Story from last week: John Burroughs Teacher Arrested For Misconduct With A Minor:
A John Burroughs School teacher is on administrative leave after being arrested for misconduct with a minor.
…. Ladue Police were tipped off by an anonymous call, and a Johns Burroughs’ teacher has since been arrested. Police aren’t releasing his name because he hasn’t been charged yet.
“There was an inappropriate relationship that took place over a 3 year period,” says Detective Andreski. [emphasis added]
Ah, that reliable old anonymous call. Less reliable than the testimony of a cellmate overall.
Later: Burroughs School Still in Shock over Allegations against Teacher:
It is alleged that the teacher had inappropriate contact with a Burroughs student.
Ladue Police said they’re investigating the alleged relationship between the teacher and the student, which could have occured [sic] over a three year period. [Emphasis added.]
Hmm, that seems to hedge a little, doesn’t it?
The story now: Prosecutor: Not Enough Evidence to Charge John Burroughs Teacher:
St. Louis County Prosecutors said there is not enough evidence to file charges against a teacher at a private school in Ladue.
Not that he didn’t do it, but that there wasn’t enough evidence to file charges. Hah! As we’ve seen, there’s often a way to prosecute where something isn’t against the law; is it possible this poor, soon to be jobless teacher actually didn’t do anything?
Of course, if one presumes that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, in the world of law enforcement hemming, prosecutorial hawing, and media rah-rahing, false charges and overeager arresting get footnotes instead of salacious headlines.
It was a reliable call. I just happen to know.
Your points are quite well made in general terms. In this case, however, he is guilty “something,” just not guilty “enough”(according to the legal standards) to be charged with a criminal act.
While the initial arrest did not lead to criminal charges, it will at least have (hopefully) served to scare some sense into this teacher so that he stays away from engaging in any form of romantic interaction with teenagers anymore.
Just sayin’.
Hey, you’re an anonymous poster on the Internet. Your word is bond.
So, what is “something” then?
I’m the mandated reporter that made the hotline. I just preferred not to identify myself in this particular arena.
The “something” is the three year romance the guy had with his teenage student. I guess a person’s opinion of whether or not this was “wrong” could hinge on a few points: 1) how “sexual” is defined in a romantic relationship 2)whether or not you agree that a 35 year old man should not have engaged in a romantic relationship with a 13 year old regardless of whether it was sexual or not, or whether the sexual part could be proven with enough evidence 3) whether or not your opinions of “right” and “wrong” depend solely on the definitions of the law (keeping in mind that the legal system does have it shortfalls) 4) whether or not you endorse the norms of our society regardless of the laws
I did what the law required me to do when . I had firsthand knowledge of the relationship. Whether or not he was charged, I think the arrest served a good purpose as it may have at least put an end to the relationship with this child, thus protecting her, and hopefully it scared some sense into the teacher so that he will not engage in relationships like this again.
You’ve left off a crucial definition. What is a romantic relationship? Long walks in the moonlight? Exchanging class rings? Encouragement, pats on the arm, a couple hugs? Long, florid notes on looseleaf paper?
Hey, Burroughs students and teachers write concise well-crafted notes only!