all these bizarre things keep coming out of texas. I'm gonna write them a civil letter voicing my displeasure with their actions and try to appeal to the counterproductive aspect, but i wanna check more into the charges and all the information I can find before I do that. I'll post it later in the thread.
I usually don't get riled up but I feel like this is a case where I could actually make a difference and thats not by being a jackass. any more info anybody can dig up in this thread and calmly analyze would be immensely helpful
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.
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote: While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
yeah, to be honest, I'm surprised the media isn't more focused on how the dude was allowed to return to the same school, especially when the victim attends the same school. thats the only thing worth attention imo
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote: While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
yeah, to be honest, I'm surprised the media isn't more focused on how the dude was allowed to return to the same school, especially when the victim attends the same school. thats the only thing worth attention imo
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.
What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Coming outta Texas...... why am I not surprised? Oh probably because half of the completely effed up shit I read comes outta there... Yeah. Thank God I don't live there.
On October 27 2010 16:56 CurLy[] wrote: Yeah that lawsuit had no grounds and was correct.
It is pretty ridiculous that the kid wasn't expelled from school though, and even more so that he was allowed back on the team. He better be the next lebron james or something is real messed up
Nah not lebran but we sure know he's the next kobe bryant
Situation its pretty nonsense. First of all, what is that guy doing in the same school? If the principal its so concerned about this whole thing, instead of trying to make the girl avoid cafeteria and stuff, shouldnt they be first not allow that kind of person in the school?
Second of all, If she is so damage by the molesting experience (as i imagine it would be) then why is she even trying to hurt herself more and puts herself in that possition. Simply put, quit cheerleaders if you know that you have to cheer the team that includes the guy who raped you, period.
I dont get this whole situation, its just so dumb the action ppl involve in this are taking, a big LOL at this decisions.
So if i get this right, this dude rapes a chick at a party then gets into the same school? What the fuck is wrong with whoever is in charge of that school? You let a rapist back into your school where the victim still studies then when she refuses to cheer for her rapist they kick her off the cheerleading squad?
This is so fucking dumb i'm speechless, this kind of crap pisses me off.
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
It's really just Texas and a few other select states.
Did anybody notice that they asked the girl to change everything in her life in order to make life easier? They told her not to go to homecoming and to avoid the cafeteria, regardless of the fact that she was the one who was sexually assaulted. After all of that, she was kicked off of the cheerleading team for refusing to specially cheer for him.
I hate you so much Texas. Nothing good has ever come out of you.
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
It's really just Texas and a few other select states.
Did anybody notice that they asked the girl to change everything in her life in order to make life easier? They told her not to go to homecoming and to avoid the cafeteria, regardless of the fact that she was the one who was sexually assaulted. After all of that, she was kicked off of the cheerleading team for refusing to specially cheer for him.
I hate you so much Texas. Nothing good has ever come out of you.
Could be worse, we could have invented hentai tentacle porn.
i wouldnt call this miscarriage of justice but the school simply failed at humanity.
famously, Confucius was once asked whether a country should be ruled by law or ruled by morals. He replied that if you rule by law then your citizen will do everything to abide by law to the very letter but will circumvent it and do evil. only by teaching them morals will they be guided to do good.
On October 27 2010 17:29 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote:
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
It's really just Texas and a few other select states.
Did anybody notice that they asked the girl to change everything in her life in order to make life easier? They told her not to go to homecoming and to avoid the cafeteria, regardless of the fact that she was the one who was sexually assaulted. After all of that, she was kicked off of the cheerleading team for refusing to specially cheer for him.
I hate you so much Texas. Nothing good has ever come out of you.
Could be worse, we could have invented hentai tentacle porn.
“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.”
This makes me rage. The school forgot to mention one thing, "Oh yeah, the guy she wasn't cheering for pleaded guilty to sexual assaulting her and he served time."
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
Yeah, this unfair, corrupted situation did take place in the U.S. but that doesn't at all describe the entire country. Shall I pick out something "bad" about your country and label it, sarcastically of course, a "nice country"?
Wow. And here I thought that crap only happens in 2nd rate high school movies. On the other hand, with thousands of high schools all over the country, it is to be expected that a few are extremely fucked up. I hope for the sake of the US that this is the exception and not the rule.
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote: What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
Well since I was curious I looked up and came up for
Sexual assault Unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape. This includes sexual touching and fondling.
also attempted rape is basically failed rape.
So in context of the story the jury/judge decided at that point she was only being held down and assaulted but they were scared off by the party goers before reaching the point where the guy could be charged for rape.
Also I agree with another reply where they should make the assaulter have to move away from the victim and not the other way around. Would make for a more "fair" outcome... so she could continue to do the activities she would like to do. Instead of him being able to continue and having her forced out cause she does not want to cheer the loser on.
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:
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!
So hypothetically if she would pay a guy to rape him as a revenge, would she still be the one to get punished? This is so retarded it's hard to even think about it...I would definitely run him over with my car.
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:
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!
I think you mean "Only in America"...
The Great Republic of Texas is a totally independent entity.
Very few things piss me off as much as people getting off on a crime because of some horseshit societal status, and combined with an attempted rape...sorta wish a group of kids kick his teeth in, break his legs and ruin his basketball career forever. Ah, screw the "sorta", do it kids.
Wow now this is a whole new low. I always knew that America in general are pretty low in such things, but this is a whole new level and 10 fold. I do hope it's just Texas and not America that would allow such things to go by.
Edit: I'm not refering to people btw , I grew up in Canada and have quite some american friends that are real cool. I'm just talking about the Law in general and how things just go by.
On October 27 2010 19:17 john0507 wrote: Wow now this is a whole new low. I always knew that America in general are pretty low in such things, but this is a whole new level and 10 fold. I do hope it's just Texas and not America that would allow such things to go by.
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
On October 27 2010 18:19 calin wrote: I think you mean "Only in America"...
Why does Australia hate us so much? It has nothing to do with the U.S. This is Texas, the armpit of the U.S. Don't lump the rest of the country in with this cesspool.
On October 27 2010 18:19 calin wrote: I think you mean "Only in America"...
Why does Australia hate us so much? It has nothing to do with the U.S. This is Texas, the armpit of the U.S. Don't lump the rest of the country in with this cesspool.
Also don't be douche bag generalizers please.
Why does America hate us so much? It has nothing to do with Texas. This is Silsbee, the armpit of Texas. Don't lump the rest of the state in with this cesspool.
On October 27 2010 17:16 Mato wrote: What the hell is this shit? Nice country rofl
On October 27 2010 18:19 calin wrote: I think you mean "Only in America"...
Why does Australia hate us so much? It has nothing to do with the U.S. This is Texas, the armpit of the U.S. Don't lump the rest of the country in with this cesspool.
Also don't be douche bag generalizers please.
Why does America hate us so much? It has nothing to do with Texas. This is Silsbee, the armpit of Texas. Don't lump the rest of the state in with this cesspool.
On October 27 2010 19:43 jacen wrote: What? The felon got back on the team? WHAT? He better throw many 3pts the next season to justify this ...
he plays football
ugh ... i am confused: "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."
not to mention basketball is mentioned 3 times, football just in the first paragraph. maybe the basketball was just a fun-game or so ...
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.
There are no former rapists, just rapists. Your attitude resembles that of a cop from the movie beautiful.
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.
Not saying I agree with the school at all, but here might be some reasoning for not making Bolton go to another school. Silsbee looks pretty small from Google maps, and the Silsbee Highschool is 3A and looks like it might be the only school nearby. Sending Bolton to another school could be a lot of work.
Also, the boys only came back and played for the team AFTER a grand jury failed to indict him. Basically, they were still innocent. After the season, the boys were indicted by a second grand jury. This occurred after she was kicked off. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/7265576.html
Looking at these facts, this makes at least a little more sense. Still shocking that school officials tell her to avoid the cafeteria and homecoming.
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote: While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
This
On October 27 2010 16:56 CurLy[] wrote: Yeah that lawsuit had no grounds and was correct.
It is pretty ridiculous that the kid wasn't expelled from school though, and even more so that he was allowed back on the team. He better be the next lebron james or something is real messed up
And this.
No one seems to understand what freedom of speech actually means.
You don't have a right to be part of a school's cheerleading team. No one is violating your rights by kicking you out of a cheerleading team for any reason.
As liberal as I am with regards to punishment, I still don't see how you can rape someone and not do time, let alone return to the school at which your victim is a student.
Messed up, just messed up. Hopefully this media attention will help justice be served.
The thing is, while cheerleading and homecoming arent the most important things in the world, its the fact that she has to make accomodations and changes to her life, while her assaulter can just keep on living his life like nothing ever happened. The victim gets the social punishment here, not the assailant which is mind boggling and just retarded.
Unfortunately a very common thing even here in Sweden, we hear reports atleast once a month about bullies doing very extreme things borderline assault and the reprecusions for the bullies are 0 while the victim has to move, change school etc. The bottom line is the victim is getting 0 support while the assailant seems to get all the rights of the law, while it should be the other way around.
Wow, this is a HS kid as well... I fail to see how he has managed to get out of so much trouble without any jail time. This must be one of those towns that rely on their sport teams for so much... Where the players can do whatever they want and experience no consequences.
On October 27 2010 22:48 Rawenkeke wrote: That's 'MERICA right there for you
Basicly the same thing happened in Sweden but there it was a graduation at a church were the rapist were saluted, whilst the girl had to move because the whole community supported the rapist (despite him being convicted twice (tingsrätt and hovrätt) for child rape, they thought he was innocent). And after the event he raped another girl.
Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
So much derp in this thread. He was charged with Class A assault. Unfortunately, they were unable to prove he raped her (STOP ASSUMING HE DID) and so the school should not treat him as if he raped her. While it is unfortunate if he did, there is no logical reason to punish someone simply because of something they were not proven to have done. The only problem I see here is that he isn't on some type of social suspension or something for the assault he was proven guilty of. I understand why the girl would not want to cheer for him, but unfortunately she is going to have to when she is participating in an organization that is supposed to cheer for the team. If you refuse to play your sport when you are on a sports team, they are gonna kick you off the team.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
You're okay with a convicted felon playing for a high school football team?
Edit: Wait, it's football? Then no one should be surprised. Football in Texas is as important as God.
If he didn't rape her, it's only because people interrupted him when they tried to get into the room. Why do you think they jumped out the window naked? They didn't attack a girl in a locked room and take off their clothes to NOT rape her.
The fact that the school is favoring him because he's a star athlete only goes to show how fucked up American culture is with it's sports worship.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
You're okay with a convicted felon playing for a high school football team?
at the point he was playing, he hadn't been convicted, it had gone to court and been thrown out. (source: the OP!)
basically, this is one of the unfortunate byproducts of a legal system where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty..
what if it had turned out that she had made it up? should schools expel all accused rapists as soon as anything is said? obviously, once proven guilty i hope there were serious consequences.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
You're okay with a convicted felon playing for a high school football team?
at the point he was playing, he hadn't been convicted, it had gone to court and been thrown out. (source: the OP!)
basically, this is one of the unfortunate byproducts of a legal system where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty..
what if it had turned out that she had made it up? should schools expel all accused rapists as soon as anything is said? obviously, once proven guilty i hope there were serious consequences.
"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."
