Cheerleader Billed $45k After Not Cheering On Her Rapi...sorry, Assaulter

[TheWriter]

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

Personally I think this is disgusting.

[Aellon]

I agree. However, legally speaking the court's decision was right, no matter how morally wrong this is. The problem here was that the first case was pleaded down. If he had been charged with a vice crime, he wouldn't be on that court. As a law student, and paralegal for the justice department I detest these plea bargains, as it makes people go unpunsihed.

[Will]

I think it's more common for youthful offenders to receive plea bargains to that extent, or at least that's probably why this guy in particular did.  In most cases, I don't think that's a bad idea.  Gangraping a 16 year old girl, however, seems like it should carry a far stiffer punishment than he received, teenager or not.  This really is pretty disgusting.

[Aellon]

I agree Will, however I'm not against plea bargaining as such. But more against plea bargains like this, where a vice charge gets turned into a simple assault charge.

[RubySlippers]

But he was not legally a rapist the legal charge pleaded to was ASSAULT this is someone who beats up someone else so he was not legally a rapist, which would have been a lifetime commitment and label as a sex offender. That actually fit the crime. And paying legal charges for a failed civil lawsuit is proper she lost the case so has to pay.

What she could have done was get a restraining order on the ASSAULT charge to keep him so far away from her the school would then have to keep them apart for be in violation of the law and a lawsuit target. With her the victim of a crime he would not likely be allowed on the court with her therefore she would not cheer him on in home games. The order would have been easy he pled guilty to a violent crime on her.

[Aellon]

Yes I already said that legally it was all in order. The restraining order would have been no use really, as the school would've pulled her from the court, not him. His sporting achievments would outweigh her rights to be in the cheersquad. So basically, she'd be in the same situation

[RubySlippers]

Then ask the judge to ,in his or her order, give superior right to be present to the young woman if there is a conflict at a school public class or event. Its not hard its a matter of wording it so if both would be at the same place she has the right to be there and the young man must be removed. Its not that hard this was an assault so he pled guilty so her rights and safety should come first. Naturally include all parties that were involved in the tragic rape.

And one other thing bothers me why didn't they sue the parents of the rapist for the costs of therapy, failure to control their child and other things that might fit as a minor it was their right and duty to and the other two rapists brought in they caught.

They needed clearly a better lawyer that would have done this before anything could have been done to kick her off the squad, with that order in place she would at least have legal grounds to sue. And a judge rightly could have dealt with this matter properly fining the school for example for contempt of his or her order for each offense.

[Funguy81]

Aellon is not saying that the law would recognize the player's achievements over the girl's rights to participate. She has legal right that if a restraining order is indeed in place, the school officials would guide the girl out of the gym and keep their star player in the game. To them, winning games is more important than the welfare of one of their students.

[Martee]

The whole situation could have been avoided if the school had policies for their student athletes regarding moral behavior and good citizenship. In my H.S., athletics were a privilege. Getting arrested and pleading guilty to a charge like assault would get you kicked immediately.

Of course, I went to H.S. in the northeast U.S.  School athletics are a whole different beast down here in the South.

[Zakharra]

 That is so messed up. There is no way she should have been required to cheer that boy's name. they could have just had her sit down for that time. There was no reason to kick her off the team and I do agree with Martee, the boy is the one that should have been kicked from the team, not the girl. He pleaded guilty for assault for the goddess's sake..

[Assallya]

Legality aside, I think what irks me most is the behavior of the coach.  What a contemptible man!  He has no soul, none what so ever.  If she truly explained her position articulately how could any person blatantly ignore her?  I'd have pulled her with a "sudden injury" and replaced her with a second just so she wouldn't have to deal with gazing upon her assailant's ugly mug.

I think this is another problem we've come across lately.  Girls and women are stronger then they've ever been.  Many are capable of functioning while in great pain or after a tragedy.  (Actually, we've always been able to, thank you very much :) )  Men, particularly those clinging to old conceptions, only seem to believe a woman has been hurt when they're in tears.  I've heard the phrase, "Well, she's not crying.  It couldn't have been that bad." quite a number of times over the years.

Again, what an ass.

