http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html
QuoteFORT WORTH -- The sexually explosive trial of a former Kennedale High School teacher continued this morning with more students telling of the inappropriate relationships they had with defendant Brittni Colleps.
Colleps is accused of having sex with five of her students -- including four at one time -- while she was a teacher and coach at Kennedale High.
If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.
The students were 18 or older at the time.
This morning, a student going by the pseudonym "Richard" testified that he went to Colleps' house with three friends and that she performed oral sex on him twice while other students had sex with her.
Richard said he does consider himself a victim and was "happy" to be at Colleps' house.
A student going the name of "Jordan" testified next, saying that he was "amazed" when he found out from another student that Colleps was having sex with students. Jordan later went with two friends to Colleps' house and all of them had sex with her, he testified.
Jordan also testified that he videotaped the group sex using another student's phone and that the students talked about keeping quiet to ensure that Colleps wouldn't get in trouble.
'Anything goes in sex kind of girl'
During opening day testimony on Tuesday, a student going by the pseudonym "Aaron" testified that he and Colleps began sending text messages to each other that quickly became sexual in nature.
Colleps discussed the number of her sexual partners (eight guys, two girls), her favorite sex toys and described herself as an "anything goes in sex kind of girl."
Aaron, now 20, testified that he had sexual intercourse with Colleps five times in the spring of 2011, four of which involved group sex with other male students.
Jurors were also shown a graphic cellphone video of the last encounter, which Aaron testified showed Colleps having sex with Aaron and three other students. The video, taken on Aaron's phone by another student, did not show Colleps' face. It showed a woman's back as she was having intercourse with at least two different students while the others were in the room.
Shown to reporters after the trial adjourned for the day, the video occasionally panned the faces of the students as they laughed, smiled and made hand gestures for the camera.
Aaron testified that the woman in the video was Colleps, pointing out a distinctive tattoo on her lower back.
He said that Colleps had remarked, "Don't put the light in my eyes" as Jordan began filming.
Colleps' attorney, Lex Johnston objected to the admission of the video as evidence, arguing that it was illegally made because Colleps was unaware she was being videotaped and had not given her consent.
State District Judge Ruben Gonzalez overruled Johnston's objection.
'Work some magic'
A second former student, "Mark," testified on Tuesday that Aaron had asked him to hook him up with Colleps after Mark confided that he had had sex with Colleps.
"Work some magic," Aaron had texted Mark.
Mark testified that he began exchanging e-mails, and later texts and phone calls, with Colleps in April 2011 after he initially "poked" her on Facebook and she poked back. He said the topic soon turned sexual, and the two eventually made plans to have sex.
Mark paused occasionally, seemingly embarrassed, as he testified that Colleps picked him up near his house and drove him to her house, where they had sex two days in a row. After that, he said, he got back together with a girlfriend and did not have sex with Colleps again.
Both Mark and Aaron testified that Colleps told them not to tell anyone about their encounters or she would get in trouble and lose her teacher's certificate.
Aaron testified that in an initial text exchange, before they had sex, Colleps said she couldn't send him a picture of her in lingerie because she was "not trying to go to jail."
Aaron said he replied that she couldn't go to jail because he was 19. He said Colleps replied that even if she didn't go to jail, "You are still my student" and that she would lose her teaching certificate.
Nevertheless, Aaron testified, Colleps later modeled lingerie for him and other students at her house before engaging in group sex in an upstairs bedroom. He testified that Colleps later texted him nude pictures of herself and a video in which she was using a sex toy.
Word spread
Colleps' husband is in the military and was stationed at Fort Polk, La., during the time in question. Aaron testified that Colleps' three young children were not at home when he was there.
Colleps' husband previously has stated publicly that he stands by his wife. He was not in the courtroom Tuesday because he is a potential witness in the case.
In opening arguments Tuesday morning, Elizabeth Beach, who is prosecuting the case with Tim Rodgers, said word spread about the sexual encounters to other students, one of whom told their mother, a school employee.
