Posted on 04/15/2006 7:44:28 AM PDT by freepatriot32
article cant be posted link only
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060414/NEWS01/60413075/1010
My guess is that the Sheriff Benjamin is Seriously Misquoting the law, and NOTHING in the article suggests whether the student attended that high school or another. I would like to know who pushed this at the DA level. Probably the 18 year old's parents..
Some fat chick or a buy with a beard wants to prosecute her.
She can crash at my place until the fat chick and the guy with the beard gets kicked out.
Um, I would argue that it does not. The law covers thouse TEACHING. She is only a teacher's assistant. Without the authority of the other parties. It might be semantics, but I would push it big time.
As for the attendence, the wording of the law has serious flaws in it's present form.
Well, YOUR definition is not the same as mine.
But it seems you don't like this any more than his parents do, so why quibble about "which is essentially the same"..
They weren't at the same school.
It says student teacher(which is essentially the same).
It is not the same. If the legislature wanted to include teacher assistants, they would have included it. One of the principle of legal construction is that the legislature means exactly what it says and that one cannot read words into or out of the language of the law when there is no ambiguity. In this case, there is no ambiguity.
If the legislature wanted to cover other positions, it could have included "or any other school employee" or similar language.
A small word like 'and' has a very significan legal meaning. In this case, if what comes before AND after the word 'and' is not present, there is no crime.
I stand corrected. The article does say she was a teaching assistant at the HS for special needs kids. I was thrown off by her degree in elementary education. The comment that the authorities aren't even sure they met at school also threw me off. I should have read closer.
Even with that, her position is not covered by the law. I'm not saying it shouldn't be; just that it isn't.
Yeah, you're probably right. I don't really think she should be put in jail or anything. Public humiliation is pretty good punishment.
§ 14‑202.4. Taking indecent liberties with a student.
(a) If a defendant, who is a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, at any age, or who is other school personnel and is at least four years older than the victim, takes indecent liberties with a victim who is a student, at any time during or after the time the defendant and victim were present together in the same school but before the victim ceases to be a student, the defendant is guilty of a Class I felony, unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing for greater punishment. A person is not guilty of taking indecent liberties with a student if the person is lawfully married to the student.
(b) If a defendant, who is school personnel, other than a teacher, school administrator, student teacher, school safety officer, or coach, and who is less than four years older than the victim, takes indecent liberties with a student as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the defendant is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.
I'm not. Thank God.
Found more pictures of her at a wedding.
http://journals.aol.com/karens7334/MollyandMichaelsWedding/entries/417
http://journals.aol.com/karens7334/MollyandMichaelsWedding/entries/404
"Hey those Coca Cola cups are pretty neat..."
Those are NOT the 'drink holders' I was admiring! Howz about those 'milk cartons'????
Much more attractive with the blonde highlights and her hair down. In these pictures, she looks rather plain; but that can happen with poor photography.
After careful study, I would have to conclude that she is innocent.
A 22 year old chick does an 18-year-old guy and that's a FELONY just because she's a teacher's assistant and he's a student?
Did the North Carolina Legislature make it a FELONY for a 75-year-old state legislator to boink an 18-year-old page? Sonehow I don't think so. Those old farts probably criminalized this kind of behavior because they couldn't get laid in high school.
18 years old is an ADULT. For chrissakes my grandmother was 16 when she married my grandfather (then 28) and she had my Dad at 17.
Congressman Billybob, what the hell is going on in North Carolina? Are you that short of felons that the Tarheel State needs to lock up 22-year-olds who go after 18-year-olds?
Oh, but if they were married it's OK. Eh? So now the State Legislature can make unmarried sex a felony in situations where the same two people can have legal sex if there are married (and are legally eligible to be married)?
I call Bravo-Sierra on this ridiculous law.
Wouldnt be surprised if they decided to prosecute a teacher and a student who were married.
Hell they probably didnt even FINISH high school!
She will, and should, lose her job, however, since she is a teacher's assistant and he is a student, though not one of her students.
P.S. I have an early primary for Congress in the 11th District of North Carolina, 2 May, less than a month away. visit my website in the tagline, and help however you can.
Congressman Billybob
It has nothing to do with age, it's all about the position she was in.
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.