[Sure]

The trouble is that courts deal in the letter of the law and in precedent. There is no defensible case that a spokesman has a legally protected right to alter the message they have been instructed to convey, which is what ruling in her favor would have entailed. This doesn't change the fact this whole affair leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but if the case for exceptions doesn't work either. For every 'good' exception a judge might make, like if he had done so here, there might be a horribly racist judge making bad exceptions.

As for her having to pay, I think this is more a case of 'you lost, pay the other side's legal fees', which is fairly standard practice.

The trouble you get with morality clauses is that morality is so subjective. For example, that whole thing with a guy getting kicked off of his team for having consensual premarital sex. I know they've been used to persecute homosexuals as well.

As to why the plea bargain was issued, perhaps they thought they didn't have a strong enough case or saw it as an act of mercy to someone who is still a child. Particularly with the whole sex offender thing that would basically destroy his life.

Legalities operate poorly sometimes, but they do have a rationale behind them. As to the way the High School treated the whole affair, it was tasteless but they're within their rights. You can kick recalcitrant players who refuse to do as they're instructed off of teams and it was their call to let the guy continue to play. Honestly, I'm more sympathetic to their decision to kick her off the squad since she disobeyed her coach's instructions and refused to participate, but I still have no idea why teams are so likely to let people play when they've shown themselves to be of such low character. But then again, they still get worshiped by sports-followers, so it might be a more general pathos.

I think this is another problem we've come across lately.  Girls and women are stronger then they've ever been.  Many are capable of functioning while in great pain or after a tragedy.  (Actually, we've always been able to, thank you very much :) )  Men, particularly those clinging to old conceptions, only seem to believe a woman has been hurt when they're in tears.  I've heard the phrase, "Well, she's not crying.  It couldn't have been that bad." quite a number of times over the years.

As opposed to 'No blood, no bones, no tears' which tells men they are not allowed to cry or complain unless they are injured enough to go to the hospital? How about 'take it like a man'? 'Sucking it up' is a culture that affects both genders, in my experience men more, and is perpetuated by both genders. It is destructive in any case.

[Jude]

The title you have given to this bit of news is a complete fabrication.  What actually happened is this:

1)  Something happened wherein this woman, HS, suffered at the hands of many of her fellow students.  It is alleged that a rape occurred.
2)  Mr. Bolton confessed to his role in whatever went down, and was given a misdemeanor assault sentence.  Not a rape sentence.  Therefore, he was not her convicted rapist.
3)  She was dismissed from the cheerleading squad over refusing to cheer specifically for her assaulter [note:  not her rapist, saying that is legally incorrect]. (It's not cool anyway, I agree with that)
4)  She decided to sue the school for money over this.
5)  They were so insistent with their suit that they appealed, and pushed hard for a judgment in their favor.  Had they given up once the first court ruled they were entitled to nothing, the 45k "frivolous lawsuit" fee wouldn't have been assessed.

When you make posts, please give articles accurate titles that actually describe the situation in a non-biased fashion.  Remember that the vast majority of people who read threads do not read the news article linked in them -- they go off of what others are saying and the summations you give.  When you give a misleading summation, you are spreading misinformation, and often stoking the flames of outrage unfairly.

I'm also wondering where people are getting this idea that he was plea-bargained for reasons of mercy from.  Plea bargains are often given because the prosecutors know they can't get the supposed criminal on the other charges, so they offer to drop what they can't win on in order to nail them on the lesser counts which they're sure they actually are responsible for.

Furthermore, when accusations are first made, we do not know whether they are true or not.  They need to be funneled down to something agreeable through investigation and systematic review of the facts -- that's why we have a judicial system, as opposed to judging people entirely on accusations.  It's possible, even most likely option in this situation, that the accused did not sexually assault her but was lumped under that umbrella charge with those who did to begin with.  Then, in the proceedings they found out that he was responsible for assaulting her, thus he was charged with that.

Either way, if he was convicted for assault, you have to judge him by that -- not by other accusations.  That's not fair, that's not how our legal system works, and we know nothing about what happened beyond that short paragraph in the article.  So unless people are drawing from another source I'm unaware of, there's a lot of baseless speculation here.