That was from the OP too. A year prison sentence is definitely a felony. Rape or no, that kid should not be playing high school sports.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
This has already been mentioned, but why does the girl have to change the way she lived while the rapist gets let off the hook? I'm not nearly as bothered by her being kicked off the cheerleading squad as I am by the school letting the rapist back in with no punishment. It's mind boggling that the girl has to make special accommodations for being raped. It's like the school's saying "Hey, I know you got raped, but we'd really appreciate it if you went through the trouble of moving away from here, cuz we really need this rapist on our team to win some games and your presence doesn't really help our team."
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.
i actually worried here that i was misreading the OP with so many people talking about a convicted felon in schools...
shall i break it down for you?
Bolton had been allowed back on campus
read: Bolton had been banned from the campus, why? because there were legal charges against him.. he hadn't even been convicted at this point.
one grand jury withdrew the charges
and as far as the school might have known, that could have been the end of it. this guy might have been innocent
before another grand jury reinstated them
looking back.. what was before the charges were reinstated? Bolton being allowed on campus. so when the charges were reinstated.. he was again banned from the campus...
for anyone who read this far and feels outraged at the injustice of him being allowed in school while neither proven guilty nor indeed charged with anything..
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.
On October 27 2010 17:36 Microlisk wrote: Could be worse, we could have invented hentai tentacle porn.
And how is that bad? It's just cartoons...
Just not to be off-topic, I think every rapist should either get chemicaly castrated forever and jailed for some time, or just be jailed forever. Now, before I get accused of human rights infringement thinking, let me say I support rehabilitation and giving second chances except to rapists and murders. Both crimes display such a huge lack of empathy that I can't believe in such a person living properly in society. Crimes are a huge deal, but those two crimes are not an attempt on virtual property or social reputation, but on physical integrity. The only thing that makes us different to animals is that we don't rely on direct physical aggression to survive or make our way.
And now I just went off-topic. I apologize. However, I think she wouldn't mind supporting a virtual eunuch. And if we talk in real terms, yes obviously that guy should not be even allowed to be in the area she lives in the first place. This is just outrageous.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
You're okay with a convicted felon playing for a high school football team?
at the point he was playing, he hadn't been convicted, it had gone to court and been thrown out. (source: the OP!)
basically, this is one of the unfortunate byproducts of a legal system where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty..
what if it had turned out that she had made it up? should schools expel all accused rapists as soon as anything is said? obviously, once proven guilty i hope there were serious consequences.
"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."
That was from the OP too. A year prison sentence is definitely a felony. Rape or no, that kid should not be playing high school sports.
the OP tells the story (as far as i can tell) out of chronological order. he was only allowed on campus during the time that he was not charged with anything, so there's no way he could have been playing for the team.
i totally agree. he should not be playing highschool sports.. and he isn't. but when he was it was during a period where he was not charged with anything.
now he's presumably in jail. definitely not playing highschool sports.
On October 27 2010 23:41 junemermaid wrote: Shitty decision, but its the right one by law and so it had to be enforced. Also, I don't think it is in the girls best interest to attend the same events of her rapist. That's just not healthy. She shouldn't have put herself in that situation because now she has a constant reminder of what happened (she would mentally attach not being on the cheerleading squad to her rapist). If she was really passionate about cheerleading, this can be pretty damaging to her self-esteem
You're okay with a convicted felon playing for a high school football team?
at the point he was playing, he hadn't been convicted, it had gone to court and been thrown out. (source: the OP!)
basically, this is one of the unfortunate byproducts of a legal system where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty..
what if it had turned out that she had made it up? should schools expel all accused rapists as soon as anything is said? obviously, once proven guilty i hope there were serious consequences.
"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."
That was from the OP too. A year prison sentence is definitely a felony. Rape or no, that kid should not be playing high school sports.
the OP tells the story (as far as i can tell) out of chronological order. he was only allowed on campus during the time that he was not charged with anything, so there's no way he could have been playing for the team.
i totally agree. he should not be playing highschool sports.. and he isn't. but when he was it was during a period where he was not charged with anything.
now he's presumably in jail. definitely not playing highschool sports.
I'm pretty sure it means he is on probation for 2 years, and if he screws up he gets one year in jail.
oh, sorry, my bad. but presumably if the school suspended him just for it going to court he's not playing sport there anymore
EDIT: presumably there are more words out there than just prosumably... not sure why i keep use it as presumably there are even words which fit more precisely the meaning i'm trying to convey
That's a byproduct of the stupid jock culture infesting many parts of America. Athletes are normally so above the law they can easily plead guilty to joke, lesser charges. This dude essentially got the same sentence Savior did...
On October 27 2010 16:56 Vz0 wrote: I agree completely with the judge on te last case. Please tell me why in the FuCK would you stay in the same school as your rapist, never mind cheering for his team... Heck I'd move city or even country.
You'd just pack up your whole life and move? Just like that? Give up all your old friends, home, enroll elsewhere, and hope your parents can find work in your new home so quickly?
Sigh... news like this is all too common. Star athlete assaults someone, and pretty soon people are yelling at the victim. The school telling the VICTIM to lay low and avoid attention is just... mind boggling. Don't come to homecoming, avoid the cafeteria... wow...
This guy better be really good or something is seriously messed up. i can't see how he got away with that and he was even allowed back into that school.
On October 28 2010 00:31 BloodDrunK wrote: This guy better be really good or something is seriously messed up. i can't see how he got away with that and he was even allowed back into that school.
Really? So athletic ability *should* put someone above the law?
I don't care how fucking incredible you are at a game, you and your friend can't assault a 16 year old girl.
On October 27 2010 16:56 Vz0 wrote: I agree completely with the judge on te last case. Please tell me why in the FuCK would you stay in the same school as your rapist, never mind cheering for his team... Heck I'd move city or even country.
You'd just pack up your whole life and move? Just like that? Give up all your old friends, home, enroll elsewhere, and hope your parents can find work in your new home so quickly?
Sigh... news like this is all too common. Star athlete assaults someone, and pretty soon people are yelling at the victim. The school telling the VICTIM to lay low and avoid attention is just... mind boggling. Don't come to homecoming, avoid the cafeteria... wow...
Or they say the victim wanted attention. Which is just as bad -_-
Where I come from, people like that get a 2nd chance with the Yellow Ribbon project. He deserves to be in jail and stay in jail. A probation in lieu of the 1 year sentence is way too light considering he actually sexually assaulted the girl, assaulted people and threatened to kill the homeowners.
I would really like to see the national news picking up on this. If the story as told on the blog holds then I hope ppl start to rage against that school.
Question: When one is convicted of a felony, why should their victim lose their right to lead a self-directed life? The entire purpose of the justice system, in an ideal world, is to punish criminals by limiting their rights and freedom. I cannot possibly understand why in a dispute between a victim and a criminal, the victim is asked to give up their freedom. Essentially, thats the case here, this girl had to give up her right to self-directed life for an individual who already sacrificed this right, both ethically and legally.
If you can state that it was ethically/legally right for her to have stepped down, then I fear the justice system is doomed. Those of you that state she SHOULD have stepped down anyway, just deal with it, are really over-simplifying a more complex issue. If the roles were reversed, you would NEVER give up your rights for those of a criminal, let alone the man who made you a victim.
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.
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.
Its a good thing im not running this country. It would be life in jail for rape of any kind. In fact, life in jail for any violent crime. There are enough people and problems. Time to send the inferior humans away so the rest of us can live normal lives without needless fear. Dont want to go to jail? Dont rape people. Dont want to go to jail? Dont start shit with people. Its an easy formula. If it takes a few generations of hard lessons then so be it. I dont rape or fight people, so im not afraid of a law that puts those people away permanently.
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?
The court did nothing wrong here. The school and the basket ball team are the ones who fucked up. It's not a job for the court to decide whether the background story to the whole incident is morally right or wrong, they have to try the case at hand, which was the question if this was against her free speech. What you have to understand is that no one ever forced her to be a cheerleader. By taking on the role as a cheerleader, you're taking on the role as someone representing the school. That said school is stupid as fuck letting a rapist back on their team is irrelevant for the court. They only have to try whether forcing someone to cheer for person X is against her free spech, her "job" is to do so.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I can't believe getting kicked off the cheerleading team is getting more attention than this:
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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. : /
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. : /
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?
Victim blaming occurs all too often. Instead of banning the rapists, the school administrators silenced and punished this victim with total disregard for her as a human being and as a child. I hope the people responsible for this decision are fired and never work in education again.
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.
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:
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"
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:
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 02:01 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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?
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 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.
This is a disgusting, overgeneralizing trainwreck of a thread. Comments like this are absolutely inane:
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote: While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
I don't think you understand cheerleading in Texas. It Is a sport, it's a sport as hardcore as football in Texas, but for women. Plenty of women make a living (and more) doing cheerleading, look at the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. It's the same thing as saying "Starcraft isn't a real sport, you can't make a living playing Starcraft, so just quit doing it." These girls enjoy cheerleading, and they're hoping that they'll be able to make a living off of it in the future. At the very least, it might get them into a great school, and at the very most, they'll earn a spot cheering for a pro team, making big bucks. Hell I'd say cheerleading is far more promising than a career in Starcraft is.
Kicking her off her school's team basically means she NEEDS to go to another school if she has any hope to utilize her skills to get into a good college, or do something with it. Her school closed many potential doors for her, just by doing that. At best, she will move to another school district, where she'll have to relearn an entire routine, make new friends, etc, and depending where she is in her academic career, this could be impossible.
A school closing all of these doors because she was a sexual assault VICTIM is definitely news worthy. What should have happened is this: the assaulter gets the 1 yr of prison, loses his basketball career because of his poor decision, probably loses any chance of going into academia, and once he gets out, he's forced to go to another school. Instead, THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. The victim got kicked out of her squad, probably lost her best chance to get into academia, and now SHE'S forced to go to another school if she wants to continue doing what she likes doing.
But because this guy plays basketball, he's an exception to the law. Give me a break. I hope she sues the shit out of both the local courthouse and the school.
On October 28 2010 03:56 BlackJack wrote: 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.
And if he is later proven innocent in a court of law then the order of expulsion can be lifted and the girl brought up on filing false report charges (not to mention opening the door to massive lawsuits against the city as in the case of the Duke lacrosse case). But the protection of the victim is the first priority here, that's why teachers accused of molesting students aren't allowed to just continue teaching elementary school after being accused. Look, I get the point you're trying to make and the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got and we should keep continuing to improve it.
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.
On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote: Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here...
First, let's stop with these ridiculous "it's her jerb!" arguments. It's an extracurricular activity at a high school, not a professional career. She didn't exactly sign a 12-page contract when she received her pom poms or something, so let's end the downright comical comparisons.
Also, these preposterous situations you guys are envisioning don't even exist because an employer has an even bigger responsibility than ensuring their employees perform their jobs - ensuring undue stress or even actual physical harm is not imposed on their employees during the course of the job.
In the laughable singer analogy for instance, that would never happen because if a rapist that formerly raped the singer actually shows up at her concert, he would be thrown out by security and probably arrested. If you run a pizza store and one of your delivery guy ends up getting robbed and beaten almost to death upon arriving at some customer's location, and then those guys order delivery again, are you going to send the same guy? Are you going to send any guys period? And if your delivery guy refuses, are you saying it's okay to fire him?
The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
Its bewildering that people would suggest that the girl change her life. why the fuck should she change anything? I didn't realize the girl was at fault here.
On October 28 2010 03:56 BlackJack wrote: 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.
