Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That’s the whole issue and that’s why it goes to the sheriff’s office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y’all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like “instigation” and “incitement”. The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn’t being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it’s an accusation. Ok I’m leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff’s investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that’s as much goodwill I’m going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn’t have the full evidence available at that time. You’re arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
She just felt like she was victimized multiple times — by the pictures and by the school not believing her and by them putting her on a bus and then expelling her for her actions,” her father, Joseph Daniels, said in an interview.
From that link:
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.
Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That’s the whole issue and that’s why it goes to the sheriff’s office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y’all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like “instigation” and “incitement”. The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn’t being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it’s an accusation. Ok I’m leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff’s investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that’s as much goodwill I’m going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn’t have the full evidence available at that time. You’re arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
From that link:
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.