• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Town, Courts Fail Cheerleader

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Texas Town, Courts Fail Cheerleader --FanHouse

She is identified by her real name now, Hillaire. But after almost 21 months she still can't bring herself to say somebody else's.

Hillaire was a cheerleader, yelling for her high school basketball team in a Texas town. A player went to shoot a free throw. Hillaire knelt in silence.

The player had been arrested for allegedly raping her four months earlier. Temporarily cleared of the charge, Rakheem Bolton was back on campus. Because of that, school officials told Hillaire to cheer for him.

"I was not going to do it," she said.
 
Good for her. The school can sod off.

The girl's father has amazing self-control, it sounds like. I'd have been out for literal blood if that were my little girl. :shoot
head-shot.gif
 
Last edited:
from the OP...
In November 2009 a second grand jury reinstated the charges against Bolton and Rountree. A plea agreement reduced the charge to Class A misdemeanor assault. The case against Rountree is still pending, but Bolton pleaded guilty in September.

The end result: school officials may not have been telling Hillaire to cheer for her rapist. She was being told to cheer for her self-admitted assaulter.

Maybe the broken bathroom window or death threats should have given them a clue.

"All I wanted was for him to come forward and say, 'Yeah, it happened,' " Hillaire said.

Bolton got a one-year suspended jail sentence, two years' probation, a $2,500 fine, 150 hours community service and is required to attend anger-management classes.

But at least he has no hard feelings.

"I do feel like it was very fair," Bolton said.
HE doesn't think it was fair? What exactly wasn't fair? That he didn't get his 'happy ending' because the little white byotch screamed and he got interrupted?

VERY good thin it wasn't MY daughter. I'd be in jail.
 
Face Palms! Why do we have these stupid asses take care of our children future when they can't even see that this football player was in the wrong, and not the victim? I can't believe, I'm agreeing with Apsdt on this because I too would have shot the little ****er.



Also it looks like Silsbee is a small town that primarily African American, Hispanic, and Native American, so I don't see why the NCCAP should bother with this case. My father been their because he had to get a 1949 MACK fire truck he bought their, and he said it was a pretty small town. But this type of behavior is not incline to just small towns. Where the football team raped a girl who was mentally handicapped, and no one believed her and the only who stood up for her were the outcast of the small town.
 
Last edited:
Face Palms! Why do we have these stupid asses take care of our children future when they can't even see that this football player was in the wrong, and not the victim? I can't believe, I'm agreeing with Apsdt on this because I too would have shot the little ****er.
I dont know either. Its like the other day when a bunch of people here were defending a Priest who raped a little boy and 20 years later the boy, now a man, beat the **** out of him.

I say, you mess with me or my family, sooner or later you are going to pay the piper. I dont care if it takes 20 years, I will hunt you down and deal with you how I deem is proper. If I land in jail, so be it. But I will promise this, after I get done with the person it will be the last time they rape, rob or murder .
 
Last edited:
I dont know either. Its like the other day when a bunch of people here were defending a Priest who raped a little boy and 20 years later the boy, now a man, beat the **** out of him.

I say, you mess with me or my family, sooner or later you are going to pay the piper. I dont care if it takes 20 years, I will hunt you down and deal with you how I deem is proper. If I land in jail, so be it. But I will promise this, after I get done with the person it will be the last time they rape, rob or murder .

From what I recall, people were not defending the priest as a rapist. People were opposing vigilantism and saying that the man who beat him, legally, assaulted him. It wasn't about what was right or wrong, morally. It was about what was right or wrong, legally.
 
From what I recall, people were not defending the priest as a rapist. People were opposing vigilantism and saying that the man who beat him, legally, assaulted him. It wasn't about what was right or wrong, morally. It was about what was right or wrong, legally.
Anyone that doesnt morally think a rapist should get the ass handed to them weather it be 1 day or 20 years later has a screw loose. Right or wrong? What was right about a man raping a little boy? And what is wrong with the little boy, once grown, taking matters into his own hands seeing the asshole never did any time for it? I would understand if the guy did 20 years and has he was walking out of prison and the guy attacked him. But this asshole never had to face justice for his actions. As usual, the church offers the embarrassed parents a large sum of money tp keep their mouths shut.
 
Anyone that doesnt morally think a rapist should get the ass handed to them weather it be 1 day or 20 years later has a screw loose. Right or wrong? What was right about a man raping a little boy? And what is wrong with the little boy, once grown, taking matters into his own hands seeing the asshole never did any time for it? I would understand if the guy did 20 years and has he was walking out of prison and the guy attacked him. But this asshole never had to face justice for his actions. As usual, the church offers the embarrassed parents a large sum of money tp keep their mouths shut.

