The male girls basketball coach at my high school did the same thing when he was out on bail for having sex with a female student. Of course, it was easier considering she was living with him and his wife.

The one and only comment is correct.

If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

[notsureifwant.jpg]

Damn you court of laws from preventing what could be the next great romance of our times.....or not. Just saying.

Probably couldn't do any better.



/ not a band director

It's important to tidy up your place before the parole officer comes by for a visit to make a good impression.

How come whenever these women rape children all they get is probation?

Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

did he find anything else?

She looks a little like a Mrs. Potatohead

Does she play Call of Duty online?....

Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Your right the courts generally don't allow rapists to contact their victims, BUT most rape victims have no desire for that contact either. This victim has made a decision to have further contact with his 'victimizer.' He is an adult, shouldn't his opinion be taken into account now.

Rent Party, I understand your point. I am not sure that in this particular instance that I think it is the issue at hand. Part of my feeling on this is that the Judge is only requesting a bond of $25,000 (cash). I am wondering how serious this is actually being take, again the victim is now an adult, he should be able to make the decision on his own now on IF he wants contact with the victimizer. This isn't always the case, as many time the victim remains under age when additional contact may occur.

Mary Kay?

/hotornot.jpg

Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

How either of them *feel* about it is absolutely irrelevant.

Boy the stupid hurts me hurts me badly. All this man would have to do is file a motion to overturn the court ordered no contact portion of her probation on the grounds that he is now an adult and has the legal right. Also I would have added to the motion that the no contact order be lifted while the motion is considered.

ZAZ: lordaction

From the sentencing story last year:[Judge] Moriarty said in most cases involving adults having sexual relations with children it is an adult male and the motivation is more likely to be sexual gratification. "But I find this is not the case, in fact it's quite the contrary."

Thanks for the link. I also see

"interest and concern for his emotional well-being was what originally began this episode if you will and it was originally well-intended. He said it appears Lavoie's kindness toward the boy was what led to his sexual interest in her."

So it is the victims fault they were raped. This judge out to be removed from the bench and criminally charged.

Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

How either of them *feel* about it is absolutely irrelevant.

I would object to interfering with the involved, time having passed and the youth now being an adult. However, that the teacher had received fives years probation rather than jailtime and the time had not yet passed, it makes sense to punish her for violating that probation.

If they'd waited till the probation was over, I would no longer see it as the providence of the courts to interfere.

As it is, hope she enjoys prison food.

It's hard to stay away from teenage cawk.

Ummm again. He is no longer a minor. The court sentenced the perpetrator to 5 years probation. I am not sure that YOUR reaction is a valid position here Rent Party. And again I understand your argument, and in most cases I would agree completely.

But my position here is that the court ordered no contact to protect a minor from a predator. That is a completely valid move. But, there is no longer a minor involved, if the victim has reached the age of majority, which he has according to the article, then I question whether the court has a responsibility for preventing them contact 3 years after the initial crime has occurred.

As to the point of rapist, yes she fits the definition, but statutory rape exists because minors are deemed unable to give concent under the law because of their age. But truthfully maturity level and understanding of the consequences really are the issue. In this case, he now has reached adulthood legally and would presumable understand the consequences of his actions. Therefore I contend that the court order is no longer appropriate.

Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Simple answer? Because the judge said so.

His reasoning doesn't matter when he's the one that makes the rules, but in this case it is pretty easy to guess. She wasn't sent to jail in 2009. She got 5 years of probation with no incarceration. That's a very light sentence for three counts of rape and a count of incitement. A man in the same spot's doing a long stint behind bars.

I'll bet the guy's parents went along with the plea deal and sentence under the one farking condition of her staying away from the guy. She agreed to the terms of the deal. Just a tad over a year after hitting the plea bargain lottery, she broke the deal.

Probation officers and judges frown upon such actions.

Profedius: lifted while the motion is considered

giggity

He must be pretty darned hot for her to violate probation for him. And it'll certainly be a good selling point on HIS part later in life - "Yeh, this one crazy chick, she busted her probation for me!"

LOTN: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

How either of them *feel* about it is absolutely irrelevant.

