snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Police Blotter (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Teacher fired after 'ordering hit' on seventh-grade student (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=89202)

snopes 15 April 2014 11:12 PM

Teacher fired after 'ordering hit' on seventh-grade student
 
A Florida school board has decided to fire a teacher who allegedly ordered a group of six boys to attack a younger student to “teach him a lesson.”

http://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-l...k-on-a-student

Ryda Wong, EBfCo. 15 April 2014 11:38 PM

No criminal charges were filed? Really?

Latiam 16 April 2014 12:51 AM

I find it hard to think what charge it would be since she didn't actually do it herself.

Why is the lawsuit a civil rights one?

Hero_Mike 16 April 2014 01:02 AM

Conspiracy to commit the crimes? And there's probably another crime here if payment was involved.

diddy 16 April 2014 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hero_Mike (Post 1815993)
Conspiracy to commit the crimes?

That’s what I would guess. Conspiracy to commit often involves (but doesn’t require) two to tango and when you bring in another party it would infer intent unless you can show that was not serious. My guess is that is where things got caught up - they couldn’t show serious intent. It really would help if there was some sort of financial transaction or an agreement being recorded where something was exchanged or the like, but it doesn’t look like that was the case.

I think that the nature of the relationship of the individuals involved and the nature of the crime (assault) made things hard to prove in criminal court. Civil court has different standards though.

erwins 16 April 2014 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latiam (Post 1815988)
I find it hard to think what charge it would be since she didn't actually do it herself.

Why is the lawsuit a civil rights one?

You don't have to do the crime yourself to be guilty, and a conspiracy charge could be added but isn't necessary. If they have sufficient evidence against her, she could be charged and convicted exactly as if she did the crime herself under an aiding and abetting or procurement theory. The relevant FL statute:
Quote:

777.011 Principal in first degree.—Whoever commits any criminal offense against the state, whether felony or misdemeanor, or aids, abets, counsels, hires, or otherwise procures such offense to be committed, and such offense is committed or is attempted to be committed, is a principal in the first degree and may be charged, convicted, and punished as such, whether he or she is or is not actually or constructively present at the commission of such offense.

Mad Jay 16 April 2014 02:25 AM

Morally speaking, inducing a minor to commit a crime should is not different than committing the crime yourself. The minor cannot consent to a crime. If you can convince a minor to commit a crime, you should be responsible for it.

ganzfeld 16 April 2014 02:37 AM

It agree with that and I would add that the children who obeyed such instigations or orders may be victims of abuse as well. Imagine how they come to terms with the fact that they perpetrated violence at the behest of an adult. There are so many ways that could cause emotional or social havoc. So this kind of action should be investigated as a crime of multiple abuse.

hoitoider 16 April 2014 02:48 AM

Seems like the teacher could at least be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Avril 16 April 2014 03:32 AM

I think both conspiracy and contributing to the delinquency of a minor would fit.

Latiam 16 April 2014 03:59 AM

Both aiding and abetting and contributing to the delinquency of a minor are first degree. Conspiracy would not be in the first degree because it is not a capital felony, so it wouldn't make sense to choose conspiracy.
I suppose it also depends whether encouraging them to do something counts as persuading them to do it in a legal sense since the OP states that she encouraged them, not "ordered a hit."

erwins 16 April 2014 04:12 AM

But she's a teacher, with authority over them. I think aid and abet could fit, depending on the exact evidence. If she incited or directed the crime, she is an abettor. An article said the surveillance video showed her pointing out the victim to the kids who beat him up, and said something to him afterwards about now having her 8th graders on him. Unless those kids are saying that she had nothing to do with the beating, it seems like she could be charged. (Conspiracy is more often charged when the crime wasn't completed).

Hero_Mike 16 April 2014 04:37 AM

For blackmail to be a crime, there must merely be the threat of a secret being revealed, so I would imagine that it's the mere promise or suggestion of a reward for committing a crime, and not the actual payment, that is enough for it to be a crime.

Dropbear 16 April 2014 05:20 AM

As I understand it blackmail is coercion based upon a threat. That doesn't have to be the revelation of a secret. You can be blackmailed by being threatened with a physical assault upon yourself or others (a loved one) or by the threat of the loss of money or property.

Dropbear

Hero_Mike 16 April 2014 06:44 AM

What I mean is that I don't actually need to know that damaging secret - it's enough for me to say "Dropbear, I know something very private about you, something you don't want the public to know, and unless you pay me $$$, I will tell the public". It doesn't matter if I'm bluffing and don't really know your secret.

So too if I say "Dropbear, I will pay you a million dollars to harm this stranger", it doesn't matter if I don't have a million dollars to give you, or that I have no intention to pay you the million dollars I do have - I've still committed the crime by making the offer. What would be more typical is saying "If you harm this person, I would be very grateful to you", with "gratitude" being a very vague implication of reward or favour.

Elkhound 16 April 2014 05:02 PM

Isn't inducing a minor to commit an unlawful act the definition of the crime of "faginy"? (From Fagin in OLIVER TWIST.) I seem to remember reading that in some legal dictionary.

GenYus234 16 April 2014 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dropbear (Post 1816043)
You can be blackmailed by being threatened with a physical assault upon yourself or others (a loved one) or by the threat of the loss of money or property.

Isn't the first method extortion, not blackmail?

Latiam 17 April 2014 02:04 AM

In Florida at least extortion and blackmail are the same thing legally. But I don't think this fits the definition.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.