If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Teacher accused of sexual misconduct with student has life destroyed. News: Is found not guilty 3 years later. Fark: still faces disciplinary hearing from professional body as "the burden of proof is not as high as it is in the courtroom"   (cbc.ca) divider line 182
    More: Asinine, sexual misconduct, teacher accused, professional bodies, sex crimes, Toronto  
•       •       •

18074 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 10:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 09:17:56 AM
"Gowans's lawyer said her reputation has been so badly damaged that she may never recover."

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.
 
2012-09-24 09:23:47 AM
Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.
 
2012-09-24 09:28:07 AM
He babysat her children and they frequently went running together.

I would caution any teacher not to engage is this conduct, as innocent as it may be.
 
2012-09-24 10:35:52 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

 
2012-09-24 10:37:31 AM
On the plus side, she looks decent in the photo, and is now single...

/Me loves dating women in the late 30s' early 40's... :)
 
2012-09-24 10:37:37 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


Uh, wouldn't that mean if found not guilty in court, that ought to mean that the workplace disciplinary hearing automatically acquits him? Or is this a "you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and oops, we look bad as an organization in the press and now we're taking it out on you" sort of deal?

And people were defending corporal punishment at the high school level in a recent Fark thread.... (granted in TX, one of the more third world-like US states)
 
2012-09-24 10:38:23 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


In this scenario you don't mean job. You mean career. Something this person has spent their life training for.
 
2012-09-24 10:42:10 AM
A ruined career due to a vindicative bastard.

/ Moral panic instigated by moral entrepreneurs are no different than the assholes who lights off the witchunts; much like the Salem trials.
 
2012-09-24 10:42:58 AM

s1ugg0: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

In this scenario you don't mean job. You mean career. Something this person has spent their life training for.


Because, if she is fired for sexual misconduct, she will never ever teach again.

Which is really bad, because it sounds like a disturbed young man may have invented the whole thing
 
2012-09-24 10:43:04 AM

TheHighlandHowler: He babysat her children and they frequently went running together.

I would caution any teacher not to engage is this conduct, as innocent as it may be.


The implied threat level is SO high that teachers are basically told never to have any (ANY) (ANY!) kind of contact with students outside of the normal in school classroom setting - with witnesses.

Never alone in a room together - even with the door open. Her situation MIGHT have been innocent but it proves she's an idiot.
 
2012-09-24 10:43:54 AM
And if she's not disciplined by the Ontario College of Teachers, the Canadian General Council of the Boy Scout Association has an even lower burden of proof.
 
2012-09-24 10:43:57 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


I'm not.

The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

It's like saying it's okay to rape a woman who won't marry you because you don't need as much emotion just to rape somebody as opposed to get them to agree to marry you. It's bullshiat is what it is and ever lawyer who takes up such a case against someone who's been found not guilty should be shot twice in head with standard .45 ACP and dumped in a national heap in front of a statue of Dick the Butcher and a bunch of happy children holding hands and dancing in a circle around a globe with the legend "A GOOD START"
 
2012-09-24 10:44:15 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


You go run with that.
 
2012-09-24 10:44:16 AM
i.dailymail.co.uk

Pretty solid score for a teenager. She can teach you things.
 
2012-09-24 10:44:50 AM
What part is "asinine"?
The teacher had a relationship with the student, they couldn't prove in court that the teacher broke the law, so... ?
 
2012-09-24 10:44:56 AM
FTA: 'My life had been destroyed on every possible level.'

She's obviously forgotten about that woman who had her face eaten off by a chimp.
 
2012-09-24 10:45:34 AM
I work with teens, but I avoid them socially if possible. My son is 15, and I keep a cordial distance with his friends...because they are HIS friends. Adults aren't meant to hang out regularly with teens, their brains just aren't full developed enough to perceive the difference between friendly attention and ATTENTION. My sister-in-law, on the other hand, is a single mom who works regularly with teens, and often in private (voice lessons). She sees them socially, and shares intimate details of her life (I recently saw a Facebook post discussing her "makeout sessions" with several of her voice students. Hubby and I are waiting for the phone call to hear she's been arrested. It only takes one vigilant parent to ruin a life.
 
2012-09-24 10:45:55 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

Uh, wouldn't that mean if found not guilty in court, that ought to mean that the workplace disciplinary hearing automatically acquits him? Or is this a "you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and oops, we look bad as an organization in the press and now we're taking it out on you" sort of deal?



Not really, she WAS spending time with him outside the classroom that may not be appropriate based on the teacher-student relationship. So from a job appropriateness standpoint she may have some censure or something coming.
 
2012-09-24 10:47:11 AM

doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.


So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.
 
2012-09-24 10:50:20 AM

kwame: doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.


Yes, that is correct. It's de facto double jeopardy. Our legal system doesn't give a shiat whether you did it or not, it cares whether you can prove it. And once it hasn't been proved in a court of law, you shouldn't be harassed with it anymore. The criminal/civil hole is improper, in my opinion.
 
2012-09-24 10:50:57 AM

Begoggle: What part is "asinine"?
The teacher had a relationship with the student, they couldn't prove in court that the teacher broke the law, so... ?


Don't teachers have relationships with all their students?
 
2012-09-24 10:51:19 AM
She quit her job on the advice of her union, she said.

How can they discipline someone who quit her job voluntarily?
 
2012-09-24 10:52:02 AM

kmwheel: I work with teens, but I avoid them socially if possible. My son is 15, and I keep a cordial distance with his friends...because they are HIS friends. Adults aren't meant to hang out regularly with teens, their brains just aren't full developed enough to perceive the difference between friendly attention and ATTENTION. My sister-in-law, on the other hand, is a single mom who works regularly with teens, and often in private (voice lessons). She sees them socially, and shares intimate details of her life (I recently saw a Facebook post discussing her "makeout sessions" with several of her voice students. Hubby and I are waiting for the phone call to hear she's been arrested. It only takes one vigilant parent to ruin a life.


This and more of this!

And your S-in-L is playing a very dangerous game. She is at very high risk of being arrested.
 
2012-09-24 10:53:30 AM

kwame: doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.


Yes.

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. The legal system has WAY too much power on the aggressive side and nearly nothing on the defensive side. I would be happy to see DA's going to prison for the time sought instead of defendants in the event of a failed trial. Maybe then the farkers would think twice before taking up cases.

But, I've only been wrongfully imprisoned and defamed by people who were allowed to retain their anonymity and face no counter suit by me or mine due to the case being tossed out for want of real evidence and the record expunged. That doesn't get me my 100 days back, though. I'm all for any measure that neuters the barbaric and deplorable system we have in place now.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:03 AM
He said/she said etc. So makes sense that there is reasonable doubt.

But if the kid made it up, the only motivation could have been to ruin her career in revenge for being spurned or something. Plus everyone on his side would have to believe him and allow it to go this far.

It feels like justice. Too much doubt to put her in jail. But all the stuff she even admits to shows she is someone who should not be teacher.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:25 AM

bhcompy: kwame: doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.

Yes, that is correct. It's de facto double jeopardy. Our legal system doesn't give a shiat whether you did it or not, it cares whether you can prove it. And once it hasn't been proved in a court of law, you shouldn't be harassed with it anymore. The criminal/civil hole is improper, in my opinion.


"De facto double jeopardy". What. The. Hell.

The term "Double Jeopardy" means something. It has a specific legal definition.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:30 AM

kwame: doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.


That is the first thing that entered my head too... The burden if proof is REALLY difficult in a court of law. One of OJ's attorneys walked from the case right in the middle of it because, as he put it, "sometimes you need to let a guilty man go free so that an innocent man doesn't go to jail."

Maybe not an exact quote, but it's close enough.

In any event, the outcome of a court trial is not always 100% conclusive. It certainly seems to be so on paper. But with all of the bullshiat and idiots on the jury, our legal system is hardly perfect.

That being said... It still seems rather absurd to me that someone old enough to decide to have sex with someone older than them is considered the same as being raped. It's not the same thing as someone abusing a child. So, there is the other side of this.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:52 AM

DoBeDoBeDo:
Not really, she WAS spending time with him outside the classroom that may not be appropriate based on the teacher-student relationship. So from a job appropriateness standpoint she may have some censure or something coming.


Came here to say this. You can get fired for all sorts of things that happen to be legal, like texting a fifteen year old first thing Christmas morning, or hanging around with a boy.
 
2012-09-24 10:55:58 AM

doglover: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

I'm not.

The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

It's like saying it's okay to rape a woman who won't marry you because you don't need as much emotion just to rape somebody as opposed to get them to agree to marry you. It's bullshiat is what it is and ever lawyer who takes up such a case against someone who's been found not guilty should be shot twice in head with standard .45 ACP and dumped in a national heap in front of a statue of Dick the Butcher and a bunch of happy children holding hands and dancing in a circle around a globe with the legend "A GOOD START"


Nobody can arrest me for telling my boss to fark off. I'd lose my job tho. Poor judgement isn't necessarily an arrestable offence, but it sure as hell is and will always be a reflection on one's level of professionalism and suitability for a job. If you'd followed the trial, nobody disputed, including her, that she had an extremely .. uh .. unorthodox level of contact with one of her students, all that was up for question was if it constituted sexual misconduct. It didn't, but the amount of evidence in the trial made it practically impossible to think the entire thing was just baseless accusations from a horny teenager who according to some of the posts here apparently really wanted to have that awesome experience of testifying in court in front of your family and friends.

Of course, you're advocating shooting teenagers who lob baseless accusations, so it sounds like you might also have a history of poor judgement.
 
2012-09-24 10:56:48 AM
Kudos to the kid for keeping his big mouth shut. Let that be a lesson to all future student-teaching bangings.
 
2012-09-24 10:57:19 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-24 10:57:45 AM

UberDave: "Gowans's lawyer said her reputation has been so badly damaged that she may never recover."

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.


someone deserves to be sued. that dumbass kid.
 
2012-09-24 10:58:37 AM
Fark: still faces disciplinary hearing from professional body as "the burden of proof is not as high as it is in the courtroom"

OJ nods knowingly and empathetically.
 
2012-09-24 10:59:15 AM

swaxhog: Kudos to the kid for keeping his big mouth shut. Let that be a lesson to all future student-teaching bangings.


Except in this case he opened his mouth and a whole bunch of not true came out.

During the trial, the court heard that the pair often spent time alone together outside the classroom. He babysat her children and they frequently went running together.

My guess is this moron figured his odds of getting laid were at their highest after his teacher had spent all of this "what the hell are you doing" time with him, and tried to use it as leverage.
 
2012-09-24 11:00:19 AM

Moopy Mac: bhcompy: kwame: doglover: The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

So what you're saying is the Goldmans should never have had any civil recourse after that farce of a trial that let OJ Simpson go.

Yes, that is correct. It's de facto double jeopardy. Our legal system doesn't give a shiat whether you did it or not, it cares whether you can prove it. And once it hasn't been proved in a court of law, you shouldn't be harassed with it anymore. The criminal/civil hole is improper, in my opinion.

"De facto double jeopardy". What. The. Hell.

The term "Double Jeopardy" means something. It has a specific legal definition.


And de facto means that in practice it is but not by law(de jure), which is the case with charging someone civilly for the same crime they were just exonerated for criminally, since the protection against double jeopardy only exists for criminal cases(ridiculous).
 
2012-09-24 11:06:11 AM
doglover: Sybarite:


It's like saying it's okay to rape a woman who won't marry you because you don't need as much emotion just to rape somebody as opposed to get them to agree to marry you. It's bullshiat is what it is and ever lawyer who takes up such a case against someone who's been found not guilty should be shot twice in head with standard .45 ACP and dumped in a national heap in front of a statue of Dick the Butcher and a bunch of happy children holding hands and dancing in a circle around a globe with the legend "A GOOD START"


is this anything like a Country pile?
 
2012-09-24 11:08:47 AM

howdoibegin: Of course, you're advocating shooting teenagers who lob baseless accusations,


No.

I'm advocating capital punishment for barristers who degrade the art of law with superfluous cases that amount to piracy, double jeopardy, and a general denial of the goals set forth in the constitution.

Law is the glue that holds society together. When that glue is abused by gormless carpetbaggers and allows for infinite persecution of free citizens until they're found guilty of something, that threatens to collapse the very fabric of the nation and allows for the collapse of the state. Such lawful evil profiteering is a decidedly greater threat to the nation than some jihadis in Asia with a box of grenades and few hundred rounds of AK-47 bullets. We can shoot the jihadis with impunity, so why cannot the greater threat at least face the possibility of the ultimate penalty after a fair trial when the lesser threat already receives it extra judicially?

Lawyers are parasites. A few hanging around can form a symbiotic relationship and really improve things a little. But when you have too many, they start to cause trouble. Kind of like leeches in that respect. And just like leeches, once there's more than you need, you have to spread out some salt and drive them back into the pond scum they crawled out of or you risk having your life sucked inexorably out of your veins by an unfeeling and slimy parasite.
 
2012-09-24 11:09:33 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


When your career is left a steaming pile of shiat by false allegations and the only thing you've ever wanted to do and the only thing you are trained to do is involved, it's a bit more equal than you are thinking.
 
2012-09-24 11:11:52 AM
I can't believe that the notion that criminal trials should have a higher burden of proof is even being discussed.

First: If the state wants to put you in jail, they have to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with strict evidentiary and constitutional protections. Improperly gained evidence is excluded. That is a good thing.

Second, and only tangentially related: If your employers wants to fire you, they do not have to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That phrase does not have anything place outside a criminal trial.

If, for example, the cops find your bloody murder weapon by means of an illegal search, you may go free because the evidence will be excluded from a criminal trial. But you can still get fired.


Would you be comfortable reversing the standard? Let's say ateacher is fired for inappropriate contact prior to any criminal trial. Should we just skip the criminal trial and find her guilty?
 
2012-09-24 11:12:00 AM
bhcompy: Yes, that is correct. It's de facto double jeopardy. Our legal system doesn't give a shiat whether you did it or not, it cares whether you can prove it. And once it hasn't been proved in a court of law, you shouldn't be harassed with it anymore. The criminal/civil hole is improper, in my opinion.

It's not "de facto" anything. In one case, it was the state vs. OJ in a criminal matter. In the other, it was the Goldmans vs. OJ for a civil matter. If we're both sitting in a car when it explodes, we both get to sue the car maker - one of us losing does not preclude the other from winning.
 
2012-09-24 11:12:30 AM
This is why I never became a teacher. I'm also unambitious and uneducated...but THIS...!
 
2012-09-24 11:13:19 AM

Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.


I think the point isn't that the burden of proof in the criminal case should be lower, but that the burden of proof elsewhere should be higher. Being acquitted of all charges by a court of competent jurisdiction should automatically qualify as "preponderance of evidence" and or be grounds for immediate dismissal in any related civil matter.

Excluding civil cases from the protection against double jeopardy is a travesty.
 
2012-09-24 11:13:41 AM
Female teachers are learning the hard way what their male counterparts have long known-do not even create the appearance of impropriety where students are involved. No male teacher with even a modicum of common sense would have contact with a minor female student outside the classroom. No one-on-one contact, no babysitting, no jogging, no text messages or cell calls, no car rides, etc. The Man, and now the public, have zero tolerance for this sort of thing, regardless of the sex of those involved. Best to keep far away and not even approach that line.
 
2012-09-24 11:14:30 AM
FTA: 'My life had been destroyed on every possible level.'

There's still MILF pron. Just sayin' and suggestin'
 
2012-09-24 11:14:51 AM

doglover: Sybarite: Yeah, I'm kind of okay with the burden of proof being higher for a hearing where I could lose my freedom as opposed to just my job.

I'm not.

The burden of proof for a criminal trial should be UNIVERSAL. Not that everything should require the same level of proof, no. But after a criminal trial, NOTHING should be allowed to effect you based on what you were tried for. You shouldn't be able to lose your job or be sued for something you've been found not criminally liable for.

It's like saying it's okay to rape a woman who won't marry you because you don't need as much emotion just to rape somebody as opposed to get them to agree to marry you. It's bullshiat is what it is and ever lawyer who takes up such a case against someone who's been found not guilty should be shot twice in head with standard .45 ACP and dumped in a national heap in front of a statue of Dick the Butcher and a bunch of happy children holding hands and dancing in a circle around a globe with the legend "A GOOD START"


The college and the court are reviewing two different things. The court is examining whether or not she committed a crime. The college is examining whether or not her behavior was appropriate and if it will reflect poorly on the institution as a whole. She may not have been farking the kid but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.
 
2012-09-24 11:16:39 AM
As always in these cases, guilty until proven innocent. And by innocent, I mean legally but never in a professionally.
 
2012-09-24 11:17:11 AM

howdoibegin: Of course, you're advocating shooting teenagers who lob baseless accusations, so it sounds like you might also have a history of poor judgement.


I think falsely accusing someone of a crime should carry the same penalty as the crime they are being accused of, up to and including the death penalty. Same goes for any prosecutor who knowingly tries an innocent person or intentionally withholds exculpatory evidence.
 
2012-09-24 11:17:53 AM
As always in these cases, guilty until proven innocent. And by innocent, I mean legally but never in a professionally.

FTFM
 
2012-09-24 11:18:05 AM

bhcompy: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 306x423]

Pretty solid score for a teenager. She can teach you things.


Cougar-iffic.
 
2012-09-24 11:18:22 AM

Father_Jack: UberDave: "Gowans's lawyer said her reputation has been so badly damaged that she may never recover."

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.

someone deserves to be sued. that dumbass kid.


Sabers will be rattled perhaps, but at best she can hope the school wants to settle quietly out of court in order to avoid a pile of legal fees--and that assumes that Canadian law will even allow her to bring a suit (not sure how that works up there). Much like the Salem Witch Trials, those that brought the allegations will walk.
 
Displayed 50 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report