Posted on 03/17/2011 6:07:24 AM PDT by decimon
LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - It was a stunning development for students and staff at duPont Manual High School: a teacher has resigned and police say she could face serious charges after being found partially clothed with a student in a local park.
Now we're learning more about 38-year-old Carrie Shafer.
Manual students say Shafer's resignation Sunday was all the talk around school Monday.
And they say the reason it's so shocking is because, according to them, Shafer is a married mother who also led their chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
Manual students we spoke with had nothing but kind words for Shafer, the former advanced biology teacher.
Kyle Peterson says he heard the news from another teacher who was visibly upset.
"A science teacher came in and told the class about her resignation and he was almost in tears because he felt bad for her," Peterson said.
"She's a good person at heart and you can really tell that in her classes," Peterson said. "And she cares about her students."
But police say Shafer may have cared too much for one of those students - a teenage boy they say she was found with Friday night in a car parked at Miles Park across from Valhalla.
(Excerpt) Read more at 14wfie.com ...
At least a male teenager won’t get knocked up; we all know the effects of irresponsible sex are unequally shared between the sexes, why should we pretend otherwise?
Not me! That’s a reply to pollster1! I’m a woman calling HIM out, he doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with older woman molesting younger boys. Please read and comprehend before you post.
“At least a male teenager won’t get knocked up...”
He can still get STD’s. He can still impregnate a woman with his child. A child that can be aborted without his knowledge or say. There are still consequences for boys being sexually active. He may not be the one carrying a child but he is the Father of the child all the same.
Comprehending your post wasn’t a legitimate option; it was word-salad. “momtothree” made a reasonable guess at the intended point.
Listen, if you followed the thread from the beginning you wouldn’t have had difficulty understanding it. I can’t help it if some people just jump in the middle and come to their own conclusions including you.
Just admit it was a garbled post and move on.
I suppose you need that for you to move on, right?
Another woman getting older. Our society keeps telling us that young women are more important than the rest of us. It’s not “rage! rage against the night!” anymore. It’s rage! rage against your age!” And hurting other people while you rage is OK.
Women who kill abusive husbands are exercising a form of justifiable homicide, a legal concept rooted in the constitutional guarantee of the "right to life"
There is a third category, those that are not addressed either way in the Constitution. In my state, a woman who kills an abusive husband is guilty of murder unless he posed an immediate danger to her life or safety at the time of the killing. Justifiable homicide does not apply unless he posed an immediate danger. Even if there is absolute proof of abuse: witnesses, previous police reports, medical records, and even videotape, it's still murder if she kills him in his sleep. Still, most juries would consider that very different from the case where an abusive husband hunts down and kills the wife who has left for her own safety. There is no constitutional difference as interpreted in many states, but there is still an important distinction, a mitigating factor that should weigh heavily on the scales of justice.
I think you're misreading my posts, that or paraphrasing them and losing an important part of my meaning. I think it's wrong whether a man or a woman does it, and that she should permanently lose her job and go to jail. I don't think a woman should go to jail for as long as a man for this crime, in general. There are genuine sex differences that, at least to me, make the two crimes different. If a male teacher molested my underage daughter, I would want him executed, although I'd settle for life without parole. If a female teacher did the same to my son, I'd settle more happily for 5-10 years in prison for her. Either way, I'd have a very long conversation with my child about why it was wrong.
There is no third state; a law is either constitutional or unconstitutional. A legal verdict rendered in a proper court hearing should be based on a fair hearing of the evidence. Courts and juries get to decide cases and an allegation of abuse as justification for homicide must comply with the particular state law which must , in turn, comply with constitutional standards.
“She’s got that insane look in her eyes.”
Yeah, I vote ‘not guilty by reason of insanity,’ and give her my phone number.
Apparently, I'm not communicating well. Juries do consider other factors besides the Constitution, and they should. That doesn't make their decision unconstitutional, but it's also not a decision that is required by the Constitution. At least in my state, abuse, even if proven, does not justify homicide. Killing an abuser in his sleep is legally homicide. My point is that regardless of what the law says, abuse should be taken into account in sentencing, even if the killing does not meet the standards for justifiable homicide or for self-defense. Not all murders deserve life without parole, but some do, and it's the considerations that are neither in the Constitution nor prohibited by the Constitution that control all of these decisions.
Juries that make decisions at variance with the constitution are overruled on appeal. Apparently I am not making myself clear. As it was explained to me when I took constitutional law, the constitution is the basis for all US law and laws or judicial decisions made at variance to the constitution do not stand up on appeal. Any lawyer worth his or her fee is capable of bringing an appeal on such an obvious basis.
Neither of us seems to be communicating effectively with the other. There are a whole lot of decisions that are neither at variance with the Constitution nor required by the Constitution. Considering the context of an event is neither required nor forbidden. While I despise "Dr." Kevorkian, I would not respond to someone who helped a close relative suffering from painful and terminal cancer to commit suicide in the same way as I would respond to the pervert who killed Polly Hannah Klaas, even if the prosecution proved the elements of first degree murder in both cases. That is why criminal law and the sentencing guidelines provide a range of punishments, and that is as it should be and not in any way required by or in conflict with the Constitution. I do not advocate unconstitutional acts from our courts, but considering both mitigating and aggravating circumstances in no way conflicts with the Constitution.
You are entitled to your erroneous opinion. Good bye
All I see here is a 1M Photo contract with some magazine like Hustler?
“I’m only 34 but when I set foot on a college campus I feel like I’m surrounded by children.”
It’s to the point I feel that way around the facility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.