Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap 'rapist'

[PowerC]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheerleader-must-compensate-school-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html

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.

Ridiculous, maybe we should just let Texas go, as far as I'm concerned it brought us nothing but trouble. People shouldn't do this to a young girl who's been abused.

 

[dmase]

He'll be leaving high school and going straight to jail in no time.

Don't you mean "leaving high school, committing several more rapes and then going to jail," really? It may not take long on the geological clock, but they'll be a long few minutes in each future victim's life, not to mention the rest of their lives.

Its a statement not that I approve and rape is probably the worst or second worst crime he could commit given the god complex he is probably developing. I've known people who's parents give them large amounts of money and almost what ever they want and they still robbed places, several places. Just because they feel invincible. Armed robbery is a steep offense as well, and one that I think is more likely at this point.

 

[Ursinedriver]

As sick as it makes me, the school is in the right on this one. In her capacity as cheerleader, she gives up here right to free speech and becomes a mouth piece for the school. If they tell her to say something, she either says it or faces the consequences. When you work as a mascot at Disney world you can't talk at all, let alone disparage Disney, its the same for any spokes person. The only one truly in the wrong here is the rapist and the court that let him fucking walk.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

Well, the way I see it, one of two things has happened...

1): We're not being told everything.

2): Parts of America are actually as pants-on-head retarded as the steryotype would have us believe.

 

[Kargathia]

The kid was found guilty of sexual assault in a federal court, and is facing the penalty for that. there was not enough evidence so he was no convicted of rape. The girl brought the school to civil court for kicking her off the team and lost, that's why she has to pay. (not trying to be condescending just relaying the facts)

One correction: he was not found guilty of sexual assault. Just common assault.

And yea, legally there's nothing wrong with how the second issue was handled.

Ethically this whole thing is so fubar it's insulting.

 

[bpm195]

Given that the prosecutor decided to allow a misdemeanor assault charge instead of going to trial, and the defense decided to accept the misdemeanor assault charge instead of going to trial, I'm going to bet that the sexual assault allegation was in the grey area of teenage judgement where none of the involved parties were competent to make decisions at the time of time of the incident. Therefore I wouldn't slander the guy as a rapist given the seriousness of that title versus the available information.

Frankly, assigning the title rapist to every man that's ever been acquitted of rape degrades all accusations of rape.

I've just realised
perhaps the American justice system is different and doesn't work in the same way
but in the British legal system (and a number of other democratic legal systems that i know of) If you sue someone and lose, you can't be held to PAY THEM. You're the one that brought the claim to the courts, and if you lose it just means it's been disproven and everyone walks away as they were.
Its only if the claimant wins that any compensation can be awarded

So i'm adamant that this story is bullshit now
(despite not knowing if the same applies in the US, but they're a free thinking nation, this seriously can't have happened exactly as it says it did)

In general you're allowed to sue and not risk punishment if the person isn't found guilty. However if it's determined that there was no basis for accusation in the first place the accuser may be held responsible for legal fees and even charged criminally. This deters blatantly false allegations. Otherwise if I had the money I could easily sue any person I don't like for some random crime and cause them serious financial trouble.

 

[w1ndscar]

Unfortunately I have to agree that her duty as a voluntary cheerleader is to cheer when she has too. BUT, get fined 45k? Now that's bull shit. And also? If my daughter got raped- hell if anyone I even cared about got raped- I'd do everything I can to make sure that bastard gets what he deserves. Even if I have to do it myself. Rape could be considered one of the worst things you could do to a girl.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

pay compensation is another.

 

[poppabaggins]

1. the rape charges being dropped is bullshit.
2. why the hell would the girl be on a cheerleading squad for a team that worships this guy?
3. the ruling was decided by a FEDERAL appeals court, and actually makes sense. if you volunteer to become the voice of an organization and then publicly go against said organizations (admittedly shitty and backwards views) then that organization has every right to oust you.
4. the $45,000 is all legal fees, which the loser of the case has to pay.

 

[FamoFunk]

Why is this bloke not in jail? There's something missint to this story.

Seriously, the victim getting punished? What a sad, sad day.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

However, we must remember that this guy is also in high school (and probably a minor when the incident happened - pretty sure he'd have to be to still be on the basketball team a year later or whatever)

Hard to check this, but all the articles are calling him 19 and saying it happened in late 2008.

Interesting detail:

In a nutshell, the victim refused to cheer for her rapist, Rakheem Bolto, when Rakheem Bolton was shooting a free throw during a basketball game. Rakheem Bolton hadn?t been convicted yet, but the investigation was ongoing and Rakheem Bolton eventually plead guilty to a reduced ?assault? charge. [http://bettyfokker.wordpress.com/]

ONGOING? That ... that ... they ... *goldfish impression*

... and he plead guilty.

At the time, apparently he hadn't done any such thing, and anyway SO WHAT? If I go round there and open him from crotch to chin, tie his entrails around the rear fender of his truck and put it in drive then admit to tearing his jersey, does me admitting I tore his jersey make it okay for me to dance on his grave before the flowers have wilted?

Speaking of maps earlier: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=silsbee+texas&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=44.47475,78.310547&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Silsbee,+Hardin,+Texas&ll=30.348584,-94.177551&spn=0.380418,0.611801&t=h&z=11

Move where? That other high school in the same town? It's not that big. Just pick up the whole family and move to another town and start another job there, at huge cost, breaking off the kids' education mid-year et cetera et cetera to get away from the assailant? Why should they? Why shouldn't he have to move somewhere else, like maybe Alabama or Utah, or maybe Alaska?

 

[Chaos Ruler]

wow america is messed up. that would not happen in britain

 

[CommanderKirov]

As that requires he actually stuck his dick into her.

You were going so well. The way you chose to convey that however is something I don't appreciate.

Besides that, it's actually incorrect; vaginal penetration does not need to occur for rape to take place.

Hello. Legal definition of "rape" disagrees with you.

rape 1) n. the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation (such as a threat to harm a woman's child, husband or boyfriend).

And while there are cases when the legal interpretation can be slightly skewed
"Much difficulty has arisen in defining the meaning of carnal knowledge, and different opinions have been entertained some judges having supposed that penetration alone is sufficient, while other's deemed emission as an essential ingredient in the crime. Hawk. b. 1, c. 41, s. 3; 12 Co. 37; 1 Hale, P. C. 628; 2 Chit. Cr. L. 810. But in modern times the better opinion seems to be that both penetration and emission are necessary."

It still clearly constitutes penetration is necessary for it to be considered a rape. Every other case is sexual molestation.


And I honestly would want to go through all your other posts to point out logical mistakes, populist quotes from "Researches" and general lack of ability to look on the subject from objective viewpoint and instead deciding to emotionally engage yourself in the discussion thinking your moral standpoint gives you a clear argumentative(?Spelling?) advantage over everyone else...

But I honestly value my time too much, still if someone else is up for it please go ahead.


Disclaimer: I do not claim that rape is by any mean a minor offense and I do not want to marginalize the trauma that rape victims go through.

Have a nice day.

 

[direkiller]

Two points here.

Unless I'm reading this wrong.

1: The girl in question was not fined. She was ordered to pay compensation to a party she had brought a law suit against.

2: The man in question was never actually convicted of rape.

I can't say I agree with the courts decision but the headlines and statements in regards to this event are very misleading.

He plead guilty to a lesser charge of assault. So he was still convicted of a crime involving her.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I know people are going to disagree with this but here it goes anyway.

I can understand how the school/courts could see this case as 'frivolous'. This guy was let back on the basketball team after the initial incident. Chances are good that this wasn't a big secret. So from the schools point of view, she should have realized, that at some point being on the cheer squad she would have to cheer for the basketball team and through that, the person who assaulted her. With that train of thought, she had several choices that she could have done to avoid the situation at the game. She could have talked to the coach to see about not participating during basketball games and if that wasn't an option she could have removed herself from the squad. So in short she had ways to avoid the situation and as far as I can tell from the story, she didn't even attempt any of them.

Also, if the person who raped your daughter, was back in the same school as her, wouldn't you see about moving her to a different school?

So the victim of rape is the one who has to give up her hobbie? and school life so as not to inconvenient the rapist?

so the victim is allowed to swing their misfortunes around like a sword forcing every one to conceed to their point of view?

she could of approched this in a professional manner talking to many people before hand thus avoiding this situation all together... but what did she do? Stand there like a tart in an attempt to prove a point and paint the guy as some sort of bad guy.

also, He repaid his debt to society...
why is every one so keen on treating him like a no name criminal even after he did his time?

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Just because they feel invincible. Armed robbery is a steep offense as well, and one that I think is more likely at this point.

Sweet thought, oh yes.

 

[Krion_Vark]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheerleader-must-compensate-school-that-told-her-to-clap-rapist-2278522.html

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.

Actually reading the article you are kind of not really reading the article. The charges are against THE SCHOOL not the person who raped her. She is being told to pay the compensation TO THE SCHOOL not the rapist. The way you are wording it makes it seem like shes paying the rapist.

Also I have to kind of agree with the courts here that as a cheerleader you are being a vocal member of the school and are obligated to cheer whether or not she likes it. I also have to say +1 for the legal system because this is in no way infringing on her rights. She is being kicked off the cheer squad not out of the school or being told that she cannot go to any games. The ruling is insensitive but unreasonable I have to say is suing the school in the first place. There really isn't much of a case here at all.

Personally I DO NOT think that this guy should even be allowed on the basketball team or allowed to even be walking around town without a tracking anklet or being registered as a sex offender. This is Texas we are talking about though where high school sports are pretty much the same thing if not more popular than pro-sports.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I am not saying she didn't get raped. I completely sympathize that this is a difficult situation, but many people are saying "she got raped" for sure, in my eyes the odds are pretty much 50/50, even if it did happen it could have been someone else (others were involved if I remember correctly from the article).

At the very least, he admitted sexual assault and was likely complicit in an act of rape. I'm not saying he definitely did it, but even without knowing the full details 50/50 is an extremely generous assessment of the situation. His actions do not engender a great deal of confidence in his innocence.

Why should she be allowed to go around saying that she was raped by him when there is no proof such a thing ever happened? Why should she be able to go to a civil court and try to state this as fact when it has never been proven by a criminal or civil court?

Because it may have happened, and it may have been fact. Again, insufficient evidence is not a guarantee of innocence. Legally he is still considered innocent - hence why he is not in jail, but in real terms the case has not been proven either way. Unless he can demonstrate that he didn't do it, why does anyone have an obligation to take him more seriously than her?

I think you might be a pedophille. Am I allowed to print this in a magazine? Announce it in public? Refuse to answer you as part of a job working at a call centre? I can present evidence with regards to publications or announcements, but I cannot state it as fact and I cannot refuse to fulfill obligations based on unsubstantiated claims.

You could do all of those things. It's just that it wouldn't be very hard for me to refute the claim that I was a paedophile and you have no evidence. It's also a completely different circumstance. Accusing someone of being a rapist implies they have raped someone, accusing someone of being a paedophile cannot generally be linked to a single concrete allegation and is a general term of offence.

Just because someone 'might' have done something doesn't mean you can declare it as fact, particularly not in a legal context.

Why not?

No court can sit you down and tell you whether or not you have been raped. They can tell you they can't convict due to insufficient evidence, but that does not determine whether or not you were actually raped.

In a legal context, people will have access to the finding and results of the previous case and can weigh up the evidence (or lack of evidence) themselves. Everything a person says in a legal context can be taken as unreliable until it is proven. Saying you were raped when you believe you were but do not have enough evidence is not an attempt to deceive the legal system, it is a statement of what a person believes to be true to the best of their knowledge, which is exactly what a court demands people to give. The legal system is relatively well equipped to handle such assertions responsibly.

It only becomes defamation if the statement in question can be proved to be a deliberate attempt to harm the reputation of the 'rapist', which requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that that is her intention. If she published an article in a newspaper or the allegation was outright proven to be untrue, then yes, that could be read as an attempt at defamation. Merely continuing to assert personally and in court that you have been raped when it has not been legally proved or disproved is not defamation.