Cherice Moralez and Stacey Dean Rambold consent case

[Mark of Zorro]

I am interested in discussing this case, with a few caveats.

No personal attacks
No dredging up the past
Just stick to the case
Of course expounding on the reasons for your underlying opinions is welcomed
Post in earnest. This is not the chat section.

Rambold sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping student who later committed suicide

Basically, in 2010, a high school teacher named Stacey Dean Rambold was found guilty on three charges of "sexual intercourse without consent" of his former 9th grade student, 14, Cherice Moralez. The three counts stem from 2007 when she was his student. Cherice killed herself in 2010 at 16 as the case was still pending. When the case closed, Rambold was sentenced to 31 days jail, which he served, plus probation. Rambold violated some terms of his probation which recently sparked a review of his four year old case. That review led to a censuring of the original judge, and a new sentence of 10 years jail.

I might have put this in an existing thread, but, the extraordinary details of this case make it quite special. The suicide of the girl. The revocation of the original sentence. The insertion of a new judge after four years. The disparity between the new and old sentence. etc. All that in addition to the bare media claims of "rape" even though it seems to have been consensual violations of the age of consent ( I welcome evidence if I am wrong about that).

I am curious about your opinion of the many unique and not so unique aspects of this case and I only hope you will take a good hard and fair look at it.

For me, this case is something of a "case of the century". But I will give all of you a chance to voice your opinion before I voice mine.

 

[nahadef]

Not a case of the century in any way whatsoever, unless you are a pedophilia advocate. The teacher abused his position of authority with a girl at a very vulnerable age, an age with a lot of emotional instability. He should feel a lifetime of guilt for getting her into this situation. He was selfish, thinking of his own pleasure over the well being of developing child.

And he was criminal.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

unless you are a pedophilia advocate.

Please edit that out for reasons you have already been told. I am asking nicely.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Not a case of the century in any way whatsoever

This is the first time he has been in trouble with the law, despite it being 3 counts. Mary Kay LeTourneau originally only got three months despite actually getting pregnant by a 12 year old. And despite getting pregnant by him again and while on probation no less, she only got 6 years.

This case has more irregularities than I care to list at this time. The reporting on it is more slanted than I have ever seen.

I have taken it on myself to examine the age of consent in detail, so to me, it is the case of the century regarding the age of consent in North America and court cases of same. This case contains more drama than any I have seen before.

The teacher abused his position of authority

What is your source for this?

I am quite aware he was in a position of authority, but nowhere did I read that he abused his authority. In what way exactly did he abuse his authority?

with a lot of emotional instability.

Did you know her? Or is there some other reason for your belief that she was emotionally unstable?

He should feel a lifetime of guilt for getting her into this situation.

As far as I know, she was in no situation until he was reported to police. Why was he reported? Again, you seem to have sources I do not see.

 

[nahadef]

Please edit that out for reasons you have already been told. I am asking nicely.

No, only a pedophilia advocate would think it's the case of the century. Do you seriously think this is? This is the case of the century, in a 14 year old century? Seriously.

 

[nahadef]

What is your source for this?

He was a teacher who ****ed his child student. That is an abuse of authority. You can argue against it, but it's just going to put you into that pedophilia advocate group which I think you deny being part of.

Did you know her? Or is there some other reason for your belief that she was emotionally unstable?

Children are not emotionally equipped to deal with their teacher ****ing them. Prove otherwise.

As far as I know, she was in no situation until he was reported to police. Why was he reported? Again, you seem to have sources I do not see.

Nope, just empathy. Do you have empathy? Children deserve childhoods without adults who don't take advantage of them.

Have you read Lolita? Did you really believe Humbert Humbert when he said Lolita seduced him? Was that the story of the century?

 

[Grandpa Frank]

He got off easy.

If it had been my daughter , the guy would have had to eat his dick before I killed him and any jail time for it would have been served with pride. Anyone , regardless of job or position who take advantage of immature children under 18 belong in jail. Anyone who thinks any type of sex with kids is in any way OK needs to see a shrink , his head is screwed on wrong. Maybe it's my age or law enforcement background , buts that's my personal belief and emotional feelings about it.

Uncle Frank

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Repeating things maliciously do not make them true. Please stop attacking me and accusing me. Discuss the topic at hand civilly or just leave.

He was a teacher who ****ed his child student. That is an abuse of authority.

I think you meant abuse of trust? Of course the question is then, whose trust?

As people who are not teachers sometimes have sex with underaged people not their students, it follows that no such authority is required. Therefore, no abuse of authority is required either.

If you want to claim abuse of authority, you need to be specific. How exactly was authority abused? A promise of grades? A threat of failure? What?

Children are not emotionally equipped to deal with their teacher ****ing them. Prove otherwise.

Villi Fualau. He grew up and got the lifetime no contact ruling revoked. Then he married Mary Kay LeTourneau. And they have been married these nine years with no complaints from Villi.

Nope, just empathy. Do you have empathy?

Probably more than you have spite. Yes.

Children deserve childhoods without adults who don't take advantage of them.

Of course they do. So do teens deserve such teen years. However they do not usually get taken advantage of in teacher's cars, then go later to be taken advantage of in their offices, THEN go later to be taken advantage of again in their homes. Three times comes with some sort of reason or story. What was it? Can you say without guesswork?

Have you read Lolita?

No. Fiction. Yes?

Did you really believe Humbert Humbert when he said Lolita seduced him?

I take it you believed the opposite was true? Without reading, I am going to guess it was all fiction.

But even if I decided that bit was true to life, you are going to deny the other bits are too. Yes? You know, the ones totally inconvenient to your emotion based, clench fisted, gritted tooth beliefs.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

If it had been my daughter , the guy would have had to eat his dick before I killed him and any jail time for it would have been served with pride. Anyone , regardless of job or position who take advantage of immature children under 18 belong in jail. Anyone who thinks any type of sex with kids is in any way OK needs to see a shrink , his head is screwed on wrong. Maybe it's my age or law enforcement background , buts that's my personal belief and emotional feelings about it.

Uncle Frank

Do you want to bring you daughter into this? If not, then don't.

If you want to claim taking advantage, prove it with an actual detailed quote. Don't assume it.

Anyone who thinks any type of sex with kids is in any way OK needs to see a shrink , his head is screwed on wrong.

Anyone who thinks teens are equivalent to children needs an education. Do you think this is about a child? Do think another 14 year old she may have had sex with needs a shrink, or must his head screwed on wrong?

Maybe it's my age or law enforcement background , buts that's my personal belief and emotional feelings about it.

You should get your emotions in check. Emotions cloud reason.

the guy would have had to eat his dick before I killed him

You really should get over yourself and this "big man" talk. You are not talking like a man. You are talking like a barbarian. You should step back and consider why she blew her brains out. I bet there was someone at the family meeting talking JUST LIKE YOU. I hope you figure this out before a grand daughter has a situation. But of course, sense my prevail and you may just plain be left out of the conversation.

He got off easy.

He got the harshest sentence I have seen meted out yet for this particular offense.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

A topic that has to bring out strong emotion.

This thread topic is about the same level as if the ISIS terrorist who has been chopping off heads joined here and tried to convince us the innocent victims deserved to have their heads chopped off. No amount of unemotional arguments on his part would convince us he is right. Expecting replies with no emotion involved is probably a daydream on your part.

Uncle Frank

 

[nice gaijin]

throwing out the original sentence and increasing it to 10 years kind of seems like an end-run around double jeopardy. They say they incorrectly calculated the minimum sentence, but if the decision were to stick, wouldn't his punishment just be increased to whatever the minimum sentence were? I don't know the legal mechanisms at work here, but if I were a defendant, having already been sentenced, I'd be alarmed to find out it had been thrown out and a new, harsher sentence put in its place.

That aside, the law doesn't make distinctions about what exchanges led to a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor; minors are legally unable to give consent. Sex with minors is rape, period. The crime only escalates from there by use of force or violence. As the article describes, the guy is a "boundary pusher," and whether or not he abused his authority through threats or incentives, his job as a teacher gave him access to the victim. If he had any inkling that he could/would do something like this, he shouldn't have sought a job as a teacher in the first place. As a rational adult, he had many, many opportunities to prevent this from happening. He didn't. He continued to do what he wanted, and though he couldn't have foreseen the consequences, his actions have led to everything that has followed.

The original sentence was incredibly light, as the punishments for this kind of rape tend to be. His "boundary pushing" in the interim shows that he hasn't learned much.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

This thread topic is about the same level as if the ISIS terrorist who has been chopping off heads joined here and tried to convince us the innocent victims deserved to have their heads chopped off. No amount of unemotional arguments on his part would convince us he is right. Expecting replies with no emotion involved is probably a daydream on your part.

Uncle Frank

I guess I am imagining nice gainjin's post then.

And no, this is nothing like advocating ISIS and beheadings. A person does not get beheaded by one person and its called terrible, but that same person beheaded by another and its called wonderful. If the teacher had been a 17 year old student some people would have been in just as much of a childish rage, but most would not.

 

[nahadef]

Repeating things maliciously do not make them true. Please stop attacking me and accusing me. Discuss the topic at hand civilly or just leave.

A) I haven't attacked you in any way.
B) You aren't in a place to tell me to leave. Report me if you have a problem with my posts.
C) It seems like you are the one attacking me.

Probably more than you have spite.
===================
You know, the ones totally inconvenient to your emotion based, clench fisted, gritted tooth beliefs.

Grow up. Don't be a hypocrite. (That is the closest I'm getting to an attack)

 

[Mark of Zorro]

throwing out the original sentence and increasing it to 10 years kind of seems like an end-run around double jeopardy. They say they incorrectly calculated the minimum sentence, but if the decision were to stick, wouldn't his punishment just be increased to whatever the minimum sentence were? I don't know the legal mechanisms at work here, but if I were a defendant, having already been sentenced, I'd be alarmed to find out it had been thrown out and a new, harsher sentence put in its place.

I am alarmed just as a citizen. I am no legal expert, but it looks to me like a loophole has been forced open. The real rape has been the rape of justice. If this is a precedent, its a pretty horrible one. According to the fifth amendment, no person may be subject twice to the same offense. Some people will say he wasn't because he was not tried twice, not technically anyway. But its says "subject", not "tried".

If they can just remove the previous judge and throw in a new one, what can't they do in the name of public rancor? This is probably actually worse than a retrial. But some people are so super wrapped up in his offense they would see the whole justice system destroyed just to get at him. That is also scary for any person accused of any sort of offense.

Sex with minors is rape, period.

Do you mean that only as a legal fixture or do you mean that as a personal belief?

I think its important to explain to you that Montana and other states have removed words like rape from the statutes and replaced them with things like sexual assault and sex without consent. However you extrapolate from there you do on your own.

But it seems rather odd to say she could consent to a sex act with a 17 year old, but not consent to the same sex act with a 50 year old. I don't think I will ever understand how one dick in her pussy pounding is okay, but another dick in her pussy pounding is not, only because of age. To me its all about if she consented, and it makes no sense to say she can consent with one guy but not another. Its obviously not at all about what she wants, but what society wants. It makes as much sense as saying that you may not marry foreigners, or you can only have sex between the hours of 6 and 10 pm.

As the article describes, the guy is a "boundary pusher," and whether or not he abused his authority through threats or incentives, his job as a teacher gave him access to the victim.

How does anyone ever have sex with someone without access? You could also argue that a student in her math class has access to her, or some guy in her circle of friends, or the neighbor boy.

As for his boundary pushing, we are talking about visiting with relatives' children, flirting with women, texting flirtatious messages, and having a normal, legal girlfriend but not telling his parole officer, and the last three of those accusations from his parole officer. Frankly, it sounds to me like the parole officer is man-hating lesbian who cannot even find a lesbian partner. It sounds to me like a person stuck in a sea of boundaries condemning someone daring to have fun doing extremely typical things. How does one have a family life if relatives' children must be excluded? How was that requirement remotely justified?

If he had any inkling that he could/would do something like this, he shouldn't have sought a job as a teacher in the first place.

I don't know. This happened when he was about 50 and had probably already been a teacher for like 25 years. None of us knows who is going to totally smite us and when. IMHO love and lust cause temporary insanity and it should be a legal defense plea. Who has not make a bad decision due to love and lust? Not to even say I think he made a bad decision. Nobody knows how any relationship will go. Sometimes people lie about things that were totally above board to cause you trouble years down the road.

As a rational adult, he had many, many opportunities to prevent this from happening.

Do the crime, do the time. I do believe unjust laws are made to be broken, but yes, if you get caught you have to pay. Even so, one should not expect to be crucified. Had he known ten years was even possible, he might not have done this at all.

The original sentence was incredibly light, as the punishments for this kind of rape tend to be.

I was surprised as well, but I still don't think the sentence was light. He lost his job, reputation and his family and those are totally predictable punishments one will receive. Again with Mary Kay, but she went through hell.

His "boundary pushing" in the interim shows that he hasn't learned much.