Kennedale High Principal Rita Whatley, the state's first witness, testified that upon learning of a possibly inappropriate relationship, school officials met on May 11, 2011, first with Aaron and then with Colleps.
Colleps initially denied having inappropriate relations with the student, but text messages from her cellphone number were found on the student's phone, Whatley said.
Colleps was immediately suspended and later resigned, Whatley said.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powned.tv%2Fimages%2Fother%2FBrittniColleps.jpg&hash=a668500488a24a5e12d295c0794fd4d1aea156d1)
I see.
She has big boobs too.
I couldn't resist, and did a google image search.
Pictures that aren't her mug shot make her out to be much more attractive.
THough I'm pretty sure that even as a horny 18 year old, I'm not going to participate in a five way, no matter how hot the teacher.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2012, 10:23:13 AM
I see.
She has big boobs too.
boobs? didn't notice, too distracted by the mustache
QuoteBrittni Colleps
QuoteBrittni Colleps
QuoteBrittni
:bleeding: :x :face:
Husband is in the military. :bleeding:
I need to find some relevant cartoons from PowerPoint Ranger.
Quote from: Viking on August 16, 2012, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2012, 10:23:13 AM
I see.
She has big boobs too.
boobs? didn't notice, too distracted by the mustache
Lots of women have mustaches, they need to take care of it on a regularly basis, just like us. Being Arrested doesn't usually leave you the time to do that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 10:25:10 AM
I couldn't resist, and did a google image search.
Pictures that aren't her mug shot make her out to be much more attractive.
THough I'm pretty sure that even as a horny 18 year old, I'm not going to participate in a five way, no matter how hot the teacher.
really? I imagine that horny 18 year olds would prefer a gang bang then wanking to one on the Internets.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoedbc.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fbrittni-colleps-sex-scandal.jpg&hash=51a8d8c48828b77fad9543102eec5c9ea67a2abe)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/558081_443884202301255_1122024514_n.jpg)
Need a paternity test for her 3 children.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_boavHpSc3Ok%2FTMYJHATYFlI%2FAAAAAAAAAX8%2F3pnumO6qVIw%2Fs1600%2Fbabies%21.jpg&hash=ce99ce1085da18f9a24d05d2fec4e3733edf9fec)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_boavHpSc3Ok%2FTMBtfgSBe6I%2FAAAAAAAAAWs%2FcABSyfY9STI%2Fs1600%2Fpersona%2Bad.jpg&hash=371c27a5f10d6b5789f0b199982b3438b75b82f5)
What the the hell is that suppose to be?
WTF IS THIS?
Philip smoked some really good shit?
Meowtf?
His girlfriend probably cheated on him whe he was away and now he's bitter. That or he has really crappy taste in Internet comics.
I see Phil's been cruising bmolsson's website.
It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 16, 2012, 11:27:49 AM
It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.
Yeah, but it would help if it were in English.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 16, 2012, 11:27:49 AM
It's a play on the meme that military wives are notorious for being unfaithful to their husbands, methinks.
Yeah, but it would help if it were in English.
And if it were funny.
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 10:19:01 AM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html
Quote
If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.
The students were 18 or older at the time.
OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 10:19:01 AM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html
Quote
If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.
The students were 18 or older at the time.
OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.
Well that's presumably the basis of the defence.
In Canada that would be a defense to the charge (though as you say, not to being fired).
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
That doesn't seem to be the question.
Quoteword spread about the sexual encounters to other students, one of whom told their mother, a school employee.
Always a fucking rat.
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 10:19:01 AM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/16/4185438/more-students-tell-of-sexual-escapades.html
Quote
If convicted, Colleps, a 28-year-old married mother of three, could be sentenced to the maximum 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine on each of five charges of an improper relationship between an educator and student.
The students were 18 or older at the time.
OK, given the bolded bit, this should be something that a teacher can be fired for, but it probably shouldn't be criminal.
Well that's presumably the basis of the defence.
In Canada that would be a defense to the charge (though as you say, not to being fired).
