Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Your Rights Online News

Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich Pornography Case 260

Posted by Soulskill
from the much-ado-about-nothing dept.
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the Hartford Courant: "Almost 18 months after a pornography conviction that could have sent her to jail for 40 years was thrown out, former Norwich substitute teacher Julie Amero plead guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct Friday afternoon. The plea deal before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich ends a long-running drama that attracted attention from around the world. ... She had originally been charged with 10 counts of risk of injury to a minor and later convicted on four of them. ... In June of 2007, Judge Hillary B. Strackbein tossed out Amero's conviction on charges that she intentionally caused a stream of 'pop-up' pornography on the computer in her classroom and allowed students to view it. Confronted with evidence compiled by forensic computer experts, Strackbein ordered a new trial, saying the conviction was based on 'erroneous' and 'false information.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Misdemeanor Plea Ends Norwich Pornography Case

Comments Filter:
  • About Time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digitrev (989335) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:24PM (#25858487) Homepage
    Although I'm kind of curious what the charge of disorderly conduct was for.
    • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kobaz (107760) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:26PM (#25858499)

      It's about "making an example" rather than finding the truth and having the case dismissed entirely.

      • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:35PM (#25858579)

        I'm not sure it's really so much "making an example" as avoiding any compensation claims. She's been unfairly prosecuted. Everything the prosecutor said outside the court could have been sued over since, if she was innocent, it would have been proven slanderous. Now she has one charge and an easy risk of getting into more trouble if she opens up any further court action. I think it's more about protecting one particular prosecutor by keeping her out of the way than any particular global message.

        • Re:About Time (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kobaz (107760) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:47PM (#25858657)

          I agree that could very well be... But we all know that society's stance on "adult content" is ridiculous.

          Had the teacher's computer shown pictures of guns, or someone getting maimed from styleproject, this would have never gone to court. If it had gotten any media attention at all, it would have been 10 seconds on the nightly news about a computer mishap.

          • Well, guns aren't prohibited from minors viewing them, and I don't seem to remember anything about gore...

            (Not that I agree with porn being an 18+ thing. I love porn, and have since I was about 11-12 but, as they say, "It is what it is.")

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by GigaplexNZ (1233886)

              But we all know that society's stance on "adult content" is ridiculous.

              Well, guns aren't prohibited from minors viewing them, and I don't seem to remember anything about gore...

              That was exactly kobaz's point. Sex is not illegal but showing pictures of sex to minors is. Shooting someone with a gun is illegal, but showing pics of someone shooting someone else to minors is not.

          • by argiedot (1035754)
            What on earth is styleproject? Ironically, the first google result [google.co.in] for that is Stile Project, which advertises itself as having 'free sex pics'.
            • by kobaz (107760)

              Er, yeah... stileproject. It shows you how non-often I visit that site...

              I was referring to the stileproject-esque shock pictures... a tame one being something like: http://static.stileproject.com/rnd/img/tum7.jpg [stileproject.com]

            • Mod me down as a troll, flamebait, or offtopic, but this is the first time I've been tempted to post this sort of reply...

              I must inform you that STILE SUCKS!

              Now seriously, for the rest of this discussion, porn is very harmful. Especially the wrong kind of porn. Which is why Stile Project got dragged into this. What has been seen cannot be unseen, and goatse.cx is hardly the beginning.

              But how harmful is a glance or two of some naked chicks over teacher's shoulder? Seriously. I think not very. By not ta

      • Re:About Time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by maz2331 (1104901) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:32PM (#25858953)

        Actually, there are prosecutors and cops out there who will keep going after every case until they get "something" out of it. Even after an acquittal, they will basically put the defendant under a microscope and keep dragging them in on new charges until they get some sort of a guilty plea or conviction.

        This is really common with organized crime prosecutions, with John Gotti being a textbook example. It took several tries, but they did finally get him.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by British (51765)

        I'm curious what they are making an example of. It seems that the gross IT incompetence at the school is now getting other people possibly sent to jail, even if they didn't do anything. You have to love computers in schools. They have un-maintained PCs, you have no authority to do anything, and no waiver you can sign saying you can't be sued for any damages. But if a porn pop-up happens and you're within 3 feet of it, you're busted.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jafiwam (310805)

        It's called "saving face" in other cultures.

        Offer up something that makes the DA "right" but is also harmless enough the alleged perp will agree to.

        If the perp accepts the guilty charge for the small thing, the chances of ending up in civil court are much smaller. The perp not accepting the charge, of course could ultimately ind up in supreme court.

        The sad thing is, everybody who figures out this was a bogus charge, already knew it was from the start.

        Many people supposedly "in charge" of this country are s

    • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheGavster (774657) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:27PM (#25858515) Homepage

      That was so that the justice system could point to something and say "See! She IS a deviant! We didn't incarcerate an innocent and waste everyone's time and taxdollars over something that is frivolous by inspection!".

    • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:17PM (#25858827) Journal
      "Casting doubt on the effectiveness of state apparatus".

      I'm joking, of course; but it seems that, if your case has made the system look sufficiently foolish, you can't be allowed to get away completely.
    • Re:About Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lysergic.acid (845423) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:57PM (#25859127) Homepage

      this is a clear case of criminal negligence. and i'm not talking about the teacher. i'm talking about the judge, the police, and the prosecutor who, either through malice or incompetence, tried to lock an innocent woman up for 40 years.

      at the very least they should be fired from their posts. anyone with even the slightest shred of reason and experience using a computer could see how idiotic it is punish someone for browser pop-ups she had no control over. if anything, it should be the site owners who use pornographic pop-ups with indiscretion or install adware/malware on the computers of unsuspecting users who should have been put on trial.

      if a teacher can be tried for unprofessional/disorderly conduct and lose her teaching license based on things which she had no reasonable control over, then those involved in the earlier case decision can certainly be fired for their actions which they had full conscious control over, and which have actually resulted in real harm--ending the career of an innocent school teacher and generally ruining her life.

      the scary thing is, the state's attorney still thinks she should have been put away. and that guy is still the New London County state's attorney.

    • Running Windows.
  • by JimMcc (31079) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:26PM (#25858503) Homepage

    The courts say that evidence was flawed. They through out that case as clear cut abuse. And what does the DA do? The say they'll charge here again.

    So in order to avoid further embarrassment they "let her off" with a charge of disorderly conduct.

    She still got screwed for something she was a victim of!

    • by Repossessed (1117929) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:18PM (#25858835)

      Not only did they go after her again, but they refused to go after the cop who lied in court about the forensic evidence, and the prosecutors who suppressed a state forensic report that concluded the popups were from spyware.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MightyMartian (840721)

        Par for the course in the justice system. There's a cronyistic network set up to protect bad cops, bad judges and bad prosecutors. If there's one reform I'd like to see, it should be that if someone if falsely convicted based on bad evidence, the cops, prosecutors and judge involved should be forced to serve that person's *full* sentence instead, while that person collects their wages and pensions. Make this sort of thing so horrifyingly damage for bad cops and lawyers that they'll do what they're suppos

        • Hey, "bad evidence" damns the jury more than anyone else. If used to be that only the dumbest elements of society couldn't get out of jury duty. At least where I live, it's damn hard to get out of it. So why not put the jury in jail, too? Those are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the conviction.
          • by Danse (1026)

            Hey, "bad evidence" damns the jury more than anyone else. If used to be that only the dumbest elements of society couldn't get out of jury duty. At least where I live, it's damn hard to get out of it. So why not put the jury in jail, too? Those are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the conviction.

            Actually it's easy to get out of it if you have two brain cells to rub together. If you have a shred of knowledge about the subject, computer-related in this case, one attorney or the other will probably eliminate you as a potential juror. And if you just don't want to be on the jury, it's quite easy to answer a few questions in a way that will get you tossed as well.

        • by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @04:34PM (#25859781) Homepage

          That is one of the more moronic things I've heard in a while, and every so often, it keeps coming up again.

          Firstly, cops and lawyers are not supposed to presume innocence. The justice system is, and the Court as an entity is supposed to presume it at a trial, but the prosecutors have no such limitation. Cops, of course, have nothing to do with guilt or innocence at all, really. The presumption of innocence is a legal theory for how defendants are supposed to be treated... but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.

          Secondly, your idea, like many others that have come before it, would cripple the justice system to no appreciable gain. The Court as an entity is designed to be independent so that there are limited or no repercussions of arriving at a specific judgment- specifically so that it will not be constrained as you are suggesting.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by MikeBabcock (65886)

            Firstly, cops and lawyers are not supposed to presume innocence.

            Everyone is entitled to their opinions but the law of the land is that everyone IS innocent until proven guilty, no matter those individuals' opinions and as such, they need to keep those opinions to themselves and do their jobs. If they're biased and can't do so, they need to recluse themselves from the case and let justice be done by someone with a clear mind.

            • Everyone is entitled to their opinions but the law of the land is that everyone IS innocent until proven guilty, no matter those individuals' opinions and as such, they need to keep those opinions to themselves and do their jobs. If they're biased and can't do so, they need to recluse themselves from the case and let justice be done by someone with a clear mind.

              Can you provide evidence that all aspects of the justice system must presume the suspect is innocent?

              I didn't think so. For one thing, it would deci

          • by sjames (1099) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @07:03PM (#25860575) Homepage

            but the whole point of the court system is that you throw evidence before a Court and see what sticks. That's what it's doing.

            The instant a prosecutor or cop attempts to bury exculpatory evidence or fabricate damning evidence, they cross the line and become criminals themselves. There is a certain justice in them facing exactly the criminal sanctions they unjustly tried to push upon an innocent citizen.

            At the very least, they should never work in the fields of justice or law enforcement again.

            A prosecutor's job is to get the guilty convicted, not simply to get convictions at any cost. While there should be a high threshold of proof to convict a prosecutor or cop, fabricating evidence or suppressing exculpatory evidence should meet that threshold.

      • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @04:47PM (#25859845) Homepage

        Not only did they go after her again, but they refused to go after the cop who lied in court about the forensic evidence, and the prosecutors who suppressed a state forensic report that concluded the popups were from spyware.

        It sends a clear message that our criminal "justice" system is seriously broken. And it sends the unintended message that if you're smart and have an option, avoid teaching or substitute teaching, don't volunteer for Scouts or church activities that have anything to do with young people. You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.

        So the next time you're tempted to complain about a lack of math and science teachers, remember this incident. The only people willing to get involved will be other parents and, ironically, the predators.

        • by quacking duck (607555) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @05:33PM (#25860069)

          You could even take it to the extreme of refusing to help a child in distress or render aid if a parent isn't around, because where kids are concerned, law enforcement is totally off the reservation. Something like this incident or a false charge and you could be dragging an arrest record around the rest of your life. It's just not worth the risk. That used to be a paranoid attitude but it doesn't seem so paranoid today.

          This has already happened. I can't and don't have more time find the story now, but IIRC in the UK a few years ago, a lone male motorist noticed a little girl wandering alone in the woods. He felt he should stop and make sure she was okay, but was worried that if someone (like her parents) came across the scene they'd get the wrong idea (or worse, the girl would get the wrong idea and run screaming to her parents) and he'd go through exactly what you described, so he went on his way.

          Shortly after, the girl fell into a nearby river and drowned.

          He felt terrible when the news broke and told his story afterwards, and opinions were fairly evenly divided between disgust at his inaction and agreeing with his line of thinking, which goes to show that by "Think[ing] of the children!" you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    • by jefu (53450)

      Welcome to the american system of (in)justice. Sure, there are times when things work out, but for the most part it is about politicians trying to stay in office, so DAs slam people for things that they think will get them (or their bosses) votes.

  • wait what (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brian Gordon (987471) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:27PM (#25858509)
    Don't tag this suddenoutbreakofcommonsense! Some poor teacher was just convicted of a misdemeanor for something that she had no control over.
  • Travesty (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rinisari (521266) * on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:27PM (#25858511) Homepage Journal

    This is still a travesty of justice. Disorderly conduct and neutering her of her source of income is terrible for something of which she had no control.

  • Baka. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:31PM (#25858543)

    The sad part is that it took a bunch of forensic experts and a lot of taxpayer dollars several months to convince the court that pornography can appear in popups when browsing the internet that the user didn't explicitly ask for. This is just another reason why computer crimes need special courts to process cases -- the level of computer literacy amongst court officials is still very low, and at the risk of being yelled at for saying so... It's because many of these judges are at or past retirement age and haven't the inclination to learn.

    • Re:Baka. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:54PM (#25858705)

      This is just another reason why computer crimes need special courts to process cases...

      Nonsense. The problem is in the officers of the court. You'll either end up filling the computer crimes court with idiots, or if you figure out a way to get non-idiots in positions of power, you might as well do that for the regular courts.

      The court officials are probably not geneticists either, yet presumably they deal with DNA evidence at least occassionally.

      • Re:Baka. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @04:45PM (#25859833) Homepage

        The reason is because it doesn't matter; the Court doesn't need to have perfect knowledge over all the subjects over which it governs.

        The only case in which it is generally useful to set up special courts is where the law is very complicated or unusual- UCMJ appeals courts, tax courts, that sort of thing, because the law itself would not be something your average judge would know about in detail.

        However, in the case of a simple trial like this, it is not the responsibility of the judge to be informed. It is the responsibility of the lawyers to inform the Court. A Court should not be making decisions on the basis of its own investigations, after all, at least not in an adversarial situation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ian Alexander (997430)
      Wouldn't it be better just to require them to have a clue about computers instead of creating an extra-special court for one class of crime?

      And, having spent some quality time in a district courthouse (hey, it was a series of field outings in a class on the Justice system!) I can tell you that the geriatric judge stereotype is just that- a stereotype. I never saw one under 30 but I didn't see any older than their early 50's.
  • "Oh honey, it's over. I feel wonderful," Amero said a few minutes after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct and agreeing to surrender her teaching license. She had originally been charged with 10 counts of risk of injury to a minor and later convicted on four of them.

    Exactly what were the circumstances that inundated her with porno popups? Because it seems like she got a rather harsh sentence, even if she got off easy compared to the charges filed against her.

    Also, this would be a good time to install Ad [adblockplus.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sique (173459)

      That was one of the problems: The virus scanner was completely outdated at the school.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by st0rmshad0w (412661)

      Adblock Plus? Are you daft? There should have been network based measures in place to defend against this type of crap.

      My guess is they have effectively no IT department, especially given that they are using Windows 98 in classrooms when it is completely unsecurable, and seem to have zero protective measures in place or policies or teacher training.

      More than a few people need a serious punch in the crotch over this and the poor woman needs to be cleared and reinstated and issued a full public apology.

  • New London County State's Attorney Michael Regan: "I have no regrets. Things took a course that was unplanned," Regan said. "For some reason, this case caught the media's attention."

    Translation: "I didn't have a case after all."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sjames (1099)

      I'd say the translation is more like "Id'a had her railroaded in a flash and a great notch in my belt if the damned media hadn't gotten involved. Still, I'm not at all sorry I tried, it's not like I'll ever face consequences for my actions!".

  • Disgraceful DA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adsl (595429) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:42PM (#25858631)
    Looks as thought the Prosecution backed down 95%, which shows they really had no case. But the Prosecution still wanted a conviction on ANY charge and likely threatened to go back with all the Felony charges if this teacher did not agree. Faced with this option it's no wonder she took the smaller fall. But someone higher up the Justice chain needs to review this case as it looks as though the Prosecution used their office and FEAR as they means to get this last conviction. i.e. this looks like completely flawed use of the Justice system. The really bad people here were the school administrators, IMHO, who did not keep up-to-date which would have prevented the porn pop=ups. Why is the Prosecutors office ignoring the bigger crime and going after one teacher? That's insane and needs review IMHO. Meantime this teacher now has a criminal mrecord and a "prior" which will follow her for the rest of her life. Any job interview will mean she will have to detail the offense and her "arrest record".
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cob666 (656740)

      Any job interview will mean she will have to detail the offense and her "arrest record".

      Not exactly true, it depends on the wording of the application. If she is only asked for felony convictions then she doesn't have to list it. According to the Hartford Courant [courant.com] she plead to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

    • Re:Disgraceful DA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jdc (17517) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:38PM (#25858999) Homepage Journal

      Maybe prosecutors need alternate "metrics for success"?

      If my job performance was based on my percentage of successful convections and I knew I was assigned a looser case, it's up to me to think of alternate ways to succeed at my job

      A system that encourages this behavior is totally broken

      • by VirginMary (123020)

        > ... percentage of successful convections and I knew I was assigned...

        From Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]:

        convection [kuhn-vek-shuhn]:
        -noun
        1. Physics. the transfer of heat by the circulation or movement of the heated parts of a liquid or gas.
        2. Meteorology. the vertical transport of atmospheric properties, esp. upward (distinguished from advection ).
        3. the act of conveying or transmitting.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22, 2008 @01:57PM (#25858715)

    there wouldn't have been any chance for a plea bargain. The poor bastard would have been lynched.

    • by TerranFury (726743) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:59PM (#25859145)

      The body of psychological evidence indicates that children are suggestible, that memory is malleable, and that kids will report sexual abuse even when it did not occur. I'm remembering a famous experiment described in intro psychology courses: The setup was this: A toddler was taken into a mock doctor's office for a "checkup," in which the experimenter did nothing more than tie a small red string around the child's finger; this was videotaped by a hidden camera. Then, the child was interviewed in the manner common in sex-abuse legal cases at the time, in which she was presented with a doll and asked to indicate whether the doctor had touched her, and where. After repeated, gentle, innocuous-seeming questioning, the child reported obscene things that I could have not come up with myself; among other things, she reported that the doctor had rammed a stick into her vagina, which she pantomimed violently (the interview was also videotaped). What seems to have happened is that she responded subliminally to subtle, unintentional cues from the interviewer, and reported whatever the interviewer was afraid to (or wanted to?) hear. It's essentially the same phenomenon as what occurred with Clever Hans [wikipedia.org], the horse that could "do arithmetic." The horse was posed questions in the form of marks on the ground, and would tap out the answer -- one tap to say "one," two taps to say "two," etc -- in response. It astounded all observers, but what was actually happening is that the horse was picking up on the crowd's reaction to his tapping: Tension would build as he approached the right number, and then immediately release; this is when he would stop. In any event, the point is that apparently cut-and-dry testimonies are anything but, and people -- especially, but not just, children -- are hugely suggestible, and can honestly remember things that never happened as a subliminal response to unintentional bias in the interviewer.

      The conclusion you're forced to draw is that there are hundreds of innocent men now in jail for sex crimes, especially crimes against children, that they didn't commit. The sad irony is that sexual abuse really is now happening -- in jail, and these men are the victims.

      • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @03:55PM (#25859549)
        The kind of thing you describe is why any intellegent person should think twice about going into teaching. It's just too risky.
        • by TerranFury (726743) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @04:59PM (#25859917)

          The kind of thing you describe is why any intellegent person should think twice about going into teaching. It's just too risky.

          I've heard other people say this as well, and there's an element of truth to it. Unfortunately, what does this do to society? What happens when children -- especially boys -- have no male coaches, mentors, scout leaders... because it was "too risky?" This kind of paranoia is destroying communities.

          • by Jesus_666 (702802)
            I thought that was what American culture is all about. CYA is the highest maxim.

            An example: If in the USA someone fell and hurt themselves and I was nearby I wouldn't help them (past calling an ambulance) without second thought if there was a chance of getting away unnoticed unless there are plenty reliable-looking witnesses nearby which would testify in a court of law that I tried to help that person with only the purest of intentions. Why? Because if I help and I make a mistake or the person misconstrue
          • What happens?

            Society is forced to confront its collective stupidity.

      • by Pinckney (1098477)
        The experiment sounds very interesting. Can I please bother you to find the name of the experimenters or refer me to some other sources?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TerranFury (726743)

          I'd originally googled before posting, but didn't find the name; I thought I'd refer to my old textbooks next time I had access. But your post motivated me to try some new search strings, and this time I've found it, I think (or at least similar studies).

          I believe the study I am referring to was carried out by Ceci (Cornell) and Bruck (McGill). [If not them, then perhaps it was a study by Goodman (UC Davis).] You might want to refer to this paper [uwaterloo.ca]. In particular, see the section on p. 10 titled "Anatomic

  • by rs232 (849320) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:34PM (#25858969)
    "Amero was working on a very old Gateway PC running Windows 98 [alternet.org], an extremely vulnerable setup .. Detective Mark Lounsbury .. admitted under cross-examination that the prosecution never even checked the computer for malware"

    don't talk to cops [youtube.com]
  • by nightfire-unique (253895) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @02:41PM (#25859027)

    Does anyone else here find the term "injury to a minor" in this context extremely offensive? Is it not insulting to minors who are actually put at risk of injury?

    Like, for example, by people threatening to expell a minor for having a plastic butter knife, or tylenol at school?

  • It is nice that she isn't going to jail but still pleading guilty is a horrible outcome. While she might have been found guilty, having her plead guilty is just crap. You should never have to plead guilty to anything if you didn't do anything wrong.
  • ...bewbz ever hurt anyone?
  • a few porno pop-ups big deal, close them and move on with your life!
    it's just like with Janet Jackson milk shake, the whole nation overreacted!

    I'm embarrassed by stuff like this! why can't we be like one of them cool European countries, where people aren't too crazy about Jesus and there isn't a war on sex?

  • CIPA? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by st0rmshad0w (412661) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @05:40PM (#25860111)

    Wouldn't the school be liable under CIPA?

    Aren't they supposed to have monitoring and filtering in place?

  • I had a group of three students presenting their final year project to me and a another assessor, when a storm of pornographic pop-ups appeared on their Windows computer, causing them great embarrassment. I understood the cause to be malware that had been installed unintentionally, arranged for another computer for them to show their presentation with, and thought no more of it.

    That such an event could cost a person their career and result in them spending one year fighting this in various courts reminds me

  • Imagine THIS..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by IHC Navistar (967161) on Saturday November 22, 2008 @11:03PM (#25862051)

    Just imagine the penalty if this had been a male teacher who did that.

    Kinda funny how you never hear Feminazis criticize the disproportionate penalties in sex crimes between men and women.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen

Working...