Consenting adult sex is criminal now?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

while this is depraved behaviour, this is NOT criminal.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/08/15/t ... udents-sex

UPDATE: High school teacher Brittni Colleps has been found guilty of having sex with five of her students. Colleps was convicted on 16 counts of improper relationship between an educator and student. The jury took less than an hour to reach their verdict. She could face up to 20 years in prison.

High school teacher Brittni Colleps was accused of having affairs with five of her students.

Colleps, a 27-year-old married mother of three, was accused of using text messages to pursue five 18-year-old students. There was a video shown in court that allegedly shows Colleps having group sex with four of the young men in her home.

Colleps' husband, who is in the military, was stationed out of state during the time of the alleged affairs. He says he is standing by his wife. If convicted, Colleps could face 20 years in prison.

riotgrl

I understand that, technically, the boys were 18 and therefore legally adults, however, the teacher violated the authority relationship that exists between them. I don't know what her contract states but mine has a "morality" clause in it, if you will. While I don't know if that constitutes criminal proceedings I would say that teachers have extra duties and responsibilities that go along with the job, including not violating a student.

mysticweed

while her behavior is definitely depraved
it should not be illegal
lose her job? absolutely
but not her freedom

mydogmookieblaylock

pretty sure she knew getting gangbanged by her students could get her in trouble. That was probably part of the thrill of it for her. ....if she didn't know that she shouldn't have been teaching anyone.
Hope it was worth it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

riotgrl wrote:

I understand that, technically, the boys were 18 and therefore legally adults, however, the teacher violated the authority relationship that exists between them. I don't know what her contract states but mine has a "morality" clause in it, if you will. While I don't know if that constitutes criminal proceedings I would say that teachers have extra duties and responsibilities that go along with the job, including not violating a student.

This is a pathetic display of behaviour by the teacher and I do not condone it at all. Obviously she should lose her job and she should be filled with shame. But I guarantee the boys never brought charges towards her. I'm pretty sure they were high-fiving leaving 'the den'.

mysticweed

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

pretty sure she knew getting gangbanged by her students could get her in trouble. That was probably part of the thrill of it for her. ....if she didn't know that she shouldn't have been teaching anyone.
Hope it was worth it.

and any woman that has sex with that many boys is sick in the head anyfuckingway

Hugh Freaking Dillon

mysticweed wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

pretty sure she knew getting gangbanged by her students could get her in trouble. That was probably part of the thrill of it for her. ....if she didn't know that she shouldn't have been teaching anyone.
Hope it was worth it.

and any woman that has sex with that many boys is sick in the head anyfuckingway

and her husband is standing behind her. Much like the 5 boys did in turn.

mysticweed

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mysticweed wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

pretty sure she knew getting gangbanged by her students could get her in trouble. That was probably part of the thrill of it for her. ....if she didn't know that she shouldn't have been teaching anyone.
Hope it was worth it.

and any woman that has sex with that many boys is sick in the head anyfuckingway

and her husband is standing behind her. Much like the 5 boys did in turn.

were i her husband i don't think i could ever go back in there

mydogmookieblaylock

mysticweed wrote:

were i her husband i don't think i could ever go back in there

odds are this isnt her first GB - he probably likes to watch -- they are probably into some weird shit -- which is all good but you can't fuck your students. she just had to wait a few months for them to graduate

EdsonNascimento

It is a crime to take advantage of a position of power such as a teacher. This is what folks didn't get about the Clinton-Lewinsky thing. It is criminal to do stuff like from a position of powert regardless of either party's intent.

Now, you can argue we should change those laws. But, you should study the can of worms before you open it.

F Me In The Brain

Doesnt appear to be criminal but shit, can you imagine this poor husband? His wife tag teams the senior basketball team while he is deployed? Wow.

EdsonNascimento

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Doesnt appear to be criminal but shit, can you imagine this poor husband? His wife tag teams the senior basketball team while he is deployed? Wow.

How do you know he wasn't "watching?"

As someone said above - you don't stand by this if you weren't condoning it. And the only plausible reason is that there is some reciprocation of enjoyment somehow.

To each his/her own, but this is criminal because of her position (forgive the pun).

hedonist

I feel for her children more than anything...how do you explain this to them? That part is even more fucked up than her actions. If she could be so stupid and careless with herself and her students, it makes me wonder what other breaches in life she has committed.

Any way you roll it, I guess "Brittni" will be taking on a whole new line of work.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EdsonNascimento wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Doesnt appear to be criminal but shit, can you imagine this poor husband? His wife tag teams the senior basketball team while he is deployed? Wow.

How do you know he wasn't "watching?"

As someone said above - you don't stand by this if you weren't condoning it. And the only plausible reason is that there is some reciprocation of enjoyment somehow.

To each his/her own, but this is criminal because of her position (forgive the pun).

but it's not criminal under the law. and we know he wasn't watching because he was out of town while the alleged bang happened.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EdsonNascimento wrote:

It is a crime to take advantage of a position of power such as a teacher. This is what folks didn't get about the Clinton-Lewinsky thing. It is criminal to do stuff like from a position of powert regardless of either party's intent.

Now, you can argue we should change those laws. But, you should study the can of worms before you open it.

it's a crime if the "victim" is not legally an adult. it can be sexual harassment, or maybe sexual misconduct, but not jail time, especially not up to 20 years. that's just a waste of the taxpayer's money. they are using a law that is meant for underage students, not students who are adults. it's abuse of the legal system.

mydogmookieblaylock

surely if she gets a lawyer she can avoid jail time

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

It is a crime to take advantage of a position of power such as a teacher. This is what folks didn't get about the Clinton-Lewinsky thing. It is criminal to do stuff like from a position of powert regardless of either party's intent.

Now, you can argue we should change those laws. But, you should study the can of worms before you open it.

it's a crime if the "victim" is not legally an adult. it can be sexual harassment, or maybe sexual misconduct, but not jail time, especially not up to 20 years. that's just a waste of the taxpayer's money. they are using a law that is meant for underage students, not students who are adults. it's abuse of the legal system.

I tend to agree with this. I don't think the young men are scarred from this encounter. This is an employment issue and a professionalism issue. She needs to lose her job. She needs to lose her license. The law needs to focus on other things- surely there are more criminal things that need attention than this case of perversion?

EdsonNascimento

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

F Me In The Brain wrote:

Doesnt appear to be criminal but shit, can you imagine this poor husband? His wife tag teams the senior basketball team while he is deployed? Wow.

How do you know he wasn't "watching?"

As someone said above - you don't stand by this if you weren't condoning it. And the only plausible reason is that there is some reciprocation of enjoyment somehow.

To each his/her own, but this is criminal because of her position (forgive the pun).

but it's not criminal under the law. and we know he wasn't watching because he was out of town while the alleged bang happened.

Don't take everything so literal. If there's video for the courtroom, might there be video for someone else?

EdsonNascimento

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

It is a crime to take advantage of a position of power such as a teacher. This is what folks didn't get about the Clinton-Lewinsky thing. It is criminal to do stuff like from a position of powert regardless of either party's intent.

Now, you can argue we should change those laws. But, you should study the can of worms before you open it.

it's a crime if the "victim" is not legally an adult. it can be sexual harassment, or maybe sexual misconduct, but not jail time, especially not up to 20 years. that's just a waste of the taxpayer's money. they are using a law that is meant for underage students, not students who are adults. it's abuse of the legal system.

I tend to agree with this. I don't think the young men are scarred from this encounter. This is an employment issue and a professionalism issue. She needs to lose her job. She needs to lose her license. The law needs to focus on other things- surely there are more criminal things that need attention than this case of perversion?

So, we're saying some laws are more important than others? Why is it one or the other?

Anyway, I do agree that jail time seems a bit silly in this case, and as mookie said above - if she gets a decent lawyer, she won't be doing jail time.

Prince Of Dorkness

For my people, consenting adult sex has only been legal for about 12 years and the GOP lost their shit.

However... If having sex with 5 18 year-old men is a crime, I would be on death row.

adropinthepark

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

mysticweed wrote:

mydogmookieblaylock wrote:

pretty sure she knew getting gangbanged by her students could get her in trouble. That was probably part of the thrill of it for her. ....if she didn't know that she shouldn't have been teaching anyone.
Hope it was worth it.

and any woman that has sex with that many boys is sick in the head anyfuckingway

and her husband is standing behind her. Much like the 5 boys did in turn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

comebackgirl

It's definitely official misconduct and an abuse of power since the teacher had authority over the kids. She should lose her job and be prevented from teaching or working in an official capacity with kids again. Age 18 is the age of full consent in most states (meaning that by this age people can legally consent to sex with anyone, including people who have authority over them - including a parent :? ), but I agree with Edson in that I don't know if someone can really consent to someone who has authority over you. If these were 18 year olds she had met in any other capacity it would be a different story. Definitely an ethical and moral violation that would result in civil sanctions, but I think they will be hard pressed to get criminal charges to stick.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, we're saying some laws are more important than others? Why is it one or the other?

Anyway, I do agree that jail time seems a bit silly in this case, and as mookie said above - if she gets a decent lawyer, she won't be doing jail time.

I'm not really saying that- although that's how it read. I'm saying that they are making something out of nothing.

EdsonNascimento

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, we're saying some laws are more important than others? Why is it one or the other?

Anyway, I do agree that jail time seems a bit silly in this case, and as mookie said above - if she gets a decent lawyer, she won't be doing jail time.

I'm not really saying that- although that's how it read. I'm saying that they are making something out of nothing.

How do you know? I'm not saying you're not right, but without knowing all the facts, I'd tend to err on the side that the law should be used until otherwise indicated. Could one of the 18 year olds be of limited capacity in some way? And, you can't simply ignore the reality of the power she held and the slippery slope of loopholes the legal system would create if one were to ignore certain cases and not others. Do you really want to give defense attorneys more ammunition when what you perceive as a "real" case arises?

I'll trust they can handle this case and the armed robbery cases they are doing.

EdsonNascimento

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

For my people, consenting adult sex has only been legal for about 12 years and the GOP lost their shit.

However... If having sex with 5 18 year-old men is a crime, I would be on death row.

If those 5 18 year olds were students in the public school where you taught, it might be.

klusterfuk

not gonna touch this one.

Who Princess

She's already been sentenced. I think she got 7 years. Her teaching certification has been revoked for life.

This happened in a small town about 10 miles from where I live. The students she had sex with were all over the age of consent and none felt that she should be charged with a crime. However, in Texas the law states that it's illegal for school personnel to have sex with students. Period. They didn't have to be her students or even go to school where she taught. They didn't have to be underage. It's still illegal.

The whole situation generated plenty of discussion around here about what kind of punishment she should have faced. Some people think she should have gotten the maximum, some think she should have gotten probation. I don't know what would have been appropriate. What she did was unethical and really stupid and she didn't behave very well after being sentenced either--going on a talk show and claiming she was the victim because she didn't know she was being taped.

I feel sorry for her kids.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

So, we're saying some laws are more important than others? Why is it one or the other?

Anyway, I do agree that jail time seems a bit silly in this case, and as mookie said above - if she gets a decent lawyer, she won't be doing jail time.

I'm not really saying that- although that's how it read. I'm saying that they are making something out of nothing.

How do you know? I'm not saying you're not right, but without knowing all the facts, I'd tend to err on the side that the law should be used until otherwise indicated. Could one of the 18 year olds be of limited capacity in some way? And, you can't simply ignore the reality of the power she held and the slippery slope of loopholes the legal system would create if one were to ignore certain cases and not others. Do you really want to give defense attorneys more ammunition when what you perceive as a "real" case arises?

I'll trust they can handle this case and the armed robbery cases they are doing.

Good point regarding the need to deploy the same level of attention towards every case.

I'm only going on what I have seen on the video clip (as we all are). There's no question she acted poorly and unethical and given such, she can deal with whatever consequence she might face. Do not confuse me with a sympathizer- I'm not.

mysticweed

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

For my people, consenting adult sex has only been legal for about 12 years and the GOP lost their shit.

However... If having sex with 5 18 year-old men is a crime, I would be on death row.

i bet they weren't your students though (students of love maybe)

Who Princess

EdsonNascimento wrote:

How do you know? I'm not saying you're not right, but without knowing all the facts, I'd tend to err on the side that the law should be used until otherwise indicated. Could one of the 18 year olds be of limited capacity in some way? And, you can't simply ignore the reality of the power she held and the slippery slope of loopholes the legal system would create if one were to ignore certain cases and not others. Do you really want to give defense attorneys more ammunition when what you perceive as a "real" case arises?

I'll trust they can handle this case and the armed robbery cases they are doing.

There was never any mention during the trial and sentencing that any of the young men were of limited capacity or unable to consent. I believe most if not all of them testified at her trial.

I'll try to find a story link from the local snooze.

Edit: My bad, she got 5 years. Here's a description from the end of year wrap-up. Scroll down, it's story #3.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/28 ... k=misearch

Pjzepp67

Would we be discussing this so lightly if the teacher had been male and the pupils were young girls :shock: