Judge must think "Lolita" is about a slut

[DinoR]

@gigi

Sorry, but do you mind moving a little farther away from me?

Friends getting jealous? I know how bad girls get.

[Nocturne]

@DinoR

Friends getting jealous? I know how bad girls get.

So bad, it makes me cry.

[Drunky_Smurf]

Too bad BigT doesn’t post in the Pit anymore. This kind of thing was right up his RO alley.

[Lemur866]

@BigT

I’m also not sure how you guys think this is misleading. The lawyer did in fact argue in his case that this was the girl’s fault, and the judge agreed. I pointed out that this was not a legal but civil case. I even flat out said he had already been convicted.

The point is, according to the article, the judgement seems to rest on the idea that she was civilly culpable for something she couldn’t legally consent to. That’s fucking insane.

If that’s not it, and the judge was just speaking off the cuff, I still think it’s insane that such a judge is allowed to practice. And don’t get me started on the lawyer.

You want to say the school isn’t responsible? Fine. Then your only choice is that the convict is responsible. You cannot think the girl is responsible. Fuck that victim blaming.

I think you’re hilariously confusing the words of L.A. Unified’s defense attorney W. Keith Wyatt with the words of the judge, who isn’t even named in this article, let alone quoted. The only person quoted in the article is Wyatt, who IS NOT THE JUDGE, but is the defense attorney. And his statement where he blamed the victim was during a radio interview, not in court. If you want to argue that the defense attorney is an asshole, by all means go the fuck ahead.

But just because the judge didn’t rule in favor of the plaintiff doesn’t mean he agreed with each and every statement made by the defense attorney, either in court or out of court. The judge didn’t order the district to pay damages to Hermida’s victim, that’s all. Whether the judge thought the victim was a whore or not is unclear from the article, but just because the defense attorney accused the victim of being a whore doesn’t necessarily mean the judge agreed.

You didn’t exactly read for comprehension here, did you?

[Lemur866]

So I guess this conversation is over now.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Your_Great_Darsh_Face

So the teacher has already, very properly, been punished for lewd acts with a minor, and this is a separate case in which the girl is trying to get some money for herself, and the judge applies the law as it actually is and not as you think it ought to be? I can see why you’d be outraged.

Where are you getting “judge applies the law as it actually is” from? Is that an assumption, your legal opinion, or something you read elsewhere?

@The_Joker_and_the_Thief

Wow, talk about a misleading OP. You could’ve mentioned that the teacher is already in prison, or that the current lawsuit is over the girl suing the school district for money.

The OP clearly noted that the teacher had been convicted. It’s also fairly obvious to anyone who is fully awake that this is a civil action since the school district is the defendant.

@Freudian_Slit

I think saying it was her “fault” is a bit charged, but it does sound like there is no basis on which the district was responsible, because there was nothing the school could have done to prevent it. I don’t know that I agree with all the language the judge used, but it sounds like it was the fault of this one teacher, not a failure of the system or school.

Negligent hiring or retention. As a general rule, employers are liable for torts committed by employees “in the course and scope of employment”. Obviously sex isn’t part of the job but in some jurisdictions such things are deemed to occur in the course and scope if the relationship arises from the employment. California may or may not be one such. In other jurisdictions, if the employee has a criminal record or the employer has reason to believe the employee is a danger, the employer can be vicariously liable.