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

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    If such harassment occurred, the courts could deal with it as such.

    I don't agree, because:

    - One assumes that indecent assault is against the school rules, as well as the law. The school can therefore punish as it sees fit.

    - The perp doesn't have a right to play for the basketball team; the school can use whatever criteria it chooses for selection. Most sports have a "bringing the game into disrepute" type clause in their rules which covers illegal behavior off the field of play.

    Again, I disagree. This is the philosophy which leads to the Steubenville situation, where rape is covered up because the rights of the victim are seem as less important than those of the 'entire' team.

    Just because there's more of them doesn't make them more important.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. WMAnon Member

    Yes it is.
    Pro-tip: if you want to be on the right side of an argument, don't side with the guy convicted of sexual assault.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    I don't quite agree - criminals have rights too. Although I disagree with Voluntarily in this instance, I don't see anything wrong with them making the argument for the rights of the perp. I've found it a though-provoking discussion (perhaps that's just me).
  4. Anonymous Member

  5. Anon above is correct to say that schools do have discretion in choosing who plays/doesn't play.

    My contention is that the schools also have no duty to punish beyond what the courts require. The school did no wrong in giving this convict a chance to play basketball, as it would be doing no wrong in giving a kid caught with drugs or a kid convicted of drunk driving a chance to play basketball.

    It's a school.

    It's not a place of employment, or a jail, or a court.

    If a kid can't get a 2nd chance at school, where can a kid get a 2nd chance in America? I'm not saying EVERY school should have such lax policies as this particular school, but there should be schools where kids who have made a mistake can get a 2nd chance at organized sports.

    I don't have "Steubenville mentality," but thanks for the comparison. The kid was already convicted of the assault. That is in the past.

    Now he plays basketball at a school that will let him, and she cheerleads at that same school. She contends that her right to freedom of speech is more important than her entire cheer squad, the uniform they wear, and the basketball team they cheer for. I say, and the courts agreed, that the individual right to freedom of speech ended when she agreed to be a cheerleader, a 'mouthpiece' for the school. So her individual right to free speech IS LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE SCHOOL'S in this situation. At least according to the courts.

    I say she had a duty when she joined the team and put on the uniform to participate in its mandatory activities, or to speak her grievance about them, and so she was properly expelled from the squad when she chose the wrong time to air her grievance.
  6. Anonymous Member

    Which proves only that the courts can get it wrong. NO institution is more important than the people that institution serves.
    A school does not have rights, only people do. So what you are really saying is the representatives of the school have more rights than the students.
    And you wonder why I called a little shit. You keep presenting shitty little arguments.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  8. WMAnon Member

    I agree they have rights, but odds are good if you're picking sides between the guy who got convicted of sexual assault and the victim, there's a right side to be on. The discussion is irritating to me because there are already so few people willing to take the side of sexual assault victims, it's not like he's playing devil's advocate because no one else will stand up for the poor little rapist.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    Cheerleading is a sport with a nation and worldwide competition. We are talking about one school athlete who assaulted another school athlete. And the second school athlete was expelled from the squad because that competitive school athlete didn't applaud the convicted felon who attacked the school athlete. Just drop the sex issues. Make the arguments gender-free and look at the problem again.
    • Like Like x 3
  10. Institutions like schools and corporations actually do have a right to speech. Go ahead and look it up if you need to.

    I love how everyone here is calling this boy a convicted felon, when he isn't.

    He was convicted of a misdemeanor.
  11. WMAnon Member

    I love how "everyone" is you and the one post before yours.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Unless the assault took place in school grounds then no, the school has no responsibility or right to further punish the offender. It was dealt with by the courts and the school possibly had no knowledge of this, also it takes time for these things to come to court, had the victim no other situations at school where their paths had crossed? It seems like this situation was engineered by either the victim or those around her to cause problems for the attacker.

    If it were my daughter I would advise careful consideration before taking part in cheer leading if the attacker was on the team. If she was unhappy with the courts sentencing then that's a different issue, but she would have to learn that a conviction does not necessarily affect every part of someone's life. It was misdemeanor assault he was convicted of, not rape, as a previous poster said its not for the schools to restructure things due to outside events because it could get very difficult to appease certain parties.

    The school did not cause this situation, so it did not have to consider anything. The school can't be expected to keep track of every kid and what it gets upto outside of school and bring judgement upon their actions. That's a foolish line of thought.
  13. Anonymous Member

    The guy wasn't convicted of rape so drop the rapist label, the courts stuck up for the victim when they convicted him, they did not stick up for her when she tried to take the issue further by involving the school. You have Steubenville fever.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Please point to the person convicted of sexual assault or gtfo
  15. Anonymous Member

    The courts dealt with the problem, no need for school to get involved, if the victim harasses offender in school then that's for the school to deal with, you are confusing the issues.

    Again, the assault (not sexual as convicted) did not take place at school so the school has no right to take further actions.

    Steubenville was a completely different situation.
  16. Anonymous Member

    This is the essence of the problem. If the child is a minor, she cannot enter into a contract to restrict her rights. If she was at the school the government mandated, then it simply makes it even worse, telling her in essence that she has to give up her rights in order to participate in her high school activities.
    It is clear the court is talking out its ass on this one.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    Someone certainly is........
  18. You forgot post #6.

    Also, people are calling him rapist when he wasn't convicted of rape.

    It's lovely, isn't it? Maybe next someone will call him a Skinhead or Nazi.
  19. Anonymous Member

  20. Anonymous Member

    Voluntarily here.

    The courts are likewise the authority with whom to seek a RESTRAINING ORDER, which would have also been a perfect solution to this girl's problem.

    I've been saving this, because I hadn't had a chance to look up the law relating to restraining minors. You can certainly have a minor restrained from being close to another minor.

    A restraining order would have forced the boy into another school, and solved this whole problem.

    The girl certainly had grounds to do it.

    Instead, she chose to join the cheer team; she chose not to seek redress for her grievance against the basketball player until it was too late, despite knowing the duties of the cheer squad; she chose instead to publicly embarrass her school while wearing its uniform; she then chose to sue her school, which represents the interests of many other students, and has a duty defend those students' interests.

    She could have/should have sought legal redress against the boy, not her school.

    For everyone who has said that the boy should have been kicked off the basketball team, or kicked out of the same school as the girl, a restraining order was the way to have gotten it done.

    It's too bad it didn't happen that way.
  21. Anonymous Member

    One of the interests they were supposed to represent was the girl herself. So they were clearly in a conflict of interest which they didn't resolve. It wasn't her job to do so, it was the duty of the school to protect all their students. They allowed a known criminal to attend their school.

    Of course, this was mandated by law, so the law is clearly asinine to allow a person to plead rape down to a lesser offense and then still be allowed to attend the same school.
    Her school failed her. When she pointed this out, they and the courts slapped her down.
    This is not the precedent you want to set for society.
    • Like Like x 4
  22. I'm afraid you've got me confused, there.

    The school is not responsible for restraining this boy.

    Neither is the girl.

    Her parents are the ones who should have been responsible for seeking the court's order in restraining this boy.

    Her parents failed to protect this girl's interests adequately. Not the school.
  23. Because no one has EVER been sexually assaulted in Canada.

    And if it ever happened that someone happened to be sexually assaulted in Canada, no drama could possibly EVER ensue as a result.

    Because Canadians are all the classiest sirs and madams, who would know to handle sexual assault with nothing but the noblest and most dignified demeanor, if it were to ever occur in this socially refined nation.


    Ooops, that's not a picture of a classy and dignified Canadian. I'm sure I can find some, though.



    View attachment
  24. What nonsense.

    The school basketball match, whether played on school grounds or not, fell under the aegis of the school authorities, and therefore what happened there was their responsibility. If it were not their responsibility, then they would have no say in whether the cheerleaders clapped or not.

    But they obviously did have a say. Acting in the place of the child's parents, as is their clear duty, they chose to order her to clap a boy who molested her (which is obnoxious and unconscionable), or leave the team.

    Since they had the right to offer those choices to the girl, they also had the right to remove the molester from the school team, if they saw fit (which would not have been obnoxious and unconscionable).

    Instead, they chose the obnoxious option. We can only speculate why, but it seems that they chose to focus on this troublesome girl who was disrupting their beloved basketball team.
    • Like Like x 5
  25. Anonymous Member

    You hit the nail on the head but then got confused and lost, yes, the sporting event was the schools responsibility, events leading up to the showdown were not, the school could only judge on events that occurred at the match. The victim had other options rather than forcing the school to get involved in something that had been dealt with by the courts. The victim and family would have known this conflict was a given if the victim was part of the cheer leading team. Like yourself they are confusing the outside world with school and their responsibilities. They chose to seek revenge via the school but this was not the way to go, as proven by the courts decision. School is not the place for personal grievances.
  26. Sorry, but I find your argument seriously skewed. The school chose to get involved when they took action after the girl refused to clap her molester, did they not? The girl did not force them to act. At that time (and I would seriusly doubt that they did not know long beforehand), they must have known the reasons for her refusal, or should have taken steps to find out. That circumstance alters the case of 'what happened at the match'. If the girl had justifiable reasons for her actions, that should alter the subsequent decisions made by the school authorities.

    I defy anyone to argue that the girl did not have such justifiable reasons for her action in refusing to clap her molester.

    If they didn't take those steps, it is a serious omission. Whethyer nthey did or not, they forced (they are the ones in power here, may I remind you) an unacceptable choice to the girl, rather than deal reasonably with the specific circumstances.

    But the biggest weakness in your argument is the notion that there are two worlds involved - the 'world outside' and the school. It was the same boy who assaulted her outside school with whom she was forced to interact in school, wasn't it? Schools are part of the world, and they have a duty to respond to real-world situations that affect their charges while under their care. The girl had no say in whether the boy remained at the school. The school did. They might have foreseen the inevitable and decided otherwise. But they didn't, so they forced an obnoxious choice on an innocent victim instead.
    • Like Like x 3
  27. Anonymous Member

    Her lawyer must have seriously fucked up if she got slapped with costs by the court. That's not just a "you lost" verdict, that's a "Why are you here and wasting our time?"
  28. Anonymous Member

    I find it a bit interesting/unusual/concerning that the girl would want to participate in a sport <cheerleading for the basketball team> where she'd be interacting with someone who sexually assaulted her <who is a member of the basketball team> because of the likelihood of being triggered, which is very common with victims of sexual assault.

    Don't know all the facts of this case, but it's just something that strikes me as odd.
  29. Actually, the girl's parents had the duty here to seek out a restraining order from the courts. The girl did have a say in whether the boy remained at school; she could have pursued legal redress against this boy, through her parents and the courts.

    The school is not responsible for legally restraining this boy through the court system. It would have to be up to the girl and her parents. While schools do stand in loco parentis, they are not in the business of hiring legal representation, filing court fees, etc., for restraining orders of one student against another student.

    I love how none of the people who passionately argued that I was wrong are bothering to respond to this idea, since it's the best one I've had yet.

    This girl and her family already had legal recourse that did not involve suing the school. If the girl and her parents had gotten a restraining order against this boy - an action that they should have taken on their own, with the courts, and not involving the school - then it would have solved their problems. They had grounds to seek a restraining order - we know there was a crime committed by the offender against the victim. Since they went to court, they apparently hired legal representation.

    That legal representation steered this family in the completely wrong direction, suing the deeper pockets of the school rather than focusing on the legal avenue that would have actually solved the problem - restraining the boy.
  30. Anonymous Member

  31. Anonymous Member

    Good idea. That would have been a good plan.

    Was busy with Real Life!

    Exactly 1005 right in every respect.

    Rape culture not quite such a problem for our snowy friends with the weird pronunciation of "aboooot", though, is it?
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member

    Bah. I meant 100%. But make it 1005%.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Rape culture isn't the same as rape/sexual assault, but let's ignore the semantics and look at facts/stats as provided by Canada itself:

    In the US, it's one in four girls and one in six boys, so...
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    Because I was curious...

    Canada: 0.8% (100% more than the US)
    US: 0.4%

    What these stats measured:
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    They already did legal action. If you read the OP:

    ...and NO. The girl did NOT have a say in whether or not he remained in the school. The school DID have a say as to whether the Rape Rodent Boy could play B-Ball after the misdemeanor charges. However, that solely laid in the hands of the school district and they chose to sweep it under the rug.

    No, but they could have expelled/suspended him for the charges he plead guilty to. They could have removed him from all extra-curricular activities that are privileges and not rights.

    Let me put it this way: A school can kick a student out of extra-curricular activities for bad grades. A school can kick students out of them for DUI or possession charges.... Why not kick this vermin out for the misdemeanor for assault?

    Instead, what did they do? Business as usual. They let him go back to his normal life there because, God/Xenu/Zeus/Allah/Insert deity here or leave blank if you are an atheist/etc. forbid, they lose another "star" from their team, so they let him off scott free. Meanwhile the girl who was victimized MUST cheer for the person responsible for her agony because, God/Xenu/etc. etc... forbid she NOT show "team spirit" for the future "another person going nowhere outside this town" star.

    How do you know the family didn't already try the restraining order path and was denied it? Never seen dox of it either way.

    Again: What proof is there that the family didn't already think of this, try it, and was denied the RO?

    Also: What makes you think the school would have kept her in the cheerleading team if she did get a TRO? They could have just as easily kicked her out based on the TRO and we'd still have seen this lawsuit. Only difference now is that the odds she would have won would have been a tad bit better.

    Because the school was wrong by doing shit against this boy in a non-legal sense and penalizing the girl for her refusal to salute the scumball. They should have penalized him for the misdemeanor charge alone, much less if the boy was found guilty of rape. Meanwhile: The school overreacted by kicking her out. It makes things look bad by doing this action.
    • Like Like x 4
  37. Anonymous Member

    Schools take sports too seriously "you have to cheer or you are out". It's the system at fault. Who's part of the system? The victim's family.
  38. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    If you live in small towns, and I am talking >10,000 people or just barely have enough people to even be allowed a school by local and state laws/ordinances, then sports is pretty much all you got going on that will get you and the town attention.

    I've lived in quite a few small towns... Towns sooo small, you can coast your car through it and still totally miss it... and the fact of the matter is: If your teams didn't exist, nobody knew the town existed in the local area. Not to mention the allure of having the next Tim Tebow or whatever sports star exists right now putting your town on the map. Granted, the odds aren't in favor of that happening, but the temptation is still there.

    That is why these kinds of towns overlook such evils. A vast majority of people didn't know Stupidville existed before the rape trial. The same amount of people probably didn't know this town existed either. Now these towns have to deal with the negative backlash and rightfully so.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Anonymous Member

  40. System Member

    trying to stay out of the argument but few posts pissed me off

    answer this will you, would YOU cheer for someone who assulted you????
    • Like Like x 3

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins