Posted on 09/19/2014 7:58:02 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ACTUAL TITLE: Justice Department sides with 14-year-old girl raped while serving as 'bait' in middle school sting
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- The federal government today sided with the guardian of a teenage girl who was raped during a botched sting operation in the boy's bathroom, arguing the Madison County School system was liable under federal law to investigate harassment and protect female students.
"A school board cannot avoid summary judgment as a matter of law when a school administrator willfully ignores a plan to use a 14-year-old special needs student as bait to catch a student with a known history of sexual and violent misconduct, and as a result, the student is sodomized," reads the federal brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals late today.
The U.S. Department of Justice argues administrators at Sparkman Middle School near Huntsville knew the boy was dangerous and showed "deliberate indifference."
"According to Principal (Ronnie) Blair," reads today's brief, "June Simpson, a teacher's aide, reported that for several weeks, (a 16-year-old boy) had repeatedly been trying to get girls into the boys' bathroom and in fact had sex with a student in the bathroom on the special needs students' corridor."
Blair rejected the aide's recommendation that the boy be constantly watched, "and told Simpson that (the boy) could not be punished because he had not been 'caught in the act,' short-hand for the school's policy that students could not be disciplined without substantiation of student-on-student misconduct."
The brief states the teaching assistant then devised a plan to use the girl as bait.
"On January 22, 2010, while assisting custodians near the end of the day, (the 16-year-old boy) approached (the 14-year-old girl), who had already rebuffed his recent, repeated propositions to meet in the boys' bathroom for sex," reads the federal amicus brief filed late today.
"(The girl) immediately reported the incident to Simpson, a teacher's aide, who suggested that (the girl) meet (the boy) in the bathroom where teachers could be positioned to catch him 'in the act' before anything happened. (The girl) initially refused, but then acquiesced."
The federal brief highlights, over several paragraphs, the boy's history of sexual aggression and violence. He hit a student in 2008 and was given in-school suspension. In February of 2009, he was suspended for "sexual harassment." In April of 2009, he received in-school suspension for disrespecting a teacher. In September of 2009, he offered to pay another student to beat up a girl and was suspended.
In October of 2009, he told off the bus driver and touched a girl. He was put off the bus for 10 days and given three days in-school suspension. In November of 2009, he groped a girl on the bus and was suspended from the bus for 24 days. In December, he was suspended two days for "kissing."
It makes a recipient of federal funds, here, the school district, 'liable for [its] deliberate indifference to known acts of peer sexual harassment.'On Jan. 13, 2010, he got in trouble again for "inappropriate touching" of a female student. "Finding no eyewitnesses to corroborate the victim's accusation, they concluded that (the boy) was not guilty but nonetheless discussed punishment." Administrators assigned him to in-school suspension and clean-up duty. The rape occurred nine days later.
The Justice Department says Simpson had alerted the administration of her plan.
"Simpson and (the girl) then went to Vice-Principal (Jeanne) Dunaway's office, where Simpson told Dunaway about her plan to use (the girl) as bait to catch (the boy). Dunaway did not respond with any advice or directive," reads today's brief.
"(The girl) left Dunaway's office, found (the boy) in the hallway, and agreed to meet him for sex. (The boy) told (the girl) to go to the sixth grade boys' bathroom and she complied. No teachers were in the bathroom to intervene, and (the boy) sodomized (the girl)."
Simpson and Dunaway are among those named in the suit first filed in 2010. The district court allowed some state claims for negligence and wantonness. The district court threw out the federal claims, including those against the Madison County school board. Both sides appealed to Circuit Court.
"We're grateful that the Department of Justice has gotten involved," said Eric Artrip, attorney for the girl and her father. "It's important for us to have people with their credibility standing up and saying this is clearly a violation of Title IX."
The Justice Department argued that the school shredded student discipline records each year, required officials to witness sexual harassment in order to take action, diminished serious incidents in its record-keeping, and had been "closing its eyes" to evident dangers.
The Justice Department argues the girl's guardian should be allowed to sue under Title IX. "It makes a recipient of federal funds, here, the school district, 'liable for [its] deliberate indifference to known acts of peer sexual harassment.'"
Medical evidence confirmed anal tearing and bruising. The girl withdrew from school and moved to another state.
The federal brief argues school officials minimized the incident, listing it in the boy's extensive record as "inappropriate touching." The federal attorneys note one assistant principal, despite seeing photos of the injuries, contended school officials could not know if the girl had consented.
"Vice-Principal Dunaway testified that (the girl) was responsible for herself once she entered the bathroom," wrote federal attorneys.
Following a five-day suspension, the boy was sent to an alternative school, but soon returned to Sparkman Middle, writes the Justice Department.
The brief contends "...a jury could easily conclude that the school acted with deliberate indifference when, despite two sexual misconduct complaints against (the boy) days before he sodomized (the girl), it provided him unsupervised access to students and failed to protect (the girl)."
"In fact, Sparkman's practice of recording unrevealing and misleading descriptions of past incidents, coupled with its failure to maintain any record of unsubstantiated complaints and documentation for proven infractions beyond the current academic year, amounts to intentionally closing its eyes to (the boy's) dangerousness."
Updated at 11:10 a.m. on Sept. 18 with comment from girl's attorney.
The VP and the lawyers are scum. Then against Hillary Clinton herself blamed a teenage rape victim and laughed about it.
I see. Your point is that it really wasn’t rape-rape.
OhhhKayyyy.
forgot?
There is no rape charge. The boy was given a 5-day suspension.
A teacher’s aide cooked up this scheme and the school administrator agreed with it. WTH?
Throw them all in prison and melt down the key. The 16 year old rapist, too. His parents obviously don’t care, if he has any at all. He shouldn’t see the light of day.
Did she consent to enter the bathroom? Did she agree in the hallway to engage?
For a criminal trial, that’s going to be a hurdle to go over.
Statutory rape laws used to mean that NO minor below “age of consent” could legally consent. But the hedonists won on that matter.
Now we are trying to argue the case for mentally challenged persons.
The school is the culprit and so is the perp. But a court conviction is going to require a burden of proof that may not be met for criminal (civil yes) conviction.
If you are familiar with the Leninist view of Women’s Lib, this all makes sense. Women are to be considered community property and not to be hoarded. Communists classically thought of women as sex objects to be enjoyed unselfishly and who could also do useful work in the mines and at assembly lines.
A civil suit only needs a 51% likelihood to convict.
Free love isn’t free. It leaves a trail of human debris.
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.
I wonder what the status of this suit is. What is the Justice Department advocating for? Stripping federal funds from the school? Or are the feds offering to pay the demand?
Yes. While all of us (except a fool...) agrees this was rape, there is no mention of criminal actions in this article. I suppose we would have to do further digging and searching to find out what may have happened with respect to criminal charges.
But for now - this article only addresses the civil liability of the school.
IMO - there are plenty of school staffers who need to be tried and convicted on criminal charges too.
The school administrators didn't rape her. The case is, I think, a civil case, money damages against the school district. Any rape charge would run against the rapist, and it would be up to the local DA to bring the charge.
All right. Let me boil it down for you.
Do YOU believe the girl was raped? If you were a juror, would you vote “Guilty”?
I honestly don’t believe you would. And that makes you as sick as the school staffers as you all try to “explain” it away.
Yep.
“Vice-Principal Dunaway testified that (the girl) was responsible for herself once she entered the bathroom,”
I can't even wrap my brain around the logic used to make this statement.
Once again, liberalism is proven to be a mental disorder...
How convenient!!!
Law & Order:
SUV is resuming on NBC.
Here is a ready made episode.......
It’s nice to see the Justice Dept. on the right side of an issue for a change.
If someone attempts to hire a hitman but it was part of a sting to catch the hitman, and the hitman kills the person you called the hit on, are you guilty of conspiracy to commit murder?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.