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

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

  1. You keep on deflecting the argument by referring to the courts, Voluntarily, when the thrust of my argument - the one you're disagreeing with - isn't about the courts, is it? It's...the school. Would it help if I said there is no disagreement about the legal aspects, so we can focus on the controversy?

    Well, there you go again, talking about the victim's responsibility, while not admitting to any responsibilty on the part of the school, as though it were powerless to act.

    The power differential between the superintendent and any student is huge. Add to this the fact that the student in question was sexually assaulted, and...don't make no nevermind to you. Dem's the rules.

    Thanks for addressing that. I feel much better now. (If you are confirming that those were indeed your arguments, and not some misunderstanding, then I cannot find a more apt description than the words that irked you. C'est la vie.)

    The school patently does have a responsibilty to ensure their students are safe from harm. How can they possibly carry out that responsibility without doing some kind of investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by their own students? Happens all the time, as I said. If it didn't happen all the time, if schools didn't have their ways of finding stuff out, if they were as powerless as you make out, schools would be like Lord of the Flies.

    Unfortunately, a balance was not struck. The perp got to play, got to be cheered and applauded publicly by the cheerleaders (does that not make you wince a little, Voluntarily?) while the girl got to slink away in silence, wondering what planet she was on. Where is the balance here? That's what I'm waiting eagerly to hear from you. Of course the school doesn't have prosecutorial powers, they're not the FBI, we know that. They do have to strike a balance, but it seems they chose to ignore the damage it might do to the victim by insisting she follow the rules - rules that are, by their very nature, only guidelines, and are obviously not adequate for any and all circumstances, and certainly not such as those we're discussing. That's why Mr Bain gets paid the big bucks - not for slavishly enforcing the rules, but for using his judgment.

    [snipped more stuff about da rules and the victim's responsibilities]
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Anonymous Member

    Voluntarily has deep knowledge on this incident, and even perhaps insider knowledge that contradicts with newspaper reports. I am claiming conflict of interest undeclared.
  4. Anonymous Member

    The SI article above has a good coverage, and what is the problem - the 3 stooges. Which part you didn't agree with it Voluntarily?
  5. Lol, mods can confirm I'm a long-time user and my IP address is nowhere near Texas. I'm taking a break from my usual activities here, and this thread has grabbed my interest.

    The reason why some of the posts in this thread (mine and others, especially the early ones) contradict newspaper reports is that we've been researching this, and responses have gotten more educated since the 1st page. I knew hardly anything about this case on the 1st page, just having read OP. Some of the things that have been claimed/accepted by myself and others early on in the thread were actually not true - e.g., that Bolton had a misdemeanor conviction at the time of the incident at the basketball game, when in fact he didn't. I haven't read all of the court dox yet that I posted links to earlier, but I have been reading up on coverage on this from the past 4 years. I certainly don't have any really "deep" or "insider knowledge" of this, I just have a real passion for debate and I feel strongly that you guys are going after the wrong guy.

    Van Allen, I'll try to post a response for you later when I'm not so busy.
  6. Thanks, Voluntarily. The work you've done to ferret out some of the less obvious aspects of the case is much appreciated, and is a most valuable contribution to this important debate. Circumstances alter cases, runs the old adage.

    Looking forward to your next salvo. :p
    • Like Like x 2
  7. System Member

    two account's mate really?
  8. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Again: Court Punishment =/= School punishment. I cannot make it any clearer than that. This is especially true since all the school did was kick him out till the RO was removed. The school punished him with doing what the law required is hardly considered a "punishment".

    Again: The actions of the school show that it had preferential towards athletic players and victims/accusers get treated poorly.

    You can debate that all you wish and disagree all you like. However that is the facts and their actions, be it done with intent or done accidentally, paint that exact picture.

    No. They sided with the LAW ONLY. There is a very good reason for that: In addition to protecting the girl, under the law, they were also protecting the accused from either one of them being a victim of retaliation.

    So, the fact the school followed the law is immaterial to what they did afterwords.

    IF the RO became permanent: What guarantee do we have that they'd let the girl continue her extra-curricular activity? They could kick her out and hide behind this "following the law" excuse. Of course that question and the answer will never be known because the RO didn't become permanent.

    As for the rest: The fact the school followed the law shouldn't be confused as a consequence for the perpetrator. He was allowed to continue the extra-curricular activity after the TRO was dropped and after he was convicted of misdemeanor assault. Following the TRO's request doesn't qualify as "punishment" no matter how you spin it.

    I respectfully disagree. However, out of respect I will acknowledge your request and refrain from using that statement.

    I think, for the most part, you don't understand what page I am on.

    Yes: The legal system failed to protect the victim. Yes: There is a lot of fault that the legal system should have done a more vigilant job to have prevented this from happening. Yes: The legal system should have fully investigated the rape accusation better than they did.

    However, that is a separate issue and isn't the point of contention.

    Courts can't make cases if there is insufficient evidence regardless of how vile the crime is. Whether by corruption or just plain lack of evidence, nothing can change the legal outcome. With regret, all the legal system could slap him with was the assault charge. So why didn't the school remove him from the sports team? Assault isn't something that should be sneezed at. They gave him a second chance? Why not wait a year to reinstate him? Why not wait till the probation ended? No...They put him right back where he was and not only brought this failed case on themselves, but in the process made themselves look poorly.

    Still: The School is just as responsible to have dealt with the aftermath. To have the victim and perp continue with their extra-curricular activities, knowing full well the two would ultimately meet up, indicates both ignorance and bad foresight on the school's part. You can say "The victim should have quit..." however, WHY should she give up what she loves to do because of the ignorance of the school and perhaps the law ESPECIALLY when she has done no wrong ? If the school was anywhere near intelligent, they could have seen this coming from a mile away. Yet they did nothing to stop it, despite even a rock knowing this lawsuit was inevitable.

    You can say "she lost the lawsuit" or "He got punished by the law, so he should have been allowed to continue playing". However, no matter what: It makes the school look like it cared more about the perp more than it did the victim. The argument that she should have quit gets undermined by the very fact she did absolutely no wrong. The whole "she didn't cheer" is a strawman argument and is insignificantly irrelevant at best as far as wrong doing. The argument that "he got punished by the law" is a diversion to the fact the school overlooked an actual crime and, no matter how it is spinned, rewarded the wrong doer.

    So, once again we are back to the whole "Perp isn't dealt with at school after a criminal conviction. School looks bad. Victim does a less than nothing action but the school decides to do something absolutely wrong. School goes from looking bad to looking horrible." debate.
    • Like Like x 3
  9. System Member

    check and mate well done
    • Like Like x 1
  10. System Member

    Voluntarily really doesn't know how to argue
  11. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    I think Voluntarily is trying to focus everybody on the legal system's part and downplaying the schools part in this matter. As I stated though, that is a separate issue and difficult to really do anything about because of the 4 year delay in this matter.

    Is that necessary wrong? Not really because the courts did mess up in regards to the restraining order and the rape charges being reduced to assault. However, since dox as to how this all transpired and played out is either scant or non-existent, it is hard to honestly say who'd we need to chew up and spit out with regards to the legal case.

    Still: Four years is a little too late to try anything against the issue, especially since a verdict and legal punishment has already been done. The school certainly can't punish anybody in this matter now since they either graduated or too much time has passed to validate any action.
  12. Anonymous Member

    but the Silsbee high school is perhaps the most famous high school in USA , in Wikipedia, and even made in into Sports Illustrated.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Richard Bain, the man who told the cheerleader that she had to cheer then sent her home when she didn't. He's still making 6 figures.
    There is a point to all of this- keep it from being repeated. Steubenville, wherever buttfuck Connecticut ..all places where athletes were sheltered and girls were raped. And the victims told to STFU and GTFO.
    Anons with personal experience of sexual assault understand why it's important. Everyone here has personal experience, a family member or a friend who understands :
    This is why
    • Like Like x 3
  14. System Member

    my high school made it on Sports the 3rd worst football team in the country lmfao
  15. Malory Member

    Lurk moar. It's quite common for members to have multi-socks and not against the rules.
  16. I challenge you to a debate, sir. We shall see who knows how to argue.

    One rule I propose: Whoever picks the topic allows the other person to pick sides first. Would you prefer to pick the topic, or pick sides?

    If you accept, start a new thread. I will get to it when I have time. Indicate in OP your choice of picking the topic or picking sides first; if you choose to pick the topic, put it in the OP.

    Please leave your account visible to the public so I can find your thread. I suggest you don't post the debate thread in the dome, as guest posting is not allowed there, so I would not be able to post under the name Voluntarily if you tried to debate me in the dome. Also, someone would probably post cocks and stuff.
  17. Yes, actually, it is a punishment to be removed from school and athletic activities for a period of time, prior to the charges having been dropped by the first grand jury. Have you been reading the latest posts? We've (I've) discovered that Bolton was not charged and not indicted and not convicted at the time of the incident at the basketball game.
    quote="Paroxetine Samurai, post: 2290262, member: 21053"]
    IF the RO became permanent: What guarantee do we have that they'd let the girl continue her extra-curricular activity? They could kick her out and hide behind this "following the law" excuse. Of course that question and the answer will never be known because the RO didn't become permanent.
    You are the one who is naive if you claim this. If the TRO had become permanent, the girl would have been legally in the right to demand that the boy be removed from her school.
    Once again, at the time of the incident at the basketball game, the 1st Grand Jury and DA had declined to indict, so charges had been dropped; the TRO had been dropped. Bolton had returned to society, free of criminal conviction or even indictment. No one has shown me that the school had any way of knowing at this time that there would be a 2nd grand jury, and then a 3rd grand jury, which would be the grand jury that finally indicted the boy a year later.
    Yes it does.

    Please see some data above for why many of your arguments here are faulty. You're here is still operating under the assumption that he was convicted of a misdemeanor at the time of the basketball game. In fact, he wasn't.

    This is all I have time for at the moment. I will be back later.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  18. Anonymous Member

    OP here. This post is an example of righteousness, therefor fair game for lulz. Idk how to say this w/o sounding pedantic.
    WWP translation
    Richard Bain should an hero
    If you think rape should be forgotten then STFU.
    NO U
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  19. Anonymous Member

    The purpose is to show that the three stooges are at fault.

    HS stayed in the cheer leading squad per her therapist’s advice. In any way, this is one way to due with an traumatic incident - if you have to give up something you love to avoid your attacker, you are being victimized twice.

    The 3 stooges are responsible for all the students' well being in school.

    Any pressure applied to HS to cheer her attacker will risk a break down or sending her to a mental institution. Any person knows forcing someone to do something against their will is bullying.

    Let her just stand there? The attacker will claim discrimination? Feel insulted? A collapse of school spirit and lost the game?

    HS was expelled and then reinstated. This is an admission of fault.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. System Member

    my post wasnt an invite to a challenge dumbnuts sooooo denied
  21. System Member

    never said it was but using two accounts on the same thread....makes no sence tbh
  22. System Member

    *sigh* as much as i dont want to get into this i guess i must

    The four issues are:
    1. Free Speech: The young woman’s right to remain silent and not cheer for her rapist
    2. Equal Protection: Larry Watts says: “She was removed from the team for being silent, while the school district, which had every right and power to investigate his assault and threats of murder, did not remove him. It’s simple- a girl being treated differently than a boy.”
    3. Due Process: The lawsuit alleges that the high school did not uphold the cheerleading contract
    4. Due Process: The suit alleges that HS’s “significant emotional harm, caused by the physical injury of rape, was exacerbated by the school.”
    The ruling brought down by the Appeals Court still deems three of the four issues to be “frivolous”, which means HS and her family will still have to pay a portion of the originally quoted amount of $35,000.

    As the family’s lawyer points out, the court ruled in HS’s favor for the one issue that America paid a lot of attention to, which was the violation of her freedom of speech. This just goes to show that public opinion and attention can, indeed, influence a court’s ruling. Watt is planning to appeal the decision and as he does, let’s continue to make our voices heard.
  23. System Member

    he did plead guilty to simple assault.
  24. System Member

    it's too late to do anything
  25. System Member

    Regardless, this is a classic example of hard cases making bad law. The only pertinent facts, legally, are these:
    • Bolton was a player for the high school basketball team
    • The high school cheerleading team is expected to cheer for the basketball team and its players
    • HS refused multiple times to cheer for Bolton and was dismissed from the team
    Not legally relevant but noteworthy: Bolton had been convicted of no crime at the time of the incident; the misdemeanor assault plea came later. (he plead guilty)

    The 5th Circuit ruled, correctly, that cheerleaders are agents of the school, serving as a “mouthpiece” for it. The notion that individual cheerleaders on the squad have free speech rights while on the floor performing is absurd. Her “sitting out” a cheer every time Bolton’s name is called or is shooting free throws obviously draws negative attention to Bolton–which would appear to be directly sanctioned by the school while she’s in its uniform. Naturally, the school had to dismiss her from the team.

    HS was in an untenable position and I truly feel for her. Having been, at bare minimum, assaulted, she had a desire to get back to some semblance of her former life. Cheerleading was, presumably, a vehicle for that. And the fact that her alleged rapist was not only free and attending her school but a star athlete on the football and basketball team had to be a constant reminder of the worst night of her life.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Narcon isn't convicted of organizational murder, so it's still allowed to take patients, and some will still die. Guys, the law isn't everything. A school isn't a court or LE - it's something else.
  27. Anonymous Member

    It's not too late.
    1. There is a campaign calling for everyone to send one penny to the superintendent of schools.

      Persons wishing to send Silsbee Schools Superintendent Richard Bain one penny in advance of an official effort may send the penny to him at:

      Richard Bain Jr.
      Silsbee Independent School District
      415 Highway 327 West
      Silsbee, TX, 77656
      It's important to protest even years later.

      • [IMG]
      • [IMG]
  28. Anonymous Member

    409 980 7800
    Fax -409 980 7897
    Administation at Silsbee School where Richard Bain is still superintendent.
  29. System Member

  30. System Member

    wtf will sending pennies do?
  31. Anonymous Member

    Richard Bain must acknowledge he made a mistake, and apologize. He may need help understanding that.
  32. Anonymous Member

    People sent him pennies to help pay the fine.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Faxing pennies too. And Anon flyers.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Do share. As in: Show us in the dox where you got this. If you have, in fact, been here a long time under different pen names, then you know that saying without dox isn't how it works around here.

    I have read all the posts and so far I am convinced you are missing the point.This isn't just about the courts messing up, this is about a school being insensitive and ignorant.

    Once again: The school has it's share of blame. It could have prevented this by suspending the athlete from at least sports until all the matters resolved itself. Instead though, it chose to return the student to a situation where the victim and perp would cross paths.

    Even a rock can see how bad of an idea that would be and how it looks. Even if, as you claim, he wasn't "guilty yet" of the charges, he still had a legal cloud above him that would rain shit on the school if the school didn't play the cards right... Guess what? They didn't and here we are having this circular discussion.

    IOW: The schools actions, despite how the legal situations unfolded, made it look bad. Your legal points, while valid only in the sense of the legal issues, is not valid when it comes to the school and it's actions.

    It happens more than you think.

    Schools, hell even beyond schools like colleges and work places, do shit like this in order to "preserve the better good". In this case, based on all that has been said thus far, the school had an advantage to get/keep the player in the program. Meanwhile, and for reasons I never understood, programs like Cheerleading aren't considered "a sport" or "necessary". So, if a school (not necessarily this one) had to chose between a player of a sport or a cheerleader, more often than not they will select the player.

    So why didn't the school figure out that a situation might arise if the perp and victim crossed paths?

    Ignore the player for a second and let me ask this: Why did the school chose to remove a person who was a plaintiff against somebody who just merely didn't cheer? What was so horrible about not cheering for a particular person, indited or not, who has wronged her? If she was not cheering for somebody else, say a player not involved in this matter and they still booted her, would the school's actions be justified to you still?

    Do you even comprehend how that looks? That is the issue I keep making and you chose to deflect with your reasoning. While your reasoning might work if this was about the legal matters, this is not just about the legal matters.

    No, it don't.

    You know why? If obeying the TRO was a punishment, he could have turned around and sued the school for wrongful punishment after it dropped.

    They were just obeying a TRO. It wasn't a punishment. It wasn't a consequence. It was them obeying a law. They could have expelled him after the trial. They could have expelled him from all extra curricular events. No...They just said "Aww... That's enough" and returned him to where he was before without giving the eventual consequences a thought till it bit them in the tail.

    Saying the removal of him while the TRO was in effect was a punishment isn't just incorrect, it is ludicrous.

    He eventually was. Whether it was before or after the game doesn't make what the school did justified.

    You are willfully ignoring what the school did and refuse to acknowledge the school did any wrongs in addition to the law. There is little debate as to how the law failed this girl but as I stated: That is a whole different matter, to which there is some credence to what you are bringing up. However, the focus here is the fact the school did wrong as well. Deflecting that fact or insisting the girl should give up her rights, despite no wrong doing, because both the law and the school were incompetent is just not right at all.

    In other words: The school is just as valid of a target as the legal system there when it comes to this debacle. Both did wrong whether you acknowledge it or not.

    Grrr... I looked at this when I was writing the first draft. Ah well, this response to Voluntarily is much better and avoids any potential issues.
  35. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Ah, I'm enjoying it. V is doing a great trolling job, hooked a lot of fish
    • Like Like x 3
  37. System Member

    if it bother's you stop viewing the thread
  38. Anonymous Member

    System, I'm not arguing whether Richard Bain broke the law. I'm arguing that he did wrong. Do you know the difference? Whether it's too late or whether somebody can do something about isn't relevant too.

    BTW, by "actions" you mean making another video? Sometimes it sticks, sometimes not, sometimes it's a joke. (Kony 2012!)
    Read this post from page 5 carefully.
    You could also read this:

    The incident at the basketball game was in February of 2009. When the 3rd Grand Jury finally indicted him, he was expelled according to ABC news.

    I'm pretty sure the DA, David Sheffield, is still employed somewhere, just like Richard Bain. Some ppl in this thread are encouraging the harassment Richard Bain at his workplace by calling, faxing, and sending pennies. Perhaps you guys could redirect some of that raeg to David Sheffield.

    People don't think it's too late to harass Richard Bain at his workplace. Why is it too late for you guys to bother David Sheffield?
  40. Anonymous Member

    Personally, I am all for bothering as many people as possible, to make the message loud and clear.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins