Cheerleader Ordered To "Cheer for your attacker, or else!"

[HugeFanOfBadReligion]

I'm fairly convinced that the sexual assault did happen. But even if the jocks didn't sexually assault the girl and instead just took advantage of her while she was under the influence, (actually, they wouldn't have "just taken advantage of her", because "just" would imply that it wasn't that big of a deal, however it is wrong to take advantage of someone like that) or something similar to that, then she still should have the right to not cheer for her. That's like saying you don't have the right to refuse to endorse a presidential candidate, and you must advertise that candidate or else you will be punished.

[The Imperialist]

Oh my! It is like compulsory voting (I think it was Bolivia and a few other S. American countries) but the choice to cheer on for your candidate doesn't make any considereably positive change to your life.

i.e. Democratic right to refuse ==> It is in fact constitutional regarding the right of choice etc. ==> Supreme Court (or whoever) is wrong ==> Jock is wrong therefore should be shot anyway ==> She was in cheering team ==> Must be punished for being in a cheering team ==> I do not care for the US constitution because I do not agree with all those loopholes anyway ==> Second point made is duly rejected by me ==> All the contradictions duly solved by destroying 'sports' from lessons and as a stupid priority thing on society, and replacing it with Federal Service, or something more productive.

[i_like_1981]

Oh my! It is like compulsory voting (I think it was Bolivia and a few other S. American countries) but the choice to cheer on for your candidate doesn't make any considereably positive change to your life.

Yeah, and this is sports we're talking about here. Nothing important like politics, but just a GAME. Why was it so utterly necessary that that girl had to be there to cheer on a team which contained two members who allegedly assaulted her? What difference would it have made if people had just let her go and accepted the fact she did not want to cheer for two people who took advantage of her? I don't know. Jerry McGuire did state that this assault may not have took place or the girl may have been embellishing the truth, but stuff like this does happen, jocks getting away with perverted actions towards girls and the girls having to support them anyway given their "higher social status", and I don't really see what these "jocks" do that makes them so special as to obstruct the course of justice. We live in a strange world, when teenagers who are able to throw a ball around well get the ability to do whatever they want without having to fear any repercussions.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[The Imperialist]

Yes, and it is not helped by the fact that psychologists and sociologists and neurologists start claiming that "Oh the brain for children up to the age of 20 is not fully developed yet so we cannot incarcerate them".
Give me a break. If they know a) consequences b) Some notion of right and wrong c) At the least SHOULD have both a) and b) by the time they are 8, they should be treated as criminally responsibile. Whether they can do sports or not.

[i_like_1981]

I thought the age of criminal responsibility over here in Britain was 14? I may be wrong, though. Believe it or not, I'm not extremely well-read in the field of crime. Nonetheless, when they're getting into their high school years, they should be well aware of what is legally or socially acceptable and unacceptable, and nothing should be allowed to affect the giving-out of justice when it is needed. Especially not the ability to kick a ball around well.

Best regards,
i_like_1981

[The Imperialist]

Well, I guess somebody will have similar ideas like us sometime in the furute (assuming humans are not all retards)