Not would, might.
I didnt think you were correct so I looked it up.
QuotePursuant to section 265 of the Criminal Code, the criminal act (actus reus) of sexual assault is defined as direct or indirect contact with another person's body that is (1) sexual in nature, and (2) engaged in without the consent of the other person. To be legally effective, consent must be freely given. Therefore, even in situations where a complainant indicated consent by words or conduct, circumstances may arise which call into question the factors which prompted consent. According to s. 265(3) of the Criminal Code, the law will deem, that is assume, an absence of consent in assault cases where the consent was obtained by reason of force, fear, threats, fraud, or the exercise of authority. Further, section 273.1(2)(c) stipulates that in cases of sexual assault, no consent is obtained where the accused induces the complainant to engage in sexual activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority
You're not looking at the right section.
Section 153, sexual exploitation, makes it an offence for anybody in a position of authority to sexually touch a young person, regardless of consent. A young person is defined as someone 16 years of age or more, but under 18. That goes along with s. 151, which makes it illegal for any adult to sexually touch someone under the age of 16.
The article seems to make it clear there was consent, and there was no abuse of authority. It is of course dangerous to rely on a newspaper article for facts. But if the boys were under 18, merely by being their teacher any sexual touching would be illegal. But over 18, only by abusing that position of authority in order to obtain consent would it be illegal.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
And pay them much less.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
Maybe we could pay them more if we stripped away all that vacation time they get.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
Pay them less then the general public is payed. Jeez, do I have to walk you through everything.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:39:19 PM
Maybe we could pay them more if we stripped away all that vacation time they get.
My mom gets three months off. Usually the whole summer, but if it's the alternative schedule it's 4 month on 1 month off. It's a lot.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held. For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 12:30:15 PM
You're not looking at the right section.
Section 153, sexual exploitation, makes it an offence for anybody in a position of authority to sexually touch a young person, regardless of consent. A young person is defined as someone 16 years of age or more, but under 18. That goes along with s. 151, which makes it illegal for any adult to sexually touch someone under the age of 16.
The article seems to make it clear there was consent, and there was no abuse of authority. It is of course dangerous to rely on a newspaper article for facts. But if the boys were under 18, merely by being their teacher any sexual touching would be illegal. But over 18, only by abusing that position of authority in order to obtain consent would it be illegal.
Your last sentence is why I posted the section. In your first post you said that just the fact the boys were 18 would give a defence. You were mistaken or at least mispoke.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right. No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years. But teaching just wasn't for me.
Teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike. They hold huge political sway (compared to other groups anyway) and the coupled with strike powers gives them an u fair bargaining power. That and it should be easier to fire crappy tenured teachers. Beyond that teachers are cool with me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
Can't speak for derspiess, but I've very seriously considered getting a teaching certificate. Unfortunately, right now is not a very good time to be looking for a teaching job in NC.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:52:28 PM
It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right. No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years. But teaching just wasn't for me.
The PTA meetings filled with Meris is worth a hell of a lot more than that.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held. For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.
It could be depending on the company.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
Can't speak for derspiess, but I've very seriously considered getting a teaching certificate. Unfortunately, right now is not a very good time to be looking for a teaching job in NC.
I hear there's a bonus for the millionth WV transplant that became a teacher in NC :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2012, 12:51:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 12:30:15 PM
You're not looking at the right section.
Section 153, sexual exploitation, makes it an offence for anybody in a position of authority to sexually touch a young person, regardless of consent. A young person is defined as someone 16 years of age or more, but under 18. That goes along with s. 151, which makes it illegal for any adult to sexually touch someone under the age of 16.
The article seems to make it clear there was consent, and there was no abuse of authority. It is of course dangerous to rely on a newspaper article for facts. But if the boys were under 18, merely by being their teacher any sexual touching would be illegal. But over 18, only by abusing that position of authority in order to obtain consent would it be illegal.
Your last sentence is why I posted the section. In your first post you said that just the fact the boys were 18 would give a defence. You were mistaken or at least mispoke.