And if he is later proven innocent in a court of law then the order of expulsion can be lifted and the girl brought up on filing false report charges (not to mention opening the door to massive lawsuits against the city as in the case of the Duke lacrosse case). But the protection of the victim is the first priority here, that's why teachers accused of molesting students aren't allowed to just continue teaching elementary school after being accused. Look, I get the point you're trying to make and the system isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got and we should keep continuing to improve it.
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.
On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote: Probably been said before, but I actually agree with the Court of Appeals here...
First, let's stop with these ridiculous "it's her jerb!" arguments. It's an extracurricular activity at a high school, not a professional career. She didn't exactly sign a 12-page contract when she received her pom poms or something, so let's end the downright comical comparisons.
Also, these preposterous situations you guys are envisioning don't even exist because an employer has an even bigger responsibility than ensuring their employees perform their jobs - ensuring undue stress or even actual physical harm is not imposed on their employees during the course of the job.
In the laughable singer analogy for instance, that would never happen because if a rapist that formerly raped the singer actually shows up at her concert, he would be thrown out by security and probably arrested. If you run a pizza store and one of your delivery guy ends up getting robbed and beaten almost to death upon arriving at some customer's location, and then those guys order delivery again, are you going to send the same guy? Are you going to send any guys period? And if your delivery guy refuses, are you saying it's okay to fire him?
The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
This pretty much hits the mark in everything.
Most girls would take a huge blow and change their life completely after such an incident , even changing names or even moving out of the country trying to avoid any form of memory/contact with what's happened to her. However , in such a rare and great occasion that a girl is strong enough to not run away, and instead try to carry on life like normal , even continuing cheerleading and basically just live like normal. And such as she was treated. It's just plain wrong in so so so many ways. If this incident doesn't get justified , america might as well make Assault/Rape legal.
No offense to the many Americans I know personally and am friends with / practice video games with, but, what are you guys thinking down there in Texas? Lol. I'm actually stunned they would put a 16 year old through such an experience as if the assault was not traumatizing enough. Also props to Krigwin, couldn't have said it better myself. Why is there even a debate over whether it was unfair of them to kick or off the team or not, not only was it unfair, but it should never have been an issue because the suspected rapist should not have even been allowed on the court / near her.
every school official involved should be forced to act as a mouthpiece for the girl while at the school or any school-related activities, forced to say whatever she thinks they should say. if they refuse, they should be fired.
On October 27 2010 16:54 Dooba wrote: While i completely agree with the girl and her reasoning, i fail to see why the fuck this should get any attention at all. Alright, you got kicked out of the cheer leading team. The school is an asshole. Nothing really bad happened to you this time, nothing life changing (like rape definitely is). So just go on with your life... Not like cheer leading is going to make you a living.
No reason for the media to blow this thing out of proportion. My 2 cents.
yeah, to be honest, I'm surprised the media isn't more focused on how the dude was allowed to return to the same school, especially when the victim attends the same school. thats the only thing worth attention imo
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.
Is this characterization in the OP correct, that he was convicted BEFORE the game?
Oh god I HATE this article. It is angry about how she got kicked off the cheerleading team! What about the rapist? Why was he allowed to return to the same school after doing that and threatening the homeowner?
Getting kicked off the cheerleading team is nothing compared to that.
Read the thread before posting please, as always. It's not hard, people.
The correct timeline is as follows:
1. Incident occurs. 2. The case is put on pause briefly when the grand jury withdrew the charges. 3. During this time the suspect is allowed back at the school and even on the team, while the girl is warned by the school. 4. The game in question commences, the girl cheers everyone except for the suspect. For this she is removed from the cheerleading squad. 5. The charges are reinstated and the suspect goes to trial. He pleads guilty and ends up getting probation. 6. The girl's parents file suit against the school for kicking her off the cheer squad, but the case is summarily dismissed on the baffling reasoning that her cheerleading was some kind of job that she refused to perform as per reasonable expectations (nevermind the obvious question of why the hell was the suspect even at the game in question).
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:
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!
As a Texan, I can tell you it has nothing to do with it being Texas, and more to do with this being America, where school administrations are all fucking stupid.
On October 28 2010 05:42 Beef Noodles wrote: 3) I feel for this girl, but in the eyes of the law the guy deserves to be on the team since he served his prison time. You can't just force him off the team because you don't like him. If she won't cheer with him on the team, then how can she be a cheerleader?
I'm pretty sure the school is allowed to discriminate when it comes to this sort of thing. Especially if letting him onto the team will mean asking his victim to cheer for him.
The title of this thread is grossly misleading. Basically, the OP replaced the word sexual assault with rape in order to further his own agenda. That being said, I still feel sorry for the girl and what happened to her is still terrible. But she really has no argument against being removed from the team. She volunteered to be a cheerleader. Cheerleading is competitive and their are tryouts. If she isn't being the best possible cheerleader, she will be replaced with someone who can do it better. That is how all teams work. Sure, she has a right to not cheer. Just like a progamer has the right to play terribly. But the team can kick him or her whenever they want for poor performance.
Gee, these people make a fuss of this situation. This young girl obviously doesn't feel confortable around the Bolton-guy, who in some way assaulted her. Having those two in the same environment was proving unhealthy. Obviously, the point of basketball is to play basketball, so if the two cannot feel confortable in the same environment, the basketball player stays, the superflous activity of cheerleading being just that. Sounds like the girl was kind of ruining the chemistry among cheerleaders by not refusing to cheer, thus insinuating conflict and creating a bad atmosphere.
Of course, the girl has done nothing wrong, but it doesn't seem unsensible for the school to remove her from the cheerleading squad as the situation kind of dictated, by the sound of it. That the parents are suing for violation of free speech shows that they don't really understand what that is. Either the school suspended her because they are not sympathetic to her phlight and would rather support their star athlete (their decision to make, of course) or for pedagogical reasons such as the ones mentioned above. To make it about something else seems downright silly.
Not said that this doesn't put the young girl in an uncomfortable situation. But really, in perspective, the assault is a much more serious issue and much worse than the exclusion from cheerleading. I'm sure most people would argue that she's better off, despite what it might do to her social status (if that has any influence in this case).
Edit: Just started reading up on the comments (was too tired to do it before posting, I'm afraid), and felt I needed to address two points not to sound too ignorant or offensive:
Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
Whether or not the guy was banned from the school for the sake of the girl (who has to be in the same school as him) is a completely other decision, and doesn't relate to the matter at hand. The situation discussed is after the decision has been made to let the guy stay at the school.
On October 28 2010 05:42 Beef Noodles wrote: 3) I feel for this girl, but in the eyes of the law the guy deserves to be on the team since he served his prison time. You can't just force him off the team because you don't like him. If she won't cheer with him on the team, then how can she be a cheerleader?
I'm pretty sure the school is allowed to discriminate when it comes to this sort of thing. Especially if letting him onto the team will mean asking his victim to cheer for him.
Yea but you need to realize that high school sports is a huge part of American culture. If the guy was really good at the sport, the school probably fought to get him back on the team as soon as possible. Sports is a huge source of money, recognition, and pride for high schools in America.
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:
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!
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
On October 27 2010 17:22 MadJack wrote: Situation its pretty nonsense. First of all, what is that guy doing in the same school? If the principal its so concerned about this whole thing, instead of trying to make the girl avoid cafeteria and stuff, shouldnt they be first not allow that kind of person in the school?
Second of all, If she is so damage by the molesting experience (as i imagine it would be) then why is she even trying to hurt herself more and puts herself in that possition. Simply put, quit cheerleaders if you know that you have to cheer the team that includes the guy who raped you, period.
I dont get this whole situation, its just so dumb the action ppl involve in this are taking, a big LOL at this decisions.
It would be difficult to go back to the same school. But as I can imagine, there are some people who would rather choose to "stand up and fight back" after being in a situation like this. Getting raped is getting violated in a very cruel and disgusting way. Allowing yourself to be shamed is like re-living that moment even after it's happened to some people.
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:
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!
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
You live in the United States, so I'm sure you know. But if you don't, Texas is known for how seriously it takes sports. That joke is a reference to saying Texas puts sports over other things. If you did know that, it's just a partial joke IMO. May be a bad one, but still kinda applicable. After all, it really is true in a lot of other situations, even if it isn't in this one.
On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote: [*] Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
[/list] Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote: [*] Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
No doubt that it's ahtletic activity, but when it comes to athletic education it's not exactly high school material, and I'm sure that they don't do it to educate the half-time entertainers from American football, but rather as a social activity. If she's really doing it for a career, maybe gymnastics would be a better alternative.
Many things in life limit us - nothing crimial about that. Things happen and the situations changes. Now, to say that it's "over issues stemming from her self-expression" is quite a twist of words. It's pedagogical issue with some kids who have an unhealthy relation to each other which is creating problems in a social environment.
On October 28 2010 05:53 Krigwin wrote: Read the thread before posting please, as always. It's not hard, people.
The correct timeline is as follows:
1. Incident occurs. 2. The case is put on pause briefly when the grand jury withdrew the charges. 3. During this time the suspect is allowed back at the school and even on the team, while the girl is warned by the school. 4. The game in question commences, the girl cheers everyone except for the suspect. For this she is removed from the cheerleading squad. 5. The charges are reinstated and the suspect goes to trial. He pleads guilty and ends up getting probation. 6. The girl's parents file suit against the school for kicking her off the cheer squad, but the case is summarily dismissed on the baffling reasoning that her cheerleading was some kind of job that she refused to perform as per reasonable expectations (nevermind the obvious question of why the hell was the suspect even at the game in question).
Thank you, this is what I drew in my head when reading the thread and the article. I have no idea why the OP asserts A) that the player was convicted prior to the game in question and B) that he was a rapist. Neither of those find any support in the facts presented.
It's still a tragedy, and I expect a few firings at the school to result even though the lawsuit obviously went nowhere.
On October 28 2010 02:19 PandaBlunt wrote: Ill probably get at least a warning for this.
User was warned for this post
lol. But seriously normally I would be the one to say the lawsuit is totally correct. But I think some of you might have been missing a quote.
"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."
Even in the wording in the response to the law suit, they say she did not cheer for the team. But she did cheer for them, just not a guy who sexually assaulted her. I think I'm gonna have to disagree here and say that's not right. As long as she's not sitting there flipping the guy off or something, remaining silent during his freethrows or if people are chanting his name is pretty minor really. As much as I hate cheerleading... she doesn't deserve to get kicked off the team.
On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote: [*] Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
No doubt that it's ahtletic activity, but when it comes to athletic education it's not exactly high school material, and I'm sure that they don't do it to educate the half-time entertainers from American football, but rather as a social activity. If she's really doing it for a career, maybe gymnastics would be a better alternative.
Many things in life limit us - nothing crimial about that. Things happen and the situations changes. Now, to say that it's "over issues stemming from her self-expression" is quite a twist of words. It's pedagogical issue with some kids who have an unhealthy relation to each other which is creating problems in a social environment.
How is cheerleading not exactly high school material? You state that it's primarily a social activity. It is. You state that gymnastics would be a better alternative. It is. But you don't have a point.
How is saying that she was removed over issues stemming from her self-expression a twist of words? You state that it's an educational issue. It is. You state that it involves two kids. It does. You state that it creates problems. It does. But you don't have a point.
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
lol they kick her off the team for not cheering for just one guy. but they let the guy who nearly got a year in jail for sex assault stay on the basketball team. I would say that is fucked up.
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote: What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
Well.... sexual assault is any assault of a sexual nature. "I like your tits" is sexual assault. Touching her breasts is sexual assault. Battery of sexual nature is sexual assault. Rape requires forced or coerced penetration.
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:
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!
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
U should really take your own advice. I'm not sure if u live in the states , but if u do , you should pretty much know it is more or less true about how much of a big deal Texas makes sports out to be.
Anyways , that's not the point. And such fucked up stuff doesn't only happen in Texas.
Seriously when a sexual assault convict gets such a minor sentence AND is allowed to return to the same school as the victim AND basically favoured by the school itself. Things are really really really really fucked up , even by the most fucked up standards.
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote: What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
Well.... sexual assault is any assault of a sexual nature. "I like your tits" is sexual assault. Touching her breasts is sexual assault. Battery of sexual nature is sexual assault. Rape requires forced or coerced penetration.
Absolutely not. There has to be contact for sexual assault, sexual harassment like the bolded section is not sexual assault.
On October 28 2010 04:46 Krigwin wrote: The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense.
The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table.
That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program? Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim? Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime? Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations? Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere.
The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
On October 27 2010 17:12 Mooncat wrote: What distinguishes "sexual assault" from rape in the American law? Can someone clarify please? I mean, what exactly did these guys do so it wasn't considered rape but "sexual assault" instead? Did they just touch her or beat her and then touched her or what?
Not that it changes anything, I'm just curious.
I believe it's intercourse. If you force her to do other things but there's no penetration, it's not rape. NOT POSITIVE.
On October 28 2010 04:46 Krigwin wrote: The fact that the debate is even "should she be forced to shout her possible would-be rapist's name" is downright absurd, the debate should be "should a possible would-be rapist even be allowed anywhere near his victim", and that debate should be over very quickly. The priority of the high school should've been to protect this girl, but instead she was punished because an athlete is a more valuable asset to a school than some random student.
No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense.
The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table.
That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program? Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim? Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime? Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations? Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere.
The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
I suppose I totally agree with your views. But doesn't that make everything just worse?
I mean , seriously , it's so blatantly obvious that this situation is so so so so fucked up in so many different ways. But in the eyes of the law ... It's Right? That's ... just plain scary
That's your baby girl. The daughter that runs up to hug you as you came through the door everyday after work. The bottom line: somebody takes your little girl into a room and holds her down and does what he wants to her; rape or assault does not matter which. You go find the guy and beat him near death with a baseball bat. The world is better off without this piece of human trash.
On October 28 2010 07:34 j2choe wrote: No, I believe that you're the one who's mis-characterizing the issue here. This has nothing to do with the school's onus in terms of protecting the victim. The issue here is her REMOVAL from the cheerleading squad. Nobody is saying that the school isn't being irresponsible in their dealing with the victim; all I'm saying is that by doing so they are staying within the confines of the law, and that the law is actually grounded in good sense.
Hardly. I'm looking at the situation as a whole, like you're supposed to do, while you're oversimplifying the entire situation down into a single legal issue. When you look at it through a vacuum like that, nothing becomes justifiable. Should it be legal for a guy to shout fire in a crowded theater? No. What about if the theater and the guy himself is actually on fire when he shouts it? Should it be legal for some radio broadcaster to issue a call to arms to overthrow the government on the airwaves? No. What if at the time he's saying it the American Gestapo has broken into his station and have him at gunpoint while Stalin rises from the dead and has himself installed as Emperor of New America? This is why we have courts and trials, to judge entire situations instead of purely following the letter of the law.
Also, staying within the confines of the law? Really? Kindly point out to me all the laws specifically concerning high school cheerleading squads in Texas, please.
The fact that you raise the point of it being an extracurricular activity actually emphasizes my point more. If she is that gung-ho about staying on the squad, then I think logic would dictate that she play the role as required. Nobody is forcing her into this position, and nobody signs up to these things so they can say or not say whatever they want. If she finds her role too mentally distressing, then shouldn't she simply resign from the squad? As you said, it's merely an extracurricular activity that one opts into voluntarily: there is certainly no freedom of speech issue here because participation in school activities is not a function of speech in that regard. It's always been within the school's discretion to let you participate or not. It's certainly not putting bread on her table.
No, it doesn't emphasize your point, it deconstructs your point. If it was an actual job with actual legal guidelines that she agreed to before she took the position, then yes it would be legally justifiable to remove her on grounds of not performing her job to reasonable expectations. But since it's not, it's all up to interpretation and the higher judgment of reasonable adults, and unfortunately in this case the adults at the school happened to be either idiots or scumbags.
That being said, the burden to the school is substantial. Should schools be required to retain participants in activities that willfully don't go along with the program?
Yes, if they have outstandingly good reason for it.
Should the school be required to bear that burden given that they had no hand in what happened to the victim?
No, but the school should be required to bear the responsibility of a victim's safety when said victim is actually at the school.
Should they do that when the person at issue has not been convicted of a crime?
Yes, if said person has been charged of a crime and there is sufficient circumstantial evidence.
Should they automatically defer to the girl's side of the story in these types of situations?
Yes, if the girl's side of the story is corroborated.
Remember also that at the time the incident occurred, the accused was not a "rapist" yet by any stretch. You CANNOT view these things in hindsight--you have to take the situation as it was viewed at the time. The school did no wrong by treating the guy as innocent at the time--that is the way America works and the way you and I should have viewed the situation as well. If he had been convicted at the time of the incident then perhaps it might change the situation to some degree. It certainly wouldn't merit a 1st amendment claim, though; that is just ridiculous and out of nowhere.
You don't seem to have a full grasp of the situation as it was at the time. He had been charged - those charges were temporarily withdrawn. They had evidence like the clothes he left at the house (and later threatened the homeowner to return). They had testimony not just from the girl but from other party-goers.
With a legal resolution not yet reached, the situation at the time must be interpreted and judged by reasonable adults. And if you were to interpret the above situation, what exactly would you determine?
The bottom line is, I certainly don't support her termination from the squad on moral grounds, but I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's justified as a matter of law. A 1st amendment claim is seriously out of place here.
Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so.
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
You live in the United States, so I'm sure you know. But if you don't, Texas is known for how seriously it takes sports. That joke is a reference to saying Texas puts sports over other things. If you did know that, it's just a partial joke IMO. May be a bad one, but still kinda applicable. After all, it really is true in a lot of other situations, even if it isn't in this one.
I'm well aware of how seriously Texas takes sports. Too seriously, yes.
So? I don't think the Op is joking (it doesn't read like a joke), and even if he were, it's a tasteless joke.
Furthermore, this kind of incident -- where the victim is made to suffer by the system -- is not limited to athletics, nor is it limited to sexual assault. And for that matter, it most certainly is not limited to Texas or the United States.
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:
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!
I hate ops like this. Of course what happened to the girl is wrong and the school system really screwed up big time by letting the sex offender back to school and back on the basketball team, but seriously, WTF is up with this "only in Texas" business? This can kind of thing can happen anywhere and it DOES happen everywhere. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't say anything. Seriously.
U should really take your own advice. I'm not sure if u live in the states , but if u do , you should pretty much know it is more or less true about how much of a big deal Texas makes sports out to be.
Anyways , that's not the point. And such fucked up stuff doesn't only happen in Texas.
Seriously when a sexual assault convict gets such a minor sentence AND is allowed to return to the same school as the victim AND basically favoured by the school itself. Things are really really really really fucked up , even by the most fucked up standards.
Why are you saying that my post was stupid and then agreeing with what I just said? It's not "only in Texas" that this kind of thing happens.
What I don't get is HOW she got kicked of the team.
So she didn't cheer for a guy who raped her. Her leader asks her why she didn't cheer for that guy and explains it. You would think the common response of the person who is in charge of the team would be something like "Ah oke that's understandable" and not "fuck that you're of the team". Note these aren't the real quotes obviously.
Lawsuit or not it's just mind boggling a person could be that cruel just because she didn't cheer for the person who assaulted her. Even if the court didn't sentence him yet the fact that he went to court suspended or not should say enough about the seriousness of the problem wouldn't it ?
I can see why many are saying they don't understand the removal of the girl from cheerleading. I think the removal in and of itself is correct, because in signing up for cheerleading she was obliged to carry out the responsibility of a cheerleader. What I don't get is how a juvenile sex offender managed to get into the same school as his victim AND get put into a position of some respect (basketball team player). If anything, after this situation emerged, the school (ethically) should have removed the rapist rather than the cheerleader, so in that sense the girl getting kicked off the cheerleading squad is wrong IMO
On October 28 2010 08:14 Krigwin wrote: Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so.
If I say that it was out of line for Backho to lose a match because he paused the game before typing pp, does that mean I claim to be Kespa?
Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question.
Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say.
And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons:
1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech.
2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from.
3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law.
4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
this is the same problem that ethics has, it might sound good on paper but there is gonna be that case were the law might say one thing but everyone fucking knows the right thing.
On October 28 2010 08:14 Krigwin wrote: Seriously out of place? What are you now, Lady Justice? Chief Justice of the United States? Who are you to decide that so conclusively?
Whether or not it is out of place is up to the judiciary to decide. Laws are not carved from stone by lightning bolts from gods, they are created and interpreted by mortal men. If some citizens like this girl's parents think it was a 1st Amendment violation, it is entirely their right to bring the matter up to the attention of the court. No one, not you, not I, may restrict their freedom to do so.
If I say that it was out of line for Backho to lose a match because he paused the game before typing pp, does that mean I claim to be Kespa?
Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question.
Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say.
And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons:
1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech.
2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from.
3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law.
4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
That is the exact problem. Law systems don't come from gods , they come from men itself , and naturally it will be flawed. And the courts will carry out a specific system even if everyone on earth , including themselves know it's absolutely wrong. Taking words from Ian Holloway, it's wrong , in fact it's so wrong it's scary.
Seriously everyone looking at this issue would know it's just plain wrong. And yet , in the eyes U.S law system it is right , and it's carried out by administrators to the dot , even if everyone including themselves knows it's plain wrong.
Now just exactly how could all that be right?
If in future such incidents happen again that this case be used as a reference to how it should be handled? Such we start teaching girls that if they get raped by star athletes not to fight back but to let it happen? Because they need the actual semen (DNA) evidence for anyone to actually do something to help them? Even then the authorities might find a new way to spin it as if you are wrong and that you should "disappear" from the school.
On October 28 2010 10:31 j2choe wrote: Anyways, I'm not going to dissect your post to death, but I think the gist of the misunderstanding between us is that I'm arguing purely from a legal standpoint, whereas you're just....kind of...saying what you feel is right. Honestly I have no problem with that; from the perspective of what is right and how the situation should have been handled, I actually think we're on the same page. Nobody is arguing about what "responsible adults" should have done, and I definitely think there was at least enough of an indication of guilt to put the school on notice. That being said, was there enough of an indication to strip him of his position on the team and essentially make him a social paraiah and a potential lawsuit if acquitted? That's another question.
There is no misunderstanding, you just appear to think courts should just be one guy holding up sheets of paper and reading the law by the letter. The whole reason why we have an entire judicial system is so that we can interpret the law and dole out judgments appropriate for the situation. The school in this case made a series of seriously questionable decisions which ultimately led to the removal of this girl from her cheer squad and the entire situation must be considered before rendering judgment on whether it was the school's right to do so.
And to answer your another question, absolutely. Absolutely. Like I've stated greater men lose their careers over this kind of thing, it is absolutely despicable that this guy was allowed to remain on the team, much less the fact that this girl was forced into a situation where she would have to cheer for him. His teachers should've been outraged. His coach should've been outraged. The principal should've been outraged. Even his parents should've been outraged. Instead we have a group of people who apparently follow a different line of morals than the rest of us who prioritized this would-be rapist over the girl.
