Salem witch hunt sex laws.....

[Fabbs]

A 28 year woman old decides to pork 5 18 year old males. I don't condone her doing this, but even her husband is forgiving. WTF is prison supposed to do here?! Why is there even a trial? So her employer wishes to fire her over this. So be it. Prison, for that matter media has no place in this charade.
Otherwise move on!

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/teacher-accused-having-group-sex-students-video-134339076--abc-news-topstories.html
In part:
Colleps' husband, Christopher, is sticking by his wife despite the accusations.

"If you know Brittni, you know she's an empathetic loving, loyal person. Brittni is a loving mother and continuously puts the needs of our children above her own," Christopher Colleps said before the trial began.

[Lincoln]

:lol obese ugly whale gf

[The Gemini Method]

lolTexas

20 years is wayyy out of the scope of fair and adequate in this situation. Yeah, she should lose her job and not be able to teach again, but this is putting the dime on the taxpayer's bill to incarcerate her.

[baseline bum]

:lol army wives
:lol service before self = getting cuckolded

[The Gemini Method]

cuckolded indeed :lol

Dude even supported her after she had 4 pair of balls slammin' all over his wife

Wonder if the prosecutor's office put that shit in rewind mode and fapped to it.

[Fabbs]

Wonder if the prosecutor's office put that shit in rewind mode and fapped to it.
Exactly. Put those self righteous aholes on trial.

As to the husband, naw i wouldn't auto conclude he's cucked. Maybe he partakes a plenty also and is not your sterotypical hypocritical "okay for me but not for you" jerkoff.

[FkLA]

what a spineless cuckold :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't anyone here see why a conviction is the proper thing to do?

[Proxy]

Doesn't anyone here see why a conviction is the proper thing to do?

She lost her job. She has it on her record preventing her from getting another. They were all 18, meaning adults and legal. Kids are fucking in middle school and knew what they were doing. There are other people committing worse acts then giving into natural temptations that need to be behind bars. Punish the kids by making them take summer school for the credit if the grades don't match up and are in question. This doesn't need to go as far as it has. The school could've taken care of this on their own. Conviction is idiotic.

[Wild Cobra]

Conviction is idiotic.
No it's not. Yes they were of age, but they were students and she was a teacher. She is in a position of power over them. It's the same thing that makes sexual harassment at work an offense that can go into court. true sexual harassment is not between coworkers, but between a boss end an employee. Consensual or not, that makes the difference. You may not like the laws of the state, county, or what ever laws were used, but that's too bad.

[Proxy]

No it's not. Yes they were of age, but they were students and she was a teacher. She is in a position of power over them. It's the same thing that makes sexual harassment at work an offense that can go into court. true sexual harassment is not between coworkers, but between a boss end an employee. Consensual or not, that makes the difference. You may not like the laws of the state, county, or what ever laws were used, but that's too bad.

If it's a law then it must be right.

There's no money involved. Fail the students in that class. Fire the teacher. Save the court costs for something that means something. Common sense.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Boy, was she loving.

[Wild Cobra]

If it's a law then it must be right.

There's no money involved. Fail the students in that class. Fire the teacher. Save the court costs for something that means something. Common sense.
Have you ever read the tenth amendment?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Speaking of boy, she looks like one.

[ploto]

In some states it is perfectly legal for a teacher to have sex with a student as long as the student is of the age of consent and it is consensual. Actually, it was that way in Texas until about 10 years ago.

From March 2012:

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the state's law banning sexual contact between teachers and students, finding that people 18 or older have a constitutional right to engage in a consensual sexual relationship.

The court sided with 38-year-old David Paschal, an Elkins High School history and psychology teacher who admitted having a five-month consensual sexual relationship with an 18-year-old student ... the high court found the law was unconstitutional because it criminalized sexual conduct between consenting adults.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/arkansas-high-court-overturns-teacher-sex-law/#ixzz23ocEODwz

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/arkansas-high-court-overturns-teacher-sex-law/#ixzz23obsBxRX

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Don't know how much time the prosecution would actually be seeking but the idea that she could land 20 years for a nonviolent crime is insane. With that said, I have no problem with the law making it illegal.

[baseline bum]

Why not make it illegal for a boss to fuck his secretary in that case?

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

If the boss is in a position to fuck his secretary because the state funnels a constant supply of impressionable young people who have been conditioned for more than a decade to trust and obey him, sure.

These debates almost always include some discussion of how 18 is at best an arbitrary number. There are kids out there that are mature enough at 15 or 16 to make these decisions. There are kids out there at 18 or 19 that are still so sheltered and immature that their judgment in such matters are questionable at best. Teachers have a unique opportunity to recognize such kids and possibly nurture or exploit them. If you're going to be given the keys to a system where there is so much potential for abuse then you have to be ready to be held to a higher standard, which means heavier consequences for crossing the line.

[Wild Cobra]

Why not make it illegal for a boss to fuck his secretary in that case?
That becomes the basis for having tough laws on these issues. When one person hold power over another, the one with the power can demand sexual favors, or lose one's job, or get bad grades. Sure, it's not cut and dry, but the laws designed with this idea ore to protect people from these compromising positions. Laws are not always right or wrong, but they are the law.

What would your beautiful wife, who is a high earning secretary do if her boss proposed sexual favors or be fired?

[baseline bum]

She'd grab her rifle and go shoot Mexicans at the border, I believe.

[DMC]

It's fucking stupid. The President fucked his subordinate with a cigar, he didn't get prison time.

[DMC]

That becomes the basis for having tough laws on these issues. When one person hold power over another, the one with the power can demand sexual favors, or lose one's job, or get bad grades. Sure, it's not cut and dry, but the laws designed with this idea ore to protect people from these compromising positions. Laws are not always right or wrong, but they are the law.

What would your beautiful wife, who is a high earning secretary do if her boss proposed sexual favors or be fired?
You don't videotape yourself being put in a compromising position to show off to your friends. If you bragged about it, you weren't a victim. This country needs an enema.

[DMC]

Don't know how much time the prosecution would actually be seeking but the idea that she could land 20 years for a nonviolent crime is insane. With that said, I have no problem with the law making it illegal.
I do. The law has no business governing relationships between consensual adults, without regards to job title. Workplaces can set policy, but job title should not be the deciding factor in a consensual relationship.

If she's demanding sex under threat of failing students, there are laws on the books that prosecute that crime. It's called blackmail and extortion.

[Wild Cobra]

It's fucking stupid. The President fucked his subordinate with a cigar, he didn't get prison time.
What are the laws in DC?

I'll bet the age of consent there is still 16 years also.

They love their interns.

Do you want all national laws, or do you believe in the 10th amendment?

[ChumpDumper]

Bullshit law. If this had taken place a month later after they graduated, would it still have been illegal?

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit law. If this had taken place a month later after they graduated, would it still have been illegal?
I don't know what law they are using, but probably not.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know what law they are using, but probably not.That's one reason why it's a bullshit law.

[Wild Cobra]

That's one reason why it's a bullshit law.
So?

Agree or not with what a law is, don't you think it's important to know the law in any questionable activities?

In remember you making an issue of a republican in DC having sex with a 17 year old boy. Consensual sex, and the age of consent there was 16 at the time.

Why is this any different to you?

[Wild Cobra]

Texas Teacher Brittni Colleps Gets 5 Years in Prison in Group Sex Scandal (http://abcnews.go.com/US/group-sex-scandal-texas-teacher-sentenced-years-prison/story?id=17028716#.UC7zVaDa-iM)

[Wild Cobra]

Bullshit law. If this had taken place a month later after they graduated, would it still have been illegal?
The link I posted says something to the effect of what I already said, I think it was in the video. It has to do with being illegal for a teacher to have sex with a student.

No. She would not have been prosecuted if this took place after graduation.

[DMC]

What are the laws in DC?

I'll bet the age of consent there is still 16 years also.

They love their interns.

Do you want all national laws, or do you believe in the 10th amendment?
You didn't make a single point that countered anything I said.

1. Age of consent: irrelevant

2. Love their interns: pithy and irrelevant

3. bifurcation: fallacious argument as if there are other alternatives.

Laws can be unconstitutional, ergo they become "national laws" then the USSC shoots them down. Laws are not automatically "right" just because they are laws.

Example:

1789 - 2010

Acts of Congress held unconstitutional.................................. ......165
State Laws held unconstitutional.................................. ................948
Ordinances held unconstitutional.................................. ................124
State and local laws held preempted by federal laws....................234
Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision........233

In each of these state law cases, someone could be sitting there, teeth firmly clenched on a pipe making assertions that, because it's the law, it's right to punish those who broke it. That flies in the face of the USSC's decisions. We are human beings, not livestock, and as such we are not guided by laws but by our sense of wrong and right. Laws are there to provide punishments for things that we consider wrong enough to merit punishment. Sometimes we are wrong when there are convoluted circumstances, and quite often the religious morality of the constituency votes in laws that infringe upon our rights as humans. If we all sat aside and said "it's right, they broke the law", we're overlooking or ignoring the very reason for the law, which is not to ensure the law itself isn't violated, but to represent that which we deem "right" or "necessary" as a society.

Arresting and imprisoning that woman is neither right nor necessary and every philopolemic, pedantic attempt at a rebuttal that you will make here will not change that fact.

[Wild Cobra]

You didn't make a single point that countered anything I said.

1. Age of consent: irrelevant

2. Love their interns: pithy and irrelevant

3. bifurcation: fallacious argument as if there are other alternatives.

Laws can be unconstitutional, ergo they become "national laws" then the USSC shoots them down. Laws are not automatically "right" just because they are laws.

Example:

1789 - 2010

Acts of Congress held unconstitutional.................................. ......165
State Laws held unconstitutional.................................. ................948
Ordinances held unconstitutional.................................. ................124
State and local laws held preempted by federal laws....................234
Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision........233

In each of these state law cases, someone could be sitting there, teeth firmly clenched on a pipe making assertions that, because it's the law, it's right to punish those who broke it. That flies in the face of the USSC's decisions. We are human beings, not livestock, and as such we are not guided by laws but by our sense of wrong and right. Laws are there to provide punishments for things that we consider wrong enough to merit punishment. Sometimes we are wrong when there are convoluted circumstances, and quite often the religious morality of the constituency votes in laws that infringe upon our rights as humans. If we all sat aside and said "it's right, they broke the law", we're overlooking or ignoring the very reason for the law, which is not to ensure the law itself isn't violated, but to represent that which we deem "right" or "necessary" as a society.

Arresting and imprisoning that woman is neither right nor necessary and every philopolemic, pedantic attempt at a rebuttal that you will make here will not change that fact.
How would this law be unconstitutional?

Besides. I am not arguing right or wrong. I agree it's wrong when there is actual consent.

Like it or not, there is still some laws that are accepted as states right. It's obvious that you disagree with the 10th amendment, but it is part of the constitution.

[DMC]

How would this law be unconstitutional?

The term "age of consent" becomes meaningless if "consent" doesn't provide a legal defense of prosecution.

In Lawrence vs Texas,

Although this addressed sodomy between same sex partners, it set a precedence in that the court decided "that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) under the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). Lawrence invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized sodomy between consenting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent) adults acting in private, whatever the sex of the participants.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#cite_note-1)"

Since sodomy laws that were in existence were overturned based on the 14th amendment, then this teacher/student relationship law would likely fall under the same umbrella of precedence. Eventually all consensual relationships will be untouchable by law except to provide protection for the citizens involved.


Besides. I am not arguing right or wrong. I agree it's wrong when there is actual consent.

Like it or not, there is still some laws that are accepted as states right. It's obvious that you disagree with the 10th amendment, but it is part of the constitution.
No, the USSC can deem any state law to be unconstitutional. That's how the court systems work.

[DMC]

That becomes the basis for having tough laws on these issues. When one person hold power over another, the one with the power can demand sexual favors, or lose one's job, or get bad grades. Sure, it's not cut and dry, but the laws designed with this idea ore to protect people from these compromising positions. Laws are not always right or wrong, but they are the law.

What would your beautiful wife, who is a high earning secretary do if her boss proposed sexual favors or be fired?
And to answer this question, she would go through the proper channels, namely HR then a lawyer. A lawsuit would follow if the company did not cooperate. There might be criminal charges based on how the event unfolded, otherwise it's exclusively a civil matter.

[DMC]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2012/03/arkansas-statute-criminalizing-student-teacher-sex-held-unconstitutional.html

In a 4-3 opinion (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/paschal20v.20state.pdf), the Arkansas Supreme Court in Paschal v. State declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to the criminal conviction of David Paschal, a high school teacher, for a "months-long sexual relationship" with an eighteen-year-old student. Pashal had been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment
on each of three sexual-assault convictions and given ten years’ suspended sentence for a fourth sexual-assault conviction. Pashal relied upon Lawrence v. Texas as well as interpretations of the Arkansas Constitution protecting adult consensual sex. While the Arkansas court had previously upheld the criminalization of sex by a member of the clergy who is "in the position of trust or authority over the victim and uses the position
of trust or authority to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity," the court here noted that § 5-14-125(a)(6) was a "strict liability" statute that did not mention trust or authority.
It was on this interpretation of the statute that the majority and dissent bitterly disagreed. The majority opinion, footnote 10, stated: "We find appalling the statement from one of the dissenting justices that the majority’s interpretation of the statute condones a teacher’s misuse of trust or authority." Later in the same footnote the majority writes that the "dissent's manufacturing" of the issue of the teacher's awareness of a position of authority "is both injudicious and irresponsible."
Essentially, the majority found persuasive the fact that the victim was an adult. The state conceded the sexual relationship was consensual, and without more, the statute was unconstitutional as applied.

[ploto]

In Texas it is illegal if you work at the school in any capacity at which the student attends. You could be a receptionist who answers the phone and be 18 yourself and it would still be a felony.

[DMC]

In Texas it is illegal if you work at the school in any capacity at which the student attends. You could be a receptionist who answers the phone and be 18 yourself and it would still be a felony.
Right, which violates the 14th amendment according to the case law I mentioned above.

[Wild Cobra]

Right, which violates the 14th amendment according to the case law I mentioned above.
How was her rights deprived before the due process of law?

[DMC]

How was her rights deprived before the due process of law?

Did you even read the material I posted?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is there any evidence that she used her position of authority to coerce them? I doubt that is the case but absent coercion it's consensual and they were all adults.

I have a hard time reconciling punishing people for having consensual sex. Getting trained by a bunch of 18 year olds is hardly exerting a position of power.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you even read the material I posted?
Yes.

Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

Now remind me why in his case, that "sexual assault" was a charge that I would agree with not being overturned? He was charged with a different crime, and it's good it was overturned. His conviction did not match the actions.

[Wild Cobra]

Is there any evidence that she used her position of authority to coerce them? I doubt that is the case but absent coercion it's consensual and they were all adults.

No, but that's not her crime.


I have a hard time reconciling punishing people for having consensual sex. Getting trained by a bunch of 18 year olds is hardly exerting a position of power.

I have a hard time with many laws we have in this nation. That doesn't mean if I break one of them and get caught, I expect not to be charged and convicted.

[Fabbs]

In Lawrence vs Texas,

Eventually all consensual relationships will be untouchable by law except to provide protection for the citizens involved.

No, the USSC can deem any state law to be unconstitutional. That's how the court systems work.
Very interesting. Will be watching to see if her defense atty uses this vs the witch hunters.

[Fabbs]

Remember when Larry Flynt unleashed his private eye dogs on the self righteous Repugnatin pricks who were prosecuting Clinton? One by one he started exposing their extreme hypocrisy till they quickly cried uncle.

Were i the chicks defense atty I'd be contacting Flynt and Howard Stern to unleash a private and public eye storm on the prosecuters. From what i saw in the courtroom video its one woman and one man. Does Texass law prohibit naming the persecuters i mean prosecuters? Cause all the articles simply refer to them as "the prosection". No names given.

[DMC]

Very interesting. Will be watching to see if her defense atty uses this vs the witch hunters.
He did use it but seems like he didn't give a shit. No closing argument, no evidence, nothing. I expect it to go to a higher court with a real attorney.

[DMC]

Yes.

Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

Now remind me why in his case, that "sexual assault" was a charge that I would agree with not being overturned? He was charged with a different crime, and it's good it was overturned. His conviction did not match the actions.

The crux of the defense was that which I showed you the court had decided, "that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) under the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)."

In fact the defense used that case (unbeknownst to me) in a half-hearted attempt to get the charges dismissed.

You can dismiss it all you like, but the fact remains that it's intimate consensual sexual conduct. The fact it was illegal at the time didn't sway the courts decision.

[DMC]

No, but that's not her crime.

I have a hard time with many laws we have in this nation. That doesn't mean if I break one of them and get caught, I expect not to be charged and convicted.
What exactly is your argument?

1. She broke an existing law: No shit

2. She deserves punishment for breaking said law: I beg to differ because...

3. The law is just and does not violate her constitutional rights: there's existing USSC case law and other lower court precedence to suggest otherwise.

Which is it?

[FkLA]

5 yrs :wow

[Oh, Gee!!]

don't look for the texas court of criminal appeals to overturn this one anytime soon. Why would elected officials ever rule to strike down a law protecting students from perverted teachers? and, then don't expect SCOTUS to pick this up on federal grounds either.

[DMC]

don't look for the texas court of criminal appeals to overturn this one anytime soon. Why would elected officials ever rule to strike down a law protecting students from perverted teachers? and, then don't expect SCOTUS to pick this up on federal grounds either.

Because it violates the 14th Amendment?

[Fabbs]

Prosecutors Elizabeth Beach and Tim Rogers. All I've been able to find so far. No photos.
Jury took less then an hour to give her 5 years.

I'd love to see Larry Flynt and Howard Stern turn their private eyes/pr power storm loose on the prosecutors and jurors.

[Fabbs]

http://www.tarrantda.com/wp-content/uploads/Prosecutor-er-Professorr-Elizabeth-Beach-and-her-TCU-students-1024x768.jpg
Prosecutor Elizabeth Beach showed with 6 students where she teaches at TCU.

Not saying she is, but how priceless would it be to find out she was porking one or more of them? :rollin