Arrest Warrant Issued for Blond Sex Crazed Teacher

[El Supremo]

Damn, I love these prurient news stories.

By John Ingold
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 01/29/2007 03:25:26 PM MST

Fort Collins - Larimer County authorities have issued a new arrest warrant for former Brighton Charter School teacher Carrie McCandless after prosecutors alleged that she contacted the victim in her sexual assault case.

McCandless, who once taught social studies at the school, is accused of engaging in drinking, kissing and fondling with 17-year-old male student last year while on a school field trip in Estes Park. The student told police that he told McCandless he loved her and that she said she loved him.

McCandless, 30, had been released on $20,000 bond, but one of the conditions of her release was that she not contact the student. In a motion filed last Thursday, prosecutors alleged that McCandless contacted the student on Wednesday, two days after they both appeared in the same court room -- though seated far apart -- for a scheduled preliminary hearing.

Prosecutors asked the judge to revoke McCandless' bond on Thursday, and an arrest warrant, with a $25,000 bond, was issued for her on Friday.

As of this afternoon, it did not appear that McCandless had been arrested or turned herself in. Spokespeople for the Brighton Police Department and the Larimer County Sheriff's Office said they don't believe their departments have received any specific requests to track down McCandless, who lives in Brighton....

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5112302

[Taverner]

1. Yes what she did was unspeakable

She is, however, hot

[TheBaldyMan]

106. that poor boy ... it tooks weeks to wipe the smile off his face.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. a 17-year old

is not a child.

[Kelvin Mace]

11. Again, at what point do we make distinctions

You can be executed in this country at that age, but you can't vote, can't drink, can't smoke. etc.

He may not be a "child" but the woman abused her authority in a criminal manner.

[WI_DEM]

22. I agree, so he's 17, he is still her student and she should have left him alone

yes at 17 I'm sure he's full of raging hormones and she is quite attractive. But when he said he loved her ( if this truly happened) she should not have responded in the way she is alleged to have done.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I have no objection

to an employer saying it's against the rules. So she should lose her job.

There's no reason to prosecute her.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. THANK YOU!

When I see the prudes lashing out in threads like this, an ugly, unsaid truth makes itself apparent:

They hate sex. They'd love to punish ALL sex, but they can't. When a particular instance of sex that has some chance of being punished shows up, they throw themselves at it like starved hyenas.

[Pithlet]

90. Right.

Because people who feel that teachers shouldn't be free to consider the student body as an extension of their own personal dating scene hate sex! No, it isn't possible that they're reasonable, intelligent adults who happen to disagree with you, because it's not possible to be both, is it?

[LostinVA]

118. Bingo -- certain professions have certain things they must adhere to

If you don't like the rules/laws/restrictions, then go into another filed.

Want to have sex with students? Then don't become a teacher.

It has nothing to do with prudery.

[Kelvin Mace]

97. Hate to burst your balloon

but I love sex. I have NO problem with fully consenting adults having sex. Teens can and will have sex, but that is for parents to adjudicate. However, when an adult has sex with a child or a teen, ESPECIALLY one who is an authority figure, we have crossed the line of what is proper, ethical and LEGAL.

I know off what I speak, having first hand experience with a 36 year-old man being sexually involved with a female I was legal guardian of.

He had the fucking nerve to tell me "nothing happened" when I caught him at it.

This is not a matter of consent, but one of INFORMED consent. Your average 17 year-old is NOT emotionally mature enough to give such.

[Pithlet]

89. If she wants to sleep with teenagers free of legal consequences

she can find another profession. I have no problem with laws telling adults that if they enter the teaching profession, the kids are off limits. Teachers should not be free to have their pick of the student body for sex. If they had been two people who casually met outside of the teacher/student establishment, I wouldn't care, personally. He's 17, not 12. But, he was her student, which did and absolutely should made him off limits for her.

[Kelvin Mace]

96. Sorry,

but this is just not right. I don't care what you say about 17 year olds "wanting it", this is an issue of trust and manipulating emotionally immature teens. If 17 is okay, then what about 16? What about 15? What about 14?

Criminal prosecution is warranted. This is not a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year-old. This is a 30 year-old woman who knows better.

[FiveGoodMen]

111. If 19 is okay

what about 18, 17, 16...

If 45 is okay, what about 44, 43, 42, 41 ............?

[frogcycle]

83. and the penalty should be

equivalent to that for a violation of the rules of etiquette

[Kelvin Mace]

98. No, she comitted a crime

Don't like the law, the lobby your legislator to allow adults to be allowed to have sex with teens.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. That's the problem with legalistic

interpretations. We don't need to draw a line. We can look at each individual situation and determine if somebody was harmed.

Not every 17-year old is the same. But I think if a 17-year old engages in voluntary, consensual sex, then no real crime is committed.

The law and justice aren't always synchronous.

[cynatnite]

29. With his 30 year old married teacher?

If true, what she did was illegal and she should be punished. The punishment should fit the circumstances, but I don't think we should ignore the law in one case and prosecute in another.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. The law is an ass

in this case.

I have no objection to her losing her job for violating her position of authority.

But criminal prosecution? I don't see the need or value, presuming the young man in question fully consented to the encounter.

[cynatnite]

31. Even if he consented, that still doesn't make it legal...

These laws are in place for a reason. Minors are not considered competent to be able to consent to sex with adults.

I've been through this and I clearly understand the 'slippery slope' arguments that come out of these discussions. They do not hold water.

He is a minor and she is an adult in a position of power that should have a clear understanding of the law. She is the adult with the experience and knowledge. It's on her to know that this was wrong and so she will pay for it if it is true.

[MonkeyFunk]

32. I understand that it's illegal

but an adherence to legality over justice is bone-headed.

As to her "power", I've said repeatedly that I have no objection to her losing her job over this. But I don't understand criminal prosecution. Who was harmed?

If he had waited 6 months, the law might NOT allow for prosecution. I think such "lines" are legalistic nonsense.

As I said above, a crime where nobody was hurt is not a crime - it's just legalism.

[cynatnite]

36. This boy might have been harmed...

in ways we're not aware of. It's possible there are psychological ramifications we're not privy to. There is no way to really know at this point or if we will know. It doesn't change the fact that minors are incompetent to make these kinds of decisions and that's why it's illegal.

Having gone through something similar to this myself this is not a gray area for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Baloney.

Am I supposed to believed that he could have been harmed, but wouldn't have been if he were a couple of months older?

Nonsense.

[cynatnite]

41. Do you know he wasn't harmed?

You can assume all you like. But none of us know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. Do you have any reason to believe that he was?

[cynatnite]

45. I said he MAY have been harmed...

I never stated I knew he was.

[MonkeyFunk]

well I don't agree

with prosecuting people for the harm they "may" have incurred.

If you were harmed by your encounter, then somebody did you wrong. I hope that person was prosecuted.

In this case, nobody has presented evidence that the "victim" was harmed.

Inflexibile lines in such situations are as dumb as mandatory-minimum sentences. I just can't understand prosecuting crimes that have no victims.

[cynatnite]

44. It wasn't my encounter.

We don't know if the victim was harmed or not. We're not there. We're not privy to this information. It's easy to read an article an pass judgment on what little is told. They never tell the entire story.

[northzax]

101. the only problem with this concept

which is always tempting, is that you would have to wait until the outcome of any criminal scenario to determine if someone actually should be prosecuted. Surely there are many victims of, say, sex abuse, who show no outside symptoms of harm, in fact are considered normal, well adjusted people. does this mean they were not actually abused?

[LanternWaste]

87. May I assume...

May I assume that you believe there is an age difference between partners that should be criminalized? If so, what is that difference and upon what is it based on?

If I'm wrong and you belive that each victim in these crimes may or may not be a victim due to their emotional maturity, on what do we base our determinations on as to whether the person is a victim or just doing what comes natural? Is there as test to determine whether a 13 year old girl is mature enough to have sex with a 40 year old guy?

If you believe the latter, do we need to begin this regardless of age? Is there a cut-off age that we don't have to concern ourselves with emotional maturity anymore? If not, why not?

[Redstone]

59. "Minors aren't competent?" By the time I was 17, I had graduated from high school,

was living on my own, and had hitchhiked across the country and back once, and driven across it and back once as well.

Smoked dope and drank beer and slept with women and had jobs and paid rent and the whole shebang.

I think I was pretty competent.

Redstone

[cynatnite]

69. Legally, they are not n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. And yet Colorado seems to say 17 years can consent to sex with any age person

See eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Colorado , or any other list of ages of consent I've found so far.

I suspect the problem here might be the drinking - if she gave him the alcohol, and then the fondling etc. started, she might be held responsible for getting him, under the legal age for drinking, incapable - and thus unable to consent.

Colorado also allows 16 and 17 year olds to marry, with their parents' consent. Presumably sex will then take place in those marriages.

On edit: Colorado makes sex with under 18s illegal for those in a position of trust - see post #84 for details.

[Kelvin Mace]

100. It is not a matter of consent

but a matter of INFORMED consent. Given the tremendous latitude in emotional maturity in teens, you have err on the side of caution. Personally I would set all consent laws at 25, given the emotional and intellectual maturity of most Americans these days.

[Jeanette in FL]

14. In the eyes of the law, he is

We cannot have double standards for hot cute 30 year old female teachers and 17 year old testosterone driven boys.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. What you call a double-standard

others would call "having common sense".

To say a 17-year old is incapable of consenting to sex is a violation of hundreds of thousands of years of human evolutionary experience.

The law is a tool to achieve justice. Where justice isn't served by the law, the law should be put aside.

[sendero]

38. If we are going to have laws..

... against 30 year old men fucking 17 year old women, then we HAVE to have laws for the opposite genders, or the law is sexist.

This really isn't that fucking hard to "get".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. There is a solution...

to that double standard.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. No need to get obscene...

I'm trying to be reasonable here, and I request you do the same.

But for the record, if a 17-year old young woman engages in consensual sex with a 30-year old man, I don't think that should be a crime, either.

[sendero]

48. Well perhaps..

... but certainly somewhere in that age range is when a person becomes an adult capable of making such decisions.

I'm not going to quibble about the exact age, but I'm vehement that the law cannot respect gender at all.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. Why?

Girls tend to mature earlier than boys. Why not recognize that in our laws? Or better yet, why not write the laws so that the actual issue of HARM is addressed, not just age?

There are definitely cases where young men and women are harmed by sexual contact with older people. There are also definitely cases where such contact occurs with no harm.

Focusing on an arbitrary age instead of the issue of harm is a cheap cop-out for weak-minded legislators and prosecutors.

[sendero]

63. There is no reasonable way..

... to prove harm, but there is to prove age. I disagree with you, and your absurd idea that we should have fuzzy laws based on opinions. Juries make too many stupid decisions already, why give them ammo to make more?

[MonkeyFunk]

68. I believe

the notion that proving harm is more absurd than having an arbitrary, legalistic line is even more absurd.

[LanternWaste]

107. Do you believe there should be an age-difference law ..

Do you believe there should be an age-difference law at all? If so, what is the precise age-difference at which it begins, on what is that age-difference based and how is that value better (or "more just") than the existing law?

edited for spelling

[Bucky]

17. But this 17 year old

was a student at her school. That's beyond "inappropriate." She should be prosecuted to the fullest.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. I knew a 17 year old

in High School who screwed a teacher. 30 years later, he still considers it a positive experience.

A crime where nobody is hurt isn't a crime - it's just pure legalism.

[edwardsfeingold08]

60. I agree with you.

I did something like this in high school and I consider is a positive experience. I can't think of one negative thing about it.

I actually think it's good to be with someone older. I learned more from that experience than I did from half my classes in school. In my case, the woman was single so no one was harmed.

I agree she should lose her job, but prosecuting these cases is pure b.s. Come on. What's the difference between seventeen and eighteen? Why don't they make this woman wear a scarlet letter? That's about as logical as putting her in jail

[0007]

86. It would be a positive experience for any young normal male.

[Mike Daniels]

93. But teachers serve as custodians to their charges (students)

I can only presume you would be totally fine with consensual sex between a prisoner and a correctional officer? The relationship isn't that far removed from that of a student and teacher.

[Joe for Clark]

3. Obviously, I went to the wrong high school.

[shadowknows69]

5. All my teachers were over 60 or male

I wuz robbed of my proper education B-)

[Joe for Clark]

33. Not in my school - there were some very good looking teachers.

Unfortuately...

[LTR]

62. Took the words right out of my mouth (nt)

[devilgrrl]

4. Oh, I bet the kid LOVED IT!!!!!

:eyes:

And the teacher was hot! That makes it okay!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I bet he did too.

:shrug:

[MrSlayer]

6. Niiiice.

[Botany]

7. That poor young man ......

..... he had to "get busy" with her. Please send Ms. McCandless to my house ASAP
for her punishment.

BTW doing it on field trip? :shrug:

Not smart!

[freethought]

9. Yes, yes. I am absolutely, positively sure that the 17 year old

in question feels violated, abused, used, and exploited. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


You're right. He did love it.

[NashVegas]

20. I'm Sure He DOES Feel Exploited

By the media and by everyone who's using his story to make "points."

[Katherine Brengle]

103. I wonder how you would feel if the child were female and the teacher male. nt

[LanternWaste]

112. But... but... but that's DIFFERENT!

But... but... but that's DIFFERENT! :sarcasm:

I'm not the most progressive guy in the world when it comes to sexism (but I'm learning and I'm trying), so if I can perceive the double standard being applied in this thread, I'm assuming that it must be depressingly obvious to someone better in tune w/ sexism than I.

Sheesh! It's... incredible that even on a progressive board such as DU, this is made into a joke ("atta boy... wish I had THAT teacher when I was in HS").

I fear the time may arrive when a DU-er says something to the effect of, "...but she was a VERY mature twelve year old and knew what she was doing with that 47 year old guy... no victim, ergo, no crime." I hope it doesn't happen; yet with the arguments being used in this thread, I can see the time coming.

(Didn't mean to steal your thunder...)

[EV_Ares]

10. What would Borat say? N/T.

[dysfunctional press]

66. "Ni-ce!"

nt

[EV_Ares]

70. LOL, you got it. N/T.

[Missy M]

12. That woman needs her head examined.....

not only was she drinking, kissing and fondling with a 17 year old student at a school field trip, but her husband is principal of the school. She definitely has some character flaws.

[slackmaster]

95. Most cogent remark in the thread

Thank you Missy M.

[d_b]

13. Where the hell were these teachers

when I was in school?

[TahitiNut]

15. Next year, that student could be sent to Iraq ... but SHE'S the "bad person."

I'm sure glad we have a sense of proportionality in this country.

[aikoaiko]

16. I blame it on Estes Park --- lots of love in the air.

Just kidding?

But more seriously, I thought the age of consent was 17 in CO.

[TahitiNut]

26. Yep. The age of consent is 17 in Colorado.

Something isn't kosher.

[cynatnite]

18. What a sick person n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

34. She may well be...

the fact that she was married to the principal and engaged in this behavior certainly indicates she has some issues.

But a 30-year old having sex with a 17-year old doesn't strike me as a perversion or any other type of sexual disorder. Biologically, they are both far above the age at which, historically, humans have fucked.

[cynatnite]

39. Biologically speaking girls can have sex when they begin menstruating...

Biologics plays no part in this at all. It's competence. Minors are not competent to make these decisions. Adults are and if they violate this law, they should be held accountable. If this woman is sick, as I think she is, she needs psychological help, but it doesn't mean I want her around other minors.

[LostInAnomie]

46. So are we supposed to believe that on a person's 18th birthday...

... they are magically given knowledge of when sex is appropriate, and a person is incapable of this knowledge any time before?

[cynatnite]

49. No, minors aren't considered competent...

to make these kinds of decisions. Adults are.

[LostInAnomie]

64. But the differentiating line between "minor" and "adult" is completely arbitrary.

It does not take into account mental, emotional, or sexual maturity. It simply draws a line that says no matter what on your 18th birthday, and not one second before, you are completely ready for sex, tobacco, gambling, and military service, no matter if it is true or not.

It does not take into account that there are 17 year olds that are mentally, emotionally, and sexually mature enough to make an informed decision on if they are ready to engage in sex. Yet, it given complete legal blessing to 18 year olds that are not prepared. This is completely devoid of logic.

Criminal punishment shouldn't be handed down based on arbitrary distinctions. They should be based on actual harm.

[Pithlet]

88. A line does have to be drawn somewhere.

There have to be laws that protect minors. If we base the law solely on when children are physiologically ready, then it is open season for sexual predators. There are social and psychological considerations, whether you choose to acknowledge them. The question then becomes where to draw that line. No matter where it is drawn, there will be some people who object. Despite some in this thread who want to throw dung and scream "You must hate sex! You prude!!!!!!!", people can reasonably disagree about where that line should be drawn. And there are numerous factors to consider. It isn't completely devoid of logic to set the mark at a specific age. And then we have the teacher/student relationship factor, in this case. I believe that age is irrelevant, here. I think the law should strictly forbid it from high school level on down, no matter the age and hotness of the participants, and the adult teacher should be prosecuted. Teachers shouldn't be able to have their pick of students for sexual exploits free of legal consequences. If they want to sleep with 16, 17 or 18 year olds free of prosecution, they can find another profession.

[LostInAnomie]

102. Who said anything about the law being based on physiological readiness?

I said that laws should take into account the mental, emotional, and sexual (meaning understanding of sex) maturity. To base the laws simply on age does not take any of those things into account. Instead, it arbitrarily says that some with the mental, emotional, and sexual maturity are not ready, while others that lack this maturity are.

"The question then becomes where to draw that line. No matter where it is drawn, there will be some people who object."

That is true. No matter where you draw the line some will object. That is why when cases like this arise (where the sex is consensual) the law should take into account the maturity of the "victim". If they are found to not be mature enough, throw the adult in jail. If they are mature enough, they should be let go.

"If they want to sleep with 16, 17 or 18 year olds free of prosecution, they can find another profession."

I completely agree, and I doubt you can find anyone in this thread that doesn't. A teacher/student affair is an abuse of power, no matter what the circumstances. She should lose her job.

That being said, if she wasn't a teacher we would have never heard of this story, and more than likely, no one would have cared.

[Pithlet]

104. Age is the only way to clearly define and draw the line.

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating draconian measures like throwing people in the slammer for years and labeling them a sex offender in all instances. I'm merely defending the practice of using age as a determining factor. All other factors vary too much on an individual basis. It's perfectly logical and reasonable to determine at what age the average person is both physically and emotionally ready to willingly enter into a sexual relationship, and then make laws based on that, because the vast majority of people develop physically and emotionally along a continuum that correlates with age. How far the laws go is another matter. But, it isn't arbitrary in the least. It's possible for a very precocious 13 year old to be intellectually and emotionally on the same level as a below average 18 year old. That doesn't mean it's right for, say, a 25 year old to have sex with them, because for one thing they haven't the level of life experience that even a 16 year old has had, and such an experience could still be damaging. Not to mention it's a pretty creepy loophole for an adult. Seek out the ones society has deemed precocious and you're golden? No. Age has to be a consideration.

And there are people who would disagree and think it's fine and dandy for a teacher to pork her student, especially if she's hawtt. Even in this thread. This subject has come up on DU before, and the first time it shocked me how many DUers supported the teacher. It doesn't shock me anymore.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. and my point

is not based on a strict, legalistic position.

It's based on whether or not somebody was harmed.

My grandmother already had three children by the time she was 17. She had them with her husband.

For the vast bulk of human history, people married and procreated shortly after puberty. I don't find any sort of "natural law" against 17-year olds having sex.

To say somebody a few months shy of his 18th birthday is "incapable" of deciding whether or not to have sex, but that that competence then becomes apparent on his birthday is legalistic. I understand it. The law isn't well-suited to subtlety.

But nonetheless, this young man, who in most jurisdictions in the industrialized world would be perfectly capable of making this decision for himself, is not a victim simply because he lives in that particular State.

If she forced herself on him, then a crime was committed. If he chose to screw her (and I would venture most straight 17-year old guys would), then no crime occurred. An example of bad judgment? Yeah. An indiscretion? For sure. But a crime? Nah.

[cynatnite]

51. As I said we don't know if this boy was harmed or not...

we can only assume.

You're bringing apples to an argument about oranges and saying they are the same. So not true. Your grandmother was married and either the laws were different or she had the permission of her parents to marry.

You can define whether he is a victim in your own mind, but when it comes to the law, he is a victim. He is a minor. He is incompetent to make these decisions even if he had a boner and was ready to get his rocks off. In the eyes of the law this is how it is whether you like it or not.

When you say 'and I would venture most straight 17-year old guys would' I always shake my head because that screams 'double standard' to me. If this had been a 17 year old girl and a 30 year old man I would bet tone of this entire thread would be different.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. sigh

Cyatnite... I like you. I have agreed with you on many issues here.

But I'm trying to be very precise here, and I feel you're not reading what I'm writing.

I have already said that if a 17-year old girl had a consensual sexual relationship with a 30-year old, I have no objection. In fact, it would be legal in most countries, as well as a large number of states here in the US.

You seem fixated on a legalistic "line". I'm fixated on the issue of "harm".

I think my fixation is better.

[cynatnite]

58. I do understand what you're saying...

The teacher should be punished and that should fit the crime. If this boy was psychologically harmed that should be taken in account. If he says 'no big deal, I'm okay' and asserts his own responsibility that should be taken in account as well. I personally do think something is wrong with this woman and she needs help.

That's as far as I can go. When it comes to this issue, and I recognize how personal it is for me, adults should be punished for having sex with minors. I also think they need help as well.

Each case should be treated individually and no set sentence should apply to all of them so that mitigating circumstances, victims, family members and the accused have all been considered.

I didn't read all your posts so I missed what you said if this had been a girl.

I do respect your posts and we are in agreement on many things. Disagreements on other issues won't change how I feel. :hug:

[MonkeyFunk]

61. Thank you

the punishment should be she loses her job. That fits the crime. I understand schools should have rules against this behavior.

I also believe that this woman is troubled, and needs help.

I do not believe this "victim" needs anything other than a high-five.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

76. But, you know, if the courts and the media don't fuck him up completely,

he might grow up to believe that (gasp!) SEX ISN'T BAD!

And we can't have THAT, now, can we?

[fujiyama]

19. There is obviously an issue

of the power differential, but ummm....a 25k dollar bond? This was a consensual relationship, and 17 year olds are almost on their way to college, where they will undoubtedly fuck and drink a lot. LOL, I'm sure the guy felt really violated...

Oh and yeah, she is kinda cute. But boy, they weren't bright though - a field trip?

[Botany]

23. She went to college ... what about hitting the old Red Roof later?

[MazeRat7]

21. Its a crime....

that a 17 year old kid is having an affair with an older woman? Really ??? In what reality is this news ? Like thats never happened before in recorded history. :sarcasm:

Yup, just one more prime example of authority meddling where it doesn't belong. That's the crime in my book.

MZr7

[Ignacio Upton]

105. I guess they forgot to arrest Mrs. Robinson too

;-)

[LostInAnomie]

35. Teachers, for the sake of our profession...

... QUIT FUCKING THE STUDENTS!

IMHO, teachers should never have sex with their students no matter what the student's age. Entering a relationship with someone under your charge is an abuse of power and a direct conflict of interests. At the very least, if they just can't help themselves, they should wait until after graduation. She should lose her job.

That being said I also feel that it is ridiculous to think that a 17 year old male is incapable of making an informed decision when it comes to sex. By 17 males know their own sex drives very well, and they know if they are being taken advantage of in relationships. The idea that there was harm done by this woman does not fit the bill.

I also feel that the media is far too obsessed with stories about teachers having sex with their students. If this were a situation where a 17 year old was having sex with a 30 year old factory worker, nurse, neighbor, etc. we would have never heard this story.

[Initech]

53. Helllllllllllo non stop 24/7 media coverage!

Seriously, this is the next runaway bride / Terri Schiavo / etc case. :argh:

[MonkeyFunk]

54. I've had CNN and MSNBC on all day

and haven't seen one mention of this story.

[Lord Byron]

55. This is news?

I'll bet the poor boy is traumatized.

[Mythsaje]

56. Well, I suppose that's ONE way to become a school legend...

Screwing a hot teacher AND cuckolding the Principal at the same time?

Oh, yeah...the harm done to that kid is irreparable.

:sarcasm:

Those who think otherwise either have never been a seventeen year old boy, or didn't have sex until they were thirty (if they were lucky) because women ran screaming the other way.

Sometimes the law is SO stupid.

[LostInAnomie]

67. No joke.

Her husband is the one I feel sorry for out of all of this. Not only does he have a trampy wife, but a student body that knows (probably in depth) the dirty details about his wife being banged by a student. I can't imagine how much that has to suck.

If I were him I would want to move FAR away... and kill my wife.

[Redstone]

57. Why the HELL couldn't I have had a teacher who looked like that when I was

17, and furthermore one who wanted to get it one with me?

Damn.

Redstone

[U4ikLefty]

65. What if this were a 30-yr old female COP instead of teacher???

She had caught this youth before for selling pot at the B-ball courts; this was the 3rd time & she was F-ing HOT!!!

I mean, he wanted it...remember, she was HOT (oh yeah & blond)!!!

Shuold the female COP be prosecuted???

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. The position of authority held by a cop is a bit more extreme

and in that case it wouldn't make much difference if the man is 17, 18, 30 or 40.

[LisaL]

71. I don't understand what she is charged with? Is 17 below

the age of consent?
What kind of criminal law is used to charge her?

[Raydawg1234]

73. anything under 18 is still considered a minor. Probably risk of injury to a minor.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. Only in some states

other states say 15, 16 or 17 year olds can consent to sex.

[HEyHEY]

72. Can't they determine if she used her influence to get the sex?

If the woman used her position of trust to manipulate the guy into sex then I could see charges being laid. Other than that... 17 is old enough to be in the army is it not? Then it's old enough to fuck whoever you want.

[Robb]

80. It's presumed

She's got a position of influence, and it's presumed she used it -- implicitly or explicitly.

For example: as a 17 year-old, I would've found her much, much hotter than another 30 year-old, because she was my teacher.

