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  
•       •       •

18076 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years 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 11:18:59 AM  
One big reason why I no longer teach: Once accused, always guilty.
 
2012-09-24 11:19:51 AM  
man,it does NOT pay to be a teacher these days, regardless of your gender. the stress, the low pay, and the fact that any little shiat who has a grudge against you, or is trying to impress his buddies can lie about having sex with you and your life is ruined.

we've come to a point where all our teachers need to be robots, or so shockingly ugly no child would ever want to be associated with having sex with him/her.

anyone else stupid enough to be a teacher in this day and age deserves whatever they get.
 
2012-09-24 11:23:19 AM  

Dirtybird971: is this anything like a Country pile?


After the third servile war, y'know the one with Spartacus, the Romans had 6,000 prisoners left over. So they crucified one every mile along the highway and left the bodies to hang there for decades. They didn't have another servile war. Deterrents don't work if no one's aware of them.

But don't forget, I also advocated that DAs receive the punishment the defendants would have gotten. This isn't some off the cuff idea. Who would dare to risk their life just to see someone else dead unless that person REALLY deserved it and there was 1000% more proof than was necessary to sway 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty to your side? No one, that's who.

So it's not like anyone would actually be sentenced to death under my draconian laws. It would just remain a possibility real enough to keep anyone with two brain cells to rub together from becoming a for profit lawyer, which is the real goal. Dead bodies aren't economically useful after the initial rot leaches nitrates into the surrounding soil.
 
2012-09-24 11:25:39 AM  

StaleCoffee: 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.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
 
2012-09-24 11:27:30 AM  

StaleCoffee: She may not have been farking the kid but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.


Repeat that 100 times.

Go
 
2012-09-24 11:28:48 AM  

doglover: 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.


there was an episode of justice league like that.

Link
 
2012-09-24 11:34:16 AM  

StaleCoffee: She may not have been farking the kid but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.



She may not have been stealing but she was talking to kid that was so the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may bot have been killing puppies but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may not have been posting Lootie in every photoshop contest but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may not have been posting in the politics section but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

The crash wasn't her fault but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.
 
2012-09-24 11:36:08 AM  

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

Translation: Someone's gettin' a suin'.


I'm OK with that. If you carelessly sling accusations around, you'd better be prepare for the blowback.
 
2012-09-24 11:38:21 AM  

khitsicker: there was an episode of justice league like that.


"That's how we solved our lawyer problem."

Exactly. Although I'd only apply the rule to DAs, not defense lawyers. The whole point is the prosecution has too much power. They need to be gelded and hobbled before the system's fair again.
 
2012-09-24 11:39:08 AM  

wambu: One big reason why I no longer teach: Once accused, always guilty.


Same reason I quit being a substitute teacher this year. Well that, and the job sucked balls. The school boards are running scared from the kids now, and the kids know it. Fark em all.
 
2012-09-24 11:39:15 AM  
Just an FYI: we're talking about the "standard of proof" here, not the "burden of proof". The "burden" dictates who has to prove what, the "standard" is the level of proof required to discharge that burden.
 
2012-09-24 11:44:10 AM  

fisker: StaleCoffee: She may not have been farking the kid but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.


She may not have been stealing but she was talking to kid that was so the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may bot have been killing puppies but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may not have been posting Lootie in every photoshop contest but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

She may not have been posting in the politics section but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.

The crash wasn't her fault but the college can still consider her conduct inappropriate and respond accordingly.


Only, according to the article she was involved in a number of other activities with this student, including running together. So that's, well, you know, what they're going to be looking at to determine whether or not her conduct was inappropriate. They're not going to stand her up on some kind of stone disc and shout at the heavens for a judgement on whether or not the court was right.

If she knew the kid was stealing, or distracted the attendant while he was shoplifting, that conduct may be considered inappropriate for a teacher.

If she was filming the puppy murders and distributing digital copies on amazon, that conduct may be considered inappropriate for a teacher.

If she was substituting lootie with an adorable kitten wearing a hockey mask stealing a wheelbarrow filled with fancy feast, that conduct may be considered inappropriate for a teacher.

If she was posting political diatribe in a section other than politics, that conduct may be considered inappropriate for a teacher.

If the crash wasn't her fault then the college wouldn't even be investigating.

Tomfoolery aside, farking a kid will get you jailtime, but if they were involved in activities the college considers questionable otherwise then, what, you think the college should sit on its hands and ignore that because the court said she didn't fark the kid and otherwise didn't care what else went on?

You sound zealous, not stupid, so you should easily be able to spot the problem with that.
 
2012-09-24 11:48:51 AM  
Yes, subby. That's why OJ Simpson didn't go to prison for murder but still had to pay millions for a wrongful death judgment.
 
2012-09-24 11:51:09 AM  
So by "disciplinary panel," they actually mean "family court????"
 
2012-09-24 11:51:56 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 know when I'm looking for expert legal opinions, I always check with school teachers and not judges. I also like to get all of my healthcare advice from lawyers, not doctors, and I always look to politicians for any scientific explanations instead of scientists, cause I'm am idiot.
 
2012-09-24 11:59:52 AM  

kwame: 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.


Hey now... don't make a monkey out of her
 
2012-09-24 12:02:43 PM  
Gowans testified she did not engage in an inappropriate sexual relationship with the former student

But now, her Moonlight Desires will haunt her for the rest of her life.

$5 off any Sam The Record Man purchase if you get the reference.
 
2012-09-24 12:04:54 PM  
Just scanning through the comments it seems a number of commenters are having difficulty with the level of proof necessary to sanction someone criminally as opposed to civilly. Here's a handy guide:

You are guilty of a crime if a jury or judge finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are liable for damages if a jury or judge finds liable by the preponderance of the evidence presented.

A disciplinary hearing is neither a criminal nor a civil procedure, it is an administrative procedure and they get to set the standards for liability to whatever level they please. It sounds like this school system hews closer to civil court standards.
 
2012-09-24 12:07:44 PM  

StaleCoffee:

Tomfoolery aside, farking a kid will get you jailtime, but if they were involved in activities the college considers questionable otherwise then, what, you think the college should sit on its hands and ignore that because the court said she didn't fark the kid and otherwise didn't care what else went on?

You sound zealous, not stupid, so you should easily be able to spot the problem with that.


Let's go with what we know here...

"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."

So now the teacher's college is going to punish her for liking the student and trusting him with her kids?

Truth be told, he had a major crush on her (I had one on my French teacher through 4 years of high school...she liked me a lot, I visited her house, fark her? that was never going to happen and I knew it). She liked the idea of it, but never acted on it and when she decided it would be best to cut ties, he wanted revenge. Far more plausible and more likely than her putting her life in jeopardy.
 
2012-09-24 12:12:41 PM  

MAYORBOB: Just scanning through the comments it seems a number of commenters are having difficulty with the level of proof necessary to sanction someone criminally as opposed to civilly. Here's a handy guide:

You are guilty of a crime if a jury or judge finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are liable for damages if a jury or judge finds liable by the preponderance of the evidence presented.


We know what the situation IS. That's what the problem is. The law is broken and needs to be fixed.

A good start would be to prohibit the government from being the plaintiff in any civil suit. If the government is the plaintiff it should be handled according to the rules of criminal court.
 
2012-09-24 12:14:31 PM  

Decillion: 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.


This. It sounds like the kid didn't get to boink her, but instead said they did to get revenge.

hdhale: Let's go with what we know here...

"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."

So now the teacher's college is going to punish her for liking the student and trusting him with her kids?

Truth be told, he had a major crush on her (I had one on my French teacher through 4 years of high school...she liked me a lot, I visited her house, fark her? that was never going to happen and I knew it). She liked the idea of it, but never acted on it and when she decided it would be best to cut ties, he wanted revenge. Far more plausible and more likely than her putting her life in jeopardy.



This
 
2012-09-24 12:15:09 PM  

MAYORBOB: Just scanning through the comments it seems a number of commenters are having difficulty with the level of proof necessary to sanction someone criminally as opposed to civilly. Here's a handy guide:

You are guilty of a crime if a jury or judge finds you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are liable for damages if a jury or judge finds liable by the preponderance of the evidence presented.

A disciplinary hearing is neither a criminal nor a civil procedure, it is an administrative procedure and they get to set the standards for liability to whatever level they please. It sounds like this school system hews closer to civil court standards.


I hope she sues them for slander. She already quit, all this will do is label her a sex offender.
 
2012-09-24 12:16:22 PM  

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?

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)


It is the same as civil lawsuits vs criminal proceedings. The famous example be OJ Simpson, who was acquitted in a criminal trial but lost the civil suit. Different theatres have different standards of proof and can result in different results. This is a good thing. I want a higher standard for someone being thrown in jail to someone being sued over some money (where you face bankruptcy as the worst case scenario). And the idea that having a criminal trial automatically increases the standard of proof for a civil trial is ludicrous, because that creates an incentive to avoid criminal proceedings when civil proceedings are available.

It is also quite likely that actions not constituting a criminal offence are sufficient for disciplinary action.

clyph: 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.


Of course then you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a false accusation which is extremely hard to do.
 
2012-09-24 12:19:40 PM  

StaleCoffee: Tomfoolery aside, farking a kid will get you jailtime, but if they were involved in activities the college considers questionable otherwise then, what, you think the college should sit on its hands and ignore that because the court said she didn't fark the kid and otherwise didn't care what else went on?



Wait. So you are saying that she was getting away with doing all of those things UNTIL she was accused of farking the kid?

I don't follow and I think I am having trouble understand the logic as far as what is a preventable situation in future 'teacher-student' related conduct.

As long as you are not accused of farking a kid, you CAN do everything else. It's all good until you get accused THEN we look at what you have been doing and THEN determine whether or not you should be working at said college.
 
2012-09-24 12:25:21 PM  

Daniels: 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.


And that's not the same. Goldman sued OJ for the same thing that OJ was exonerated of by a criminal court. You are suing for something that a) hasn't been prosecuted in criminal court and b) isn't suing for the same verdict for the same crime to the same victim.
 
2012-09-24 12:25:58 PM  

clyph: 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.


A civil trial has different forms of protection than a criminal trial. Namely, the fact that you can apportion guilt in a way that would be impossible in criminal court ("the standard sentence for rape is 10 years, but we think the victim is 25 percent responsible so we'll just have you do 7 and a half and she can do two and a half"). Also the people who sue are usually people who have not had any control over the criminal court proceedings.

I do think that there should be a Gideon rule for civil trials. If the person meets certain indigence requirements and the plaintiff is represented by council the defendant should get the option of having a free lawyer.
 
2012-09-24 12:27:12 PM  

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?

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)


Do you think the Goldman's deserved to win their case against OJ? He was found not guilty in a court of law. Do you think he is not guilty? Do courtrooms always get guilt/innocence correct?

I have no problem with the hearing going forward.
 
2012-09-24 12:27:22 PM  

hdhale: StaleCoffee:

Tomfoolery aside, farking a kid will get you jailtime, but if they were involved in activities the college considers questionable otherwise then, what, you think the college should sit on its hands and ignore that because the court said she didn't fark the kid and otherwise didn't care what else went on?

You sound zealous, not stupid, so you should easily be able to spot the problem with that.

Let's go with what we know here...

"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."

So now the teacher's college is going to punish her for liking the student and trusting him with her kids?

Truth be told, he had a major crush on her (I had one on my French teacher through 4 years of high school...she liked me a lot, I visited her house, fark her? that was never going to happen and I knew it). She liked the idea of it, but never acted on it and when she decided it would be best to cut ties, he wanted revenge. Far more plausible and more likely than her putting her life in jeopardy.


Yes.

I think StaleCoffee is suggesting that you can determine whether or not you should fire someone before they are accused of farking some kid BY the very same kid.

But I am not sure because I can not even begin to follow the logic.

Should we be watching every step a teacher makes in regards to their relationship with every student and if they text or go running with that student we fire them before they are accused of something?
 
2012-09-24 12:28:11 PM  

doglover: 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.


What would you say to hanging anybody that through fraud or force (fraud through lies) that infringes upon life and/or liberty? Life being defined as your body or health and liberty needs no clarification.

As somebody who was once maliciously prosecuted by the Ada County gestapo, let me be the first to offer you a free alibi if you ever need one.
 
2012-09-24 12:29:20 PM  
doglover: khitsicker: there was an episode of justice league like that.

"That's how we solved our lawyer problem."

Exactly. Although I'd only apply the rule to DAs, not defense lawyers. The whole point is the prosecution has too much power. They need to be gelded and hobbled before the system's fair again.


You sound like someone who was arrested and unjustly ( in your opinion) found guilty.
 
2012-09-24 12:30:25 PM  

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.


Well in this case it is not another court case as it was in the OJ deal. I will give that Civil Suits after being found not guilty do seem to tap on Double Jeopardy's front door.

However, in this case the courts are out of it at this point. Places of work have no legal obligation to accept a courtroom verdict.

See Chicago Black Sox who were banned for life after being aquitted of fixing the World Series.
 
2012-09-24 12:35:49 PM  
Let's say I am a Principal of a school and notice one of my teachers outside talking to a student. I walk up to the teacher and say, 'Break that shiat up you whore, get back to class, Johnny. Ms. Johnson, you are fired pack your shiat up and get out of here before that kid accuses you of rape.'

I would be completely justified in doing so even though she didn't fark the kid.
 
2012-09-24 12:37:28 PM  

StaleCoffee: 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.


It is genuinely frightening that so many Farkers in here can't grasp this simple concept.
 
2012-09-24 12:38:10 PM  

srhp29: However, in this case the courts are out of it at this point. Places of work have no legal obligation to accept a courtroom verdict.


Indeed, though it probably depends on the state. Employers in just-cause employment states(or with just-cause union contracts) probably will have a problem proving cause when the cause was found to be false.
 
2012-09-24 12:41:09 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: I hope she sues them for slander. She already quit, all this will do is label her a sex offender.


A point of clarification: do you mean labeled a sex offender in the legal sense (i.e. registered sex offender) or in the court of public opinion?

The former is absolutely not the case: this is an administrative hearing. The latter may well be the case. If so then she can sue. You see, I don't have a problem with this hearing provided everyone (including the school) is willing to live with the consequences. If they go through with it, and it is ill-conceived, they need to be aware of a possible civil action on her part. That is the check on this kind of thing.

The school has two problems: 1.) they may be worried about civil suit from the student 2.) depending on their actions they may need to be worried about a civil suit from the former teacher.
 
2012-09-24 12:43:21 PM  

dywed88: Of course then you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a false accusation which is extremely hard to do.


It's an improvement over the current situation, where there are virtually no penalties for false accusations or for malicious prosecution. Violations are routine, penalties are exceedingly rare
 
2012-09-24 12:48:36 PM  

hdhale: So now the teacher's college is going to punish her for liking the student and trusting him with her kids?

Truth be told, he had a major crush on her (I had one on my French teacher through 4 years of high school...she liked me a lot, I visited her house, fark her? that was never going to happen and I knew it). She liked the idea of it, but never acted on it and when she decided it would be best to cut ties, he wanted revenge. Far more plausible and more likely than her putting her life in jeopardy.


I don't know what the teachers college is going to do. I don't care about anecdotal unrequited crushes, since it really has nothing to do with anything. The point here is that the college of teachers is a different administrative body with a different agenda and process. Whether or not your french teacher bilked you for free housekeeping is irrelevant to that explanation of why there is a different standard of proof for an entirely different group of people than were involved in a criminal trial.

fisker: Wait. So you are saying that she was getting away with doing all of those things UNTIL she was accused of farking the kid?

I don't follow and I think I am having trouble understand the logic as far as what is a preventable situation in future 'teacher-student' related conduct.

As long as you are not accused of farking a kid, you CAN do everything else. It's all good until you get accused THEN we look at what you have been doing and THEN determine whether or not you should be working at said college.


I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the college of teachers is an entirely different administrative group than the government,and has an entirely different agenda and process.

What *you* say is okay is completely irrelevant here. You can say you can do anything you want to do on fark so long as it doesn't break the law and rape and kill a girl in the politics tab, but the mods will ban you for breaking *their* rules anyway.


fisker: I think StaleCoffee is suggesting that you can determine whether or not you should fire someone before they are accused of farking some kid BY the very same kid.

But I am not sure because I can not even begin to follow the logic.

Should we be watching every step a teacher makes in regards to their relationship with every student and if they text or go running with that student we fire them before they are accused of something?



It's really not that complicated. She was brought up on criminal charges. She spent a lot of time with the kid. She was acquitted of criminal charges. Now she has to deal with the administrative body for the school. Their standards are different than the courtrooms. She probably wouldn't be investigated at all if she hadn't been to court, but the fact remains that she was, which puts her into the "This is questionable" spotlight.

That's how the world works. Even if you didn't do something, if you catch the eye of authority they're going to look you over anyway.

The court may decide you're not guilty when it came to vehicular manslaughter but the DMV is probably going to fine you for running a red light anyway.
 
2012-09-24 12:49:03 PM  

fisker: Let's say I am a Principal of a school and notice one of my teachers outside talking to a student. I walk up to the teacher and say, 'Break that shiat up you whore, get back to class, Johnny. Ms. Johnson, you are fired pack your shiat up and get out of here before that kid accuses you of rape.'

I would be completely justified in doing so even though she didn't fark the kid.


You would find yourself fired before the end of the day and with a monstrous law suit on your hands. This would be the outcome, even without the sexually harassing language. The outcome would be just.
 
2012-09-24 12:49:34 PM  

Carousel Beast: StaleCoffee: 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.

It is genuinely frightening that so many Farkers in here can't grasp this simple concept.


What is the concept? The teacher was asking for it?

Don't do this with kids or you will be accused of that. And even if you are innocent of doing that we will look into this and see if you should be accused of that.

Because obviously you did something to be accused of that and we need to know what it is so we can fire people before it happens in the future.
 
2012-09-24 12:49:40 PM  

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... ?


Where do you get off stating that as if it were a fact despite it being unproven?
 
2012-09-24 12:50:01 PM  
I'm amazed at how quickly our society has fallen back upon the "Blame the Victim" mentality.

She was alone with someone not her age? Obviously she was asking for it.

Gosh, maybe we should blame the one committing the crime. Just a thought. It probably won't be long before middle-aged people aren't allowed to be alone with an old people as well. Apparently, everyone between the ages of 25-60 is a walking time-bomb of fornication.
 
2012-09-24 12:53:12 PM  

cryinoutloud: wambu: One big reason why I no longer teach: Once accused, always guilty.

Same reason I quit being a substitute teacher this year. Well that, and the job sucked balls. The school boards are running scared from the kids now, and the kids know it. Fark em all.


Quoted for truth.
 
2012-09-24 12:53:29 PM  

Carousel Beast: StaleCoffee: 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.

It is genuinely frightening that so many Farkers in here can't grasp this simple concept.


It's not hard at all. What I'm saying and others are saying is that the evidence presented in the article, aside from the sexual allegations, barely registers on the inappropriate meter. If you want to claim that the student's allegations still have validity even though they can't be proven in court, I'll gently remind you that the student's testimony has been inconsistent and therefore you can pretty much throw it out in any hearing on the matter that isn't a witch hunt. What you are left with is something that should be a formality--leading to exoneration by the college.

Note: I say "the evidence presented in the article" for a reason. Often we're given an article to react to in these threads that doesn't include the whole story. Could be she's a guilty as sin and there are other witnesses who for various reasons didn't get mentioned, say one of her kids who saw "the babysitter coming out of mommy's bedroom naked", but didn't see mom and therefore it looks bad, but not bad enough.
 
2012-09-24 12:55:42 PM  

Blink: I'm amazed at how quickly our society has fallen back upon the "Blame the Victim" mentality.


Thats just the way things are. A woman SHOULD be able to go walking alone in dark alleys without being raped, a man SHOULD be able to go walking in the ghetto dressed in a tuxedo and top hat without getting mugged, and a teacher SHOULD be able to have a friendly relationship with their students without losing their career.

The world isnt the way it SHOULD be, its the way that it is: a stinking, miserable pile of shiat. At some point common sense has to factor into the equation. When plain common sense is blatantly ignored, there are consequences. It was her fault.
 
2012-09-24 12:57:23 PM  

hdhale: It's not hard at all. What I'm saying and others are saying is that the evidence presented in the article, aside from the sexual allegations, barely registers on the inappropriate meter. If you want to claim that the student's allegations still have validity even though they can't be proven in court, I'll gently remind you that the student's testimony has been inconsistent and therefore you can pretty much throw it out in any hearing on the matter that isn't a witch hunt. What you are left with is something that should be a formality--leading to exoneration by the college.

Note: I say "the evidence presented in the article" for a reason. Often we're given an article to react to in these threads that doesn't include the whole story. Could be she's a guilty as sin and there are other witnesses who for various reasons didn't get mentioned, say one of her kids who saw "the babysitter coming out of mommy's bedroom naked", but didn't see mom and therefore it looks bad, but not bad enough.



It's like y'all are fighting to make this more complicated than it is.
 
2012-09-24 12:58:22 PM  

ShotgunLobotomy: Blink: I'm amazed at how quickly our society has fallen back upon the "Blame the Victim" mentality.

Thats just the way things are. A woman SHOULD be able to go walking alone in dark alleys without being raped, a man SHOULD be able to go walking in the ghetto dressed in a tuxedo and top hat without getting mugged, and a teacher SHOULD be able to have a friendly relationship with their students without losing their career.

The world isnt the way it SHOULD be, its the way that it is: a stinking, miserable pile of shiat. At some point common sense has to factor into the equation. When plain common sense is blatantly ignored, there are consequences. It was her fault.


The big stumbling block here is that not only was she found innocent at the criminal trial but the review by the college of teachers hasn't happened yet, so there's no blame being assigned anywhere so far.
 
2012-09-24 01:00:02 PM  

StaleCoffee: ShotgunLobotomy: Blink: I'm amazed at how quickly our society has fallen back upon the "Blame the Victim" mentality.

Thats just the way things are. A woman SHOULD be able to go walking alone in dark alleys without being raped, a man SHOULD be able to go walking in the ghetto dressed in a tuxedo and top hat without getting mugged, and a teacher SHOULD be able to have a friendly relationship with their students without losing their career.

The world isnt the way it SHOULD be, its the way that it is: a stinking, miserable pile of shiat. At some point common sense has to factor into the equation. When plain common sense is blatantly ignored, there are consequences. It was her fault.

The big stumbling block here is that not only was she found innocent at the criminal trial but the review by the college of teachers hasn't happened yet, so there's no blame being assigned anywhere so far.


i meant blame for bringing this fiasco upon herself. not criminal liability.
 
2012-09-24 01:02:22 PM  

StaleCoffee: The big stumbling block here is that not only was she found innocent at the criminal trial but the review by the college of teachers hasn't happened yet, so there's no blame being assigned anywhere so far.


She's gone. She'll do it again. She'll get accused all over again, she is prone to it. She does all these things with her students that lead her to being accused of crazy shiat. We can't let her back. She all spoiled now.
 
2012-09-24 01:04:47 PM  
It's over. She's gone.

She will NEVER work in this town again.

Look at that biatch. ALL waitin' to be accused of God knows what. Could you imagine letting her work here?

How long before she accused of the SAME DAMN THING, am I right!?
 
2012-09-24 01:04:56 PM  

bhcompy: 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).


First of all, because "Double Jeopardy" has a specific definition, this is not "de facto Double Jeopardy". It is not Double Jeopardy at all.

So you think Civil Courts should have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof?
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report