Five felony counts for Texas teacher after orgy with five male students at her home

http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/high-schools/girls-basketball-news/headlines/20110516-police-kennedale-football-player-discloses-sexual-encounter-with-freshman-girls-basketball-coach.ece

Police: Kennedale football player discloses sexual encounter with freshman girls basketball coach
By TOM BENNING

A Kennedale High School teacher turned herself in to authorities Monday after Arlington police said she had sex with five male students at her home. Brittni Nicole Colleps, 27, of Arlington was charged with five felony counts of inappropriate relationship between a student and a teacher. She was being held in the Arlington jail late Monday in lieu of $125,000 bail. Colleps, a married mother of three, could not be reached Monday for comment. Authorities said her husband is on military duty and based in another state.

Although all five students were 18 or older, state law prohibits sex between a teacher and a student, regardless of the student’s age. The sexual incidents occurred during April and May, police said. The students confirmed that account, police said...

According to an Arlington arrest warrant affidavit, the police investigation began Wednesday after a 19-year-old student told investigators about his sexual relationship with Colleps, who was his English teacher. The student told police the relationship began with sexually explicit text messages and photos that they sent to each other for about a week in late April. On April 26, they texted each other about having a sexual rendezvous at her home that night, police said. About 10 p.m., he arrived at her home in the 5500 block of Bright Star Trail, where they had sex, police records state. He left her home about 6 a.m.

About an hour and a half later, he received a text message from Colleps stating that it had been fun, police said. Later that day, she invited him back to her house, where they again had sex. The student also told police that he and four other male Kennedale students had sex with Colleps during the same encounter, records show...

and she should lose her teaching job and license, but why should sex between consenting adults ever be a matter for the police?

And she should be dealt with within her profession (fired and loss of license).

Why should the police be brought into it? What real crime has she committed? Should Clinton have been arrested for "doing" Monica Lewinski? Felony or misdemeanor? What kind of a fine? How many years in jail?

"state law prohibits sex between a teacher and a student, regardless of the student’s age." It's right there, in the OP.

I think his point is, WHY is it illegal in the first place. "Because it is" isn't a good enough answer.

That's why.

A prison guard and an inmate might fall in love as well, but we make that illegal for the same reasons.

A teacher who has sex with students is exploiting the psychological dynamics of a position which the teacher holds only by virtue of state authority. The state can perfectly well set rules on that type of abuse, and has done so.

Go lobby your legislator if you disagree.

Consensual sex between adults = consensual sex between adults.

Even if it was a female teacher with five 18+ girls.

Do you think a 27 year old man who sleeps with 19 year olds should face jail time?

Should he be castrated then set on fire, or castrated while having his skin pealed off by a dull knife?

Major double standard.

Was just curious.

be consenting when one party holds the predominance of power.

I have taught for 3 decades, and scum like this makes my job harder than it should be. I hope she gets the maximum and serves every day of it.


Part of the problem is hiring people with absolutely minimum credentials:
http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/virtcertdisplay.asp?spid=1450808&mode=C

Once you're over 18, your a big boy/girl and you have to take responsibility for sleeping with your boss, coworker, prof whatever. If the person in power exploits the sexual relationship, that's harassment, but the act itself is nothing.

The point is, those professors might get fired--but they're not thrown in jail. That's a big difference.

It doesn't stop anyone.

are prohibited. At other schools, like when we were in graduate school, sometimes relationships would go on between grad students and faculty members, but relationships between undergrads and professors were very strongly discouraged. Often there is an explicit policy prohibiting such interactions. At our current university three professors (over the past six years) have been fired for having sexual relationships with undergraduates.

Lots of bosses sleep with secretaries, factory supervisors sleep with floor workers, managers sleep with staff, senior officers sleep with junior officers. Do we really want to live in a country where the police butt into all of those relationships imposing *criminal* sanctions simply because one person with more power is sleeping with a coworker with less?
I think it's better to let employers and professions work out their own rules of conduct and enforce them. Nobody should go to jail for consensual sex.
Now, if she promised them higher grades in exchange for sleeping with her that's a different story. That brings it into sexual harassment territory. But I haven't seen that in this story so far.

Especially with teenagers who are still expecting to pushed around by authority figures.

Or do you think Bill Clinton should have been arrested because simply by the fact that he was President there was an implicit threat that if Monica Lewinsky didn't give him a blow job he would have sicced the Secret Service on her?

Is a boss *always* coercing his or her secretary into sex simply because of his position, or are there situations where the person with less power can initiate? In my last job, the head of HR was going out with someone on her staff for the better part of a year. They disclosed it, then they got married and they're very happy together. They just had a kid, in fact. Should they have been arrested and prosecuted on the assumption that she *must* have threatened him into sex because the "power imbalance is implicit" in their job titles (and she was six or seven years older than him)?

These are 19 year olds. They're legally adults and free to sleep with their teacher or not. The law no longer extends to protect them on the assumption that they are too immature to make their own choices.

Like I said, its pretty gross and she should face professional sanctions. But involving the police and criminalizing consensual sex between adults opens a *whole* can of worms I don't think we want to go anywhere near.

with students at that school whether that particular student is of "legal" age or not. It's a clear, bright line. And as far as students "initiating", kids behave in all kinds of inappropriate ways all the time. It's the adults' job to teach and model limits.

It's a breach of professional ethics. Which is why I said she should be fired and should lose her teaching license. "Failing to be a good role-model" isn't a crime from a legal perspective- or should we jail everyone who smokes publicly?

I just don't think it should be the role of the state to intervene in workplace peccadilloes where no one has complained about coercion.

is a special situation and am fine with the local authorities getting involved in that. The individuals in this story were 19 but the population of the school is largely underage and these incidents don't happen in a vacuum.

The god-damned girls freshman basketball coach has about as much authority as the greeter at fucking Wal*Mart.

Consenting adults, period.

I also believe that all were consenting adults.

Let the teacher resign and move on.

same power structure. A chef should be prosecuted for having sex with a dishwasher, for example. ]

Fuck that with a two tined fork.

When the state is running that restaurant, let me know.

I guess cops should be able to ask folks they pull over whether or not they'd like to have sex.

Thank you.

I follow you re: "rules is rules." But from a civil liberties standpoint, the circumstances I read here don't provide justification for imprisoning someone. There's no reasonable way to infer a threat of the use of statue authority here. This person didn't have any power, real implied, over the others.

I strongly disagree with the general idea in the thread that "power dynamics" can transform consensual relations between adults into a criminal act. If there's coercion, that's another matter.

But coercion between competent adults is not something society can glibly assume based on circumstances where no one involved is alleging it.

But I would not like to be a student in a class where another student is fucking the teacher.

So, I gather the next time a state school employee violates a student's civil rights, they are not going to be a state employee acting in the role thereof?

A high school basketball coach can have a lot of influence on who gets play time, why, whether college scouts see them, and can have a significant impact on the future academic career of the students.

But, hey, lobby your legislature. This teacher knew the law and her duty under it, and willfully chose to do otherwise. That, IMHO, is a more serious problem than what she did.

I agree there's an issue of professional ethics. This should not be permitted, and it's grounds to dismiss the teacher / coach.

But assuming sexual coercion occurred between two adults, without either party saying so isn't a just basis for felony charges.

"Lobby your legislature" is irrelevant to a discussion of whether the law is just or not, as is the question of whether the accused willfully violated the law.

Accusations of coercion are common byproducts of sexual relationships within power structures, particularly when the relationship goes awry.

The question is this, do you want to spend time going through these dirty laundry contests or do you want to say "no sex with the students".

Nobody - nobody - is coerced into becoming a public school teacher and thus accepting the legal context of that career.

In many states, it is illegal for an attorney to have a sexual relationship with a client, and those situations are well beyond the kinds of considerations involved in having an academic environment free of sexual escapades among the students and teachers, which impact more than just the two involved.

In some states, the age of consent is as low as 16. In some states it is 18. I don't believe it is because of any magic number, but simply where those states have decided to draw a line somewhere.

The distinction is between professional rules of conduct and what constitutes sexual assault, which is presumably the theoretical felony being prosecuted here.

It's the difference between finding someone to have been unprofessional and declaring them a rapist.

I think it's a distinction worth making.

I disagree that implies going through more "dirty laundry." If there was actual coercion, it's worth the inquiry, just as with any sexual assault. If there was no coercion, no one has any business presuming it and sending someone to prison on that basis.

Which translates into "let's disrupt the life of student a little bit more by putting him/her on the stand and discussing the details of the relationship, and then let's cross-examine the shit out of him/her".

Edit: Bearing in mind, though, we have no indication in this case that there would BE any accusation of coercion. Or anyone accusing another of sexual assault.

What's being suggested is that someone be imprisoned for a sexual assault based on a relationship presumed to be consensual.

That's a problem.

1. Testifying as to whether sex occurred.

2. Testifying about the circumstances of a relationship and the context in which that sex occurred, whether there was a quid pro quo, what motivated the sex, and so on.

"Aren't you really just saying you were coerced because in fact you were jealous that the teacher started seeing someone else?"

"Aren't you really just saying you were coerced because when your parents found out they grounded you and took away the car?"

And the best:

"Isn't it true you had a crush on him and went out of your way to attract his attention?"

"Didn't you say to Sally-Sue 'Oh Mr. Teach is so dreamy, I'd love to get him alone with me'?"

Huge, huge difference.

We don't imprison people for sexual assault to avoid investigating sexual assault. There is no rational basis, either, to assume that an English teacher "probably" raped five football players, particularly where we have not even heard they claim that is the case.

Protecting a possible victim cannot extend to presuming something as serious as sexual assault occurred between adults without even asking whether anyone was coerced. If the entire question is somehow too unseemly to examine, it shouldn't be prosecuted as a felony to begin with.

WTF?

Sexual assault, and quid pro quo sex are two different things.

Fucking the teacher for higher grades is not sexual assault.

Commencing a loving relationship which, under stress, carries the implicit threat of academic consequences is not sexual assault.

Having a teacher distracted by a romantic relationship in the classroom to the detriment of other students, is not sexual assault.

Having the academic environment tainted by suspicions about the nature of such relationships by other students is not sexual assault.

Having the professionalism of teachers impugned by engagement in the social affairs of their students is not sexual assault.

It's not about "presuming sexual assault". It is about the legislature determining "we don't want to get into this quagmire and we are categorically ruling it out." We're not getting into who did what for whom, especially in circumstances where there are mutual incentives to conceal motive. The question is "was there sex?" not "was it good sex?"

As you probably know, the age of consent varies state by state in the first place.

In Pennsylvania, it is 16. Is it okay with you for teachers to be fucking sophomores in high school?

Go read this chart:

http://www.ageofconsent.us/

Age of consent is another kettle of fish, and it also does not support your "We're not talking about sexual assault" theory. It's called "statutory rape," correct? The presumption there is that one person is too young to give meaningful consent.

What we are talking about regarding this story is imprisoning an adult for having a sexual relationship with another adult, on the theory that someone was coerced, whether they say they were coerced or not.

That is not a reasonable assumption.

Forcing someone into sex is an extremely serious matter. The idea that the job someone has is sufficient basis to assume they criminally forced another person into an unwanted sexual relationship is unsupportable.

Edit: All of these arguments you're making -- that "quid pro quo" sex is a sufficient basis, that legislature just wants to "rule it out" without inquiry are fine -- for professional sanctions. Not for convicting someone of a felony and imprisoning them. That requires actual proof of an actual bad act that actually did harm.

You don't see a need for a higher standard of proof for firing someone and convicting them of a felony?


editted for speling.

"Harm" is a requirement for most civil matters, but with the exception of what are deemed "status offenses" (e.g. underage drinking), most crimes require (a) a requisite mental state, and (b) specified actions.

The standard of proof is clear - Did you have sex with a student?

Your focus on "coercion" is only a part of the overall list of things, off the top of my head, that is sought to be prevented here. Relationships can be squishy vague things in which there are influences more subtle than "forcible sex".

In the situation where sex is exchanged for higher grades, free tutoring etc. - neither one of them is going to complain.

