Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: "Position of Trust" & its Application...

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    79

    Arrow "Position of Trust" & its Application...

    I posed the question from a previous thread to a group of attorneys and these are the results. I thought I would share.
    -------------------------------------------
    Here are the definitions from Colorado's Legislative Site that I looked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado State Law

    POSITION OF TRUST - A person in a position of trust includes parents, anyone acting in the place of parents and charged with the parent's rights and duties, or anyone charged with the health, education and welfare of and supervision of a child. Crimes against children committed by one in a position of trust are taken more seriously. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. § 18-3-401(3.5).
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado State Law

    SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A CHILD BY ONE IN A POSITION OF TRUST - This statute provides that anyone 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, and the actor committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-405.3.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado State Law

    SEXUAL ASSAULT - Knowingly inflicting sexual intrusion or penetration on a victim by causing the victim to submit by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will; or when knowing that the victim is incapable of appraising what the perpetrator is doing; or when the victim is less than 15 and the person is at least 4 years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or in a variety of other specific circumstances. Sexual assault ranges from a serious felony down to a misdemeanor depending on various factors. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-402.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene
    Somewhere in the statutes that anyone 15 yrs of age or younger, And person under the age of 18, but above 15 and the Actor is more than 10 yrs older than the victim, they would also be charged with sexual assault of a minor/child. (aka Statutory Rape)

    In the case of People vs. Johnson where the People wanted to apply "a person in a position of trust" to a drivers ed teacher, which was thrown out at trial, and that decision was upheld in the court of appeals. Supreme Court of Colorado (11th district I believe) better defined the "Position of Trust" laws stated above in July of this year.

    In this case, a driving instructor 2 months after being a 15 yr old girls driving instructor, had sex. Since the time of the Drivers Ed class (he drove with her 3 of 5 times) they exchanged numbers, and had talked several times over the couple of months leading up to the sexual relationship in question.
    Quote Originally Posted by People vs Johnson

    People vs Johnson - Link to Colorado State Supreme Court
    The plain language of the position of trust statute requires that two questions be asked regarding the relationship between the actor and the victim:
    Was the actor a parent, acting in the place of a parent, or charged with certain enumerated responsibilites for the care, education, welfare, or supervision of a child, for any period of time, not matter how brief.
    Did the actor commit an unlawful during that period of entrustment?
    The statute is violated only if both criteria are met.

    Accordingly, we conclude that a person cannot be charged with sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust unless the unlawful act occurred while the person was either: (1) a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent’s rights, duties, or responsibilities concerning the child; or (2) charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, education, welfare, or supervision of the child.
    The arguement presented thus far is that because she is a teacher, she is always in a position of trust with any student under the age of 18. This would lead me to believe that all teachers are always in a continuing "Position of Trust" over anyone under the age of 18. And being in the presence of such people in that age classification, would ultimately be responsible for their welfare?

    That doesn't seem so fair. I don't believe in this case that she used her position as a teacher to have sex with him. In issues where the person in question isn't directly charged with his well being and welfare, nor has she had any authority over him directly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado State Law

    SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A CHILD BY ONE IN A POSITION OF TRUST - This statute provides that anyone 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, and the actor committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-405.3.
    Does anyone know the law that will help clarify this either way? If you think I've done my homework, and are a professional enough to say I have a good arguement, please say so. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Occultist

    Although this is a forum, we don't really do "discussions" per se. Sure, if we disagree on a point made, we will explain why, but we don't really discuss opinions over issues.

    Also, your post just sounds a little too much like a school project, and we don't do homework.

    __________________
    I may have "Senior Member" status, but don't take that to mean that I've any idea what I'm talking about!
    Quote Originally Posted by HOMEGuru
    **A: what class is this homework for?
    Because the thread began to get worse, I'm going to skip ahead of most of the rude comments, however, I will post the link to the site at the end of my post.

    Quote Originally Posted by quincy
    Actually, as much as I really really really hate to agree with you, Tritium, I believe I do.

    Nothing in Colorado law (that I discovered, at any rate, but I admittedly did only some brief research) prohibits a 17 year old (the age of majority in Colorado) from having sex with someone 6 years older. A 23 year old 3rd grade teacher is legally allowed to have sex. A 17 year old is legally allowed to have sex. She is not his teacher. She is not his coach. She does not appear to be in a position of trust (at least I wouldn't trust her ), so I think that she probably could legally have sex with this 17 year old student.

    But I could be wrong (it somehow seems like I should be wrong).
    Ultimately, this does not say "without a doubt" nor should anyone take it as such. But nobody was able to produce any state law that opposed my interpretation of the Law. And I also referenced this thread there for people to reference.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    “It is just as cowardly to judge an absent person as it is wicked to strike a defenseless one. Only the ignorant and narrow-minded gossip, for they speak of persons instead of things.”

