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

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

  1. Anonymous Member

    Vol, asking a girl to cheer for her attacker, who made her semi-naked and then escaped, is insensitive. You say the 3 school officials are not wrong?

    What David Sheffield did wrong?

    System, what shit are you smoking, stick to HS.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. In that case I'll just leave this here.

  3. Malory Member

    They said they had two accounts on the forum as a whole, not that they were using them on this thread. Their point was they aren't just some random person with a vested interest in this case.

    Again, lurk moar. Anyone socking to back themselves up in a serious thread usually gets soundly mocked by the mods.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    have at it
  5. Anonymous Member

    Yes, I called the school district to give Bain a chance to defense himself. If you care to explain what David did wrong with dox I will try to call his office.
    • Like Like x 2

    In October 2008, H.S., a student and member of the cheerleading squad at Silsbee High School, was allegedly sexually assaulted by two classmates, Bolton and Rountree, at a private party. Bolton and Rountree were arrested on criminal charges of sexual assault of a child and released on bail. H.S. obtained a protective order against Bolton and Rountree, who were removed from regular classes and extracurricular activities at Silsbee. After a grand jury declined to indict either Bolton or Rountree, however, they were permitted to return to regular classes, and Bolton was permitted to rejoin the varsity basketball team.
    Plaintiffs further allege, "The Grand Jury voted not to indict the 'rapists,' and the judicial order which kept the two males away from H.S. was permitted by Sheffield to lapse."

    We researched the names on the grand jury list (which the DA unlawfully released),

    [See also the post on page 5 for a larger snippet from same article regarding DA Sheffield's conflict of interest, working closely with the defendant's cousin, a city council member, who endorsed him in his election, and delivered votes to him. It is linked earlier on this page]

    Finally, the 3rd grand jury and a special prosecutor indicted Bolton, and he was convicted by it. Therefore, the DA failed to prosecute this properly the first time with the 1st grand jury.

    His conflict on interest makes it even more clear that the DA failed to properly proceed the first time, leading to all of this.

    It's on the prosecutor to prosecute. I mean, that's his job title. He failed in his #1 duty. He could have recused himself given the conflict of interest, or simply done his job correctly.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Vol, that's potential conflict of interest. I'm not sure if that connection violate any laws. The system didn't totally fail because another DA is called.

    Also, failure isn't wrong.
  8. It's not "potential," it IS conflict of interest.

    The DA works directly with a member of the defendant's family. The DA has employment and political ties to this member of the defendant's family. This member of the defendant's family endorsed the DA politically in the DA's election. The DA is supposed to prosecute the defendant. That's a conflict of interest.

    The DA failed to do a very good job of it, since the 3rd grand jury and another prosecutor got both and indictment and a conviction. The DA got neither.

    It might not violate any laws in this particular case - I'm not conceding this point, I just can't cite any relevant laws because I'm not a lawyer - but I do know that legal officers (officers of the court, who are held to a higher standard of honesty than the rest of us) are supposed to recuse themselves when they see conflicts of interest, real OR potential. It's an ethical obligation of the profession. It is misconduct that can lead to an attorney being disbarred; at worst, it can be grounds for criminal charges when it is coupled with other corruption, like fraud.
  9. hushpuppy Member

    Appreciate all who are keeping this thread updated!

    A gentle request though: many media outlets and blogs have doxed this (then) under-aged victim. If you are quoting any of those sources, please redact her name before you post the quote to WWP.

    It's not particularly helpful in terms of preserving her privacy in the big picture, we know that - still, WWP does not want to proliferate the invasion of her privacy.

    Thanks all <3
    • Like Like x 5
  10. Anonymous Member

    There are degrees of conflict of interest. Monsanto and the FDA share the same executives at different times is serious. At least he is not related to the accused and not declaring it. You should go after the NAACP, good luck. Do you think you can persuade me to go after the DA with this? A special DA is called, so that's a record he failed.
  11. You don't dispute it, then. The DA had a conflict of interest. It wasn't "potential."

    He worked directly with, and had received political endorsement from, a family member of the person he was supposed to be prosecuting. He had gotten elected to his job as prosecutor with help from a member of the defendant's family - the same defendant he was supposed to be throwing the book at!

    If you don't think that's a serious conflict of interest, then you should probably spend some time wordclearing.

    I don't know why you're talking about Monsanto, the FDA, or the NAACP. The NAACP had nothing to do with the incident at the basketball game, or with the 1st FAIL attempt at prosecuting Bolton. If you want someone to go after the NAACP, you can spend 4 pages of this thread building your case like I have against David Sheffield.
  12. Anonymous Member

    I said the NAACP got involved, it did at the behest of the family of one of the suspects. NAACP didn't cause this,but I bet it made people in power nervous.
  13. Anonymous Member

    Vol, you are building the cases not to go after Bain, but to go after somebody else like the DA. Per your logic, the DA didn't rape someone, had nothing to do at the basketball game, and he's not involved in the 2nd and 3rd grand jury indictment. Don't tell me with your detailed research, some people in the NAACP don't had much more serious conflict of interest in this case.

    I'm not building the case to ask others to go after Bain or the DA or the NAACP. I'm going after Bain and you didn't convince me to go after the DA.
  14. OK

    I talked about the responsibility of the school, which it fulfilled; it removed Bolton from classes and athletic activities while he was facing indictment. When the Grand Jury didn't indict him, for lack of sufficient evidence, the school reinstated him.

    I fail to see how the school could come to a confident decision regarding punishment given the limitations in its evidence-gathering capabilities I've outlined. You have suggested that the school had the power to act in some investigatory way, but I would like you to elaborate details, if you please. You can start with the litany of questions that I posted in my last direct post to you.

    I can agree with you that one of the options was monstrous. I can't agree with you that the other one, asking her to go home, was monstrous. At the time of the incident, the school had been given the impression by the court that Bolton was innocent, since the DA and 1st grand jury had declined to indict him, much less convict him. At the time of the incident, the school had one student accusing another of assaulting her, but the accused had been cleared by the courts as far as the schools knew. The accused was free from indictment, much less conviction; the school had no way of knowing the accused would eventually be indicted and convicted. As far as the school knew at the time of the incident, he was innocent. Both those students were on the schools' teams, but one of the students was refusing to perform their duties.

    Asking the one not performing their duties to leave is hardly monstrous if the school (innocently, albeit wrongly) believes the allegations are baseless, having received the court's decision to drop charges.

    The school did carry out its responsibility to ensure its students were safe from harm by (1) removing Bolton from classes and athletics while he was facing indictment from the 1st grand jury, which declined to indict; and (2) expelling Bolton when the 3rd grand jury finally indicted him.

    As I said, please elaborate on the investigatory powers/responsibilities of a school, beginning with the litany of questions I posted earlier. Also give criteria when it should invest its limited time and resources to do its own investigation, bearing in mind that schools are strapped for money, manpower, and resources. Schools aren't in the business of doing investigations anyway; there are professionals who are sanctioned by our communities specifically to do that job.

    I don't think you can fault the school for relying on the courts for a ruling on serious allegations such as these. It's why we have a court system. I can see a school maybe investigating who vandalized its own bathrooms, or which student is stealing from another student, if it takes place at school. However, all of these are real crimes, and could potentially be investigated by LE as it is their purview - it's not actually the school's responsibility to investigate or punish criminal behavior.

    Finally, I would point out that a school would have both a conflict of interest with respect to investigating/ punishing its own students in many cases, and the potential to make a mistake and get it wrong, which is once again why schools should rely on entirely independent bodies (a prosecutor, a DA, a grand jury, a court) to investigate and punish serious crimes that occurred off campus. I don't see how you could guarantee that a school could or would investigate all alleged crimes equally and with proper diligence.

    Here's the balance.

