Married Teacher Who Allegedly Had Sexual Relations With 17-Year-Old Student Grins in Mugshot

International Times ^ | 3/22 | Maya Chung

[Big Red Badger]

To lazy to research....

Me too.

I’m here for the photos!

[Big Red Badger]

Must be Hubby in back....

[farming pharmer]

Must be Hubby in back....

Hopefully he does the manly thing and boots her to the curb. Hard to do when she looks like that, but if he doesn't...he's in for a world of hurt.

[Springman]

Bump for later.

[minnesota_bound]

FTA: According to reports, Fowlkes celebrated her birthday with her husband of four years before she turned herself into police.

Hmm... the husband may be able to get out of paying spousal support when they divorce.

[rb22982]

"How about the husband get 30 minutes alone with the 17 year old then?"

What does this even mean? Are you suggesting the husband also have sex with a 17 year old or to beat him up? I'm assuming the latter, although that makes no sense as its his wife that broke a vow - the 17 year old did not break a vow.

"Seriously, this was a High School teacher - High School student relationship. Does society have a say in keeping order and harmony? Texas law says they do. Apparently their morals are not yours."

WTF did what I say have to do with morals? Morally I find what the person did very wrong, as do I when people cheat on their spouse with someone of the same age and no reporting relationship, as well as a number of other things that don't typically mean prison time including gambling, drinking to excess, eating like a gluten, lying to your friends/family/neighbors, etc. Just because something is morally wrong, doesn't mean it should mean jailtime. It should definitely mean termination in this case, a public scolding (which she has received), and her husband should walk away with all of their assets and a clean divorce, but just jail time is ridiculous.

[rollo tomasi]

A) Hyperbole about the chance of the husband getting time to beat the crap out of the 17 year old, wasn't serious, however pointed out that there might be an innocent party who was harmed (Unless he is a cuck).

B) Moral laws have been legislated since the dawn of government. Many are in your State as well as on the Federal level.

Basically the laws establish a clear boundaries between individual rights and interests and the rights and interests of others in society, both individually and collectively.

In the case of Texas law, the legislature deemed that a teacher - student sexual relationship in primary and secondary level may possibly have jail time as a punishment.

Again, lobby your State if you do have that codified. If not, the Texas legislation/Judicial process determined that instance can be punishable with jail time. Amendment 10 of the Constitution spells that right out.

[rollo tomasi]

Also you keep ignoring the teacher - student aspect of this which triggers the law and why she was arrested. If this chick and the 17 year old did not have that provision, the sexual aspect was legal since he is of age.

Also this case could be hearsay as well since this dude needs to provide some evidence he banged his teacher. Not sure what investigators have. If they jumped the gun and the chick is innocent, I guess some lawyer will get well paid after this is done.

[rb22982]

I’m not ignoring anything about the aspect of the teacher-student thing, hence why I said she should be fired and barred from teaching again - which is exactly what would happen to me if i screwed someone that worked for me at any corporation I ever worked with. If I was ignoring the relationship, I would have said she shouldn’t be fired.

[rb22982]

Just because something is law, doesn’t mean it makes sense or is a good law. Slavery was the law for a long time as was alcohol prohibition. Two terrible laws. This is a forum that people discuss such things. You seem to not understand that.

[rollo tomasi]

So let me get this straight; do you equate a law where a authority figure of the State who voluntarily takes a position over minor children (Age of consent in this type of pertinency); has a clear understanding of the penalties of this particular type of malfeasance before and during employment; who are entrusted by the parents not to engage in behaviors with students that might cause STDs, unwanted pregnancies, grade manipulation, psychological damage and favoritism to involuntary servitude where the Constitution has been amended to prevent States from enacting slavery?

The corporation example is a non-sequitur since again, the law applies to the teacher - student relationship in secondary and primary schools. As a parent who has a right to raise their children (Son or daughter) a certain way and is their caretaker through graduation, I expect teachers to stick to their job description and not engage in predatory activities. I figure jail time was established as warning to the seriousness of the act, again, you play you pay. Teachers in Texas are constantly reminded of this, yet...

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, “Age of consent does not apply in this type of pertinency”

[rb22982]

It is hardly a non-sequitur as the law could easily be extended to manager-employee relationship as well with a stoke of a pen. You seem to have problems conflating what the law is (which is not the argument I'm making) and what the law should be (the argument I'm making). I'd argue that the manager-employee relationship - in most cases - is at LEAST as harmful to the "weaker" person than in the case of a teacher / student. The only thing you have is the student is only 17, but in the state of Texas, that's the legal age.

[rollo tomasi]

A manager-employee relationship in a private sector relationship that has no fundamental bearing in comparison with a educator (Authority of the State) - student of a primary and secondary school. Again, a non-sequitur.

Also the fact continually escapes you that the legislature of Texas and the Executive Branch of Texas passed these stipulations by their right.