Justice Dept. sides with 14-year-old girl raped while serving as 'bait' in middle school sting

al.com ^ | 09/17/2014 | Challen Stephens

[tacticalogic]

The part where he was killed by the general population?

That was Ken McElroy.

[RginTN]

One thing which stands out to me is the school did not contact her parents or report the incident to the police before they set up this sting.

This girl needs to sue this school district into bankruptcy due to the outrageous conduct by their employees.

[jonno]

They deserve jail time for their action. It was criminally negligent.

Agreed

[jonno]

noob...

[a fool in paradise]

And in none of this do I feel that the girl was treated right. By either school or the boy. Nothing she did “deserved” the result.

[a fool in paradise]

Schools don’t need to notify parents when the remove girls from school to shuttle them to an abortionist, why would the school notify parents when they are using daughters as rape bait?

[caligatrux]

That's just stating your preferred conclusion.

Wrong. Whether the girl said "yes" to the activity is immaterial to the School's civil liability. Assuming the risk is an affirmative defense to negligence which the School cannot establish because the girl cannot expressly or impliedly assume the risk of staturory rape. A minor cannot legally consent to sex, just like a minor cannot expressly consent to assuming the risk.

The fact that the girl might get sexually assaulted by the boy was emaninately foreseeable by the School because school employees instructed her, a minor in their care, to pretend to agree to have sex with a boy who was asking her to have sex and who was involved in previous incidents of sexual misconduct.

The act or omission constituting negligence occurred at that point, even though the harm occurred sometime later. The fact that the girl said "yes" to the boy before the sex is immaterial because its statutory rape.

[jonno]

My prescription for the perp: a healthy dose of pain therapy regularly applied to the affected area. If the condition persists, amputation is indicated.

Once he’s “well”, we’ll discuss consequences...

[wastedyears]

There is no way a suit would proceed against the police for not protecting, they have no duty to do so, not even if they encourage you to be bait in a sting operation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the police have no duty to protect you.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Sounds like your typical Kennedy.

[UCANSEE2]

It seems to me that the teaching assistant, the teachers, the principal and vice principal are are guilty of corruption of a minor for agreeing to use the 14 year old special needs girl in a ‘sting’ without PARENTAL CONSENT.

[UCANSEE2]

She isn’t old enough to consent for one thing

Certainly not old enough to consent to performing an adult act of law enforcement.

[Cboldt]

I mixed Bundy up with Dahmer. Now I have to look up McElroy, a new one on me.

[UCANSEE2]

Her age isn't relevant. The legal question is did she know what risk she was assuming.

Well, yes it is relevant, and she was ASSURED she would not be at risk by ADULTS IN AUTHORITY OVER HER (and responsible for her safety).

The alleged ADULTS had no business asking a minor to participate in an ADULT ACTION, especially one with danger.

The alleged ADULTS did not get permission from her parents, yet the same child would have to have a DOCTOR's and PARENT's written consent to take an aspirin while in school.

If they did not get permission from her parents, they are guilty of violating school policy and STATE and FEDERAL LAW.

[tacticalogic]

You don’t hear about it much. They know how to shoot, shovel, and shut up in Skidmore.

[UCANSEE2]

While some of the pleadings indicate that the police were called and a rape investigation was held, I found nothing that indicates the boy was ever charged with or convicted of any crime.

Even though they have complete proof. AND they (the school staff) knew BEFOREHAND that the boy was planning to rape the girl.

[UCANSEE2]

Schools don’t need to notify parents when the remove girls from school to shuttle them to an abortionist

I thought much about the same thing. However, we need to change that. IF ONLY BECAUSE it led to this type of behavior by the 'teaching assistant'.

[Cboldt]

-- the girl cannot expressly or impliedly assume the risk of staturory rape. A minor cannot legally consent to sex, just like a minor cannot expressly consent to assuming the risk. --

I'd say, "that depends." Obviously, she didn't consent to sex of any sort, nevermind rape. Statutory rape, FWIW, is typically invoked when both parties consent to sex, but the sex is illegal anyway.

Children as young as 7 can assume the risk of their dangerous behavior

I'm also not defending the school, and I see there are cases where schools lost/settled on facts less egregious than presented here. negligent security: when is crime your problem?

In Jane C. v. New York City Board of Education, Queens County, New York Supreme Court, 2009, the plaintiff was a minor who was sexually assaulted. The plaintiff was a 16 year-old student who was sexually assaulted by three 18 year-old students in one of the school's restrooms. The plaintiff argued that the school's policy specified that seven guards would be stationed throughout the school to prevent after hours re-entry into the school of any students who did not have to attend an after school program, and that none of the assailants attended an after school program, but that they were able to enter the school after hours because the guards were all in a meeting. The plaintiff's counsel also argued that several janitors saw the assailants, but that they were not asked to leave. One of the assailants had a history of sexual violence against students and teachers, and that the school had received evaluations that indicated that the other two assailants were also potentially dangerous. After the first day of trial, the case was settled for $1,650,000.00.

The posture in this case is motion for summary judgment. I figure the case survive the school's motion to dismiss.

[Cboldt]

My remark about age relevance was intended to be narrowly drawn to whether she knew there was a risk, and that the nature of the risk involved a boy doing naughty stuff with her privates.

I'm not defending the school, just describing the school's legal argument. I think the administrators are lower than low. I haven;t done as much research as you have into violations of state and federal law as they relate to the incident. I tend to disregard school policy, as much of it is nonsense on stilts.

Students should be made wary of promises, suggestions, etc. made to them by teachers and others in positions of authority, and be REALLY wary when hearing an assurance of "promise to look out for you." Those promises are worthless.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Ugh. It just gets worse and worse.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/09/madison_county_boe.html#incart_related_stories

Here is the blog of the local talk show host (Dale Jackson). He has quite a bit of detail. He also interviewed the girl’s attorney this morning which he’ll probably upload.

http://www.theattackmachine.com/