Wait, why did refusing to clap land her with a fine? The worst that should have happened is she gets kicked off of the team, wtf is with the fine?
I doubt the full story is here.
I doubt the full story is here.
Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'
- Thread starter slowpoke999
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Read the article please.ultrachicken said:
She didn't get fined for refusing to clap. She actually didn't get fined at all. What happened was that she sued. And lost. And lost again. And lost once more. The third time, the court made her pay the other side's legal fees for wasting everyone's time.
edit: just read the article again, and yeah it's pretty biased and doesn't explain entirely what actually happened.
Yup, I'm the immature one. Even though I'm trying to see the issue from both sides and be reasonable about it using my knowledge of human nature.Hive Mind said:
I know that rape is nothing to mess around with, but is it really so hard to do a DNA exam to prove the victim's story?
I'm not a woman, and I've certainly never been raped, but I would imagine that a genital exam is nothing if it means putting the person who did that to you in jail.
I also never said that the majority of rape cases are just made up, but it does happen. Saying that it doesn't is about as immature as you attempted to make me look for stating that fact.
Anyways, to clarify: The girl in the story had been using a tampon, and for whatever reason, didn't want to have sex. They were both drunk, so it's not an issue of using someone in an altered state for sex, it's an issue of two drunk and horny college kids who got together at a party.
A few days later the girl in question apparently didn't want to admit to being seen with the guy in question, and claimed rape. Because of the fact that rape is so serious, he was nearly sentenced to prison and all of the consequences that come with being labeled as a sexual offender. However, they found her used tampon in the guys' house and made a counter-argument around it. I guess it was a pretty damn good argument, because afterwards she decided to confess that she was lying about the whole thing.
She made herself look stupid, and inadvertently insulted women and men who actually WERE raped.
I can assure you that this isn't a fabricated story. But I can't cite any sources, so you probably don't believe me anyways.
And I don't want to be the insensitive prick in the room, but seriously. People suck. There are likely just as many women willing to lie about rape to avoid being associated with a certain man, as there are men willing to commit such an evil crime.
The things America (Especially Middle America) will do on the behalf of athletes is disgusting. I know I might sound a tad radical but someone with any sexual assault charges should not be let back on a sports team... for starters.
Right.. let's accept that statistic. and then do a little thought experiment.CommanderKirov said:
The number of reported rapes in the the US per annum, according UN statistics which only count completed rapes, hover around 90,000. The Department of Justice puts the total number of sexual assaults in 2005 at around 190,000. In 2006, the Department of Justice also did a study which placed the number of reported sexual assault cases within the prison system at 2,205.
2205/140,000 = 0.0157. In percentage terms, a 1.5% reporting rate. This means your claim that prison rapes are distorting the statistics doesn't work unless the reporting rate amongst the non-prison population is even lower than that.
In fact, let's assume an incredibly generous reporting rate of 10% for sexual assaults outside of prison. Many estimates would put the number a lot lower than that. 190,000 sexual assaults (for comparison with the above statistics) multiplied by 10 is 1,900,000.
These are extremely conservative statistics. Yet as you can see there's no evidence that prison rape distorts the statistics to make rape statistics appear higher. Unless you assume an unfeasably high reporting rate amongst non-incarcerated victims, prison rape is not that statistically significant at all.
perhaps i still have too much hope in humanity, and altough i cant think of what im missing that could justify this, i have a strong feeling that im missing something
*reads article*
ok, not as bad as i thought, she is not paying the rapist, she is paying the school "reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it."
second, the guy was never convicted
"He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team."
what he was convicted of was assault
ok, its still not great, she is paying the school because she tried to sue the school for trying to make her cheer for the person that assaulted her, she lost and is paying a frivolous lawsuit fine against it
*reads article*
ok, not as bad as i thought, she is not paying the rapist, she is paying the school "reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it."
second, the guy was never convicted
"He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team."
what he was convicted of was assault
ok, its still not great, she is paying the school because she tried to sue the school for trying to make her cheer for the person that assaulted her, she lost and is paying a frivolous lawsuit fine against it
People are getting more idiotic every day. Throw the guy in jail and give the girl some therapy. She NEEDS it. People shouldnt be allowed to get away with this or with such a small sentence. RECAP: Rapist stays on team and does not go to jail while girl gets fined for doing what's right....just.... enough.
Did you read that article, because you've totally taken it out of context.Gardenia said:
The false charge category in that table includes a variety of cases.
1) Cases where a possible rape was reported by someone other than the alleged victim but no evidence was found and the person in question denied being raped.
2) Cases where a person was bought in drunk or incoherent with evidence which might indicate rape (torn clothes, for example) but again no evidence was found and the person in question denied being raped upon sobering up.
3) Cases where people have a degree of memory loss and report to police because they are generally worried about what might happened, but no evidence is found.
4) Cases in which the alleged victim themselves retracts the claim of rape.
5) Cases in which the alleged victim was deemed to be inconsistent or unreliable in their account of events, or is non cooperative about giving information.
The vast majority of cases in the 'false charge' category featured no named assailant.
The article itself states very clearly that the rate of actual false reporting is extremely exaggerated by the media and police officers, and that actually there's no evidence that genuine false reporting rates are any higher than for any other crime. That's actually the entire conclusion of the section on false reporting, it ends by stating very clearly that far too many cases are being placed in the false reporting category because of police mishandling or preconceptions.
Seriously, check your sources actually match up with the point you're trying to make.
that's very scary what you're proposing. The kind of system you're suggesting is that if any woman claims rape, then without evidence, he goes straight to the... eh... "wangotine".Happy Toki Toki said:
The point of the justice system is to allow both sides to present evidence and argument for their cases. You're promoting the elimination of such and the re-introduction of arbitrary and irrational justice, for the mere sake of a rather temporary emotional gratification!
I feel sick after reading the article. People need to learn we no longer live in the 1920's. This kind of shit should not be tolerated nor should it even be allowed to happen in the first place. And anybody who would believe somebody who can throw a ball is more important than the basic rights of any individual has no business whatsoever being involved in the school system.
This is because, generally speaking, all first time offenders (misdemeanors, State Jail, 3rd and 2nd Class felonies) in sex related crimes receive community supervision (probation.) Albeit, they do have to submit to things like fingerprinting, giving DNA, child safety zones, registering as a sex offender, penile plethysmographs and fines, plus a huge amount of other intermediate sanctions. Additionally, in sex related crimes in the state of Texas the court can decided to engage in aftercare. Meaning, there is a chance if you are not rehabilitated to continue community supervision until the agent of the court (probation officer) sees you as fit to completely reenter society without any supervision.Ladette said:
The reason for this sort of action can result from plea bargaining, sentence bargaining and the like. Though the reason a vast majority of these people are entered into community supervision is because the state of Texas has an overpopulation of the penal system. That's right, Texas locks-up so many people they've run out of room for some different types of offenders.
Without knowing exactly what he was convicted it is difficult to tell you exactly why he got community supervision. Though, it should be noted that Texas follows a rather 'determinate' sentencing structure so courts are not permitted to dole out any punishment they seem fit, it is rather written into the penal code, "if you do X you will get Y."
I just looked at the penal code. Both articles said he got assault so that falls under
Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
[cut]
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C misdemeanor
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
[cut]
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) or (3) is a Class C misdemeanor
On topic:
This is a bad day for the legal system in Texas. I being a resident of Texas see this as being a horrible thing for the girl.
With that said, I get how the court came to its decision. I even understand about the fine she received.
Basically. The chick engaged in a VOLUNTARY school activity. She does not have to participate in these events.
A condition of being in this VOLUNTARY organization is to cheer at school events. She chose not to cheer.
This gave the coach grounds for her removal from the cheer team.
End of story.
But it gets more interesting, she chose not to cheer because one of the players was convicted of assault against her. I see this as being very noble of her. Hell, I would do the same thing she did, I would never cheer for someone who assaulted me. But the subject matter of why she was not cheering is of no concern in the legal system. None what so ever, because she voluntarily chose to be a cheer leader and accepted the terms and conditions of being in the cheer squad. When she accepted these terms she voluntarily suspended her right to free speech while participating in cheer events.
With the violation of her contract with the cheer squad she was removed.
So she sues the school district.
The article said that they went through 2 different courts which ruled against her claim to freedom of expression. Okay.
So now, if I read the article correctly it says that she went to a federal appeals court (third try) and lost, furthermore she was instructed to pay a fine of $45,000 dollars to the school district most likely for court fees because she challenged the decision 3 times.
My thoughts:
This really really sucks. It's a bad situation any way you put it. Though I do believe that the emphasis of these articles focuses to much on the "sexism," "High School Sports OMMHGEEE!" "free speech" stuff. In all honestly this case was about violation of a contract with a voluntary organization. I think the court did the right thing, they stuck to the law. Yeah, it's not pretty, and it's really bad for the girl, but she had no grounds for engaging in more than 1 court case. Even then, it's hard to see why the court even heard the case in the first place. Voluntary means voluntary, you don't have to be there if you don't agree with it.
Had she been REQUIRED to be on the team then we wouldn't get this same end result.
Thrown off a cheerleading squad? Bullshit, but hey worse things can happen.
Losing an appeal for both injustices and having to pay for the legal fees? Just disgraceful. Justice system can be gamed to such injustice sometimes. Is there any word about if this basketball player was a rising star on the team? Someone who was looking to be scouted by a college team? If the small town was already sports-obsessed, I could see at least someone willing to bend the justice system, get the kid out of what he did for the sake of his future 'career' and, of course, all the money that would come from it.
Losing an appeal for both injustices and having to pay for the legal fees? Just disgraceful. Justice system can be gamed to such injustice sometimes. Is there any word about if this basketball player was a rising star on the team? Someone who was looking to be scouted by a college team? If the small town was already sports-obsessed, I could see at least someone willing to bend the justice system, get the kid out of what he did for the sake of his future 'career' and, of course, all the money that would come from it.