July 15, 201313 yr I also understand Jones was in a special class as a teacher and that made her relationship against the law in KY but under any other circumstance the age of consent in KY is 16 so calling Jones a child molester is extremely misleading and irresponsible in my opinion. If my son was the student in this situation, I would be calling her a child molester and much, much worse! Something I just thought about, is her situation in any way shape or form similiar to Jenny Dinkel? Yes the boy consented and then said no afterwards, but is he saying no way after the fact the only major difference?
July 15, 201313 yr Author I'm foggy on Dinkle other than I remember the investigation smelled.... And I understand when we are the victim of something we think different about it than if we are an objective third party. At the end of the day the age of consent in KY is 16.
July 15, 201313 yr Author IMO, she is more like Mary Kay Letourneau than Jenny Dinkel. Seriously!?!? Letourneau's victim was 13!
July 15, 201313 yr Take away the ages and there's not a lot of difference. I don't care if the age of legal consent in KY is 16. Students should be off limits to teachers at all times.
July 15, 201313 yr Author Take away the ages and there's not a lot of difference. I don't care if the age of legal consent in KY is 16. Students should be off limits to teachers at all times. I agree students should be off limits, no question about it. However, comparing a 13 year old victim to a 17 year old victim (that was also a family friend) is apples and oranges.
July 15, 201313 yr JMO, and it's not a popular one, but once all parties involved are of consenting age, who someone sleeps with is their business, regardless of profession.
July 15, 201313 yr If my son was the student in this situation, I would be calling her a child molester and much, much worse! Something I just thought about, is her situation in any way shape or form similiar to Jenny Dinkel? Yes the boy consented and then said no afterwards, but is he saying no way after the fact the only major difference? I'm foggy on Dinkle other than I remember the investigation smelled.... And I understand when we are the victim of something we think different about it than if we are an objective third party. At the end of the day the age of consent in KY is 16. If I remember correctly, wasn't there alcohol involved the night Dinkle was involved with the kid?
July 15, 201313 yr Nevertheless, Ms. Jones is never going to win the argument of who is sleazier. In this region of the country, she wins hands down. As Vince Neil says, "Girl, don't go away mad; just go away". :ylsuper:
July 15, 201313 yr Author Nevertheless, Ms. Jones is never going to win the argument of who is sleazier. In this region of the country, she wins hands down. You are the only one trying to make that argument...
July 15, 201313 yr Author As Vince Neil says, "Girl, don't go away mad; just go away". :ylsuper: As The Yale Book of Quotations says, "Turnabout is fair play!"
July 15, 201313 yr Author Also on this topic, this is from Eric Deters' Facebook page: DAVID GINGRAS-DIRTY.COM LAWYER From- myazbar.org Oct. 2009 DAVID S. GINGRAS Bar No. 021097; File No. 06-2059 Supreme Court No. SB-08-0157-D/R By Arizona Supreme Court judg- ment and order dated Dec. 5, 2008, David S. Gingras, 3200 N. Central Ave., 20th Fl., Phoenix, AZ, was suspended for 30 days. He was placed on probation for two years and is required to participate in the State Bar’s MemberAssistance Program (MAP). He was also assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Gingras was reinstated effective Feb. 19, 2009. Mr. Gingras was conditionally admitted to the State Bar and required to enter into a MAP con- tract. The MAP contract specified that Mr. Gingras was to completely abstain from using alcohol, other drugs, or any other mood-altering or mind-altering chemicals for three years. Mr. Gingras violated the terms of the MAP contract and was arrested for driving under the influ- ence. Mr. Gingras pled guilty to driving while impaired to the slight- est degree. Three aggravating factors were found: dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and illegal con- duct. Seven mitigating factors were found: absence of prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional prob- lems, timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify conse- quences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward pro- ceedings, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Mr. Gingras violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8.4(b) and Rule 53(g), ARIZ.R.S.CT.
July 16, 201313 yr You are the only one trying to make that argument... I'm just responding to the stories that you throw out here on your website. Gee, I hope she doesn't sue me. :sarcastic:
July 16, 201313 yr Also on this topic, this is from Eric Deters' Facebook page: DAVID GINGRAS-DIRTY.COM LAWYER From- myazbar.org Oct. 2009 DAVID S. GINGRAS Bar No. 021097; File No. 06-2059 Supreme Court No. SB-08-0157-D/R By Arizona Supreme Court judg- ment and order dated Dec. 5, 2008, David S. Gingras, 3200 N. Central Ave., 20th Fl., Phoenix, AZ, was suspended for 30 days. He was placed on probation for two years and is required to participate in the State Bar’s MemberAssistance Program (MAP). He was also assessed the costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Gingras was reinstated effective Feb. 19, 2009. Mr. Gingras was conditionally admitted to the State Bar and required to enter into a MAP con- tract. The MAP contract specified that Mr. Gingras was to completely abstain from using alcohol, other drugs, or any other mood-altering or mind-altering chemicals for three years. Mr. Gingras violated the terms of the MAP contract and was arrested for driving under the influ- ence. Mr. Gingras pled guilty to driving while impaired to the slight- est degree. Three aggravating factors were found: dishonest or selfish motive, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct and illegal con- duct. Seven mitigating factors were found: absence of prior disciplinary record, personal or emotional prob- lems, timely good-faith effort to make restitution or to rectify conse- quences of misconduct, full and free disclosure to disciplinary board or cooperative attitude toward pro- ceedings, character or reputation, imposition of other penalties or sanctions and remorse. Mr. Gingras violated Rule 42, ARIZ.R.S.CT., ER 8.4(b) and Rule 53(g), ARIZ.R.S.CT. Wow surprised he and Deters are not best friends!!!
July 16, 201313 yr Author I'm just responding to the stories that you throw out here on your website. Gee, I hope she doesn't sue me. :sarcastic: Participation is highly encouraged!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.