Is that then okay by you?

Because how are you ever going to get to the sex-for-grades situation? Really. So it is discovered that a teacher and student are having sex. They both say they consent. End of story. Surely you aren't going to be rooting that sort of thing out if the sex is okay.

The other thing here is that it is a well known phenomenon that young people in particular develop feelings for their teachers which strike them as romantic love. I spent some time as a high school teacher long ago, and you do notice that some students will get puppy-dog eyes, tag after you, linger after class, and so on. A responsible educator, and one with presumably more training than I had as a substitute between jobs, should know what seemed instinctive to me - you do not encourage or exploit that sort of thing, and you do not put yourself in situations where there can be any question raised (i.e. no contact, doors open, no "flirting" and no response to it, and so on).

Again, in Texas, the state in question, the age of consent is 17, so we are talking about older sophomores on up.

What her potential penalties and charges are, and what she is sentenced or pleads to, are two entirely different things. The laws are written to cover the most egregious situations, and there can be all kinds of factors influencing disposition of the case.

The circumstances of all situations differ. But in response to your question, no the statute as written doesn't strike me as all that unusual.

You might as well ask why, in Texas, is it perfectly fine for an adult to have sex with a 17 year old while, in Delaware, it is a felony.

The deterrent effects of "I could go to jail" versus "I'll have to find a different job if I get caught" can't be ignored either. And that's why, really, my focus is more on what it takes for a teacher, knowing the potential penalty, to go ahead and do something like this. That says something about the character and the psychology of the teacher verging on sociopathy.

Maybe it is my experience of having been on the receiving end of the "high school girl crush" thing that makes me recoil at the thought of someone being despicable enough to exploit that sort of emotional immaturity. There is no shortage of young women looking for emotional attention in high schools. The objective is to help young people reach maturity, and that is just not defined by any arbitrary number.

jailable offenses. The problem with your position here is that you're willing to send people to prison as felons -- most likely under a category deemed "sexual assault" -- for vague notions that some behavior is undesirable.

And without so much as a factual inquiry as to whether the supposed possible wrongs even actually occurred?

That's simply not enough. What you're talking about are ethics problems that create a possibility of impropriety or an appearance of that. Not crime.

We don't apply the kind of presumptive "status" standards you're talking about to criminal law except where one party is deemed incapacitated in some way. Children, the elderly, the mentally challenged.

And it's never based on a vague notion of possible impropriety. It's a presumption of real harm based on one party's incapacity. Again, it's "statutory rape." Those convicted are treated as sex offenders.

Does that framework makes sense in the context of 19 yr-old football players and a 20-something English teacher? She raped them?

I cannot agree that criminal laws exist to dictate which sexual relationships consenting adults are permitted, no matter how ill-advised or undesirable they may be.

The actus reus condition of a criminal statute is not defined by harm, but by the recitation of the required act in the statute.

Explain to me how a 16 year old is not harmed in Pennsylvania by having sex with an adult, but a 16 year old IS harmed in California by having sex with an adult?

What is it about being in California that makes it harmful for a 16 year old to have sex, while the 16 year olds in Pennsylvania are not harmed at all?

You have continuously avoided that question.

You also do not appear to understand the definition of "status offense". A 20 year old is an adult just about anywhere. It is illegal for a 20 year old to possess alcohol.

Go ahead and explain to me the "harm" that results from possession of a unopened can of beer by a 20 year old. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero.

But it remains a criminal act for a 20 year old to possess an unopened can of beer.

Why? Because we have decided, wrongly IMHO, that there is harm that could result from 20 year olds drinking.

Okay, so why not make drinking the beer illegal instead of merely possessing it?

The reason is that then you'd have to catch the 20 year old in the act of drinking it, which is unlikely to occur in the presence of law enforcement. So, instead, we decide that if a 20 year old possesses a can of beer, then there is a strong likelihood that he's planning on drinking it. That justifies drawing the line at possession.

The same sort of judgment call has been made with teachers and students. There is a high likelihood that the relationship is going to be disruptive to the academic environment, and likely exploitive. You are absolutely correct that in individual circumstances it might not be. But, like the 20 year old with the unopened beer can, we have decided we are not going to investigate the circumstances to find out if he already drank one, or is fixing to drink the one he has.

If you perform an appendectomy on someone, and they are healed from appendicitis with no ill effects you have certainly not harmed that person. Nonetheless, if you do not possess a license to practice medicine, you will go to jail. Again, where is the harm? You might be the best in the world at removing appendices, but if you do not possess a state-issued piece of paper, then you are engaging in a crime. That is what is called a "status offense" - it is an act for which the criminality of the act depends upon who you are.

But if you do ever decide to study law, remember, you will end up, in a number of states, being prohibited by law from having sex with certain adults - i.e. your clients.

Our fundamental difference here (besides your strange notion of the meaning of actus reus) is a sense of *scale.* This teacher is being charged as a felon, on what amounts to a presumption of sexual assault on five football players. We're talking about hard time, not an evening in the pokey over a kid with a beer.

You're really willing to see her treated the same as someone who committed rape, when there is virtually no chance that actually occurred, because teacher / student relations are bad office policy?

Your suggestion that society does that sort of thing all the time is, first of all, not a justification, and moreover deliberately overlooks the most basic foundation of criminal law -- that a "bad act" is bad BECAUSE it causes harm. If you sat all the way through Crim I and didn't get that, I don't know what to tell you. It's so implicit it doesn't even need to be said.

I'll chalk the "law school" snark up to the heat of a discussion you clearly feel strongly about. I respect your thoughts regardless of your credentials, and would appreciate the same consideration from you. Our respective abilities to sling Latin, whatever they may be, aren't determinative here.

Because in every instance of a teacher having sex with a student, then the circumstances would have to be investigated to make sure that there's not quid pro quo going on.

the big, strong basketball coach...

:eyes:

and they felt compelled to have a steamy orgy with her, totally against their will and better judgment. :rofl:

You don't get much lower than "intern" or much higher than "president," except those who save money on the former and make money on the latter.

:eyes:

The only harm created by this incident is the harm visited upon the teacher and students involved.

Prove otherwise or stow it.

then you'll see why it's a matter for the police.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But it is a matter of how DU perceives those of us in Texas and Florida. Were this to happen in a state not generally looked down upon by DU, it might not get as much notice. So long as it happens in Texas or Florida, the blinders go on, and you start getting the posts of "Texass... figures." "Floriduh... figures."

I have an archived thread you might want to look through for further info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1054746

It's long but well worth it, other than because I started it ;)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And, I work with Floridians on a daily basis. How many have you met and/or worked with?

Sometimes we fuck in groups. ;)

However, if you are going to take an offer of state employment subject to the condition that you exclude certain persons from those groups, that is also your free choice to make.

It is the choice this teacher made. She could have decided that she wanted to have sex with students, in which case she would be perfectly entitled to have resigned from the conditions she willfully accepted, and screw every 18 year old in the district from then on.

But she apparently wanted to have it both ways (or possibly three or four ways).

I would humbly suggest that if one wants to fuck in groups, which is all well and good, then one should not voluntarily agree to condition which would impose a legal penalty for doing so.

People are free to make all sorts of choices. She chose to be a teacher and thus chose the restriction which is being applied to her.

...well, except in politics, that is.

But in terms of every day nutbags, Cali's right up there with us Floridians.

Okay, thanks got it...and YUCK. That is gross.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

until they were six. They were 19 when they graduated.

I fail to see any relevance.

I moved while in high school, but my mom taught in Texas for 25 years and my dad still lives there.

In the 80s, Ross Perot sponsored some school reforms. Good ones, too, because until Bush was governor, Texas had a model K-12 and University education system; it was the state that Minnesota and California WISHED they could be. Anyway, among those reforms were giving a numeric grade instead of a letter grade, eliminating Ds entirely, and making athletes ineligible to play without passing grades. One of the ways they get around this set of athlete rules is by failing an athlete, usually a football player, in the ninth grade, so he's a fifth year senior and thus bigger and more skilled. They've cracked down on that, so now they'll take a promising kid and fail him in 5th or 6th grade, not breaking the rules but achieving the same effect.

