Posted on 07/31/2004 4:14:20 AM PDT by stockpirate
A Department of Education school cleaner was busted yesterday for sexually abusing a 14-year-old student at her Brooklyn school, officials said. Raymond Morales, 22, was picked up at JHS 126 on Leonard Street in Greenpoint at 3:30 p.m., a couple of hours after fondling the girl's breast and buttocks, cops said. It was not known where in the school the alleged incident took place. Morales apparently gave the girl a hickey on her neck during the encounter. The girl told her mother about the incident, prompting her to report Morales to school officials who then called the cops. Morales was charged with sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. A Department of Education spokeswoman said they were investigating the incident, adding that Morales will not be allowed in a school or around students and could lose his job.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
And oh no, he could lose his job.
Morales was charged with sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.
Someone charged with sexual abuse wouldn't likely have had consensual sexual contact. If you think that sexual abuse has a damn thing to do with consent, I'd hate to be your date.
If only janitors were allowed to marry this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
"Someone charged with sexual abuse wouldn't likely have had consensual sexual contact. If you think that sexual abuse has a damn thing to do with consent, I'd hate to be your date."
I think it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I don't believe a 14 year old in New York State can give consent to a sexual encounter. The girl very well may have consented to fooling around (sounds like they were making out) , but the moron 22 year should have known better or at least had the morals not to fool around with someone obviously a minor.
Mom probably saw the hickey and flipped.
If the age of consent were lowered as the left hopes to do, than he could claim that she consented to his advances, thus there would be no charges. And abuse does have do with consent. If a person at the age of consent says okay you can fondle me or whatever, than the perp can not be charged. However, if the person can not give consent due to age or mental impairment than there is reason to press charges.
So, if the libs lowered the age of consent to 10 years old, as they want, then this person could not be charged.
There's more to this story.
What did her parents think would happen when they sent their kid to a Prev School?
No, he could claim she consented to his advances. But then he'd have to admit he'd touched her, then prove that she'd consented. I hardly think from a quick reading of this that is the case.
Abuse doesn't have a damn thing to do with the age of consent IF THERE IS NO CONSENT.
I think you need to take a deep breath. There can be no abuse if a person is of the age of consent and gives that consent. And this has a lot to do with consent and the age of consent. If a 10 year old tells a 35 year old that it is okay to have sex with them ad the age of consent is 16. Than the 10 yo can not give consent hince you have abuse of the 10 yo by the 35 yo.
If the abused person gives consent and has a right to give that consent than there is no abuse. If the person does not give that consent regardless of their age than it is abuse. "No, means no."
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.