I think you should re-examine that. Tracking software on your cell phone and a parole officer breathing down your neck for mild and normal sexual behaviors. And how does one re-enter society when denied a normal family life? It sounds to me like they just set him up to fail.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

A) I haven't attacked you in any way.
B) You aren't in a place to tell me to leave. Report me if you have a problem with my posts.
C) It seems like you are the one attacking me.


Grow up. Don't be a hypocrite. (That is the closest I'm getting to an attack)

You know exactly what you have done and you know its an attack. You know you are trying to force a loop hole in the caveats I have written. And you have refused a nice request to edit. You think you are being clever. But you expect us to believe you are actually quite stupid.

This could well be seen as the case of the century for a pedophile hate group. It sets a precedent to change months long sentences from years ago simply by putting a new judge on the case. That and other reasons I already said why your singular conclusion of why this would be a "case of the century" is totally contrived in your attempt to circumvent the caveats. You know it. I know it. Its obvious.

And I did report you already. It would not have been necessary if you were being mature.

 

[nahadef]

I have not attacked you. You are paranoid.

It would not have been necessary if you were being mature.

I think the mature point of view would be to understand just how incredibly unethical it is for a teacher to sleep with a 14 year old student.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Only a pedophile in denial would drag pedophile advocacy into this story of a post-pubescent teenager.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I think the mature point of view would be to understand just how incredibly unethical it is for a teacher to sleep with a 14 year old student.

The teacher/student relationship has nothing to do with his jail sentence. Therefore its totally secondary.

As for a mature point of view, you might have maturity confused with conformity.

Just across the Montana border, the age of consent was 14 in Canada until 2006. It did not change because of ideas about ethics or morality. It changed because a gay American man crossed the border to have sex with a gay 14 year old and his parents and the community had a homophobic flip out about it as well as some primitive fears about the power of the internet. Those were glossed over with speech about ethics and morality.

An essential part of ethics and morality is minding one's own business. Nobody's nose belongs in another person's sex life unless abuse is strongly suspected. And failing to prove abuse, ethics and morality dictate butting out. Abuse CANNOT be determined by age alone. Only a brain damaged troll could think it could be.

 

[nahadef]

Only a pedophile in denial would drag pedophile advocacy into this story of a post-pubescent teenager.

Really? Do you honestly think that is true? That's pretty baffling. Usually your arguments have a shred of logic to them.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Really? Do you honestly think that is true? That's pretty baffling. Usually your arguments have a shred of logic to them.

Well maybe not only, but basically yes. Just as homophobics are the loudest anti-gays ever while so often being schlong loving queers lusting for a manwhich underneath, yet loathing themselves for it, so too are pedophilophobics aching to condemn even ephebophilia in fact secretly longing for some fresh hairless or newly haired genitals on their faces and fingers and johnsons.

Some of these figure they can call attention away from their own lusts by never missing an opportunity to condemn others in any angry, screaming, disingenuous, unfair, or sneaky way possible.

Pedophilophobia is just like homophobia, only the subject is different.

 

[nahadef]

No, that is a garbage argument. Hatred of pedophilia is far different from hatred of homophobia, even if you consider that many people who hate homosexuals aren't actually gay.

Homosexuality is between consenting adults. Hatred of that is fairly unreasonable.

Pedophilia is not between consenting adults, is an abuse of power, and can be very destructive to a child's life. In the same way, we have restricted movies, movies which child are not allowed to see. Alcohol and cigarettes are not permitted for children. Children are not allowed to participate in all of the adult world. Children are not adults. They are not adults. I can't stress that enough. Children can not consent. They lack the perspective to make those decisions.

I've never heard of anti-pedophile groups organised the way anti-homosexual groups are, mainly because virtually nobody thinks pedophilia is acceptable, whereas homosexuality is broadly accepted in many places around the world. So they aren't comparable.

Of course, that still leaves your statement as utter nonsense:

Only a pedophile in denial would drag pedophile advocacy into this story of a post-pubescent teenager.

If somebody considers an adult sleeping with a 14 year old pedophilia, it's stupid to say that that person is a pedophile in denial. That is not an example of being the loudest about anti-pedophilia. It's simply reacting to yet another pro-pedohilia topic you've brought up. I never have this conversation anywhere else in my life, and it's not a pressing matter to me, because so much of the planet already comprehends why it's wrong. There is no need for people to bang the anti-pedophilia drum. I may as well be pro-water or pro-air. There is no debate... Except with pedophilia advocates.

Why is this the case of the century? For the pedophile side, it is probably scary. For the 99.9% of society that aren't pedophiles, it's not scary at all. The teacher slept with his child student. That is always wrong.

Why don't you put your cards on the table and simply say that you think it is completely acceptable for an adult teacher to sleep with their 14 year old child student? Just state it in clear language, rather than this travesty of justice nonsense.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

What a nice bunch of non-sequitors in the first three paragraphs. You just had to inject those in sideways didn't you?

Self loathing is hardly a concept limited to homosexuality.

And comparing the self loathing component of homophobia with pedophilophobia is NOT the same as equating homosexuality and pedophilia. Hating pedophiles and hating homosexuals is not the same as hating pedophilia and hating homosexuality.

Teens are not children, which is why teens as young as 14 are still licensed to drive motor vehicles to do farm work and I bet that happens a lot in Montana. Driving is truly a life and death deal. Yet exceptions are made?

If somebody considers an adult sleeping with a 14 year old pedophilia, it's stupid to say that that person is a pedophile in denial. That is not an example of being the loudest about anti-pedophilia.

It is endemic to the position. A teen is not a child, and sleeping with a teen is not pedophilia. Twisting the term is an act done for several reasons, a huge one being self-loathing coupled with denial. Another is being extremely ignorant.

I never have this conversation anywhere else in my life

The power of pedophiliophobia, cowing everyone into silence. I was silent for a time, but the second I even glanced the subject, YOU jumped down my throat. You expose yourself.

There is no debate... Except with pedophilia advocates.

Your insistence on over-looking the legal irregularities of the case is quite telling.

Why is this the case of the century? For the pedophile side, it is probably scary. For the 99.9% of society that aren't pedophiles, it's not scary at all.

Which is like saying that no one but a terrorist would be concerned about Australia's new anti-terror laws. Or no one but a drug user could possibly be against the war on drugs.

And of course in you haste you overlook the fact that if 50 year old men get ten year sentences, soon too will teen boys who sleep with their 15 year old GF on their 18th birthday.

Why this is a sort of "trial of the century" for me? I answered that. You don't listen.

There is no debate...

Back in Galileo's time there was no debate about astronomical physics.

That does not mean it was not needed or important. Its commonly believed people were just too $#!T scared of overbearing pundits to talk about such things.

Why don't you put your cards on the table and simply say that you think it is completely acceptable for an adult teacher to sleep with their 14 year old child student?

I have laid my beliefs down several times. Have you suffered memory loss lately? I think it is perfectly acceptable for a 14 year old teen to date and sleep with their adult teacher IF they have consented and are not being forced, coerced, tricked, threatened or promised special favors in return. Now here is where you parse that sentence and omit caveats for the sake of attacking me, just like you always do.

But even if one disagrees with me, I think there is common ground to be had in this case, and even to recognize the horrible yellow journalism slant in the reporting.

Just state it in clear language, rather than this travesty of justice nonsense.

I should not have left the door open for you to even engage in this attack. The travesty of justice is quite real. Its right there. And its not nonsense. You are just letting your pedophilophobia blind you and you seek to blind others as well.

The specifics of this case threaten to open your eyes. And that TERRIFIES you.

Just know that this thread was not opened with you in mind at all.

 

[nahadef]

At least no one will accuse you of being a pedophile in denial.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

It took me a minute but I finally realized why you compared homosexuality and pedophilia. You think hatred of pedophilia is justified for all you believe about it.

It would have taken less time if you had not decided to dive into this thread in the way you did. Also it would help if you cease to over-generalize and use intentionaly weighted terms as a means to refuse engagement of any concept I might offer. In short, your overbearing hostility is most non-conducive to conversation.

Pedophilia is not between consenting adults, is an abuse of power, and can be very destructive to a child's life.

You refuse to say teenager so that you can use the word "child" as a weapon. You say "consenting adults" so that you can preclude any possibility or notion that teens can consent. You say "abuse of power" so that you can preclude any notion that a teen might initiate sexual activity the same as they do with other teens. You say "destructive to a child"s life" and completely overlook the fact that homosexuality was destructive to many gay people's lives simply because of social stigma. In fact, that continues.

Now I ask you, do you know why she committed suicide? Do you assume you know? Or did you research it?

 

[Mark of Zorro]

At least no one will accuse you of being a pedophile in denial.

I was thinking hebephile or ephebophile but God knows you would not want to give an inch by entertaining any knew concepts. God forbid you learn, advance or even try to make sense of any this. Just keep stonewalling.