would there have been complaints? I’m pretty damn certain there would have been - since several required medical care. Trust me when I tell you that even the mother of a teen will complain loudly if their child requires medical attention due to the actions of another student.
did they express fear ? dunno -
what I do know:
several have initiated lawsuits.
the threat of criminal charges are still around.
and there was that lovely quote from another student “I don’t know what the big deal is (snip) no one died or anything”.
and since teachers/adults are completely outnumbered in any school setting, it would be very easy for the victims to again be surrounded and ‘urged’ to drop the case, refuse to testify.
zwald -
refer please to the second point, they weren’t expecting to be harmed, so, what they expected would happen is:
they’d sit there and get icky stuff poured over their heads, messed into their hair, but that nothing would harm them (ie no acid, no feces, no gasoline etc.). If they wussed out on it and tried to run away, they’d be tackled and more stuff would be dumped on them than if they’d have just ‘taken’ it in the first place.
So, there they are, getting paint and stuff dumped on them. Then stuff gets thrown at them. they’re made to eat dirt. Some one starts choking them with pig intestines. feces is used. urine. people start beating them, kicking them. they’re surrounded. and they remember the phrase “If you try and run, it will be worse”.
That they willingly sat through a hazing ritual with the contention that running away would mean greater abuse puts them partially at fault, despite the fact that the hazing got out of hand, IMO. 16 is old enough to have a grain of self respect and the sense to say no. I’m not saying the attackers shouldn’t be punished, but I think there’s a relevant distinction between a willing participant in a stupid hazing ritual and an innocent girl walking down the street.
OH come on. The word ‘hazing’ encompasses quite a bit of terrirtory, from having some one wear a pink tutu and bowler hat, to chugging too much alcohol and getting put into a trunk.
Hell, quite a bit of boot camp activities are remeniscent of hazing (everybody shaving their heads, being woken up by some one screaming at you and tearing the blankets off you, yelling in your face about how unworthy you are etc.).
I would not at all fault some one who thought that their friends wouldn’t hurt them.
Again, the known-in-advance ‘if you run, you’ll get tackled and subject to additional abuse’ contention is the point that makes the victims share the blame IMO, but you seem to have some in-depth knowledge of this event I’m not privy to, so I’m debating at a disadvantage. Can you link this article that says the juniors were just expecting their friends to safely pour some non-toxic icky stuff in their hair?
Well, I’d actually like, read the news stories about the subject, to be able to discuss the actual events instead of assuming what people ‘should’ have known etc. The OP listed the pit thread, which had a link to the MSN, quoted as “the girls expected light hazing”.
What is your point? Are you under the impression that first-year college students ooze maturity, worldly sophistication, and experienced good judgement from every pore? Let me clue you in: they don’t. And these girls are even younger and less mature.
As I said, 16 is old enough to have a grain of self respect and the sense to say no. There’s a thing called responsibility; some learn it the hard way like these girls. You agree to be hazed, don’t be surprised if it gets ugly. The smart move is to not put yourself in the situation to begin with. Yeah, I know it’s high school and kids are kids, but stupidity is also stupidity.
Apparently it is not, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. To avoid a situation like the ones these girls found themselves in obviously requires more than just being 16 years old.
gee, you apparently read the story, where’s your “Oops, I was wrong about my assumptions re: what they should have expected, it’s clear that you were correct that they were only expecting non toxic stuff to be rubbed in their hair”?
RE: friends -
they weren’t strangers. they weren’t random folks.
They all went to the same school. Yes, the school is large and they were from different classes, but they also apparently participated in the same sorts of activities. (for example - in any given school, it is likely that the JV football team know the Varsity squad better than say, the Audio Visual club leaders, even tho the Varsity team is likely to be a different class). If you assumed that I meant that the participants were life long buddies, you assumed incorrectly. But if you prefer the term “school mates” to ‘Friends’ fine, it doesn’t change my position.
they were people the victims knew, not enemies. JV vs. Varsity.
please give evidence for your position, that they had reason before the event to know that these people’s word to ‘not harm, toss some ketchup in their hair’ shouldn’t have been trusted.
again - they weren’t strangers, they expected to see these same people the next Monday at school. why on earth should they have expected to be victims of criminal assault?
Read in the paper today about 2 incidents in western burbs, Wheaton and Hinsdale, where families were out of town for spring break, and friends of their HS age kids entered their houses, hosted weeklong parties, stole items, and caused thousands of dollars of damage.
Should these kids face suspension?
I think Eric Zorn in today’s Chicago Trib wrote a good article. www.chicagotribune.com - requires registration. He wonders why the school was initially so adamant that they had no responsibility, and quotes clear language from the school rules stating they apply to school activities on school property and during school hours. Yet they changed their stance when publicity increased. Suggests to me that school responsibility may not be an entirely clearcut matter.
Today’s Trib articles also say some actions - possibly including suspension, will be taken against the juniors/victims.
One of the seniors litigating her suspension lost her initial bid for a stay of her suspension. This kid had been expelled from school earlier this year for drinking. Not sure how she got back into school. So this kid clearly has issues, which IMO are not obviously being helped by her parents’ actions. BUT, the lack of process is one of my biggest complaints with the suspensions.
Yes it is clear that at least two girls were reported as saying such. Notice I only asked for a cite after you stretched it into ‘their friends’.
Did I say that somewhere? If so it was in error. My point is that because, according to you, “If they wussed out on it and tried to run away, they’d be tackled and more stuff would be dumped on them”, they knowingly put themselves in a dangerous situation. If you decide you don’t want to be abused and run off, you’ll be tackled and dragged back? And to this you willingly submit? Sorry, you put yourself in a bad situation, expect bad things to happen.
Ahh…weren’t strangers. Where’s your “oops, I did stretch the truth to make a point”?
My use of the word “friend” conicides with the second definition. You apparently assumed more of number one. No stretching of the truth on my part at all.
Get ‘worse’ if you ran, when all you expected was some ketchup, mustard and whipped cream, would still fall far short of expecting to be choked with pig entrails or have toxic materials smeared on you, bones broken etc.
You contend that these girls ‘should have known’ that they would be assaulted, yet you’ve not provided any evidence that I can see.
Where does consenting to being teased, have a ketchup shampoo = consent to having a concussion, bones broken, feces thrown at you etc? Or even consent to being teased etc = should have known that the rest could happen?
you want to blame the victims, demonstrate for us all, please, how they should have expected to be assaulted by people who had promised to not hurt them.
I provided proof for what I asserted, still waiting for yours.
That’s because #1 is the only definition that fits your comment “I would not at all fault some one who thought that their friends wouldn’t hurt them.” Why would you trust an acquaintence with your safety? You’re still stretchin’.
Did I say that? If so, I concede I was in error. What puts them partially at fault was that they willingly submitted to a ritual in which they knew there was no safe retreat if things got out of hand. They made a bad decision, hopefully lesson learned.
I don’t agree at all that only the ‘first’ definition of a word is allowable, otherwise it’s ‘stretching’. Perhaps you have something to substantiate that? It’s not an archaic or rare usage of the word, certainly acceptable, common use. to continue to accuse me of stretching the truth is both inaccurate and offensive.
re: the quoted portion, please provide evidence that the girls ‘knew’ that there was no safe retreat if things got out of hand. They were with a whole lotta (100 or so) classmates. they were outside (ie not in a locked building) why on earth would they be obligated (in your world view) to assume that ‘things could get out of hand’, or that they might need an avenue of escape from their classmates with whom they walk the same halls every day? If that’s the case, these girls should have refused to go to school at all, since they’d not be assured that some one there might not corner them in the bathroom and assault them.
seriously - your position is absurd. Should a co-worker that has never harmed you, threatened you in the past, but you only know casually, offer you a ride, you’d not accept since ‘should thinkgs get out of hand, they’d not have a way of escape’? how on earth do people date in your area? how on earth do you get to know someone well enough to gain the level of trust you apparently demand before you’d agree to go to a public place with them? (the assault was outside, ie not in a locked building/car)
Did I say that? My bad. What I meant to say was that definition #1 is the only one that applies to your statement, unless you feel that people should trust mere acquaintences with their safety, in which case I say you’re as naive as those girls and it’s not surprising you think they did nothing wrong.
Well you stated:
"From what I read, the girls understood a couple of things:
<snip>
if they attempted to run away after it’d started, that it would go worse for them."
and:
“If they wussed out on it and tried to run away, they’d be tackled”
The smart ones don’t go on dates where one of the caveats is you will be tackled and dragged back if you try to leave.
