this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
116 points (88.7% liked)

World News

32285 readers
544 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A former Central Valley High school teacher’s “predatory actions” stripped a student of his dreams and significantly harmed him and his family after the teacher had sex with the 17-year-old, the student’s mother told a judge Thursday.

McKenna Kindred, 25, will receive no jail time – recommended by the prosecution and defense – after she pleaded guilty Thursday to amended charges of second-degree sexual misconduct with a minor and communication with a minor for immoral purposes, both gross misdemeanors.

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Dean Chuang sentenced Kindred to two years of probation and $700 in fines and fees. She must register as a sex offender for 10 years.

Students came forward in December 2022 to describe the inappropriate relationship between Kindred and her teacher’s assistant.

The teen’s classmates told school officials he was inappropriately messaging Kindred via Instagram and that he was defensive when they questioned him about the relationship, according to court documents. Kindred also reported to administration she was being harassed by someone on social media, accusing her of a sexual relationship with a student that she denied.

The teen’s mother later told law enforcement her son had a sexual relationship with Kindred, that he’d been to her house alone with her and that the two had been sharing explicit photos over Instagram, court records say. Detectives did not find photographs “that appeared overtly sexual in nature,” documents say. There were messages referencing masturbation.

The teenager was interviewed at his home and admitted he’d begun messaging Kindred in June 2022. He told police he visited Kindred’s house and that they had sex. He also admitted to sharing explicit pictures and videos with Kindred, according to court records.

Central Valley School District said last year Kindred had resigned.

The student’s mother told Chuang that Kindred’s actions were an “abuse of power” and that she started to “groom” him when he was 16.

She said her son was unable to finish high school on campus, which affected him socially, emotionally and academically. He also lost some of his youth and missed out on major milestones.

The woman said her son played soccer since he was 18 months old, but Kindred’s criminal actions forced his plans to change.

“A light he used to carry has been dimmed,” she said.

The mother said she agreed to the attorneys’ sentencing recommendations, so the case did not drag out any longer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Numberone@startrek.website 57 points 7 months ago (6 children)

The word rape doesn't show up in that entire article. Must be some kind of mistake. I wonder why that would happen?

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 42 points 7 months ago

Because that is not the name of the crime in Washington. It says sexual misconduct, which is the name of the crime.

https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=504-26-221

Washington has a surprisingly modern discussion of consent in that law, but conspicuously missing is anything about abuse of a position of power, which is typically used in these exact cases (teacher-student, prison guard-inmate, police-detainee, etc.). Honestly if that's not part of the law in WA I'm not sure how they figure it's illegal under this law.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was going to say it's likely because the age of consent is 16 in Washington. It is but there are exceptions for being over 5 year difference in age (she's outside of the age range) and for a teacher and student.

https://codes.findlaw.com/wa/title-9a-washington-criminal-code/wa-rev-code-9a-44-093/

So this should definitely result in a class C felony.

[–] afterthoughts@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So it's rape in some places but not others?

Weird how rape works.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

And there are a creepy amount of sites dedicated to figuring out the law in each area. You would think simply avoiding having sex with people under 18 would be a pretty easy task but I feel there may be a scary amount of people that are actively seeking that out.

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder why that would happen?

Because this is an article about a specific case that didn't involve a charge of rape I imagine?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

An adult having sex with a minor is rape.

[–] afterthoughts@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

Statutory rape is not the same as having sex with someone against their will.

We should be saying "willing" or "unwilling" to get this point across without seeming like we're trying to manipulate others.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago

The age of consent in Washington is 16.

[–] 01011@monero.town -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Three words: Elephant. Balloon. Library.

Does it make sense? No? Good.

[–] 01011@monero.town 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Gender and racial judicial bias are real issues in the western world but continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the judicial system is blind. Time and time again the criminal justice system in north America demonstrates an unwillingness to hold white women to account. When they do face consequences the sentences levied upon them are typically noticeably less than that which are given to men in similar circumstances. The most glaring discrepancy is between white women (who are treated with the softest of kid gloves) and Black males. I say "males" and not "men" because even Black male juveniles are treated more harshly than white women. It's almost as if the system expects a greater level of maturity and accountability from Black male juveniles than it does adult white women.

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Well, that's much better answer than previous one and thanks for that. The previous one seemed pretty much like obligatory "That's racist!" shout just for the sake of feeling oppressed.

(Un)fortunately I can't probably see the big picture of different parts of the world as I live in a country where the biggest racial minority is around 0,5%... White women are treated equally as they should here, because well, they are such a huge majority. And I truly believe nobody would even dare to think about racial bias.

[–] 01011@monero.town 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It was a "that's racist" shout because the legal system in north America is horrendously racist. It's not just in the court room, even before matters get to court, the manner in which white women are treated by prosecutors (who offer sweet deals as in this case), police (who are less likely to apprehend and if done they do tentatively/reluctantly) has a quite visibly racist component to anyone who knows how the system treats "others". Context matters - some people got it, apparently others did/do not.

[–] afterthoughts@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago

It’s almost as if the system expects a greater level of maturity and accountability from Black male juveniles than it does adult white women.

What a great way of putting it.