For the rapist.... Crazy story out of Michigan. Basically a teacher was convicted of raping a student and was sentenced to 15-20 years. Six teachers wrote letters of support for the rapist. When the family asked that they be fired, their house was firebombed. The school board voted to not fire them as it would cause economic issues for the district, while citing their first amendment rights.

One of the teachers wrote in her letter: “Neal has plead (sic) guilty for his one criminal offense but he is not a predator…This was an isolated incident. He understands the severity of his action and is sincere in his desire to make amends…

http://www.ogemawherald.com/stories/WB-RC-chooses-not-to-fire-teachers-who-wrote-leniency-letters-for-Erickson,97759?

Teachers with less common sense than CC? Never thought id see the day.

Well the person who got raped was 5% responsible for being raped..

Who did the raping and who did the letter writing...CC & ETB or vice versa?

We need a lot more information that the article doesn't provide. There were two incidents in my HS time that involved inappropriate contacts between the instructor and a student and they both ended up in the termination of employment of the teachers - and likely rightfully so. But there isn't a need for a rush judgment. There are a lot of 14-19 year old drama queens that aren't always truthful, see:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/hampton-woman-gets-months-for-falsely-accusing-man/article_fd240d9b-7f36-5763-9f82-d5c40618765c.html

That isn't to say that there wasn't inappropriate or even criminal activity in this situation, but there is a disturbing history of overstated testimony and unfound prosecutions in these types of cases.

Manhattan Buckeye;1489109 wrote:We need a lot more information that the article doesn't provide. There were two incidents in my HS time that involved inappropriate contacts between the instructor and a student and they both ended up in the termination of employment of the teachers - and likely rightfully so. But there isn't a need for a rush judgment. There are a lot of 14-19 year old drama queens that aren't always truthful, see:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/hampton-woman-gets-months-for-falsely-accusing-man/article_fd240d9b-7f36-5763-9f82-d5c40618765c.html

That isn't to say that there wasn't inappropriate or even criminal activity in this situation, but there is a disturbing history of overstated testimony and unfound prosecutions in these types of cases.

He plead guilty to raping a kid. What is there to question?

Oh he's an a-hole, that's for sure, and it appears he engaged in a criminal act. But from what I've read this isn't a situation where a guy sneaked up on a 13 year old girl and raped her without consent. This is probably a more complex situation. Still criminal, but complex.

He molested the kid for 3 years. He's a predator who groomed the kid.

^^^Here is a link to another article with an interview with the father of the victim.

http://joeforamerica.com/2013/08/father-of-molested-student-talks-about-his-outrage-toward-seven-teachers-who-supported-the-rapist/

^^^Informative article, well worth the read. BTW, the victim is a male, his mom works at the same school as the convicted rapist and his supporters.

There is a zero percent chance I would keep my children in that school.

justincredible;1489155 wrote:There is a zero percent chance I would keep my children in that school.

But you'd teach there...


AmIrite?

I met through a mutual friend someone who was a character witness for Jerry Sandusky. When we talked after awhile I asked why he agreed to testify for Jerry. He told me as a former player and coach with Jerry that in the time he knew him he never heard or saw anything wrong. He said he told the truth that day on the witness stand and believed Jerry was guilty but he also wanted others to know the man he knew wasn't the man who raped those children. He wanted the jury to also know the man he knew. I wish I could use his exact words because his explanation made you realize what he did was the correct thing to do. He even told us after he testified one of the victims mothers called him angry that he would be a character witness and he explained to her the same way he was to me his reasons. He said by the end of the call the woman was at peace with his decieson to be a character witness and understood his reasoning.

^^^I can understand his reasoning, but my argument would be you didn't really know him. You were a character witness to the man you thought he was, which was not the man he actually was.

I think very few, if any, people are pure evil. I would not feel a desire or obligation to show people the human side of a monster.

gut;1489183 wrote:^^^I can understand his reasoning, but my argument would be you didn't really know him. You were a character witness to the man you thought he was, which was not the man he actually was.

I think very few, if any, people are pure evil. I would not feel a desire or obligation to show people the human side of a monster.

But that's the reason for a trial. Oour justice system is an adversarial one based upon both sides putting their best effort forth and an impartial jury (or judge) deciding what happened. As long as a witness testifies truthfully I see nothing wrong in the way sportschampps described that scenario.

What you're suggesting kind of seems like putting the cart before the horse.

But in this case the system worked and the man is behind bars (unfortunately he was able to continue his terrible acts because of a screw up in the administration of PSU and/or individuals in a position to act).

gut;1489183 wrote:^^^I can understand his reasoning, but my argument would be you didn't really know him. You were a character witness to the man you thought he was, which was not the man he actually was.



I think very few, if any, people are pure evil. I would not feel a desire or obligation to show people the human side of a monster.

But that's the reason for a trial. Our justice system is an adversarial one based upon both sides putting their best effort forth and an impartial jury (or judge) deciding what happened. As long as a witness testifies truthfully I see nothing wrong in the way sportschampps described that scenario.

What you're suggesting kind of seems like putting the cart before the horse.

But in this case the system worked and the man is behind bars (unfortunately he was able to continue his terrible acts because of a screw up in the administration of PSU and/or individuals in a position to act).

That's true. If I thought the guy was innocent then I would be a character witness. I'll testify to the facts, but I'm not going to volunteer or be a willing and cooperative witness for someone I believe to be a monster.

If I believe a guy is guilty, I'm not obligated to help him and it may even go against my morals. That's a different standard than putting a guy a jail. I'm entitled to my opinion, you are not (entitled to my opinion). I'll testify to facts, but don't expect me to say good things or that you were a good guy.

I would think an educator would know that alot isn't a word.

If the kid was gay, shouldn't we give him props just like some other young buck that bagged a hot teacher?

If the kid was born gay, isn't this potentially a victimless crime?

Manhattan Buckeye;1489109 wrote:We need a lot more information that the article doesn't provide. There were two incidents in my HS time that involved inappropriate contacts between the instructor and a student and they both ended up in the termination of employment of the teachers - and likely rightfully so. But there isn't a need for a rush judgment. There are a lot of 14-19 year old drama queens that aren't always truthful, see:

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/hampton-woman-gets-months-for-falsely-accusing-man/article_fd240d9b-7f36-5763-9f82-d5c40618765c.html

That isn't to say that there wasn't inappropriate or even criminal activity in this situation, but there is a disturbing history of overstated testimony and unfound prosecutions in these types of cases.

Unfortunately these cases are fairly common when a girl gets caught or ashamed of what they have done with a guy.

2 months that she can serve on weekends only and a fine to pay to him? That's rediculous, she alone stole 4 years of that man's life because she was ashamed of being caught for doing something wrong.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1489322 wrote:I would think an educator would know that alot isn't a word.

He is a jim teacher and not an inglesh major.

gut;1489323 wrote:If the kid was gay, shouldn't we give him props just like some other young buck that bagged a hot teacher?

QUOTE]Um. No.

There's a lot of information missing here, but quite frankly, I suspect there is at least some mischarcterization at play here especially in the statement that "other teachers wrote letters of support for the rapist", and the notion/drumbeat that they should be fired because of what they wrote. Most likely these 'friends of the guilty' party were asked to write a character reference of sorts, that might help the defense show, that while guilty, he also was a productive member of society, his crime not withstanding. That most certainly is the guilty party right to ask, and the right of his friends/associates to testify in his behalf. It makes me uncomfortable to think that anyone or any body should be able to silence or coerce or intimidate these people from testifying by "firing" them ( assuming of course, that they were not complicit in this man's crimes).