I think something is seriously amiss here. No court would force someone to pay 45 grand to someone they accused of rape because they didn't want to cheer them on. I think we might not be getting all of the story or something because really...just look at it.
Read the article not the OP, she filed a suit to contest the teacher's decision to throw her off of the team which is just a stupid thing to do, likely this neanderthal is probably a star player on the basketball team so not supporting him whilst being on the cheer leading team wouldn't be an option. She shouldn't have dropped the rape charges would have sent a much clearer message about how she "didn't want to support him". Considering the position she was in she should have just left the team.
Jesus! she doesn't have to pay because she was raped, but because she lost a lawsuit about the cheerleading squad!
Jeeze people!
In the end it's her fault for suing the school..
No sh*t and not the point. She was trying to reattain normalcy in her life after a traumatic encounter, and found herself being pushed out of her favorite things from Homecoming to Cheerleading for everyone's comfort. This is what we call some screwed up priorities for which we need to bestow some social retribution.
Yes, she was misinformed on the law and what her rights were in the case. That's the lawyers fault, not hers. As I recall, she was about 17 when they filed suit. If she pays a dime of that to the school then that school ought to suffer some social blow back from the media. I think it's the least they can pay for prioritizing a star player who committed a serious offense over a victim.
The message here isn't that she has to pay because she was raped, but she has to pay for not conveniently fading away so everyone could forget it happened.
I understand the judge's decision, and why they sided with the school. I don't understand how they could call the lawsuit "frivolous" with the weight of the circumstances and use that to punish her.
Jesus! she doesn't have to pay because she was raped, but because she lost a lawsuit about the cheerleading squad!
Jeeze people!
In the end it's her fault for suing the school..
No sh*t and not the point. She was trying to reattain normalcy in her life after a traumatic encounter, and found herself being pushed out of her favorite things from Homecoming to Cheerleading for everyone's comfort. This is what we call some screwed up priorities for which we need to bestow some social retribution.
Yes, she was misinformed on the law and what her rights were in the case. That's the lawyers fault, not hers. As I recall, she was about 17 when they filed suit. If she pays a dime of that to the school then that school ought to suffer some social blow back from the media. I think it's the least they can pay for prioritizing a star player who committed a serious offense over a victim.
The message here isn't that she has to pay because she was raped, but she has to pay for not conveniently fading away so everyone could forget it happened.
I understand the judge's decision, and why they sided with the school. I don't understand how they could call the lawsuit "frivolous" with the weight of the circumstances and use that to punish her.
Retaining normalcy by going to FEDERAL court after losing in two previous courts?
According to the law she just made some unfortunate mistakes. Some BIG unfortunate mistakes.
She didn't cheer (for that one player), while she was on the cheerleading squad, so she got a warning. She decides to ignore the warning and continue anyway, and gets kicked off the squad.
Keep in mind:They had every right to kick her off for not cheering
She then decides to sue the school, three times, and loses the lawsuit
So she has to pay the money for the court.
Just like you would have to pay reparations if you decided to go to federal court for any other thing and lose.
Maybe the school is kinda overseeing the reason why she doesn't cheer for the guy, but that's something to talk about with the school, not FEDERAL court..
I say: Take this, sue-happy people.
(also it was in response to 3/4th of the replies on this post that say 'OMG WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO THAT YOU GET FINED FOR GETTING RAPED' because the rape isn't the point here..
Getting kicked off from the cheer squad is the same thing as loosing all your chance to get college funding. Since most can't afford this without, she might just have lost her chance to go to college.
theNater said:
I need to ask you this: do teachers of 6 year old children have the authority to punish their students for yelling during class?
Grateful that you asked this. The answer is no. The worst thing a teacher is allowed to do is to take the kid out of class, give him a stern talking, then returning to class. Telling to kid to shut up (in those words) might actually get the teacher punished. If we are thinking more serious things like this being repeated the kid is actually warned before hand that if he does not change his actions they will have to do something. Also this is not a matter of free speech and rights. Because your right stops where they impose on someone else's rights.
I will stand on my claim that I am done with this discussion, but I will take back what I said about you making good points. You clearly don't know the law, so this is pointless.