There is a difference between what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong. You do not seem to be diserning the difference... in either thread. Morally, most would want to see a rapist get pounded by someone. Legally, the person who pounds the rapist is guilty of assault. Do you see the difference between the morals of the situtaion and the legality of the situation?
 
There is a difference between what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong. You do not seem to be diserning the difference... in either thread. Morally, most would want to see a rapist get pounded by someone. Legally, the person who pounds the rapist is guilty of assault. Do you see the difference between the morals of the situtaion and the legality of the situation?

My position was on that case, as it is on this one, the man was neither morally, nor legally wrong, when he kicked that priest's ass.
 
What law are you citing that legally allows someone to assult someone long after the immediete threat requiring self defense is passed apdst?
 
Anyone that doesnt morally think a rapist should get the ass handed to them weather it be 1 day or 20 years later has a screw loose. Right or wrong? What was right about a man raping a little boy? And what is wrong with the little boy, once grown, taking matters into his own hands seeing the asshole never did any time for it? I would understand if the guy did 20 years and has he was walking out of prison and the guy attacked him. But this asshole never had to face justice for his actions. As usual, the church offers the embarrassed parents a large sum of money tp keep their mouths shut.

Right. But there IS a process we are required BY LAW, to follow. Without laws, there is nothing but chaos.
 
What law are you citing that legally allows someone to assult someone long after the immediete threat requiring self defense is passed apdst?

I didn't cite any law, except to say that this guy kicked the priest's ass, he stood trial and he was aquitted of any wrong doing. A jury of his peers say he did nothing illegal.
 
I didn't cite any law, except to say that this guy kicked the priest's ass, he stood trial and he was aquitted of any wrong doing. A jury of his peers say he did nothing illegal.

The trial has not happened yet, so he was not aquitted. Unless we're talking about two different stories...

http://lvlegalnews.com/high-profile/4025.html

Will Lynch is looking for justice in an unusual way. Charged with savagely beating the priest he says molested him as a child, he plans to try to use his trial to publicly shame the Rev. Jerold Lindner in court.
Law experts say he faces an uphill battle. However, priest abuse victims are cheering Lynch on and offering to donate to his defense fund.
 
Last edited:
I didn't cite any law, except to say that this guy kicked the priest's ass, he stood trial and he was aquitted of any wrong doing. A jury of his peers say he did nothing illegal.

However your comment I quoted seemed to to be implying that if the father did the same to the person in question in this case that it would also be legal.

Also, there is a difference between an action being "legal" and someone performing that action being found "not guilty". For instance, if someone murders someone what they did was not "legal", however they could be found "not guilty" because of other factors such as temporary insanity. But having a case that rules that doesn't suddenly make murder something that's no longer illegal.

Good on the girl for standing by her conviction and not cheering for him. And shame on the school
 
My position was on that case, as it is on this one, the man was neither morally, nor legally wrong, when he kicked that priest's ass.

Point out the law that allows the man to assault the priest. Please provide links.
 
I didn't cite any law, except to say that this guy kicked the priest's ass, he stood trial and he was aquitted of any wrong doing. A jury of his peers say he did nothing illegal.

Links, please. And Zyph is correct. There is a difference between something being illegal and someone being found not guilty, The latter can occur for lots of reasons.

apdst... just admit that you were wrong. You cannot prove your position, on this.
 
My position was on that case, as it is on this one, the man was neither morally, nor legally wrong, when he kicked that priest's ass.

I agree. When the government no longer works for us, I see nothing wrong with taking the law into our own hands.
 
I agree. When the government no longer works for us, I see nothing wrong with taking the law into our own hands.

Regardless of what you think or want to do, it does not alter the legality of your behavior.
 
Regardless of what you think or want to do, it does not alter the legality of your behavior.

Not a problem. Sometimes, what is legal and what is right are not the same. When the law fails the little guy, then the little guy has the right to become the law, and settle things on his own, because the law will no longer settle it for him. True, he will face a penalty for doing so, but sometimes enough is enough, and the little guy has to do what the little guy has to do.
 
Not a problem. Sometimes, what is legal and what is right are not the same. When the law fails the little guy, then the little guy has the right to become the law, and settle things on his own, because the law will no longer settle it for him. True, he will face a penalty for doing so, but sometimes enough is enough, and the little guy has to do what the little guy has to do.

OK... I can go along with that. Your position presents personal responsibility.
 
Not a problem. Sometimes, what is legal and what is right are not the same. When the law fails the little guy, then the little guy has the right to become the law, and settle things on his own, because the law will no longer settle it for him. True, he will face a penalty for doing so, but sometimes enough is enough, and the little guy has to do what the little guy has to do.

And sometime money changes the law to the benefit of the govt seeing the majority of us cannot afford the scientific and professial advisers when trying to prove innocence. So the little guy is left to fight against a monster where there is no special weapon to kill it with.
 
Back
Top Bottom