Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Good grief. This isn't a story. Tell the idiot who overindulged and passed out in a room full of drunks to grow a thicker skin.

Posted by: eponymous rex | October 13, 2009 12:16 PM

She said that in order to address this situation, it may be time for legislators to create a new law, although she hopes law enforcement will use laws already available to them.

The story gets worse the more I read. We don't need a new law. This isn't a crime. It's a joke. Will the teachers that wrote 'boobies' on her leg now have to register as sex offenders? Would I have had to because in the back of the bus on the way back from a swim meet in high-school, I wrote "Citizen Dildo" on a friend's forehead?

What irony of ironies that Ed's work as a journalist might help to expand the already overblown and over-broad "sex offender" registration law in the U.S.. These teachers can suffer the same fate as the 19 year old high-school senior who got caught with his 17 year old high school junior girlfriend, or the law-abiding computer programmer who was cited for urinating in public - all of which now spend rest of their lives on the new improved draconian Megan's list.

Posted by: Eponymous rex | October 13, 2009 12:25 PM

srsly, are people making the argument that "she asked for it"? wtf?

no one should drink until they pass out, but passing out does not give someone else the right to *deface* your body or any other such thing.

you can prosecute if someone defaces property (graffiti), but you can't prosecute if someone defaces... you.

property > people?

Posted by: wtf | October 13, 2009 12:42 PM

She needed a wash. Thats it.

And someone who was groped doesn't even need that. Yet that is still an assault.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 12:51 PM

Seriously? You want to equate drawing with a grope? Really?

What the guys did was stupid, it was mean, but to make it criminal? That would be ridiculous.

Posted by: Donalbain | October 13, 2009 12:56 PM

Two male teachers take an openly lesbian fellow teacher when she passes out and write crude sexual comments all over her body in permanent marker?

Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 13, 2009 1:03 PM

I'd say that writing on somebody's body without their consent, especially their upper thighs and stomach, is a grope. I fail to see why it matters whether you're touching them with your hands or a marker.

I also fail to see why it's relevant that she's a lesbian-- it wouldn't be any more okay if she weren't.

“I think that this is a whole other level of sexual harassment and sexual assault that’s disturbing,” Murgittroyd said. “It’s just another form of humiliation, you know, someone taking power and control over some one in a degrading way to humiliate them. I don’t see it as funny or a joke. … [W]hen you start removing clothing and drawing on parts of the body that are very private, if you are touching those parts of the body and somebody is not giving you consent to do that, that is sexual assault. That is criminal sexual conduct in the state of Michigan.”

That about sums it up for me. Sure, a lot of people might take this kind of thing as a joke-- but just because somebody's willing to laugh off being sexually harassed or assaulted doesn't mean that they weren't sexually harassed or assaulted.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 1:08 PM

Oh, wait. Maybe it's because the perpetrators were drunk. After all, we give people a free pass on crimes when they're drunk.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | October 13, 2009 1:08 PM

ever tried to wash off permanent marker? it's just a good thing this woman didn't have to go back to work the next day.

being drunk doesn't mean people can do whatever they want to you. rape *happens all the time*, we don't say it's okay. the frequency of occurrence shouldn't be a defense of the act.

Posted by: wtf | October 13, 2009 1:10 PM

That's the point! After she passed out NO ONE not even her "joking friends" had the right to touch her, to move her clothes, to draw on her in inappropriate places with a marker, to write sexually crude comments on her.

When you're talking about something that happens all of the time, there's a disconnect in peoples' minds. The internet is full of photos of people who have passed out and their drunk friends have drawn stupid shit all over them. I think the difference here is that it's something that happened between co-workers, and there's a decided sexual element to it. If five guys get drunk and stoned one night, one passes out, and the others draw a penis on his forehead, generally nothing comes of that. The guy wakes up the next day, gets pissed off for a while, and that's it. Technically he was assaulted, but what's a little assault between friends? Here, the guys with the markers made a misjudgment. It's hard to tell whether they viewed Piechotte as "one of the guys" and decided to treat her that way or whether they were being outright malicious, but it's clear how Piechotte interpreted it, and legally her interpretation is what matters.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 1:18 PM

Most states have anti-hazing laws on the books, generally classifying this type of behavior as an assault (very clearly a sexual assault here, and almost certainly a hate crime given the agreed-upon details -- yes I disagree on the proper response to hate crimes, but that is not to say they should not be identified when they occur).

The fact that the assault was "private" is irrelevant. The victim certainly did not consent to the assault. As for the "it was only a joke" line, that's what the bullies always say. I call bullshit.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2009 1:23 PM

I suspect that the focus on the fact that they drew on her is because they clearly did it. Whereas the alleged date-rape drugging and sexual assault are much more ambiguous. So, like the article I’m going to largely ignore those accusations in my comment, not because the allegations aren’t serious, but because they’re tenuous.

The biggest thing I don’t get is why her sexual orientation or the gender of anyone involved is relevant. Is there any indication that her being an out lesbian was a motive for their actions? Would it have been less offensive if only women had drawn on her? More? Both the article and Ed’s comment make reference to these facts, but neither connects them to anything pertinent.

To those saying it’s not a big deal that they drew on her while she was passed out, I couldn’t disagree more. Just because someone is in a state where they’re unable to defend themselves does not take away their sovereignty over their body. Ethically I see no difference between what they did and if they’d held her down done it while she tried to kick and scream. Her powerlessness, self-induced or not, is reason to protect her, not to do things to her body you could never get away were she conscious.

Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2009 1:31 PM

"What happened to "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DRIVE DRUNK? These were people she had known for years...Friends take care of friends, they don't set out to humiliate them."

They were annoying pricks, not friends. People can be so mean.

criminal..? hmm. I guess..

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | October 13, 2009 1:34 PM

eponymous rex,

What I meant by "legally her interpretation is what matters" is that her interpretation is what means this assault is actually getting treated like assault by the criminal justice system, rather than a prank to laugh off.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 1:43 PM

Its big in a small-town way....

in my parts people do this all the time. any given morning you will find a dozen drunk, naked, wroted upon females tossed on various lawns and propped up on park benches...

so for us its not a big story...

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | October 13, 2009 1:54 PM

What they did was wrong. There's no question about that. I agree with the majority moral position of commenters here: Just because someone is unconscious, that doesn't make it okay to do things to them that would be wrong if they were conscious.

However, I'm extremely reluctant to go along with the idea that we need to pass laws and get the police involved with stuff like this. And I'm as reluctant to call it "sexual assault" for the same reasons that I'm reluctant to go along with Dawkins and call religious indoctrination "child abuse". Terms such as sexual assault should be reserved for more serious offenses. It degrades the victims of actual sexual assault to call this sexual assault.

She claims she feels degraded. I totally understand. I would too if it happened to me. But I don't know if I'd go to the police. Calling someone an idiot will also make people feel degraded, but it's not illegal. If we want to create new legislation, and get the police involved, then I'm gonna have to hear a justification for why this issue is so serious it requires government intervention.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 2:11 PM

Kevin: If true, why is that not a big story?

Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2009 2:17 PM

@34 wtf, is it criminal when meter maids write a chalk streak on your car tire (or take a marker to your window), to know how long you've been in one parking spot? If you want to take the position that all 'graffiti' is criminal, wouldn't drawing on someone's car also be illegal, even if done by authority figures?

If someone vandalizes my home with something that a good rainstorm would negate, I wouldn't consider it worthy of being criminal.

Posted by: Jordan G | October 13, 2009 2:22 PM

Back when I was a crazy young airman I got drunk on any days that ended in "y". One night, on a weekend, when I was passed out, some of my drinking buddies shaved off half of my mustache and one of my sideburns (I'm amazed they didn't cut me up--they were seriously shitfaced too). When I saw what they had done I was pissed and decided to just leave things as they were. The next time I went to my duty section, my NCOIC looked at me and asked what had happened. I gave him the details, but no names. He went fucking ballistic. He wanted to get all of them, five or six IIRC, written up. He didn't threaten me with anything, but he strongly urged me to tell him who had done it.

By the next morning I had evened things up and told him I wanted to let it die. It was harder for him to let go of it then it was for me to do so.

In my case, there was no genuine harm done, it wasn't purely malicious and I was hardly the only person in the group who had been messed with, when I passed out.

Having said all of this, I think what those morons did was monumentally stupid and, yes, assaultive. Whether it's the same as "rape" I can't say--I'm not the victim.

Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 2:25 PM

@Jordan G

"a) Was the line crossed when the physically touched her body after she was passed out (meaning everyone who moved a passed out individual is guilty of a crime)?"

Whoa! Being touched physically and being moved while passed out can be two very very different things. It IS a crime to touch someone inappropriately if they have passed out.

Writing on something with a marker IS a crime sometimes. You can't have these black and white rules, context matters. Writing racial or religious slurs on a co-worker is harassment, writing sexual ones should be sexual harassment.

Also, I would think that removing ANY clothing for reasons other than medical purposes is wrong.

Posted by: deep | October 13, 2009 2:30 PM

Wes @33,

No laws need to be passed against this, true-- because they already exist. This was assault, legally. What you've come up against is simply the question of whether a criminal act should always be treated as such by its victim. Just because someone is assaulted or abused doesn't mean he or she needs to sic the police on the person who did it, or that he/she would be any better off for doing so. Sometimes, however, they find it important to do so. I could get all of the toilet paper out of my trees and replace the pumpkin you smashed on my porch, but you've still vandalized my property, though I would probably not call the police unless I honestly thought you hated me and this might become a pattern of harassment. I'm not saying that criminal behavior is in the eye of the beholder, but rather that people who commit crimes like this should exercise good judgment about the reaction of the person they're victimizing, and not be surprised if that person chooses to escalate things.

Me, I would not have called the police. But I can sort of understand why she did.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 2:31 PM

If I were the principal, I'd fire (or recommend firing) at least some of the teachers. I'd have to think about what to do about those who watched (and took pictures) and the victim.

While this sort of behavior is not unexpected for professional athletes, celebrities, and politicians, displaying such poor judgment by teachers is unacceptable. I wouldn't want my kids to be in any of their classes. To be a good teacher, one needs, among other things, to exhibit good judgment and earn the respect of students and parents. I can't see how this incident didn't negatively impact those two factors and their suitability to teach. Particularly in this economy, I'm sure I could scare up a few teachers who don't get into such situations--or at least don't get caught. I expect that teachers teach, among other things, the importance of making good choices. How do you say--fail?

This is not a youthful indiscretion by some teenagers. These teachers have become poor role models and questionable authority figures for students. I might cut people in other positions some slack, but we should have higher expectations of our teachers' personal conduct. Basically, they blew it.

Posted by: Mandrake | October 13, 2009 2:40 PM

...but rather that people who commit crimes like this should exercise good judgment about the reaction of the person they're victimizing, and not be surprised if that person chooses to escalate things.

Assuming that the writing-on-skin bit is the worst thing done to this teacher (i.e., assuming there was no stealth drugging and no non-consensual sex), I might argue that the other teachers' judgement wasn't that bad: they already knew her (as a colleague and enough to get shitfaced with her at least), so when they saw she'd passed out, they drew dicks and other things to remind her what less scrupulous people COULD have done to her when she was unable to resist. Sort of like the TV ad where a kid wakes up from a drinking-and-drugging binge, looks in the mirror, and finds his dad wrote "we need to talk" on his forehead.

