About Euthanasiast's suspension.

[fisha]

@wring

And I disagree. I don’t think she looks anything like 13. You might think of “CYA”, some one else might not. The nurse may have not acted w/in PP’s guidelines, but to claim that she was breaking the law is BS.

So, if I was a guy, and some chick looked 18, that would be a valid argument for not being charged with statutory rape?

Your attempts to defend this nurse is making you contort your argument beyond recognition.

Besides, this is about **Euthanasiast, **remember?

[Shodan]

@wring

The nurse may have not acted w/in PP’s guidelines, but to claim that she was breaking the law is BS.

Then, to repeat the question, why did she react as she did? If it was so obvious that this was a twenty year old, why did she pretend not to have heard that her sexual partner was so much older? What could possibly be her motive?

You are claiming that she knew it all along, but then her behavior makes no sense at all. Not to mention the fact that she was, in fact, suspended for what she did.

If she knew it was a sting, why didn’t she call them on it? And, more to the point, why didn’t Planned Parenthood back her up?

Regards,
Shodan

[Mr.Moto]

@wring

And I disagree. I don’t think she looks anything like 13. You might think of “CYA”, some one else might not. The nurse may have not acted w/in PP’s guidelines, but to claim that she was breaking the law is BS.

I’m not so sure about this, and you shouldn’t be so sure either.

Steve Vaughn, director of the Indiana Department of Child Services, said child services does not plan to do anything to the employee because there was not an actual minor involved in the incident.

“Since there was no minor involved, that takes us out of the picture,” Vaughn said.
The county prosecutor’s office could also file charges, but no one from the office could be reached for comment by press time.

Bolding mine.

I’ll defer to the legal eagles here - but seems to me the purpose of mandated reporting is to take the burden of decision making off of teachers and coaches and health care providers and let the police and Child Services make the call about whether there was actual abuse or not. And frankly, this only works if it is closely observed. If your professional duties involve reporting, you should be punished if you don’t report.

[wring]

@fisha

So, if I was a guy, and some chick looked 18, that would be a valid argument for not being charged with statutory rape?

Your attempts to defend this nurse is making you contort your argument beyond recognition.

Besides, this is about **Euthanasiast, **remember?

Of course I didn’t say it would be a valid argument for not being charged w/statutory rape.

Mr. Moto quoted a law, claiming it proved the nurse was supposed to have notified some one. and I’m asking ‘why?’ the girl was 20. She didn’t (from the photo) appear to be 13. If I don’t believe a crime has been committed, why would anyone think I should report one?

[wring]

@Mr.Moto

I’m not so sure about this, and you shouldn’t be so sure either.

Bolding mine.

I’ll defer to the legal eagles here - but seems to me the purpose of mandated reporting is to take the burden of decision making off of teachers and coaches and health care providers and let the police and Child Services make the call about whether there was actual abuse or not. And frankly, this only works if it is closely observed. If your professional duties involve reporting, you should be punished if you don’t report.

and she was punished. by her employer. But, no actual child abuse was involved in this case. Or even suspected child abuse. There was a false claim of child abuse (such false claim may be subject to criminal prosecution)

[fisha]

@wring

Of course I didn’t say it would be a valid argument for not being charged w/statutory rape.

Mr. Moto quoted a law, claiming it proved the nurse was supposed to have notified some one. and I’m asking ‘why?’ the girl was 20. She didn’t (from the photo) appear to be 13. If I don’t believe a crime has been committed, why would anyone think I should report one?

She looked 18, officer!

You believing or not believing a crime has been committed is immaterial. Her believing or not believing is immaterial. Why are you being so obtuse?

[wring]

@fisha

She looked 18, officer!

You believing or not believing a crime has been committed is immaterial. Her believing or not believing is immaterial. Why are you being so obtuse?

Are you kidding? I’m 54. If I walked up to you claiming to be a 13 year old having sex w/a 30 year old, you’d call the cops?

[Sapo]

@NineToTheSky

And a big thumbs up (the ass) to Ed for posting to let us know that he is aware of this thread, but not addressing any of it.

Has he? Where? I must have missed it.

Here:

@Ed_Zotti

Clearly this thread is meant for the Pit.

[fisha]

@wring

Are you kidding? I’m 54. If I walked up to you claiming to be a 13 year old having sex w/a 30 year old, you’d call the cops?

Invalid argument.

[Giraffe]

Just to make sure the details are clear, Ed’s post was made when he moved the thread from ATMB to the Pit, i.e. he wasn’t just dropping by to chime in that it was Pitworthy.

(I’m sure this is obvious to everyone, but didn’t want to risk any confusion.)

[Bricker]

@wring

Yes, it’s clear their intention is to have some sexual contact w/underaged person. From the description of the clip there is, to me, not a clear intention of not providing the required notification. From the description, she is visually seeing a 20 year old person who claims to be 13. We also only get a certain amount of the interaction. From those two pieces of data, I do not see sufficient cause to believe that the nurse intended to allow a 13 year old to continue to be involved in a sexual situation w/a 30 year old. which is what the title said. YMMV. She may have been more intent on getting the 20 year old the requested help, w/intent to deal with the ancillary issues in another way, another time.

Did you listen to and watch the clip, or are you relying on a description?

[NineToTheSky]

Sapo:

Originally Posted by Ed Zotti View Post
Clearly this thread is meant for the Pit.

I must say, I didn’t read *that *into his post, but you’ve been proved right. I’m beginning to think that intercourse is not his forte. Thermonuclear attack, and then a quick scurry back to the bunker is more his style.

[JThunder]

@Bricker

Lynn, how many threads here over the past eight years have attacked “Republicans” or “the Bush administration” for the actions of one, or a very few, individuals? How about threads attacking “asshole cops?” Or “fundies,” or any other cognizeable group, when the subject of the thread was a single individual’s actions?

How many of them were closed and the original posters warned about trolling?

Ah, but this one was directed against Planned Parenthood. That’s different.

[wring]

@fisha

Invalid argument.

Why? You seem to be claiming that some one’s perception of reality cannot be used to evaluate a situation. I’m claiming the opposite.

Bricker I’ve said and repeated “from description” etc. cause I cannot watch the video.
From the descriptions of the events, and from the posted picture, I still don’t see where she violated the law. She (apparently) violated PP’s policies and (apparently) has had consequences from that. But I’ve got no problem believing the woman didn’t believe was a crime.

[Sapo]

@Giraffe

Just to make sure the details are clear, Ed’s post was made when he moved the thread from ATMB to the Pit, i.e. he wasn’t just dropping by to chime in that it was Pitworthy.

(I’m sure this is obvious to everyone, but didn’t want to risk any confusion.)

Certainly.

Still, it means that he did read the OP. And his lack of response to it I take to mean that he is not interested in addressing it. Why? That we can only speculate. My take is that it is because he knows there is nothing he can say to make this look better. Lynn screwed up, he screwed up by covering her. If history is any guide, neither will own up to it. Just sit low and let this pass.

[Skywatcher]

@Sapo

And a big thumbs up (the ass) to Ed for posting to let us know that he is aware of this thread, but not addressing any of it.

To be fair, Ed has said he was taking a break from discussing the actions of his staff for a while.

[NineToTheSky]

@Lute Skywatcher

To be fair, Ed has said he was taking a break from discussing the actions of his staff for a while.

So, if you’re a manager of a store and a customer comes in with a complaint about your staff, it’s OK if they’re told that the manager isn’t discussing the actions of his staff at the moment?

[Skywatcher]

Ed went into a self-imposed time out in September after harshly suspending some people. It’s entirely possible he’s still there.

[Shodan]

@Lute Skywatcher

To be fair, Ed has said he was taking a break from discussing the actions of his staff for a while.

As opposed to the frank openness with which all other complaints about bad moderation are addressed?

Regards,
Shodan

[Contrapuntal]

**Euthanasiast **was hosed. He won’t be the last one.