Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, Mar 25, 2013.
Add to that...
"We don't need evidence"
Dude, what website are you on? We kangaroo court all the fuck time. It's like, all we do.
Or did you want to wait until Scientology got convicted in court to go yell at them?
For the trolls (or hidden conflict of interest), I'm not going after the kid. I'm going after Richard Bain first.
Suspended for a conviction/no win.
and the testimony of the students he threatened to shoot as he jumped out the window.[/quote]
It wasn't difficult to keep a criminal on the team.
To which I have.
First: Being taken out of school isn't the same thing as a penalty. He was removed to protect the victim and to protect him from any possible retaliation. As stated here:
IOW: That wasn't a punishment at all but SOP in events like this to protect both the victim and the perp. It also was the SOP for the protective order that later got dropped for some reasons we all would love to know why.
Second: Punishment in Court != Punishment in School. Double Jeopardy doesn't apply here.
Third: If the school did do something to punish the sludgeball during or after the court punishment and the worm tried to sue, odds are good it wouldn't have won. The school does have rights to penalize students in addition to any legal penalties. If they tried to penalize him now, though: It'd be not just way too late, but pointless as well.
Fourth: My statements/arguments have nothing to do with any anti-rape culture or forming a kangaroo court. It has to do with the image the school showed by penalizing the victim for doing something pedantic but completely letting a person who committed and plead guilty to a serious crime (assault) continue extra-curricular activities that are privileges and not rights.
Fifth: Emotions clouding my judgement? Hardly. Especially since this happened years ago.
Sixth: If you have any dox that prove he was penalized, other than him being taken out of the school while it was being sorted out, I'll be more than happy to retract my stance.
Seventh: Creating a Kangaroo Court over shit that happened 4 years ago is not only moot but pointless at this venture. So I seriously doubt I'll be seeing any protests in that area. Unless there is going to be one and I am last to know again...
You missed the point. Again.
Maybe if you had been reading what I've been saying, you'd understand that the whole issue is about what the scumbag plead guilty to, not what he allegedly did. Nobody is saying he should be punished for what he might have done (the rape), but rather be punished for what he did do (the assault). All the dox so far point towards the fact the kid wasn't.
The whole fact of the matter is: The school just let the scumbag in and returned to status quo. The kid did something serious and went on playing with apparently no consequence at school. Meanwhile, the victim did something sooo banal and could be argued was in her First Amendment rights but was met with a completely different outcome. Regardless of how "fair and impartial" the school wanted to look, their actions contradicted that, whether intentional or not.
Paroxetine Samurai doesn't believe the boy was punished, but OP mentions the fact that boy was convicted of misdemeanor assault and given 2 years probation
Not going to dignify Paroxetine Samurai's speculation about what the school would have done with a response. We know what the school did. It took Bolton out of classes while he was under felony charges, and while a TRO was in effect. We don't know what the school would have done if the TRO had become permanent, but we DO KNOW THAT IT REMOVED BOLTON FOR A TRO, so the record shows that THE SCHOOL SIDED WITH THE LAW AND THE GIRL. Do not diminish this fact that is on record.
OP also mentions the fact that Bolton went to anger management classes as part of his court ordered punishment.
It sounds to me like you should all be upset with the DA FOR OFFERING THIS PLEA BARGAIN, WHICH ALLOWED BOLTON TO RETURN TO SCHOOL.
Because he didn't get punished. In your very own words you said it: They took him out of classes not because it was a punishment but in accordance to a TRO. Doing that is not the same thing as "a punishment" no matter how you spin it.
So again: He got off scott free despite having plead guilty to a crime.
Thought we were having a civil discourse. Guess I was mistaken...
So, the perp should go away instead? There is a legal avenue to arrange that. It is called a restraining order. The family sought one. The DA did not renew the TRO when it lapsed.
I dispute the idea that a parent should allow their child to be a member of the cheer squad, if the parent knows that the child's attacker is an athlete at the organization where the child is cheering.
That's why they shouldn't be in the same school. Who could've fixed that?
The DA, by pursuing felony charges on this "obvious fucking rapist," or getting a permanent restraining order
The girl's family's legal representation, who could have brought as many big guns as possible to bear on getting that permanent restraining order.
I presented another option, which was attending basketball games as a member of the audience, and exercising all the free speech she wanted.
The school was saying she couldn't attend the basketball game as a member of the cheer squad if she wasn't going to participate in all of its athletic duties.
The school didn't say that she couldn't come to basketball games as a student or member of the audience.
I find Mr Bain's actions more defensible than the DA's. Mr Bain was doing his job. For all we know, the school already had a policy regarding athletics and misdemeanor vs. felony convictions, and Bain and school officials were following that policy.
No, actually, he didn't get off scott free. He was not heavily punished by the school. But he was punished by the courts. That's not getting off scott free. He got 2 years probation, his name's on record, his conviction's on record, his fingerprints are on record. IDK how you call that scott free.
You don't dispute the record that the SCHOOL sided with the GIRL AND THE LAW though, do you? By removing the boy from classes while the TRO was in effect? So we have no reason to believe that it wouldn't have complied with a permanent restraining order, if the DA had sought one.
The discourse will remain civil if you refrain from using terms like "got off scott free," when in fact the person got a misdemeanor conviction.
There's a huge difference, and it will cause some to become flustered.
Ok, correct me if I am incorrect, I am not american so this is just a foreign perspective. Are there not significant rewards attatched to cheerleading as a sport lol.
I understood at the high end university scholarships come into play and then the possibility of professional cheerleading jobs again lol. Why on earth should this young ladies career ambitions for her chosen sport of cheerleading, come second fiddle to the young mans career ambitions for basketball. Because it seems to me that is what happened.
Hey Hive gaise. How about some corrupt political officials, rather than an educator/administrator?
There are a number of connections to relatives of the assailant, Rakheem Bolton. Police Chief Allen was appointed to his position with the help of Bolton’s cousin, city council member Thomas Tyler, Sr. City Council member Tyler has close political and employment ties to the initial prosecutor, DA David Sheffield. Tyler also worked as a poll worker for DA Sheffield during his 2008 campaign. Tyler “delivered the Black vote by the vanload to vote for Sheffield,” we were told by a local party official. Tyler also worked for Sheffield for over a decade as an officer in the Hardin County Attorney’s office, and when Sheffield became DA, he continued to carry Tyler’s commission as an officer, meaning Tyler can investigate cases for the DA and carry a badge and gun. This means that Bolton’s relative helped get the police chief appointed in 2007 and was (and is currently) technically working for the DA who presented the case to the first grand jury. Furthermore, the list of grand juror names revealed that Bolton’s family pastor was allowed to be one of the jurors.
A second grand jury was convened that didn’t have close ties to the accused. Special Prosecutor David Barlow presented the case. Barlow stated to Heldman and me in an interview in his Beaumont office that he decided to release the second grand jury prior to presenting evidence to them due to his belief that someone unlawfully provided information to the jurors, so he convened a third grand jury.
The third grand jury indicted Bolton and Rountree nearly a year after the assault, and the NAACP quickly stepped in to support the alleged rapists. Reverend Billy Ray Robinson, the President of the Jasper, Texas branch of the NAACP, held a press conference to protest the indictment. In the video of the conference he expressed concern about the “political motivation” of convening another grand jury. “We are here today to find out the facts surrounding this case and indictment of the two male students who supposedly and allegedly sexually assaulted a third student… This is outrageous. This is where we stand, on principle.”
The problem is, the NAACP chapter president, Reverend Robinson, is Rakheem Bolton’s great uncle according to close family friends. This is something the NAACP leader neglected to mention in his press conference. He also neglected to mention that he was involved with the case from the start when, according to court documents, his family’s bail bond businesses posted bond for both Bolton and Rountree.
You miss the point- school should not allow students who are guilty of assault play. Period. He plead guilty. Why o Why would a supervisor of a school let a criminal, who plead guilty to a violent crime, play sports?
1. They're kids. Kids make mistakes, and they get 2nd chances. If a kid can't get a 2nd chance at school, where can he get a 2nd chance in America? Not every school, necessarily, should have policies as lax as this particular school. But there should be schools where kids who have made a mistake can get a 2nd chance at organized sports.
2. Individual policies regarding criminal convictions would be up to schools/school districts, and vary from place to place. Most schools probably don't disqualify for misdemeanor convictions.
3. The NCAA allows adult convicts to play. Why shouldn't schools allow minor convicts to play? Why hold them to a higher standard than adults convicts who play NCAA sports?
4. Pro sports allows adult convicts to play and make millions of dollars.
5. Sporting bans are usually related to crimes that directly affect sports: e.g., cheating, performance enhancing drugs, gambling, match-fixing, point-shaving, etc. Crimes unrelated to sports are left to the courts to handle.
Again, why should his aspirations of career, be supported over hers. Decency should dictate the school backs the victims rights to sporting career over his. She was his victim not other way around. Just because it would seem the decent human result in this bad situation.
Diversion. I will deal with them tomorrow if I figure out how. Richard Bain's actions is indefensible. All he can do is for all the admins not to answer the phone. I'll fake a high school number tomorrow. BTW, his name and the boy's are in Wikipedia. I don't know why a name search doesn't come up on top.
Richard Bain Jr, superintendent of Silsbee schools, protected a rapist. Bain let him play on the team and tried to force the victim to applaud her rapist.
You can't make this shit up.
Richard Bain, Jr, superintendent of Silsbee schools allowed a convicted criminal to play on the Silsbee Tigers team.
Richard Bain, Jr, superintendent of Silsbee schools, created a expensive lawsuit for the Silsbee Public Schools. He demanded a girl applaud her rapist. Her family took the school district to court. It's taken years and thousands of dollars because of his bad judgement.
Richard Bain Jr, Silsbee school superintendent chose a criminal over a cheerleader. He demanded that she applaud her rapist.
Richard Bain Jr had a criminal student on the Tigers team. This student plead guilty to assault. He threatened a group of students when they stopped him from assaulting a 16 year old girl. Richard Bain let the thug/life student play for the school team.
You have a repetitive brain injury.
Was the victim a cheer leader prior to the assault?
You are just repeating the same point, get a grip
Both were supported until the victim caused an issue.
The issue being ones career aspiration directly conflicted with the other.
those who cheer take it very seriously, and are highly competitive. You dont just start cheerleading on a whim at sixteen.
Yes, the perp should go away. I'm saying the perp should go away, in preference to the victim going away. That is what the argument is about, Voluntarily. There are wider issues of a culture where victims are further victimised by those in authority.
The school should ideally have made sure the situation did not arise where the cheerleader had to cheer her molester, or failing that, to have punished the perp and not the victim.
I am saying the school should have done something. Not the DA, not the parents, the school. The school told the girl to go away, and the school should have told the perp to go away. They should have told him to leave the school, or at the least be suspended from representing the school in sports. The central theme here is The School. The problem was at and with the school, the school dealt with the problem, and the school should have dealt differently. The school thought it was their problem, because they took the actions they did, and they were right - it was their problem, but they failed totally to resolve it with any fairness. The school's problem. Not the DA's. Not the parents.
As I already pointed out, that is the expedient answer, but mostly for the perp. The victim was the school's preferred path of least resistance to making the problem go away, but they failed.
Answer to your question: The school.
Almost anything would have been preferable to the decisions they made. How about this: they insert a rule for cheerleaders that says it's OK not to applaud people who molested you? That's fairer, wouldn't you say?
What about the policy of caring for vulnerable victims of assault? Tell me, if it was your daughter, don't you think there may have been some pain and distress caused at the suggestion your child applaud her molester?
Still think Mr Bain was doing his job?
They did. He was removed from school and sports as long as he was facing a felony charge, and as long as there was a TRO on him.
The school would have continued with its established record of removing the boy had the DA made the TRO into a permanent restraining order. The school had no duty to do this when the boy was not charged; at the time of the incident, the boy hadn't even been indicted yet. According to dox I posted earlier here, the boy wasn't indicted and didn't plead guilty until 1 year after the assault, with the 3rd grand jury. The issue at the basketball game took place 4 months after the assault. The boy wasn't even guilty of a misdemeanor at the time of the incident. He wasn't indicted by either the 1st or 2nd grand juries. So you have a boy, alleged to have committed an assault, but not charged, not indicted, not convicted -- is it ok for this boy's school to let him play basketball? I think so, especially since NCAA student athletes, who are adults and even less entitled to 2nd chances, get reinstated for play even after indictments and convictions.
No, actually. It causes the whole squad to look like idiots when one person doesn't participate. It hurts the chances of the other girls receiving scholarships and having good athletic careers. It's unfair to the other girls, who worked hard to have a team and might want to look like a team.
I am certain this girl was already aware, before the basketball game, that she would be asked to applaud her alleged molester. I am certain the pain and distress of the idea occurred to her long before the game, and she had a long time before the game to speak her grievance or make the decision not to be on the cheer squad. I don't think Bain was the first person to tell her to cheer this athlete; I'm pretty sure this girl would have become aware of the possibilities at cheer practice and through her cheer coach.
He wasn't even convicted of misdemeanor assault until a year later, so at the time of the incident at the basketball game, he was not a convict and not even under indictment.
Yes, I think Bain was just doing his job, given these facts.
The DA who worked the 1st grand jury and initial attempt to indict/charge Bolton clearly screwed this up, since Bolton was eventually indicted and convicted by the 3rd grand jury.
Wait. Three Grand Jury investigations?
Something was seriously going wrong there.
Excellent article to bump for Google search to reanimate interest in this case. Sports Illustrated quoted the "Anti Bullying" policy of Silsbee Schools and pointed out it is what happened to HS when surrounded by Bain and other administrators in the gym.
Makes you wonder dont it.
Take a look at the multiple reports. Almost like the sports star was more important that the 16 year old girl.
One problem with the grand juries. Apparently his family played the race card and NAACP got involved.
Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say.
I wonder who has more to do with Grand Juries, and getting a prosecution right the first time.
Is it the school?
Or is it the DA? And the police?
Will you please make an account so I can click "ignore"? Stupidity repeated is boring.
Voluntarily has 2 accounts, but prefers to remain anonymous, and wants to use a consistent moniker for you all to be reminded of how it came to be that the girl was on the cheer squad to easily identify the posts' author.
Girl volunteered to go to a party too Was raped. Did not volunteer for rape. Volunteered for cheer team. Did not volunteer for applauding for her rapist.
So, they made sure they did not violate the terms of the TRO.
If, say, a school superintendent or other public official were accused of a serious sexual assault, normal practice would have been to suspend him or her on full pay while investigations took place. No assumption of guilt is implied. It is a reasonable, pragmatic step to take.
At the time of the cheerleader's refusal to clap her molester, the boy had not been exonerated and the investigation/indictment/trial process was ongoing. The school would be entitled to take the reasonable step of suspending him, but, as a minimum, avoiding just the situation they placed the girl in.
So what you're saying is, the girl is really responsible for her own pain and distress, not the school officials who told her to applaud her molester? Do I have that right? That is, in essence, what the above means, isn't it?
She should have predicted that someone in a position of authority would suggest something so monstrous and cause her pain and distress?
That would obviously be complete BS. Please clarify.
This is the same point addressed earlier.
I disagree. I think it takes some real mental gymnastics to reach such a conclusion. He made a stupid, unfair and offensive decision that caused the victim further distress, for which he and the school should be made accountable.
This may also be true, but it does not absolve the school of responsibility for their actions.
The 1st Grand Jury declined to indict him, at which point the TRO was dropped and the boy was reinstated into classes and the team.
The school had no way of knowing that there would be a 2nd and then a 3rd Grand Jury at the time of the basketball game. The school had no way of knowing the boy would eventually be indicted and convicted at the time of the basketball game. If you think they did, then that would "obviously be complete BS."
Sure, I'll clarify. The cheerleaders had a Cheerleader Constitution which they were all expected to abide by as members of the squad.
That code asks them to cheer equally for all of the school's athletes.
I believe I make a fair presumption that codes of conduct such as the Cheerleader Constitution are delivered unto the cheer squad by school officials early on in the cheer season - probably on the first day of practice.
She was aware of this Cheerleader Constitution, and she was aware that she would be asked to abide by it, probably from the first day of practice. She also knew Bolton was back on the team.
I hope I don't have to explain it any more clearly.
Just in case, we should go through the concept of "practice," where athletes go over drills and routines they intend to carry out during athletic events. Practice takes place before the anticipated athletic event. For the cheerleaders, this probably included their particular cheer for when basketball players are on the foul line. Shooting fouls individually. Including, potentially, the individual athlete on the basketball team who had allegedly attacked her.
Three Grand Juries? What the Hell?
If it was a regular court, it wouldn't be possible to put him up for trial more than once. As much as I think that he's a scumbag, what's going on here?
Don't know why you quoted my words above out of context, but please don't do it. (In a previous post, you put someone else's words in quotes in exactly the same form, in a response to me, giving the impression I had used them.That's irksome).
The school has the primary duty of care over their students. No dispute about that, I hope?
They had the means of discovering, not whether the boy was legally guilty or not, but whether there was any foundation in the allegations made. That should have guided their actions. This is something schools do all the time, over far less serious issues than a serious sexual assault.
