The boys succeeded in getting their semen in the victims mouth.

"misdemeanor assault" is a grotesque degree of under charging.

(December 12, 2016 at 11:03 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: The boys succeeded in getting their semen in the victims mouth.

"misdemeanor assault" is a grotesque degree of under charging.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it rape.

An odd point to be brought up on an atheist forum, but the teacher may have religious beliefs that would be, in addition to the assault, an aggravating circumstance to the degree of severity for the boys to be charged under

I could see the (possible) husband of the victim being an aggrieved party in this assault too.

And a complicating factor, the boys are underage, probably unlikely to be tried as adults, and there will be no reporting on what the school district has imposed as a punishment on them, and I hate to say this but these days I feel I must, if anything.

So there will be a wait till it wends it's way through the juvenile justice system.

We also don't get to have what I'm going to call a 'forensic parenting audit'. And that is just what it sounds like, a detailed examination of the home life of the perps.

(December 12, 2016 at 9:24 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Tricking someone into eating cum isn't what I'd call rape, though it should definitely be punishable.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This 100%

(December 12, 2016 at 9:24 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I'd consider that food poisoning. Putting something in food that's not really meant to be eaten (barring some sexual kinks).

I disagree though seeing as how cum is not dangerous unless a person has an std. I also think that this should've been handled with the Kids, Teacher, Principle and Kid's Parents alone.

(December 12, 2016 at 11:21 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(December 12, 2016 at 11:03 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: The boys succeeded in getting their semen in the victims mouth.

"misdemeanor assault" is a grotesque degree of under charging.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it rape.

I will admit I need to separate my outrages over the act and then the charge of misdemeanor assault.  I'd almost consider the prosecutor a party to the assault at this point.

In my view, the boys will need to be checked for communicable disease too, hep B, hep C, etc.

There is also an enormous disruption at the school, we can only imagine the degree of (I don't even know what word to put here) going on with social media with all the students in that school, if not in the entire school district.

It's not rape but on the FDA website I've seen that someone can be imprisoned for no longer than 10 years for tampering with a consumer product.

There's other pages which define what a consumer product is in greater detail but it does mention a consumer product is produced by an individual meant for consumption by someone else or something like that.

Also according to google the averenge sentence of a rapist is 9.8 years while time served it 5.4 years.

Not that I think they do deserve years in prison for this, I think the right decision was made and they should get a really light sentence. That's unless the person swallowing the seman has some into some real physical harm in some way. Or unless some other details about the crime surface. Or if the students aren't showing remorse for what they did.

(December 12, 2016 at 11:25 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: An odd point to be brought up on an atheist forum, but the teacher may have religious beliefs that would be, in addition to the assault, an aggravating circumstance to the degree of severity for the boys to be charged under

If she does have any such religious beliefs, they should not be aggravating circumstances in a court of law. A person's beliefs shouldn't affect how a crime against them is viewed by the law.

Quote:I could see the (possible) husband of the victim being an aggrieved party in this assault too.

How? He wasn't involved at all.

(December 12, 2016 at 11:33 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I'd almost consider the prosecutor a party to the assault at this point.

Why?

For instance on the first point, if the boys were aware of the teachers views going that way I'd entertain arguments their motivations were more malignant than just 'pranking teacher'.
And a corollary, I'd like to think (although this is Nebraska, so maybe not) having a more severe charge would give the court more leeway to services for the boys in regards to counseling and such. A slap on the wrist isn't going to get them to understand the offense to victims they've perpetrated like participating in the equivalent of anger therapy only for teen sex offenders.

Second, some men are going to react (rightly or wrongly) more strongly negatively than others to having other males reproductive emissions being in the mouth of their spouse.

3rd point would be the ludicrous under charging represented by the misdemeanor assault charge. I can see victim rights groups (and myself) thinking the prosecutor clearly not taking this very seriously as a an additional grievous affront to the victim. And 'affront' there shading into an additional assault or complicity with the original.

The 'well, boys will be boys' thing, which I'm betting 2 sets of the boys parents are already voicing, and I can imagine people thinking the prosecutor is on board with the same thing.

(December 13, 2016 at 12:05 am)vorlon13 Wrote: For instance on the first point, if the boys were aware of the teachers views going that way I'd entertain arguments their motivations were more malignant than just 'pranking teacher'.
And a corollary, I'd like to think (although this is Nebraska, so maybe not) having a more severe charge would give the court more leeway to services for the boys in regards to counseling and such. A slap on the wrist isn't going to get them to understand the offense to victims they've perpetrated like participating in the equivalent of anger therapy only for teen sex offenders.

Ok, I'm with you when it comes to punishments. I thought you were arguing that they should be charged with a more severe crime because of her religious beliefs, which I would argue makes no sense and simply bends over backwards for religions.

(December 13, 2016 at 12:05 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Second, some men are going to react (rightly or wrongly) more strongly negatively than others to having other males reproductive emissions being in the mouth of their spouse.

Right, but the crime wasn't against her husband. How he reacts to it is on him. You shouldn't charge people with more crimes because some friend or relative of the victim reacted more negatively than others.

Quote:3rd point would be the ludicrous under charging represented by the misdemeanor assault charge. I can see victim rights groups (and myself) thinking the prosecutor clearly not taking this very seriously as a an additional grievous affront to the victim. And 'affront' there shading into an additional assault or complicity with the original.

The 'well, boys will be boys' thing, which I'm betting 2 sets of the boys parents are already voicing, and I can imagine people thinking the prosecutor is on board with the same thing.

What's more likely is that the prosecutor is trying to win the case. I would guess that you won't find many juries that would be willing to convict teenagers for felony rape or even felony sexual assault because of this. Maybe you'll convince most of the jury, but in most cases you need a unanimous decision to convict.

Misdemeanor charges are more likely to stick.

If charged harsher and then pled down to misdemeanor assault would be an outrage, starting at misdemeanor assault makes me think an outcome even further down the scale after plea bargaining will be the result.

I could see the parents fighting tooth and nail for their 'precious darlings' innocent prank not permanently affecting their lives at all, and the outcome not even being a slap on the wrist at that point. And then the perps come back to same school (after suspension/expulsion is nixed) and to acclaim from some of their peers for 'getting away with it'.