User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 8:59:27 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thirty-seven counts of murder? The penalty in Florida for statutory rape of a minor sixteen or seventeen by an adult more than five years older is fifteen years. 15 X 37 = 555 years. Even if one counts all occurrences with a student as a single crime, it's still 45 years. She got 22; she will almost certainly serve significantly less. PlaneJane is not wrong here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I can murder and get less PlaneJane is wrong here Thirty-seven counts of murder? The penalty in Florida for statutory rape of a minor sixteen or seventeen by an adult more than five years older is fifteen years. 15 X 37 = 555 years. Even if one counts all occurrences with a student as a single crime, it's still 45 years. She got 22; she will almost certainly serve significantly less. PlaneJane is not wrong here. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 9:13:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Seems like a waste of your money.
Americans and sex are just weird but I'm sure it was a feel good law at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 9:31:08 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still waiting for her to explain the great trauma inflicted that required 22 years in jail. This is the portion of the Florida code bearing on the instant case. I don't see any reference to "great trauma". If you do, please highlight it in the color of your choice. 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.—
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. According to Florida statute 775.082, the max penalty for a second degree felony is fifteen years, so basically, Fichter got maxed out on one and a half counts out of the thirty-seven for which she was convicted. Boo-hoo. And I have no doubt that a man would have gotten worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 9:45:48 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryJudge must be gay. Not Guilty |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 9:51:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like a waste of your money. Americans and sex are just weird but I'm sure it was a feel good law at the time. It has very little to do with American society's view on sex and a lot more to do with person in a position of authority. There is a similar case occurring near where I live but in the opposite; male teacher(s) and female students. It has turned into a train wreck with one of the teachers being charged with intimidating the witnesses/victims and a third unrelated teacher being charged with intimidation as well. I'm interested to see if the teacher gets more time for intimidation than the sexual acts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 9:55:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. Agreed. X2 Tired of double standards.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:04:49 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like a waste of your money. Americans and sex are just weird but I'm sure it was a feel good law at the time. We are the masters of feel-good laws. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:05:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the portion of the Florida code bearing on the instant case. I don't see any reference to "great trauma". If you do, please highlight it in the color of your choice. 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.— (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. According to Florida statute 775.082, the max penalty for a second degree felony is fifteen years, so basically, Fichter got maxed out on one and a half counts out of the thirty-seven for which she was convicted. Boo-hoo. And I have no doubt that a man would have gotten worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for her to explain the great trauma inflicted that required 22 years in jail. This is the portion of the Florida code bearing on the instant case. I don't see any reference to "great trauma". If you do, please highlight it in the color of your choice. 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.— (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. According to Florida statute 775.082, the max penalty for a second degree felony is fifteen years, so basically, Fichter got maxed out on one and a half counts out of the thirty-seven for which she was convicted. Boo-hoo. And I have no doubt that a man would have gotten worse. Maybe you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask for you to post the letter of the law. I asked you to describe the actual damage done to the "victims". Like, what specifically is the terrible injury that will haunt them for the next 22 years? Did she break their legs? Make them invalids? Will they now cower in fear every time they see a good-looking woman? What was it? Or does your answer just indicate that you can't think of any actual harm that was done to them, so you post something irrelevant to my actual question? And just to keep you up to date, my question wasn't about what a man would have received, or your level of sympathy, either. Try again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:06:57 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not me At age 17, you know what you are doing. I would terminate her job, but not a single day in jail. I would do that with a male teacher as well. Unless they abused their power as teacher and forced the students. Then I would throw the book at full power on them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The same people that are cheering in this thread, would be crying for the blood to flow if it was a male teacher and female students Not me At age 17, you know what you are doing. I would terminate her job, but not a single day in jail. I would do that with a male teacher as well. Unless they abused their power as teacher and forced the students. Then I would throw the book at full power on them. Agreed 100% |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:16:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask for you to post the letter of the law. I asked you to describe the actual damage done to the "victims". Like, what specifically is the terrible injury that will haunt them for the next 22 years? Did she break their legs? Make them invalids? Will they now cower in fear every time they see a good-looking woman? What was it? Or does your answer just indicate that you can't think of any actual harm that was done to them, so you post something irrelevant to my actual question? And just to keep you up to date, my question wasn't about what a man would have received, or your level of sympathy, either. Try again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for her to explain the great trauma inflicted that required 22 years in jail. This is the portion of the Florida code bearing on the instant case. I don't see any reference to "great trauma". If you do, please highlight it in the color of your choice. 