|
Post by majorianthrax on Feb 19, 2009 10:19:32 GMT -5
Does anyone know what she's trying to say in this letter? I'm not entirely sure of her point. It seems like she is saying that concerned parents should confront the parents of the accused to get them to remove their kids from the school, but maybe I'm reading it wrong. She (Sarah Underhill) is living in a dream world. Confronting the parents would likely result in a major blowup and lead to other problems. The parents of the accused are not going to remove their kids. Why should they since this SD hasn't suspended them. From what I have heard about them I doubt if they care. Underhills letter sounds like the lady who spoke at the SB meeting about following the law. True points but very bad tact.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Feb 19, 2009 11:13:36 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/opinions/letters/1437882,2_4_AU19_LETTERS_S1.article BEACON LTE 2/19/09Parents and communities needed to change things ...... Can the parents of the victim voluntarily remove their boy from school? Yes! Can the community stand up against criminal student activity and demand that the parents of the boys charged with felony sexual assault remove their boys from school? Yes! .... Then, stop complaining about how someone else needs to do something, and go talk to the parents directly and tell them that families will not tolerate or allow this horrible behavior to be in their schools or community!One doesn't have to break laws to converse with someone in a calm and direct way. It's time that parents, families, and communities stop complaining and blaming and do something -- that's what changes things! .... I am also confused, momto4 and major, of what the writer wants. Its "go talk to the parents of the accused and ask them to please remove there students from school." That is a ridiculous position to take. Well, instead, the Will Co. atty's office and judge will soon be talking to those parents. In the meanwhile, others are trying to work it so the SD admin will be talking to them too.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Feb 19, 2009 11:58:13 GMT -5
OK I broke out my trusty PDA and pulled up my calendar.......... Nov 11 was a Tuesday. The event was reported to have occurred during a sleep-over---During a school night? ----- So apparently all these boys were friends enough to sleep over at each ohers homes..(Including the victim). I think I need to see some parental admissions of responsibility also....From all involved...... Now again I do not have the gory details on what happened, nor do I want them...I get enough of that at work. Parent, I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that the parents of the victim share responsibility here? You have older kids. When they were in middle school, did you accompany them everywhere they went? These aren't 4 year olds we're talking about that spend all their free time closely supervised. I'm sure the victim's parents wish they'd not allowed their son out of the house that day, but to say they are responsible for what happened to him isn't right. I agree that the parents of the accused have a share of responsibility on several counts: - Did they knowingly allow a group of kids in their home unsupervised?
- What have the accused been exposed to that this would even enter their minds let alone be something they'd act on? Do they have access to pornographic materials either in the home or via the internet? Are these boys being abused by someone themselves?
- Have they tried to teach their children to treat others with kindness and compassion? Have they sought psychiatric help for these children if they've displayed aggressive and inappropriate behavior in the past?
To the extent that the parents of the accused did or did not do these things I think is the scope of their responsibility, but ultimately, the boys themselves are responsible for their actions at the age of 11 or 12.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Feb 19, 2009 12:25:33 GMT -5
Sometimes it's as simple as calling the parents to make sure someone WILL be home that day. Yeah, it's a pain to do and you look like a meddling parent but perhaps this whole thing could have been avoided if someone would have checked. I know someone with older kids that always calls the house to make sure an adult is present when her kids go somewhere. Kids plan stuff at the last minute or lie to their parents and say someone will be home. Who knows what any of the parents knew.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 19, 2009 14:58:35 GMT -5
Parent, That is not true; the sexual assault did NOT occur during a sleepover. The accusers lured the victim over to a house during the day. They are not "friends" but rather acquaintances. Welcome warriormom. Thank you. Amazing how the rumors have run amok. I too had heard the sleepover story. I guess you just can't believe everything you hear. Yes welcome warriormom. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 19, 2009 15:02:52 GMT -5
OK I broke out my trusty PDA and pulled up my calendar.......... Nov 11 was a Tuesday. The event was reported to have occurred during a sleep-over---During a school night? ----- So apparently all these boys were friends enough to sleep over at each ohers homes..(Including the victim). I think I need to see some parental admissions of responsibility also....From all involved...... Now again I do not have the gory details on what happened, nor do I want them...I get enough of that at work. Parent, I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that the parents of the victim share responsibility here? You have older kids. When they were in middle school, did you accompany them everywhere they went? These aren't 4 year olds we're talking about that spend all their free time closely supervised. I'm sure the victim's parents wish they'd not allowed their son out of the house that day, but to say they are responsible for what happened to him isn't right. I agree that the parents of the accused have a share of responsibility on several counts: - Did they knowingly allow a group of kids in their home unsupervised?
- What have the accused been exposed to that this would even enter their minds let alone be something they'd act on? Do they have access to pornographic materials either in the home or via the internet? Are these boys being abused by someone themselves?
- Have they tried to teach their children to treat others with kindness and compassion? Have they sought psychiatric help for these children if they've displayed aggressive and inappropriate behavior in the past?
To the extent that the parents of the accused did or did not do these things I think is the scope of their responsibility, but ultimately, the boys themselves are responsible for their actions at the age of 11 or 12. It was based on my incorrect assumption of the sleepover senario.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 19, 2009 15:43:58 GMT -5
Welcome warriormom. Thank you. Amazing how the rumors have run amok. I too had heard the sleepover story. I guess you just can't believe everything you hear. Yes welcome warriormom. Thanks for clarifying. Yes - thats a good clarification. Theres a lot of other things that I think need clarification, too. We're hearing the parent's side, and the parent's friend's side, and other Gregory parent's side, but the SB/Admin seem to be unable to give their side due to legal/confidentiality constraints. Some people seem to have convicted the SB/Admin in the court of public opinion based on hearing one side of a story that has some odd timelines of how/where/when the information is being released by the familiy. I wonder if we'll ever get a full picture of whats transpired.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Feb 19, 2009 16:01:13 GMT -5
I just don't see why the SB cannot move them. If the boys were arrested and charged with murder, and free on bail, technically they would "innocent until proven guilty." Does that mean we would have to tolerate their presence at school until their conviction? Whether it's murder or rape, we have a case where the accused are a threat to not only the victim, but others.
And despite the ignorant statements by the SB, legally it makes absolutely no difference where this occurred, on school or off. Assuming no witnesses in either scenario, why would the accused have less rights to due process if it had happened at school? Either way, the accused could be guilty as sin or the victim could be making it all up. What does the location have to do with ANYTHING?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Feb 19, 2009 17:47:09 GMT -5
Yes welcome warriormom. Thanks for clarifying. Yes - thats a good clarification. Theres a lot of other things that I think need clarification, too. We're hearing the parent's side, and the parent's friend's side, and other Gregory parent's side, but the SB/Admin seem to be unable to give their side due to legal/confidentiality constraints. Some people seem to have convicted the SB/Admin in the court of public opinion based on hearing one side of a story that has some odd timelines of how/where/when the information is being released by the familiy. I wonder if we'll ever get a full picture of whats transpired. I'm sure there is much we haven't heard but is probably in a police report. I'm guessing the district has that police report and is why they are acting in accordance with current policy. I think we'd all like to put blame squarely on one entity, whether that is the SB or Admin. or on the parents, or on the accused. However, if and until all of the information in the police report becomes public, (and not sure if it will because of the ages of those involved) we really can only rely on the current policy and hope that those policies are being followed to the letter. As hard as it is to hear, and as much as we'd like this policy changed NOW, this is more of a legal matter than any of us on these boards realize. Darlene Senger has the right idea in changing the law so as to not put SB's and Admin. in these positions at all.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 19, 2009 18:14:39 GMT -5
I just don't see why the SB cannot move them. If the boys were arrested and charged with murder, and free on bail, technically they would "innocent until proven guilty." Does that mean we would have to tolerate their presence at school until their conviction? Whether it's murder or rape, we have a case where the accused are a threat to not only the victim, but others. And despite the ignorant statements by the SB, legally it makes absolutely no difference where this occurred, on school or off. Assuming no witnesses in either scenario, why would the accused have less rights to due process if it had happened at school? Either way, the accused could be guilty as sin or the victim could be making it all up. What does the location have to do with ANYTHING? First, where would you move them? If they're a threat to others at gregory, wouldnt they be a threat to others at another school? And Indian Plains is not an option - that's a High School. Next, do you think it's possible that forcing the 2 kids to move could possibly be against the law? Asmo, weren't you the one worried about a lawsuit if the first incident occurred ON 204 property? Was that because you were afraid of a lawsuit against the SD? Why wouldnt you be afraid of a lawsuit coming from the other side? What are the ignorant statements by SB members? I don't recall them saying much publicly (because, it seems, that legally, they can't say much).
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Feb 19, 2009 21:48:02 GMT -5
The potential lawsuit I am referring to is the one that will be brought by the parents of the victim if the accused are not moved.