  2. #2
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Go argue with the Sheriff of Otero County about Mrs. Mason, or perhaps With the Pueblo County D.A. about Ms. Tilley . . (just two cases currently in the local systems)

    Whatever . .
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  3. #3

    Default

    Large, you should click on the link Gene provided and actually read that forum. I just finished checking it out, and from what I can tell, they all seem to think Gene is a bit of a nutcase.

    Here's one of the posts I copied from there...lol...

    Old 10-05-2007, 12:13 PM
    Silverplum Silverplum is offline
    Senior Member

    Join Date: Jan 2005
    Location: CO
    Posts: 6,002
    Eh...this fella already posted this whole mess, and when he didn't like the (legal) answer I gave him, he accused me of "not reading," then deleted his thread and tried again.

    He just wants to "win" an online discussion on a news forum. And he's wrong.

    I'm not here to help him "win" an argument. And nobody has the time to go to another site to read dozens of pages of stupid online arguing by non-legals who do not grasp the subject of their own discussion.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    79

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    Go argue with the Sheriff of Otero County about Mrs. Mason, or perhaps With the Pueblo County D.A. about Ms. Tilley . . (just two cases currently in the local systems)

    Whatever . .
    Would you introduce us? Last time I tried to introduced myself to an officer of law, I was quickly redirected to meet Mr. Dirt.

    Needless to say, I felt dirty afterward.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    “It is just as cowardly to judge an absent person as it is wicked to strike a defenseless one. Only the ignorant and narrow-minded gossip, for they speak of persons instead of things.”

  5. #5
    Forum Royalty large's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    14,078

    Default

    Well, my point isn't to necessarily belittle Gene. It's just to make the point, that no matter what anyone who was involved in all the bickering on the other thread, (now locked) is that no matter how any one of us reads the State Statues, it's pretty much a done deal as far as Mason (in Otero County) and Tilley (in Pueblo County) goes . .

    Both those ladies have lawyers far more experienced than any of us to extricate them from their troubles. If it's possible. Personally, I don't think it is.
    "A man with a firearm is a citizen... a man without one is a subject"

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by large View Post
    Well, my point isn't to necessarily belittle Gene. It's just to make the point, that no matter what anyone who was involved in all the bickering on the other thread, (now locked) is that no matter how any one of us reads the State Statues, it's pretty much a done deal as far as Mason (in Otero County) and Tilley (in Pueblo County) goes . .

    Both those ladies have lawyers far more experienced than any of us to extricate them from their troubles. If it's possible. Personally, I don't think it is.
    Funny enough, I hadn't caught any belittling. Which raises the question... Was it, or wasn't it.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    “It is just as cowardly to judge an absent person as it is wicked to strike a defenseless one. Only the ignorant and narrow-minded gossip, for they speak of persons instead of things.”

  7. #7

    Default

    My point is that everywhere he looks, he's getting the same answer, which is contrary to what he thinks it ought to be.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexi View Post
    My point is that everywhere he looks, he's getting the same answer, which is contrary to what he thinks it ought to be.
    To be honest, I just posted this because I said I would, and did. I don't care if the answer is/was aligned with my thought process. I just didn't have any reference, and was seeking it out.

    I am an explorer of knowledge. It's like a puzzle that was missing a few pieces, and they hadn't all come in the same box.

    I do find it interesting that concerned_mom/PinM decided to attack me in the law forum. *shrugs* we'll know more on Wed.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    “It is just as cowardly to judge an absent person as it is wicked to strike a defenseless one. Only the ignorant and narrow-minded gossip, for they speak of persons instead of things.”

  9. #9

    Default

    I didn't see any attacks on you in that other forum, but I did see what looked like the result of you attacking others. I would have posted something on there myself, but the topic got locked.

    I didn't see any posts by concerned mom on there, either. Did I miss something?

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexi View Post
    I didn't see any attacks on you in that other forum, but I did see what looked like the result of you attacking others. I would have posted something on there myself, but the topic got locked.

    I didn't see any posts by concerned mom on there, either. Did I miss something?
    Yeah, actually, if you look at a lot of their 'topics' they aren't too nice to a lot of people asking for advice. It may have appeared that I started attacking them, but honestly I hadn't started off rude to any 1 person until they began to personally attack my character or whatever.

    But in short, highly suggest they take a course refresher on manners. I'm trying not to get overly frustrated with them.

    concerned/pinmz signed in as COSpringer just this morning or last night as a new user just to post with me. Wasn't that nice of her?
    ---------------------------------------------------
    “It is just as cowardly to judge an absent person as it is wicked to strike a defenseless one. Only the ignorant and narrow-minded gossip, for they speak of persons instead of things.”

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •