|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Jul 4, 2011 20:09:42 GMT -5
But who will get all those free throws then?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jul 5, 2011 2:05:22 GMT -5
Presumably to end up paying the school district's legal costs she must have been unsuccessful with her claim? I wouldn't mind reading how she failed in her claim because (excuse the basketball metaphore) it sounds like a slam dunk. While I agree that cheering for her rapist is wrong. A requirement of being in the cheer-leading squad is to cheer for the players regardless. While requiring that she keep a low profile is a problem, all I can see is that she was dropped from the cheer-leading squad. He parents then sued the school. I dont know what exactly they sued for, but I am of the opinion it was not a valid claim. As with all legal cases when one looses one must pay the legal fees of the winner. The $35K has nothing to do with the rape. It is a case of the parents against the school. You're retarded. Ironbite-just telling you that. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 5, 2011 4:27:27 GMT -5
While I agree that cheering for her rapist is wrong. A requirement of being in the cheer-leading squad is to cheer for the players regardless. While requiring that she keep a low profile is a problem, all I can see is that she was dropped from the cheer-leading squad. He parents then sued the school. I dont know what exactly they sued for, but I am of the opinion it was not a valid claim. As with all legal cases when one looses one must pay the legal fees of the winner. The $35K has nothing to do with the rape. It is a case of the parents against the school. You're retarded. Ironbite-just telling you that. Just agreeing with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 5, 2011 7:01:41 GMT -5
While I agree that cheering for her rapist is wrong. A requirement of being in the cheer-leading squad is to cheer for the players regardless. While requiring that she keep a low profile is a problem, all I can see is that she was dropped from the cheer-leading squad. He parents then sued the school. I dont know what exactly they sued for, but I am of the opinion it was not a valid claim. As with all legal cases when one looses one must pay the legal fees of the winner. The $35K has nothing to do with the rape. It is a case of the parents against the school. You can't be serious. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 5, 2011 7:19:48 GMT -5
As with all legal cases when one looses one must pay the legal fees of the winner. [Citation needed] Every read the phrase "and court costs" in a decision? Yeah, that. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 7:28:03 GMT -5
Every read the phrase "and court costs" in a decision? Yeah, that. Yup. and it actually doesn't come up a lot in the decisions I've read. Which, you know, flies in the face of what was claimed here (ALL cases), so do you have anything that actually adds evidence to this, or are you wasting my time? Yeah, probably the latter. kthxbai. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 5, 2011 10:42:43 GMT -5
Yup. and it actually doesn't come up a lot in the decisions I've read. How many have you read? Actually, I do. However, the evidence is in a database of state and federal cases which requires a pay subscription. (I have free access as a law student. Not sure how much the subscription is, but given the fact that huge law firms are unwilling to pay for unlimited access, I would say it is rather steep.) Edit: You are correct in that it is not used in every case. Normally, however, if asked for, it is granted. If it is not in a case, chances are that the winner did not specifically ask for court costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 5, 2011 10:56:06 GMT -5
So....Instead of what you said "yeah, that" too, it's something which is "normally" granted IF asked for.
So basically, where back at the point where you could have not made a dickish response and we'd be in the exact same situation, with the initial claim being false?
So the answer to "are you wasting my time?" was yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 5, 2011 12:30:55 GMT -5
So....Instead of what you said "yeah, that" too, it's something which is "normally" granted IF asked for. So basically, where back at the point where you could have not made a dickish response and we'd be in the exact same situation, with the initial claim being false? So the answer to "are you wasting my time?" was yes. You asked for a cite about court costs. I gave you one. If you do not want people to answer you questions, don't ask questions. You are wasting more of your time by asking questions you do not want answered and then bitching when people answer your question. I am going to rephrase my answer to make it a little clearer... If the winner asks for court costs, they will get court costs. If court costs do not appear in a decision, it is because the winner did not ask for them. So in the original statement of "all cases get court costs," that is accurate to the extent that court costs are applicable. Court costs are applicable when asked for. A winner who does not get court costs has only themselves to blame. In the case at hand, awarding court costs to the school district is completely in line with the way the courts work. The student and her parents lost, so they are stuck with the costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Jodie on Jul 5, 2011 14:17:26 GMT -5
And see it is for reasons like this that the vast majority of rape victims do not come forward to report the incident. They are victimized again by again by the court system and by society.
Excuse me - I am going to be in the Angry Dome Nucear Reactor.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 5, 2011 14:43:02 GMT -5
While I agree that cheering for her rapist is wrong. A requirement of being in the cheer-leading squad is to cheer for the players regardless. While requiring that she keep a low profile is a problem, all I can see is that she was dropped from the cheer-leading squad. He parents then sued the school. I dont know what exactly they sued for, but I am of the opinion it was not a valid claim. As with all legal cases when one looses one must pay the legal fees of the winner. The $35K has nothing to do with the rape. It is a case of the parents against the school. You're retarded. Ironbite-just telling you that. No she it not. At the time the girls was kicked off the team that boy had not been convicted of any crime. Remember that whole Innocent until proven guilty? So while the school could have handled the situation better, say getting rid of the player specific cheers, they did not have to. So for the school is was as simple as a cheerleader refusing to participate. Sylvana is also right at since the boy had not been convicted the parents lawsuit against the school ultimately had nothing to do with the rape. Plus, the winner in any suit can file to have their legal cost reimbursed by the losing party. |
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Jul 5, 2011 14:53:22 GMT -5
So the boy was found not guilty? In that case, we have to assume he's NOT a rapist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 5, 2011 15:01:52 GMT -5
The boy may have been found not guilty but I was sure he had pleaded guilty to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 5, 2011 15:07:56 GMT -5
The boy pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. The thing is that plea came well after the girl was kicked off the cheer leading squad. So at the time, the school had to assume the boy was innocent.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 5, 2011 15:16:06 GMT -5
The boy pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. The thing is that plea came well after the girl was kicked off the cheer leading squad. So at the time, the school had to assume the boy was innocent. True. However, any half competent teacher/coach who was aware of the issue should have been able to foresee that this set of circumstances was going to generate friction, and taken steps to defuse the situation. Of course, that does assume that the teachers/coaches involved were aware of the situation. I guess if they weren't, it could be seen as "stupid angsty teenager crap". |
|