Except it's crystal clear from the article that the state isn't alleging any abuse of position of trust, but are charging based on the position she holds:
QuoteArlington police detective Jason Houston took the stand next and said charges were filed against Colleps because "18 or not, it's a crime" for a teacher to have sex with her students.
I didn't mis-speak because I was discussing this particular case. Why would I bring up other situations or allegations that aren't relevant to what's being discussed?
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 10:25:10 AMTHough I'm pretty sure that even as a horny 18 year old, I'm not going to participate in a five way, no matter how hot the teacher.
I would I guess.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2012, 01:04:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 10:25:10 AMTHough I'm pretty sure that even as a horny 18 year old, I'm not going to participate in a five way, no matter how hot the teacher.
I would I guess.
you haven't even participated in a 2 way yet :P
BB the position she hold puts the consent in question under Canadian law. Cant tell from the article what the Law is in the US. You are just conflating the two now.
It's a silly case. Boys where 18, they were not raped, end of story.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:54:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:52:28 PM
It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right. No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years. But teaching just wasn't for me.
The PTA meetings filled with Meris is worth a hell of a lot more than that.
It's a point of personal pride that I have not been a member of any PTA since 2001. Those people creep me out. :yuk:
But you were one before 2001? Unclean!
When I saw the thread title I was :mad:
I then read teacher was female. <_<
I learned the students were all over 18. :cool:
Then that she engaged in group sex, was up for most things. :hmm:
Then I saw the mugshot. :(
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:28:04 PM
When I saw the thread title I was :mad:
I then read teacher was female. <_<
Valmy's going to be mad at you.
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 01:25:24 PM
But you were one before 2001? Unclean!
I didn't know! I thought I was being a good mom, and then I met Them. Ohdeargod! Talk about the world revolving around Their Sweet Precious Babykins! *shudder*
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2012, 01:08:20 PM
BB the position she hold puts the consent in question under Canadian law. Cant tell from the article what the Law is in the US. You are just conflating the two now.
But it doesn't put it in question unless there's evidence she
abused that position. And there is none.
and I made it clear I was mentioning Canadian law.
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:28:04 PM
When I saw the thread title I was :mad:
I then read teacher was female. <_<
I learned the students were all over 18. :cool:
Then that she engaged in group sex, was up for most things. :hmm:
Then I saw the mugshot. :(
:mad:
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 01:29:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on August 16, 2012, 01:28:04 PM
When I saw the thread title I was :mad:
I then read teacher was female. <_<
Valmy's going to be mad at you.
and i guess meri too
Heh, the non-mugshot pics make her look far more attractive, unsurprisingly. :lol:
I have no idea what the law is in the US, but I agree with those who hold it to be a matter of job discipline, not criminal law - unless there was evidence she somehow coerced these guys into it.
Edit: 20 years possible maximum? Woah.
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 01:29:30 PM
Valmy's going to be mad at you.
Um I hate child abuse. People over 18 are not children even in America :P
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:53:08 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
Can't speak for derspiess, but I've very seriously considered getting a teaching certificate. Unfortunately, right now is not a very good time to be looking for a teaching job in NC.
I hear there's a bonus for the millionth WV transplant that became a teacher in NC :P
I don't think a million people from WV have graduated High School!
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held. For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.
It could be depending on the company.
Since most US states have at-will employment, you
could[/b] get fired for it, but it would be considered termination for poor cause.
Maybe it's cherry-picking, but I personally don't believe the multiplication of these cases in the media is a mere halo effect. The novelty around the Mary Kay Letourneau case is long gone, so something else is at work. I believe that more and more (ostensibly female) teachers engage in sex with people they shouldn't be legally having sex with, regardless of any consideration for deontology, and these are reported more and more in the press. When I was in high school, female teachers weren't having gangbangs with jocks.
