Posted on 09/19/2014 7:58:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The DA didn’t bring up a rape charge, they don’t bring up cases they know they won’t win even though he DID commit rape.
The school tried adopting a wide stance of “plausible deniability”.
The legal issue in this case is, I think, whether or not the school administration has a legal duty that would have prevented this incident, or did the girl "assume the risk?"
If the sting plan involved a teacher being present, and no teacher is present, the school might argue that she put herself at risk by entering the boys room.
I'm not defending the school, by the way. My point is that it is naive to trust an authority figure. They have no duty, and they tend to be liars.
ANd why exactly weren’t the teachers and administrators Prosecuted for Conspiracy to Commit Rape??
Let me guess: the perp was one of those students that the federal governments insists must NEVER be expelled from school for any offense, no matter how egregious, because it would be discriminatory.
The girl was raped because the expected prevention of said sex act did not occur.
However, she said YES (no means no but yes doesn’t mean yes?). She event communicated to school officials what was happening (which meant that she was uncomfortable and “in her right mind”). They encouraged her to follow through (and they would handle things on their end).
It is difficult to convict someone for a “consensual act” even if the no comes in the middle of the action. This is not a defense of rape. It is a matter of law and the nature of language. Words mean things.
Prosecute the educrats for their roll. What is the criminal charge you would suggest? Delinquency of a minor? Corrupting a minor? Rape? Criminal conspiracy?
Deflecting the question by bringing up another (unrelated) question.
How trollish. I repeat my allegation even more directly.
You do not believe a rape occured and you agree with and side with the school here.
I've read all your replies. And it seems to me that you're either misunderstanding - or misrepresenting - the girls affirmation.
She do not agree - or affirm - to have sex with the boy. She agreed to act as bait.
The boys side could argue that once she was in the bathroom, she "went along", but what does that mean?
It is most likely she had only the barest scrap of understanding of what sex is (e.g. "is pulling down my pants still part of 'acting as bait'?"), and as such, given her mental state she could not give consent.
If I ask someone if I can give them a lobotomy, have they really given their consent if they think I'm really talking about giving them a kind of lolli-pop?
The school officials involved in this deserve to be charged with pimping. Throw the book at these idiots, fine them, and jail them.
She isn’t old enough to consent for one thing, anyone having sex with her is raping her even if she begged for it
That's just stating your preferred conclusion. Bear in mind that the argument doesn't go against (for) the rapist, criminal acts remain criminal acts. The legal point is civil liability to the school. If the girl knew the risk (getting raped), and went in anyway, the school will argue that she voluntarily assumed a known risk. Her age isn't relevant. The legal question is did she know what risk she was assuming. I think the answer to that is "yes," because she didn't want to do it, at first. She was given assurance by administrators. Nobody forced here into the boys room. She went in because (she made a mistake) she trusted the administrators.
If somebody, even a government official, tells you to do something you know is at least wrong, if not illegal (in this case, "go in the boys room"), don't do it!
ISS means they are in a separate room all day away from the general pop except for lunch.
>> SUMMARY...
That’s completely #’d up.
Are there any parents? Are all these kids orphans?
Mark my words, if this kid is not “stopped”, we have another Ted Bundy in the making...
I am more angry with the school officials than the perp. The school officials were little more than procurers for the rapist. They should never be employed by a school system again.
The part where he was killed by the general population?
The perp didn't know that she only agreed to be "bait". Yes is no?
The school administration and teaching assistant were criminally negligent and I don't see anyone on here calling for criminal prosecution of them. Firing. Fining. They deserve jail time for their action. It was criminally negligent. If she could not consent to sex then she could not consent to be rape bait either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.