Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Only in Texas: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...st-2278522.html I can see why SCOTUS wouldn't want to take the case, but two appellate courts actually upheld the award? Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Those are the stories where you worry about Judges in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I just can't agree with the ruling. I disagree with continuing to label him a rapist when he was not convicted. But he did assault her, and she should not be punished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 02:19 PM) Those are the stories where you worry about Judges in America. I'm not convinced that the judges were actually wrong although the 5th Circuits decision is sparse and poorly written. She didn't really have speech rights in her capacity as cheerleader. She most certainly did in her capacity as student, but that doesn't matter. It's easy to blame the judges, but the incident never happens if the principal gave a crap about his students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) I dont see why she wouldnt have a free speech rights in her capacity as a cheerleader? If Im at a sporting event as an athlete can a school order me to say something or else I am expelled from the team? If my coach ordered me to yell racist remarks at the other team, and he kicked me off because I remained silent, would that be okay? Why did she not have the right to stay silent? I understand she may not have had the right to yell rapist, etc., but I cant think of any reason why a student doesnt have the right to remain silent if they disagree. Being a cheerleader is nothing more than being a part of a student activity, and the school is a govt entity so it falls under the scope of 1st Amendment rights. I personally think that she had the right to remain silent. But even on that wasnt what I was getting at. The fact that a Judge went even further: "announced that HS must also reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it." How was that lawsuit frivolous? Reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but I cant see how it was so far out there to sue because a school was making her cheer when she wanted to remain silent. Its easy to blame the judges because they made a ruling that some how excludes cheerleading from the first amendment and then ruled that it was frivolous when other similar action would be considered 1st amendment violation but for the fact she was a cheerleader. Do you really think that there is some supreme court case that suggests cheerleaders arent covered by the first amendment? Because a frivolous lawsuit means that there was no chance they could win, and I actually think the District Court was wrong. Edited May 4, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 4, 2011 Author Share Posted May 4, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2011 -> 02:08 PM) I dont see why she wouldnt have a free speech rights in her capacity as a cheerleader? If Im at a sporting event as an athlete can a school order me to say something or else I am expelled from the team? If my coach ordered me to yell racist remarks at the other team, and he kicked me off because I remained silent, would that be okay? Why did she not have the right to stay silent? I understand she may not have had the right to yell rapist, etc., but I cant think of any reason why a student doesnt have the right to remain silent if they disagree. Being a cheerleader is nothing more than being a part of a student activity, and the school is a govt entity so it falls under the scope of 1st Amendment rights. I personally think that she had the right to remain silent. But even on that wasnt what I was getting at. The fact that a Judge went even further: "announced that HS must also reimburse the school sistrict $45,000, for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit against it." How was that lawsuit frivolous? Reasonable people can have reasonable differences, but I cant see how it was so far out there to sue because a school was making her cheer when she wanted to remain silent. Its easy to blame the judges because they made a ruling that some how excludes cheerleading from the first amendment and then ruled that it was frivolous when other similar action would be considered 1st amendment violation but for the fact she was a cheerleader. Do you really think that there is some supreme court case that suggests cheerleaders arent covered by the first amendment? Because a frivolous lawsuit means that there was no chance they could win, and I actually think the District Court was wrong. That was kinda my thinking. At best there's a case out there about students having/not having free speech rights while in school (the jesus bong tshirt case for example), but I doubt this has been heard before. Classy school district down there though, especially if they record the judgment and try to collect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I was referring to the legal determination, not the award, which I don't agree with either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 The award is what made me worried, not the other part where I believe reasonable people could have reasonable differences. I know my first statement wasnt that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I know we have some lawyers here, but as I read the report the judges have said if you are a cheerleader you must cheer. Same as if you are on the basketball team you have to dribble and shoot when asked. She does have the right to remain silent, all she had to do was not try out for cheerleading and she would be silent. Instead she tried out and was accepted as a cheerleader. If a cheerleader does not lead cheers, she isn't fulfilling what she agreed to do. I get that point. The principal is the problem here. A common sense solution is to allow her to do what she did, as long as it doesn't create a spectacle. BTW, at least in my campus, cheerleaders do not rotate for different sports. They are cheerleaders for the entire year. If the guy didn't play football, or was never announced, it never would have been a problem. Again, the principal has his head way up his ass on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 And seriously, why the hell is that boy allowed to play? That's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 5, 2011 Author Share Posted May 5, 2011 Another "well, that's not right" news story (didn't know where else to put this without starting a new topic): http://techland.time.com/2011/05/05/father...letter-techland Ramazan Acar, a 24-year-old father in Melbourne, Australia, announced to Facebook and the rest of the world that he was murdering his only daughter, as