    Bolton was removed from athletics and classes until the 1st grand jury failed to indict him. When the school was given the impression that Bolton was innocent by the court, the school reinstated him. For all that the school knew at the time of the incident, Bolton was innocent.

    The school did not insist that she follow the rules. She was given the option of going home instead of performing her duties.

    Bolton was expelled by the school when the 3rd grand jury indicted him the following summer.

    She was allowed back onto the cheer squad and she finished high school there.
  15. Per my logic, the DA had the responsibility to indict/punish the alleged rapist with the 1st grand jury, or recuse himself due to conflict of interest, so that the alleged rapist could be properly prosecuted by a special prosecutor.

    Per my logic, had the DA performed his duties, there would have been no incident at the basketball game. The DA caused the incident at the basketball game by failing to do his duties. The DA had everything to do with the incident at the basketball game; his failure to prosecute put these students on a collision course at their school.

    Per my logic, the DA had everything to do with the 2nd and 3rd grand jury indictment, which were needed because the DA screwed this up the 1st time.

    I'm pretty sure I won't convince a lot of people, but it won't stop me from pointing it out when I see problems with people's ridiculous arguments about who is to blame for what happened to this cheerleader.
  16. Anonymous Member

    She got raped. She got kicked off the squad. Her family went to court and lost.
    The fucking superintendent of the fucking school ordered her to clap and sent her home when she did not submit. Why was the superintendent of schools concerned with a cheerleader cheering or standing still? It's about power. He abused it.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  17. She got raped. She got kicked off the squad. Her family went to court and lost. Her family petitioned a grand jury for protection and lost.

    The fucking DA of the fucking county ordered the perp to be sent back to school, where she would be forced to see him, ordered to clap for him, and sent home when she did not submit.

    Why was the DA of the county not concerned with prosecuting his co-worker's rapist cousin, when that is his job? It's about power. He abused it.

    Hey, I can sound righteous too, and assert claims about people's motivations that may or may not be true. Pro-tip: They sound just as bad and as convincing when you write them about the DA.

    It is actually a DA's job to prosecute offenders, to represent 'the people' in 'the people vs...,' to protect the community, and to protect victims. Not the superintendent's - unless you really, really stretch that in loco parentis business. I can't believe people find so much to hate for a superintendent who may have thought the kid was innocent, as opposed to a prosecutor who had access to evidence And a duty to prosecute.
  18. Anonymous Member

    As much hate as is held for fail DA. Because superintendent is morally fail.
  19. The above is a comment solely about the school's (perceived) responsibility to the perp. It says nothing about the responsibility to the innocent victim, and their duty of care - which would certainly include not further victimising her, nor causing her pain and distress, and which I say they failed to carry out.

    You apparently see no other responsibility of the school in this matter other than to ensure that the criminal law / court decisions is/are followed. This is demonstrably not the case.

    You will forgive me, I hope, if I don't answer, point for point your 'litany'. I don't think it will advance the discussion any. I will, however attempt to clarify further.

    IMHO this is a further lacuna in your argument. We agree: the school isn't a court, nor a criminal investigator, but yet it manages to make lots of decisions affecting the students, eg about who should be on their basketball team, or their cheerleader team. How can they be confident that they don't consistently choose the wrong people? How do they deal with eg disruptive adolescents, without constantly involving LE and the courts, and without the benefit of the absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt certainty that the criminal law demands? The best answer is the one I gave: they have their ways. If they didn't, they couldn't make the decisions they make every day.

    They can make these decisions, because they know they have ultimate discretion (jurisdiction, even) over what happens at school. Additionally, they have the get-out-of-jail-free card of justifying their decisions on the grounds of maintaining discipline (which appears to have been one of their arguments later in the court case, and which courts are unlikely to dispute).

    It was at their discretion that the perp played, and also at their discretion that the victim was sent home and excluded for not following the rules. They would have been equally entitled to exclude the perp on exactly the same grounds as for excluding the victim - that it was necessary to maintain discipline. That would not be a decision the school would expect to leave for a court of law to decide - would it? But, as we know, they didn't do that. At their discretion, the perp played and the victim was sent packing. The victim had a justifiable reason for her actions, though the school could not be certain that they were, or were not. It is acknowledged that the school could not be certain whether the perp was guilty or not at that stage, while we have the benefit of hindsight.