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.— (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. According to Florida statute 775.082, the max penalty for a second degree felony is fifteen years, so basically, Fichter got maxed out on one and a half counts out of the thirty-seven for which she was convicted. Boo-hoo. And I have no doubt that a man would have gotten worse. Maybe you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask for you to post the letter of the law. I asked you to describe the actual damage done to the "victims". Like, what specifically is the terrible injury that will haunt them for the next 22 years? Did she break their legs? Make them invalids? Will they now cower in fear every time they see a good-looking woman? What was it? Or does your answer just indicate that you can't think of any actual harm that was done to them, so you post something irrelevant to my actual question? And just to keep you up to date, my question wasn't about what a man would have received, or your level of sympathy, either. Try again. The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:22:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:27:21 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She would have done better in sentencing if she was drunk driving and killed someone. The average murderer serves only around 10 years but this woman gets 22 years.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is a ridiculous sentence whether it was a male or female sexing 17 yo students. 12 yo, yea maybe but not 17 yo. The weren't exactly scarred for life, male or female. She would have done better in sentencing if she was drunk driving and killed someone. The average murderer serves only around 10 years but this woman gets 22 years. She should have done it here. We had a guy shoot 8 people in one sitting who got 2 years on each count, concurrent, credit for time served, and a fine of $306.50. Since he'd been in jail 2 years awaiting the trial, his penalty afterwards for shooting 8 people was a fine of $306.50. (Which he didn't pay, of course, and a bench warrant for failure to pay was put out for him. Which didn't stop him from murdering a 20 year old woman Friday. Wonder what his fine will be for that.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:30:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
22 years is ridiculous Face the facts, there is a difference when the female is in the position of power, very few females would qualify for what I would term a sexual predator, This people get less time for fucking murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:41:24 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Yes, actually I do. Most developed societies categorically reserve certain decisions - typically involving significant risk or potential consequences - to adults regardless of the specifics of individual cases. You don't see the wisdom in this; I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:45:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:46:41 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, actually I do. Most developed societies categorically reserve certain decisions to adults regardless of the specifics of individual cases. You don't see the wisdom in this; I do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Yes, actually I do. Most developed societies categorically reserve certain decisions to adults regardless of the specifics of individual cases. You don't see the wisdom in this; I do. I see that you can't muster a simple answer to a simple question. It isn't about the "victims" at all with you. As near as you can determine, there wasn't any actual harm done at all. And, trimming what I said so you think you have some answer just shows how weak your shit really is. People on this board seem to think that you are the most badass GDer around. Yet you can't answer the simplest questions. So much for that, I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:48:10 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? No, maybe you, like PlaneJane completely missed the question. I simply asked her to list the actual harm done to these boys. So far, nobody seems to be able to do that simple task. We can get to the deeper questions when somebody can answer the easy questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:48:38 AM EDT
[#18]
Commit murder and you get less than that... This country sucks more every day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:49:34 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Commit murder and you get less than that... This country sucks more every day. Hey PlaneJane, in cased you missed it, this person is closer to understanding my question than you are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:53:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
22 years is ridiculous Face the facts, there is a difference when the female is in the position of power, very few females would qualify for what I would term a sexual predator, Agree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 10:57:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, maybe you, like PlaneJane completely missed the question. I simply asked her to list the actual harm done to these boys. So far, nobody seems to be able to do that simple task. We can get to the deeper questions when somebody can answer the easy questions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? No, maybe you, like PlaneJane completely missed the question. I simply asked her to list the actual harm done to these boys. So far, nobody seems to be able to do that simple task. We can get to the deeper questions when somebody can answer the easy questions. So, there was never an issue with this law until some hot female school teacher got caught banging students. Because that is exactly what you are saying. Is there any ACTUAL harm if someone robs a bank? If no one gets hurt, the bank will get reimbursed the funds and looking at it from a purely 'did anyone get hurt'' point, why put someone in prison for it? Sometimes, punishment is used as a warning to others to not follow the same path. It's not like she was retarded [although I question that with some teachers nowadays] and couldn't understand her actions were not condoned by society. It's not like she couldn't have had sex with some random 18 year old she met elsewhere. I'd bet that much of her illicit excitement was that it was ''wrong,'' she knew it was wrong, and she got off on it. Laws MUST apply equally to all or they are greeted with contempt, witness almost all firearm laws where LEO's and government agencies are allowed many things [higher cap mags, barrel lengths, suppressors ect] that are against the law for the ''common'' man. Either fight for male teachers to have no punishments or you are perpetuating sexual discrimination where a vagina has more rights then a dick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:02:48 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. I totally agree....but 22 years is ridiculous for either a man or a woman. They were 17 and it was consensual....fired yes. Ruining their life and 22 years in prison? Your fucking crazy if you think that's appropriate. So if they turned 18 and were out of school in 4 months....this "horrible crime" would have gone from a life ruining 22 year sentence, to perfectly acceptable. Yep, nothing bat shit crazy about that at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:07:48 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see that you can't muster a simple answer to a simple question. It isn't about the "victims" at all with you. As near as you can determine, there wasn't any actual harm done at all. And, trimming what I said so you think you have some answer just shows how weak your shit really is. People on this board seem to think that you are the most badass GDer around. Yet you can't answer the simplest questions. So much for that, I guess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Yes, actually I do. Most developed societies categorically reserve certain decisions to adults regardless of the specifics of individual cases. You don't see the wisdom in this; I do. I see that you can't muster a simple answer to a simple question. It isn't about the "victims" at all with you. As near as you can determine, there wasn't any actual harm done at all. And, trimming what I said so you think you have some answer just shows how weak your shit really is. People on this board seem to think that you are the most badass GDer around. Yet you can't answer the simplest questions. So much for that, I guess. I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:11:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, there was never an issue with this law until some hot female school teacher got caught banging students. Because that is exactly what you are saying. Is there any ACTUAL harm if someone robs a bank? If no one gets hurt, the bank will get reimbursed the funds and looking at it from a purely 'did anyone get hurt'' point, why put someone in prison for it? Sometimes, punishment is used as a warning to others to not follow the same part. It's not like she was retarded [although I question that with some teachers nowadays] and couldn't understand her actions were not condoned by society. It's not like she couldn't have had sex with some random 18 year old she met elsewhere. I'd bet that much of her illicit excitement was that it was ''wrong,'' she knew it was wrong, and she got off on it. Laws MUST apply equally to all or they are greeted with contempt, witness almost all firearm laws where LEO's and government agencies are allowed many things [higher cap mags, barrel lengths, suppressors ect] that are against the law for the ''common'' man. Either fight for male teachers to have no punishments or you are perpetuating sexual discrimination where a vagina has more rights then a dick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? No, maybe you, like PlaneJane completely missed the question. I simply asked her to list the actual harm done to these boys. So far, nobody seems to be able to do that simple task. We can get to the deeper questions when somebody can answer the easy questions. So, there was never an issue with this law until some hot female school teacher got caught banging students. Because that is exactly what you are saying. Is there any ACTUAL harm if someone robs a bank? If no one gets hurt, the bank will get reimbursed the funds and looking at it from a purely 'did anyone get hurt'' point, why put someone in prison for it? Sometimes, punishment is used as a warning to others to not follow the same part. It's not like she was retarded [although I question that with some teachers nowadays] and couldn't understand her actions were not condoned by society. It's not like she couldn't have had sex with some random 18 year old she met elsewhere. I'd bet that much of her illicit excitement was that it was ''wrong,'' she knew it was wrong, and she got off on it. Laws MUST apply equally to all or they are greeted with contempt, witness almost all firearm laws where LEO's and government agencies are allowed many things [higher cap mags, barrel lengths, suppressors ect] that are against the law for the ''common'' man. Either fight for male teachers to have no punishments or you are perpetuating sexual discrimination where a vagina has more rights then a dick. Try again. I didn't make any such statement, despite your wonderful attempt to put words in my mouth. I simply asked PlaneJane, and now you, to describe the actual harm done to these boys. That's a simple task, that doesn't require long-winded bullshit that is irrelevant to what I asked. So, once again, for the hard of hearing: What actual harm came to these boys? If what you say is true, then you should be able to name it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:11:46 AM EDT
[#25]
