Rape in high school

[zap]

I wasn't going to post this but after I read it twice I thought I should,

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/09/17249913-two-ohio-high-school-football-players-to-go-on-trial-this-week-in-rape-of-drunk-girl?
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Two high school football players go on trial this coming week on charges of raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl during a night of partying in Steubenville. Around the football-powerhouse city, some are demanding to know why at least three other teens aren't facing charges, too.
After the athletes' arrest last summer, one of the many rumors that swirled around town proved all too true: Three boys, two of them members of Steubenville High's celebrated Big Red team, saw something happening that night and didn't try to stop it.
Instead, two pulled out their cellphones and took video and a photo.
The allegations shocked and roiled the city of 18,000, but prosecutors brought no charges against the witnesses, fueling months of furious online accusations of a cover-up to protect the team — something law enforcement authorities have vehemently denied.



So 2 other men IE. (boys)saw this going on and pulled out their cell phones to take pictures and videos , I m sure that any one of our GSUS ers would have put a stop to this type of behavior right away!

Really.... this is what american men/society have come to ?

I know that if any of you saw something like this going on you wouldn't video tape it / take a few pictures , you would have shown so balls and stopped this.

Very sad that this is what our society has become.

[Hitch]

Zap, this type of thing isn't anything new. It's been going on for a long time, minus the idiots will cell phones.

I stopped something like this from happening, in the dorms first year college. Blocked the door to the room, wouldn't let any guy in there because the gal was passed out drunk. I slept in the hallway that night. Not one fucking thanks.

Zap, the reality...you would not know of this story, if a man intervened. If a man stopped this, this story would be untold. People like misery and drama, and that's what they focus on, the bad stuff.

[JDRock]

lets play GUESS THAT RACE! ....leroy ill bet

[AndreaGail]

lets play GUESS THAT RACE! ....leroy ill bet

no way JD. I have seen every law and order episode and the evil rapist is ALWAYS white, so that would be my guess

plus black intellectuals are too busy doing science and writing novels to be caught up in the world of dating and women, other than social outings

::) :D

[Jewboo]

...prosecutors brought no charges against the witnesses...



Bystanders and even the police have no "duty" to protect a drunk high-schooler from anything:




THE POLICE HAVE "NO AFFIRMATIVE DUTY" TO PROTECT US

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.); http://laws.findlaw.com/us/489/189.html

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.); http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=6260

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975) (The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985) (The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist's wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965) (In an action against police officers and city for personal injuries sustained by Kathryne Ne Casek when she was knocked down on a sidewalk by two suspects who had been arrested by the officers, the Court of Appeal held the amount of force or method used by a police officer in attempting to keep an arrested person or persons in custody is a discretionary act for purpose of application of doctrine of immunity of government officials from civil liability for their discretionary acts, and therefore Ms. Ne Casek who was injured by two escaped suspects who had been handcuffed together could not maintain an action against the arresting officers based on the officer's alleged negligence in using insufficient force to keep the prisoners in custody.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969) (An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the Watts' Riots' of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) (A silent burglar alarm installed on the premises of the store operated by the plaintiff was, during the course of a robbery by two armed men, activated at 3:32 p.m. and the alert message was relayed to the police department. The dispatch message to the units in the field was at 3:43 p.m., and a police unit arrived at the scene of the robbery at 3:44 p.m. The delay in the transmission of the dispatch enabled the robbers to complete the robbery and escape with jewelry and merchandise in the amount of $49,000. The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. "The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled discretionary' or ministerial.'"); http://www.copcrimes.com/brophy.htm#Hartzler

[Glass]

Two high school football players go on trial this coming week on charges of raping a nearly passed-out-drunk 16-year-old girl during a night of partying in Steubenville

yes indeed. What has it come to when a young under age lady gets here self rat arsed drunk so she cannot defend her own honour. Where are her escorts? Her chaperones?

[Ares]

Zap, I stopped something like this from happening my senior year of high school. Football team just won a sectional and was going to state. I was invited and went to the party. This was back in 1997. Anyway a girl who was extremely attractive passed out and some idiot was starting to fondle her breast. I walked over to the guy and told him to knock it off. He said why? I said because if you don't you're going to have a problem. He said you aren't going to do anything. I pulled out a pocket knife opened the blade and said go ahead touch her again, you'll find out if I'm going to do anything. Who do you think a jury is going to side with? A guy fondling a passed out girl? Or a guy trying to keep her from getting raped?

He said F--- You, and walked away. Came back a little while later with 4 friends. I picked her up and carried her upstairs and laid her down on the bed. I feel asleep with my back against the door inside the room with her. She woke up around 4-5am or something to go to the bathroom and throw up. She was disoriented, I helped her back to bed where she went back to sleep. I went back to the door and fell back asleep. Around 9am, she woke back up and asked what had happened. I told her and she thanked me for watching out for her. Prior to that night we hardly ever spoke except in class, we were friends after that. She still knows that she can count on me to watch out for her.

So unlike hitcher I got a friend and a thanks out of it. But I have no idea how a man can watch someone being taken advantage of.

[vacuum]

It seems like getting drunk is really stupid for girls to do.

[Ares]

It seems like getting drunk is really stupid for girls to do.

Getting that drunk is even stupid for guys to do as well. Girls can get sexually assaulted, while guys can just get physically assaulted.

[Publico]

... But I have no idea how a man can watch someone being taken advantage of.

A man won't.

I knew of a girl who would go to the high school parties, milk a beer and pretending to get drunk. When a guy would try to take advantage she'd go ape-shit on the guy.

The thread title is somewhat misleading. The rape did not occur in a high school.

Somebody I care dearly about was kicked-out by her "dad" per his new bitch of a wive. This young lady went to live with her mother. Mother had problem and lived in Chicago Ghetto west. She was 14 a "good girl" (read virgin) and the only white person in the school. On day 3 she was in the bathroom when 5 guys raped her. She dropped out, became a coke whore, had a baby when she was 17. The whole of course of events angers me to this day some 20 years later.

[brosil]

Actually, guys can be sexually assaulted too and not in a good way.

[zap]

No, bystanders don't have to help, and these days it seems like this is how kids are being trained, don't get involved don't stand up for whats right, just go along with anything, OH and take pictures !!!

I guess we have lost any morals whatsoever, Spineless scum.

[horseshoe3]

Getting drunk and having a car accident makes you a criminal.

Getting drunk and having sex makes your partner a criminal.

[willie pete]

both were convicted and sentenced to at least a year in juvenille jail, could be longer than that, could be until they're both 21, if that'd been my daughter, I'd be waiting on them to get out

[Dogman]

both were convicted and sentenced to at least a year in juvenille jail, could be longer than that, could be until they're both 21, if that'd been my daughter, I'd be waiting on them to get out In many ways the saying "Revenge is best served cold" holds many truths.

It works very well to let sometimes years go by before collecting the debt.