[IndyRed128i]

http://abc7news.com/news/fremont-tea...udent/1634300/

We so stories like this so much in the news now, but does anyone really believe these boys suffer anything beyond a sore hand from too many high fives from their friends haha??

[Fundguy1]

Its the same if the sexes were reversed. So if its going to be one way, needs to be the other too.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

ehh only a 14 year old gunna hit that trash bag

[4130]

I would say it's entirely possible to get severely screwed up after such an life event regardless of gender. This link may be an extreme, but it happened recently here in NYC: http://pix11.com/2016/12/27/harlem-m...icia-barahona/

[Lups]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Its the same if the sexes were reversed. So if its going to be one way, needs to be the other too.

Exactly.

[ASAP]

man of all the teachers this kid could have chosen

[IndyRed128i]

Originally Posted by 4130

I would say it's entirely possible to get severely screwed up after such an life event regardless of gender. This link may be an extreme, but it happened recently here in NYC: http://pix11.com/2016/12/27/harlem-m...icia-barahona/

Wow....crazy

Looks like in this case though, the guy was actually 18.

At the end of the day, it's a tough one...on one hand, I agree it's important to have equal laws, but at the same time, this is one of those ways where boys and girls are different, and are affected differently. Don't think there is an easy answer.

[Lups]

Originally Posted by IndyRed128i

Wow....crazy

Looks like in this case though, the guy was actually 18.

At the end of the day, it's a tough one...on one hand, I agree it's important to have equal laws, but at the same time, this is one of those ways where boys and girls are different, and are affected differently. Don't think there is an easy answer.

Or, there are sick fucks who molest kids and the gender of the child shouldn't matter. If she was a pupil, and even if she was a few years younger, I'd give them a lecture on safe sex and let it be. A teacher has power over the student.

A two inc dildo with no batteries has more game than any 14 boy. Why on earth would an adult destroy her whole future if not for being sick? If it's true love, they could've waited four more years for sure...

[IndyRed128i]

Originally Posted by ASAP

man of all the teachers this kid could have chosen

It looks like she was actually bodybuilder and fitness model, she just has a bad mugshot

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Its the same if the sexes were reversed. So if its going to be one way, needs to be the other too.

Unfortunately when its reversed the penalties are not consistent....nor is the social/economic consequences it seems

If women want equality then lets have equality

[csu87]

Yes hes a victim.

All the other underage boys get to bang hot teachers. He got the trashy looking one. Such a shame to be bagging hogs at that young age.

[Axius]

There were a couple teachers I would have banged given the opportunity in HS.

[Maynard]

It is a lot more subtle than the 'chained in a basement' scenario, but it does indeed cause some serious long term effects (aka "damage"). And harder for boys to come forward and talk about it, since so many are expecting them to just want to high-five their buddies, so they feel like super-freaks if they end up having second thoughts (or perhaps they just imprint into a view of sex as just meaningless humping to get your rocks off, and wonder why they can't have real relationships).

[schoy]

Originally Posted by jpnh

Unfortunately when its reversed the penalties are not consistent....nor is the social/economic consequences it seems

If women want equality then lets have equality

Please explain. Are you suggesting there should be a different law (or different legal standard or legal consequence) depending on whether the victim is male or female in these cases? Pretty sure that would violate the Equal Protection Clause (unless you're suggesting a repeal of the EPC).

[pz619]

Obligatory South Park meme.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by schoy

Please explain. Are you suggesting there should be a different law (or different legal standard or legal consequence) depending on whether the victim is male or female in these cases? Pretty sure that would violate the Equal Protection Amendment (unless you're suggesting a repeal of the EPA).

What I'm saying is that currently if it was a male teacher with a female student the teacher would be all but crucified

When the circumstances are reversed the female teacher experiences greatly reduced legal penalties not to mention a small fraction of the social consequences

In other words there is an unequal application of the law once again based on gender

The law must be blind and equally applied

[schoy]

Originally Posted by jpnh

What I'm saying is that currently if it was a male teacher with a female student the teacher would be all but crucified

When the circumstances are reversed the female teacher experiences greatly reduced legal penalties not to mention a small fraction of the social consequences

In other words there is an unequal application of the law once again based on gender

The law must be blind and equally applied

Ok. The law can't really address the social consequences aspect, but I agree that there should be equal application.

[Cattivo]

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW” – These are the words engraved above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building. The most recognized legal symbol visible in the architecture of the building is the female figure representing Justice.

Blind Justice is the theory that law should be viewed objectively with the determination of innocence or guilt made without bias or prejudice. It is the idea behind the United States Supreme Court motto “Equal Justice Under Law” and is symbolized by the blindfolded statue of Lady Justice which is the symbol of the judiciary.

Describing the sort of “Equal Justice” Supreme Court judge he was looking for, Obama said:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

Earlier this month Obama said he would nominate a person who combines “empathy and understanding” with an impeccable legal background

“Who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives.”

That “abstract legal theory” Obama referred to is more commonly known as the United States Constitution, a document he has in the past derided as fundamentally flawed.

A Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Apparently, Barack Obama is seeking a Supreme Court justice who will violate their sworn oath to administer justice impartially. He believes the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold in order to be partial to certain categories of persons.

[jpnh]

Originally Posted by Cattivo

Apparently, Barack Obama is seeking a Supreme Court justice who will violate their sworn oath to administer justice impartially. He believes the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold in order to be partial to certain categories of persons.

Just another example in a very long list of previous examples of Oblunder violating or seeking to violate his oath of office

Little would be more appropriate than for a future justice dept to bring him and his minions up on charges for criminal actions taken while in office.......you better believe they are shredding documents 24x7 at this point and attempting to destroy electronic backups and hard drives at this point in an effort to escape prosecution

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Cattivo

Apparently, Barack Obama is seeking a Supreme Court justice who will violate their sworn oath to administer justice impartially. He believes the figure of Justice should lift her blindfold in order to be partial to certain categories of persons.

I don't think that was what he was saying. As foundational as the Constitution is, it is still open to much interpretation, and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that interpretation. Because the Supreme Court aren't bound by precedent, they are free to interpret the Constitution through public policy.

For example, take segregation. Before Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court held in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. By the Brown v. Board of Education, sentiment in the US had changed such that the Supreme Court determined that segregation did in fact violate the 14th Amendment. Another example would be Roe v. Wade (1973) in the case of abortion; a future Supreme Court could easily overturn this decision if they felt public policy required it.

So as you can see, in the case of the Supreme Court, the law and justice isn't blind; it is very much shaped by changes in public policy, ethics, social norms, etc. I think that's what Obama was trying to get at: his ideal Supreme Court justice is someone who can sense fairness for people of all walks of life.

[Axius]

Originally Posted by jpnh

What I'm saying is that currently if it was a male teacher with a female student the teacher would be all but crucified

When the circumstances are reversed the female teacher experiences greatly reduced legal penalties not to mention a small fraction of the social consequences

In other words there is an unequal application of the law once again based on gender

The law must be blind and equally applied

Welcome to America, where female teachers get trialed different than men, where blacks get trialed different than whites, where the rich get trialed differed than the poor.


The whole system is a fucking joke as a whole. Would be nice if equality was truly a recognized word, but it more than likely never will be.

[jpnh]

The only way there's any "Interpretation" wrt US Constitution is if folks fail to look at the well documented arguments/ratification debates and fail to use words according to their definitions/common use at the time of ratification/amendment adoption