I am ashamed to take residence in this state, then again I wasn't born here so I suppose thats something in my favor. I never really understood the obsession with high school sports here, and from the school I now work at it seems to run more like a very odd corporation with few people actually catering to the needs of the students. Not a day goes by were I don't facepalm by the antics of this state, but lumping everyone into the miasma of idiocy is not entirely correct. At any given rate, this event doesn't really perplex me much, but it was one of the facepalm moments when I saw it on the local news. I apologize...These people know not what they speak of.
A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school's cheer leading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.
Normally stuff like this makes me rage so hard I am unable to type,this time I am sort of in a transcended state of pure rage so I am able to coherently type.It happened in the US in Texas btw.
So,what are the Escapists feelings on this,I consider myself level headed and understand crazy shit happens in this world,but if I had a daughter who got raped and I had to pay the rapists legal fees,I think I would instead use that money to buy guns and ammo and go postal on the judge and rapist.This is if I was 100% certain my daughter got raped.
Your comment somehow reminds me of Grishems' first novel.
That's Texas, love. Age of consent is 17, and in my opinion it'll deteriorate till it hits pre-pubescent girls. It has a mindset of its own, it was and will probably remain an independant republic at heart.
Best solution is public humiliation. It doesn't kill off the person, doesn't require you to spend many resources and it teaches a valuable lesson. Though at these cases of serious crimes like rape I'd consider mutilation of the body as a sign of shame. A brand on the skin on his forehead or chest, something that'll make him instantly recognizable as a rapist.
That's biblical punishment for you. But many would simply pay for housing, food and security for criminals so that may a fence seperate them from the outside world for a few years.
* high fives an English early 17th century colonist*
This is not a defence, nor an attack. Just a clarification of sorts:
1) The line where it says "The charge of rape was dropped" means, as far as the courts and the justice system is concerned - it didn't happen. You may believe that it did, but the courts themselves are bound to this fact.
2) If it is (excuse the expression) 'the law of the land' that the loser may have to pay the legal fees of the accused, and one enters the legal preceedings with this knowledge in mind, then exceptions should not need to be made. It is a hard case, yes, but hard cases make bad law.
3) I think the below series of quotations says everything that isn't a knee-jerk reaction to the headline.
Aur0ra145 said:
mega48man said:
texas? oh yeah, they better shoot the rapist instead of paying him. it's absolute bullshit that the court isn't being leniant what so ever on the cheerleader.
They never did pay him. Also, he was only convicted of misdemeanor assault. Not rape, Not Sexual Assault.
Ladette said:
TheSkaAssassin said:
ITT: people who think it's funny to hate on Texas.
I will not apologize for my state. While I think that this is a terrible situation, I think the school had every right to throw her off the cheerleading squad for insubordination.
Don't take it personally, overly impulsive people who refuse to see a situation objectivley tend to cast blame on the first thing that pops into their heads. Why yes, it is rather bigoted, but lets not let little details like that get in the way.
I've never even been to Texas, so this isn't me defending my own.
For the 50th time: She isn't being made to pay compensation for refusing to cheer, she's being made to pay compensation because she sued the school in a frivolous lawsuit that did nothing but waste the schools time and money. Now they want her to pay their legal bills. They are 100% in the right in seeking compensation. Taking to a higher court wouldn't change a goddamn thing. It was stupid lawsuit that never stood a chance.
Thank the lord there are a few sane people on these forums. I was starting to lose hope for peoples ability to think critically. Hell I even made a post earlier and expected a lot of people to try and retort it and I haven't been quoted once. *sigh*
Aur0ra145 said:
Ladette said:
Could someone who knows the law explain why the guy who assaulted her only got probation and community service? Because that seems like a really light sentence. Did Johnny Cochran rise from the grave to take the case?
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.
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
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.
This is literally injustice. Those guys are pigs to even consider charging her $45,000 over a simple thing of refusing to cheer for someone who molested her - what the crap is wrong with humanity? Seriously.. this is unfair to a whole new level.
The court fined her $45,000 for taking the law suite to three different courts and losing each time. The fine was for court fees incurred by the school district for her excessive amount of appeals.
Look at it this way, $15,000 per court case. That seems reasonable. I'm even glad they fined her, how would you like it if someone took you to court three times, lost all three times, and you were not compensated for your financial expenditures to represent yourself with an attorney.
Caramel Frappe said:
So the guy who sexually assaults a woman not only gets away with it,
She is not fined for failing to clap for him. She is fined for taking the case to court 3 times and losing each time. $15,000 compensation per trial for the school district.
Caramel Frappe said:
This sickens me, the school should be sued and the man should be brought to jail. I really can't stand our justice system sometimes, 'Justice is blind' my butt..
By the man, I believe you are referring to the athlete. He was convicted of assault and is/was serving his time for his penalty, a Class C Misdemeanor.
In this instance, justice was most certainly blind. It doesn't matter why she didn't cheer. It's the mere fact that she chose not to cheer, and if that is within her right or not, is what was in question.
The court ruling makes perfect sense. She wasn't forced to be on the cheer squad. She violated the terms of her privilege to be on the team. So, they excluded her from the team.
Did this get out of hand? Yes, I would say so. But she should never have gotten so "sue happy" with the school.
it is texas. fuck texas. basically fuck the south i've seen racist/sexist behavior out of most of the self procliamed southerners i've seen. i'm sure there are perfectly reasonable southerners but i haven't read up on their cases.
Getting kicked off from the cheer squad is the same thing as loosing all your chance to get college funding. Since most can't afford this without, she might just have lost her chance to go to college.
A cheerleading scholarship is not the only way to get college funding.
Also, you didn't originally say she might have lost her chance, you implied that she did, which is not something any of us know.
Yopaz said:
Grateful that you asked this. The answer is no. The worst thing a teacher is allowed to do is to take the kid out of class, give him a stern talking, then returning to class. Telling to kid to shut up (in those words) might actually get the teacher punished. If we are thinking more serious things like this being repeated the kid is actually warned before hand that if he does not change his actions they will have to do something. Also this is not a matter of free speech and rights. Because your right stops where they impose on someone else's rights.
So a stern talking to outside of class isn't a punishment?
Also note that this girl was warned before hand that if she did not change her actions, the coach would have to do something. The coach even specified that the "something" would be kicking her off the squad.
New question: does the basketball player have a right to not be treated as if he was guilty of a crime he was not found guilty of?
Yopaz said:
I will stand on my claim that I am done with this discussion, but I will take back what I said about you making good points. You clearly don't know the law, so this is pointless.
Is the discussion still pointless if I'm learning about the law from it? Because I'm not here in an attempt to score points, I'm here to learn and help others learn as best I can.
Getting kicked off from the cheer squad is the same thing as loosing all your chance to get college funding. Since most can't afford this without, she might just have lost her chance to go to college.
A cheerleading scholarship is not the only way to get college funding.
Also, you didn't originally say she might have lost her chance, you implied that she did, which is not something any of us know.
Yopaz said:
Grateful that you asked this. The answer is no. The worst thing a teacher is allowed to do is to take the kid out of class, give him a stern talking, then returning to class. Telling to kid to shut up (in those words) might actually get the teacher punished. If we are thinking more serious things like this being repeated the kid is actually warned before hand that if he does not change his actions they will have to do something. Also this is not a matter of free speech and rights. Because your right stops where they impose on someone else's rights.
So a stern talking to outside of class isn't a punishment?
Also note that this girl was warned before hand that if she did not change her actions, the coach would have to do something. The coach even specified that the "something" would be kicking her off the squad.
New question: does the basketball player have a right to not be treated as if he was guilty of a crime he was not found guilty of?
Yopaz said:
I will stand on my claim that I am done with this discussion, but I will take back what I said about you making good points. You clearly don't know the law, so this is pointless.
Is the discussion still pointless if I'm learning about the law from it? Because I'm not here in an attempt to score points, I'm here to learn and help others learn as best I can.
Well, think of the logics here. Do you get a sport scholarship without attending any sports? No, That answer stays the same no matter what.
She was warned about her actions beforehand, but not before she joined which means she was forced to do this after she had joined, she had not been given informations about how this was against the rules before that, because that's not something they foresee. She did not agree to terms about waiving her rights, that's the end of this,. If you don't know the law, please just stop this, I am sick of this pointless debate.
The basketball player was found not guilty? Did you miss the part where he confessed to it? Did you miss the part where he received 2 years probation and mandatory anger management? He was found not guilty of rape or sexual assault. He was however found guilty of assault. Also she didn't chat that he was a dick, a rapist or a violent person. She simply wanted to ignore him. However this case has dragged him out for the media again portrayed as sexual predator to those who don't read the article.
Final information to you. If someone warns you about that you don't have rights 5 minutes before they punish you for using your rights, then you are somewhere who never had the rights at all.
Please, stop this pointless discussion I have already admit that the reason we disagree is that we see this case from different angles. You see the case for what it is. I see the case for what it could be.
One last thing, you are clearly not learning anything about the law if you haven't learned the terms for waiving someone's rights by now. Hint: She never did.
She is a cheerleader, it's her job to lead cheering. If I don't do my job then I get fired, if I don't want to do it, then why am I working there. She knows she was going to have to cheer for him when she decided to be a basketball cheerleader. Then they get rid of her for not doing what she's supposed to do and her parents who must be 'sue crazy' decided to make a few sextra (See what I did there) dollars and took them to court when the school had the right to teminate her. If a cheerleader cannot cheer with the rest of the team, or can't remember the corography (I know thats wrong) do they not get the boot?
Her parents deserve to pay that $45k and then some. If they continue to push it they need to pay more. Drop the subject and count your losses. Maybe the court system will count theirs and let it go also. If he raped her and the court dropped it then there wasn't the right evidence to push it through, either that or there was evidence against her that it wasn't what she wanted.. I bet she's a white chick who happened to be surrounded by black guys, drunk and what not. She didn't get raped, her dad found out and was upset so she cried rape and took them to court.
You seriously suck for saying that. You know next to nothing about the case, and yet you so clearly and cavalierly assume that a rape victim is just a lawsuit happy, drunken slut, and that if she doesn't want to cheer her rapist, she shouldn't be allowed to cheer for anyone.
And to continue your silly little metaphor, if you were raped by your boss, and he plea bargained the charge down to assault (what happened in the case, if you bothered to look it up), got to keep his job because he's just a fantastic employee otherwise, wouldn't you cry foul if your company fired you from a job you otherwise love because you couldn't get along with the fucking RAPIST you work under!?
Few things buddy, if my boss raped me, it'd be really odd, cause I work at a family business. Also plea, bargins are in place when not enough evidence has been presented to push through a case and the court just wants to get something out there. How do I know that, because I'm working on a plea bargin right now. Also, this is SUE.S.A you can't have a sidewalk in front of your house with a crack in the cement because if your mailman trips on it twists his ankle, guess what. LAWSUIT! Also, if he got to keep his position, I'd either quit or suck that shit
up. Why, because I'm not a *****. Hope she doesn't drink as much at the next party...
Okay so reading through that, the $45,000 comes from her having to reimburse to school for suits and appeals she brought against them and which she lost.
Lost becaue, while performing as a cheerleader girls and women apparently don't have the right to free speech.
That bold part right there is a far bigger issue if you ask me. I say she'd get much further if she were to appeal this new rooling based on the fact that one of her basic rights was being violated.
Unless there is some sort of epic fine print contract that high school cheerleaders sign (akin to non-disclosure agreements) that I am unaware of?
Why would freedom of speech extend to a voluntary activity you put yourself in? Just because you have the right of free speech doesn't mean you have the right for it to be free of consequences. You have the right to call your boss a fuckhead in the middle of a business meeting, and you would have no recourse under free speech when you were fired. The cheerleading team would have been a voluntary association - if she had been yelling out racial slurs and offensive language rather than keeping silent, do you believe the team still shouldn't have the right to remove her?
A lot of people in this thread have a fundamantal misunderstanding of how the law works.
And how US freedom of speech works. I'm Australian and it appears that I know more about American law than most people in this thread do.
No, that persons just...I can't find the wording for it.
And you're right about how she should've been kicked off the team if she wasn't participating, but this was in the course of a couple free throws that she didn't participate in. She could've had something stuck in her throat for the duration of it and she wouldn't get in trouble. Instead they made a horrible call to even kick her off the team instead of a scolding at the most.
And $45,000? I have a feeling that school is hurting in the budget department.
this makes me sick. I can understand the counter-lawsuit by itself, but the truth is that it should never have had to happen, because the girl should have won the first lawsuit. this is ridiculous and disturbing. not only that, its sad, i feel deeply for the poor girl, and i hope she knows that so many support her.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
