Betrayal of Trust (Recruiter forces himself on 17 year-old, broke no laws)

[Jokerman]

Source: WTHR-TV Indianapolis

The 27-year-old army recruiter allegedly had sex with the 17-year-old girl. She didn't tell anyone.

"He started getting real pushy about kissing," said the teen girl, "and then one thing led to another. I just kept saying I didn't want to, didn't want to, and I said no. And he said we're not going to, we're not going to."

Furious, the teen's father sought charges. There was just one problem - Sergeant Terry Taylor had broken no laws.

In Indiana, the age of consent is 16. The state's child seduction laws only apply to school employees who engage in sexual intercourse or fondle the 16- and 17-year-olds to whom they provide care, supervision or instruction. The law does not include military recruiters at school.




Read more: http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6765352

---

If this scumbag were a school employee he could be prosecuted but as a recruiter, he gets away with rape.

The girl's high school is just a few minutes down the road. Makes me wonder if this pillar of military honor and integrity has been in our school.

[Omaha Steve]

1. Doesn't NO mean RAPE?

I thought it used to.

[crikkett]

5. without actually reading the article I place my bet,

that a statute of limitations has passed

[crikkett]

8. OH NO! The recruiter got her pregnant and she had the baby!!

No wonder Graddad's out for blood!!

"The first couple of times we talked, it was strictly military, but sometimes we got off track a little bit." Then, she said, Taylor "started asking if I had a boyfriend or something like that."

"It seemed weird," she recalled, "but I didn't think anything of it - just strictly because I thought I could trust him."

She told the recruiter she was no longer interested in the Army. Then that's when she said Taylor started showing up at her job. He never asked her out. But one day he reportedly asked her to come to his house. That's when she said it happened.

...

The phone calls continued and there was one more visit. The impact this time would change her life.

The teen gave birth nine months later. The last time she and her father saw Sgt. Taylor was last fall when her father questioned him about the pregnancy. They both say Taylor wanted the situation kept quiet.

...

"The man was in my home and was telling me his undying love for my daughter and wanting to live happily ever after," said the father - now a grandfather. "My daughter wasn't sitting next to him. She wasn't hanging on to him. Clearly there was no love there."

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Well, she didn't scream, which means she consented. Right?

Therefore he should pay the father a fine, and she should be stoned to death.

[Bluzmann57]

2. If that was my daughter

It would take the military to pull me off the bastard.

[originalpckelly]

10. If that were my daughter...

the fella would be missing some equipment, and not the kind issued by the US government.

[crikkett]

3. You're right to be pissed off; No means No and anything else is rape in my book.

The recruiter should be hounded and picketed (although, can you get arrested for that? What a crap country if you can) and the statutes should be changed.

[Kagemusha]

4. The 3rd paragraph there makes no sense whatsoever.

If she said no, and kept saying no, and resisted, to hell with child seduction laws, isn't that an allegation that it was rape? Don't even try to tell me the state has no law criminalizing rape.

But I can't tell from this article why that charge isn't on the table at all.

[bemildred]

7. The notion of trusting military recruiters makes my head hurt. nt

[yardwork]

9. He absolutely broke the law - he RAPED HER!

And now it sounds like he's a deadbeat dad. Where's his child support payment?

Senator David Vitter (Family Values #1) helped make the law REQUIRING public schools to allow recruiters on site. Now where is Senator Vitter when the recruiter raped this child?

[aquart]

11. Amend the law. Real fast.

But if she said NO, how is her age relevant?

[Xithras]

12. To all those yelling rape: It's not a prosecutable case.

First off, I happen to think you're right. If she said no, and he kept going, it's rape. That said, this is an un-prosecutable case.

She saw him at school, she saw him at work, she took his phone calls. He asked her to come to his home, and even though his intentions obviously had nothing to do with recruiting, she went anyway. And he raped her.

If the story stopped there, a prosecutor might have been able to get a conviction. But...

He called her again. She took his phone calls, and didn't avoid him. She voluntarily met up with him AGAIN, had sexual intercourse with him AGAIN, and got pregnant on the second visit.

Consensual or not, any halfway decent defense attorney could paint a vivid picture of the "lovestruck young teen attracted to the powerful older man, who is now lying to avoid the shame of an unplanned pregnancy". The Duke case might be brought up, as would many other cases where stories were bent to protect the accuser from being accused herself of something "shameful". By the end of the trial, the jury will no doubt be wondering, "Did he rape her, or is she lying because she didn't want to get into trouble with her father?"

Reasonable doubt. He goes free. It's not a prosecutable rape.

[Jokerman]

15. It's not prosecutable because of a hole in the law.

A school employee could be prosecuted under the "Child Seduction" law even if the student initiated and actively pursued the relationship because the employee is in a position of authority.

Unfortunately the recruiter isn't covered by the same law that applies to every single school administrator, teacher, support person, and even custodian in the state.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. How can this be? Sexual assault is still sexual assault

regardless of whether the victim is of age or not.

No means no.

[Jokerman]

14. Why was this moved to GD?

Looked like LBN to me.