he was committing the act. "It's ova I did it," he texted the mother of his daughter, Rachelle D'Argent, after he killed his 2-year-old daughter, Yazmina. “bout 2 kill ma kid,” he posted in a status update right before. I'd be more than happy to impose the death penalty on this guy. I'd flip the switch myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 5, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) Another "well, that's not right" news story (didn't know where else to put this without starting a new topic): http://techland.time.com/2011/05/05/father...letter-techland I'd be more than happy to impose the death penalty on this guy. I'd flip the switch myself. You know in principle I'm against the death penalty, but I wouldn't waste any time or effort to spare that idiot. Providing he wasn't suffering from a mental disease or defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 7, 2011 Share Posted May 7, 2011 You know, this is a very useful thread title. Two Muslim men were removed from a Delta commuter flight operated by Atlantic Southeast Airlines Friday after the pilot refused to fly with them on board. Well, that's not right.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 12, 2011 Author Share Posted May 12, 2011 Not to the same degree as these other stories, but have you guys read about these flash mobs? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/05/11/pol...wn-mob-attacks/ Some of the comments are a bit much, but I agree with some - where the f*** are the parents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 12, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) Not to the same degree as these other stories, but have you guys read about these flash mobs? http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/05/11/pol...wn-mob-attacks/ Some of the comments are a bit much, but I agree with some - where the f*** are the parents? Why did I read the comments on that article. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 What the hell is happening to this city? This is like 3-4 events in the same amount of days. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,5229666.story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) What the hell is happening to this city? This is like 3-4 events in the same amount of days. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,5229666.story Well obviously the answer is to ban cellphones because they are being used to harm people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) What the hell is happening to this city? This is like 3-4 events in the same amount of days. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/lo...0,5229666.story This is a perfect example of how people get whipped up in a media-induced frenzy. Crime rates have been going down, a lot, for some time now. So its not about "what the hell is happening to this city". The city isn't have a problem. Its that some crimes individually are getting more disturbing, and in the case of the mobs and group attacks, its that the criminals are finding new ways to succeed. Doesn't mean the city is any less safe, as evidence tells us its in fact safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Well obviously the answer is to ban cellphones because they are being used to harm people. Might be difficult. I mean cell phones are super cheap, we all know that, but they're also 100% necessary to function in modern society so...I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) This is a perfect example of how people get whipped up in a media-induced frenzy. Crime rates have been going down, a lot, for some time now. So its not about "what the hell is happening to this city". The city isn't have a problem. Its that some crimes individually are getting more disturbing, and in the case of the mobs and group attacks, its that the criminals are finding new ways to succeed. Doesn't mean the city is any less safe, as evidence tells us its in fact safer. Have you been following the news? It's the same type of criminals committing the same types of crimes in some of the "safest" areas of the city. That's completely new. It's not as if the media just decided to open up a crime desk. Edited June 9, 2011 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) Have you been following the news? It's the same type of criminals committing the same types of crimes in some of the "safest" areas of the city. That's completely new. It's not as if the media just decided to open up a crime desk. It will also be years before any of this shows up in any statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) Have you been following the news? It's the same type of criminals committing the same types of crimes in some of the "safest" areas of the city. That's completely new. It's not as if the media just decided to open up a crime desk. Its not new, muggings have been happening in River North forever. The fact that its a mob action in daylight certainly makes it semi-unique, but that doesn't mean that something dramatic is happening to the city. Its just a new tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) It will also be years before any of this shows up in any statistics. That's not true at all. For a city the size of Chicago, monthly stats for crimes are quite useful, and available very quickly. In fact, CPD has a website where you can create a dynamic map of recent crimes in a given area over a given period of time, if you want to get really granular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 9, 2011 Author Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) Its not new, muggings have been happening in River North forever. The fact that its a mob action in daylight certainly makes it semi-unique, but that doesn't mean that something dramatic is happening to the city. Its just a new tactic. I lived on the near north side and commuted daily to/from downtown at all hours of the day for about 5 years. This stuff is new. Of course there have been muggings before, but not like this, and not so frequently. Call it a new tactic if you'd like, but it's "new" and it's a disturbing trend that's been going on for about a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) I lived on the near north side and commuted daily to/from downtown at all hours of the day for about 5 years. This stuff is new. Of course there have been muggings before, but not like this, and not so frequently. Call it a new tactic if you'd like, but it's "new" and it's a disturbing trend that's been going on for about a month. The only thing new about it is the method. 4 or 6 muggings in a month in River North is nothing new at all, in fact I'm sure the number is higher than that in total for a typical month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts