Teacher rapes 3 students aged 14-16 for over a year and even gets pregnant to one of them. Pleads guilty to 6 felonies out of 41. She was released in January after serving only 6 MONTHS. How long would a man have served? (losangeles.cbslocal.com)

{rage}

45 ups - 21 downs = 24 votes

33 comments submitted at 01:56:01 on Feb 8, 2014 by CreativeRedditName

  • [-]
  • zulaikha_idris
  • -2 Points
  • 11:02:21, 8 February

I'm sorry, rape? As far as the article says, she is merely guilty of having sex with minors. And in this case, it was a 29 yo teacher with a bunch of 14-16 year old boys. I would hardly call that 'rape'.

Seriously, you libtards and your stupid SJW complex make me sick.

  • [-]
  • unclefisty
  • 5 Points
  • 11:16:12, 8 February

Having sex with underage kids as an adult is generally called rape.

  • [-]
  • zulaikha_idris
  • 1 Points
  • 12:13:14, 8 February

Just because sex with underage kids is 'generally called rape' doesn't mean it's rape. In essence, rape is any forced sexual act done to a person against his will. None of the things in that article makes me think of rape.

  • [-]
  • unclefisty
  • 1 Points
  • 12:51:32, 8 February

The reason its called rape is because they are not considered able to consent. Especially when the other person is in a position of power over them.

  • [-]
  • rusty_chipmunk
  • 2 Points
  • 11:40:10, 8 February

But as they were underage it's statutory rape, they could not consent to it. It is no different than a male teacher and a female student, no matter if the student was fine with it they cannot consent, and being a teacher creates an issue of using their power of authority which is atleast something they have a law against in my state don't know about this one. It may or may not have been a violent rape, the law says it's rape because they were too young to consent. It may not be the kind of rape you are imagining, a violent rape or something but none the less it's still rape.

>At the sentencing, the 17-year-old father of Whitehurst’s child spoke out against the plea deal, saying, “Whitehurst’s criminal actions against me have scarred me emotionally and will affect every relationship I have for the rest of my life.”

  • [-]
  • zulaikha_idris
  • 1 Points
  • 12:09:54, 8 February

>But as they were underage it's statutory rape, they could not consent to it.

So you're saying simply because they were underage, somehow this means they can't 'give consent', thus considered rape? So how about if teenagers have sex with each other? Does this mean they were raping each other then?

>At the sentencing, the 17-year-old father of Whitehurst’s child spoke out against the plea deal, saying, “Whitehurst’s criminal actions against me have scarred me emotionally and will affect every relationship I have for the rest of my life.”

You don't suspect at all that a large part of that statement is influenced by the boy's own father and the advice of his lawyers?

  • [-]
  • isanewalter
  • 2 Points
  • 11:15:59, 8 February

Well, it is legally speaking statutory rape. I agree though, using the word "rape" brings up images of a violent assault in some dark alleyway. An adult having sex with teenagers is morally wrong, but it's not close to the level of evil of rape.