Teacher Accused Of Sex With Student In Classroom

[DocM]

You forget though that no sexual assault occurred here. A sexual assault by definition is a physical assault that involves a persons genitals. Like forced sex, unwanted touching, etc.

This is not a physical sexual assault case. It is a case where there is an abuse of relative power. It has been made illegal because, for example, a teacher could demand sex from a marginal student so they could get a passing grade. Other scenarios could also apply.

In this case the 18 year old consented and participated in a romantic relationship with the teacher, so no assault occurred. The "Christians" have set up rules to try to ban sex between teacher/student here, it's purely a "statutory" or "social" law and does not meet the standard definition for assault.

Again, it doesn't have to be a physical assault, and Statuory Rape is a crime that will put you away. In many states a teen who is of age to give concent cannot because of 1) the relative power issue, or 2) if their partner is more than X-years older than they are andthey are under 18 or some higher defined age.

As for making "Christians" (presumably conservative ones) the scapegoat here, please explain why some of the strongest proponents of such laws aren't consercative or even Christian? Womens libbers, liberal jurists, etc. etc. My example of California law professor Susan Estrich is a perfect example. She's a hyper-liberal, Jewish feminist.

FYI this one crosses political, religious (or areligious) and racial lines.

I doubt there is even a civil claim here because the 18 year old boy has not been harmed in any way shape or form.

>

..... blah, blah

There IS a potential civil claim, as os evodenced by a case here in Detroit. The (now) former (openly gay) President of Detroit's City Council was mentoring for a youth program. One of his charges was an 18 y/o male high school student who he began a sexual relationship with. When the parents complained he left town for months, eventually resigning, and is now both the subject of a CIVIL lawsuit by the young man and a criminal investigation. By a liberal, black, female County Prosecutor.

[nullie]

This is not a physical sexual assault case. It is a case where there is an abuse of relative power. It has been made illegal because, for example, a teacher could demand sex from a marginal student so they could get a passing grade. Other scenarios could also apply.

Ahain, it doesn't have to be a physical assault, and Statuory Rape is a crime that will put you away.

As for making the "Christians" (presumably conservative ones) the scapegoat here, please explain why some of the strongest proponents of such laws aren't? Womens libbers, liberal jurists, etc. etc.

FYI this one crosses political, religious (or areligious) and racial lines.

..... blah, blah

There IS a potential civil claim, as os evodenced by a case here in Detroit. The (now) former (openly gay) President of Detroit's City Council was mentoring for a youth program. One of his charges was an 18 y/o male high school student who he began a sexual relationship with. When the parents complained he left town for months, eventually resigning, and is now both the subject of a CIVIL lawsuit by the young man and a criminal investigation. By a liberal, black, female County Prosecutor.

I know all about it. This is the case that, the state has a law on the books, but was the act actually criminal and what damage was there and does the state truly have the right to prosecute. Read my previous posts. Essentially, states can pass any law they please, criminalize any act, even acts that don't have any actual consequence to anyone. The constitution and 14th amendment protect from this, and many laws trying to govern consensual sex between adults have already been found unconstitutional. This particular law has not yet been found unconstitutional because most likely, no one has tried to challenge it yet.

 

Just because the state has a law on the books doesn't mean it's an actual crime.

 

The idea of this being an issue of one having power over another doesn't mean it's a crime. In all sexual encounters, one partner is exploiting the other, generally starts off by showing interest in another, then a game of trying to get the other partner to take part takes place. This is no different than what's happening with the teacher or student relationship, and they both technically have a right to privacy which prevents the state from having any say in what's going on in the relationship.

 

So far the boy has not played a victim and it makes no note anywhere that he even wants to see her prosecuted, therefore a defense that the state has no right to violate the couples privacy comes into play. This essentially becomes like an unlawful search or seizure, and the state has no right to do it.

 This should be opening up the publics mind that the state shouldn't have power to regulate or have liberty infringing laws on the books like this.

 

The only way this actually would be a crime like I said, is if it were "coercive" or an actual act of physical assault. Coercion is the act of demanding sex when the person has the right to not take part in it or face retaliation or other consequence, which they would have to prove the teacher did. Merely having the teacher be the dudes teacher and engage in romantic relationships with him and it be a crime is not enough, because they both have the right to sexual privacy. The law would also say one of them has to be victimized and want the prosecution to take place, because they're the only effected parties.

[DocM]

You know full well that the state can act without a complaint by the nominal victim, or their cooperation.

Also; a measure of if a law is proper is if there is a state interest, and there is. The state funds the schools, and sets their operational rules right down to curricula and many behavioral standards. This is one of them, especially since the sex occurred within school property.

There is only ONE state where state courts have reversed such a law and that was Arkansas in 2012.

[Turk.]

You missed the crucial point that common law does not accept consent even the parties involved in are adult if there is teacher-pupil relationship, I clearly explained how common law approaches to these cases, it is irrelevant in which country, as long as a common law country, there is nothing to do privacy as well. :) If it was a civil law country e.g. Italy or Germany could have been different.

In the eyes of common law, a teacher can not screw his/her pupil no matter at what age the pupil was/is at the event, and how willingly consenting teacher. A doctor can not screw his/her patient. Patients'/pupils' consents are invalid. :) Teachers already know, doctors already know what would the outcome be if they screw their own pupil/patient, if the case is brought to court.

[Gotenks98]

Why do these idiots always open their mouths when they just get their first piece of ass.

[The Evil Overlord]

Why do these idiots always open their mouths when they just get their first piece of ass.

Bragging rights, it's still practised now, hey, my latest phone/conquest/car etc...

[Osiris]

Why are the hot ones who do this also the dumb ones...texts, pictures, in the classroom, doing it with a student dumb enough to go tell everyone.