[TheWriter]

I gave the same bias as that of the article, presenting the topic with little difference from how it was presented to me.  It's not my job to be the moral compass of The Independent, nor is it my job to force other people to read it.  If you want to attack someone's misinterpretation of events, you talk to them, not me.

That said, I stand by everything I said.  Personally I still think it's disgusting.

[Assallya]

As opposed to 'No blood, no bones, no tears' which tells men they are not allowed to cry or complain unless they are injured enough to go to the hospital? How about 'take it like a man'? 'Sucking it up' is a culture that affects both genders, in my experience men more, and is perpetuated by both genders. It is destructive in any case.

I think I was misunderstood here.  I was citing a singular example.  Let me add, "As opposed to", people are people and come in all different shapes, sizes and temperaments.  My point was that many people are blinded by old paradigms, and in this case, if not by the paradigm, by that all consuming lust for being the best.

[Will]

I'm also wondering where people are getting this idea that he was plea-bargained for reasons of mercy from.  Plea bargains are often given because the prosecutors know they can't get the supposed criminal on the other charges, so they offer to drop what they can't win on in order to nail them on the lesser counts which they're sure they actually are responsible for.

I'm getting that idea because that exact thing happens very, very often with minors.  For reasons of mercy.

[Shjade]

Setting aside the lawsuit business for a moment, I'm undecided what I think of this.

On the one hand, cheering on someone who recently assaulted you does seem a rather difficult, if not stupid, thing to ask someone to do.

On the other, were I in her position, I'm reasonably sure I would have quit the cheerleading squad well before this incident took place the moment I heard my school was letting my attacker back on the team with no apparent repercussions.

This might sound insensitive, but it seems to me a bit like a case of wanting to both have and eat her cake. You can't join/stay on the cheerleading squad for a team and then pick and choose which of its members you want to cheer on. You're there for the team. Therefore, if you take issue with any member of that team, you should probably pull yourself out of the situation altogether to avoid exactly this kind of conflict.

Is it "fair" that she be the one to stop cheering rather than he be the one to stop playing? Probably not, but that was the situation she was in, the choice she had to make.

The legal issues I can't really comment on, but from a practical standpoint, I have to say I disagree with her chosen course of action.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm agreeing with Jude that the thread title is misleading, though for different reasons - as presented, it's implying that the girl was charged money because she did not cheer the rapist/assaulter, when the reality is that she was charged with the fee as a consequence of 'frivolous lawsuits', which does have precedent in the 'pay the other sides' legal fees' line.

[Will]

Well, it's a pretty close paraphrase of the title of the linked article, so I don't think it was a deliberate attempt by the OP to color the situation.  Just a continuation.  Maybe not much better, but still.

[TheGlyphstone]

Fair enough. So I guess it's as much the newspaper's fault.

[Serephino]

First of all, it scares me that it was decided this poor girl had no right to free speech because she was there on behalf of the school.  I'm surprised that hasn't been talked about more, because in other topics the right of free speech has been considered all important, even when the message was vile.

Second of all, even though he was only charged with assault, it doesn't mean what was done to the girl wasn't traumatic.  I'm pretty sure they let him plead down because it was easier, and wouldn't ruin his life like being convicted of rape would be.  I have experience with this.  As a teenager I was sexually assaulted by one of my mom's friends.  The DA told me I could press charges of sexual assault on a minor, but she was willing to plead guilty to some lesser charge.  The DA encouraged me to let her do that because it would avoid a trial, and me being put through being put on the stand.  Does that mean it was no big deal, and I'm not emotionally effected?  I mean no, we don't know for sure, but even assault can be traumatic. 

Maybe they shouldn't have sued, but I think the school was incredibly unfair about this.  Why should she have to give up cheerleading, especially if she loved it, just because some jackass 'assaulted' her. 

[Shjade]

Maybe they shouldn't have sued, but I think the school was incredibly unfair about this.  Why should she have to give up cheerleading, especially if she loved it, just because some jackass 'assaulted' her. 

Because cheerleaders are intended to support their team, and she no longer wanted to support their team?

One of them had to go. The school chose him to stay on the team, so it makes sense for her to leave the group supporting that team. If it were me I think I'd go the other way around - let her keep cheering the team and kick his ass off of it - but once that choice was made, well, the rest was obvious.

[Noelle]

First of all, it scares me that it was decided this poor girl had no right to free speech because she was there on behalf of the school.  I'm surprised that hasn't been talked about more, because in other topics the right of free speech has been considered all important, even when the message was vile.

Whaaat? How is that scary? When has school ever been a venue for free speech? They monitor and control the way students look, act, and speak all the time for the sake of not only safety, but unity and general cohesion throughout the school system. Besides, when it comes to an extracurricular (that is to say, optional) activity, you can look at it this way -- if you're a football player who refuses to pass the ball to another teammate who has harmed you in the past, it's hardly surprising when you get removed from the football team. Nobody is forcing you to pass the football, but if you're unable or unwilling to perform a task that any number of other players can, why would they let you play?

Thing is, the school is not involved in this case. They are not in a position to take sides or pick up where the law left off, especially if the victim isn't satisfied with what the law has done already.  The school did not force her to cheer for him, she was allowed to protest by standing with her arms crossed and her mouth shut, and now she's being removed from the team because of the basic functions she is unwilling to do, not because of her attitude towards that particular guy.

Do I feel for the girl? Absolutely. I wholeheartedly give my sympathy to her and anyone else who has ever been a victim of sexual assault/rape, and I hope she's taking steps to move past this thing that's happened to her and that she doesn't try to blame herself. I hope she's getting the loving support she needs and will somehow find a way to come out of everything stronger. I hope the guy truly feels the weight of whatever it is he's done and pays for it appropriately and gets himself back on a good track.

I guess my main point is that the school's decision, from the sounds of things, had nothing to do with that particular player or that particular girl or that particular situation. It had everything to do with her not performing the duties assigned to her as a cheerleader and I think going after the school for not setting foot in her assault case to take sides was wrong.

[Serephino]

When I went to school I didn't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so free speech isn't completely absent in school.  And being a cheer leader isn't quite like being a football player.  If a football player refuses to pass the ball to a certain person, then the function of the team suffers.  What harm was there in this girl not cheering for the boy?  Did it make the team lose?  She performed the rest of her duties.  She cheered on the team as a whole up until that point.  Her only issue came when it was just him, and I can't blame her.

No, I don't think it was the school's responsibility to do anything.  That's what the police are for.  However, how is it fair that he gets to keep playing, and she has to quit something she might love, when he was the one that did something wrong?  And obviously, if they sued over this, getting kicked off really upset her.  It was one instance, and she had a good reason, so they should have let it go.           

[Oniya]

I've seen and heard of student athletes being kicked off of the team for numerous infractions - whether it's the case of the BYU player who had consensual, but premarital sex with his girlfriend, or the scholarship athlete who doesn't keep his academic scores high enough.  In the professional sports circles, Gilbert Arenas was suspended for having a gun in the locker room.  It's unfortunate that this school didn't have the backbone to include moral turpitude in the list of infractions that would take a player off the team.

[Noelle]

When I went to school I didn't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so free speech isn't completely absent in school.  And being a cheer leader isn't quite like being a football player.  If a football player refuses to pass the ball to a certain person, then the function of the team suffers.  What harm was there in this girl not cheering for the boy?  Did it make the team lose?  She performed the rest of her duties.  She cheered on the team as a whole up until that point.  Her only issue came when it was just him, and I can't blame her.

The girl didn't just refuse to say the guy's name -- she stopped and stood with her arms crossed. That is disrupting the purpose of cheerleading, which is to (as the lawsuit established) be a mouthpiece for the school and promote enthusiasm and excitement. If one cheerleader is standing their with her arms crossed, it's hard to argue that the rest of the squad doesn't suffer and then the crowd is paying more attention to the one cheerleader who isn't doing anything than the others who are trying to get them fired up.

It's not to say that I blame her, certainly her reluctance is understandable and she has the right to express that -- which she did. She lost in court not just once, but twice in attempt to force the school to let her back on the team to...continue to stand there with her arms crossed every time the team cheers for the one guy. I'd think it more understandable to fight for the guy to get kicked off the football team -- and I do think the guy should've been booted from the football team and any other extracurricular activities due to even his misdemeanor charge, but in the situation we're given, for whatever reason he stayed on the team and that's the reality we're dealing with.

