Blame the victim and 'legitimate rape'

Here we go again with 'legitimate rape' and blame the victim. WTF is wrong with this Country.

"Kristen Cunnane (12 to 13 years old at the time) was "careless and negligent" and contributed to her ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a teacher(s), the Moraga School District claimed in its first legal response to the UC Berkeley swim coach's lawsuit against the school district and three former administrators.

The district and three other defendants claim Cunnane "was herself responsible for the acts and damages of which she claims," in the Oct. 24 legal filing.

"Carelessness and negligence on (Cunnane's) part proximately contributed to the happenings of the incident and to the injuries, loss and damages," they claim."

"Legitimate Rape"

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

I'm not trying to bame you for anything but this thread already exists and it is seven pages long.

Moraga School District: Child sex abuse victim was 'careless and negligent'

By Matthias Gafni

Contra Costa Times
Posted: 11/01/2012 12:42:36 PM PDT
Updated: 11/01/2012 03:12:17 PM PDT

Couldn't edit the heading smart ass.

That's awful. That poor girl.

Hey, nobody bames you.



But I do Bane you.

Sickening.

Dude, she like, totally seduced him and stuff. It totally was not his fault bro.

Guys, guys, it's cool. See, they're just raising that as a possible defense. They're not saying she was definitely responsible for her own sexual abuse, they're just saying she might have been responsible, y'know? Because, let's be honest, there's times when 13-year-old girls totally deserve to get raped a little. And maybe this was one of those times!

Did it say what she was wearing? It was a swim coach, so she could have been wearing a provocative swimsuit like all of the CHILDREN wear on those swim and dive teams. What with the tight fitting fabrics and the hydrodynamic designs. And bathing caps. They still wear those, right?

So let's run this down. A child, who is, mind you, merely months older than my own son (who still has a 10 PM bed time) wore a team bathing suit to swim practice and proceeded to butterfly provocatively and so the coach raped her.

Yeah, he's totally got a solid defense.

If it makes any of you feel any better, I'm sure admitting he fucked a preteen under his charge is going to go over really well in court AND in jail, no matter how the defense frames it.

While I am not attempting to defend the actions of the district's legal department, nor am I saying that what they are doing comports, in any sense, with the proper or just thing to do, nor am I saying the law isn't seriously lagging in this area, but that is the kind of thing a good lawyer would have to write into their briefs given the current state of the law. In the preliminary pleadings, if you fail to make any possible legal argument for your argument, regardless of how fucked up it actually is, you cannot make that argument again at any later date. And one argument that is always, and should always, be raised in civil cases is comparative negligence: something the defendant did contributed to the injury and therefore should lessen the amount of compensation he should receive. Which in this case gets written as "She totally invited it."

Again, not saying it's right. Not saying it's just. And to be honest, the lawyers really should have explained both this legal principle as well as the fact that if the clients actually wanted to move forward on the case, this is the kind of shit that would have to be written. And that regardless of the merit of the case, that's not something that reflects well on the client to say about the alleged victim. At all. But unfortunately, when we apply the general legal principles where they really don't belong, this is the kind of writing that results. It was likely meant only as something to carry a potential argument through the preliminaries of trial, not something that they actually meant to use at trial.

Ohhhh. What I get for not actually reading the story. I'm sure his reputation's ruined, at least. Any sane person isn't going to buy the 12 year old was asking for it explanation.

Define sane. Because sane people say this kind of stuff all the fucking time, and this is, unfortunately, not that unusual.

Did she ever consider trying to not be 12 years old? Had she picked a more considerate age - say, 18, this whole thing would be a non-issue.

Having tried to get through the legal system with a similar situation (except I was trying to press charges), I honestly think this might be a solid line of argument for him. I have had the same things said to me by lawyers, teachers, friends, my parents, the police... All the ridiculous things people are saying as a joke in this thread have been said to me in some form in a serious way.

Honestly, the school district has some say in their legal defense, and no thought for just a second to say, "you know, let's not make this any worse then it is." In this type of situation, I don't think it's ever wise or tactful to make an argument that blames a minor for being taken advantage of. They have to know that this isn't a winning argument in the first place, so it's only effect is to punish and shame the victim for having been a victim. Honestly, by trying to shift the blame away from themselves and towards the plaintiff makes them sound complicit in the crime that took place. If this was done as a legal strategy, I fail to see the advantage in doing so, and I think their legal advisor is making a terrible mistake.

Honestly, they should've just accepted the blame and settled out of court on this, as far as the pending settlement goes, their attempts to blame the victimized minor for the systematic abuse she endured for years, despite them being informed could backfire if they make this argument in trail, particularly when the punitive damages are being evaluated. As the article states, an argument should be plausible if it's going to be used, they don't even have a leg to stand on in this regard, so the only purpose it serves is to harass the victim further.

And I'd thought this was a thing of the past, decades ago. Like, before the 70s.

Though when I really think about it, I don't think this is the case at all. I know the vast majority of reported rapes never get in the news, to protect the privacy of the victim. In turn this easily implies that the media expects the kind of victim blaming we are talking about in this thread.

It seems like at least half the women I know IRL have been raped at some point, and possibly more than that, as probably only the ones I'm really close to have told me about it.

She must have been taking pointers from those choir boys who were seducing priests.

Seriously though this is disgusting all around.

Not only do I agree with you; I'd do you one further: the lawyers here engaged in a form of malpractice by not properly warning their client what they were going to do. The only way I can imagine that being written into a brief is if the lawyers for the School District just made a standard "including the kitchen sink" brief that listed every possible legal defense, including the argument for comparative negligence. This is a brief designed purely to avoid the possibility of a malpractice suit being filed later alleging that, by failing to include a potential argument, the client was denied effective counsel. But by using such a strategy in this case, by either not informing the clients of what they would have to do or getting the client's permission not to do it, they just blamed a child for her own molestation. It's bad business, it's terrible client representation, and it's an abomination as far as ethics, professional or otherwise, are concerned.

A truly good attorney who actually cared about his client more than CYA would have ensured that shit was not all fucked up and bullshit in this case. Unfortunately, instead of a truly good attorney who actually cared about his client, the district got the lawyers they got.

Same here, I don't get that making just about the worst argument possible in the preliminary brief just so you can have the possibility of mounting that defense later is ever a good use of time or resources.

I studied law for all of about one semester, and that was over 15 years ago, so other then the basics, the MPC, some Latin terms and discussion about torts, I'm honestly not all that versed in procedure, particularly for civil suits. From what I understand though, is much easier to navigate burden of proof; a plaintiff simply needs to establish that a preponderance of the evidence supports their claim to convince a judge, whereas a criminal prosecutor would need to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

With this in mind, the School District's defense should be focused on providing evidence they either attempted to take action or were not informed that the systematic abuse was occurring. Electing to attack the character of the claimant, who was a minor at the time of the abuses took place, would appear to be a failing argument. She may only need the testimony of a few people, and if the defense is trying to erode the veracity of the claim by blaming the victim, I have a pretty good idea they're going to lose this case.