I know a 17 year-old around these parts who's seeing a 39 year-old man, and it's given me fits to think about the power balance there... because he's an absolute, flippin' idiot. And she's bright as hell. Seriously, he's mentally like 11.

It's one of those situations where all I can do is shudder.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. The position of trust is explicitly what makes it a crime

image of the application for arrest warrant

It refers to:

18-3-405.3. Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. (1) Any actor who knowingly subjects another not his or her spouse to any sexual contact commits sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust if the victim is a child less than eighteen years of age and the actor committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim.

Colorado Criminal law

[NorthernSpy]

74. that 17-year-old should beat up a couple of his "protectors"...

I guarantee you they'll immediately stop treating him like a child. In America, the fastest way to have your maturity recognized is to commit a crime:

That hot blonde teacher took advantage of an innocent 17-year-old chiiiiiyuld! That boy is a victim! We must imprison this woman!

Damn... that 17-year-old just punched me for ending his good thing with that hot blonde teacher! I want that fucker tried as an adult!!!!1!!1!

:eyes:

[LostInAnomie]

78. LOL!!!

Funny and true.

[MoseyWalker]

81. my understanding, from reading articles about this

is that she allowed, and possibly provided alcohol while on an overnight trip. Also, she and the 17 year old "simulated" sex. She did, possibly, use her position of authority in an abusive manner, but 12 years of potential prison time seems excessive.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53004

[RedCappedBandit]

85. In a couple of months repugs will want to send him to Iraq

but he isn't mature enough to make these kinds of decisions? Gimme a fuckin' break.

[noamnety]

91. Similar Story (judging by the comments)

PENSACOLA, Fla. — The City Council unanimously approved a $35,000 settlement for a teenage girl who sued the city after claiming a police officer forced her to do jumping jacks while topless, officials said.

(snip)

The April 2003 incident occurred when Officer Shawn Patrick Shields found the girl, then 16, and a 19-year-old male together in a parked car. Shields made the two teens exit their vehicle, then told them he could arrest them for lewd and lascivious behavior, authorities said.

The girl told investigators that Shields told her to perform five topless jumping jacks, which she said she did as he shone his flashlight on her.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,247442,00.html

Comments from the Pensacola News Journal forum:

"funny thing about morality and money. If you offered $35,000 to expose breasts I think you would find long line of people ready to collect the reward. It's not right mind you, but I'm sure officers have seen a lot worse. People will do strange things to get out of a ticket...guess those days are gone now."

"Do you think that women ever offer to "show an officer a good time" to get of a ticket? If you do think that this does occur, then both parties would have signed a deal with the devil, wouldn't you agree? How best to then make the punishment fit the crime?"

"The fact that she was the only one doing jumping jacks might even add fuel to the idea that she had offered some way to get out of the infraction... which would be what exactly? lewd and lascivious behavior in public? I'm not sure what the crime was either. Has this been reported? I need to say also that we talk about the officer losing his job as if this is a minor punishment. This is serious stuff. Not only does this officer lose his job and the cascade of problems that result from losing ones livelihood but he has a lifetime mark on his name that his whole family has to endure. All for a stupid case of misjudgment.

I also question the assertion that the woman who did the jumping jacks, did them because she was paralyzed in the face of authority and absolutely compliant because fear made her lose all sense of judgment. Let's say the office offered to let them get off by taking his gun and shooting herself in the foot. I think that we can be fairly certain that she would say to hell with that, write me the ticket. As you suggest, if she had been allowed to do jumping jacks with her shirt on... well, that would be a no brain-er, everyone would say, no problem and thanks officer. The question of personal judgment becomes more sticky as the humiliation or discomfort increases. Everything in between shooting ones self in the foot and doing jumping jacks fully clothed fits in different spots within the bounds of the individual's tolerance and moral acceptance. This example just puts into the spotlight, that the claimed humiliation is profoundly in conflict with her sensibilities at the time of the incident only to be realized and acted upon, some time after, in the comfort of her attorney's office."

"To me the incident ( naked jacks) was insignificant compared to the punishment (officer loses job) and the reparations ($35,000)."
http://forum.pensacolanewsjournal.com/viewtopic.php?t=10360&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Problems in this thread:

The attitude that it's okay to abuse one's position of authority - so long as the person doing the abusing is "hot."

The attitude that abuse of power is only a problem if someone gets hurt - by that logic, drunk driving is just fine, so long you don't hit anyone.

The inability to see the difference between sex between two consenting adults in equal positions of power, vs. sex between two consenting people when one is in a position of authority over the other. This is why it's wrong for prison guards to have sex with prisoners - even though they are both of legal age.

The attitude that she shouldn't have any penalty other than losing the job in that particular school. The criminal record, if nothing else, will keep her from getting a new job in a different school where part of her job duties are chaperoning other students. Otherwise, if all you do is kick her out of that one school, you aren't any better than the churches that kick their pedophile priests out of one parish only to send them to another. If she's abusing her position of power, she shouldn't be placed into the same job at a different school.

The attitude that her husband is the one who's been hurt the worst - not because she betrayed his trust, I could go along with that, but no, it's because he's been publicly humiliated by having a wife that misbehaves. When the hell are we going to move beyond the wife being property of the husband, and her actions reflecting badly on him, cause he obviously can't control her?

[Apollo11]

94. But if her husband is the school principal

then it kind of undermines his ability to retain the respect of the student body.

Let that be a lesson to all high-school principals with hot young (I think 30 is still young these days) wives or girlfriends. Keep her satisfied, or if you can't keep her satisfied, don't send her on a field trip with some of the more mature male students. ;-)

[dysfunctional press]

114. it might actually be that the principal was fully aware of her escapades...

and that it was an active part of their own sex lives.

[Apollo11]

92. "Kissing and Fondling" is not "Banging"

I think some of you have been letting your imaginations run riot !! ;-)

I agree with the people who are saying this is the principal's business (as the employer).

I see no reason why the police or courts should get involved.

It's an issue of inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Nothing more than that.

It's not the same as a 40 year-old male teacher having sex with a 15 year-old female student.

If you ask me - what Bill Clinton got up to was worse than this.

The age difference was more than 13 years and the acts were more -- let's say -- X-rated.

If only he had resigned in February 1999 - we would have already had 8 years of President Gore ...

[TZ]

99. do I smell a double standard here?

If this was a 17 year old girl being fondled and not banged as you so eloquently put it would it bother you. I had a sister who, along with several other girls at age 15 was sleeping with a male teacher. The man is still in the school system (and this happened over 20 yrs ago). Apparantly they just move this guy from school to school whenever any kind of allegation came up (btw-nobody believed my sister or the other girls until graphic details were given). A sex predator is a sex predator whether they be male or female. Teachers should not have ANY kind of physical relationship with a student. What Clinton did was wrong but I feel like this is worse because no one seems to think that a woman abusing a boy like this is wrong. They just seem to laugh and say I bet the boy liked it. AT THE TIME my sister liked her teacher too and did not understand the implications. They follow her to this day.:rant:

[Apollo11]

116. Predator -- or just into younger guys?

There's a big difference between a 30 year-old female teacher "kissing and fondling" with a 17 year-old boy, and a male teacher "sleeping with" a 15 year-old girl.

Is a 17 year-old boy still a minor? I guess the laws vary from state to state.

But NO WAY is this 30 year-old teacher "worse" than Bill Clinton.

What Bill and Monica did in the Oval Office was much more than kissing.

And the POTUS should be even more responsible than a high-school teacher.

The very idea that the police and courts should waste their time on this is nuts.

This is an issue between the teacher and her employers. Nothing more.

[dysfunctional press]

108. here's a picture of her husband...

and since nothing has been mentioned about them splitting up...i have to wonder if it wasn't all a part of their own sex lives.

[MoseyWalker]

110. that sounds really wacky, but

maybe we should always question all?

[angstlessk]

109. She should have gotten herself a job as a prison guard..they get to have sex

at will and are hardly EVER punished. She just chose the wrong job!

[Verde]

113. Non-story...

Sorry, if this had happened 30 years ago, she would have been fired and the guy would have been happy and voted most likely to get laid in the yearbook.

It's true. Boys and girls are different sexually at that age... At any age.

When I was in school, most of my teachers were better than a cold shower. There was one, though... God, if only she had "abused me." I had to wait until I was 20 before I was abused by a woman ten years my elder. I enjoyed the hell out of it and dream of it thirty years later!

[dysfunctional press]

115. that's what happened to a youth counselor at our church- 30 years ago.

she and her husband, both 20-somethings, were chosen to host a 17 year-old exchange student from sweden...yadda, yadda, yadda...they got divorced, she got fired, and Lars was a hero to all of us who had fantascized about get a piece of mrs. s...

i also had to "suffer" the "abuse" and attentions of a very hot mid-30's co-worker when i was 21...i learned A LOT.

[Apollo11]

117. I can really sympathize ...

... it sounds like you had a traumatic experience! ;-)