Florida Police Dispatcher Arrested For Alleged Sexual Relationship With II-Year-Old Boy

2B19AEC800000578-3185463-Amanda_Chandler_pictured_40_of_Palm_Bay_has_been_charged_with_ei-a-4_1438741090786There is an interesting case out of Florida where a dispatcher for the Palm Bay Police Department is accused of having a sexual relationship with an 11-year-old boy. Amanda Chandler, 40, is married and a mother of two young children ages 10 and 8. What caught my eye was the account of her husband.

Chandler reportedly tried to commit suicide with pills and ended up in the hospital. It then came to light that she was allegedly having sex with the boy and possibly other children. She was arrested Monday night at a local hospital and charged with eight counts of capital sexual battery and five counts of lewd and lascivious molestation. That could give her life in prison due to the aggravating element of having sex with a child under 12.

In the coverage, the following line struck me as a bit odd: “Her husband told police he would sometimes catch the boy in Chandler’s bed, kissing each other on the cheek and as he put it ‘hanging all over her.'” What I fail to understand is how you can “catch the boy” in her bed and not be a bit more than suspicious. He is also quoted as saying that he would come home occasionally finding his wife resting or sleeping in her bed with the boy and at least once believed that he came in after they had been kissing. News stories also report that the husband grabbed her iPad and found various suspicious messages between his wife and the boy. However, he still expressed shock when the charges were brought against his wife.

There is really too little in these stories to judge the husband and he may have only reached these conclusions in hindsight. However, putting aside this case, there is an interesting question of what inaction can be viewed as culpable conduct in such cases. If a husband or wife believes that a spouse may be raping a child, the question becomes when that knowledge is significant enough to make the husband or wife a co-conspirator or criminal actor through inaction or a failure to report.

Once again, there is too little information to accuse the husband of any collusion or conspiracy. Indeed, he may have simply been clueless. This is a very difficult thing to believe about any person, let alone your wife. I think that there has to be substantial evidence of both knowledge and collusion to support a spousal charge in such a case. The husband has been open about his concerns and has clearly cooperated with police. As for Chandler herself, her counsel is likely to immediately explore the possibility of a plea. If not, there could be a fight over whether the prosecution can introduce her attempted suicide in the trial. It is clearly prejudicial since jurors will assume that it is an effective admission of guilt. Yet, I cannot see how they would be able to keep it out, particularly since she was arrested at the hospital. A plea seems the logical move for the defense in light of such evidence.

125 thoughts on “Florida Police Dispatcher Arrested For Alleged Sexual Relationship With II-Year-Old Boy”

  1. When last I visited this site Inga Annie was defending the honor of her father with an meandering, unending trek through WWII European regions and favoring other posters with snapshots of Daddy with his wartime buddies and herself as a child, as proof that Daddy was not a Nazi – as another poster had suggested he was.

    I thought it best to let this blog cool off until the guy with the butterfly net caught up with Annie. However, upon my return today I am convinced that Annie, no matter the subject, is indefatigable as well as undeniably certifiable.

    Sue me.

  2. For what it’s worth, an anonymous entity cannot be a victim of defamation.

  3. I’ve concluded that the quality of a thread has an inverse relationship to the number of comments from Annie.

  4. Chief Consort to the Progressive Grand Inquisitor
    1, August 5, 2015 at 10:59 am
    She’s merely anticipating the lowering of the age of consent, now that all moral rules are being jettisoned.

    Thankfully, no one saw that slippery slope coming when gay marriage was Glorified Above All Others.

    Chief Consort to the Progressive Grand Inquisitor
    1, August 5, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    Consent laws will change, just like gay marriage.


    Chief Consort to the Progressive Grand Inquisitor
    1, August 5, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Further Inga think it’s funny……

    Pathetic and evil.
    Pathetic and evil hypocrisy. Your comments are not funny Pogo.

  5. DBQ, it would be laughed out of the courtroom. You conservatives have been trying desperately to Jin up outrage for days now. That you have seen the need to invent an “outrage” here on this very thread over a vague jocular comment is truly seriously pathetic. What is sad is the lengths to which certain conservatives would go to create an outrage. Nothing real to be outraged over today?

    1. Inga – I really haven’t said anything for awhile because I was catching up. However, what you did is liber per se. Look it up. You will see how perilous your legal position is.

  6. DBQ, I did not mean to imply that these women were maybe victims themselves to be the only factor. Certainly hedonism and moral relativism is in play as well.

  7. Pogo, MamaM has a very sound hypothesis as to why this topic is so incendiary. This vileness, combined w/ other evidence, tells me Mama is correct.

  8. One cannot see all of the female sexual predators, particularly in our schools, and not admit something has gone seriously wrong in our culture. It could be many of these predator women were prey as youngsters.

    This is one scenario that is likely. Another is the complete breakdown of morality and standards. It seems that today’s society is all about self gratification and being free to do what YOU want…..even at the expense of others. This probably started most or became more prevalent back in the 1960’s “if it feels good do it generation”.

    The Baby Boomers have a lot to answer for.

  9. It is one thing to make disparaging remarks about liberals or conservatives in general. Liberals like abortion on demand and don’t care that babies are being chopped up like a stolen car into parts like a chop shop. That is a generalization and obviously isn’t completely true because you cannot generalize about EVERYONE in a group. Even though that doesn’t seem to stop anyone.

    It is a completely other to imply or suggest that NAMED people, especially those who post under their real names or whose identities could be found in real life, are pedophiles or other defamatory things. This is libel and could be subject to legal action.

    That someone can’t make this differentiation is really quite sad and alarming.

  10. He can keep it up if he wants.
    I saved it, on html and as an image..

    Inga seems proud that you falsely accused someone (actually 2 people) of a sex crime, a most vile one.
    Further Inga think it’s funny (the accusation or the crime, or both).
    Third, Inga consider it the exercise of ‘free speech’ to falsely accuse someone of serious sexual misconduct, to defame them with innuendo, whereas it is an actionable offense.

    Pathetic and evil.

  11. Karen, Good to have a sane, smart woman commenting. One cannot see all of the female sexual predators, particularly in our schools, and not admit something has gone seriously wrong in our culture. It could be many of these predator women were prey as youngsters.

  12. Pogo, you are asking Professor Turley to delete a comment that you took personally? It is the Professor’s prerogative, but I would encourage him NOT to delete. I excercised my First Amendment rights and as a self professed conservative you should understand that. What I’ve noted about you in the past is that you seem to think you can denigrate ad lib and not expect anyone to challenge you. You conflate and exaggerate, your persona The “Chief” pooed in his little pants today.

  13. “I would be embarrassed if I were you,” uttered often by the most shameless person to ever comment here.

  14. You my think you can make jokes that imply, suggest, or hint that someone is a pedophile or favors the practice are ‘funny,’ but most people think the subject is disgusting and find such jokes out of place and that such an implication and association is horrid.

    That is, defamatory.
    But IANAL.
    I think there’s one who write here.

  15. I think it would be wise to ask Turley to delete your comment.

    “What is a “defamatory” statement?
    1. A statement which causes harm to reputation.
    A statement is defamatory if it “tends to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation.” Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. 1987). When the defamatory meaning is not apparent on its face, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving such extrinsic facts. Anderson v. Kammeier, 262 N.W.2d 366, 371 (Minn. 1977).
    2. Defamation Per se
    Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases.
    When a plaintiff is able to prove defamation per se, damages are presumed, but the presumption is rebuttable.”

Comments are closed.