SHREVEPORT, LA (KSLA) – Police have determined the reported attack and rape in a local high school bathroom never really happened.
Just after 10 a.m. Tuesday morning a 16-year-old student at Huntington High School reported 2 men had attacked and raped her in the school bathroom. The school immediately called the police and took the girl to the hospital.
"We absolutely take every report like this seriously," said Tricia Grayson with Caddo Parish Schools.
As news of the reported rape spread, many parents worried about their children's safety.
"Being a parent, who wouldn't be concerned?" said Starkes.
Starkes said she has always felt the school did a good job of securing the campus, so many things about the story didn't make sense to her.
"How could somebody enter onto the campus and nobody see them?" she asked.
Wednesday, police determined no one did enter the campus without permission.
"As they were interviewing the victim this morning, she finally admitted to them that she had fabricated the entire tale. That she had not been attacked," said Bill Goodin with the Shreveport Police Department.
Caddo School Board wants to assure parents the Huntington campus is safe.
"There are only a couple of ways to get onto that campus from the outside, and those access points are monitored," said Grayson.
The school also has several security officers and security cameras on campus.
At this time, police have not filed any criminal charges against the 16-year-old girl, and they don't expect to.
[FRS COMMENT] - The only problem I have with what the police have done here (as they got it right), is that they aren't charging her. It has been asked many times here, and it bears asking again and again, until it sinks in - When do we stop treating false accusation like they don't matter, and charge the individual with a crime?
Link:
Posts
13 comments:
Regarding the FRS comments on this story I agree, the girl SHOULD BE CHARGED. Remember, the rape industry would have us believe that false accusations only harm those invisible but "actual" victims of rape as false claims trivialize true claims.
If that is the case (which we know it clearly is not) I cannot think of a better way to protect those unknown huddled masses of reluctant rape victims than by punishing those who intentionally lie about rape.
When the criminal justice system proves unwilling to charge those who lie about rape, the questions that MUST be asked and answered is "who are you REALLY protecting" and "do you REALLY take these claims serious"? (emphasis added)
Gender feminist quackademics encourage false rape accusations, for it is now their main tool for "Empowerment".
It will be the religious areas of the nation that will stop the "Gender / Raunch Empowerment missinformation campaigns" first.
The feminism of yesteryear barely reassembles the new Gender / Raunch feminism of today, But most folks have not yet realized this.
[FRS COMMENT] - The only problem I have with what the police have done here (as they got it right), is that they aren't charging her. It has been asked many times here, and it bears asking again and again, until it sinks in - When do we stop treating false accusation like they don't matter, and charge the individual with a crime?
Only three comments in the local news story, and all three ask the same question - why isn't she being charged.
Two things come to my mind as possibilities, and only one of them is even halfway justifiable.
First, I think that there is a considerable likelihood that fact that she is a juvenile come into play in the decision not to charge. She's likely get little more than a slap on the wrist, and it would be sealed upon her becoming an adult. The long-standing view of juvenile crime has been to seek to NOT ruin their adult lives for mistakes made as children.
Yet, this fails to adequately address the problems her decision to lie created - the fear generated and the time and money wasted. Even if she faced only minimal punishment, charging her would never-the-less help in facilitating recouping some of the costs from her family.
Which brings me to my second thought on why she might not be charged - that her family had already agreed to pay for her lies. While not the correct approach, I could at least see that not charging her in return for an agreement to pay damages as a reasonable trade-off, addressing the real financial losses uncured.
As an additional note, I wonder, given the recent story from Michigan of the girl who committed suicide after being cyber-bullied (apparently by schoolmates) after her mother drug her on the news to change her story of consensual sex to forcible rape, if girls who make these sorts of FRA's either as happening at school or involving school mates, ought to be made to withdraw from their schools (for their own good).
BTW, the best take I've yet seen on that story comes from blogger Grerp, who, in my estimation, has this one (and another story) nailed - the parents (mothers) pushed for "justice" for their daughters, causing even greater ultimate harms.
As I've note numerous times before, family often plays the major role in "driving" prosecutions forward; and also that where laws are more rational (as we have in Colorado, where if the parties are over 14 and not more than 4 years different in age, it's not a crime) such situations are easily avoided altogether as angry parents can be told that there is no crime to charge (and that they'll just have to deal with the fact that their girls are themselves willingly and enthusiastically sexually active).
Too bad here in Nashville (AKA Trashville) the police aren't as smart/intelligent as the police in the "lower south" when it comes to false accusation of every/any kind/type. Here they still believe women whenever they claim the allmighty status of victimhood.
"At this time, police have not filed any criminal charges against the 16-year-old girl, and they don't expect to."
And what kind of charges? Spitting on the sidewalk? Where are they going to find any law against false rape?
She should be charged with a felony.
Most of the regulars on this forum are way too soft on false rape. Some of them are close to actually being enablers.
slwerner said...
"I could at least see that not charging her in return for an agreement to pay damages as a reasonable trade-off, addressing the real financial losses uncured."
Unbelievable.
slwerner,
Are you a feminist?
She should be charged with a felony.
And also keep in mind if this was an 11 year white boy the media would have no problem naming him and putting a big photo of him on their networks.
Most often the real story consists of what was-not-
written in the media.
How many minor boys where treated as possible suspects and questioned w/o befefit of Miranda warnings nor the presence of their parents?
LE does not volunteer such info nor does the press ask.
I am surprised I am the only one here to mention the elephant in the room.
Misandry is so commonplace we accept as de facto criminal constitutional trespasses.
-recluse-
Anonymous (Nov 15, 2010 5:56:00 PM & Nov 15, 2010 5:57:00 PM ) ”And what kind of charges? Spitting on the sidewalk? Where are they going to find any law against false rape?
She should be charged with a felony.
Most of the regulars on this forum are way too soft on false rape. Some of them are close to actually being enablers.
slwerner, Are you a feminist?”
I’m a realist – but feel free to think whatever you’d like of me. As a realist, and one who actually has some understanding of the law, for that matter, I understand that perpetrators can only be charged with violations of laws which are extant.
Oddly enough, you seem to intuitively understand this (” And what kind of charges? Spitting on the sidewalk? Where are they going to find any law against false rape?”), yet somehow you seem to suffer a disconnect, insisting that ” She should be charged with a felony” - one on those non-existent felonies, I suppose?.
Another element of reality that is at work here is that fact that the girl in question is a juvenile. Even if she were to be charged (as I specifically stated I believe she should be), misdemeanor charges will be sealed in her juvenile record, and at the age of 18, she will have a “clean” record. Plus, as a probable first-time offender, she would be subject to a reduced level of punishment even if charged with a misdemeanor for filing a false police report.
[It’s actually not clear that she even made a false report to the police - ” "As they were interviewing the victim this morning, she finally admitted to them that she had fabricated the entire tale. That she had not been attacked," said Bill Goodin with the Shreveport Police Department.”. She may have only reported it to school authorities, and confessed immediately upon being asked about it by the police. But, assuming that she did make false report to the police…]
Thus, what I was getting at was that the only “real” penalty she would face would be a financial penalty (to her family). Outside of prison time (and registering as a sex offender) – which this girl would certainly not have been facing – I have frequently proffered that the only other meaningful penalties which would likely serve as a deterrent to FRAs are such financial penalties. While this girl, as a juvenile, would only be “hit” indirectly, she would likely feel at least some “sting” for her lie if she had to forgo things that she might have otherwise received.
This is why, as a stop-gap measure, I suggested that I could accept her not being charged in lieu of her family formally agreeing to repay the costs.
But, you can go ahead a consider me to be too soft, even an enabler; and you can continue to imagine that charging her with non-existent violations, which a judge would be duty-bound to toss out, would somehow (magically) served to punish her.
300 years ago, young girls said that witches were cursing them, and "simpleton males" fallowed the "mass hystera" of the day, and burned the witches.
100 years ago 12 young black boys were gonna get rape/lynched on the say so of young girls (scottborro boys), and missguided simpleton males were fallowing the mass hystera of the day to lynch innocent boys over the lies of young girls.
Today we have institutionalised rape hysteria...girls saying they were raped and having a B scratched into her face (when she did it to herself); Gender / raunch girls having a gang bang, then saying it was rape; mass hysteria over "rapes for rufies" in which the modern American media indulged their perversion for "venting the hystera" to cause more mass hysteria to further believe women and girls whenever they say they have been raped.
History repeats itself, But Now American law enforcement is involved in manufacturing and perpetuating the erroneous belief that women and girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, lie...when in fact they are lying more now than ever, and have in fact turned society into a "False Rape society".
S - "But Now American law enforcement is involved in manufacturing and perpetuating the erroneous belief that women and girls NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, lie..."
???
Read the story above, and explain how LE did any thing to manufacture and perpetuate the belief that women (and girls) never lie.
Based on the story above, they did their jobs, and quickly got a confession out of the girl - and reported it to the media. No manufacturing, no perpetuating to be seen, as far as I can tell.
Now, you were saying...
As usual the liar gets a free pass. Big surprise there! But we're still supposed to take any woman at her word when she claims to have been raped, no matter how shady her character or dubious her claims.
It seems FRAs are a "catch and release" exercise.
They catch the lying little bitches...then release them. Release them to go back and do it again...and again if they so please.
Post a Comment