Former Yamhill teacher arrested

This definition of Harrassment is wrong. It doens't have to be physical.

This is the real definition under the law:

"The definition of harassment is physical or verbal hostility toward someone with legally protected status"

Troy Prouty*

I am so curious how a parent, upon finding out that their child was the victim of any type of abuse by a trusted person in their child's life, controls their emotions? Call me a mama bear I guess, but I think that I would lose my mind if someone violated my child's trust or their body- I do fear I would quite possibly find myself pleading guilty by reason of temporary insanity.

Kudos to the school counselor who didn't sit on the complaint, curious what his plea will be, curious what deal will be cut.

Troy:
The police were very specific in this case in alleging "physical harassment." The relevant passage in ORS states:
"A person commits the crime of harassment if the person intentionally: (a) Harasses or annoys another person by: (A) Subjecting such other person to offensive physical contact."
The crime is normally a Class B misdemeanor, but escalates to a Class A misdemeanor under the following circumstances:
"If a person violates: (a) Subsection (1)(a)(A) of this section by subjecting another person to offensive physical contact and the offensive physical contact consists of touching the sexual or other intimate parts of the other person/"
Class B is being alleged here, suggesting the contact, while physical in nature, was not sexual in nature.
Steve Bagwell, Managing Editor

Yeah, what Steve said!

He's Army what do you think will happen? Of course he'll get a deal cut, probably a pretty sweet deal too.

Ninja,
What does the Army have to do with it, do you think someone is more protected cause they serve. The law is the law no matter who or what organization one might belong to.

I was pointing out that harrassment does not have to be just physical contact.

Hince "Harrassment� is legally defined as �offensive physical contact without injury"

Vs..

"The definition of harassment is physical or verbal hostility toward someone with legally protected status"


That's because you took which part he is being charged with of the harrassment, I didn't know that by how it was worded in the article and thought you meant the whole definition.

Troy Prouty*

I am stunned to see this. I worked with Mel Jordan and know him to be an awesome, supportive, dedicated coworker, educator and person. My heart goes out to all involved in this mess.

This is not the first time he has been accused of " improper actions" I guess you could call it that. About 4 years ago a student accused him of looking down her shirt. He also resigned soon after that and parents where told he was doing a tour for the national guards. Then they hired him back a couple years ago. Nothing ever happened with that incident. But it makes you wonder if it just got swept under the rug.

Half the teachers from my high school would be charged with this in today's society. Grabbing a kid by the arm to escort them to the principal's office. Not today. Now you get charged with harassment. Maybe he did do something worse but don't teacher's have the right to control their students?

I am now privy to the detail of the alleged actions, and I can say definitively that they went way beyond that.
They were pretty egregious. I think everyone in the community would consider them unacceptable, and that goes double at the middle school level.
We will characterize them more fully in Saturday's print edition.
Steve Bagwell, Managing Editor

Thank you, looking forward to reading it.

Steve, thanks for the follow up.

Don't forget...they are only allegations and have not been proven. I wish it was illegal for newspapers to publish names and pictures until something is proven.
News Register, you have now permanently stained this mans character without any knowledge of whether he actually did something wrong or not. That's not fair!

Sounds pretty serious to me. I don't know if this man did what he is being accused of or not but, I just wanna go on record as saying EMINEM IS GREAT!

Mack - what planet are you from? Take up your concerns with the governing segment of our state that sets the rules that allows citizens public access to arrest records - not with the media that reports it. The accuser began the process of permanently staining the man's character. A jury of your peers will decide if he deserves it or not.

I agree with Mack!!

"mandatory reporters"

The up to $1,000 fine seems kinda low, something wrong there. I've seen posted 'up to' fines higher than that for littering.

Concerning the comment: "I wish it was illegal for newspapers to publish names and pictures until something is proven."

We often hear variations of that sentiment, so let's follow the line of thought:

First, the idea of making it "illegal to publish" is an argument for totalitarian rule. Let's then make it illegal to write something in a letter or illegal to orate in a public square. Let's toss the First Amendment. That's an exaggeration, perhaps, but the idea of making speech illegal is not something to throw about idly.

Setting aside the legality of things, consider a self-imposed policy by newspapers and other media to withhold reports of alleged crimes and civil wrongs until the cases are proven.

On the one hand, a huge number of guilty people would remain anonymous to the public until guilt is "proven," or not, after months or even years of trials and appeals.

On the other hand, people wrongfully arrested and/or jailed would be anonymous to all who might come forward with evidence or support.

It's a natural reaction for people to think it's wrong to report arrests when we have a system of "innocent until proven guilty." We often talk internally about the issues related to that debate, and each time we conclude that publishing the justice system public record and reporting on its nuances is preferable to keeping it all secret "until proven."

Jeb Bladine
News-Register

Mr Bladine,

Your logic is sound. But my comments didn't spring from logic, they were based on emotion.
As a teen I was accused of a crime I didn't commit. Eventually, after months of stress, fear and emotional pain the police dropped the whole matter due to a lack of evidence. But believe me it is an ugly ordeal that is hard to truly understand if you haven't lived through it.
I'll bet, that if you (or one of your family members) were ever accused of a crime that you didn't commit and had your picture published all over in the media, you might consider changing your mind too. Not based on logic, but on emotion.

Oh, and I don't think it is totally without precedent for certain types of speech to be illegal.
If one stands up in the town square and makes slanderous statements about another is that not illegal? Perhaps it's not criminal, but I think the law would provide for civil redress to punish the offender.
I suppose newspapers are protected from civil suits because the article is carefully constructed with words like "alleged" and "has been charged." But the net effect on the reputation of the falsely accused is the same.
I know it's a dilemma either way, but I wish the newspaper would error on the side of mercy and respect for the accused.

Mack,

I understand, and respect, that your original comment was an emotional response rather than a logical argument. We also know that people can be hurt by wrongful accusations.

However, we can't act as judge or jury by trying to determine guilt as a condition of reporting the actions taken by police and the courts. Instead, we have policies that include reporting most arrests and writing stories about high profile criminal activity, with greater attention given to cases involving people in positions of public trust.

Those reports have included members of my extended family, and members of the extended families of our employees. It's difficult and often draining to be in that position, but we apply the policies equally. Sorry for the time such policies may have done damage to you.

Jeb Bladine
News-Register