Your 16 daughter is drunk and has sex with a boy, doesn't tell you about it and 2 months later finds herself pregnant. Ashamed to admit to you and her friends she had sex with a certain boy due to his race and with the community silently finding it wrong for a white woman to have sex with a black man she comes to you to tell you about her pregnancy.
You become upset.
Your daughter sensing how upset you are thinks about the repercussions of her actions and doubts the relationship with you will ever be the same, so she attempts to maintain her innocence and claim "well it wasn't consensual."
You then take your baseball bat and break every bone in young man's body based on just what your daughter has told you.
The only criminal in this situation is you, and you should be locked up for the protection of the general public. Tragic, yes, but a lot of tragic stories are written about those that loved. The moral of the story is don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by your emotions.
He was suspended, then a grand jury found the claims to flimsy to bring to court. He was then allowed back into class room from ISS (in school suspension, it's where you don't mingle with the rest of the student body).
Again, you and a lot of other commenters are completely disregarding the entire timeline of this case.
At the time he was innocent since a grand jury had already said "not enough evidence"
You don't kick people off teams for accusations.
I'm getting tired of responding to these style of comments of people that don't realize there is a 3 year time line for all of these events, that it took 3 grand juries to indict this young man and even than the evidence is so flimsy that the state accepted a class A misdemeanor assault charge. In Texas "Misdemeanor Assault" can mean you simply threatened someone.
1.) The house party incident where the alleged rape occurred. (Oct 08)
2.) First grand jury: Nope, not enough evidence (Jan-Feb 09)
3.) The "Not going to cheer" incident (Feb 09)
4.) Bolton graduates, Round tree still has a year to go I think. (May 09)
4.) Later on Bolton pleads guilty to Class A Misdemeanor Assault (Sept 09).
5.) Round tree pleads not guilty and is still awaiting trial.
at the time of the incident, he was innocent, a grand jury found him not even indictable. As far as the school is concerned if they removed him from the team, they are damned, if they removed her from the team they are damned.
So they did what most schools did, if it's not a problem don't make it a problem, and the person that makes it a problem is handled. She was removed from the team.
Later on after a 3rd grand jury found him indictable he plead guilty to misdemeanor assault, both sides found this plea deal to be fine.
See page 14 (Heading: QQQ:) where the 1st grand jury did not indict the boys.
Then continue until page 16 when it states the boys were let back in school and allowed to participate in sports. And then the incident occurred.
Remember this is a complaint filed by the plaintiffs so it still calls the boys "Rapists" though at the time no court has found them guilty of such (Misdemeanor Assault is not rape or even sexual assault).
The case was considered frivolous due to "Failure to state a claim". For that find fault with their attorney. Just looking at their initial claim I would say they had no case, being a layman I would have told them to not file this claim.
Could the school have handled it better? Sure
Were they within their rights to remove her from the squad? Sure.
You have a situation where a grand jury found there was not enough evidence to bring him up on charges, he was then allowed to play ball (innocent until proven guilty). You also have an alleged victim to worry about as well as the rights of a young man who thus far has been found not guilty.
You can't remove the boy from the team on allegations without causing a problem for the boy.
You can't NOT remove the boy from the team without causing a problem with the girl.
I honestly don't know how I would have handled the situation if allowed to, I think the school could have been more sensitive to the girl not wanting to cheer for the individual.
Actually many ISP's block them because a.b uses up a LOT of storage space. Even if they do run them they hold a small history of them, since ISP's don't charge for the News Servers access it makes sense not to carry it.
Where as subscription based newgroups access it makes sense to carry full access.
Being common carriers server operators are protected and are not subject to what users post. ISP's even more so.