I"d venture to say that most people, even in Texas, think it's bullshit, but the redneck-jock faction is a powerful one.

teacher honest to God loves a student.. would it still be illegal if they got married..

two people fall in love, and it is illegal due to their status in life?

have manipulated others from a position of power. Should it be illegal? Not sure, but it should be against association policy.

is not love, it is sexual harassment..

Prove in court that the person was in love and not being manipulated. That's a hard one to do. It's easier for professional associations to say "No touching"

The alternative is to have a state "sex court" where the facets of these sorts of relationships will be picked over in order to determine whether or not it was implicitly or expressly coercive.

States have better things to do with their time, and "don't have sex with the students" is pretty easy to understand.

If one can't hack that, don't teach.

ok

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(and such pictures would be LEGAL, since they are all consenting adults)

specifically calls for 3 free student teacher orgies per year.

The cut off age for high school in Tx is 21. The thing is that the teacher is still the person in authority. She broke the teacher- student trust. She probably won't get any jail time.

about young, fit, athletic adults in their physical prime. Just can't imagine why anyone would find a person like that appropriate for a purely sexual encounter.

send him to Afghanistan, to get his brains blown out by a roadside bomb.

Go figure.

If that 18 year old soldier has consensual sex with his female commanding officer....does she lose her job or face any punishment? such as a stint in Leavenworth?

serious question....

hundreds of thousands of men she could fuck till she was blue in the whatever and probably about 500 men she is forbidden so which does she do?

I mean I know forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest and all but illegal sex is just not a good idea at any time.

even though it's illegal for a teacher & student to have sex.

I think it's highly unprofessional and removing her ability to ever teach again is appropriate punishment.

Whether the law surprises some folks on DU is thoroughly irrelevant to the fact that teachers are WELL AWARE of the legal context of the states where they work, KNOW the applicable law, and make a CONSCIOUS AND WILLFUL decision to violate it.

The potential consequences are utterly no surprise to teachers who do this, and the penalty has deterrent effect.

of the school year.

That one can look at this a couple of ways.

1. Sex between consenting adults which shouldn't be illegal.

2. Someone who was entrusted with a public position of responsibility, and knowing full well the relevant law, decided that her sexual gratification was more important than her public duty under the law.

I'm really not all that bothered by those who adopt position 1. The serious "offense" here is my point 2.

I'm definitely not set in stone on your number 1, and I can see number 2 being the more heinous part. I have changed my mind, and now do feel that criminal charges are relevant.

Which is perfectly legal in a lot of states.

Saddened certainly, but not surprised anymore that teacher/student relationships are being rationalized and justified on DU.

Sorry, I just do.

Nuff said. Regardless of the students age, that's the rules. The rules are in place for a very good reason...because they don't want the student receiving any kind of favoritism or advantages over the other students. It has nothing to do with their ages...it has to do with protocol and the reasons the protocol exists.

She must have been aware that it was illegal regardless of their ages but I'm sure it was easier to convince them that there was nothing wrong "because we're all adults".

and having seen several incidences of this in our area recently, it does need to be punished.

That being said--I fell head over heels for a student teacher when I was in High School. He said he felt the same and really wanted to have a relationship with me. Not because of state law or school policy--but basically because my parents wouldn't allow the relationship, we were going to wait until I graduated from High School and he graduated from College. He was very understanding but still tried to convince me to sneak around. However, once school was over, he was gone. No phone calls. No letters. Nothing. He didn't want a relationship, he wanted a piece of ass.(this was only a matter of 3 months--not years--just added to clarify.)

Crushes on teachers are a part of the normal school environment.

Teachers know it, and ones that exploit it are despicable.

And I'll bet you weren't the only student on his mind, either.

I agree with you that we should do something about the way men are victimized by women in society.

(That's not sarcasm at all. I'm deadly fucking serious here. Glad we're on the same page)

Hire crap, expect crap.

J

:banghead:

had not she been a teacher/coach since the males were of legal age.


Very unprofessional. She should never be allowed to teach/coach again.

adults having sex. What are they going to do, stone her to death?