And you didn't provide any actual laws from Texas to back up your points here, and I'm guessing you're not, after all, Chief Justice, or even just a judge, so I'm guessing the rest of this all here is just your opinion:
Anyways, if your issue is with the handling of this situation, then point that at the school's policy and not at the courts. The courts have done nothing wrong in my opinion and that's what I was originally in here to say.
And she fucking DEFINITELY can't bring a 1st Amendment claim, for several reasons:
1) She was not in a forum where she would be expected to exercise her right to free speech. She was a cheerleader with a script and a routine. That being said, the school was not taking away her ability to convey ideas or expression (i.e. hatred); they were merely taking away her privilege to be a cheerleader while conveying them. This is about taking away a role in a club, not about restricting speech.
2) She was not expressing anything resembling her own opinion. On the contrary, being a cheerleader does not allow you to express your own opinions. Is cheerleading the type of platform likely to exhibit a free expression of ideas? No, it's not; the very definition of the role implies an actor with a script that he or she cannot diverge from.
3) Being a cheerleader is not a right, nor is it necessary for one's livelihood. It is a privilege granted by the school, to be taken away on their terms. I think ALL schools emphasize this. Without a true constitutional claim (or unlawfulness or something), there is no avenue by which the court can interfere in the school's policy on that point. Having a stupid policy does not mean courts get the green light to jump in and correct them without some basis in law.
And while you're certainly welcome to your opinion, it's a good thing you're not actually a judge, because many people, myself included, would disagree very strongly with your opinions, and perhaps even accuse them of being too rigid and, frankly, kind of bizarre (you seem to have conjured an entire list of rules and guidelines on how high school cheerleading squads should be run, from thin air, it looks like you've spent a lot of time thinking about this, I'm not sure that's very healthy behavior). Until someone actually does draw up a list of laws concerning high school cheerleading squads, your entire argument is basically just based on personal opinions.
4) From a policy perspective, it would just be a bad policy in general to force schools to tolerate this type of behavior. It could set a bad precedent for frivolous claims. Now, is that cold? Perhaps, but it's often difficult to keep in mind that laws are designed for collective welfare--they sometimes (i.e. often) end up screwing people over on an individual basis. The courts aren't arbiters of moral virtue--they are there to interpret the law as it stands.
Anyways, the bottom line is that I think this girl is just pissed off that she is getting fucked over when she is actually the victim. I agree with her. But direct that anger at the school where it's wholly deserved.
You seem to be confusing "ruling that the school should not have removed the girl from her position" into "passing a new law stating schools cannot remove kids from positions in clubs". You do realize appeals courts cannot actually pass laws, right? As for this opening the door to "frivolous claims" nonsense (which is the same argument lawyers of fast food companies used, by the way), let them. I'd rather have 10 frivolous suits get struck down immediately in court than have 1 innocent victim's claims be quashed because some court (short of the Supreme Court, of course) thought it had the ultimate authority on what claims should be allowed to be heard before a court.
By the way, I disagree with the court's reasoning on entirely non-First Amendment related reasons. Their argument was intrinsically bizarre, as is even pointed out in the article. I mean, seriously, "mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech"? "Substantial interference with the work of the school"? This place sounds more like a Ministry of Truth propaganda factory than a United States high school.
I hate how there can be 10 pages of posters, and so few people who actually understand what is going on. We all read the same article, how can understanding be so different?
It's all very he said - she said. Nobody knows what happened inside the room but the people in the room. Maybe they were trying to rape her and got scared off. Maybe she wanted one of them but didnt want the other one. Maybe she was trying to blackmail them.
At any rate, the first grand jury threw out the case, meaning there was insufficient evidence to even try the case. This is when he was allowed back to school, back onto the teams.
Second grand jury recommends the case goes forwards, he takes a plea. The charge is a Class A assault, and he was sentenced to a year. Rule of thumb is anything requiring jail time of a year is a felony, however it is not always true. Some felonies have shorter penalties and some misdemeanors have longer ones. Google says that in Texas a Class A assault is a misdemeanor. Even so, this is not sexual assault, and sexual assault is not rape. The thread title itself is actually very prejudicial given that the facts don't actually indicate that this guy is a rapist. Certainly, he COULD in fact be a rapist, but LEGALLY he is not; he is not even a felon. Putting that in the title is boardering on libel.
If you are going to be part of a group that does something, and then refuse to do what the group is for.... how can you be angry when you are removed from the group? She wanted to continue to be a cheerleader knowing that at some point she would have to cheer for him. Sure, he raped/assaulted/stared at her but where do you draw the line? Cheerleaders can just not cheer for whoever they do not like? That guy cheated on me? That guy asked the other girl out? etc etc.
Point is, weather or not he actually raped or sexually assaulted her IN FACT. He legally isn't even worse then a person who got a speeding ticket (legally, remember). And he has to be treated as such. The law protects people innocent people from being found guilty of some things, but unfortunately it also sometimes allows guilty people to walk. As a society, we determined that while tragic, this is the lesser evil.
What I don't get is how a juvenile sex offender managed to get into the same school as his victim AND get put into a position of some respect (basketball team player). If anything, after this situation emerged, the school (ethically) should have removed the rapist rather than the cheerleader, so in that sense the girl getting kicked off the cheerleading squad is wrong IMO
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the time line of events:
The alleged assault occurred in October of 2008. The accused were arrested and removed from their school (and allowed to attend an alternative school during the investigation.)
In January 2009, the grand jury refused to indict the accused. The accused, innocent until proven guilty, were allowed to return to their normal school.
In February 2009, the cheer-leading incident occurred.
In December 2009, a new grand jury was convened.
In September of 2010, one of the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge.
The article in the OP seems a bit misleading. This was a very controversial, racially charged case. The NAACP even came out in support of the accused, and demanded an investigation of the prosecutor's behavior.
Careful, the NAACP isn't really the ACLU or anything. Just because they support somebody doesn't mean anything other then the fact that the person supported is black.
On October 28 2010 11:54 Krigwin wrote: There is no misunderstanding, you just appear to think courts should just be one guy holding up sheets of paper and reading the law by the letter. The whole reason why we have an entire judicial system is so that we can interpret the law and dole out judgments appropriate for the situation. The school in this case made a series of seriously questionable decisions which ultimately led to the removal of this girl from her cheer squad and the entire situation must be considered before rendering judgment on whether it was the school's right to do so...
...And you didn't provide any actual laws from Texas to back up your points here, and I'm guessing you're not, after all, Chief Justice, or even just a judge...
...By the way, I disagree with the court's reasoning on entirely non-First Amendment related reasons. Their argument was intrinsically bizarre, as is even pointed out in the article. I mean, seriously, "mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech"? "Substantial interference with the work of the school"? This place sounds more like a Ministry of Truth propaganda factory than a United States high school.
OK, I've edited some of your post so I can try to clear up some of the legal confusion here. Many of the posters are (understandably) confused about the scope of this decision, what it says, and what it does not say.
I'm glossing over many issues here for the sake of simplicity, but I'll try to keep the big picture on track. The specific decision here is the work of a federal appellate court. This federal court only ruled on the issue of whether the Attorney General, School District, Superintendent, Principal, Cheer Coach, etc. violated certain aspects of the girl's 1st or 14th amendment rights. The 1st amendment claim is the section of the opinion your "mouthpiece" and "substantial interference" quotes come from. It is important to note that the question in front of this court was limited to these constitutional claims. The court was not deciding the question "were the school board's actions correct?" It therefore makes no sense to state, as you do, that you disagree with their reasoning on non-1st amendment grounds when the only thing they are deciding is a 1st amendment claim. Texas state law does not apply here. This is a federal court deciding constitutional issues.
The girl does have some state law claims alluded to in the opinion. These could potentially include questions about whether the school's decisions were reasonable in light of their mandate/policies/state law, etc. These claims are presumably still pending in state court. This federal appellate decision does not address them.
On October 28 2010 12:26 aeyr wrote: I fail to see how there was no restraining order placed at the original trial...
This is exactly what came to my mind when reading this. Either justice wasn't brought to this girl (for the "sexual assault" not the cheer-leading incident) or we're not hearing the entire story. After reading this article and seeing how blown out of proportion the timeline for this case is I'm leaning towards the latter.
At my school if you had missed any homework or your grades were low you could not participate in sport. I was the captain of our cricket team and got let off easy all the time. Not very fair, but shut like this happens all the time.
On October 28 2010 04:25 j2choe wrote: 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.
I couldn't see this as a proper excuse for the school to do what they did, unless if this is a professional work. Do you get paid when you're becoming a cheerleader in this school?
Aside from that, in my work place, if case like this is happening involving employees (both the victim and the guy are employees), upon proven the guy will definitely fired without respect, all his benefit will also be forfeit. And also during the process I think the guy will be forced to work from home.
That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
well....
1. its not like Muslims get to build a mosque in the USA without being called a terrorist training ground 2. its not like marriage bears any meaning in the USA anymore 3. its not like the USA tolerates any man or woman who has attended a madrassa
On October 28 2010 15:58 vol_ wrote: At my school if you had missed any homework or your grades were low you could not participate in sport. I was the captain of our cricket team and got let off easy all the time. Not very fair, but shut like this happens all the time.
>.< In my school, no one gave a **** about sports. Talking about being Aussie.
In my country, if u convict a sexual assault to a under 18, or just have a sexual intercourse (with the co-operation of the girl), u go to jail for at least 6 years, and it happen right away not like this, this is sick man
well according to the other articles on this matter, initially the grand jury refused to indict the male students due to lack of evidence. so they were dismissed of their charges and returned to school. at the time the school removed the girl from the team, for all intents and purposes, those boys were "innocent".
eventually another jury indicted the male student and he plead guilty. but by that time, they already graduated from high school so the matter was moot.
I dont understand people telling her to quit cheerleading, after an experience like that, I'd imagine it would bring her some sort of comfort, doing the things she likes, instead of just going underground and only speaking with a handful of trusted friends. Should she close herself completely in?
Or should Kobe B, get sent to Afghanistan to play against Jihad Allstars?
On October 28 2010 15:20 EvilNalu wrote: I'm glossing over many issues here for the sake of simplicity, but I'll try to keep the big picture on track. The specific decision here is the work of a federal appellate court. This federal court only ruled on the issue of whether the Attorney General, School District, Superintendent, Principal, Cheer Coach, etc. violated certain aspects of the girl's 1st or 14th amendment rights. The 1st amendment claim is the section of the opinion your "mouthpiece" and "substantial interference" quotes come from. It is important to note that the question in front of this court was limited to these constitutional claims. The court was not deciding the question "were the school board's actions correct?" It therefore makes no sense to state, as you do, that you disagree with their reasoning on non-1st amendment grounds when the only thing they are deciding is a 1st amendment claim. Texas state law does not apply here. This is a federal court deciding constitutional issues.
Thanks for injecting some fact into this. I think most people are just getting inflamed over the moral aspect of the decision (and perhaps rightfully so) and are consequently unable to separate from the legal aspect of things. Yes, this situation stinks. No, her free speech rights were not infringed. Two separate issues, people.
And I don't understand where all this concern about the law as a cold, calculating process comes from. It was your votes that put the laws into place; the court only applies those laws to factual circumstances. In doing so, it will consider ALL factors, not only those favorable to the victim, and that is why decisions sometimes don't go your way. That's the problem with laws of general application--they will invariable benefit some and not others depending on the situation. That's life.
And to the person who requested that I refer to Texas law, there is no need. This is a constitutional claim; it has nothing to do with the laws of Texas. That being said, I would be hard pressed to find a single "law" that was broken by the school's denial of participation in an extracurricular activity. I do, however, think there could be a valid claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
This just remembers me of that gift were LeBrown James disrespects a worker from his team... He never got any shit going at him... if someone else would have done that, they would have need to apologise...
How he came back to the same school or the team... ?
On October 28 2010 04:26 john0507 wrote: Now , I'm pretty sure that every country that isn't named Texas has a jail sentence to attempted rape/sexual assault even if the guy confessed and isn't a HS sports star. 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.
I really like this post, even before my corrections.
On October 28 2010 11:54 Krigwin wrote: There is no misunderstanding, you just appear to think courts should just be one guy holding up sheets of paper and reading the law by the letter. The whole reason why we have an entire judicial system is so that we can interpret the law and dole out judgments appropriate for the situation. The school in this case made a series of seriously questionable decisions which ultimately led to the removal of this girl from her cheer squad and the entire situation must be considered before rendering judgment on whether it was the school's right to do so...
...And you didn't provide any actual laws from Texas to back up your points here, and I'm guessing you're not, after all, Chief Justice, or even just a judge...
...By the way, I disagree with the court's reasoning on entirely non-First Amendment related reasons. Their argument was intrinsically bizarre, as is even pointed out in the article. I mean, seriously, "mouthpiece through which the school could disseminate speech"? "Substantial interference with the work of the school"? This place sounds more like a Ministry of Truth propaganda factory than a United States high school.
OK, I've edited some of your post so I can try to clear up some of the legal confusion here. Many of the posters are (understandably) confused about the scope of this decision, what it says, and what it does not say.
I'm glossing over many issues here for the sake of simplicity, but I'll try to keep the big picture on track. The specific decision here is the work of a federal appellate court. This federal court only ruled on the issue of whether the Attorney General, School District, Superintendent, Principal, Cheer Coach, etc. violated certain aspects of the girl's 1st or 14th amendment rights. The 1st amendment claim is the section of the opinion your "mouthpiece" and "substantial interference" quotes come from. It is important to note that the question in front of this court was limited to these constitutional claims. The court was not deciding the question "were the school board's actions correct?" It therefore makes no sense to state, as you do, that you disagree with their reasoning on non-1st amendment grounds when the only thing they are deciding is a 1st amendment claim. Texas state law does not apply here. This is a federal court deciding constitutional issues.
The girl does have some state law claims alluded to in the opinion. These could potentially include questions about whether the school's decisions were reasonable in light of their mandate/policies/state law, etc. These claims are presumably still pending in state court. This federal appellate decision does not address them.
Thanks for the explanation mang. This still sounds like an incredibly messed up situation though.
On October 28 2010 23:42 j2choe wrote:I do, however, think there could be a valid claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The Federal tort claims act only covers Federal actors. All the people alleged to have wronged the girl are Texas State officials (DA, Superintendent, Principal, etc.) so the Federal Tort Claims Act does not apply.
Sooo why the hell did the school not kick the guy out?
Keeping him in the school, the same scool as the victim, is admitting publicly that they accept what he did... very very poor administration on that school thats for sure.
What I don't get is how a juvenile sex offender managed to get into the same school as his victim AND get put into a position of some respect (basketball team player). If anything, after this situation emerged, the school (ethically) should have removed the rapist rather than the cheerleader, so in that sense the girl getting kicked off the cheerleading squad is wrong IMO
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the time line of events:
The alleged assault occurred in October of 2008. The accused were arrested and removed from their school (and allowed to attend an alternative school during the investigation.)
In January 2009, the grand jury refused to indict the accused. The accused, innocent until proven guilty, were allowed to return to their normal school.
In February 2009, the cheer-leading incident occurred.
In December 2009, a new grand jury was convened.
In September of 2010, one of the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge.
The article in the OP seems a bit misleading. This was a very controversial, racially charged case. The NAACP even came out in support of the accused, and demanded an investigation of the prosecutor's behavior.
Now if this is the exact timeline of the events ,then it would explain a lot of stuffs. At the very least it explains why the boy was in the school at that particular time. However it still doesn't justify how the school not only did not protect/concern/care about the girl , but rather ask her to "lay low", and basically just hinting for her to "disappear".
While it's true that in the eyes of the law , that no one did anything wrong. But really , how cruel can people get? How important is sports and this star athlete that the school authorities would outright discard their moral values and responsibilites towards one of their student's well being.
And if such a fucked up situation is right in the eyes of the US law. Then that just makes it even more fucked up.
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
well....
1. its not like Muslims get to build a mosque in the USA without being called a terrorist training ground 2. its not like marriage bears any meaning in the USA anymore 3. its not like the USA tolerates any man or woman who has attended a madrassa
1 - Bullshit, there are a LOT of americans on both sides of that issue, and that issue is a lot deeper than you have portrayed it. 2 - Bullshit, marriage throughout ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY has meant what culture decides it to mean. 3 - Bullshit, I had classmates growing up who were foreign exchange students from Saudi Arabia. They were tolerated and respected just like everyone else. Just like if some kid went to a Jesuit school.
Not everyone is a bigot. Pointing to an entire nation and saying "All of you are bigots." citing the fact that SOME people are is being a bigot yourself. Can we stop making stupid racist and sexist generalizations? Please? Really?
On October 28 2010 06:15 Asjo wrote: [*] Even if cheerleading is, strangely, a possible career choice in Texas, it's hardly something to educate young kids to do. There are much more important things to educate young kids to do - if necessary, they could make seperate cheerleader academies for the few who end up doing this). Doing athletics or something the like would rather be the direction that the girl could take, and she is fully able to do this after finishing the important basic stuff in her current education (keep in mind, she's only still in high school). I doubt it's impossible for her to learn these things in other ways if she's really determined about athletics.
Cheerleading IS an athletic activity with a professional wing, like gymnastics or baseball. To deny her the right to cheerlead is to limit her opportunities. To limit her opportunities over issues stemming from her self-expression is fascistic.
No doubt that it's ahtletic activity, but when it comes to athletic education it's not exactly high school material, and I'm sure that they don't do it to educate the half-time entertainers from American football, but rather as a social activity. If she's really doing it for a career, maybe gymnastics would be a better alternative.
Many things in life limit us - nothing crimial about that. Things happen and the situations changes. Now, to say that it's "over issues stemming from her self-expression" is quite a twist of words. It's pedagogical issue with some kids who have an unhealthy relation to each other which is creating problems in a social environment.
How is cheerleading not exactly high school material? You state that it's primarily a social activity. It is. You state that gymnastics would be a better alternative. It is. But you don't have a point.
How is saying that she was removed over issues stemming from her self-expression a twist of words? You state that it's an educational issue. It is. You state that it involves two kids. It does. You state that it creates problems. It does. But you don't have a point.
I gotta admit that reading your post was a good laugh, although it left me a bit confused. You don't have a point
Either way, I'll try to explain. The point that people have made is that the girl is somehow being deprived of significant education, making her removal from the team a more serious and fundamental issue. I'm simply pointing out that, in terms of high school, the focus of cheerleading isn't really "education", rather social activity. If this was a cheerleading academy, it would be. If the girl wants to pursue a career within athletics, she would have more use doing gymastics, so no opportunities missed here either.
We express ourselves in pretty much anything we do. To say that the issue stems from this is to twist the statements given about the situation. The girl was expressing herself, but the issue was pedagogical (or possibly strategic, if you read into the perspective of the school), not about fascist oppression of self-expression. I've never said it's an educational issue - it doesn't really relate directly to education, rather the social environment around it.
I despise rapists.. Hope he gets whats coming to him someday.
I remember when I was in highschool, a girl got raped in the bushes walking home from a dance. Supposedly she was only a block from the school and some guys pushed her into a bush and started raping her. What's fucked up is that she said people from the dance were walking by and didn't even help her. Fucked up world...
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
I chose the Muslim example because I know about those Scharia excesses in Muslimic countries. Wrong understood Religion. And though it is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea I'd prefer those Muslimic restrictions over being raped and later on being ridiculed and bullied by the rapist and his cool basketball friends.
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
I chose the Muslim example because I know about those Scharia excesses in Muslimic countries. Wrong understood Religion. And though it is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea I'd prefer those Muslimic restrictions over being raped and later on being ridiculed and bullied by the rapist and his cool basketball friends.
You're ridiculed if you're raped there as well. It's also considered shameful there. You're not really making a case.
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
well....
1. its not like Muslims get to build a mosque in the USA without being called a terrorist training ground 2. its not like marriage bears any meaning in the USA anymore 3. its not like the USA tolerates any man or woman who has attended a madrassa
You really wanna get into this with me? We were talking about womens rights.
Also: 1) Yea, but you can build them in america, just show some goddamn respect and don't built it right next to a place you bombed. You don't see america building a statue of liberty in hiroshima or nagasaki right?. Too bad you cant build churchs in islamic countries. Hell, you cant even BE christian in islamic countries.
2) Yes, It is better to kill a women who wants a divorce then to allow a divorce.
3) It's not like kidnapping american citizens for ransom isn't a popular pastime in some islamic areas.
On October 28 2010 18:47 Fenrax wrote: That guy is a piece of trash. How can he have the audacity to not intervene into this and what the fuck is wrong with the students and teachers of that school that it is not HE but her who has to hide from social activities? Even in an Islamic country women are treated with more respect.
You mean, not having freedom of religion nor freedom of speech? Being only allowed to marrry another Moslem? Not being allowed to go to school?
Yes. Sounds like they respect women more.
I chose the Muslim example because I know about those Scharia excesses in Muslimic countries. Wrong understood Religion. And though it is the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea I'd prefer those Muslimic restrictions over being raped and later on being ridiculed and bullied by the rapist and his cool basketball friends.
Ahh, So instead it is better for the family of a raped women to kill her for dishonoring the family.
It's not uncommon in islamic countries under shi'a law/perspectives to kill a woman who wants a divorce from her husband regardless of why. Even if it is because he is abusive.
You really wanna get into this with me? We were talking about womens rights.
Also: 1) Yea, but you can build them in america, just show some goddamn respect and don't built it right next to a place you bombed. You don't see america building a statue of liberty in hiroshima or nagasaki right?. Too bad you cant build churchs in islamic countries. Hell, you cant even BE christian in islamic countries.
Uh Let me correct something you said there. You are saying that Islam bombed the Towers? You are saying that a religion, that is a peaceful religion, should not have the right to build a place of worship there because some extremists bombed the Towers?
We shouldn't allow anyone to build churches anywhere close to abortion clinics then because of the Christians who have bombed them...
Nagasaki is not a valid example, because it was the decision of the US Government to go through with the bombing. Not the work of an extremist sect that was supremely patriotic or something absolutely messed up like that.
Slightly more on topic, you can really see the differences in treatment of the genders here.
Sexism at its worst. A girl is raped, the rapist is convicted, allowed to return to school, the same school of the girl, and then allowed to play in sporting events where she is a cheerleader... how messed up is that. Then to top it off, they tell her to stay away from him, and kick her off the team. This would not go over well in a more progressive state.
You really wanna get into this with me? We were talking about womens rights.
Also: 1) Yea, but you can build them in america, just show some goddamn respect and don't built it right next to a place you bombed. You don't see america building a statue of liberty in hiroshima or nagasaki right?. Too bad you cant build churchs in islamic countries. Hell, you cant even BE christian in islamic countries.
Uh Let me correct something you said there. You are saying that Islam bombed the Towers? You are saying that a religion, that is a peaceful religion, should not have the right to build a place of worship there because some extremists bombed the Towers?
We shouldn't allow anyone to build churches anywhere close to abortion clinics then because of the Christians who have bombed them...
Nagasaki is not a valid example, because it was the decision of the US Government to go through with the bombing. Not the work of an extremist sect that was supremely patriotic or something absolutely messed up like that.
Slightly more on topic, you can really see the differences in treatment of the genders here.
Sexism at its worst. A girl is raped, the rapist is convicted, allowed to return to school, the same school of the girl, and then allowed to play in sporting events where she is a cheerleader... how messed up is that. Then to top it off, they tell her to stay away from him, and kick her off the team. This would not go over well in a more progressive state.
A "peaceful" religion that was initially spread via the sword? Forgive me, but islam can not be considered a true religion until followers of it can choose to repudiate it without repercussions. "Believe or die" is a pretty good religion huh?
Hardly extremists. Just because the government refers to them as such doesnt make it so. "extremists" run several countries. Seems more mainstream then a fringe belief to me.
Damn straight we shouldn't allow churches to be built across the street from abortion clinics. Cemeteries either. Fuck Westboro baptist.
Nagasaki is a completely valid example. You don't bomb some place and then build a symbol of your victory there. It doesn't matter if it is a religion, or a government, or a random independent third party that does it. Building marker at or near the site of an attack by one of your group is bad taste. Yes the people trying to build a mosque there are not the same as the bombers, and are of a different faction / sect / denomination, but that doesn't make it any more classy or okay or any less worse in taste to do so.
If you must fight, then fight. Fight hard, do what it takes and win. But rubbing it into the losers faces afterwards is not a good way to get everybody to play nice afterwards. It only builds resentment and causes another fight down the line. See WW2.
Try to actually understand the article and what happened before you comment on it.
You really wanna get into this with me? We were talking about womens rights.
Also: 1) Yea, but you can build them in america, just show some goddamn respect and don't built it right next to a place you bombed. You don't see america building a statue of liberty in hiroshima or nagasaki right?. Too bad you cant build churchs in islamic countries. Hell, you cant even BE christian in islamic countries.
Uh Let me correct something you said there. You are saying that Islam bombed the Towers? You are saying that a religion, that is a peaceful religion, should not have the right to build a place of worship there because some extremists bombed the Towers?
We shouldn't allow anyone to build churches anywhere close to abortion clinics then because of the Christians who have bombed them...
Nagasaki is not a valid example, because it was the decision of the US Government to go through with the bombing. Not the work of an extremist sect that was supremely patriotic or something absolutely messed up like that.
Slightly more on topic, you can really see the differences in treatment of the genders here.
Sexism at its worst. A girl is raped, the rapist is convicted, allowed to return to school, the same school of the girl, and then allowed to play in sporting events where she is a cheerleader... how messed up is that. Then to top it off, they tell her to stay away from him, and kick her off the team. This would not go over well in a more progressive state.
A "peaceful" religion that was initially spread via the sword? Forgive me, but islam can not be considered a true religion until followers of it can choose to repudiate it without repercussions. "Believe or die" is a pretty good religion huh?
Hardly extremists. Just because the government refers to them as such doesnt make it so. "extremists" run several countries. Seems more mainstream then a fringe belief to me.
Damn straight we shouldn't allow churches to be built across the street from abortion clinics. Cemeteries either. Fuck Westboro baptist.
Nagasaki is a completely valid example. You don't bomb some place and then build a symbol of your victory there. It doesn't matter if it is a religion, or a government, or a random independent third party that does it. Building marker at or near the site of an attack by one of your group is bad taste. Yes the people trying to build a mosque there are not the same as the bombers, and are of a different faction / sect / denomination, but that doesn't make it any more classy or okay or any less worse in taste to do so.
If you must fight, then fight. Fight hard, do what it takes and win. But rubbing it into the losers faces afterwards is not a good way to get everybody to play nice afterwards. It only builds resentment and causes another fight down the line. See WW2.
Try to actually understand the article and what happened before you comment on it.
See all religion does is foster hate... Chill out with some of my cannabis maaaannnnnnn and relax...... P.S. I don't smoke, but damn, you guys need to. Hey islamic people, stop hating on America because we give rights out to everyone, including criminals. And hey Pro-america guy, stop hating on people who are suffering ALOT just because a bunch of assholes "say" they share the same religion. Let's all love each other in one big orgy ball like South Park guys, mkay?
You really wanna get into this with me? We were talking about womens rights.
Also: 1) Yea, but you can build them in america, just show some goddamn respect and don't built it right next to a place you bombed. You don't see america building a statue of liberty in hiroshima or nagasaki right?. Too bad you cant build churchs in islamic countries. Hell, you cant even BE christian in islamic countries.
Uh Let me correct something you said there. You are saying that Islam bombed the Towers? You are saying that a religion, that is a peaceful religion, should not have the right to build a place of worship there because some extremists bombed the Towers?
We shouldn't allow anyone to build churches anywhere close to abortion clinics then because of the Christians who have bombed them...
Nagasaki is not a valid example, because it was the decision of the US Government to go through with the bombing. Not the work of an extremist sect that was supremely patriotic or something absolutely messed up like that.
Slightly more on topic, you can really see the differences in treatment of the genders here.
Sexism at its worst. A girl is raped, the rapist is convicted, allowed to return to school, the same school of the girl, and then allowed to play in sporting events where she is a cheerleader... how messed up is that. Then to top it off, they tell her to stay away from him, and kick her off the team. This would not go over well in a more progressive state.
A "peaceful" religion that was initially spread via the sword? Forgive me, but islam can not be considered a true religion until followers of it can choose to repudiate it without repercussions. "Believe or die" is a pretty good religion huh?
Hardly extremists. Just because the government refers to them as such doesnt make it so. "extremists" run several countries. Seems more mainstream then a fringe belief to me.
Damn straight we shouldn't allow churches to be built across the street from abortion clinics. Cemeteries either. Fuck Westboro baptist.
Nagasaki is a completely valid example. You don't bomb some place and then build a symbol of your victory there. It doesn't matter if it is a religion, or a government, or a random independent third party that does it. Building marker at or near the site of an attack by one of your group is bad taste. Yes the people trying to build a mosque there are not the same as the bombers, and are of a different faction / sect / denomination, but that doesn't make it any more classy or okay or any less worse in taste to do so.
If you must fight, then fight. Fight hard, do what it takes and win. But rubbing it into the losers faces afterwards is not a good way to get everybody to play nice afterwards. It only builds resentment and causes another fight down the line. See WW2.
Try to actually understand the article and what happened before you comment on it.
Understand the article and what happened? Enlighten me.
Also, by your line of reasoning, we are all split off sects of judaism, thus none of us should build anywhere close to the site of those towers... Hell, whites shouldn't be allowed to build anything "white" in the south. Anyhow, you must not know that there is already a mosque even closer to the site, but of course you carefully researched this all correct?
Actually we should allow churches to be built near abortion clinics. Places of worship are one thing. Allowing people to bomb stuff, completely unrelated.
Evidently you don't realize the majority of Muslims (especially in the US) condemn the violence of the EXTREMISTS, (you have carefully researched what this means too correct?) and never think about committing violence. Also you must have read the Koran and all the examples of violence that it advocates right? Oh wait, those are few and far between (less than the old testament) and a huge part of the message of Islam is peaceful.
Unfortunately Islam is considered a 1 way religion, though interestingly the Koran is mainly a book of peace.
Sure; the girl didn't get raped and the guy isn't a rapist.
Prosecutors wanted to charge him for that but the grand jury threw it out because the case was laughable. This means there is not even enough merit for the case to be brought to a real court. Which means that the prosecution really had no evidence other then the guy left his clothes there and the girl said so. Both of which could easily be explained by other things. Such as, since this was such a racially tinged case and she is a racist she just wanted to ruin the guy's life. That's probably not true, but saying that he raped her is nowhere near true either. More then likely what actually happened was that she is not a racist and it started out consensually but she decided she didnt want one or both of them and withdrew consent (before any actual penetration happened). Guys wtf because they were totally about to get some, continue kissing her // feeling her up. She yells, people outside wtf, guys panic and know how bad it looks and run.
So he gets to go back to school since it is quite obvious that he did not rape her. In america we get to be innocent before proven guilty and are not guilty of rape merely because a girl says so, or even because an OP disingenuously states that it is so (and the title should be changed too actually -- he isn't a rapist).
Since he isn't a felon or a criminal he gets to play his sports again. Since she is a cheerleader she is supposed to cheer for the teams. Obviously, she harbors some resentment [for the likely sexual assault (which is what kissing // groping without consent is...) that took place] and declines to cheer for him. Since she isn't doing what she is supposed to be doing as a member of the team she gets removed from it.
After his occurs, the prosecutors say, waitaminute, he threatened to shoot // kill some people in the house for his clothes! we can totally get him on that. So they charge him with assault. The kid, knowing that he actually did it, and that there are plenty of people who saw and heard him do it pleas guilty. For assault. Not for anything sexual in nature. It's important to note that while it is likely he committed sexual assault (but not rape) IN FACT, it is also true that it is also possible he did not commit sexual assault and was never in fact tried for it nor convicted of it or rape (as your first post implies).
Simple enough to understand just by reading through the article.
I don't know who "we" are. If toyota want's to build a headquarters in new york near there then fine.There are plenty of people with no relation to judiasm, christianity, or islam. So no, I don't think that everybody should be banned from building near there. Of course. But we very well can't tear it down now can we? Especially if we arn't going to let them build near there. It's stupid to make people drive outside the city to go do what they need to do. But they were fine without one there for a decade and they will be fine without having it there in the future.
Lets say a westboro baptist member bombs an abortion clinic. Blows the entire thing up. Maybe he is really good at chemistry. Given that westboro baptist is mainly an extended family as the congregation, it would be idiotic to let a second cousin of the bomber then rent that lot of land with the intent of building a church there. See, places of worship and blowing things up is only completely unrelated when the explosions don't happen because of religion. If a christian blows up an abortion clinic because the bible says abortions are evil, then it is obviously related. If a muslim blows up an airplane and a tower because he thinks it is his religious duty to do so, then it is obviously related.
Evidently you don't realize that the majority of muslims outside of the US were happy that 9/11 happened. News reporters (some american ones, but a bunch of other western nations as well) reported massive celebrations in countries from jordan to syria to saudi arabia to iran to iraq to territories in palestine. Video got out showing it from palastine and iran. The other countries were smart enough to stop video from getting out, but plenty of third party reporters saw the excitement.
judism is definitely not peaceful either. They killed people all the time. Sometimes for the stupidest reasons. christianity started out peaceful, but now look. christians are some of the most violent people around. It'd be cool if they were all like jesus cause he was a pretty chill dude. But unfortunately they seem to hate people just cause they don't believe the same things.
At it's root, starting, is judism a peaceful religion? No. Not really. At it's root, is islam more peaceful then judism? Yes. Completely? No. They fought wars to establish a basis for their religion. Is christianity? Yes. They were the only ones to advocate non-violence.
Did they all stay this way? no. Judism is more mellow now, but jews are very violent against arabs. moslems are more peaceful now then when they started out, but still are rather violent at times for no reason...see 1948. Then you have the christians who started out all peaceful like fighting wars in the middle east because they want control of jerusalem. And then when they split the catholics and protestants fight wars against each other, and you get the whole IRA stuff, as well as things like spain expelling all non-christians.....
On October 29 2010 13:11 koreasilver wrote: Thanks for hijacking the thread to press forth Islamophobia instead of focusing on the absurdity of the actions of the school administration.
On October 29 2010 15:05 dogabutila wrote: Sure; the girl didn't get raped and the guy isn't a rapist.
Prosecutors wanted to charge him for that but the grand jury threw it out because the case was laughable. This means there is not even enough merit for the case to be brought to a real court. Which means that the prosecution really had no evidence other then the guy left his clothes there and the girl said so. Both of which could easily be explained by other things. Such as, since this was such a racially tinged case and she is a racist she just wanted to ruin the guy's life. That's probably not true, but saying that he raped her is nowhere near true either. More then likely what actually happened was that she is not a racist and it started out consensually but she decided she didnt want one or both of them and withdrew consent (before any actual penetration happened). Guys wtf because they were totally about to get some, continue kissing her // feeling her up. She yells, people outside wtf, guys panic and know how bad it looks and run.
I don't know who "we" are. If toyota want's to build a headquarters in new york near there then fine.There are plenty of people with no relation to judiasm, christianity, or islam. So no, I don't think that everybody should be banned from building near there. Of course. But we very well can't tear it down now can we? Especially if we arn't going to let them build near there. It's stupid to make people drive outside the city to go do what they need to do. But they were fine without one there for a decade and they will be fine without having it there in the future.
Lets say a westboro baptist member bombs an abortion clinic. Blows the entire thing up. Maybe he is really good at chemistry. Given that westboro baptist is mainly an extended family as the congregation, it would be idiotic to let a second cousin of the bomber then rent that lot of land with the intent of building a church there. See, places of worship and blowing things up is only completely unrelated when the explosions don't happen because of religion. If a christian blows up an abortion clinic because the bible says abortions are evil, then it is obviously related. If a muslim blows up an airplane and a tower because he thinks it is his religious duty to do so, then it is obviously related.
Evidently you don't realize that the majority of muslims outside of the US were happy that 9/11 happened. News reporters (some american ones, but a bunch of other western nations as well) reported massive celebrations in countries from jordan to syria to saudi arabia to iran to iraq to territories in palestine. Video got out showing it from palastine and iran. The other countries were smart enough to stop video from getting out, but plenty of third party reporters saw the excitement.
First off, I'll amend mine to say sexual assault instead of rape, which he likely got out of by pleading guilty to the much lesser charge of assault (something very common in court cases), not to mention the difficulty of ever prosecuting rape/sexual assault cases (not only because of the word against word but also because of the perception of women misreporting sexual acts because of "embarrassment").
Second, Nothing could possibly could change in a decade could it? Anyhow, considering there is lawful protection for the building of the mosque there, the scapegoating islamophobia won't result in much except giving Fox News to make more profit spreading conservative opinion and capitalizing on fear mongering by its commentators. Then again you made the mistake of grouping all muslims in with the EXTREMISTS (I'll put that in caps again for you) who perpetuate acts of terrorism and antiwest sentiment.
Although the article is not clear, i think it highly unlikely that the prosecutor would bring the same charges 2 years later without any additional evidence. Given that everything that can be firmly known to happen was already known before, any new evidence gathered would have been not very firm. Circumstantial at best. Plus having to fight double jeopardy claims.... Alas, without better sources which i am too lazy to look for, we can't really know what happened in the room or exactly what happened in the legal arena other then the fact that he plead to misdemeanor assault.
I suppose then, that we are at an impasse, although I still hold that the school's actions were entirely correct given the information they had at the times they did. The timeline with information really does support their actions as reasonable.
Sure things change in a decade. There are plenty of other places to build though, that are not terribly uncouth. Do they really think building there would gain them anything? That a religion of peace would intentionally build at the site knowing it would provoke outrage and hatred? Knowing that the intentional lack of manners and grace would stir up trouble?
Lastly, you assume that the people celebrating are extremeists when all indications point otherwise. Of course moslems in america are going to denounce the attack, if anybody lauded it they would have been lynched. Of course the heads of state are going to denounce the attacks, they don't want the retribution to fall on them. Iraq was the only state not to denounce but to support the attackers and look what they got.
But look at what the actual general population in the middle east did, and you will know that they were excited. It only takes a little bit of research, a little bit of asking people who were there.
Where were you on Sept. 11, when terrorists changed the world? I was in Beirut, at the National Museum, enjoying the wonders of the ancient Phoenicians with my husband. This tour of past splendor only magnified the shock I received later when I heard the news, and saw the reactions all around me. Walking downtown, I realized that the offspring of this great civilization were celebrating a terrorist outrage. And I am not talking about destitute people. Those who were cheering belonged to the elite of the Paris of the Middle East: professionals wearing double-breasted suits, charming blonde ladies, pretty teenagers in tailored jeans.
Trying to find our bearings, we went into an American-style cafe in the Hamra district, near Rue Verdun, rated as one of the most expensive shopping streets in the world. Here the cognitive dissonance was immediate, and direct: the cafe's sophisticated clientele was celebrating, laughing, cheering and making jokes, as waiters served hamburgers and Diet Pepsi. Nobody looked shocked, or moved. They were excited, very excited.
An hour later, at a little market near the American Embassy, on the outskirts of Beirut, a thrilled shop assistant showed us, using his hands, how the plane had crashed into the twin towers. He, too, was laughing.
'What They Deserved'
Once back at the house where we were staying, we started scanning the international channels. Soon came reports of Palestinians celebrating. The BBC reporter in Jerusalem said it was only a tiny minority. Astonished, we asked some moderate Arabs if that was the case. "Nonsense," said one, speaking for many. "Ninety percent of the Arab world believes that Americans got what they deserved."
An exaggeration? Rather an understatement. A couple of days later, we headed north to Tripoli, near the Syrian border. On the way, we read that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who donated blood in front of the cameras, was rejecting any suggestion that his people were rejoicing over the terrorist attack. "It was less than 10 children in Jerusalem," he said.
In the bustling souq of Tripoli, we started looking for the Great Mosque, a 1294 building with a distinctive Lombard-style tower. But in that labyrinth, nobody spoke anything but Arabic, which we don't speak. Finally, in a dark shop, we found an old gentleman who knew French. His round white cap showed that he was a devout Muslim. Leaning on his stick, he managed to get on the street and with most exquisite manners gave us directions. Common decency survives all.
Once at the Mosque I donned a black chador, but our Lonely Planet guide attracted the attention of a hard-looking bearded guy all the same. "Are you Americans?" he asked in a menacing tone. Our quick denial made him relax. He gave us the green light to go in. But very soon afterward we were again approached by a fat young man. He turned out to be one of the some 350,000 Palestinians who live in Lebanon, unwelcome by most of the population and subject to severe hardships. Hearing we were Italians, first he recited like a prayer names of Italian soccer players. We were relieved at first that he wanted to talk about sports, but he soon moved on to politics and the "events."
"My people have been crushed under the heel of American imperialism, which took away our land, massacred our beloved and denied our right to life. But have you seen what happened in New York City? God Almighty has drawn his sword against our enemies. God is great -- Allah u Akbar," he said.
I heard these appeals to religion so often that I needed some theological help. "How can God do evil?" I later asked an Arab friend, a businessman with an international background. "According to what I learnt in my catechism, God lets evil happen. He doesn't do it," I said, and he answered: "The Quran has the same teaching, but blood calls for blood." What about compassion? I asked, pointing out that Jesus Christ had offered the other cheek. Isn't Allah also always called the Merciful? "He is, but when a people has been begging for a piece of land for 52 years and it has experienced only bloodshed, what can you expect?" But the victims of the World Trade Center were civilians, I insisted. "In the new intifada, 500 Palestinians have been killed. America didn't give a damn, so why should Muslims care now about those who died in the twin towers? It's hard, but that's the way they see it."
I couldn't help it: I kept remembering how a day earlier, in Germany, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had talked about a clash of civilizations.
On Thursday night, in the Christian northern part of Beirut we heard some loud noises. "Probably they are celebrating the attacks," some one told us when we asked. You mean the Maronite Christians are also celebrating? I asked. "Yes, they also feel betrayed by the Americans," came the response. On Friday, the national day of remembrance for the victims in Europe and the U.S., I was relieved to see that the Christian church in the Sahet Aukar district was packed with people holding a candlelight vigil. Less comforting was the thick barrier of soldiers and check points that protected the church.
'Terrorists?'
Heliopolis, in the Bekaa Valley, was the Sun City of the ancients. Nowadays it is called Baalbek. Near its lavish temples stands the stronghold of the Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite Party of God. Along the clean alleys that lead to the Hezbolla's stronghold there are hand-made posters of bearded young men. "They are martyrs," explained a well-dressed, cultivated Arab man who had just gotten out of his Mercedes. "They fought until victory: the withdrawal of Israeli occupants. So they became a model for the all Arab world." Weren't they terrorists? We asked. "Terrorists? What about the Israelis who kill women and babies?"
In the seven days we spent in Lebanon, we saw one young Arab woman with teary eyes. "The stories of the victims touched me,", she said, and I began to regain my trust in humanity. Then she added: "But in a way I am also glad, because for once the Americans are experiencing what we in the Middle East go through every single day."
Back in Italy, I received a phone call from my friend Gilberto Bazoli, a journalist in Cremona. He told me he witnessed the same reactions among Muslims in the local mosque of that small Lombard city. "They were all on Osama bin Laden side," he said. "One of them told me that they were not even worthy to kiss his toes."
Do you know any non-muslim's, non-americans who were there at the time? I know a few, they all assured me these things happened. The dearth of reporting on it? I suppose you have already forgotten the assassination contract out on the head of a cartoonist who had the audacity to draw mohammed (maybe the bounty was placed by an ''extremeist'' but general sentiment and outcry was heard around the muslim world everywhere, and it was an anger. A hateful, violent anger that provoked beatings and killings of westerns completely unrelated to the newspaper or cartoonist, by your very own ''moderate'' or ''mainstream'' muslims. You don't see christians or jews up in arms and killing people when somebody draws jesus or moses or abraham.). Not to mention forgetting the foreign cabinet official equivalents publicly threatening journalists who cover the celebrations, or the fact that our ambassadors being told that the world hates america not 48 hours after 9/11.
Mind you, a thousand years ago the arab world was the pinnacle of civilization. They had the largest armies, were the worlds leading experts in health, science, and culture. Through invasions, fractures, and gross mismanagement (look what happens when a country is managed by law based on religion..) the Muslim world is destitute. The arab world combined has a lower GDP then spain, and accounts for half of the worlds people below the poverty line while only making up a fifth of the worlds population. Even in saudi arabia, one of the more western countries, the universities graduate more ''religious scholars'' then engineers or doctors. They are their own cause of failure and humiliation and repression yet they blame us.
Us? Why? We spent billions of dollars rebuilding the middle east post ww2. We ejected iraq from kuwait. Iraq who killed or displaced 10% of the population. We rescued muslims in kosovo when the serbs were killing muslims in masses. We interceded in bosnia when chrisitans were running around murdering muslims in the streets.
Why? Because we are successful. And because we do not condemn isreal to slaughter.
All because the actions they themselves have taken against isreal failed. They find their brothers homeless
If you really think anti-american sentiment is the territory of extremists then you are mistaken.
EPT
