 Final arguments in Ringette coach's sexual assault trialLaw & Order | 207037 hits | Feb 15 7:56 am | Posted by: Alta_redneck  Either she was a criminal preying on a vulnerable teen for sexual purposes or she was a young woman who made mistakes which don�t constitute criminal acts.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
As one of the comments said - if the coach was a man there'd be calls to hang him.
While I don't agree with the law, it seems she would be guilty of at least some of the charges.
You don't agree with the law that prohibits adults from engaging in sexual activity with minors?
You don't agree with the law that prohibits adults from engaging in sexual activity with minors?
I don't agree with the idea of a minor that's older than 11. Which is the legal age we will hold someone criminaly responsible for their actions.
If we will put you in jail for what you do, then how can we not accept that person's right to engage in sexual activity?
Try it like this, if both parties were 13 should they both be facing jail time?
You don't agree with the law that prohibits adults from engaging in sexual activity with minors?
I don't agree with the idea of a minor that's older than 11. Which is the legal age we will hold someone criminaly responsible for their actions.
If we will put you in jail for what you do, then how can we not accept that person's right to engage in sexual activity?
Try it like this, if both parties were 13 should they both be facing jail time?
Two thirteen year olds could engage in sexual activity without breaking the law, as there are "peer group" exemptions.
Have you read the age of consent law?
Two thirteen year olds could engage in sexual activity without breaking the law, as there are "peer group" exemptions.
Yes, I'm aware of them. What I'm asking is for the rational justification of why the law is set up as it is.
If sex for 13 year olds is fine, then why is it not fine for someone 20 and someone 13.
I hope your playing devils advocate, cause if not you are seriously starting to creep me out.
It took a Calgary jury less than five hours to find a former ringette coach guilty of sex-related charges involving a young player on her team Friday afternoon.
Kelsea Hepburn, 24, was accused of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching for incidents that happened in 2010 and 2011 with a 13-year-old girl.
During the trial this week, the court heard accounts from the victim and her parents.
The teen described incidents where Hepburn would initiate touching and kissing. The girl also told the court Hepburn frequently said she felt like a criminal or a predator.
Her parents testified about explicit text messages and romantic and inappropriate interactions between the coach and the young girl.
Hepburn told court these were only text messages and she had no intention of doing the things she wrote about.
In one exchange on New Year�s Eve, Hepburn asked where the girl wants to kiss her.
Another text from Hepburn read, �PS you need to be super careful with your phone and erase these messages � if anyone reads these I�m going to jail.�
The teen's mother even described one incident where she came home and found the pair in the family's basement with their pants off.
The accused testified she is not a "bad person," and that they often joked around but there was nothing sexual between the two.
Hepburn testified that the girl was infatuated with her and she didn�t set proper boundaries. When asked about accusations of kissing and touching, Hepburn said she had made mistakes.
The date for sentencing will be set next Friday. Hepburn coached ringette for six years.
The minimum sentence for the criminal offences that Hepburn has been convicted of was 45 days until the federal government changed that last August to 12 months. The maximum penalty is 10 years.
The Crown is expected to ask the judge to take that change into account when giving a verdict.
Now the question is will she get the same sentence a man would. Personally I doubt it. I mean if a woman can get two years house arrest for killing a man, is it right this woman would get 12 months of jail? (Course she'd be out in 4). At least she'll have a criminal record.
Are you asking why it's wrong for adults to have sex with 13 year olds? Does it really need to be explained?
What is the justification for the law, and if you can't come up with anything better than "Because it's wrong" then I'm not going to be moved to change my mind about thinking the law is wrong.
Are you asking why it's wrong for adults to have sex with 13 year olds? Does it really need to be explained?
What is the justification for the law, and if you can't come up with anything better than "Because it's wrong" then I'm not going to be moved to change my mind about thinking the law is wrong.
The law is there protect children from sexual exploitation by pedophiles. No grown man or woman has any business buggering a child. End of story.
I most certainly am not trying to change your mind. If you really don't see any issue with adults having sex with children IMO your mind is too far gone for me to waste my time on.