Female Track Coach Busted for Inappropriate Relations With Student...

othershoe wrote:

Poor judgement to sleep with your students. By the way, would you be fine with your 18-year old daughter/sister sleeping with her track coach?

Not her student. She didn't start sleeping with him until after she was done with student teaching.

Not her athlete. He didn't do track.

22/2+7=18. I agree it's a little sketchy, but she would not have committed a crime if she was coaching at another school. Or if he graduated early. I'm hard pressed to think the book should be thrown at her. I'm with the guy that says probation.

Absurd. 22 and 18, consenting adults. That's college senior and college freshman age, both being legal, and this was not her student or her athlete.

Here's what a real newspaper reported;

"She is accused of engaging in intercourse and oral sex with the student under a statute that prohibits sexual contact between teachers and students in their schools."

http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-new-britain-arrest-west-hartford-teacher-20180202-story.html

Here's an explanation from

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0710.htm

Generally, under CGS Sec. 53a-71, a person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when he (1) engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is 13, 14, or 15 and (2) is more than three years older than the minor. However, the crime also includes cases in which a school employee engages in sexual intercourse with a student enrolled in a school in which he works or a school under the jurisdiction of the local or regional school board that employs him. This provision applies regardless of the student's age and the difference in age between the student and the employee. It also applies to (1) coaches and (2) school volunteers 20 and older who are in a position of power, authority or supervision over a person under age 18.

Look at the law and how it is written, it is only a crime if the perp is a "he". This is a "she" and a very attractive one. That law does not apply to her whether we interpret that law exactly how it is written or whether is go by the intent.

There is no crime and it is absurd to use that kind of law here even if it was written to include attractive females as the perp.

I'd Tap That wrote:

Look at the law and how it is written, it is only a crime if the perp is a "he". This is a "she" and a very attractive one. That law does not apply to her whether we interpret that law exactly how it is written or whether is go by the intent.

There is no crime and it is absurd to use that kind of law here even if it was written to include attractive females as the perp.

That's a summary of the law, not the actual law. The actual law is not limited to men-

othershoe wrote:

Poor judgement to sleep with your students. By the way, would you be fine with your 18-year old daughter/sister sleeping with her track coach?

I wouldn't be fine with my daughter sleeping with anyone regardless of my daughter's age. But what do my or your feelings have to do with this? I never understand these "what if it was you/yours" type of arguments. Please explain.

tapper wrote:

Unreal. That young lady is very attractive. Interesting that she could probably sleep with at least 75% of men that are legal for her and she chooses to go with her student. . . .!

75% ? I would say +/- 95%.

Lip Kitten wrote:

tapper wrote:

Unreal. That young lady is very attractive. Interesting that she could probably sleep with at least 75% of men that are legal for her and she chooses to go with her student. . . .!

75% ? I would say +/- 95%.

And the other 5% are gay.

Bringem Young wrote:

Lip Kitten wrote:

75% ? I would say +/- 95%.

And the other 5% are gay.

10%, actually. She's just hot enough to get half the gays, too.

Can we please stop being so uptight as a society and just let love be love?

Love is Love wrote:

Can we please stop being so uptight as a society and just let love be love?

corrector wrote:

I'd Tap That wrote:

Look at the law and how it is written, it is only a crime if the perp is a "he". This is a "she" and a very attractive one. That law does not apply to her whether we interpret that law exactly how it is written or whether is go by the intent.

There is no crime and it is absurd to use that kind of law here even if it was written to include attractive females as the perp.

That's a summary of the law, not the actual law. The actual law is not limited to men-

Well then I hope the judge uses some common sense and throws this case out because it is absurd to apply the law this way. Charging her with sexual assault is simply complete nonsense and wastes the public's money and time when there are more urgent things to prosecute, such as police brutality and corruption. All she did was fulfill every guy's fantasy multiple times. There was no victim and both of them are consenting adults.

If I was the judge, I would just laugh, give a thumbs up, and dismiss the case Judge Judy style. Then I would endlessly berate the cops and the school for calling this sexual assault.

The principal described his concern about something that "compromised the safety or well-being" of their students.

How did this relationship compromise anyone's safety or well-being? Morals' legislation needs to be narrowly tailored to harm and lack of maturity to allow for consent, neither of which was even close to present here.

Just read she was still 21 when it went down. So essentially the age gap of a college senior/college freshman.

Were the kids parents pissed or something?

Lip Kitten wrote:

Just read she was still 21 when it went down. So essentially the age gap of a college senior/college freshman.

Where did it say she was 21?

Also 3 years COULD be a big difference, however 22/2+7=18, so she is okay. Always use the equation.

If she was 21, did she graduated college in 3.5 years? I might be more impressed with her now. I was assuming it was 4.5 years, which isn't terrible for a varsity athlete.

Adult Enter-tainment wrote:

He's 18. She's 22. Consenting adults. Where's the crime?

Really Bro wrote:

Lip Kitten wrote:

Just read she was still 21 when it went down. So essentially the age gap of a college senior/college freshman.

Where did it say she was 21?

Also 3 years COULD be a big difference, however 22/2+7=18, so she is okay. Always use the equation.

If she was 21, did she graduated college in 3.5 years? I might be more impressed with her now. I was assuming it was 4.5 years, which isn't terrible for a varsity athlete.

According to this news report, the arrest warrant states that she was 21.