    The school got it wrong. They ended up causing suffering to the victim by dealing unfairly, regardless of the rules of the cheerleading team. The duty of care they had for the victim should have overridden the cheerleading team rules, in any sane world. The only possible argument is whether they acted in good faith at the time (which is what you rely upon).

    The school's responsibilities differ from those of the law. In their duty of care, or to maintain discipline, they are not obligated to consider who is guilty and who is innocent (and you make the point that they are not equipped to do so, anyway). But, not having the court's backing one way or the other does not absolve them of those duties in any way. So they had to decide and it was at their discretion, there can be no argument about that.

    This is why it is fair and legitimate to criticise their decisions. If they knew the accusations were baseless, they could justify their actions. But they could not possibly have known that (since the perp ultimately pleaded guilty in court).

    What remains questionable is whether they acted in good faith. What speaks loudly and clearly against that is their invoking the rules as the reason for excluding the victim, ignoring what must have been her protestations and justifications. Since they could not possibly know what ultimately proved to be false, they equally could not know that the victim's protest was baseless, and so it follows that they acted unfairly by excluding the one and not the other.

    I believe the above also answers the subsequent points you make, so I will snip the rest, unless you feel the need to pursue them further.
    • Like Like x 4
  20. This is why my moniker for this discussion is Voluntarily. I am saying the school did its duty, since the rules of the cheer squad were clear ahead of time; since the girl had been to practice ahead of time, and knew what cheer entailed; since the girl chose to remain on the cheer squad and to continue cheering basketball games voluntarily. Furthermore, she had already been allowed to conduct this silent protest once. The incident that occurred at the basketball game with the superintendent and principal took place when she conducted this protest a 2nd time.

    From here:

    As Rakheem Bolton came to the free throw line during a February 2009 basketball game...HS quietly folded her arms, stepped back from the rest of the squad, and refused.
    A few weeks later, she once again found herself asked to cheer when Bolton approached the free-throw line. This time, she knelt down next to her cheerleading coach and remained silent. The coach took her into the gym’s foyer to face the school superintendent and the Silsbee principal. HS says they told her she needed to cheer for everyone.

    The cheer coach is the school official most responsible for having dealt with HS's potential pain and distress, since they're in direct communication at practice, which was probably almost daily. The cheer coach had definitely observed this protest once. The cheer coach had several weeks in between the 1st incident and the 2nd incident, and the cheer coach was the one who took her to face discipline at the 2nd incident. The cheer coach was probably the school official who had presented the girls with the cheer constitution (she knew all of the abhorrent rules), and was the school official who knew all of the cheers and the context of all of the cheers ahead of time. I think I make a fair presumption that the school (probably the cheer coach) addressed this privately with the cheerleader between the 1st and 2nd incidents, reminding her of duties and responsibilities of the cheer squad, asking her not to continue the protest, or giving her the opportunity to leave the cheer squad. I need to make time to read those court dox, though, to be sure.

    Ideally, as I've suggested earlier, the school would have offered her the opportunity to be excused from cheering basketball games, privately, in the time between the 1st and 2nd protests. This was not out-of-the-question, for the school, since I know HS was given the option of being excused from cheering at Homecoming. I do need to get reading on those court dox. Hopefully there won't be so much speculation in my next arguments.

    Granted. However, the school did allow the protest to occur once. The school had time to address the matter privately in the intervening time between the first and second protest. The burden now lies on me to see that they did in a reasonable way. I will post in response to that question after having read more court dox and other accounts.

    To this I would argue that the school has its ways of discovering, attributing, and punishing behavior that is annoying, but not "criminal," like disruptive adolescents, minor graffiti/vandalism, petty theft.
    I would argue that the school is hopelessly inadequate at discovering and attributing serious criminal behavior. It would therefore not be wise for it to attempt to punish when it was presented with a serious allegation that a court had declined to indict.

    This is why I asked you to elaborate on a school's investigatory powers.

    In Anon's perfect world, schools would kick every athlete off of every team who had allegedly drunkenly misbehaved with a member of the opposite sex at a party with illegal alcohol, regardless of whether the courts had chosen to indict or not. It would be a lot more athletes than you think.

    But the perp was performing his athletic duties at both incidents. She had refused to perform her athletic duties once, and not been punished for it; there was a few weeks in between, to work it out with the cheer coach and school officials; she performed the protest a second time.

    Who was not maintaining discipline?

    This is why the school allowed the protest to occur at least once without punishment.


    The school acted doubly in good faith, in fact, by allowing this protest to occur once without punishment. The second time it occurred, and still with the belief that Bolton was innocent, they enforced discipline, in good faith. It would have acted triply in good faith if I can prove they tried to address the girl's pain and distress, privately, between the 1st protest and 2nd protest, by excusing her from cheering at basketball, reiterating the rules and duties of the squad, and/or gently reminding her it was a voluntary position.

    This is why they should defer to the decisions of courts before making punishment decisions with respect to allegations of serious crimes.

    Their duty of care is why they allowed the protest to occur at least once without punishment, and, I hope to show the presumption is correct, they addressed this privately with her between the 1st and 2nd protests.

    Minors, above us all, should be granted the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The grand jury declined to indict, and charges had been dropped.

    It's easy to say they acted unfairly in hindsight. At the time, with what knowledge they had, they were being fair to both students.
  21. Anonymous Member

    broken record tech
  22. Voluntarily, however much we may disagree, I commend you for trying to address the issues as they arise, and by reference to the available dox.

    I want to ask you, while thinking about this case, to consider the possibility at least, that there exists, as well as blatant misogyny amongst a minority, a more subtle kind of bias against women that is much more pervasive in our societies, but is not so easy to see clearly - a sort of blind-spot - sometimes because it is couched in reasonable-sounding language, but is no less real. Here's some recent research that discusses something somewhat related to what I'm referring to - it's science!

    It appears to me you have a blind-spot when it comes to the cheerleading rules and the fairness of the actions of the superintendent and the school. It is this blind-spot that allows you to see all the 'chances' this girl had been given by the school to abide by the cheerleading rules, how 'reasonable' and 'balanced' the decisions were, how they 'allowed the protest' on the first occasion etc etc etc, but does not apparently allow you to see how absolutely dreadful this experience (the confrontation with the school officials) must have been from the girl's perspective, nor how the school had a duty to avoid this.

    This blind-spot allows you to talk about the fairness of the rules and how they were applied, knowing as you do that they were being applied against a minor child who had been sexually assaulted, but does not allow you to see how inappropriate this was in the circumstances - as they were known by the school at the time, ie not in possession of all the facts. This blind-spot allowed you to say 'c'est la vie' about the school contributing further to the child's prolonged suffering, because the school, you were sure, bent over backwards to be 'fair'. I don't doubt that the school superintendent would echo these same sentiments, with a resigned shrug. 'What more could we have done?' , 'We tried explaining the rules to this kid, but she just wouldn't listen'.

    I'm not buying that for one minute, I'm afraid. I cannot see why we should have to accept the girl's suffering as unfortunate but unavoidable. Where you see the school giving the child two chances to 'mend her ways' or 'conform to the rules', I see two occasions where the school in reality caused the girl further suffering by their quite staggeringly insensitive and heavy-handed treatment of her. Why do the cheerleading rules matter more than the girl's suffering? Why would they even risk exacerbating that suffering? What right did they have to do such a thing? Didn't they see that they had a duty to prevent such harm? No, they probably didn't.

    In all likelihood, it was not because these people were blatant misogynists, but because, like you, they had a blind-spot. If they didn't, they could not have contemplated disciplining the girl for her actions, in those circumstances. They were faced with a dilemma, to be sure, but they chose to resolve it by asserting the rules, as though they had no other choice. In reality, they had a whole plethora of other choices they might have considered, but it appears they could not see that at the time, just as you cannot now. They might have, though, if they had themselves ever been subjected to a rape.

    I'd like to keep this quote in context, without further comment.

    Will reserve any comment until then.

    That is one way of 'seeing' it - that they 'allowed' the 'protest' once. I don't 'see' it that way.

    The reason I chose not to do so is that I think what they needed to do was get it clear in their own minds what the issues were, not to conduct some half-baked criminal investigation. They might easily have established whether the child was a fantasist generally, for example - enough to use as a guide. They just had to keep an ear to the ground. make a few discreet inquiries, that sort of 'investigation'.


    That is certainly one way of 'seeing' it. It's not the only way. I have a sense of something quite dark and perverse when I read that the perp was the good guy because he was performing his duties, in contrast to the victim's 'unreasonable' refusals. It's a question of perspective, I'm sure.


    Did they have good grounds for believing in the perp's innocence? Did they take steps to find out? Did they know the status of the case? Did they not have their own channels of information?

    You go too far when you assert their multiply-good faith. What grounds do you have for saying that 'allowing' the 'protest' was a sign of good faith? It might equally have been because they simply did not know what to do. It probably wasn't in their rule-book.

    No. They need not defer decisions about who cheers whom at a school basketball game to the courts.

    We do not know why they 'allowed' the 'protest'. Another way of 'seeing' it would be that they thought it was a one-off - no big deal. But the second had to be stamped upon, because the cheerleader team is more important than one irritating kid with a gripe.

    Whether someone plays school basketball or waves pompoms has nothing to do with the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty. It's about the school.

    When you have couched the situation in terms that contain an inherent bias, it is easy to find confirmations of that bias wherever you look. You're still saying that a situation where the perp played and the girl had to cheer him or lose her position as a cheerleader is fair. No, it isn't. But not because of the rules - you have to look at the whole picture.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. Anonymous Member

    Even though voluntarily has spent a lot of time and effort explaining the facts of the case there are some here who can't follow a simple fucking time line!!!!

    The attacker was deemed innocent by the courts at the time of the clapping incident, why is that soooooooooo difficult to digest?
    Therefore the school had to take the stance of business as usual, when the victim failed to carry out her duties as a cheerleader the school had no choice but to ask her to clap/-cheer or go home.

    You are all talking with hindsight and not taking into account what the school knew at the time!

    You are all too keen to gather a posse and go lynching regardless of the facts because you have stubenville fever and want another scalp. Not every case is going to be like stubenville, having said that there are similarities as voluntarily has pointed out quite clearly, yet you persist in this almost autistic insistence of going after the school instead of the one thing that does link this case with stubenville, the da having close ties with the perp and his family and him failing to disclose this and not do his job properly!!

    That situation really got you fucking wound up with stubenville, but with this case it's meh! Way to be consistent anon!
  24. Anonymous Member

  25. Anonymous Member

  26. Anonymous Member
  27. Anonymous Member

    If you are on a cheer leading team I'm not sure that free speech is part of the agenda, you are there to do a job, cheer the team, where would free speech enter into it?
  28. Anonymous Member

    Actually, I just haven't been reading the looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong bickering posts.


    There were 2 trials then?

    Because he was found guilty of assault, wasn't he?

    So you're saying there was an earlier trial where he was found innocent (of rape presumably)? Have I got that right?

    Or by "deemed innocent by the courts" do you actually mean that the case just hadn't come to trial yet?
  29. Anonymous Member

  30. Anonymous Member

  31. Anonymous Member

    Maybe you should take the time to do this.

    Or you could just go off on your crusade half-cocked, without all of the facts that people have been working to uncover.

    Timeline -

    October, 2008, girl is assaulted, Bolton and Rountree arrested.

    January 2009, 1st grand jury and 1st DA do not indict either boy. School reinstates both to classes and athletics.

    February 2009, basketball game incidents. Bolton has been neither convicted nor indicted at the time, and it is after the fact that 1st grand jury and DA have declined to indict for the alleged incident.

    Summer, 2009, Special prosecutor convenes a 2nd grand jury, and then a 3rd grand jury, which indicts Bolton and Rountree. Bolton is expelled by the school; Rountree has already graduated.

    No one has proven that the school had any way of knowing that Bolton would eventually be indicted and convicted at the time of the incidents at the basketball game.

    If there is someone who can prove otherwise, dox please.
  32. Anonymous Member

  33. Anonymous Member

    I'm not crusading, although I am frequently half-cocked, I'm pleased to say.

    Generally I prefer to avoid reading tedious line-by-line internet rebuttals between trolls and pedants. It's just a time-saving habit.

    I like your time-line.

    It's got some clarity.

    So he wasn't charged...

    ... but then he was charged ...


    I don't fully understand the American system. How come they took a second go at charging him? Is this normal?
  34. It is not normal, but probably occurs often enough when plaintiffs can show that the DA who carried out the initial prosecution and convened the first grand jury had a conflict of interest, which you could also read about by reading other posts in this thread. Particularly, one on page 5 with lots of enlarged bold text.


    I presume that the other grand juries were convened and a special prosecutor called because people were able to show the DA's conflict of interest re: the defendant he was supposed to be prosecuting.
  35. I'll see your Silsbee cheerleading team rules and raise you a 200px-Rosa_Parks_Booking.jpg

    That's Rosa muthafucken Parks, muthafuckas.

    She clearly understood the city ordinances and the rules of the Montgomery Transit Authority when she boarded the bus. She knew the rules, but decided they weren't good enough. When the driver told her to stand up and give up her seat, Parks responded, &quot;I don't think I should have to stand up.&quot; Fined $10 with $4 costs.

    I don't think the girl should have had to applaud her molester, nor get off the team, but then again, it's hard for me to put myself in the situation as they, The Righteous Citizens of Montgomery, Alabama The Silsbee School Authority, saw it then.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Well I think the basic job description of a "cheer leader" pretty much is in the title, you are there to cheer, fairly simple, not difficult. If you don't do that basic requirement then you are not doing anything, so it's hardly surprising if you were asked to leave the team because you won't cheer. There is no real place for free speech in the job, it sorta goes with the territory. If you decide that the job of cheering is wrong I fail to see how you could change such a basic requirement, only cheer when it suits you perhaps.

    And to compare it with rosa parks is laughable and shows fail.
  37. Anonymous Member

    I notice the anti rape, go after the school assholes have disappeared since voluntarily laid down the timeline.

    Need to get all the facts in before gathering a posse and riding out eh! Many were way too trigger happy.
  38. It's simple, until circumstances change, and you are required to cheer someone who molested you.

    The principal and the superintendent are watching you, to make sure that you cheer that specific person.

    And you know you can't. But you don't want to sacrifice your job either, because that's not fair.

    The rules were simple for Rosa Parks, too. She could sit in the back of the bus, until a white person needed the seat. If she didn't like the rules, she didn't have to ride on the bus.


    Laugh moar.
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Anonymous Member

    What can I say?

    Informative information is informative.

    Valid comparison is valid. Not all laws are just.
  40. Anonymous Member

    Rosa parks didn't have any option, dare I say it, it was black and white, she was a second class citizen in society.

    A cheer leader has the option of going to the coach and discussing the situation and finding a resolution, something Parks never had. If you allow free speech in a cheer leading team you introduce chaos, only half the team cheering for player x because the other half think he's an asshole, 3 not cheering for player y because he cheated on their bestest friend last week, and so it goes on. It's a simple task, you cheer, if you have a problem with it then it's not the place for you, you can't have selective cheering.

    Circumstances change every five mins when kids are involved, especially the female ones, and kids fall out one day then best friends the next so to allow thet to influence the team would render it pointless.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins