I see nothing illegal here...

[~Darkseeker~]

Another Teacher Accused Of Having Sex With Teenager Student | Atl Night Spots

I looked it up, the age of Consent in Washington state is 16, and the boy was 17... and was clearly consenting and even bragging about it... So how does that constitute sex with a minor if he was above the state age of consent? Surely that's just professional misconduct... which would be dealt with by the school not the police.

 

[strollin]

I don't know if Wash state has laws that make it illegal for a teacher to "fraternize" with a student or not but many states do.

 

[berry120]

I don't know about the law over there, but AFAIK in the UK anything along those lines is illegal if you have a duty of care over someone, even if they are over 16. So that would include doctor-patient relationships, teacher-student, counsellor-client, anything like that.

 

[foothead]

What the hell is going on with the comments? They're all in ghettospeak.

Also, that is some seriously bad reporting. Without seeing what the police are charging her with, it's really not possible to know whether it was legal or not.

 

[strollin]

What the hell is going on with the comments? They're all in ghettospeak.

Also, that is some seriously bad reporting. Without seeing what the police are charging her with, it's really not possible to know whether it was legal or not.

The article states that she hasn't been charged with anything yet so how is that bad reporting?

 

[foothead]

They don't cite the law she broke. It's pretty much standard practice nowadays, but I'm really tired of having to do fact checking myself just to know if what they reported is true or not.

 

[root]

you're not supposed to check facts, you;re meant to succumb to the media machine and just believe everything you're told...

 

[strollin]

They don't cite the law she broke. It's pretty much standard practice nowadays, but I'm really tired of having to do fact checking myself just to know if what they reported is true or not.

From the article:

"Although Anderson was booked into the county jail for sexual misconduct with a minor, she was later released and has not yet been formally charged."

Seems to me the facts are in the article. I'm curious, what facts do you say are missing?

 

[foothead]

From the article:

"Although Anderson was booked into the county jail for sexual misconduct with a minor, she was later released and has not yet been formally charged."

Seems to me the facts are in the article. I'm curious, what facts do you say are missing?

That isn't how you cite a law. This is:

Dep't of Veterans Affairs, M21-1, The Adjudiciation Division § 2.03

you're not supposed to check facts, you;re meant to succumb to the media machine and just believe everything you're told...

Heh, I know, right? I just spent like an hour calculating whether or not Herman Cain's "9-9-9 plan" would actually be viable (it wouldn't) because nobody in the media ever bothers to research anything. All they do is regurgitate whatever the source is, usually with slight changes so it isn't so blatantly plagiarized.


Anyway, I looked it up, and there is a specific clause for school employees.

(b) the person is a school employee who has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with an enrolled student of the school who is at least sixteen years old and not more than twenty-one years old and not married to the employee, if the employee is at least sixty months older than the student;

If they had just said that in the article, this whole thread would have been unnecessary...

 

[strollin]

Sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree.
(b) the person is a school employee who has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with an enrolled student of the school who is at least sixteen years old and not more than twenty-one years old and not married to the employee, if the employee is at least sixty months older than the student;

If they had just said that in the article, this whole thread would have been unnecessary...

I'm glad they left that unnecessary info out of the article. Who would read it except for you or a lawyer? Besides, she wasn't charged so it's irrelevant.