Hardin County Teacher Indicted for Improper Relationship With a Student

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[bullets13]

She was a year ahead of me in high school, and was always a little different.  I'll never understand these stories about 40 year-old women sleeping with 12 year-old students, but I guess it's not any different than men who do the same.  

[AggiesAreWe]

10 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

She was a year ahead of me in high school, and was always a little different.  I'll never understand these stories about 40 year-old women sleeping with 12 year-old students, but I guess it's not any different than men who do the same.  

Was there actually physical contact in this case because all I have heard was sending nude pics and sexting?

[bullets13]

24 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Was there actually physical contact in this case because all I have heard was sending nude pics and sexting?

I haven't heard.  Either way, the same holds true.  I'll never understand these stories about 40 year-old women sending nude pics to 12-year-old students. I guess it's not any different than men who do the same. 

[thetragichippy]

54 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I haven't heard.  Either way, the same holds true.  I'll never understand these stories about 40 year-old women sending nude pics to 12-year-old students. I guess it's not any different than men who do the same. 

I would say kinda the same. The outrage of an adult Man fooling around with a 12 year old girl  is much different than an adult woman fooling around with a 12 year old boy.

Her Facebook is still up (yea, I as curious) and apparently she has a Son about that same age......NOT a good look. 

[Hagar]

I wonder if it’s always been this bad or if we’re only finding out about it now?  Since it’s obviously going to come out, how stupid do you have to be?  Good grief.

[tvc184]

8 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Was there actually physical contact in this case because all I have heard was sending nude pics and sexting?

She is charged with Improper Relationship Between Educator/Student which requires “contact” at a minimum.

The charges at the very least has to show probable cause (the minimum to indict/accuse, not to convict which is beyond a reasonable doubt) of some type of sexual contact. Sexual contact by criminal law definition is contacting the breast or crotch area.

 The contact can be in either direction. It can be the educator doing the touching or the student touching the educator.

So if a teacher said, do you want to touch my _________ and the student did, it is sexual contact. Even if there were no words exchanged but the teacher was being suggestive and “allowed” himself/herself to be touched, it's the same crime.

In that particular crime, there has to be context from one party to the other  

Only as an example, if the student was at least 17 and therefore an adult, practically anything would be legal except for the educator/student relationship.

So if the educator and a (at least) 17 year old student were starting to get the hots each other, if the educator quit and took a different job not with the school, they could then have a scorching and intimate relationship and it with be legal.

 I think parts of that law are wrong because it requires no authority over the student. A 20 year old student teacher in the math department could get into a relationship with an 18 year old student who isn’t taking any math classes in the final year before graduating and it is a felony. A 60 year old guy working across the street could start a relationship with the a 17 year old at the school and it is no crime. So 20-18 years olds are having a relationship (which seems normal) and it is a felony but 60-17 year olds are having the same relationship and it is nothing. 

 I understand the intent but it is not necessarily a child victim issue. 

[tvc184]

ALSO…..

I keep seeing the reference to a 12 year old. I didn’t see that if the article.

BECAUSE…..

If the student was under 17, the same touching would automatically be Indecency with a Child at a minimum.

 I see that they filed two counts of Improper Relationship only. If they were going to stack charges and the student was under 17, why not file the additional charges for it being a child and not just s student? With any penetration on either party with any body part or object and if the student is under 14, it is a First Degree felony and up to 99 years.  

[TxHoops]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

ALSO…..

I keep seeing the reference to a 12 year old. I didn’t see that if the article.

BECAUSE…..

If the student was under 17, the same touching would automatically be Indecency with a Child at a minimum.

 I see that they filed two counts of Improper Relationship only. If they were going to stack charges and the student was under 17, why not file the additional charges for it being a child and not just s student? With any penetration on either party with any body part or object and if the student is under 14, it is a First Degree felony and up to 99 years.  

This.  My guess is the students (at her old school, Lumberton), were seniors.  And maybe I’m sexist but I have a hard time crying crocodile tears for 17 or 18 year old boys getting nekkid pics of a teacher.  

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

This.  My guess is the students (at her old school, Lumberton), were seniors.  And maybe I’m sexist but I have a hard time crying crocodile tears for 17 or 18 year old boys getting nekkid pics of a teacher.  

That and it is completely legal if it was the same people outside of being an educator.

I understand the potential corruption as in, do this for me and I will change your grades.

 The law however doesn’t differentiate between people in those positions. 

[bullets13]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That and it is completely legal if it was the same people outside of being an educator.

I understand the potential corruption as in, do this for me and I will change your grades.

 The law however doesn’t differentiate between people in those positions. 

I read tonight that she was inappropriately snap chatting them, and is accused of attempting to receive child pornography from them.  So they must be under 17.  Also, I thought that if the educator and the student are at different districts then the law didn’t apply if they’re of legal age, because the teacher doesn’t have the position of authority over them, but I guess I was wrong. 

[tvc184]

9 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I read tonight that she was inappropriately snap chatting them, and is accused of attempting to receive child pornography from them.  So they must be under 17.  Also, I thought that if the educator and the student are at different districts then the law didn’t apply if they’re of legal age, because the teacher doesn’t have the position of authority over them, but I guess I was wrong. 

It makes me wonder. If I remember correctly, it doesn’t apply to a teacher from another district unless they are involved in a school activity. An example would be a UIL Speech and Debate tournament competition at a school. If a teacher from School A hooks up with a student from School B, this law applies. 

But…

She might have been snap chatting which might be incidental to the indictment or yet to be filed if a child.

Also, child pornography is a person under 18 by state and federal law. So while the age of consent is 17, the age of lewd photography isn’t. Of course if that was the case, it should have been filed under that law and not improper relationship. 

Also…

I haven’t read anything of details of the case but it might not have been a current year student in her current district.

 With knowing nothing of the situation but playing what if…

Let’s say that prior to 2022 she was teaching in another district. There was a relationship with an adult student (at least 17) in that district. A year or two (or 3, 4….) later it is discovered. It is so within the statute of limitations. People might assume that if she is teaching at a school right not that the victim has to be in that school.

Have they released any details such as a current year same district student? I am just speculating on what laws may apply. I would even go as far as saying if it was just an arrest, an officer might have made a mistake on the proper charge. Since it was an indictment, it was presented by the DA to the grand jury. 

[bullets13]

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

It makes me wonder. If I remember correctly, it doesn’t apply to a teacher from another district unless they are involved in a school activity. An example would be a UIL Speech and Debate tournament competition at a school. If a teacher from School A hooks up with a student from School B, this law applies. 

But…

She might have been snap chatting which might be incidental to the indictment or yet to be filed if a child.

Also, child pornography is a person under 18 by state and federal law. So while the age of consent is 17, the age of lewd photography isn’t. Of course if that was the case, it should have been filed under that law and not improper relationship. 

Also…

I haven’t read anything of details of the case but it might not have been a current year student in her current district.

 With knowing nothing of the situation but playing what if…

Let’s say that prior to 2022 she was teaching in another district. There was a relationship with an adult student (at least 17) in that district. A year or two (or 3, 4….) later it is discovered. It is so within the statute of limitations. People might assume that if she is teaching at a school right not that the victim has to be in that school.

Have they released any details such as a current year same district student? I am just speculating on what laws may apply. I would even go as far as saying if it was just an arrest, an officer might have made a mistake on the proper charge. Since it was an indictment, it was presented by the DA to the grand jury. 

Yeah, the only thing that makes sense to me is that the Snapchats were discovered and it led to the discovery of a prior relationship from when she was at lumberton.  

[tvc184]

58 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Yeah, the only thing that makes sense to me is that the Snapchats were discovered and it led to the discovery of a prior relationship from when she was at lumberton.  

That is what I am thinking. It might all tie in together (if it is even true)  as part of an investigation but not necessarily a crime.

Is this reported somewhere or people’s speculations or people saying “I heard”?

[bullets13]

31 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

That is what I am thinking. It might all tie in together (if it is even true)  as part of an investigation but not necessarily a crime.

Is this reported somewhere or people’s speculations or people saying “I heard”?

I read about the snapchats in a news article.  Will see if I can find it 

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

@tvc184

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

@tvc184

I am going to talk about investigations in general.

For probable cause to exist as documented in an affidavit after an arrest made without a warrant (which is probably 90+% of arrests) or an affidavit to request a warrant, each step of discovery or authority by the officer must be documented.

As an example: If an officer in an affidavit for a DWI arrest says, “I was on patrol and stopped a vehicle. The driver appeared intoxicated and I blah blah blah and arrested him”.

That is not sufficient and not a lawfully documented arrest even if the guy was drunk as a skunk. The reason is because the officer detained a guy under the Fourth Amendment but does not justify the detention. “I stopped a guy” says absolutely nothing that would justify a detention as a suspected crime. A person can only be detained if an officer has details that led the officer to believe that a specific crime is about to be committed, is being committed or was just committed. 

A correct justification for a detention might be like, “I was on patrol at 2am and sitting in the parking lot of Walgreen’s at 11th St and College St. in Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. I could clearly see the north bound traffic lights on 11th St and all of them were red. A vehicle traveling north on 11th St went through the red light without stopping and continued north. I then stopped the vehicle for running the red light and blah, blah, blah.

 That justifies under oath a reason for the detention.

 For this investigation (or any), to justify an arrest either without a warrant like an officer answering a call, with a warrant signed by a judge or with a warrant after an indictment by a grand jury, it must be shown how the information came under investigation and then how any evidence was lawfully discovered. So how did the police start this investigation? Did a student report a text to the principal and the principal called the police? Did a student go directly to an officer? Did a teacher happen to walk by and saw what was happening on a text and called the police?

There are plenty of possibilities but whatever it was, it has to be documented and sworn to in a probable cause (PC) affidavit on how it came to the police department’s attention. 

A PC affidavit doesn’t have to list specific details. It has to give enough of the information to be convincing to the definition of PC. All PC affidavits and arrest or search warrants are public information and less details are needed so it is usually better for investigative purposes to not divulge every detail that may be known to the police. Like I could say that I responded to a call of a shooting and found a man with at least one gunshot wound. EMS arrived and could not revive the man and a justice of the peace pronounced him dead at the scene. I would not need to say any details like the man had 3 gunshot wounds to the chest and 9mm shell cases were found nearby. That kind of detail simply is not needed to believe the guy is dead and justify an arrest for murder if a suspect is located before a warrant can be obtained.

So….. going out on a limb which might be completely wrong…

It would be plausible that a PC affidavit in a case like this would say that at some point officers found that texts were being sent which led to a voluntary interview with a student who said that blah blah texting and blah blah touching and….. 

Any of those details used to justify any police or grand jury actions, would become public information from a PC affidavit. So if the police were notified that a teacher was sending inappropriate but not necessarily illegal texts and that was the reason for other investigations, it would need to be documented in the public affidavit. 

So a reporter says, there was mention of blah blah…..

 That is likely completely true from the affidavit however those listed details might not in themselves be a crime. They just show the sequence of events that led to the conclusion by the officers.

I am guessing that a reporter read the PC and noted parts that of it without context.  

[CardinalBacker]

I just feel sorry for the victim here.  He's probably gonna need to have his rotator cuff repaired eventually because of everybody high-fiving him every where he goes. 

[TxHoops]

On 10/17/2022 at 9:41 AM, CardinalBacker said:

I just feel sorry for the victim here.  He's probably gonna need to have his rotator cuff repaired eventually because of everybody high-fiving him every where he goes. 

Don’t forget carpal tunnel.  And the worst might not surface for years.  I was told arthritis of the wrist is a real danger…

[bullets13]

It’s always been a tough one for me.  As an educator, the thought of a teacher sleeping with a student, whether male or female is highly disturbing.  I don’t teach older grades, but the thought of doing something like that would never be a consideration.  It’s disgusting.  But thinking back to when I was 16-17 years old, there were a couple of teachers that I would’ve happily obliged, and there would’ve been no long term damage to my psyche or well being. 

[Dirty_but_Dazzling]

I read just the other day(I will search back to try and find the article) that in the USA in 2022 alone there has been 900 & something cases of educator/student involvement. I had my wife read it to make sure I was seeing it correctly.

😳

[tvc184]

31 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

I read just the other day(I will search back to try and find the article) that in the USA in 2022 alone there has been 900 & something cases of educator/student involvement. I had my wife read it to make sure I was seeing it correctly.

😳

In the entire nation?

[Dirty_but_Dazzling]

as we speak about the topic look at what's happened in Cleveland.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

The likely difference between these cases is the age of the students. 

We don’t know because the public probable cause affidavits haven’t been made public by  the media. All probable cause affidavits are public information. The media could easily shed some light on either case. They generally will not in today’s world and rarely do any investigative reporting. Reporting  now is usually off of police press releases. When they do any actual reporting, they never ask pertinent questions.