<p>Sokkermom-
That is usually the terms of any such agreement. They want to be released from liability. Inquiring minds want to know what it cost them!! Unfortunately, we need another email to spring a leak to find out :)</p>
<p>^ The liberal 88 have just sighed a big breath of relief! ;)</p>
<p>Uh, NO Washington, that isn’t at all what I was meaning… But, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, I was busy at work and couldn’t put them there myself.</p>
<p>My point was that the school could be held liable because they didn’t protect them from abuse, just as it is outlined in (I’m assuming they have) their policies for protection for ANY kind of student. In this case, they were singled out and harassed because they were LACROSSE PLAYERS, it wouldn’t matter to me if they were purple! </p>
<p>My next comment to epistoph was tongue firmly in cheek because I know that there are legal repercussions in my company for harassment based on ANY “difference” such as sexual orientation and race - BUT certainly not exclusively race. AND, for your information, I firmly stand by the policies!!!</p>
<p>I have noticed a really disturbing trend on CC - there are so many people that automatically read RACIST in people’s posts when they absolutely are not!</p>
<p>Does that answer you?</p>
<p>edited: because I may have been oversensitive to your post. But, I am tired of misunderstandings and cries of racism. Maybe it’s just the old problem of not being able to really get your meaning across the internet in type…</p>
<p>ag54, for what’s it worth, I didn’t read anything of the sort into what you wrote. I’m not sure why LakeWashington did, except that race and racism (direct and reverse) seem to loom over this case and this thread like a heavy overcast.</p>
<p>Well, as someone who has, from time to time, accused other posters of “racism,” I am going to try to refrain from making such accusations in the future. When you accuse someone of “racism” on the basis of a few words that you’ve read on a computer screen, there’s often (usually?) a substantial likelihood that you’re wrong (as I may well have demonstrated myself on one or more occasions). But beyond that - and perhaps even more importantly for purposes of an on-line board such as this - after a while, as with anything else, such accusations become, well, tiresome.</p>
<p>
Nonsense. It was based on whatever it would take to make this go away.</p>
<p>I don’t even feel the least bit guilty for cheering about this and being delighted with his misfortune…serves him right…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/19/prosecutor.disbarred.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/19/prosecutor.disbarred.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>I am happy NIFONG was disbarred. His preening on TV when he was after the Duke boys was revolting. The Duke settlement was all about the despicable way the Profs treated these kids. The Wanted posters, grading them down and so on. I’d say it was a tie between NIFONG and the PROFS who mounted their campaign against the " rich white kids". It is not Duke that should be ashamed but the human wastes that call themselves professors and that weasel prosecutor who until now was untouchable. They disgraced themselves and no matter what the settlement we know who you are. There is now a website up celebrating this self righteous PC bunch. Even cold hearted lawyers could see the look on everyones face after Reade opened his heart on national television. That sent chills through their wallets and a message to them- be careful who you screw with! And please enough with the “rule of law” BS - If you are a lawyer and arent sick over NIFONG then you better leave the profession because you have learned to make too many excuses to make a living.</p>
<p>Duke university had substantial civil liability to the three players. The players could have recovered under the theory of liable per se and slander per se. Falsely accusing someone of committing a crime involving moral turpitude creates a cause of action against the persons making the accusation. Rape is a crime of moral turpitude. False accusations can be made using words and also by actions such as suspending students from school and canceling seasons. Duke was smart to settle. If jurors from the community hated Duke as much as did Nifong, the judgments against Duke could have been in the millions.</p>
<p>The other players on the team also may have actions against Duke and numerous other organizations. I hope they sue.</p>
<p>razorsharp- that is absolutely wrong.</p>
<p>
If you can’t support your argument, please don’t waste anyone’s time with such nonsense. What is wrong and why do you believe that to be the case?</p>
<p>razorsharp- that is absolutely CORRECT!, both as a matter of law and of ethical/moral value.</p>
<p>I’m going to take a wild stab here and guess that neither razorsharp nor toblin is a trial attorney…</p>
<p>I appreciate brevity, which wastes much less of my time than a long winded misguided post.</p>
<p>
I am going to take a guess that kluge has not even looked at North Carolina case law and has no idea what he is talking about.</p>
<p>
You are free to live in your ignorance, but I can defend my post. You don’t seem to be able to defend yours.</p>
<p>I am going to take a guess that Kluge knows how to spell “libel.” The DA accused the boys. Once that happened, how could you say Duke knew or should have known that anything said was false? The standards for “per se” liability are quite high - in common law and by statute.</p>
<p>Razorsharp, everything you wrote is correct in theory. As the saying goes, “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, however…”</p>
<p>cartera45 you said this in a post TODAY:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you are agreeing with Kluge because he can spell better than I can? Your view (at least the one above ) is similar to mine.</p>
<p>
I will take a wild guess and say I doubt you have much experience with jury verdicts and decisionmaking in civil trials for defamation. If the case can get past summary judgment before the court ( which it would) and goes to a jury, a jury that did not like Duke would take Duke down. In libel per se and slander per se damages are presumed which makes the case even easier to prove, contrary to what cartera45 says.</p>