new

12-Year-Old Negligent And Responsible For Own Rape' http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/05/1141331/school-district-claims-student-was-herself-responsible-for-being-raped/?mobile=nc

Whatever differences of opinion we have, this is just awful. I don't mean to be insensitive, but I am a little bit concerned as to whether the district really is at fault here. One guy committed suicide over this, and another teacher is behind bars. Was it individual teachers that abused this girl, or did the whole district abuse her? If the district was aware of it and just looked the other way as long as nobody was running their mouths, and then just passed the trash when things looked iffy, then I could see how they were at fault. Maybe if other victims of this dead guy were receiving compensation from the district, I could see that. I could be more wholeheartedly sympathetic to her cause. Otherwise it just looks like another person reaching for money.

But, I mean, come on... The courts will decide that, I guess. The lawyers ought to know better than to use "blame the victim" language in their defense. I don't see how the district is going to weasel out of paying SOME damages. Saying it's the victim's own fault isn't going to reduce damages. If anything, the judge will stick it to 'em for their lawyers being idiots.

===

Playing devil's advocate here, but is there ever a legit "blame the victim" scenario? I can't think of any intelligent examples at the moment... Something like a neighbor builds a fire in his backyard, maybe burning leaves or a bonfire, or something. The girl next door decides it will be fun to play in it and ends up getting 3rd degree burns, lung damage from smoke inhalation, etc. Is it fair to sue the guy just for building a fire? Or is it the burn victim's fault for being stupid?

No one in his right mind, myself included, will ever argue that having sex with someone without their consent is OK. However, a young woman has some degree of manipulating her odds. Does she dress provocatively and go to parties where she KNOWS there will be alcohol, drugs, and guys with too much blood in their testosterone system? I'd say she has more of a likelihood of her clothes just falling off and passing out on someone else's bed than, say, someone who dresses conservatively and prefers nice, quiet evenings at home with a glass of wine and a good book.

Similarly, everyone who lives in Greenville, MS, knows that unless you're a drug dealer, a prostitute, a gang member, or you're going to eat at Doe's (preferably before sunset), you have no business hanging out on Nelson Street. No, it's not your fault if you get robbed or shot. But you're not going to win any points with cops or judges for being an idiot! If a white person wants to avoid racial tension after dark, he stays south of US 82.

I know comparing abusive teachers to frat parties is apples/oranges, but defense is claiming the girl was "negligent," which is why they are going to fail. Negligence defenses don't work for frat parties, and they certainly aren't going to work here.

But what I can't understand is why with so many women teachers going to jail for messing with male underage students haven't succeeded in a variation of the negligence defense, especially when we're talking about young, green, attractive women teachers. As a male teacher right out of college, I took assignments where the dating pool was narrow if not non-existent. I can't even begin to imagine the psychology of a woman who goes from an overabundance of male attention to none at all. Being horrendously teased by horny male students can't help matters. So...the teacher just "happens" to need to run out to her car during her planning period, the student just "happens" to be taking a shortcut through the parking lot on his way to weight-lifting. Nobody will ever know. Not until the sex tape ends up on YouTube, anyway, and it will be his parents who bring charges.

Y'know, seduction is sometimes used as part of a rape accusation. In the olden days, young teachers running one-room schools on the frontier were often rape victims. Why is it so different now? Maybe the girl has no business teaching if she lacks the maturity to avoid that kind of manipulation. But rape is rape, and it makes no difference if it is through seduction or brute force.

I honestly don't think it works the other way, i.e. 12-year-old girls don't rape grown men.

But let's (for the sake of argument) turn this back around on the victim. If it is well-known among students that a certain male teacher is a horn-dog and a young girl KNOWINGLY and willfully puts herself in a position to be "exploited" (note the use of scare quotes here), I'd say the district has a good case for accusing the victim of negligence.

Angel Rho, a TWELVE year old girl could walk into the teacher's lounge stark naked and drunk, and plaster herself to a male teacher who's the only other person there, and it STILL wouldn't be her fault if she was raped. She was TWELVE.

[CAUTION: Devil's advocate alert]

But we don't know any extenuating circumstances. Why is she naked? Why is she drunk? Is it her fault for being either? It's possible. Did she know there might be one or more teachers in the teacher's lounge? Well, it IS the teacher's lounge, after all. It stands to reason there very likely could be at least one teacher in there. And there's a 50/50 chance that the teacher is male--you only get two options here. And how do you know it's rape? It could be consensual. And don't pull "can't legally consent" on me. I don't care what the law says. 12-year-olds are capable of "wanting it." I was 12 once, and I wasn't a year or two older than that when I discovered that there were girls roughly that age who already knew what dry-humping is and one or two who had already started having sex. It's a friggin miracle I was still a virgin at 19. Like it or not, consensual sex does happen at pre-teen and early teen years. And I don't buy for one second that they all care whether they are being "used" by someone in a position of trust, because "using" and "being used" is a two-way street.

Now, assuming that same drunk, naked 12-year-old walked into a teacher's lounge and a crusty, old, Coach Hardon happens to be in there and he DOES rape her, i.e. non-consentual sex, then no, it's not her fault for getting raped. But it IS her fault for being stupid, i.e. getting drunk, running around naked, and going inside a teacher's lounge where students aren't ever allowed. It was her poor judgment and poor choices that put her in that position in the first place.

That's assuming the middle school football team didn't kidnap her, force her to drink and strip, and chase her through the school only to have her duck in the lounge to hide or get help, only to be taken advantage of by Coach Hardon.

But if that's not what's going on, if this is something analogous to frat-party antics, and if the girl makes herself vulnerable by making stupid choices, she is negligent. She's spitting into the wind. If you run out into a busy street, you don't get to sue someone when they run over you with a car.

People who commit rape deserve to be brought to justice. Coach Hardon is going to lose his teaching creds, lose his career, lose any hope of functioning in society for being a pedophile, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. It doesn't matter if she consented or not (realistically). I don't dispute that, nor do I dispute that victims of rape deserve justice. Neither am I in favor of a "blame the victim" mentality.

But there is another side to all this, and that is the side of the accused and anything or anyone associated with him. On the one hand, the accused has the right to due process. The accusations could be false, after all, and what REALLY happened was the coach said something she didn't like at P.E.--something like "you MUST wear shoes to play dodgeball." I dunno. So she chugs some vodka, strips, attacks the coach in the teacher's lounge, and when the principal rushes in to see what the ruckus is all about, she points and says "HE made me do it!! !" The guy gets fired on the spot, and if there's a case in court it's going to be her word against his, and who do you think the judge is going to believe?

10 years later and the same girl is .02 away from graduating from college with honors, so it pisses her off. She thinks about it and decides maybe she can recoup on her student loans a little, so she sues the school district for damages. All this when the wrongdoing was entirely on her part.

Purely hypothetical, I know, but not unrealistic. So I think we have to be careful how we pursue sensitive matters of seeking justice for rape when there is so much room to unfairly manipulate the system.

Back in the real world, this person was abused by two teachers, not the entire school and not the administration. Her case is against those who did her harm. One of her bullies is dead and the other will never have a normal life. I feel for her and recognize what happened to her was awful and perhaps she can't live a normal life because of it. But you punish the guilty, not the innocent, and I don't see how there is anything left to be done. With all due respect to this woman and all she went through, this lawsuit reeks of frivolity. She thinks she has someone by the balls, so she's going to play this for all it's worth. And I'm not sure why. Is it just the money? Revenge motive? Closure? Just because she can? I've never been raped, and I'm not a woman, so I can't speak for a female rape victim. But I just don't see how any of this is really going to make her feel any better. Unless she comes to terms with what happened spiritually and emotionally, and for all I know she already has, she'll never "get over it" if that's even possible. I don't know what more there can be done or what more there SHOULD be done. I don't see how making an entire district responsible for what two individuals did is going to solve anything. I'm sure the details are probably more convoluted than what we get from the article, which seems more commentary than informative, but just based on what I've read so far that's all I have for you.

Starting back in 2014, we began noticing more and more requests to post a "Bitcoin" button that would allow readers to donate to TomatoBubble.com with the hot new "crypto-currency" worldwide payment system. Bitcoin and other rapidly emerging cryptos are a form of "decentralized" digital currency, as the system works without a Central Bank or a single administrator.

The Bitcoin network is person-to-person, with transactions between users taking place directly through the use of cryptography only. Bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies, products, and services. The transactions are automatically verified and recorded in a publicly distributed ledger called a "blockchain."

At first, it seemed like a good way to work around PayPal and fly under the IRS radar, but we just never got around to getting involved because we figured the Feds would eventually catch up to such a "peoples' currency" and shut it down anyway. But now, lo and behold, Bitcoin mania is being heavily promoted by the great and the good of the PRC (Predatory Ruling Class) -- so much so that a single $1 of Bitcoin purchased a few years ago is today worth about $65!

Hyped by the Piranha Press and blessed by the Rothschild Central Banks, digital crypto-currencies -- Bitcoin foremost among them at this time --are exploding in popularity and "value."

Suckers worldwide are now purchasing Bitcoin with credit cards and even home loans (just as in the allegorical story of "The Great Tomato Bubble" (here) for which this site is named). The fact that Wall Street Hedge funds have joined the Globalist media mania bubble of Bitcoin constitutes "prima facie" (a $10 Latin legal term for "first face") evidence that there is a sinister agenda behind these digital currencies. Should there be any lingering doubts over such a suspicion, these headlines ought to dispel them:

Coindesk: (December 17, 2017): 2018: The Year Central Banks Begin Buying Cryptocurrency (here)

CNBC: (December 18, 2017): Central Banks could hold bitcoin and ether for the first time in 2018 (here)

Quartz Index: (September 25, 2017): Central Banks considering launch of official cryptocurrencies (here)

The fix is in, boys and girls. What is the motive here, you ask?

Flashback time:

(February 24, 2016):

Getting Rid of Big Currency Notes Could Help Fight Crime

By ~~ANDREW ROSENTHAL~~, er "THE EDITORIAL BOARD"

(some excerpts)

As part of his oh-so-high-minded effort to "fight crime", Andrew Rosenthal (cough cough), that shadowy little Wicked Weasel of Oz who styles himself as "The Editorial Board", has come out swinging in favor of former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers (cough cough) recent call to ban the $100 dollar bill. Gotta stop them drug-dealers, eh Andy? (rolling eyes, sarcastically).

This all-of-a-sudden push to ban big bills is a harbinger of the dark days ahead. It's significance is huge -- all the more so now that Rosenfilth of the New York Slimes is pushing it (just days after the Washington Compost came out in favor of the ban as well).

~~Rosenthal~~, er, "The Editorial Board":

"Few Europeans use the 500-euro note, and most Americans rarely encounter the $100 bill. Yet hundreds of millions of these notes are in circulation around the world... officials in Europe and elsewhere are proposing to end the printing of high-denomination bills.

Getting rid of big bills will make it harder for criminals to do business ...

The president of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, recently said the bank is considering getting rid of the 500-euro note ($557)... though the central bank plans to keep the 200-euro and 100-euro bills.

Critics who oppose such changes say the big bills make it easier for people to keep their savings in cash, especially in countries with negative interest rates. But these are relatively minor burdens compared with the potential benefits of reducing criminal activity and tax evasion.

There are now so many ways to pay for things, and eliminating big bills should create few problems."

PayPal ran a TV commercial during the 2016 Stupor Bowl ---the images and slogans from which speak for themselves. The end game is to kill paper money.

End of flashback excerpt
*

The end-game behind the crypto craze is to usher in a GLOBAL digital currency which, in time, will be very much "centralized." In the meantime, this could also be part of a sophisticated CIA money-laundering or "pump & dump" operation.

In the long run, we do not think that the Globalists will be able to pull off such an ambitious leap toward one-world tyranny -- not with Messrs. Putin, Xi and Trump around. But the Central Banksters sure as hell are gonna try when they start issuing their own digital currency, as is expected in 2018. Amazing. Now who, say, 30 years ago, could possibly have envisioned the rise of digital global currency in 2018? Hmmm?

An prophetic excerpt from a 1988 Economist article (as quoted from a 2014 issue of Bitcoin Magazine):

"THIRTY years from now (i.e. 2018), Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let's say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favored by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today's national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.”

“An even more ambitious solution would be to move to a truly global currency, along the lines of Keynes’s “bancor”, that would circulate alongside countries’ own currencies and would offer a store of value truly disconnected from economic conditions and policies in any country.

To achieve this, one would need to set up a global monetary institution that would issue the global currency depending on global economic conditions, and that could act as a global lender of last resort. It would need to have an impeccable (“AAAA”) balance sheet, and governance arrangements that engender widespread credibility and acceptability.”

“As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still.”

“The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF.

This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. (here)

[...]

And by the way, the 2014 Bitcoin Magazine article quoting that 1998 Economist Magazine article, was not citing the old story about one-world currency as a warning. But rather, as a good idea, preferably with Bitcoin serving as the coming world currency, and not necessarily the Economist's "phoenix." The headline and a quote from the Bitcoin piece:

A World Currency – Not a New Idea (February 25, 2014)

"At this point we could be talking about Bitcoin or any new cryptocurrency out there today. Let’s continue as the article talks about what could lead to this “New World Currency”.
Next is a statement that will get the attention of the Bitcoin user. Remember, this was written in January 1988.

'As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still.'

Here we might still be talking about Bitcoin. ...This 1988 article was obviously ahead of its time. It shows that a new kind of world currency is not a new topic of conversation. And the mention of 2018 looks eerily realistic as we watch things unfold today.(2014) --- (here)

You see, the gift of "prophecy" comes easy when you are the one running the show! There is no doubt about this one, boys and girls. Bitcoin was never a "spontaneous" digital currency of "the people" that just "took off." It has been, from the start, a tool of the usual suspects and the play is only getting started. The year 2018 promises to be very interesting. Stay tuned.

1. Months before "The Good War" had even ended, the post-World War II monetary system was cooked up at Breton Woods by the US Communist Harry Dexter White (cough cough) and the UK Fabian Socialist and the known sodomite John Maynard Keynes. Keynes advocated a world currency, which he named "Bancor," but he realized that the idea was still too radical for those times. 2. Bitcoin Magazine with a "Guy Fawkes" anarchist on the cover? -- A sure sign of a CIA operation. 3. Slime Magazine cleverly hyping Bitcoin as if it were some sort of anti-government uprising of the people -- another sure sign of a CIA operation.
*

This just in:

Wall Street Journal: (December 22, 2017)

Bitcoin Plunges 25% in 24 Hours in a Cryptocurrency Market Rout

(here)

Bubble scam profit-taking by the usual suspects? Or maybe the nationalist "White Hats" are nipping the scam in the bud?

Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the New York Times today that Bitcoin is taking the world by storm.

Boobus Americanus 2: I know. I just bought some.

Sugar: Boobuss, my idiot friend -- you'd buy a frickin' dog-sshit ssandwich if the Jew York Slimess declared it to be tasty and nutritiouss.

Editor: (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- All you Sugar groupies out there with your sycophantic fan e-mails are the reason why I can't control her anymore.