I would object to interfering with the involved, time having passed and the youth now being an adult. However, that the teacher had received fives years probation rather than jailtime and the time had not yet passed, it makes sense to punish her for violating that probation.

If they'd waited till the probation was over, I would no longer see it as the providence of the courts to interfere.

As it is, hope she enjoys prison food.

I would agree with that.

Fundamentally, I don't have problems with the relationship, particularly in statutory cases. When both are adults, both should be able to declare that they should have contact with whoever they want.

But that isn't how it is, and while it's OK to argue with the judge, it is never, ever, ever OK do disobey the judge.

Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Your right the courts generally don't allow rapists to contact their victims, BUT most rape victims have no desire for that contact either. This victim has made a decision to have further contact with his 'victimizer.' He is an adult, shouldn't his opinion be taken into account now.

Rent Party, I understand your point. I am not sure that in this particular instance that I think it is the issue at hand. Part of my feeling on this is that the Judge is only requesting a bond of $25,000 (cash). I am wondering how serious this is actually being take, again the victim is now an adult, he should be able to make the decision on his own now on IF he wants contact with the victimizer. This isn't always the case, as many time the victim remains under age when additional contact may occur.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if he is coming back for more, then how is he a victim?

Diagonal: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Your right the courts generally don't allow rapists to contact their victims, BUT most rape victims have no desire for that contact either. This victim has made a decision to have further contact with his 'victimizer.' He is an adult, shouldn't his opinion be taken into account now.

Rent Party, I understand your point. I am not sure that in this particular instance that I think it is the issue at hand. Part of my feeling on this is that the Judge is only requesting a bond of $25,000 (cash). I am wondering how serious this is actually being take, again the victim is now an adult, he should be able to make the decision on his own now on IF he wants contact with the victimizer. This isn't always the case, as many time the victim remains under age when additional contact may occur.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if he is coming back for more, then how is he a victim?

He's the victim in the initial crime(s). She isn't charged with a sex crime this time around.

She violated the terms of her parole, so the 'victim' would be the state. The court released her under a specific set of conditions. She chose to knowingly violate those conditions. Sucks to be her.

If they wanted to be together this badly, now that he is an adult they should have sought to have the terms of her probation modified rather than hoping nobody looked in the closet.

That's why I keep them locked in the basement.

solokumba: [http://mmimageslarge.moviemail-online.co.uk/Narnia1.jpg]

did he find anything else?

I might find the Narnia actors in my wardrobe?



Oh please please please please

Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

How either of them *feel* about it is absolutely irrelevant.

THE LAW IS THE LAW. THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES. I AM THE LAW.

JustGetItRight: If they wanted to be together this badly, now that he is an adult they should have sought to have the terms of her probation modified rather than hoping nobody looked in the closet.

Also this. You can petition to get the terms of your probation changed at any time, the likelihood of success increasing as time goes on. DUI expungements happen all the time.

He's 18 so---shouldn't the No contact be over? I mean.. eh

foxyshadis: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Because the courts generally don't allow rapists to have contact with their victims regardless of how old they are.

Does this really need explanation?

Rapist? My question here is this. The victim of this crime is no longer a child. He no longer needs the courts protection, UNLESS he requests it.

Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

How either of them *feel* about it is absolutely irrelevant.

THE LAW IS THE LAW. THE LAW DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES. I AM THE LAW.

You got the first part of that right.

The law is the law, and the conditions of her probation were pretty clear. They had options, and choose....... poorly.

Wolf_Cub: Ummm again. He is no longer a minor. The court sentenced the perpetrator to 5 years probation. I am not sure that YOUR reaction is a valid position here Rent Party. And again I understand your argument, and in most cases I would agree completely.

But my position here is that the court ordered no contact to protect a minor from a predator. That is a completely valid move. But, there is no longer a minor involved, if the victim has reached the age of majority, which he has according to the article, then I question whether the court has a responsibility for preventing them contact 3 years after the initial crime has occurred.

As to the point of rapist, yes she fits the definition, but statutory rape exists because minors are deemed unable to give concent under the law because of their age. But truthfully maturity level and understanding of the consequences really are the issue. In this case, he now has reached adulthood legally and would presumable understand the consequences of his actions. Therefore I contend that the court order is no longer appropriate.

I think the point here is that the probation is punishment. It is a light punishment which if more severe could have involved incarceration in which case she wouldn't be having contact with the boy regardless.

JustGetItRight: Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

Simple answer? Because the judge said so.

His reasoning doesn't matter when he's the one that makes the rules, but in this case it is pretty easy to guess. She wasn't sent to jail in 2009. She got 5 years of probation with no incarceration. That's a very light sentence for three counts of rape and a count of incitement. A man in the same spot's doing a long stint behind bars.

I'll bet the guy's parents went along with the plea deal and sentence under the one farking condition of her staying away from the guy. She agreed to the terms of the deal. Just a tad over a year after hitting the plea bargain lottery, she broke the deal.

Probation officers and judges frown upon such actions.

Except in this case the rape victim is being punished by being banned from associating with the person he loves.

You are arguing that the parents and prosecutors should be allowed to force a minor into an agreement against their will that will apply to the person even after they cease to be a minor.

kim jong-un: You are arguing that the parents and prosecutors should be allowed to force a minor into an agreement against their will that will apply to the person even after they cease to be a minor.

NO! The restrictions are against HER. SHE is the one being held accountable for HER actions.

I'll go a step further. The argument some are making is that he is now an adult and loves her. As an adult, he should understand that she committed a serious crime but was given a very generous sentence. If you love someone, you don't take knowingly take actions that place them in peril of losing that generous sentence.

He did exactly the opposite. He assumed no risk by resuming the relationship, it was all on her but rather than wait until she cleared probation and/or pursue the legal remedies to their situation, he chose to live in the moment. It was extremely stupid of her and very, very selfish of him.

Now she's going to pay the price and he will be no worse off than the day before they found him in the closet.

...as opposed to a different student?

Ghastly: FTFA:While there, the officer found the male victim, who is now 18 years old, hiding in a closet.

And this is a crime WHY exactly? Consenting adults. Let them get their closeted freak on like a bunch of republican congressmen.

It is a crime because she violated a no-contact order in violation of her parole terms.

Well 1, its a teacher/student so that's wrong. And 2, it's no different than a mature male seducing a female adolescent.

Manipulating an immature someone you've been put in a position of mentoring and authority over is wrong, it doesn't matter what sex they are. She's basically just using his hormones to drag him into a lifelong bullshiat because she can't actually land anyone her own peer group (experienced enough to know better than to want her baggage/damage).

Kid's too dumb to know better since all he's thinking about is his penis and she's already pried open his vault so to speak since she was victimizing him long before he even was able to erect it and lock it. No different than an old perverted man grooming a 13 year old girl for a life of sexual slavery as his 'wife.'

Why in the world people have the double-standard that because he has a penis it's okay (whereas the vagina havers are victims) when the crime is victimizing a psyche into grooming is beyond me. This woman is going to drag this brainwashed idiot into a life he hasn't chosen for himself because she's been grooming an immature and emotionally undeveloped mind because she can't get anyone else.

Just because it's a broken woman selfishly satisfying an emotional need instead of a lusting man satisfying a sexual need doesn't make it any better. The crime is in either case both are preying on a weak and underdeveloped psyche of an adolescent by grooming it for their own purposes. Of course the victim will say they love their victimizer since they've been conditioned to believe it since they were CHILDREN. Her ass should be locked up the same as a male's.

Curious: Rent Party: Yes, rapist. If you have sex with someone without their consent, that is rape. Since minors are unable to consent, sex with a minor is rape. Hence, she is a rapist, and the court isn't going to allow her contact with the victim.

and you are a pedantic asshole jerk.

No, I'm just familiar with what the law is, and unlike you, I don't confuse that with what I wish the law were.

Wolf_Cub: Rent Party: Wolf_Cub: If the student is now 18, why can he not make the decision to have contact with this woman. He is an adult now, and she doesn't have a position of authority over him.

Because she is under a court order to have no contact with him.

Yes but my question is WHY? He is an adult now.

How about...because the judge said so.