Mind you, I'm not saying what her "friends" did was justified; I'm just saying this might be what they were thinking when they did it.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 2:42 PM

I still call that bad judgment, Raging Bee. If I steal the jacket out of your car to show you that I could've stolen the car itself, I'm still a thief.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 2:46 PM

Here's the painful lesson learned:

They "thought" she was a person that they could hang out with and treat as a friend.

She "thought" that getting trashed was ok.

They both "thought" wrong, and they now get to be charged with a crime, and she will be forever vilified for letting it happen and then not having the skin enough to let it be.

Losers all around.

Lesson Learned: know the people you drink with.
Lesson Learned: know the people you hang with.
Lesson Learned: know your limits, and those of those around you.

Posted by: The Innkeeper | October 13, 2009 2:54 PM

To the folks saying she brought it on herself by getting drunk and passing out, I’m trying to understand your point of view. So let me ask, if you leave your front door ajar while you run out, does that mean you deserve to have someone enter your home and spray-paint graffiti on your walls or that the person who did it was justified? If not, what are the significant ethical differences?

Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2009 3:01 PM

So let me ask, if you leave your front door ajar while you run out, does that mean you deserve to have someone enter your home and spray-paint graffiti on your walls or that the person who did it was justified? If not, what are the significant ethical differences?

Was that a serious question? Are you actually trying to imply there's no difference between getting drunk and incapacitated on someone else's property, and leaving one's front door unlocked? Do you actually think these two instances are in any way equal?

If you actually want a serious answer, I'd say that I didn't "deserve" to have my interior vandalized; but I can tell you that even my friends would think a bit less of me for exposing myself to this avoidable harm through my own carelessness.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 3:13 PM

@ Raging Bee #55
Yes, I am serious. Thank you for your reply. Follow-up question, what is the relationship between your friend's opnion of you and the ethical considerations of the situation? I don't see it yet.

Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2009 3:21 PM

What, you don't think taking reasonable care of yourself is an ethical consideration?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 3:27 PM

The perpetrators of this crime deserve years in jail!!! They deserve to lose their jobs and teaching licenses. Their lives need to be ruined. After all, every day for the rest of her life, this woman has to wake up and remember..... the inhumanity.... she has to replay the fact that someone she knew wrote bad words on her with a marker!!!! This is just as awful as rape and just as violent real domestic violence.

My god, these teachers should be tried for war crimes.

Posted by: foodyardie | October 13, 2009 3:29 PM

If I steal the jacket out of your car to show you that I could've stolen the car itself, I'm still a thief.

If you returned the jacket later, I'd have a harder time convincing the cops you were a thief acting with malice. Technically it's still a crime, but the cops will be a lot less likely to think you were worth their trouble to arrest and formally charge. And they'd have good reason to jump down MY throat about leaving my car unlocked and enabling you to do something that caused them to waste their time. (And they'd REALLY be pissed at both of us if you'd stolen the car and they had to chase after it: at you for stealing the car, and at me for enabling it.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 3:33 PM

Raging Bee: Making oneself or one's property vulnerable is neither unethical nor a crime. As kehrsam said, you're blaming the victim.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 3:38 PM

I've got it!!
We'll find out if that anti-drug ad that shows someone wasted and being drawn on with markers aired on any stations that the group had access to that evening.
If so, the victim can bring charges against her "friends", who in turn can bring charges against the station that aired the commercial that made it seem fun to them (impaired judgement and all) who in turn can bring charges against the organisation that produced the commercial, who can bring charges against the company that shot the commercial, and so on and so on...
If we play this right, no one will have to take responsibility for their own poor judgement and actions. Maybe we can take it so far that we can all be victims!! That's what we really want isn't it?

If I had a year in my life when the worst thing that happened to me was that some jackass drew a dick on my leg, I'd consider it my best year!

Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | October 13, 2009 3:40 PM

Definitely an immature thing to do, but criminal? Seems like you would have to prosecute the majority of students that belong to fraternities and sororities as well for all the immature things that they do to drunk "friends". Is intent important here? Was it done in the spur of the moment or was it premeditated and planned so that the humiliation could be used to coerce and defame. Could be that they were just following accepted lines of behavior that were ingrained during earning their diplomas. I'm not saying that their behavior is right, I think it is juvenile to the nth degree, but there sure is a lot of this type of thing going on, on a lot of campuses world wide.

Posted by: Doug Little | October 13, 2009 3:43 PM

"Kevin: If true, why is that not a big story?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2009 2:17 PM"

I thought that "wroted" as the past tense would give me away... I was not telling the truth when I said that happens all the time...my bad....

I just thought of this way of looking at it. What if she was awake and not drunk at all?

and her "friends" grabbed her and no matter how much she yelled or struggled, they wrote all over her with a marker, with arrows to her crotch etc...

would it be assault then? sounds like it. or bullying which in this day can get you charged as well...

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | October 13, 2009 3:45 PM

oh, and, the story is "big" because its about high school teachers in the local school, that people send their kids to.. and, er, they sort of care about stuff like that when it happens.

if its a bunch of drunk high school KIDS on the other hand... maybe not as much..

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | October 13, 2009 3:47 PM

What, you don't think taking reasonable care of yourself is an ethical consideration?

A case of ethics on a personal level perhaps. But I don’t see how it applies to what others are allowed to do to you. By that reasoning the rash of wino burnings in the 80’s could be justified. Can you explain more fully?

Posted by: Abby Normal | October 13, 2009 3:55 PM

By that reasoning the rash of wino burnings in the 80’s could be justified. Can you explain more fully?

Um, there's a difference between writing on someone with a marker, and inflicting burns on someone. Your attempt to pretend I'm justifying both is transparently dishonest and insultingly stupid. Come back when you're less emotional, and maybe we can have an adult discussion about this.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 3:59 PM

Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't all of you manage to graduate from kindergarten? The teacher made some terrible decisions, but that doesn't give others the right to do whatever they want to her. It's not their job to punish her for drinking too much.

Any time your defense is it's just a joke!, that should be a red flag to stop and put a little more thought into the issue.

Frankly, I'm surprised and appalled how many people are defending the people who did this to an unconscious person.

Posted by: catgirl | October 13, 2009 4:03 PM

Ed,

In reading the comments in the Messenger article someone there mentioned that the police report said there was Flexeril in the toxicology report and that someone had slipped it to this teacher. So someone slips her Flexeril, a muscle relaxer, and that's okay? Perhaps she did consume a responsible number of drinks. Still, it's her fault for not watching her drinks either way I suppose... /sarcasm

You commented after that person's comment that you had seen the report. Did it say anything about Flexeril?

Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | October 13, 2009 4:04 PM

If people are going to take it to the extreme, citing prisoner abuse and burning winos, I'll take it to the other extreme.

What if rather than drawing on her, they farted on her. They lifted her shirt, and farted on her stomache. They farted in her face, taking photos of it. Would people still consider it a crime?

Posted by: Jordan G | October 13, 2009 4:07 PM

Assault? For writing on a drunk person with a Sharpie?

Would it be ok to write on conscious person? What about a person who is passed out because of a medical condition? I completely agree that she made several huge mistakes. That doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. Grow up.

Posted by: catgirl | October 13, 2009 4:12 PM

In reading the comments in the Messenger article someone there mentioned that the police report said there was Flexeril in the toxicology report and that someone had slipped it to this teacher.

Okay, THAT changes everything. Can we stop blithering about the Sharpie now? If true, this is pretty decent proof of something a LOT more serious than oridnary drunk-shaming.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 4:15 PM

Donalbain: You sort of have a point, but need better reading comprehension skills: What they did is already potentially criminal, as I and numerous others have pointed out. Just because it is common does not change this fact. If the group had pinned her down and done the same thing it would not just be criminal, it is almost certainly a felony.

In this case, the prosecutors appear to have decided that there was no criminal intent. So be it. Lots of worse cases are also ignored, especially if the victim is perceived of "having it coming." Did I mention that it sucks to be gay in America?

The victim still has the option of civil suits against the assholes. Good luck with that.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 13, 2009 4:27 PM

I don't understand why this is a "big story."

Sure, this is an assault, i.e. nonconsentual physical contact. Whether it's a sexual assault or not is less clear.

But assaults, even sexual assaults, happen everywhere every day. What is it about this particular case that makes it newsworthy?

Posted by: Flavin | October 13, 2009 4:30 PM

Donalbain, #84: I think the issue is not that people are defending what the drawers did, it is that they think criminalising the activity would be an over reaction.

If I read the article correctly (and I may have misunderstood it), then it seems that the activity is already criminalized. The prosecutor who originally had jurisdiction determined that it was at least battery (but he wouldn't be able to justify charges of sexual assault) and was going to bring those charges. However, he had to recuse himself from the case, and the prosecutor to whom the case was passed ended up doing nothing.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 4:36 PM

Yes, and the provable presence of flexiril in the victim's blood proves "these people's" mentality was a lot more predatory than it had previously appeared. This is a completely different case now, and the Sharpie bit, and the excuses for it, are no longer relevant.

Um...no. They drugged her and tagged her.

Why did they drug her? To humiliate her.
How did they humiliate her? By tagging her with obscenities.

Question: why her, in particular? Could it perhaps be that she was the victim because she's a lesbian and an outsider? Because they felt she needed to be dominated? That might not be the case. Maybe it was all in fun - but I really don't think so.

The degradation is the issue and, while the means by which it was done is important criminally, it doesn't change the nature of what happened.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 4:48 PM

How did they humiliate her? By tagging her with obscenities.

Not to mention that rape thing. That was probably kinda humiliating too.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 4:54 PM

Sorry for the spelling errors. And "But the act of [delete] them writing on the person"

Posted by: Jordan G | October 13, 2009 5:05 PM

It's assault.

Simple.

When someone lays hands on you who does not have the right to do so.

Assault. She was drugged, and then assaulted. That is criminal sexual conduct in the state of Michigan.

I notice it is the males who do not seem to see any harm in the events.

Assholes.

Posted by: Woody | October 13, 2009 5:06 PM

I find it rather intriguing that, the drugging aspect of the story aside, the only people who are commenting on how ridiculous this is, are people who have penises. Apparently there are a lot of men about these parts who, not having the foggiest idea, nor the ability to empathize with what it might be like to be a women waking up to find obscenities scribbled all over her body.

Just because most people who have this happen to them don't choose to prosecute - often because they see it as a harmless joke, does not make it any less assault.

A childhood friend and I used to beat on each other, because we thought it was fun and educational. That doesn't mean that we can just go around beating on people with impunity. When we were doing it to each other, it was relatively harmless fun - it was also assault. Doing it to someone else probably would have gotten us in a lot of trouble.

Oi, and that idiotic notion that writing all over her, isn't as bad as groping. What the fuck do you think they had to do to write all over her? Do you think that her clothes just magically moved themselves? That it was only the tips of the markers that touched her? Not to mention, the markers themselves are inappropriate touching.

Honestly, I find it rather sad that a lot of people I have a fair measure of respect for, are also neanderthal cretins who apparently think it is just fine to wander up to someone who is passed out and write all over them.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2009 5:11 PM

Well, yeah, evidence of a serious and harmful crime does kinda give us an excuse not to talk about less harmful crimes, doesn't it? Besides, I've already said all I have to say about the latter, and there's really no reason to belabor the obvious in response to any of the asinine questions and insinuations raised against my points.

Because this discussion thread is, after all, the court of appeals regarding the fate of this woman and the men who wrote on her. And all points against you are utterly unfounded and ridiculous.

You're hilarious, Bee.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 5:18 PM

Honestly, I find it rather sad that a lot of people I have a fair measure of respect for, are also neanderthal cretins who apparently think it is just fine to wander up to someone who is passed out and write all over them.

And I find it rather sad that someone like you, who's already proven he knows better, would oversimplify and misrepresent about 90% of what was said here, and then call us "neanderthal cretins" based on your misrepresentation of what we said.

Posted by: Raging bee | October 13, 2009 5:23 PM

Should have quotes on the first paragraph of my post above (#110):

"No, dumbass, I "limit" the harm to the apparent criminal drugging, followed by the apparent criminal rape of someone who was, as a result, obviously unable to give or withhold consent." quote from, of course, Raging Bee.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 5:28 PM

By which you mean that if the drugging and rape didn't happen, and she actually passed out by drinking too much, no harm occurred.

Dude, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. No, I do not mean "no harm occured," I meant a) the harm done by a Sharpie isn't as great as that done by rape, and b) without the flexeril, she exposed herself to the "harm" when she could have, and should have, been more careful with her drinking. Technically, the Sharpie stuff may still be a crime, but it's one for which she would have shared responsibility by making an ass of herself.

Have you thought about this happening to someone you care about?

Yes, and if anyone I care about was in need of my advice, I would tell them to go easy on their drug(s) of choice, and stay conscious until they got home and locked their door. And if they followed my advice and STILL got assaulted, then they would have my full sympathy and support. And if they didn't follow my advice, then I would further advise them to get help with their drug problem, assault or no assault.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 5:39 PM

For the "oh my god she got violated hate crime sexual assault" crowd, would it still be a crime if they'd just written "don't drink to much if you can't handle it" on the same spots?
It was inappropriate, and she is free to file civil damage charges for the humiliation etc, but making a criminal offense of it on par with broomstick hazing is overblown.

Posted by: Mu | October 13, 2009 5:43 PM

Dude, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. No, I do not mean "no harm occured," I meant a) the harm done by a Sharpie isn't as great as that done by rape, and b) without the flexeril, she exposed herself to the "harm" when she could have, and should have, been more careful with her drinking. Technically, the Sharpie stuff may still be a crime, but it's one for which she would have shared responsibility by making an ass of herself.

No, Raging Bee, I hear you loud and clear: she deserved it.

I'm glad you've stated your views so unambiguously. Now I can respond in kind:

You a disgusting excuse for a human being.

And if they followed my advice and STILL got assaulted, then they would have my full sympathy and support. And if they didn't follow my advice, then I would further advise them to get help with their drug problem, assault or no assault.

...and a complete asshole.

Please invest in a mirror: I think you need need to stare into your own eyes for at least five minutes a day and ask "who am I?"

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 5:52 PM

Sorry for the typo above. That should read:

You [are] a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Actually I just wanted to write that line again.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 5:55 PM

And I find it rather sad that someone like you, who's already proven he knows better, would oversimplify and misrepresent about 90% of what was said here, and then call us "neanderthal cretins" based on your misrepresentation of what we said.

Time to be a bit snarky: To be fair, Bee, Duwayne did refer to "people I have a fair measure of respect for," so there's a fair chance that you aren't included in that set of individuals.

P.S. Methinks your empathy chip is broken.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | October 13, 2009 6:00 PM

So, Benjamin, I'm a "complete asshole" because I'd advise others to protect themselves? So what better advice would you give your friends?

"Avoid Raging Bee."

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 6:04 PM

Before you accuse me of gender bias, you should consider that it is not me who is assuming that all women are the same and enjoy the same things. That is just as bigoted as assuming that all black people like fried chicken.

...and the strawman bigot accusation comes out in three, two, one...

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 6:25 PM

And I find it rather sad that someone like you, who's already proven he knows better, would oversimplify and misrepresent about 90% of what was said here, and then call us "neanderthal cretins" based on your misrepresentation of what we said.

Says the neanderthal cretin who was arguing that it was for her own good.

And Christian Cynic has the right of it - you can totally take that "us" out of there. I find you an absolutely repulsive little partisan hack as a baseline. I won't say that the fucking moronic "They might have been doing it for her own good" wasn't a little surprising. But you certainly aren't on a par with those I was referring to as neanderthal cretins.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2009 6:36 PM

Wes, #128: My objection is to the claim that police, courts, and legislators need to get involved here.

Except that the actions in this case is against the law. Those people violated the law. A prosecutor was bringing charges under existing law until he found out that he had to recuse himself from the case.

-

This thread is filled with hundreds of ethical claims and appeals to emotion, but no hard evidence.

But according to the article, there was a police report that explained that there was enough evidence to charge alleged perpetrators with a crime. A prosecutor reading the report also felt that there was enough evidence to file charges.

-

What evidence is there that drunken shaming is such a serious problem that we need to get the government involved?

In my opinion, in that it violates laws that already exist. Assault and battery appear to be serious enough problems that there are laws against them. This case here fits into the legal definition of battery at a minimum, according to a prosecutor who examined the case, and may even fit into the definition of sexual assault.

The question isn't whether there should be a law against this behavior -- there already are laws against this behavior. The question, it appears, is whether the laws are overly broad in covering this incident.

Rather the question seems to be whether we should rewrite the laws to exclude this incident. Frankly, I haven't seen a good argument for that yet.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 7:07 PM

Wes, #128: My objection is to the claim that police, courts, and legislators need to get involved here.

Except that the actions in this case is against the law. Those people violated the law. A prosecutor was bringing charges under existing law until he found out that he had to recuse himself from the case.

I've already addressed this. The article alludes specifically to getting legislation passed. I object to this.

Lot's of things are against the law in a technical sense, but no sane prosecutor would ever seek to prosecute. I'm inclined to think that drunk shaming falls under this heading. There is no specific law against it, and as far as "assault" goes, it's pretty weak. Like I said above, toilet papering is technically vandalism, but it's a rather weak form of vandalism. Do you want the government expending resources on prosecuting and imprisoning toilet paperers for "vandalism"?

I think that would be absurd. And if I were a prosecutor, and such a case was brought before me, I'd refuse to prosecute it. I'd do the same for a drunk shaming. Yes, it's wrong, but the damage done, as far as I can tell, is not sufficient to warrant government intervention. In fact, I agree pretty much entirely with what the second prosecutor had to say about the case:

In an interview with Michigan Messenger, Sherman said what happened to Piechotte was not acceptable. But he felt he could not bring criminal charges for a number of reasons, including the length of time that had lapsed between the incident and when he reviewed the case.

“It’s a judgment call that has to be made between what’s considered a practical joke and what the criminal justice system should get involved in,” Sherman said. “[Prosecuting] is like coming in with a hammer. That’s my remedy. That’s the only remedy I have. I can’t send you to your room and say no video games for three weeks.”

Sherman also said he did not file the marijuana charges against Town because he viewed that incident — specifically the allegation that Town had delivered the drugs to the police himself days after the incident — as a separate issue that was outside the bounds of what he had been asked to look at by the attorney general’s office.

I think he made the right decision.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 7:19 PM

The real crime here would be wasting valuable state resources on a couple of innocuous jerks. Meanwhile, a 5 year old was really raped again by her step dad and a 15 year old was really gunned down by a rival gang. For fu%$ sake, get over yourself, if some you know writes on you with a sharpie while your awake, guess what you do, you push them off you, call them names and then wash it off. We already live in a society that leads the world in incarceration rates, do we really want to add sharpie assaulters to our bloated felony population.

Like an earlier post said, if the worst thing that happens to me in a year is someone writing 'dick' on my leg, then I'll consider that a great year.

Posted by: foodyardie | October 13, 2009 7:31 PM

You've got a good point. I'd respond by saying that by putting the label 'drunk shaming' on this suggests a context that wasn't there and ignore the real dynamics of the thing. Typically the government doesn't need to be involved because there's a level of intimacy and implicit consent to friends pranking eachother. Not the case here. In hazing it could be argued that there's a consent formed by voluntary association with the group and an understand of what's going on and its limits. Again, not the case.

It's my understanding from the article that these people all perceived each other as friends. As such, I don't see why it's different from any other group of friends who do the same thing. As for her lesbianism making her a "sexual outsider", I find that claim bizarre. I really don't see what her sexual orientation has to do with this situation.

The pictures are the only hard evidence we have, and the pictures don't look to me any different than the typical drunk shaming. I find it immoral and repulsive, and I totally understand why she finds it degrading. The people who did it are clearly pigs. But I don't look at the pictures and think, "This is something the government needs to get involved in."

This is a group of people she's not particularly intimate with stripping off her clothes and drawing cocks and sexual tags "inches from her privates", while she's unconscious. It's not a homogenous group with an implicit understanding - she's a sexual outsider to the group, a lesbian, and they used her vulnerability to humiliate her. This is just sticking to the proven facts: not addressing the rape and drugging.

They did not strip off her clothes. Look at the photos. She's fully clothed. They exposed her stomach, which is something they definitely shouldn't be doing, but it's a far cry from stripping off her clothes.

And again, I understand why she found drawing cocks "inches from her privates" to be completely degrading. I'm not disputing the wrongness of the behavior. But I still don't see why that's such a serious offense that it should involve our court system.

I know libertarians are loathe to invoke legalism when it's avoidable and I generally agree with that. But in this context how is it possible to get a socially just outcome without invoking criminal law? This is a question of a group excising power over an individual's body without any implicit or direct consent, and it's an assault.

So - to answer your question: I don't think anyone's arguing that drunk hazings are an epidemic of some sort. But "drunk hazings" is a blanket term and this specific instance seems to have some characteristics that make the reaction appropriate.

But compared to all other recognized forms of assault this is extremely weak. This is not even in the same ballpark as rape, molestation, groping, beating, torturing, or anything else that's usually considered assault and battery. Remember, the evidence we have doesn't indicate anything beyond drawing lewd images on her body as a joke. As far as I can tell, it falls entirely under the heading of "drunk shaming". If further evidence shows that more went on--that she was sexually groped, or drugged, or raped, or something of that nature--I agree that government intervention would be warranted. But as things stand, with only the pictures as evidence, I can't agree that this problem is so serious that it should involve the government.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 7:39 PM

of all the things happening in Michigan right now, THIS is a "big story"? A bunch of drunken assholes acting like drunken assholes?

Not defending anyone's conduct, but seriously? How is this a "big story"?

Posted by: CanadianChick | October 13, 2009 7:42 PM

DuWayne said: "Honestly, I find it rather sad that a lot of people I have a fair measure of respect for, are also neanderthal cretins who apparently think it is just fine to wander up to someone who is passed out and write all over them."

What I find most disturbing is that there seems to be a fairly large contingent of people who apparently are nominally 'normal,' but who seem to think that it is perfectly permissible to basically do anything short of actual rape or mutilation to anybody whom they find incapacitated, for whatever reason.

When did it become 'okay' to publically undress somebody, drunk or sober, for the purposes of humiliating her? The first article of clothing somebody removed, or even opened, without the woman's consent, was the functional equivalent of rape.

Indeed, DuWayne: Waddabuncha fucking cretins...

You write all over 'em. So is it okay to piss all over 'em. Or take a shit? Or jack off?

That's disgusting.

I really don't wanna know any of 'em, and I don't wanna know people who know and forgive 'em...

Posted by: Woody | October 13, 2009 7:47 PM

The woman was violated, while she was unconscious. Had she been my sister, and you one of the violators, I believe that --compared to meeting me, looking for you, with my louisville slugger--you'd welcome the intervention of the law...

Posted by: Woody | October 13, 2009 7:51 PM

Good to see you standing up to those bullies, pal.

Oh, by the way. Go to a rape counseling group and tell the victims there that what happened to them is the "functional equivalent" of having someone draw on your stomach when you're unconscious. You better hope they don't have any Louisville sluggers with them.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 7:55 PM

I have to reiterate, read the statutes on what constitutes rape, can you legitimately argue that this incident would constitute anything greater than 4th degree sexual assault? READ what constitutes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree, does this qualify. If you think this honestly qualifies, then go to someone who is the victim of either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree rape and tell them that this incident is no different than what they experienced. Personally I would argue that most of these victims would beg to differ on this point.

But, if you argue that this is, instead, 4th degree, you're talking a misdemeanor. Fine, what do you propose the fine/penalty is? 90 days? $1000 fine?

Posted by: dogmeatib | October 13, 2009 7:58 PM

Wow, Wes is now actaully equating real rape with writing on someone's leg with a sharpie. Hey Wes, why don't you go to a rape counseling session and ask them if they would rather get raped or spend 30 seconds washing their leg? I bet you would see the business end of their metaphorical bats your so proud of threatening others with. Of course you could have a Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip "sexual outsider" suite against them.

Posted by: foodyard | October 13, 2009 8:01 PM

Wes:

A lot of this depends on what "normal" interactions between this group of people were. I find it very suggestive that there's a subtext of "putting the weirdo in her place" in this whole thing. There's a lot in the article that suggest that's true - but I might be wrong. You see it as nothing but stupid and piggish - you also might be wrong.

I'm glad we agree on the piggishness.

This is not even in the same ballpark as rape, molestation, groping, beating, torturing, or anything else that's usually considered assault and battery.

That's true, and it's not murder, and it's jaywalking either. I see the relevance: it's a crime within the law, and the circumstances are (in my opinion from what I've read) ugly enough to deserve a trial.

They did not strip off her clothes. Look at the photos. She's fully clothed.

I think you got me on a technicality there. So far as we know, they didn't take her clothes off and put them back on. They did tag her body 1 inch from her vagina. I obviously drew a mistaken conclusion: they might've just rolled her panties back to expose her privates. I judged them too harshly?

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 8:04 PM

I think you got me on a technicality there. So far as we know, they didn't take her clothes off and put them back on. They did tag her body 1 inch from her vagina. I obviously drew a mistaken conclusion: they might've just rolled her panties back to expose her privates. I judged them too harshly?

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 8:04 PM

I don't see any vagina in those pictures. They wrote on her thighs, but I don't see any evidence that they remove her pants, much less her panties. I don't see any evidence that they exposed her privates in any way.

If they had done any of these things, I think a sexual assault charge would be warranted. But when all the evidence we have is that they drew on her legs, it seems to me like we should say that they're pigs, but there isn't a compelling reason to get the government involved.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 8:10 PM

But leaving aside the police, the school could have done any number of things, ranging from holding a counseling session to talk about what happened to putting a letter of reprimand in the files of the teachers to firing them. What they did do, instead, was absolutely nothing.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 13, 2009 7:57 PM

How their employer deals with them is a very different question than how the police, courts, prisons and legislature should deal with them.

Honestly, if the school fired everyone involved, you wouldn't hear any protest from me. Schools have a reputation to maintain, and sometimes that means weeding out the fuckheads. I'm fine with that.

I'm also really happy to see that "fuckheads" doesn't get a red line under it when I type in Firefox. It's a real word now!

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 8:16 PM

But the drawing = rape thing? Nobody said that.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 8:16 PM

Woody did. He's a real pleasant character. He threatened to beat me up with a Louisville slugger. That's the kind of person who thinks drawing on someone and rape are the same thing.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 8:25 PM

From the article:

“The humiliation that goes with people writing horrendous things on intimate parts of my body,” said Piechotte, who is openly lesbian. “I mean we’re talking one inch from my vagina. We’re talking names on my stomach like they were signing some graffiti on some property they had claimed. There is nothing more humiliating.”

I don't know whether there are pictures of this, but obviously that one wouldn't have been published online. I'm having a hard time thinking that this is "nothing more degrading than a typical drunk haze".

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 8:25 PM

Let's not lose track of the victim's penchant for hyperbole here. She says, "There is nothing more humiliating". Obviously, that's not true. I can easily come up with things that are more humiliating.

Again, I don't want to downplay what she must have gone through. But I'm very skeptical of the claims that what went on warrants government intervention. I really want to emphasize the fact that we don't have any solid evidence of anything more than a drunk shaming going on here. I'm extremely reluctant to go along with the idea that such evidence means the government needs to get involved. I really don't want the government expending resources on what amounts to a very weak form of assault.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 8:38 PM

dogmeatib -

I actually would expect that this would have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor sexual assault and I am entirely fine with that. And for the record, while I wouldn't be terribly upset about them being fired, I am not one of the people calling for it...

Though when I consider this from the perspective of DuWayne the dad, I have to admit I would be more than a little squiked at the idea of these "gentlemen" educating my children.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 13, 2009 8:44 PM

I've also suggested that the way she's been treated by her colleagues and the school suggests that this was an intentional humiliation and degredation and not intended to be a prank at all. You can argue against that if you disagree.

I was thinking the same thing, at least regarding her colleagues. They draw a cock coming out of leg of her shorts, like she's a man? I wonder if they would have done that if she wasn't a lesbian? Also, independent of what they drew, drawing anything that high up on her thigh right next to her crotch is touching her in an inappropriately intimate way.

Practical jokes are socially acceptable forms of aggression masked as humor. For me, this is an example of where it has crossed the line to assault.

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 8:55 PM

The cops declined to prosecute; the school had to be goaded into wrist-slaps. End of "big story." Journalists cover news, not snarky disputes among drunken friends. If the parties want to sue one another, fine; if the victim wants to press the police and DA to make the case after all, fine. We'll cover that when it happens. At the very best,it's a half story. Half an assault; half a hate crime; half a sex assault; half a sex-predator-drug-dealer-teacher; half girls gone wild; half "an inch from my vagina." Half is not nearly enough.

Aside from appalling news judgement, this is very weak reporting, regardless of all the panty-bunching going on. The depth and poignancy of the case made by the "paper" reveals poor familiarity with the standard of objectivity we expect of real newspapers. The paper has become a party to the case, a la Maury Povich or Bill O'Reilly. Long narratives which have no newsworthy ending...breathless confusion among the corroborated facts...an imprimatur at the top that some facts are not disputed...all sophomore-quality (and I mean high school).

More disturbing is the emphasis on the fact that the individuals are teachers--oh the humanity, yet oddly the cops and the administrators have taken little interest. Why? Perhaps because they know the teachers' behavior, though juvenile, is adult prerogative and is disconnected from their school responsibilities (despite the paper's snide poke that one of the homes--I lost track of which, due to very poor clarity--was close to the school. Close! Horror!) If the teachers are penalized, their union will respond, and win, as it should.

I don't excuse the question of writing on(a drunken friend, while drunk?!)another person. But that isn't newsworthy. It might be letter-of-the-law assault or harassment or whatever, but that isn't news, even if it's the Pope. The person who presses such a complaint is a twit and deserves to spend an evening at intake in any midsized police department, helping people who are carrying their own teeth or who have been battered by their own drug-addled son. Then she could perhaps watch her intake and choose better friends. All free advice, but none of it news.

We wonder why journalists have a bad rap.

ice9

It's trivia, not newsworthy, a vague tissue of dumbassery and official amusement.

Posted by: ice9 | October 13, 2009 9:15 PM

Fascinating perspective, Wes. How strong does the assault have to be, in your estimation, before the government should expend resources defending its citizens?

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 9:03 PM

Sarcasm noted.

These things are hard to quantify. I won't deny that. Rudely bumping someone on the sidewalk is assault, but it's hardly criminal. Punching someone in the face is assault, and it's clearly criminal. At what point do we cross the line from a rude bump to criminal assault? I'm not sure.

Where does drawing on someone when they're unconscious fall along this spectrum? I'm inclined to think that it falls within the non-criminal section. It's wrong, but not something that does so much damage that it requires government protection. It does no permanent bodily harm, and the psychological harm it does is small in comparison to other forms of assault. Hell, I'd wager that drunk shaming does less psychological harm than raising a child in a strict fundamentalist ideology. No one would claim that the latter should be illegal. Yeah, it's wrong, but the amount of harm done is not so great that government intervention is justified.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 9:21 PM

Where does drawing on someone when they're unconscious fall along this spectrum?

I can't remember if she was drugged in addition to getting drunk? Let's say she was drugged first - assault? I would say yes, independent of whether she was drawn on.

Passed out and then drawn on? I would agree with you if a) she was drawn on in areas that are socially acceptable between coworkers of opposite sexes (I can't believe I'm even typing this...) and b) if they were fairly innocuous things.

I personally want the government to protect its citizens from being violated when passed out whether that's being drawn on and touched in intimate areas, or having images/statements drawn on them that are meant to humiliate and debase.

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 9:55 PM

Raging Bee said:

More to the point, what evidence is there that government intervention would be a more efficient solution than...NOT GETTING THAT SLOPPY DRUNK IN THE FIRST PLACE? That's the solution that works for me. And it seems to work for a lot of recovering alcoholics too.

Oh, I see. Everything that drunk people do is equally immoral, because drunkenness is bad and renders them irresponsible for their actions, whatever those actions may be. Hence, the person who gets shit-faced and the person who assaults the person who is shit-faced are both responsible for the assault.

Ummmmm......no. That's not how it works, asshole.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 13, 2009 10:03 PM

I can't remember if she was drugged in addition to getting drunk? Let's say she was drugged first - assault? I would say yes, independent of whether she was drawn on.

Passed out and then drawn on? I would agree with you if a) she was drawn on in areas that are socially acceptable between coworkers of opposite sexes (I can't believe I'm even typing this...) and b) if they were fairly innocuous things.

I personally want the government to protect its citizens from being violated when passed out whether that's being drawn on and touched in intimate areas, or having images/statements drawn on them that are meant to humiliate and debase.

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 9:55 PM

I have already said that if it is shown that they did more than just draw on her, if they molested her or drugged her or raped her etc, then I think they should be prosecuted for sexual assault. That's a different issue. But none of the evidence I'm familiar with suggests that any such thing happened.

So let's stick to the facts. The pictures show that she was passed out drunk, and her friends drew penises on her. Under what circumstances is drawing penises on a passed out coworker socially acceptable? None. It's never acceptable. It's always wrong to do that.

But it does not follow from the fact that we find it immoral and degrading that the government should get involved. You seem to have missed that point. "Offensive" and "Illegal" are not the same thing.

Posted by: Wes | October 13, 2009 10:07 PM

The pictures show that she was passed out drunk, and her friends drew penises on her.

Little game, Wes; check out those pictures again a bit more closely. Now, let's say it's your sister or daughter or some other female beloved of yours who has those images and words drawn on her in those locations by male friends without her consent, and she comes to you weeping and humiliated. If you still honestly say that it was just an offensive but harmless practical joke, and your response to her would be "Well, that's what you get, you silly wanker, for drinking and passing out with those asshats," then I'll agree that we have different standards for what should be criminal and will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: ildi | October 13, 2009 10:21 PM

I know a lot of teachers. In general, they are indistinguishable from other folks. What if these people weren't teachers; would that change the situation, somehow?

Posted by: democommie | October 13, 2009 10:24 PM

I'm personally fine with this new standard, I don't drink, don't do drugs, can't remember a time where I've written an inappropriate phrase on another person; but, unless you're going to enforce it equally or provide me with some incentive, IE you better pay me a hell of a lot better than they currently pay educators if you expect me to walk on water. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Amen. (I hope my superintendent is reading this...)

Posted by: Mr. B | October 13, 2009 10:46 PM

democommie, #175: What if these people weren't teachers; would that change the situation, somehow?

I think that if their profession adds to the seriousness of the charges, then it is up to their employer, colleagues, and professional organizations to decide what additional penalty is warranted.

Me, I'm a college instructor, and I have my own opionions on professionalism, collegiate courtesy and solidarity, and setting an example for the students we teach. I think this kind of situation would require a serious response from the school community because of the nature of the profession. What exactly that response should be I'm not sure -- it would take me more than a day's reading of blog comments to really come to my own conclusions.

At a previous institution I knew a colleague who was the victim of a "date rape". Admittedly that might have an influence on my response.

Posted by: Chiroptera | October 13, 2009 11:01 PM

Gretchen, I didn't say anything like that, and you know it. If you (and Benjamin) can't address what I say without flat-out LYING about it, why not just save yourselves some trouble and admit I may have made a few good points?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 10:51 PM

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps it's because if a woman I love drinks too much and ends up in a bad situation stupid motherfuckers like yourself think they've brought it on themselves?

Just look at your post #113. What sort of person could possibly write such ugly, hateful nonsense? Good points? You have nothing to say, only bile to spew.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 11:07 PM

Right...advising people to control their drug consumption, and avoid passing out, is "ugly hateful nonsense?" And the fact that I give such advice means I'm a threat to innocent women?

Benjamin, you get stupider with every post.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 11:23 PM

Right...advising people to control their drug consumption, and avoid passing out, is "ugly hateful nonsense?" And the fact that I give such advice means I'm a threat to innocent women?

Actually, Bee, it was this:

Yes, and if anyone I care about was in need of my advice, I would tell them to go easy on their drug(s) of choice, and stay conscious until they got home and locked their door. And if they followed my advice and STILL got assaulted, then they would have my full sympathy and support. And if they didn't follow my advice, then I would further advise them to get help with their drug problem, assault or no assault.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 13, 2009 5:39 PM

Do you think someone that's just been assaulted gives a fuck about your advice? Your moral and practical guidance?

Don't you understand - in even the most basic way - how real living people exist? Do you have absolutely no ability to relate to things outside yourself? Step back from your conflict with "Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip" and look at what you're actually saying about this incident.

If you can morally stand behind the points you're making, go right ahead. But it's not a game, and you can't win by scoring "good points" against me.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 13, 2009 11:34 PM

Hasn't anyone seen "Porky's" or "Porky's Revenge"? The answer to this situation is obvious: prank them back, and prank them better. Nothing is more effective than beating someone at their own game.

Posted by: jws | October 14, 2009 12:33 AM

Well, I just don't get why nobody is charged in this case, when a kid who mistakenly brought a small Cub Scout knife to school was threatened with 45 days in a reform school.

I'm against drug laws, and I'm against zero tolerance, but if we're going to punish honor students for having ibuprofin while teachers can smoke pot, something is way off. (And I hope they weren't actually smoking the ditchweed pulled from the highway shoulders in Minnesota by Minneapolis cops who were recently on a crusade to keep the public "safe from pot"!)

I will say this, though. While the victim never "asks for it" and blame rests with the perpetrators, I do think it is wiser and responsible (as in, able to respond) to never get drunk in public, particularly with co-workers. (And particularly with teachers, network administrators, or motivational speakers. Computer programmers or belly dancers, though, are perfectly safe to get sloshed with.)

Posted by: Kristine | October 14, 2009 1:55 AM

Pfft!!! Are you serious! I would be ashamed to be a part of writing this 'story'. Ed, are you honestly gonna say that you've never been a part of anything like this? Never gone back to the hotel after a night at the casino with your friends and let loose with some so called debauchery??? Drawing on passed out drunk people is part of our culture. It's fun, and I can't wait to do it again. Stay out of people's personal lives, man.

Posted by: afreudtolove | October 14, 2009 2:26 AM

"But leaving aside the police, the school could have done any number of things, ranging from holding a counseling session to talk about what happened to putting a letter of reprimand in the files of the teachers to firing them. What they did do, instead, was absolutely nothing. "

Which is EXACTLY the right thing for the school to have done. THe event had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the school. It was not during school hours, it was not on school premises, it was not at a school function. It was at a private gathering of friends.

Posted by: Donalbain | October 14, 2009 3:39 AM

@Owen #172 - Is 28 old? Because I don't understand this behavior either.

Posted by: Imrryr | October 14, 2009 8:23 AM

It's the black-and-white, all-or-nothing world of the recovering alcoholic.

Actually, some issues really ARE black-and-white. As in: the Earth is round; the sky is blue; evolution is more than "just a theory;" the Holocaust really happened; controlling your drug-intake makes you less likely to get in a position where others can take unfair advantage of you; and the London Underground is not a political movement. And yes, this black-and-white world can be at least a reasonably happy place, for people who take resonsibility for themselves.

And on to the Bizarro-Benjamin shriek-fest...

Do you think someone that's just been assaulted gives a fuck about your advice?

If YOU didn't care for it, then why did you ask for it?

Don't you understand - in even the most basic way - how real living people exist?

What proof do you have that I don't? Your inability to refute any of my arguments without going ballistic and hyper-emotional strongly implies that you're the one who can't get a grip on the real world.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 9:27 AM

On the way home from a high school swim meet, my good friend (a 6 foot tall fella weighing it at a muscular buck ninety at 18) was drinking schnaps with a few others in the back of the bus. It was a 4 hour bus drive home. He passes out. I get out a pen an write "citizen dildo" across his forehead.

Posted by: llewelly | October 14, 2009 9:49 AM

Someone slipped Veronica Piechotte flexeril. Flexeril is a muscle relaxant, and like all muscle relaxants, should not be combined with alcohol. The effects of mixing alcohol and flexeril can be highly unpredictable; I know 3 people who (knowingly) mixed alcohol and flexeril, and unexpectedly ended up unconscious. All three were experienced drinkers, and none had previously intoxicated themselves into unconsciousness. All three thought they knew how flexeril interacted with alcohol and thought they could compensate for it (by drinking less). One had had only 2 drinks. Even people who know they are combining flexeril and alcohol can be surprised by the results. Veronica Piechotte did not know there was flexeril in her body. Her "limits" (on how much alcohol she could handle) were changed without her knowledge or consent. This invalidates all the many claims that Veronica Piechotte could reasonably be expected to "know her limits" and not "drink herself into unconsciousness" .

Posted by: llewelly | October 14, 2009 9:54 AM

And yes, this black-and-white world can be at least a reasonably happy place, for people who take resonsibility for themselves.

for people who take responsibiity for themselvesfor people who have come up against something in their lives that they can't deal with in any other way.

There, fixed that for you. Hope you get to that reasonably happy place soon.

Posted by: ildi | October 14, 2009 10:01 AM

I know a lot of teachers. In general, they are indistinguishable from other folks. What if these people weren't teachers; would that change the situation, somehow?

Demo'

That's the point I keep trying to make to the "fire them!" crowd. Unless this is the standard for all occupations, we're talking about a rather ridiculous level of decorum and personal involvement for an employee/employer relationship. There have been no criminal charges, let alone convictions, yet the argument is that these people should no longer be employed?

--------------

You missed a point in the article: she's accused one of them of actually raping her - as in raping her, not drawing on her - after she'd been drugged. There were traces of the drug in her system. That hasn't been proved.

Benjamin,

From what I read, they didn't pursue this claim because there wasn't any evidence of this. I didn't see anything that said there was residue from a date-rape drug in her system, etc., or that there was any evidence of rape beyond her claim of groping in the bathroom. Without evidence or prosecution for this, we are left with the drawing of vulgar, inappropriate images on a passed out co-worker. Back to a 4th degree, probably class B or C misdemeanor assault charge.

Posted by: dogmeatib | October 14, 2009 10:08 AM

There's a lot of good points in the comments here, but I'd like to address the 'so what if she's female/lesbian'. You guys need to unpack your backpacks a bit, this DOES matter. It's called social context.

Let me give you an example. My wife is terrified of bees. Phobic, you might say, given her reactions. (Now, she has cause to be, she's deathly allergic to them. And also allergic to epinephrine. If she gets stung, well, we better hope we're within 5 min of a hospital) Our daughter has picked up on her mother's phobia after many years of watching this responce. Everyone that knows us knows these things.

Now say you had a little mechanical remote controlled bee. You could totally prank someone by having it buzz around their ears. Normal non phobic people would consider this a prank. But if you did this to my wife? Knowing who traumatic it would be for her, given her history? That's more than a prank. Likewise if you did it to my daughter, although she has no medical reason to fear bees.

Now, let's look at the statistics on rape and sexual assault. They're very high for women. This means that women are historically at risk for abuse. Women know their friends have been abused, and know that they likely will at some point too. They live with that knowledge, and most live with that fear. Lesbians in particular are even more likely to be assaulted sexually. By virtue of their orientation, they have removed their body from male access, and males, as a group, do not like this, and seek to reclaim it.

THAT is why drawing a dick nearly touching a lesbian's vagina is far worse than you drawing a similar image on a buddy's forehead.

Posted by: Smeg | October 14, 2009 10:26 AM

Bee raged thus:

And yes, this black-and-white world can be at least a reasonably happy place, for people who take resonsibility for themselves.

And this, ladies and gents, is why arguing with Raging Bee is akin to arguing with a pissed-off twelve-year-old. It may make for entertaining, bloated threads, but in the end it just looks like one big circular dance.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 14, 2009 11:10 AM

Don't condescend to me.

Whatever.

You are trying to use empathy as a form of emotionalism.

Empathy does not mean what you seem to think it means...

Yes, if it happened to a woman I loved, I would be upset. That's not relevant to the legal question, though.

Is the question that difficult for you? I'm not asking if you would be upset. I thought we had both agreed that the behavior was offensive, at the very least. I'm asking if you still would consider it not to be criminal? If your answer is "not criminal," then, as I said before - we have different standards for what is criminal and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: ildi | October 14, 2009 11:39 AM

Whatever.

