L.A. Schools Argue Girl, 14, Legally Consented to Sex With Teacher, 28

Posted on | November 14, 2014 | 88 Comments

Love and lawyers and “education” in the 21st century:

Los Angeles Unified School District lawyers fighting a civil lawsuit argued in court that a 14-year-old middle school student was mature enough to consent to having sex with her 28-year-old teacher, and that she bore some responsibility for what happened. The district’s attorneys also introduced the girl’s sexual history into the trial as part of their defense strategy. . . .
Last November’s case involved a math teacher at Thomas Edison Middle School in Southeast Los Angeles who in December 2010 began a six-month sexual relationship with a girl who went to the school. The teacher, Elkis Hermida, was convicted of lewd acts against a child and sentenced in July 2011 to three years in state prison.
The girl’s family filed a civil lawsuit against L.A. Unified, claiming the district was negligent and the experience had emotionally damaged the girl, endangering any future romantic relationships she might have.
During the three week civil trial, district lawyers denied that L.A. Unified had any knowledge of the relationship, argued the girl knew what she was doing when she chose to have sex with Hermida and suggested the girl was to blame for her situation, not LAUSD.
“She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher,” said Keith Wyatt, L.A. Unified’s trial attorney in the case, in an interview with KPCC. “She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn’t she be responsible for that?”

(Hat-tip: Yid With Lid.) Today’s lesson is brought to you by the letter “L” for “lawyer.” Remember, L rhymes with Hell, which is where evil liberal lawyers — and the selfish unionized perverts who run public schools — have been leading our society for many years.

It's official: LOS ANGELES SCHOOLS ARE PRO-PEDOPHILE http://t.co/G57wMo6Qqa via @yidwithlid cc @jmattbarber @RobertKnight17

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 13, 2014

Category: California, Crime, Education, Liberals, Sex

Comments

88 Responses to “L.A. Schools Argue Girl, 14, Legally Consented to Sex With Teacher, 28”

Anon Y. Mous
November 14th, 2014 @ 6:26 pm

If a 14 yo is old enough to consent to an abortion, without the parents even being notified, then she must be old enough to consent to the sex in the first place. After all, if an abortion “clinician” is capable of determining that the minor is capable of informed consent, then surely our top notch educators are capable of determining the same before they provide their “service”. It’s only logical. Right?

http://californiaabortionlaw.com/wp/?page_id=74
RS
November 14th, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

I’m not sure about California, but in my jurisdiction, an employer is liable for the negligent acts of an employee committed in the scope and course of employment, I.e. job description, without regard to independent negligence on the part of the employer. However, employers are not normally liable for intentional torts of employees committed on the job, because, by definition, such intentional bad acts are not within the course and scope of the job duties. That’s why the parents had to allege some sort of independent negligence on the school district’s part. Statutory rape is an intentional tort.

My guess is, the District is attempting to show that he teacher’s behavior was so circumspect and the girl refused to come forward, such that the district had no actual or constructive knowledge of what was going on. Liability only attaches once one knows or has reason to know that injury or damage to another is likely.
Trespassers W
November 14th, 2014 @ 6:52 pm

Tar. Feathers. Rail.
Zohydro
November 14th, 2014 @ 8:42 pm

Just as well… While the reason for the court’s decision is an outrage in itself, this suit was about money that would ultimately come from taxpayers pockets! The perv did his time, will never teach again, and is a registered SO for life… Justice is done!
Daniel Freeman
November 14th, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

Thanks, I was about to give them undue credit for at least being consistent with how they treat women that screw their students, but no. They were just being consistently self-interested.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 14th, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

The shameless bastards arguing that should be horsewhipped.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 14th, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

The school district is trying to lower their civil exposure to the absued minor…by blaming the minor. And these lawyers are almost certainly insurance defense lawyers paid for by the school’s insurance company or joint pool coverage fund.
Käthe
November 14th, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

I know you can’t tell by looking…but this one LOOKS like a pervert. I need brain bleach to get that smug mug out of my head.
darleenclick
November 14th, 2014 @ 9:44 pm

Couple of points of order … this is a CIVIL suit and any award to plaintiffs can be reduced by the percentage that the plaintiff contributed to the injury.

e.g. rear collision auto accident — usually the person running into the other is 100% liable — UNLESS the person in front did something like deliberately cutting in front & slamming brakes in order cause the collision.

CA criminal law has a “illegal sex with minor” premised on that legal minors (up to 17 years 364 days old) cannot consent to sex, but not all sex of post-pubescent minors = rape. Law was passed specifically to kick to the curb the cases where high school sweethearts where one is just over the 18 y/o old line and one just under end up in court after being caught on lover’s lane in the back seat of the car.

In essence, the law recognizes that some minors CAN give conditional consent to sex.