No, I don't think it was the school's responsibility to do anything.  That's what the police are for.  However, how is it fair that he gets to keep playing, and she has to quit something she might love, when he was the one that did something wrong?  And obviously, if they sued over this, getting kicked off really upset her.  It was one instance, and she had a good reason, so they should have let it go.

I'll repeat for emphasis that I agree with you that I think it would've made more sense that the guy lose his right to participate in extracurriculars due to the misdemeanor charge that did come out of this. What I don't agree with is why she sued twice; the girl didn't just sue to be let back on the team, she sued for the right to stand there with her arms crossed and blatantly not participate. You know that would sound absurd in any other arena, such as my football example. Why shouldn't a football player be allowed the same protest rights, then, if he doesn't want to perform something such as passing the ball to one of his teammates? He's got plenty of other teammates he could pass to, so who cares?

The point is that in cheerleading or football or any other after-school activity, you are the mouthpiece of the school and not the other way around. Using the school as a sounding board for her hatred of this guy is not the right way to go about it. I'm not against accommodating her wishes to avoid association with this guy given their history, but it makes me wonder if she discussed it with her squad and thought about trying to find alternative methods of expressing herself without outrightedly just ceasing to cheer and disrupting the routine, but alas, all we have is the story we're given and we don't really have all the facts to speculate on.

[Shjade]

When I went to school I didn't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so free speech isn't completely absent in school.  And being a cheer leader isn't quite like being a football player.  If a football player refuses to pass the ball to a certain person, then the function of the team suffers.  What harm was there in this girl not cheering for the boy?  Did it make the team lose?

Did it make the team lose? No. Of course, refusing to pass to a certain player isn't going to make you lose a football game either unless that player's the only one on your team that can score points. Not cheering for him didn't break the game, but just like the football example, having one cheerleader refusing to cheer causes the function of the squad to suffer. They're there to support the team and one of them can be seen visibly not supporting the team. Counter to purpose.

Not saying the Pledge of Allegiance on your own is one thing. Refusing to participate in a school activity you signed up to participate in can be grounds to be removed from that activity. Likewise, school newspapers don't have the same rights to free speech/freedom of the press as adult journalistic endeavors. Schools having power over students' rights to speech through school organizations is previously established.

[Jude]

The title is accurate now, but still misleading.  It does not reflect points 4 & 5 on my factual rundown in an earlier post.  She was not billed for failing to cheer (as the first time and this one seems to suggest), she was billed for aggressive filing of a frivolous lawsuit.

Please keep in mind that nothing I have said thus far has actually been defending the football player in question, my intent is to clarify the facts of the situation.  I think honesty in journalism and discussion are far more important than this particular case.

[TheWriter]

I'm sorry that my topic doesn't meet your lofty standards for journalist integrity, Jude, but I am not a journalist.  I considered "After Not Cheering On" a more apt choice of words than "For Not Cheering On", which would definitely (as opposed to seeming to) suggest as you say.  However, I also decided that "Cheerleader Billed $45k After Not Cheering On Her Rapist" provided a more accurate depiction of the plight of the cheerleader than "Cheerleader Billed $45k After Frivolous Lawsuits".  Should I even bother to try sharing an article in the future I shall strive to match your shining example of soulless impartiality.

[Noelle]

As a suggestion, you might consider also toning down the level of sarcasm there.

[Jude]

I apologize if it seems like I'm being ridiculously stringent and unfair.

I am only objecting because it seemed like you were mischaracterizing the situation in what you were saying by not mentioning certain facts that make the situation less egregious than what is implied.

When I saw the title of your post, "WTF -- why would a cheerleader be forced to pay 45k for refusing to cheer on someone who raped her, that's nightmarishly unjust" went through my head.  Imagine my surprise -- and feel of dissonance -- when I read on to find out that my initial outrage at the situation was predicated on a nonexistent scenario.  And that wouldn't have bothered me at all if it wasn't for the fact that I know the average person doesn't read -- or at best skims -- the body of articles.

In a world full of confirmation bias, the power of titles is truly amazing.

[Shjade]

*points at subject* Doesn't get into the "why" but does explain the "what" accurately. Improvement?

While I had a similarly "wtf?" reaction to the title, I'm not sure if that's necessarily a bad thing as it certainly did draw my attention, which is sorta the point of headlines, isn't it? I dunno. Why is this an issue, again?

[Callie Del Noire]

I feel bad for the girl, really, and I emphasize with her. (I wouldn't cheer for the guy who assaulted me). In my opinion, the school did wrong bringing back the assaulter, but apparently the school doesn't believe in punishing the offender.

That being said, the girl and her family should have known from the get go that there was a risk if they lost. The fact is, paying everyone's legal fees is a major hedge against even more frivalous law suits. That being said, I don't think hers was frivalous but that is the way things go. I'm more sad that the school system there is more into the 'athletes over anyone else' outlook.

[Tummyache]

Makes me SICK! People suck.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110510/COLUMNISTS02/305100088/Eric-Crawford-There-s-not-a-lot-to-cheer-in-this-story

According to this article, this same student Threatened a Science teacher, and his punishment was lessened from suspension to in-school suspension, and then the entire school day was shorted so he would get out of in-school suspension, all so he could play in the playoffs! The UIL should kick schools out of the league for actions of this nature!

[Callie Del Noire]

The more I hear about this Jock the less I like the way the rules were bent for him. I find myself wondering if we're going to see a body at his feet before he's done with college? This is the sort of behavior that makes football players think they can shoot their girl friend to get out of paying child support if they break up. Used to be that athletes were supposed to follow a code of conduct, and now.. the code of conduct is bent for their benefit.

[Oniya]

Does the particular cheer that they used strike anyone else as adding insult to injury?  I realize it's a common enough cheer, but under the circumstances, I can't help reading a different interpretation to it, especially from the viewpoint of the cheerleader.

But this time three school officials, including — get this — the Silsbee principal and the district superintendent, confronted her for not cheering and ordered her to chant with the others: “Two, four, six, eight, ten! Go, Rakheem! Put it in!”

[Callie Del Noire]

I feel that the issue of pressure being put on girl was reprehensible. She was sexually assaulted and emotionally fragile, and the school reps HAD to know that. I could think of a lot of things that could have been done but it seems the Jock got the benefit of the system in all things.

I feel bad about the 45k but that is the hazard of going to court, but the more I hear about the boy the more I feel that he's playing the system (or more likely having the system played for his benefit) and that without an idea of the consequences of his actions he's going to wind up getting in really big trouble (of course about the only thing I can think of worse than sexual battery that he's gotten away with is outright murder)

[Shjade]

“Two, four, six, eight, ten! Go, Rakheem! Put it in!”

At first I was like  >:(

But then I was like xD

'Cause really, that's just hilarious at that point. It's gone beyond the point of disappointing well into the territory of farce. Seriously, it's starting to sound like something from the Onion.

[Tummyache]

The more I hear about this Jock the less I like the way the rules were bent for him. I find myself wondering if we're going to see a body at his feet before he's done with college? This is the sort of behavior that makes football players think they can shoot their girl friend to get out of paying child support if they break up. Used to be that athletes were supposed to follow a code of conduct, and now.. the code of conduct is bent for their benefit.

Yes, this young man has grown up thinking the rule do not apply to him because he can catch and throw a ball, and will no doubt end up in jail. EVERYONE loses in a situation like that, even him. Shame on the Adults for perpetrating this kind of behavior. That whole town should be ashamed!

[Jude]

It might be worth listening to what the special prosector who convicted him of assault had to say about this situation:

"The State feels it's a fair resolution for the victim, and the victim agrees," said Barlow. "I think it's a fair resolution also. The State is happy he has finally come forward and admitted his guilt."

Barlow understands not everyone in the community will be happy with the agreement.

"The community at large does not know all the facts and all the details involved in that," said Barlow. "Only the attorneys and the people involved. They are the ones that know and that's why everyone who was involved in this does believe it was justice and the proper thing to do."

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/former-39394-school-high.html

There's lots of quotes from Bolton too, if you guys are curious.  I think he sounds like an asshole.

EDIT:  This is interesting too.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/naacp-35462-case-indictments.html

I should also note that the charges weren't plea bargained down from sexual assault to assault; they failed to get anywhere with the sexual assault, so it ended up being a separate grand jury instance later on the assault charges.