This is avoiding the issue I asked for clarification about. You state or imply, at every turn, that it was someone else's responsibility for the actions (or inaction) of the school - to investigate, to take appropriate action, to protect the victim, to avoid causing her further distress, and instead would have us believe the young victim was responsible for her own distress, or negligent in protecting herself by not predicting what the school did to her, or some other mangling of the truth. That's blaming the victim, right there. But it's worse than just blaming the victim.
According to your argument, everyone else has a responsibilty except the school.
By relying on what the rule-book may or may not have said, you are, in effect saying to this girl 'Look. There's the rules. Doesn't say anything about not clapping your molester, so you're breaking your promise and you will be punished for breaking the rules'.
Do you see why I'm not buying that? That is punishing the victim. I would add, it's also some pretty sick shit that no reasonable person would rely on.
You're not claiming she cheered the perp at practice, are you? So, what's the relevence?
The court and law enforcement also had the means of discovering whether there was any foundation in the allegations made. The initial DA and 1st Grand Jury felt that there wasn't, so they declined to indict. I should add that these law enforcement authorities have access to evidence and evidence-gathering capabilities far beyond the school's.
(I wonder what investigatory powers a school has. How would it confirm information gathered from interviews? How would it compel people to answer questions? How would it gather and preserve evidence? How would it evaluate collected information and evidence? Could it punish based on hearsay? Would it open itself to lawsuits if it did? Could it ever be sure that its limited evidence-gathering capabilities would present it with the full perspective of an alleged but unindicted crime, from which to make a reasonable punishment decision?)
There is far far less responsibility on the school in this, and far more responsibility on the law enforcement apparatus, to discover the foundation behind the allegations.
Perhaps if the girl had done more to address her grievance ahead of the basketball game, by speaking up about her issue with a basketball player privately to her coach, the head counselor, the principal, perhaps the school would have investigated the allegations as you suggest. Perhaps if the girl had done this privately, instead of publicly, the school would have worked out a way to excuse her from cheering basketball games. C'est la vie.
(By the way, it's irksome to me when people refer to my reasonable arguments about the child's known responsibilities as "obviously complete BS," so if you were irked in return, then my mission was accomplished. I know you didn't call him an "obvious fucking rapist," and it wasn't my intention to make you think I was trying to attribute that phrase to you. I was somewhat sarcastically repeating what this person has been called to make a point about the DA and Grand Jury having access to much, much more of the "obvious" evidence from this case. That would make them much more responsible for bringing punishment to bear on Bolton than the school.)
The school had very little responsibility to investigate; that's why we have law enforcement. The school fulfilled its responsibility to law by taking the boy out of class as long as he was facing felony charges and as long as he was under TRO. Had the DA properly prosecuted this the first time, the boy would have remained out of classes and off the team.
Unfortunately, a lot of rules we have will end up "punishing" the victim, if you take on a perspective where you believe every victim deserves special protection from offenders and alleged offenders. It's not a perfect world, and a balance must be struck. Offenders and alleged offenders come back into society all of the time, and we can't restrain them all from forever future contact with any of their alleged or real victims; we can't prevent all of them from coming into awkward situations with their alleged or real victims. This is especially so when the courts decline to prosecute, and the alleged offender returns to society free of criminal convictions or indictments, as Bolton was at the time of the basketball game. If the boy had been indicted for the crime in the first place, by the first DA and first Grand Jury, then there would have been grounds for the school to have done something at the time of the basketball game. The school has far less investigatory power and responsibility than the court in this situation.
I am saying she had the rules ahead of time, including the one asking her to cheer equally for all of the athletes. If you don't dispute that, then you don't dispute the idea that this rule had already been established for the entire cheer squad by school officials before the basketball game. She had already been given the expectation by school officials, before the basketball game, that she was to cheer equally for all of the athletes. Bain wasn't the first to present her with the monstrous possibility.
The relevance is that she knew the context of the cheers ahead of time, including the foul cheer, because of cheer practice. She knew that there was every possibility that Bolton would shoot fouls, like every basketball player on a basketball team. She knew from cheerleader practice that she would be asked to cheer equally for all of the athletes. The relevance is that the onerousness of the duties of this position were made clear to her well before the basketball game. The responsibility would then lie with her to speak up about any problems she had with these duties, since she was the one who had voluntarily agreed to carry them out by being on the cheer team. To avoid an embarrassing, awkward situation for the school and cheer team, she should have done this before the basketball game.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!