Sorry, couldn't do it, I don't swing that way.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/2682381/detail.html

A nice change from the insanity plea that everyone feels compelled to throw at some point.

What a bunch of bollocks. He should have his sick ass thrown in the slam.

Just going out on a limb, but what if he's telling the truth?

that's what i was thinking. =/

Does that excuse his actions in any way?

And it sounds kinda fishy, you know.......am I the only one in thinking that he played the gay card to cover his ass?

Even if he *were* homosexual, he ought to do the same time.

huh? if he's telling the truth that he is gay and didn't do it then what actions are you talking about?

That wasn't what the point I was trying to make. What I was saying was that he managed to find a way to inveigle himself out of this mess by saying he was gay; the fact that the jury did not convict means that they bought his story, not that he was innocent of said crime.

That's my take, anyway. Flame away.

I wonder if the "Gay" plea would work for traffic violations?

What actions? What evidence is there that he did anything wrong? The cops do make mistakes every now and again.

...if there was evidence that he did not do it there would be no need for the "gay" defense. By this rational I guess all those priests could claim that they were straight so touching those alter boys could not have happened.....what bullshit.

Besides, it is common knowledge that rapists and molesters are acting more on a sense of power than sexual gratification.

Apparently the point you were trying to make is that your judgement is better than that of 12 jurors and a judge based near as I can tell on the inflamatory nature of the charges and a whopping two paragraphs from a TV stations website.

Way to from a rational objective opinion there, chief.

15 seconds on Google would have told you that the fishy part of this story had nothing whatsoever to do with the accused and everything to do with the fact that the "victims" waited 21/2 years to come forward, there was no forensic eveidnce, their stories were inconsistant, there was no supporting evidence whatsoever, their police statements were not recorded, evidence of their testimony was lost, one of the girls had an unrequited crush on the guy,even after the first girl told her parents they contacted a civil attorney about a suit three days before they bother to call the cops, and shock of shocks, he appears to actually be gay.

For your reading list.

"Glazer smiled with relief after the verdict and said outside the courtroom that he "loved" his lawyer and the jury"

Did this strike anyone else as a very "Fox News" way of putting it.?

heh. reprobate is brilliant..... well, sometimes. =]

Awwwww. I thought it was just that he said he was gay. There goes my crimewave.

Whoa! Quite the rush to judgement on this guy, given that he was ACQUITTED by a jury. Without having sat through the trial, I'd be reluctant to annoint myself judge, jury, ( or executioner ).

Having said that, I think that teachers are in a very vulnerable position for these types of accusations. A lawyer friend ( who represents teachers on these types of charges) has suggested that the police are more or less compelled to file charges when a complaint is made. His take on the actual culpability of those charged:

45% are completely innocent. Young girls can be vindictive at times and its an easy charge to make ( see: Salem Witch trials).

45% are middle aged schmucks who respond inappropriately to flirting, advances, or crushes. Essentially, they succumb to temptation when they ought to know better. Usually one time offenders who always get caught.

10% are sexual predators plain and simple.

For the most part it's a lot harder to prove a negative than to prove a postitive. Perhaps thats why we have "innocent until PROVEN guilty" as a central tenet of our judicial system. I always find it interesting when folks hear of a "not guilty" decision and immediately assume that an injustice has occurred. I also notice that this tends to be more prevalent (althought by no means exclusive) in cases involving sexual violence by men against women or children. I'm still trying to process what that might mean... maybe someone could help me out with that one... whether rapists and molesters operate more out of this motivation or another is really immaterial to this discussion.

He did it or he didn't do it. A jury heard two (inevitably unequal) parties argue the case adversarially, and at the end of the day, came back with a "not guilty" verdict. Maybe they got it right, maybe they got it wrong... but to assume they were wrong based on this article hardly seems fair.

just my two cents.

Point taken well. My mistake : I should have done my research on this one. Apologies to Clara, Ava, and reprobate; and to myself, for being an ass.

Thanks for the 'reading list', reprobate.

Sounds about right IME.