The guy was convicted and sent to state prison, as he should have been. But civil court is different from criminal court.
Federale
November 14th, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

Are you saying there are no sluts and tramps in the LAUSD? I think that it is LAUSD policy to accept trampy and slutty behavior from students of either sex or any age.
Steve Skubinna
November 14th, 2014 @ 10:44 pm

So their argument boils down to, literally, “The bitch was asking for it?”

See, it’s 99% of the lawyers that give the rest a bad name.
theoldsargesays
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:11 pm

I hate having to say it but…..

I’m thinking that a good portion of those in favor of a 14 year-old’s “right” to a hassle free choice to have an abortion would be in favor of her “right” to choose whomever she wants to get her that way in the first place.
DeadMessenger
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

I know I sound like a broken record, but, if a perv looks at porn involving underage minors and gets caught, sentencing guidelines start at 10 years. If a perv actually has sex with the underage minor, the perv gets 3 years? I’m not really understanding the reasoning here.
M. Thompson
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:28 pm

I know an attorney who thinks Insurance Defense is his ticket to hell.
Adobe_Walls
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:43 pm

Excellent point, it’s like having an abortion exception for rape but no death penalty for rape.
chicagorefugee
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:49 pm

Let me lay out a possible justification:

A perv who has sex with a minor has harmed the minor in question – creepy pseudo-academic justifications aside.

A perv who looks at underage porn has not only participated to some extent in the harm to that minor, but has encouraged and incentivized harm to other, future, minors as well.

That, at least, is my take on it.
Zohydro
November 14th, 2014 @ 11:49 pm

Perhaps it is because the perv can only harm one child at a time, but the pornographer and his market are a monstrous horde that harms thousands upon thousands, again and again and again!

I might add: Where did the “10 years” come from? Certainly not Kalifornia!

http://theothermccain.com/2014/01/25/famous-gay-rights-activist-now-also-famous-for-child-pornography-habits/

And this perv still gets to keep his pension!
Adjoran
November 15th, 2014 @ 1:07 am

Now we’re getting into True Libertine Philosophy.

Why stop at 14? Why not 6?
Adjoran
November 15th, 2014 @ 1:11 am

Lawyers are like whores, only without the moral standards.
Durasim
November 15th, 2014 @ 2:22 am

They’re not the only state organization to use that argument.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/justice/woman-blamed-for-her-rape/
Daniel Freeman
November 15th, 2014 @ 3:11 am

I’m starting to think that you’re right.
Daniel Freeman
November 15th, 2014 @ 3:15 am

That’s the disturbing part. They either reject or don’t understand the reasons for making rape statutory in the first place, so their limits are undefined.
Fail Burton
November 15th, 2014 @ 4:06 am

I’m sure he’ll marry her and become the governor of Calif. and we’re all just jumping to conclusions and I expect asteroids to impact the earth any day now.
Guest
November 15th, 2014 @ 8:51 am

Folks, listen, it’s OK….The Guy isn’t white.
RS
November 15th, 2014 @ 9:25 am

I always find it amusing to see “lawyers are evil” comments to stories like this. Everyone thinks that . . . until s/he thinks there’s been a miscarriage of justice in his/her own situation. Then it’s “Cry havoc release the dogs of war!”

Darleen above says it well. This is a civil case. Unless he was boinking the kid in the school building, the question is whether there was any information from which the school could determine there was a sexual relationship between the two. Did the girl’s parents know? If not, why not? If not, why should the school district know? The parents presumably want millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Why is it inappropriate to ask these questions or to use the defenses the law allows everyone to minimize one’s exposure.

As for the dislike of “insurance defense” lawyers, who is it who stands up and contests all the bull-shit neck claims which exist in this country, which claims are facilitated by endless “have you been injured in an auto accident?” commercials, which commericals promise boatloads of cash for minimal injuries? Insurance companies could just write checks, I suppose, but then we’d all be paying triple or more for coverage. Conservatives should be supporting fault-based systems of tort liability because those systems are better for the economy, not to mention make personal responsibility a prime component to determining whether someone gets rich off of some misfortune.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:09 am

Repeated punches to his face might help too.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

The lawyer won the case for the school district doing that…but they say they won’t use him again as an attorney.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:39 am

Hey, who do you think you are, the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him)?
Smith
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

This is a touchy subject, because so many people have daughters (even me she is 16yrs old). But I have to say that a person must judged on the person, not a blanket age limit. I know people who are as old as me and older who still act like they did as a kid, I would say that they still have not reached the age to consent. At the same time I have seen kids that could set down and have a much more adult confersation with you than alot of so called adultes.
Just because your 18 does not make you a safey driver, or a responsable adult. And being 14 does not mean that your stupied and do not know what your doing when your haveing sex.
G Joubert
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

Based on the outcome alone I somehow just knew intuitively the perv perp was not a white anglo-saxon male. Funny that. When you think about it, this case is not too different than Rotherham.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:45 am

But as KPCC points out, the age of consent isn’t as clear cut in civil cases. “Critics of the Los Angeles Unified School District just wish it weren’t a school district that exploited the discrepancy. Meanwhile, Wyatt’s quote has caused so much outrage that the district says it will no longer use him for legal matters, reports”

Well they won’t use that attorney again, small justice in that!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Lt7Gi22aB1E/VGdia-6mupI/AAAAAAAAoBQ/L0d30Gpgs60/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2014-11-15%2Bat%2B6.24.24%2BAM.png
From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:53 am

[…] Other McCain: L.A. Schools Argue Girl, 14, Legally Consented to Sex With Teacher, 28 Well, of course they do! It isn’t because they actually think that, but because they are […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:57 am

Gawker has a pretty good article on this too (go figure) but it confirms this: “A jury ultimately decided that the school was not liable in the suit. The girl’s lawyer reportedly plans to appeal the decision.”
Matthew W
November 15th, 2014 @ 10:58 am

Until you need one
JeffS
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:04 am

“It’s only logical. Right?”

“Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if
it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

Lewis Carroll anticipated Libertarians, hey?
JeffS
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:05 am

“It’s only logical. Right?”

“Contrariwise,’ continued Tweedledee, ‘if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

Lewis Carroll anticipated Libertarians, hey??
JeffS
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:06 am

No. Rope.
ZZZZZZZZ
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:08 am

zzzzzzzzzzzz…..
Fail Burton
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:15 am

He’s a teacher. It’s not anything goes or they’d have a home room with stripper poles for the more “mature” girls.
Art Deco
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:24 am

Unless the two of were canoodling on school property or there were red flags ignored by school personnel, I cannot see how the district is properly liable unless California tort law is an ass (which it may be). This girl’s mother smells of that cheap cologne, Eau de Grifter.

You have to have an age of consent incorporated into criminal law and prosecutions for statutory rape. That this girl was used by this teacher-lecher does not establish that the youngster in question is (in realms other than criminal law) free of corrupt or disgusting motives. Girls of 14 are often unpleasant and unedifying.
Art Deco
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:26 am

Logical consistency is a tool of the patriarchy.
Art Deco
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:31 am

If a perv actually has sex with the underage minor, the perv gets 3 years? I’m not really understanding the reasoning here.

The market for pornography is predominantly male. The market for nookie with youths of 15 is mixed. The reasoning is that the the sensibilities of women are important and the sensibilities of others are not, so there have to be conduits for the law to treat their sexual disorders with a certain economia (and to treat any intangible injury to their adolescent bed mate as a matter of scant consequence).
Smith
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:35 am

you are corrected in that he was a teacher, but wrongful behaver is not the same charge as there putting on him. There is a big differance from being fired and being sent to prison.
Art Deco
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:39 am

1. The appellate judges who fancy we’re all just serfs without the franchise to govern ourselves are utterly repulsive. So are the law professors who provide them with their excuse kits. So are their shallow smart-assed clerks.

2. Even more repulsive are public prosecutors happy to railroad innocents (and the judges who let them) and threaten bankruptcy to anyone who defends their rights.

3. Deeply disturbing are the characters who gave you ‘entrepreneurial’ megafirms like Katten Muchen. Who stands a chance against Monster Big Law? (Whose junior associates are all happy to do pro bono work providing cases for appellate judges to abuse the public trust).

4. The public interest bar is shot through with appalling characters as well (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
Evi L. Bloggerlady
November 15th, 2014 @ 11:44 am

I am sure the lawyers in the Brian Singer case are looking long and hard at this decision. We can’t be holding the Industry liable for molesting underage kids, it could have a negative impact on business.
Steve Skubinna
November 15th, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

Why would you need a lawyer? To protect you from another lawyer, right? Hardly a solid defense.
RKae
November 15th, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

I disagree.

One law; one line. That makes it so we all know where it is. Don’t cross it. Period. Find something else to do for a hobby.

When you start fudging the line “for the person,” then what other laws can we do that with?
RKae
November 15th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

See: you’re no good at being a lefty. Incrementalism must be done slowly!

Or as Eric Idle the street merchant in “Life of Brian” would say, “No, no, no! Now you go to 13 and half!”
RKae
November 15th, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

Well, here’s RKae the broken record again!

When dealing with child rape…

1.) Was it a priest? “Automatically guilty! Disgusting pervert!”
2.) Was it a public school teacher? “Hey! Kids are a lot more sophisticated these days!”

3.) Was it a satanist? “False memory syndrome! An over-zealous therapist planted those memories!”
4.) Was it a billionaire or celebrity? “…” [Whistle, look the other way.]
Smith
November 15th, 2014 @ 2:44 pm

First you have to ask yourself if there is a crime when there is no victims! Law’s should stop protect the people from voilent people. Murder,rape, thief are all crimes with victims. Prisons are built to keep these people behind bars and high walls to protect us from them. What happins with blanket laws is that our prisons are full of victimless so called crimes. The people that we should be protected from make up a very small population of the prison system. In the case of this teacher, he broke a code of conduct and should be fired and bared from teaching ever agine, but it does not sound like the girl was a victim.