We know for a fact the kids have been charged with felonies. The police would not have charged them if these were baseless accusations. That in and of itself should be grounds for removal.
Yes, but the primary threat now is to the accuser. It would be similar to a restraining order given to a man who has beaten his wife. The man may certainly be a threat to other women, but the law only protects the one he is accused of attacking and allows him to continue with his life as long as he stays away from her.
According to the DH article: "During the past week, school board members have heard from the victim's family and other parents urging them to remove the accused attackers from Gregory, where all three boys are classmates. But district officials and lawyers have maintained there is nothing they can do because the initial incident took place off school property."
I'd like to ask these "officials and lawyers" to explain how things would be different if the sexual assault had occurred in a school bathroom, with no witnesses. How does that change the relationship of the accused to the accuser, the ongoing threat the accused represent to the victim and the community, or the due process the accused are entitled to? They can't explain it, because there is no legal difference. And thus they are hiding behind a false pretense.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 19, 2009 22:32:26 GMT -5
The potential lawsuit I am referring to is the one that will be brought by the parents of the victim if the accused are not moved. What is the basis for the lawsuit? What if Illinois law did not support moving the 2 kids based on the current status & information? What if it was actaully illegal to move the 2 kids right now? Yes, but the primary threat now is to the accuser. It would be similar to a restraining order given to a man who has beaten his wife. The man may certainly be a threat to other women, but the law only protects the one he is accused of attacking and allows him to continue with his life as long as he stays away from her. Makes sense - What if the victim is being protected from the 2? According to the DH article: "During the past week, school board members have heard from the victim's family and other parents urging them to remove the accused attackers from Gregory, where all three boys are classmates. But district officials and lawyers have maintained there is nothing they can do because the initial incident took place off school property." I'd like to ask these "officials and lawyers" to explain how things would be different if the sexual assault had occurred in a school bathroom, with no witnesses. How does that change the relationship of the accused to the accuser, the ongoing threat the accused represent to the victim and the community, or the due process the accused are entitled to? They can't explain it, because there is no legal difference. And thus they are hiding behind a false pretense. Do you believe everything that you read in the paper? Do the papers always get their quotes right and in the right context? Let me ask this: Do people think that Gregory and the SD and the SB have done NOTHING about this issue? Do people think that IF the 2 could legally be moved out of Gregory, that they would be? Does anyone support the SD/SB/Admin potentially breaking the law?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Feb 19, 2009 22:34:15 GMT -5
The potential lawsuit I am referring to is the one that will be brought by the parents of the victim if the accused are not moved. What is the basis for the lawsuit? What if Illinois law did not support moving the 2 kids based on the current status & information? What if it was actaully illegal to move the 2 kids right now? What if the 2 are found innocent? Makes sense - What if the victim is being protected from the 2? According to the DH article: "During the past week, school board members have heard from the victim's family and other parents urging them to remove the accused attackers from Gregory, where all three boys are classmates. But district officials and lawyers have maintained there is nothing they can do because the initial incident took place off school property." I'd like to ask these "officials and lawyers" to explain how things would be different if the sexual assault had occurred in a school bathroom, with no witnesses. How does that change the relationship of the accused to the accuser, the ongoing threat the accused represent to the victim and the community, or the due process the accused are entitled to? They can't explain it, because there is no legal difference. And thus they are hiding behind a false pretense. Do you believe everything that you read in the paper? Do the papers always get their quotes right and in the right context? Let me ask this: Do people think that Gregory and the SD and the SB have done NOTHING about this issue? Do people think that IF the 2 could legally be moved out of Gregory, that they would be? Does anyone support the SD/SB/Admin potentially breaking the law?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 19, 2009 22:44:07 GMT -5
I just don't see why the SB cannot move them. If the boys were arrested and charged with murder, and free on bail, technically they would "innocent until proven guilty." Does that mean we would have to tolerate their presence at school until their conviction? Whether it's murder or rape, we have a case where the accused are a threat to not only the victim, but others. And despite the ignorant statements by the SB, legally it makes absolutely no difference where this occurred, on school or off. Assuming no witnesses in either scenario, why would the accused have less rights to due process if it had happened at school? Either way, the accused could be guilty as sin or the victim could be making it all up. What does the location have to do with ANYTHING? The answer is yes one would have to put up with them at the school. Their legal right to an education is the trump card. as well as the presumption of innocence. I may not like it, but until someone changes the law, it's all we got..
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Feb 19, 2009 22:59:46 GMT -5
Is there any chance that if the parent of the victim applied for a restraining order that something would need to be done to ensure separation?
|
|