High School Panty Raid!

[Guynemer]

Did I ever say that? No. YOU were the one who brought up the farcical police analogy.

[SKILORD]

bloody perverts

[Jac de Molay]

I think the police analogy isn't so farcical at all because it proves the point that intent is very relevant. It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty. The police would have their hands tied if they couldn't perform intimate searches on suspects for drugs or guns because every Tom, ****, and harriet cried sex assault.

In the case of this principal, accusations of sex assault and pedophilia are overblown for that very reason. In this case, a definite violation of civil rights occured, and those responsible should be punished accordingly.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
I think the police analogy isn't so farcical at all because it proves the point that intent is very relevant. It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty. The police would have their hands tied if they couldn't perform intimate searches on suspects for drugs or guns because every Tom, ****, and harriet cried sex assault.

In the case of this principal, accusations of sex assault and pedophilia are overblown for that very reason. In this case, a definite violation of civil rights occured, and those responsible should be punished accordingly.

I agree. No sexual intent here.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
It's not an uncommon occurance for police to be accused of varying degrees of sex assault in the line of duty.

The difference between the police example and this one is that the policeman had a legitimate reason to conduct his search and the VP didn't.

[SKILORD]

I agree. No sexual intent here

are you sure?

[Guynemer]

As for the intent issue: how can we be sure than there was no sexual intent?

Regardless of whether or not the intent was sexual, the fact remains that this was a sexual assault.

[Padma]

Maybe the VP had no sexual intent. But to forcibly expose teenage girls in view of the public, (especially in view of teenage boys / classmates) definitely constitutes sexual assault in my book.

[Jac de Molay]

The difference between the police example and this one is that the policeman had a legitimate reason to conduct his search and the VP didn't.

Make no mistake. I'm not questioning the legitimacy(or lack thereof) of what happened. It was definitely wrong. However, intent is very important in establishing a sanction that isn't overly punitive.

As for the intent issue: how can we be sure than there was no sexual intent? Regardless of whether or not the intent was sexual, the fact remains that this was a sexual assault.

By looking at the entire host of circumstances. Obviously, no one can read the mind of the VP. But the searches occured in front of others, and the VP has shown no prior pattern of sexual impropriety ( at least as far as we know). These two circumstances alone, IMHO, would create a shadow of doubt.

Dave

[Promethus]

In the end it will be the DA that decides if it's sexual assult.

[Guynemer]

True dat. But he/she could easily make a case for it, if the students/parents decide to push for it.

[korn469]

Korn, I can be outraged and whatever I goddamn well please. Yes, that is horrible, and should be stopped. But kindly allow me to be outraged about pedophiles in positions of power in my country, thank you.

uh this school is in san diego right?
san diego is close to something called a beach right?
the girls didn't have on thongs right?

so they are just about as exposed as they are on the beach right?

now this is sucky and embarrassing for the girls that it happened to, but this ranks up their as an embarrassment of the month story in teen magazine or ym, it does not rank up their as a pediphilia

it said in time magazine that the definition of pediphilia (this was in the issue about the church) was people who are attracted to pre-pubesent children, so please stop crying wolf

this woman has terrible judgement and she crossed the line, that is bad enough right? why try and portray what she was doing as something worse than it really was?

in all reality will those teenagers be scared for life?

i seriously doubt it

so fire and sue the woman, but don't try to send her to jail on trumped up charges

[rah]

Stupidity, bad judgement.....most certainly
but sexual assault, good luck proving that.

[Sten Sture]

This just goes to show you that people in Southern California are wack-os. Not like up here.

[Richelieu]

Come to think of it, i guess that's just the thing : this is so obviously screwed up that you can't rule out sexual intent...