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 DA didn’t bring up a rape charge, they don’t bring up cases they know they won’t win even though he DID commit rape.
The school tried adopting a wide stance of “plausible deniability”.
The legal issue in this case is, I think, whether or not the school administration has a legal duty that would have prevented this incident, or did the girl "assume the risk?"
If the sting plan involved a teacher being present, and no teacher is present, the school might argue that she put herself at risk by entering the boys room.
I'm not defending the school, by the way. My point is that it is naive to trust an authority figure. They have no duty, and they tend to be liars.
ANd why exactly weren’t the teachers and administrators Prosecuted for Conspiracy to Commit Rape??
Let me guess: the perp was one of those students that the federal governments insists must NEVER be expelled from school for any offense, no matter how egregious, because it would be discriminatory.
The girl was raped because the expected prevention of said sex act did not occur.
However, she said YES (no means no but yes doesn’t mean yes?). She event communicated to school officials what was happening (which meant that she was uncomfortable and “in her right mind”). They encouraged her to follow through (and they would handle things on their end).
It is difficult to convict someone for a “consensual act” even if the no comes in the middle of the action. This is not a defense of rape. It is a matter of law and the nature of language. Words mean things.
Prosecute the educrats for their roll. What is the criminal charge you would suggest? Delinquency of a minor? Corrupting a minor? Rape? Criminal conspiracy?
Deflecting the question by bringing up another (unrelated) question.
How trollish. I repeat my allegation even more directly.
You do not believe a rape occured and you agree with and side with the school here.
I've read all your replies. And it seems to me that you're either misunderstanding - or misrepresenting - the girls affirmation.
She do not agree - or affirm - to have sex with the boy. She agreed to act as bait.
The boys side could argue that once she was in the bathroom, she "went along", but what does that mean?
It is most likely she had only the barest scrap of understanding of what sex is (e.g. "is pulling down my pants still part of 'acting as bait'?"), and as such, given her mental state she could not give consent.
If I ask someone if I can give them a lobotomy, have they really given their consent if they think I'm really talking about giving them a kind of lolli-pop?
The school officials involved in this deserve to be charged with pimping. Throw the book at these idiots, fine them, and jail them.
She isn’t old enough to consent for one thing, anyone having sex with her is raping her even if she begged for it
That's just stating your preferred conclusion. Bear in mind that the argument doesn't go against (for) the rapist, criminal acts remain criminal acts. The legal point is civil liability to the school. If the girl knew the risk (getting raped), and went in anyway, the school will argue that she voluntarily assumed a known risk. Her age isn't relevant. The legal question is did she know what risk she was assuming. I think the answer to that is "yes," because she didn't want to do it, at first. She was given assurance by administrators. Nobody forced here into the boys room. She went in because (she made a mistake) she trusted the administrators.
If somebody, even a government official, tells you to do something you know is at least wrong, if not illegal (in this case, "go in the boys room"), don't do it!
ISS means they are in a separate room all day away from the general pop except for lunch.
>> SUMMARY...
That’s completely #’d up.
Are there any parents? Are all these kids orphans?
Mark my words, if this kid is not “stopped”, we have another Ted Bundy in the making...
I am more angry with the school officials than the perp. The school officials were little more than procurers for the rapist. They should never be employed by a school system again.
The part where he was killed by the general population?
The perp didn't know that she only agreed to be "bait". Yes is no?
The school administration and teaching assistant were criminally negligent and I don't see anyone on here calling for criminal prosecution of them. Firing. Fining. They deserve jail time for their action. It was criminally negligent. If she could not consent to sex then she could not consent to be rape bait either.
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.