Go fuck yourself.

Empathy does not mean what you seem to think it means...

I know exactly what it means. Your comment below, however, shows that you aren't too clear on what emotionalism means...

Is the question that difficult for you? I'm not asking if you would be upset. I thought we had both agreed that the behavior was offensive, at the very least. I'm asking if you still would consider it not to be criminal? If your answer is "not criminal," then, as I said before - we have different standards for what is criminal and we'll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: ildi | October 14, 2009 11:39 AM

Using emotions to make decisions on what counts as criminal or not is a type of emotionalism. You don't seem to understand that I am not going to use my emotions to decide what is or is not criminal. Emotions are not relevant to that question. How I might feel in this situation does not determine whether or not it warrants government intervention.

You and I apparently do have different standards. You decide what is criminal based on your feelings. I do not.

Posted by: Wes | October 14, 2009 11:58 AM

You can't even be bothered to look up empathy, can you? Google is your friend, honey. Once you get a handle on your big words, get back to me.

Posted by: ildi | October 14, 2009 12:07 PM

HaslettMom,

If I had a kid who was the student of these teachers, I would be doing my level best to change that situation as quickly as possible. As for what to tell that kid? How about this:

"Here you see evidence that teachers are not infallible, mature, or good people just because they're teachers. That doesn't mean that all teachers are this way, and it shouldn't diminish your respect for any other teachers who were not involved in this incident. You also shouldn't blame drugs for this situation, but rather the way some people have chosen to use drugs-- to get out of control and possibly as a tool to rape someone, but at the very least to assault her. Being inebriated isn't an excuse for your actions, and it's never okay to give someone a drug without their knowledge in order to take advantage of them. Even if these men did not rape Ms. Piechotte, what they did to her was legally assault and she deemed it necessary to take action against them. We'll have to see what happens with that."

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 12:17 PM

I don't believe anyone properly addressed dogmeatib's points, which were much more valid than what most of this discussion has focused on.

HaslettMom, if this happened over two years ago, and these teachers have been teaching for the past two years (presumably without consequence), how does the fact of it being now public change what should happen to the teachers (if you feel it does)? If it didn't become public, should punishments still be given out by the school board (assuming you want there to be), separate from legal results?

I agree with you that there should be discussion as to what should be said to the students. Not being a parent, however, I don't feel I'm qualified to address that.

Posted by: Jordan G | October 14, 2009 12:27 PM

@208, wes:
"There are all kinds of things which are morally wrong to do to a person which are not the government's business. "

Sure. But I'm having a really hard time understanding the argument that assault on an unconscious person can be seen as one of those things that is not the government's business.

-----

@193, donalbain:
"THe event had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the school. It was not during school hours, it was not on school premises, it was not at a school function. It was at a private gathering of friends."

It was a gathering of work colleagues, coworkers, out together celebrating a significant event at work. It want an official work event, but it was a gathering arising from, and impacting upon, the workplace.
Again, as I said above, at any corporate job I've ever held, those pictures in the hands of an HR person would get people summarily fired, with corporate counsel observing and taking notes, and with an immediate escort off the grounds. Exposure to sexual harassment lawsuits is something they don't fuck around with.
The school administration not only should have responded, they had a legal responsibility to respond as soon as this was brought to their attention.

@105, dogmeatlib:
"That's the point I keep trying to make to the "fire them!" crowd. Unless this is the standard for all occupations, we're talking about a rather ridiculous level of decorum and personal involvement for an employee/employer relationship. There have been no criminal charges, let alone convictions, yet the argument is that these people should no longer be employed?"
If their behavior causes loss of the standing and respect necessary for them to do their jobs, if it exposes their employer to legal liability, if it creates an unsafe working environment for a coworker, then yes, they should be fired. It looks to me like their behavior has violated all of the above. And yes, this is a common standard.

Posted by: Lee | October 14, 2009 12:46 PM

So when I say "criminal", what I mean is something that actually warrants government intervention.

But when Ildi says "criminal" she simply means "criminal". I'm not saying that your argument is invalid - only that you're projecting your own (generally reasonable, I think) standard onto a system of absolute definitions. Regardless of the value and rationality of your standard, it's still a personal standard based on your own understanding of what's right and wrong - what actions necessitate government interference. There's nothing wrong with that position, so long as you recognize it for what it is.

And of course you're right in that there's a huge amount of flexibility in what's prosecuted and what's not, that a society that stuck literally to legal definitions would be very unpleasant, and that reason has to mediate between law and consequence. But that doesn't change the fact that your argument isn't any less emotionally-based than Ildi's: they're two sides of the same coin. You're disagreeing on a question of personal values.

I do take issue with your attempt to equate this incident with the common understanding of drunk hazing:

I don't see why drunk shaming shouldn't be included in that category. As far as I can tell, the only actual damage done by drunk shaming is temporary emotional turmoil...

If you're willing to make the argument that flexibility is necessary in interpreting law (as you've just done), considering the specifics of an individual case is the rational extension of that position. I think you've said before that this is more repugnant than the ordinary understanding of a drunk hazing. The question of what to do about it is a question of values. Ilni is arguing on that basis and I do think you might be sidestepping her a bit. Her question isn't whether this is upsetting - it's whether it's serious enough to apply the law that fits the definition of what happened. If your answer is "no" that's a fair answer.

HaslettMom, if this happened over two years ago, and these teachers have been teaching for the past two years (presumably without consequence), how does the fact of it being now public change what should happen to the teachers (if you feel it does)? If it didn't become public, should punishments still be given out by the school board (assuming you want there to be), separate from legal results?

Posted by: Jordan G | October 14, 2009 12:27 PM

This guy is totally right.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 14, 2009 1:02 PM

Holy crap.

This is a thread about a piece of journalism, and you all go to arguing theories and hypotheticals. Get a grip on the handle of reality.

All you have is Ed's "big story" lead in, the "big story" itself, and a bunch of wanking. Plus some rumored thirdhand jots and tittles from people who claim authority from the geographical accident.

If somebody wrote on me, I'd act according to my habit and practice. If somebody penised a lesbian, the lesbian would have to work with the situation. If somebody slips a drug into somebody else's drink, well, you would have to evaluate that situation when you find it.

ALL THAT HAPPENED ALREADY--two years already. We have evidence: packaged in an extremely poor piece of featury-newsy dreck-writing I'd cut from my student newspaper. We have wild and completely uncorroborated (and utterly uncorroboratable) accusations of bad touch and drugs and "sexual assault." We have various prosecutors and school administrators declining to take part, which confirms that this is, both officially and informally, a wankfest among people who behaved badly this one night a long time ago. We have the usual escalating whinging about bigotry and double standards, all irrelevant because they can't be corroborated, aren't sourced, and are packaged in a terrible piece of newswriting. We have the tactic of naming something in order to discuss it--'drunken shaming', the terrible bane of western civilization, which along with 'road rage' and 'Bush derangement syndrome' are journalistic inventions intended to classify things that smart people already understand for the consumption of people too dim to pour urine out of a boot. Whinge all you want, but it's not a story; it's a tale, and that's a real distinction.

If you fire teachers who got drunk and did stuff this one time, but only after being victimized by bad journalists, well, I can slippery-slope that into trouble for pretty much everybody here. That's a common tactic of the asshat right, in case you've been living in a sod hut for the last twenty years. No students were involved; the teachers seem to be competent otherwise. Leave them alone. The social stigma alone is likely to be something of a drag but that's not how justice works. Reality-based--remember? The filter of that "news story" basically guarantees that you're all talking out of your hats.

By the way the sexual assault/date rape drug allegation is sloppily packaged in the story--even by American standards that edges close to libel, though the plaintiffs probably couldn't meet the burden after two years. If someone is arrested or charged for those crimes, they'd damn well better be convicted or I'd expect a libel suit, and a good one. More very careless journalism.

I haven't seen anyone argue that lesbians should have dicks drawn on them, drunks can be tortured, it's a fine seduction tactic to paw at passed-out vaginas. I haven't heard anyone assert credibly and clearly that lesbians should be treated differently from other people. Feel free to be outraged, but that piece of crap story is a slender reed indeed upon which to foam at one another.

ice9

Posted by: ice9 | October 14, 2009 1:09 PM

No, they do not. Go/no-go decisions to prosecute are based on many objective factors, such as preponderance of evidence, witness credibility, chance of getting a conviction, chance of getting a defendent to finger someone else more dangerous, actual harm done, what/how many other cases happen to be on the prosecutors' plate at the time, and how much time do prosecutors have to spare vs. how much effort is required vs. how much they're likely to get out of it.

You've just made a good point, Bee, stating nothing but facts. And I appreciate that. But while what you've said is true it's only parallel to what I said:

That being: not all laws are enforced all the time + the specifics of the crime determine how it's dealt with + there is obviously a question of moral value in deciding how to deal with incidents like this one - in addition to the practical elements you've pointed out.

Let's just try to get along Bee. I'm not interested in insulting you or competing with you, or with anyone else here. There are some interesting questions on this thread that deserve constructive thought. The point I made to Wes is a fairly obvious one, and I hope you agree that it's not really worth debating.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 14, 2009 1:33 PM

Benjamin is lecturing ME about manners? Please...

Let's just try to get along Bee. I'm not interested in insulting you...

Then why did you insult me by calling my common-sense advice (control your drug intake so you won't get incapacitated and vulnerable to assault) "ugly hateful nonsense?"

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 1:55 PM

"Is anyone else concerned about 893 Haslett High School Students and the 638 Haslett Middle School Students who interact with these teachers on a daily basis? We can argue about stupidity, call each other names, try to define and re-define legal terms and criminal conduct all day long and get absolutely no where."

The children!!! Won't somebody think of the children?!?!!!

Posted by: Donalbain | October 14, 2009 2:06 PM

Then why did you insult me by calling my common-sense advice (control your drug intake so you won't get incapacitated and vulnerable to assault) "ugly hateful nonsense?"

I sincerely hope you wrote the post in question (#113) to play devil's advocate, and that it's a gross exaggeration of your real views that you used to make a point. It really is ugly, hateful nonsense, Bee. And I think you'd be doing a noble thing by rereading that and considering it from another point of view. My thinking about this issue has been changed and refined by the good points that others have made - there's no shame in changing your mind and stepping back from an extreme or morally unjustifiable position. It's a fundamental quality of intellectual curiosity.

But if you do stand behind it let's simply interact with the basic understanding that I think you're exactly what I said you are and you can think whatever you'd like of me. But if we can limit ourselves to disagreeing with what people write based on it's value rather than the name attached to it, I'm happy.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 14, 2009 2:17 PM

IF this incident stops the teachers from being able control classes THEN there might be an argument for getting rid of them. But that has not been established, and so firing them will rightly get the wrath of the unions down upon the schools.

Posted by: Donalbain | October 14, 2009 2:23 PM

Oh, Bee. You know perfectly well that nobody is saying it's a bad thing to encourage people to control their drug intake. What people object to is that you're saying that Ms. Piechotte is partially at fault for what happened to her, which is nonsense.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 2:39 PM

Teachers still have time of their own just like anybody else, and what they do with that time is likewise nobody's business but their own.

If what they do gets exposed -- or if it's as flat-out disgraceful as the drunken sloppiness (at best) we saw here -- then the public, and the students, will consider it their business, whether or not we think that's fair. And it will affect their ability to do their jobs.

Teachers shouldn't get respect because they "command" it-- they should get it because teaching is their job, and learning is the job of students.

Do you really think the kids will respect their teachers just by hearing that prim little lecture? Sorry, kids don't function that way, especially when they're pushing boundaries and questioning just about everything they see and hear.

But there's nothing to prevent a person who dresses up as a pelican on weekends while ballet dancing in the backyard drunk off his or her ass from being a bang-up teacher, and that's all that should matter as far as the student is concerned.

Technically, you're right. And in an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue. But here in the real world, parents, kids, school boards, and voters aren't that rational. In many parts of the US, teachers are downright beleaguered between ignorant, superstitious, reactionary parents, radical ideological pressure-groups, and spineless principals and school boards. If a teacher is teaching something controversial, or trying to support colleagues who are, the LAST thing they need is a scandal that their enemies can use to create confusion, swamp reason with mindless emotion, and discredit both the teachers and their work.

Long story short: whatever you're into, take reasonable measures to keep it private; or at least try to ensure that it can't be exposed without active invasion of privacy.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 2:56 PM

So prove my position is extreme or morally unjustifiable (without misrepresenting it as you've been doing), and I'll step back from it. Oh, and you still haven't explained exactly WHY advising people to control their drug intake is "ugly hateful nonsense." It certainly wasn't any of those things when my own experiences suggested it to me.

Ok Bee:

She exposed herself to the "harm" when she could have, and should have, been more careful with her drinking. Technically, the Sharpie stuff may still be a crime, but it's one for which she would have shared responsibility by making an ass of herself.

For you to have looked at the images of what was done to her and respond with: "she made an ass of herself" is absolutely hateful and disgusting. She was taken advantage of while she was vulnerable; she was humiliated and degraded - and you choose to excuse this by blaming the victim. Do you understand her situation? The reality of her life and her experience?

This isn't about "whether they should be charged" - the statement you made is simply about your contempt for a woman who was assaulted.

...if anyone I care about was in need of my advice, I would tell them to go easy on their drug(s) of choice, and stay conscious until they got home and locked their door. And if they followed my advice and STILL got assaulted, then they would have my full sympathy and support. And if they didn't follow my advice, then I would further advise them to get help with their drug problem, assault or no assault.

If someone were assaulted after not taking your advice, your reaction would be to "advise them to get help with their drug problem"? You blame this woman - or, generally, anyone who's taken advantage of because they've mistakenly made themselves vulnerable at the wrong time, with a stupid mantra of "self-reliance"?

Life isn't a tidy formulaic abstraction and your paternalistic advice has absolutely no place in reality. People make mistakes: they don't deserve your condemnation for it, not under any circumstances. I asked you if you'd thought about this happening to someone you cared about and that was your answer. It's repulsive.

I haven't misrepresented you. Yes: Your position is unambiguously extreme and morally unjustifiable. I suggest that you care too much about winning your petty arguments to see what you're actually talking about.

If you really don't understand the level of pure inhumanity and contempt you expressed with these statements, I can only feel sorry for you Bee. Yours is a very cruel and irrational way of seeing the world.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 14, 2009 3:03 PM

What people object to is that you're saying that Ms. Piechotte is partially at fault for what happened to her, which is nonsense.

With the flexeril in the picture, she was not at all responsible for what happened to her -- which I admitted when it was mentioned. But in the absence of flexeril, she chose to get drunk enough to become incapacitated, which then left her vulnerable to an indignity that could have been avoided by different choices. So without the flexeril, she WAS indeed partially at fault for the outcome.

And before you accuse me of "victim-bashing," let me point out that this reasoning is not at all confined to rape cases: if you get hit by a car while crossing the street, that's the driver's fault; but if you stumbled out into the car's path without looking, or from a place where you weren't visible, then it's partly your fault as well. That's not "victim-bashing," it's common sense.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 3:13 PM

Wow, this thread is still going. I almost made a comment yesterday, but I didn't want to read this whole thing. Now I surely won't, but allow me to make my comment anyway:

Let's ignore for a second the allegations of rape and of intentionally drugging the victim, because I don't think anybody is trying to defend that. Let's focus more specifically on the "drunk shaming", and the argument that seems to be raging about that. Is it assault? Or simply a mean-spirited prank that someone with thick skin should get over?

My answer: Legally it is clearly assault, this much is pretty unambiguous. However, context and relationship of the individuals involved matters, so I can understand why some people think it is a mean-spirited but ultimately harmless prank -- in some situations that might be true.

Before anyone goes biting my balls off for being a heartless male chauvinist, let me explain. First, in this example I think it's quite clear that the prank wasn't ultimately harmless, even putting aside the allegations of rape, because the victim felt quite humiliated. On the other hand, if some friends of mine did this to me, while I'd be fairly pissed off (mostly because of the effort involved in clean-up) the thought of calling the police wouldn't even cross my mind.

On yet a third hand, if I was at a party composed solely of strangers and this happened, I might indeed think about calling the police.

This is not the only situation where something that, from a legal standpoint is unambiguously a crime, might be acceptable (if in bad taste) depending on the relationship of the individuals involved.

As a hypothetical, imagine I need to borrow a friend's lawnmower. I arrive at his house and he's not home, but I see that his garage door is open and the mower is right there. I know my friend well enough to know that it will be okay, so I take the mower and leave a note.

Legally? Theft. But am I worried about being prosecuted? No.

Now, if I did this to a neighbor that I had only met once while walking my dog...? Yeah, that's theft dude, and I'd better be ready with a lawyer.

So for those who are saying that this could happen between you and your friends and nobody would prosecute anybody, my answer is: So? That's like saying that if you are willing to loan your friend a lawnmower, I should be able to steal lawnmowers from anybody I want. Nuh uh.

Moral of the story: If you're going to pull a prank, especially one as mean-spirited as this one, KNOW YOUR FRIENDS. The fact that these guys did this without being utterly confident that it would be taken in good humor makes them exactly the monsters that people are saying they are.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 14, 2009 3:21 PM

@Lee #244,

Please be clear on what I'm saying. I'm not saying that parents have no reason to be concerned if they find out that their child's teacher did some nasty things; I'm saying that teachers are not obliged to regulate their lives according to the principles of the parents of their students. If what a teacher did is not illegal, I don't think the parents have a right to know it, much less govern it.

@Bee #243,

Wow, that's a really crap comparison. If you really don't see a difference between walking in front of a car and passing out drunk amongst company, I really don't know what to tell you. Here's a hint, though: if you stumble into the path of the car, that person probably didn't intend to hit you, and is made a victim him/herself by your actions. That dynamic does not remotely describe the situation we're talking about.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 3:25 PM

If you really don't see a difference between walking in front of a car and passing out drunk amongst company...

Here's the important similarity: both cases involve situations where someoone might hurt you, intentionally or not; therefore in both cases, we are expected to take simple common-sense precautions that greatly decrease our chances of getting hurt: look when crossing a street, and consume mind-altering drugs in moderation, if at all. I really don't see why you're having such a hard time grasping this simple concept -- I started learning it in grade-school. It's not enough to blame other people when you get hurt (rightly or wrongly); you have to protect yourself.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 3:34 PM

@Raging Bee #249: Agreed, and I think that it is hard to escape the fact that getting drunk enough to pass out at a party with co-workers is a bad idea.

But when did we start discussing the finer points of a victim's mistakes in preference to recognizing the guilt of the perpetrator?

What this reminds me of is the disappointing response of the mainstream Muslim community to the Danish cartoon controversy. Time and time again, I heard supposedly mainstream Muslim commentators say, "Those cartoons are hateful and a disgrace but that doesn't justify violence." Um. How about, "Violence is never justified," and then maybe you can talk about cartoons once you get done sufficiently denouncing arson and murder?

Is it a good idea to get stoned and drunk to the point of passing out with your co-workers? Well, probably not, but what's your point? That is such an irrelevant transgression when compared to battery and possible rape -- so irrelevant that it's barely worth mentioning.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 14, 2009 3:42 PM

Raging Bee, I think it was also some of the contemptuous language you used (e.g. "she made an ass of herself") that is problematic here.

If what you had said was something along the lines of, "This is yet another reminder that one needs to be careful about becoming overly intoxicated, especially in a vulnerable situation, lest one become a victim of a more serious crime," then I would be leaping to your defense. Absolutely the victim made some mistakes.

It's the level of contempt you are showing for the victim, and the fact that you seem more outraged at her mistakes than by the perpetrators' crimes, that I think is not making you any friends here.

Posted by: James Sweet | October 14, 2009 3:52 PM

They are at fault for leaving themselves vulnerable to harm.

Again-- no shit, and nobody here has said otherwise. Read James Sweet's post #253, over and over again if necessary, until the point comes through.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 3:58 PM

They are at fault for leaving themselves vulnerable to harm. Period. And no, saying this does not excuse those who do the harm -- they're at fault too, which I never denied. If you can choose to avoid harm, then you are responsible for the consequences of your choice.

The problem -- and I touched on this at #253 -- is that you are failing to say anything about the relative amounts of fault. And in fact, your rhetoric is implying equal distribution of fault. That's kindof offensive...

If we take this "equal distribution of fault" between victim-that-put-himself-in-harm's-war and perpetrator to its logical conclusion, it gets absurd pretty quickly.

"Oops, I locked my front door but I forgot that the side door (which is usually locked) was unlocked today because I was doing some yard work. I guess I and the burglars who stole my plasma TV are equally at fault!"

"I drew some cartoons in a newspaper that made fun of Muslims. Now I have equal blame with people who blow up embassies!"

"I drove (sober) on the expressway at 1AM on a Saturday even though I know that is a peak time for drunk driving. I guess I have 50/50 blame with the drunk driver who blew the red light and caused the accident that left me paralyzed! My bad!"

"A cop twisted my arm and threatened me with violence! Well, I guess I share equal blame because I called him a 'fucking dick'." http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/sf_cop_threatens_violence_duri.php

Posted by: James Sweet | October 14, 2009 4:03 PM

Also, I have to say, when I said that "you seem more outraged at [the victim's] mistakes than by the perpetrators' crimes" in #253, I would think that if that were not the case, #256 would be the opportune time to clarify your position: that the perpetrators culpability dwarfs that of the victim. That you declined to clarify this point is part of the reason why I think people still suspect you of "blaming the victim".

Perhaps you originally didn't feel the point needed clarification, since it was so incredibly obvious, but at this point, given the vector the discussion has taken, I think it would be worth your while to clarify how you feel about the relative amounts of blame here...

Posted by: James Sweet | October 14, 2009 4:12 PM

So now you're judging my words by PERCENTAGES OF WORD COUNT?! Are you fucking kidding me? Of all the goalpost-moving standards ever made up after the fact to rationalize an emotional reaction, that's gotta be the most transparent. Hey, I spend an even smaller percentage of my total lifetime word-output condemning Hitler. Does that make me a Nazi sympathizer? Or does it just mean I don't have to restate the obvious?

So what percentage of my words should I have devoted to flogging the other teachers in order to be judged morally correct? Or did you bother to come up with an exact number?

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 4:24 PM

There are all sorts of things a woman can do to decrease the risk of being assaulted - if they want to go all out, they can wear a burqa.

That's why I specifically, and repeatedly, used phrases like "reasonable measures" and "common sense."

The fact that I speak of controlling drug intake, and you leap from there to burqas, pretty well proves you're not ready to discuss the subject maturely.

Posted by: Raging bee | October 14, 2009 5:15 PM

Actually, ildi, control of drug intake is the issue at the heart of this whole incident: these teachers chose to do too much drugs, and one or more of them may have secretly drugged the victim (thus depriving her of the choice). This whole incident arose from several people making really stupid and dangerous choices regarding drug intake.

Posted by: Raging Bee | October 14, 2009 5:47 PM

The fact that I speak of controlling drug intake, and you leap from there to burqas, pretty well proves you're not ready to discuss the subject maturely.

You Bee - you are the one playing blame the victim here. And you claim that I'm not mature enough to discuss this subject maturely?

Have you noticed the ravening hoards of women on this thread who are defending your sick fucking bullshit? No? Why don't you think for just a moment why exactly that is.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 14, 2009 6:17 PM

Bee@ 265:

Actually, ildi, control of drug intake is the issue at the heart of this whole incident: these teachers chose to do too much drugs

Bullshit. People get drunk all of the time without sexually assaulting each other, and you know it. While inebriation might have aided this act, it did not cause it, and being inebriated does not make the victim in any way responsible for what was done to her. When you're ready to admit that, I'll stop considering you a delusional asshole....at least for a while.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 8:19 PM

Thanks Sadie! But I'm afraid I ran out of patience at #241 - still trying to stick to the good form at least.

It's a shame that the questions Jordan raised at #219 won't be answered now: anyone who cared more about the original topic than watching Bee go down in flames has already given up on this thread. There was some good stuff earlier on though.

My wife, who told me about this blog, suggested that I stick to reading Ed's original posts and IGNORE THE COMMENTS! - and especially to NEVER EVER COMMENT myself. I've stuck to that pretty well up to now but this topic and the comments on it were very compelling -- and now I get what she meant.

Best wishes to all of you (and especially you, Bee),

Ben

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 14, 2009 9:14 PM

Hey Ben - I hope you don't decide to never come back. Things can get rather harsh, it's nice to have people who are less prone to strong language and bad form (like that asshole DuWayne).

And who knows? Maybe next time we won't agree...

Posted by: DuWayne | October 14, 2009 9:28 PM

Likewise-- I hope you stick around, Ben. The comments here range from startlingly informative to humorous to laughable to abusive, but are generally fun conversation regardless. I've gone over the top a few times in this thread alone, but am mostly an amiable type, I promise, and your posts have added to the discussion considerably. Don't let this conversation prevent you from commenting again.

Posted by: Gretchen | October 14, 2009 9:46 PM

I must be a horrible person. It didn't really look that bad to me.

Whatever it is, "drunk lady got drawn on and is pissed as hell about it" doesn't really strike me as a big story. It's, um, kinda like an Onion headline.

Posted by: Leni | October 14, 2009 11:36 PM

1) Nobody has said there is nothing wrong. People are just saying that the state should not get involved

2) Lapdancing is (usually) a consentual, legal activity.

Posted by: Donalbain | October 16, 2009 2:28 AM

And for those who feel there is nothing wrong with what was done to that woman... My guess is you get lap dances on a regular basis and obviously do not have a daughter whom that could happen to some day.

Yeah, well *obviously*. I can't imagine where this flawless logic might break down.

Posted by: Leni | October 16, 2009 11:10 PM

@democommie,

You are wrong that my analogy is inapt and your response supports my point rather than disproving it. The reason it feels inapt to you is that you take someone committing multiple murders seriously enough that you automatically reject focusing on how victims made themselves vulnerable or using this to reduce perpetrator responsibility.

The amount of shifting of responsibility onto the vulnerable person is usually linked to personal opinion of the seriousness of what the non-vulnerable person did to the vulnerable person.

If those who made themselves vulnerable are partly responsible for what was done to them then this must always be true no matter what was done to them or how they made themselves vulnerable. If it isn't always true then it is never true and only reflects on the bias of those placing responsibility on certain vulnerable people.

Posted by: abyss2hope | October 17, 2009 11:49 AM

Democommie, please cut the personal attacks. I got both your sarcasm and your dismissal. I never made murder and what was done to this woman out to be equal offenses and if you think I did that's where you went wrong. I presented them as unequal offenses and deliberately so.

Your calling bullshit and the evidence you provide for this ignores the context of my original comment where I quoted someone focusing on the woman making herself vulnerable. That focus was not limited to one comment.

If you truly believe like I do that someome making themselves vulnerable is never a valid excuse or a mitigating factor in how people exploit that vulnerability -- whether the vulnerable person is murdered or drunk shamed -- then you should have said so in your first response rather than simply launching a sarcastic attack which left the opposite impression.

Posted by: abysss2hope | October 18, 2009 1:38 PM

Democommie, you are absolutely wrong in your assessment. I did not make a strawman argument. I didn't lump a murder case in with a drunk shaming case, I contrasted 2 cases where very different victims made choices which made them vulnerable. This highlighted a pattern of inconsistency when people talk about what consequences the person who exploited vulnerability should face.

I didn't make conjecture about what people here would think about the victims in the murder case. I made the statement that if victims making decisions which leave them vulnerable should be factored into judging the actions taken against the vulnerable then this factoring must always be done - even in murder cases - or it is invalid and should never be done.

Since I didn't quote you in the comment with the analogy you dislike, your statement about what you did or did not say is meaningless unless you also commented as Raging Bee.

Posted by: abyss2hope | October 19, 2009 12:50 AM

"you overlook that this woman also reported a sexual assault which clearly has available criminal statutes."

I did not overlook that event. It was brought up by several commenters and was dealt with.

You didn't answer my question at the end of my last comment.

Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 1:14 PM

Dude:

If this:

"You say that no victim is to blame? What about other people at the party who also drank too much and were unable physically or emotionally to stop what was going on? Are they as guilty as the parties who actually did something. It would seem that your stance would indicate that all persons there, except the woman who filed a complaint, are guilty."

is something that you consider a personal attack, disguised as a question, then I think you will be very, very unhappy on this blog. It's okay if you don't know the answer, but I think you're lying.

Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 10:27 PM

Gregory A. Butler:

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can AND the wisdom to know the difference."

I spent a lot of time around Al-Anon and one of the first lessons I learned was it's not my job to fix other people. In fact, I'm not entitled to fix other people.

Posted by: democommie | October 20, 2009 4:00 PM

Mr. Butler: Respectfully, Sir, you are an idiot. You have no knowledge as to the regular behavior of these people; you are ignoring that the victim was apparently drugged; and like several other idiot posters, you are blaming the victim for the potentially criminal actions of others.

On what do you base the assertion that any of these people are alcoholics, or even that they have a drinking problem? Or that "drunk on drunk violence" whatever that is -- although it doesn't seem to be criminal (you're wrong: voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime).

The School District may have an issue. but absent criminal convictions, not from this incident per se. It was not on school time or premisses. I imagine the teachers' contracts have some sort of behavior clause, but the standard is certainly higher than an unseemly story in the local news. The real danger for the school is for the victim to file a suit for sexual harassment and allege that this is part of an ongoing pattern that the school ignored.

As to taking away their license to teach: You're an idiot.

If she hadn't gotten black out drunk, this wouldn not have happened to her!

Great way to sum it all up. Except, when I drink more than two beers, I fall asleep. It doesn't even require someone to slip me a roofie. Is that my problem, I just need to hit bottom, or are you an idiot? Your call.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 20, 2009 4:13 PM

Well, in my mind, if you regularly drink to the point where you get black out drunk, you are, most likely, an alcoholic.

That's just common sense.

Certainly, if you were a New York City public school teacher and you were regularly using alcohol and illegal drugs with co workers - and getting blackout drunk with them and playing violently abusive pranks on them - you would soon be a FORMER New York City public school teacher.

I would HOPE that Michigan has at least as high a standard for teacher conduct as my city does.

So yeah, ALL of the drunkards involved should be fired and stripped of their licenses forthwith.

As for the woman in question - instead of running around blaming people, she needs to take a long hard look at herself and her conduct.

Drinking til you pass out is a Bad Sign - and yes, if you do that on the regular than you are probably an alcoholic.

And if she's getting blackout drunk with the kind of abusive overgrown schoolyard bully types who spike people's drinks with drugs and draw sexual comments on them with markers - then it's on her to Get New Friends.

The world does not exist for your convenience and the government does NOT have an affirmative duty to protect you from your own stupidity.

I really don't understand the perspective that some of the women here have that it's the government's job to protect them from bad situations that are the result of their own stupidity.

Sorry, the world does NOT work like that.

If a man goes to a bar with a big fat wad of $ 100 dollar bills, a full length leather coat, alligator shoes, an expensive gold watch and a neck covered with gold chains, and he chooses to spend the night in the bar drinking excessively until he was blind stinking drunk, and he passes out in the gutter on the way home and some random passersby steal his money, coat, shoes, watch and gold chain IT'S BASICALLY HIS OWN FAULT.

[And yes, I do know a drunkard who that actually happened to - and he had nobody to blame but himself for getting himself in that situation!]

I believe that the same idea holds for this woman here - her drunkenness is to blame for her getting herself in that situation, and she'd be better off going to detox and the nearest AA meeting instead of demanding that the police bail her out of the consequences of her own alcoholism.

Posted by: Gregory A. Butler | October 20, 2009 11:19 PM

Gregory A. Butler:

I don't know how familiar you are will AA or other 12 step programs, but you sound like a lot of folks who used to come to Al-Anon meetings I attended to get help with making their beloved drunks give up demon rum.

That people who drink more than they should and become inebriated or unconcious is a problem, one they should work on, if they want to have a decent job, familial or social relationships or keep from being robbed, raped and ritten on (the "3 R's" of public drunkeness), is not at issue. That people (teachers in the instant case) who are otherwise competent to do their jobs and have not been derelict in their duties or injurious to their charges should be fired for an off-duty, off work premises activity is ludicrous.

I've known a lot of teachers, cops, firemen, nurses, military folks over the years. The ones who got canned for their problems with alcohol either had job relatefd incidents or wound up being indicted and convicted of a crime. From the tone of your rant (yes, that's what it is) it would seem that you think teachers are some special class of employee whose performance and demeanor, whether on or off-duty or inside or outside of the place of employment makes them liable for such severe sanctions as having their jobs and their very means of making a living taken away from them. Sounds a bit harsh to me.

Posted by: democommie | October 21, 2009 8:12 AM

kehrsam:

I was using the "Heath Gambit" to see if Mr. Gregory A. Butler would think back on his 12 Step experience and say to himself, "Oh, yeah, I got my own shit to deal with--it's not my job to deal with other people's shit". Obviously it was a failed attempt.

Besides, it's not my fault if he get's high on his horse and posts idiotic shit and then has a "pimp me" sign painted on his forehead with a sharpie.

Having said that, I see your point, I was remiss in my duties. He just seemed less toxic than some of the other commenters--whose names will not be mentioned here.

Posted by: democommie | October 21, 2009 10:51 PM