Male or female, doesn't matter, 20+ year sentences would make more sense for 17 three year olds than three 17 year olds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:13:27 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:15:48 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arfcom would rule her not guilty, in a second. http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2015/04/teacher-fucks-kids-again.jpg I think she looks like a vamperilligus maximus pretty much.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:16:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I totally agree....but 22 years is ridiculous for either a man or a woman. They were 17 and it was consensual....fired yes. Ruining their life and 22 years in prison? Your fucking crazy if you think that's appropriate. So if they turned 18 and were out of school in 4 months....this "horrible crime" would have gone from a life ruining 22 year sentence, to perfectly acceptable. Yep, nothing bat shit crazy about that at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. I totally agree....but 22 years is ridiculous for either a man or a woman. They were 17 and it was consensual....fired yes. Ruining their life and 22 years in prison? Your fucking crazy if you think that's appropriate. So if they turned 18 and were out of school in 4 months....this "horrible crime" would have gone from a life ruining 22 year sentence, to perfectly acceptable. Yep, nothing bat shit crazy about that at all. I don't know that to tell you. She committed a second degree felony thirty-seven times. You think she should have gotten a twenty dollar fine or maybe flowers from the Governor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:17:14 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law is the law. She did the crime, she will do the time, or at least most of it. How this makes you feel is quite irrelevant. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Yes, actually I do. Most developed societies categorically reserve certain decisions to adults regardless of the specifics of individual cases. You don't see the wisdom in this; I do. I see that you can't muster a simple answer to a simple question. It isn't about the "victims" at all with you. As near as you can determine, there wasn't any actual harm done at all. And, trimming what I said so you think you have some answer just shows how weak your shit really is. People on this board seem to think that you are the most badass GDer around. Yet you can't answer the simplest questions. So much for that, I guess. I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. There is discretion in sentencing and this is where logic should come into play. The sentence should reflect the lack of actual harm done and not throw away taxpayer funds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:17:28 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. Please. Per FL law... 794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.-- (1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose Florida code, Title XLVI, Chapter 794 Please explain how the older party's age being 30 instead of 23 affect, in this case, the younger party's ability to consent? Also, handies and fingering are cool, because hands and fingers don't meet the criteria under "sexual activity"? Bullshit. As far as the "power and authority" argument goes, if there was coercion, fine, lock their ass up. Aside from that, where do you draw the line? Allowing for the 23-17 age limit, how far does that go? Teacher from another school? Cop from the next state over? Military NCO on a cross-country CONUS deployment? Even if limited to a direct position of power or authority, any legal eagle could construct an argument, no matter how tenuous, that would cause all manner of trouble for the accused. But I think you and I both know that a 17 y/o male would probably try to fuck a kumquat, if he thought it was worth his time. An actual living, breathing, willing, attractive female? Those guys went "master-arm switch, hot" the second she even insinuated she was interested. Shit, at that age, I'd have hit that harder than a Hadron Collider, period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:18:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know that to tell you. She committed a second degree felony thirty-seven times. You think she should have gotten a twenty dollar fine or maybe flowers from the Governor? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. I totally agree....but 22 years is ridiculous for either a man or a woman. They were 17 and it was consensual....fired yes. Ruining their life and 22 years in prison? Your fucking crazy if you think that's appropriate. So if they turned 18 and were out of school in 4 months....this "horrible crime" would have gone from a life ruining 22 year sentence, to perfectly acceptable. Yep, nothing bat shit crazy about that at all. I don't know that to tell you. She committed a second degree felony thirty-seven times. You think she should have gotten a twenty dollar fine or maybe flowers from the Governor? How about some consideration of the actual harm done which, according to you, was in fact NONE? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:21:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. I think that as her sentence is quite high, if setting on a jury according to the evidence a max of 10 years stacked sounds about right for what she did is what I would go for. Probation for the next 10 years after. With that sex drive, I would imagine some corrections officers better watch out too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:22:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that as her sentence is quite high, if setting on a jury according to the evidence a max of 10 years stacked sounds about right for what she did. Probation for the next 10 years after. With that sex drive, I would imagine some corrections officers better watch out too.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. I think that as her sentence is quite high, if setting on a jury according to the evidence a max of 10 years stacked sounds about right for what she did. Probation for the next 10 years after. With that sex drive, I would imagine some corrections officers better watch out too.
So describe the great harm that was done to these boys that would warrant ten years in prison. That's the part that people seem to be lacking here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:24:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So describe the great harm that was done to these boys that would warrant ten years in prison. That's the part that people seem to be lacking here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. I think that as her sentence is quite high, if setting on a jury according to the evidence a max of 10 years stacked sounds about right for what she did. Probation for the next 10 years after. With that sex drive, I would imagine some corrections officers better watch out too.
So describe the great harm that was done to these boys that would warrant ten years in prison. That's the part that people seem to be lacking here. She did violate the law correct? What does current Florida law require and prescribe? You or I have no way of knowing what the impact of a sexual predator will have on these BOYS for the rest of their natural lives. You sleep with one, you sleep with them all.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:27:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try again. I didn't make any such statement, despite your wonderful attempt to put words in my mouth. I simply asked PlaneJane, and now you, to describe the actual harm done to these boys. That's a simple task, that doesn't require long-winded bullshit that is irrelevant to what I asked. So, once again, for the hard of hearing: What actual harm came to these boys? If what you say is true, then you should be able to name it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, finding yourself completely unable to name any actual harm done to these boys, you just fall back on the mindless chant that "the law is the law" -- even when it results in things that make no real sense at all. So punish people without any regard to the actual harm done, just because "that's the law". No sense of proportionality at all, and it really isn't about the "victims" but is just about your desire to punish people, whatever. Yeah, you make a lot of sense, don't you? Are you fighting to change the laws when the same thing applies to men? No, maybe you, like PlaneJane completely missed the question. I simply asked her to list the actual harm done to these boys. So far, nobody seems to be able to do that simple task. We can get to the deeper questions when somebody can answer the easy questions. So, there was never an issue with this law until some hot female school teacher got caught banging students. Because that is exactly what you are saying. Is there any ACTUAL harm if someone robs a bank? If no one gets hurt, the bank will get reimbursed the funds and looking at it from a purely 'did anyone get hurt'' point, why put someone in prison for it? Sometimes, punishment is used as a warning to others to not follow the same part. It's not like she was retarded [although I question that with some teachers nowadays] and couldn't understand her actions were not condoned by society. It's not like she couldn't have had sex with some random 18 year old she met elsewhere. I'd bet that much of her illicit excitement was that it was ''wrong,'' she knew it was wrong, and she got off on it. Laws MUST apply equally to all or they are greeted with contempt, witness almost all firearm laws where LEO's and government agencies are allowed many things [higher cap mags, barrel lengths, suppressors ect] that are against the law for the ''common'' man. Either fight for male teachers to have no punishments or you are perpetuating sexual discrimination where a vagina has more rights then a dick. Try again. I didn't make any such statement, despite your wonderful attempt to put words in my mouth. I simply asked PlaneJane, and now you, to describe the actual harm done to these boys. That's a simple task, that doesn't require long-winded bullshit that is irrelevant to what I asked. So, once again, for the hard of hearing: What actual harm came to these boys? If what you say is true, then you should be able to name it. And again, if this had been a case of a male teacher and willing female students, we wouldn't likely be having this conversation, would we? You are a true ''white knight.'' The only difference is she is a decent looking female and she has a pussy, hence, she should not be constrained by laws that apply to males. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:27:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She did violate the law correct? What does current Florida law require and prescribe? Maybe you didn't understand the question. The question isn't about the law. The question is about the harm the victims suffered. So, I take it that you are of the same opinion that PlaneJane is. If the law says that spitting on the sidewalk gets a death sentence, then a death sentence is warranted regardless of the harm actually caused. Just because. And neither one of you seems to realize how stupid that stance is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:27:48 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. No, I think that societies proscribe certain behaviors based on the potential for adverse consequences without regard to the outcome of individual cases and people who willfully engage in these behaviors assume the risk that they will be punished. This was a classic case of "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes." I understand you don't like this. Tough shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:28:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And again, if this had been a case of a male teacher and willing female students, we wouldn't likely be having this conversation, would we? You are a true ''white knight.'' The only difference is she is a decent looking female and she has a pussy, hence, she should not be constrained by laws that apply to males. So, like the others, you are unable to name any actual harm done so you try everything you can to avoid answering the question actually asked. Your shit is weak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:29:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She did violate the law correct? What does current Florida law require and prescribe? You or I have no way of knowing what the impact of a sexual predator will have on these BOYS for the rest of their natural lives. You sleep with one, you sleep with them all.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. I think that as her sentence is quite high, if setting on a jury according to the evidence a max of 10 years stacked sounds about right for what she did. Probation for the next 10 years after. With that sex drive, I would imagine some corrections officers better watch out too.
So describe the great harm that was done to these boys that would warrant ten years in prison. That's the part that people seem to be lacking here. She did violate the law correct? What does current Florida law require and prescribe? You or I have no way of knowing what the impact of a sexual predator will have on these BOYS for the rest of their natural lives. You sleep with one, you sleep with them all.. Reason #1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:30:39 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I think that societies proscribe certain behaviors based on the potential for adverse consequences without regard to the outcome of individual cases and people who willfully engage in these behaviors assume the risk that they will be punished. This was a classic case of "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes." I understand you don't like this. Tough shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. No, I think that societies proscribe certain behaviors based on the potential for adverse consequences without regard to the outcome of individual cases and people who willfully engage in these behaviors assume the risk that they will be punished. This was a classic case of "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes." I understand you don't like this. Tough shit. So -- to go back to my original question -- you can't name any actual harm that was done. It just the letter of the law, no matter what. Punish people with no regard at all for the damage they actually did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:31:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the main, I agree. But the "person in a position of trust or authority" angle changes things completely. ETA: Can't say I'm surprised that you don't agree with us; you don't even agree with yourself. LOL. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. Agreed Don't agree at all. A 30 year old male having sex with 17 year olds shouldnt get 20+ years and neither should a woman. In the main, I agree. But the "person in a position of trust or authority" angle changes things completely. ETA: Can't say I'm surprised that you don't agree with us; you don't even agree with yourself. LOL. I have mixed feelings. Three separate students, a pregnancy, and a position of authority does exceed the normal bounds here. But 22 years is what people get for murder. That's excessive. Really excessive. I distinctly remember some female friends in high school discussing exactly what they would do a young, single, male teacher. It was just as raunchy as anything said in a football locker room. No way can you tell me that a hook up there would not have been consensual. Age of consent needs to be 16. Relations between people older than that should not be a criminal matter. By all means, fire teachers who engage in such, and even kick them out of the profession. Prison? Is that really making us safer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:31:52 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reason #1 Yes. Mindless devotion to the law, whether it makes any sense in this situation, or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:32:19 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about some consideration of the actual harm done which, according to you, was in fact NONE? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Teacher Who Had Sex with 3 Students Gets 22 Years Despite Tearful Apology Good. Don't care how many seventeen year-olds she has sex with but she should get the same sentence one of her male counterparts would in the same circumstances. I totally agree....but 22 years is ridiculous for either a man or a woman. They were 17 and it was consensual....fired yes. Ruining their life and 22 years in prison? Your fucking crazy if you think that's appropriate. So if they turned 18 and were out of school in 4 months....this "horrible crime" would have gone from a life ruining 22 year sentence, to perfectly acceptable. Yep, nothing bat shit crazy about that at all. I don't know that to tell you. She committed a second degree felony thirty-seven times. You think she should have gotten a twenty dollar fine or maybe flowers from the Governor? How about some consideration of the actual harm done which, according to you, was in fact NONE? I never said there was no harm done. I said none was required to invoke the statute. This is a criminal rather than a civil latter. Do you understand the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:33:13 AM EDT
[#44]
I have never known about a victim of sexual abuse of any kind, that does not suffer to some degree to this day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:34:44 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Mindless devotion to the law, whether it makes any sense in this situation, or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Reason #1 Yes. Mindless devotion to the law, whether it makes any sense in this situation, or not. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:35:12 AM EDT
[#46]
No Guilty? Hell yeah, and she needs a pardon ASAP!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:35:56 AM EDT
[#47]
She did the 'crime'. snort
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:36:20 AM EDT
[#48]
You could turn into reason #2 and #3 very quickly!!
This is my devotion to the law.. Mindless did you say?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:37:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So -- to go back to my original question -- you can't name any actual harm that was done. It just the letter of the law, no matter what. Punish people with no regard at all for the damage they actually did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did answer your question. Societies proscribe certain behaviors without regard to the "great trauma" or lack thereof in individual cases. Fichter chose to break a particular law thirty-seven times; she will go to prison. There was no need to prove "great trauma". I understand this offends you. Tough shit. So your answer is that there was no great trauma. You just think that people ought to go to jail for long periods whether they caused any actual harm or not. That is, it isn't about the victims, it is just about your mindless desire to punish, irrespective of any harm they actually caused. Yeah, that's what I thought. No, I think that societies proscribe certain behaviors based on the potential for adverse consequences without regard to the outcome of individual cases and people who willfully engage in these behaviors assume the risk that they will be punished. This was a classic case of "Play stupid games; win stupid prizes." I understand you don't like this. Tough shit. So -- to go back to my original question -- you can't name any actual harm that was done. It just the letter of the law, no matter what. Punish people with no regard at all for the damage they actually did. Damages are a civil law concept. This is a criminal law matter, thus they are irrelevant. I'm sure you understand this as well as I do. Why do you insist on making yourself look like an emoting retard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2015 11:45:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said there was no harm done. I said none was required to invoke the statute. This is a criminal rather than a civil latter. Do you understand the difference? You were never able to name any harm, even when asked repeatedly. I understand you tried everything you could to dodge that answer because you knew you didn't have an answer. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
