Exactly why what she did was illegal. From what MC said it was like even if she wasn't an autority figure it would still be illegal. Since the age of consent in IL is 17 that would be false
There was only one attractive female at my high school and she was a sub who became permanent. We did have one dude teacher who looked like Jesus. He was awesome and taught the Drafting/Architecture classes
I think it's great that we can have a frank discussion about this topic and we have different opinions about the severity of it and what punishment she should get. I'm sure that if Mike is reading this thread, a lot of these conflicting thoughts and emotions are going thru his head. His wifes mug shots are on the web but I didn't post them here out of respect for Mike
Yes... that is the case with Murder as well. You are never required to report or testify against your spouse. You can, but are not required too. However I would like to note a distinction though :
If your Spouse says to you "I am going over to Erik's house and going to shoot him with this 9mm and murder him", and she does that, then if the police can prove you knew about the murder then you could be charged with Accessory to murder. If however your wife comes to you after the fact and says "I fucked up... I got so mad at erik that I shot him in the face with a 9mm." Then you are not required to report, or testify to this, and there is no charges that can be brought against you.
In Mikes case, he isnt required to report or testify (however he can if he wants). And I can't imagine any policeman would think he was an accessory to the crime.
-You are only an accessory if you asisst the person who committed the crime after they have committed the crime, assisting before and/or during is accomplice.
^Not always the case. In some states, such as Michigan, there is an "All or nothing" law where if you were involved in the case in any way, shape, or form, you could potentially fry for whatever the crime was, too. I know a few people who had that happen to them, that didn't even know a crime was taking place, or was going to take place, and they got "accessory" charges anyway.
In a more recent example, I got super-pissed at my friend for trying to shoplift liqour a few months ago from a grocery store that we were at together. I had no idea he was gonna try to pull that, and of course he got caught. If they had decided to call the police, I probably would have gotten in trouble just for being there. I don't think the store people believed I didn't have anything to do with it.
You were there as a lookout, so you were considered to be participating. That makes you an accomplice, which makes you just as culpable as your friend. I don't disbelieve you that you didn't know he would try it, but look at it from the stroe's perspective: "Two teenagers in the store, one takes liquor, they get caught. The one who didn't take it claims he had no idea." If you were a loss prevention detective, would you believe a teenager that he wasn't involved?
I haven't heard of any states charging an accessory as fully culpable.... I just did a quick google search on Michigan All Or Nothing Law, and was unable to find anything.... I think maybe you misunderstand the difference between accomplices and accessories, so here's a brief synopsis of each (and if that wasn't the part causing confusion, then if you could find a link where I could read up on the All Or Nothing Law you mentioned, making an accessory as culpable as an accomplice, I'd love to read it):
An accomplice is someone who assists before or during the commission of a crime. Someone who lends a gun to a robber, knowing that they intend to rob a bank, is just as culpable as the robber, even if he isn't there. Someone who keeps watch for an employee while someone else steals something, is just as culpable as the thief.
An accessory doesn't know about the crime, but after it is committed, they find out, and assist in hiding the criminal, liquidating stolen items, disposing of a dead body, ect. Your case, for example: You honestly had no idea he took it. So if after y'all left the store, you found out he did, and you said "Let's get outta here so we can go drink it," then you would be an accessory, since it was after the fact that he stole it.
I feel she should definitely serve jail time. Having sexual relations with a student isn't just an issue of sex. Your mind is still developing as a teenager, and if you're able to get one of your teachers, who is supposed to be in charge, to have sex with you, that will affect the teenager's thought process with all females. He's now going to assume that women are just objects, regardless of who they are. This is going to affect his entire life, all because she wanted to get her jollies. She needs rehabilitation, so that she won't take advantage of any other teenagers in the future. And she won't get that just by being fired and divorced, that simply covers retribution. She didn't commit a violent crime, so she doesn't need to be in with murderers and rapists, but she should at least be in a minimum security prison where she can get the psychological help she needs to become a functioning member of society again.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Yeah I agree, however I wasnt saying he should talk about the case... I was saying I hope he logs in to tell us how he is hanging in there. I can't imagine telling your friends you "doing alright, thanks for the concern" can have any negative problems.
Comments
Thus the only law broken here is the authority figure, not both like I thought initially
I'm sure that if Mike is reading this thread, a lot of these conflicting thoughts and emotions are going thru his head.
His wifes mug shots are on the web but I didn't post them here out of respect for Mike
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x871170149/Lanphier-teacher-arrested-for-alleged-affair-with-student
I haven't heard of any states charging an accessory as fully culpable.... I just did a quick google search on Michigan All Or Nothing Law, and was unable to find anything.... I think maybe you misunderstand the difference between accomplices and accessories, so here's a brief synopsis of each (and if that wasn't the part causing confusion, then if you could find a link where I could read up on the All Or Nothing Law you mentioned, making an accessory as culpable as an accomplice, I'd love to read it):
An accomplice is someone who assists before or during the commission of a crime. Someone who lends a gun to a robber, knowing that they intend to rob a bank, is just as culpable as the robber, even if he isn't there. Someone who keeps watch for an employee while someone else steals something, is just as culpable as the thief.
An accessory doesn't know about the crime, but after it is committed, they find out, and assist in hiding the criminal, liquidating stolen items, disposing of a dead body, ect. Your case, for example: You honestly had no idea he took it. So if after y'all left the store, you found out he did, and you said "Let's get outta here so we can go drink it," then you would be an accessory, since it was after the fact that he stole it.
Filed: 11/15/2012 Status: Open Report: Open
Case Participant Attorney
State of Illinois
vs.
Defendant JENNIFER TYREE
11/15/2012 Complaint 01 Count 001 CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT Sep 23, 2012
Defendant: JENNIFER TYREE
Statute 720 5/11-1.20(a)(4) Class 1 Orig.
Agency: CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Charge Instr: Complaint
11/15/2012 In Custody Nov 15, 2012 Defendant: JENNIFER TYREE
Assistant State's Attorney: NOLL
11/15/2012 First Appearance - PD Appointed - Bond Set Amount: $100,000.00
Public Defender: SCHERSCHLIGT
Preliminary Hearing on Nov 21, 2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7C
Present the People by ASA GRAY NOLL. Present the Defendant in person
in the custody of the Sheriff of Sangamon County. Cause called for
first appearance. Defendant furnished with a copy of the Complaint,
advised of the nature of the charge and possible penalties. Office of
the Public Defender appointed. Bond set in the amount of $100,000.00
and no contact with Victim. Preliminary hearing set for 11/21/2012 at
09:00 AM in 7C. CLERK DIRECTED TO NOTIFY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF
APPOINTMENT AND PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE. Defendant remanded to the
custody of the Sheriff pending posting of bond.
Judge: MADONIA Reporter: NH Clerk: SD ASA: NOLL
11/16/2012 Proof of Service Nov 15, 2012 Sent Public Defender: SCHERSCHLIGT
Judge: UNASSIGNED JUDGE Clerk: SD