It reminds me of a story we've had in Montreal last year. La Presse had published a paper revealing that a number of female attendants (social workers, employees, nurses, gaolers) who were working in juvenile centers for teenage male offenders (including those involved in gangs), often just out of college, would engage in unauthorized sexual contacts with detainees, including bringing them home for sex while their men were away, having trysts or sexual contacts inside the facility after the lights are off, or smuggle drugs or other contraband inside the walls of the facility for their secret boyfriends. I'm not talking about abuse of authority, boys would hit on these girls, and these girls would accept their advances. These girls were smart, they knew they would lose their career, their reputation, their pension and (for those married) their family, and yet they did it nonetheless because they couldn't resist their physical attraction to bad boys.
Regardless of any instantenous moral question or judgment about this issue, what exactly can be done to prevent these? Obviously the extreme idea that teachers and students should fuck anytime they want with no restriction, as long as they consent, is unacceptable and unprofessional. But neither is segregation or draconian punishments. Yet we cannot stop immature people being attracted to teenager and almost young adults. Shouldn't there be some systemic approach to detect teachers with these proclivities and reaffect them, even on mere suspiscions?
Just throwing it for discussion, rather than an endless stream of "I'd tap her ass" or "I wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole".
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2012, 01:58:35 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 01:29:30 PM
Valmy's going to be mad at you.
Um I hate child abuse. People over 18 are not children even in America :P
it was the whole "oh, it's just a moman teacher" thing that annoyed you in the past.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held. For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.
It could be depending on the company.
Since most US states have at-will employment, you could[/b] get fired for it, but it would be considered termination for poor cause.
I was thinking of places with non-fraternization clauses.
Quote from: Drakken on August 16, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
Maybe it's cherry-picking, but I personally don't believe the multiplication of these cases in the media is a mere halo effect. The novelty around the Mary Kay Letourneau case is long gone, so something else is at work. I believe that more and more (ostensibly female) teachers engage in sex with people they shouldn't be legally having sex with, regardless of any consideration for deontology, and these are reported more and more in the press. When I was in high school, female teachers weren't having gangbangs with jocks.
It reminds me of a story we've had in Montreal last year. La Presse had published a paper revealing that a number of female attendants (social workers, employees, nurses, gaolers) who were working in juvenile centers for male young offenders (including those involved in gangs) would engage in unauthorized sexual contacts with detainees, including bringing them home while their husbands were away for sex, having trysts or sexual contacts inside the facility after the lights are off, or smuggle drugs or other contraband inside the walls of the facility for their secret boyfriends. These girls were smart, they knew they would lose their career, their reputation, their pension and (for those married) their family, and yet they did it nonetheless because they couldn't resist their attraction to bad boys.
Regardless of any instantenous moral question or judgment about this issue, what exactly can be done to prevent these? Obviously the extreme idea that teachers and students should fuck anytime they want with no restriction, as long as they consent, is unacceptable and unprofessional. But neither is segregation or draconian punishments. Yet we cannot stop immature people being attracted to teenager and almost young adults. Shouldn't there be some systemic approach to detect teachers with these proclivities and reaffect them?
Just throwing it for discussion, rather than an endless stream of "I'd tap her ass" or "I wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole".
How would you detect someone with those proclivities, unless they had already gotten into trouble for sexual misconcuct of some sort? And if you had some sort of psychological tests which could reliable detect someone with the proclivities, would it be legal or even right to bar them from teaching or other jobs which directly involve working with minors if they've never acted on those proclivities?
I suppose that you could raise the entrance requirements to get into college so that people dumb enough to do something like this (considering the negative outcomes you list toward end of the 2nd paragraph of your post) don't obtain the necessary degrees to get the jobs in the first place, but really it would seem that a teacher having sex with a minor student is more about poor self-control than intelligence, so that approach probably wouldn't do much good.
One thing that might help would be to institute a policy that teachers under the age of, say, 35 not be hired to teach high school. Start the teachers right out of college off teaching elementary school and allow them to move up to the high grade levels if they want as they accumulate time on the job. It wouldn't eliminate all of these incidents, of course, but it would get rid of the temptations inherent in having someone 22 or so just out of college teaching 17 and 18 year old high schoolers, who in some ways are still in the same age group.
No, dps, the solution is obvious. Since all women just HAVE to have bad boys, per Drakken, and can't control themselves around them, women should just never be allowed to teach or work in an environment where there is potential for a man to have a tattoo, wear leather, or have a scar. Simple!
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 01:32:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2012, 01:08:20 PM
BB the position she hold puts the consent in question under Canadian law. Cant tell from the article what the Law is in the US. You are just conflating the two now.
But it doesn't put it in question unless there's evidence she abused that position. And there is none.
and I made it clear I was mentioning Canadian law.
A teacher having sex with students isnt an abuse of a position of authority. All the pedophiles will surely be happy to hear this news.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2012, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 16, 2012, 01:32:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2012, 01:08:20 PM
BB the position she hold puts the consent in question under Canadian law. Cant tell from the article what the Law is in the US. You are just conflating the two now.
But it doesn't put it in question unless there's evidence she abused that position. And there is none.
and I made it clear I was mentioning Canadian law.
A teacher having sex with students isnt an abuse of a position of authority. All the pedophiles will surely be happy to hear this news.
Not unless they use that position to coerce consent, it is not.
A fact PDH is eternally grateful for.
Quote from: merithyn on August 16, 2012, 02:47:52 PM
No, dps, the solution is obvious. Since all women just HAVE to have bad boys, per Drakken, and can't control themselves around them, women should just never be allowed to teach or work in an environment where there is potential for a man to have a tattoo, wear leather, or have a scar. Simple!
I'm not talking about those who can, I'm talking about those who can't/don't/don't care.
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 02:08:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:51:32 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:09:21 PM
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 12:06:00 PM
Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Generally I agree, but the quetsion would be whether she used the authority of her position to goad/coax the students into sex.
Sure, the abuse of authority issue is why it should be a fireable offense.
I don't have a problem with the law. We should hold teachers to a higher standard than the general public.
Making it a fireable offense for a teacher to have sex with an 18 year old student already holds them to a higher standard than the general public is held. For a 28 year old who flips burgers at McDonalds, or runs a cash register at Walmart, or who is the executive assistant to the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, having sex with an 18 year old high school student wouldn't be a fireable offense.
It could be depending on the company.
Since most US states have at-will employment, you could[/b] get fired for it, but it would be considered termination for poor cause.
I was thinking of places with non-fraternization clauses.
Those generally apply to co-workers. If my employer had a non-fraternization policy, I could get fired for having sex with an 18 year old high school student who worked part-time for us, but not for having sex with an 16 year old high school student who didn't work for us (age of consent is 16 in NC).
Interesting twist in the law in NC with regards to school personnel, btw. No employee of a K-12 school can legally have sex with a student at such a school. This doesn't just apply to teachers and other people in positions of authority, so an 18 year old hired as a janitor at a high school is guilty of a crime if they have sex with a senior who has already turned 19.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2012, 02:54:47 PM
Those generally apply to co-workers. If my employer had a non-fraternization policy, I could get fired for having sex with an 18 year old high school student who worked part-time for us, but not for having sex with an 16 year old high school student who didn't work for us (age of consent is 16 in NC).
It didn't occur to me that you just meant sex with an 18 year old high school student - I misread that earlier. I don't think that's a comparable situation as there isn't any institutional similarity in your example.
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:52:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 16, 2012, 12:37:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2012, 12:33:53 PM
And pay them much less.
Than we pay the general public?
They have it so good, why didn't you consider teaching then? After all, sounds like a real money gig. I hear grumbler drives an Aston Martin.
It would have been a pretty cushy job, you're right. No real standards to have to abide by, guaranteed raises not tied to performance, and a guaranteed job after a few years. But teaching just wasn't for me.
There's a hell of a lot of work if you're doing your job right. It's definitely way more than a 40 hour work week, and that doesn't even taken into the account the burden of classroom management.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2012, 06:55:01 PM
There's a hell of a lot of work if you're doing your job right. It's definitely way more than a 40 hour work week, and that doesn't even taken into the account the burden of classroom management.
Welcome to most professional jobs?
Quote from: garbon on August 16, 2012, 07:30:11 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2012, 06:55:01 PM
There's a hell of a lot of work if you're doing your job right. It's definitely way more than a 40 hour work week, and that doesn't even taken into the account the burden of classroom management.
Welcome to most professional jobs?
The modern office environment is like a classroom ?
edit:Yeah, actually that figures. :P
One should always be learning.
Also at my last job a bunch of us were accused of being a clique.
gays in a clique? Why, that's like tits on a bull!
Quote from: Caliga on August 16, 2012, 08:14:15 PM
gays in a clique? Why, that's like tits on a bull!
I was the only gay member that I know of. But yeah apparently they didn't like that those of us who actually cared about our work would turn to each other for help. Our anti-clique involved a girl who slept at her desk and a one who repeatedly told people she was too busy to do anything. -_-
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2012, 01:56:27 PM
Heh, the non-mugshot pics make her look far more attractive, unsurprisingly. :lol:
I have no idea what the law is in the US, but I agree with those who hold it to be a matter of job discipline, not criminal law - unless there was evidence she somehow coerced these guys into it.
Edit: 20 years possible maximum? Woah.
Yeah, that's so fucked up I wonder if it might implicate some Eighth Amendment issues.
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2012, 12:52:49 PM
Teachers shouldn't be allowed to strike. They hold huge political sway (compared to other groups anyway) and the coupled with strike powers gives them an u fair bargaining power. That and it should be easier to fire crappy tenured teachers. Beyond that teachers are cool with me.
:lol: Striking serves nothing when your employer has the ability to enact a special law to make you go back to work. Just ask the Quebec government's lawyers.
Also, before I lose interest, possibly Fourteenth Amendment concerns, on both privacy and equal protection grounds.
I was wondering if this had the same marriage exception as the SC don't-fuck-your-students-law. Is that constitutionally permissible? To render sexual act criminal for unwed lovers only? I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean much.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 16, 2012, 12:18:57 PM
Quoteword spread about the sexual encounters to other students, one of whom told their mother, a school employee.
Always a fucking rat.
Of course. You should always keep the rats within your calculations for everything you do in life.
Rats are not an unknown variable.
Yeah, the question is, "Who's the rat?" not, "Is there a rat?".
5 years. A bit much for consenting 18 year old "victims", but hey, don't mess with Texas.
QuoteTexas teacher sentenced to five years in prison for having sex with five students
Updated 8 p.m. ET: FORT WORTH, Texas -- Brittni Colleps, the Kennedale teacher accused of having improper sexual relationships with several of her students, has been found guilty on all counts of five indictments against her.
Colleps was sentenced to five years in prison Friday afternoon.
Colleps showed no emotion as the guilty verdicts were read on all 16 counts of the indictments. Her husband, on the other hand, was emotional and crying as his wife, with her bail now revoked, was led from the courtroom in the custody of the state.
Colleps was indicted on five charges of having an inappropriate relationship between a teacher and student after school officials learned of the allegations and took the matter to the Arlington police.
The trial began earlier this week with graphic testimony including text messages and a cell phone video that showed one of the alleged sexual incidents. The prosecution wrapped up their case Thursday before closing arguments began Friday morning.
The five victims all testified to having a sexual relationship with the married mother of three in her Arlington home between April and May of 2011. All five of the students were in Colleps' senior English class in the spring of 2011 and all of the victims were at least 18 when the incidents occurred.
Despite their age, Texas law forbids sexual relationships between teachers and students, even if the students are legal adults and consent to the relationship. Several of the victims testified Thursday to not wanting to testify in the trial with one of them saying he didn't want to press charges.
After closing arguments, the jury took about an hour to render the verdict.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 10:50:26 PMHer husband, on the other hand, was emotional and crying
Seems like this would make it easier to find a chick who isn't interested in getting plowed by four 18 year old dudes at the same time while you're (presumably) not around. Although it could be one of those open relationships.
"What'd you do today honey?"
"Four dudes at the same time!"
"Well that's nice."
Meanwhile in Germany, a swimming trainer is in court because of a liaison he had with a then 16 year old girl he was coaching. Only major point of contention: did he coerce her and abuse his position of authority, or did she consent?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 17, 2012, 11:15:41 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2012, 10:50:26 PMHer husband, on the other hand, was emotional and crying
Seems like this would make it easier to find a chick who isn't interested in getting plowed by four 18 year old dudes at the same time while you're (presumably) not around. Although it could be one of those open relationships.
Watching the footage from his plea for leniency, it was based on having to deal with 3 kids on his own while on active duty.
America is such a retarded country. It's almost as bad as Russia or Iran. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2012, 04:56:33 AM
America is such a retarded country. It's almost as bad as Russia or Iran. :lol:
America is not as bad as Russia.
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2012, 04:56:33 AM
America The South, particularly Texas is such a retarded country. It's almost as bad as Russia or Iran. :lol:
Like a Pole is in any position to say that. You live in a 'building' made from unexploded German shells for god sake.
Quote from: The Brain on August 18, 2012, 05:02:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2012, 04:56:33 AM
America is such a retarded country. It's almost as bad as Russia or Iran. :lol:
America is not as bad as Russia.
:mad:
Quote from: Drakken on August 16, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
When I was in high school, female teachers weren't having gangbangs with jocks.
When you were in high school, females teachers were over 50.
Quote from: Drakken on August 16, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
Regardless of any instantenous moral question or judgment about this issue, what exactly can be done to prevent these? Obviously the extreme idea that teachers and students should fuck anytime they want with no restriction, as long as they consent, is unacceptable and unprofessional. But neither is segregation or draconian punishments. Yet we cannot stop immature people being attracted to teenager and almost young adults. Shouldn't there be some systemic approach to detect teachers with these proclivities and reaffect them, even on mere suspiscions?
You're mixing two different issues. Improper conduct at work and criminal behavior.
A teacher fucking 18 year old student is certainly not acceptable as part of her work. Same as a school teacher doing porn. But none of this should deserve jail time, or even a fine. A temporary or permanent suspension depending on the acts, but not jail.
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
If I were still a bail bondsman, I would wholeheartedly endorse this concept of enforced domestic violence as an additional guaranteed revenue stream.
If I were practicing in the field I trained in, I would also approve.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
:pinch: Berkut's back! :w00t:
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
Indeed.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
Bring back the divorce of the early 1900s that required that you give a "good" reason in order to get a divorce. None of this "irreconciable differences" bullshit. Gotta be something good and salacious and printed in the paper... with details. :perv:
Quote from: merithyn on August 20, 2012, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 01:31:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on August 20, 2012, 10:56:32 AM
It's like a woman cheating on her husband. It's improper marital conduct, but we don't stone women for that. We do grant divorce however.
Some people argue that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to grant those divorces. If we force people to remain married longer, then we can maybe decrease the rampant incidences of people not remaining married.
After all, maybe the state knows best when a couple needs to end their marriage.
Bring back the divorce of the early 1900s that required that you give a "good" reason in order to get a divorce. None of this "irreconciable differences" bullshit. Gotta be something good and salacious and printed in the paper... with details. :perv:
No kidding!
We should go back to the early 1900s on most marriage issues, don't you think?
I want to go back to 1990, and bang my first married chick again. Damn, was she smoking ass hot.
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
We should go back to the early 1900s on most marriage issues, don't you think?
On most issues in general. -_-
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
We should go back to the early 1900s on most marriage issues, don't you think?
On most issues in general. -_-
Pay that poll tax, boy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 20, 2012, 02:39:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2012, 02:30:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 20, 2012, 02:06:18 PM
We should go back to the early 1900s on most marriage issues, don't you think?
On most issues in general. -_-
Pay that poll tax, boy.
I don't care that much for voting.