Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No criminal charges against Cottonwood coach Josh Lyman, prosecutors confirm [Open season @ 18?]
Deseret News ^ | April 30, 2012 | Jared Page

Posted on 05/04/2012 5:02:25 AM PDT by Colofornian

SALT LAKE CITY — The Cottonwood High School football coach accused of having inappropriate physical contact with a female student will not face criminal charges after prosecutors confirmed the student is 18 years old, district officials said.

Josh Lyman, 32, was placed on paid administrative leave April 18 after Granite School District officials said students reported inappropriate contact between the coach and a student.

"Because the alleged victim was 18 years of age, it appears it's not feasible to pursue criminal charges," said Ben Horsley, Granite School District spokesman. "However, because she is still a student, we continue to have administrative concerns with regards to professional conduct as a teacher and appropriate student/teacher interaction."

Lyman, through his attorney, has denied having any relationship or social contact with the student.

The Deseret News reported Friday that no charges would be filed, and Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill made official his final decision Monday not to prosecute.

"The information presented in the investigation provided evidence of contact between the student and Lyman," Gill wrote in a letter to the Granite School District. "However, the evidence did not support the conclusion that a crime was committed by Lyman against the student."

Gill said the evidence was insufficient to warrant a criminal charge. He also confirmed that the female student with whom Lyman allegedly had an inappropriate relationship was 18 years old, a legal adult.

"It really becomes issues of the type of contact, the nature of contact (and) the elements of an offense," Gill said. "If somebody is under 18, consent issues become irrelevant because you're under 18. Over 18, it alters the relationship, and it also changes the elements of the offense."

(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: cottonwood; footballcoach; inappropriate; inman; student
From the article: The Cottonwood High School football coach accused of having inappropriate physical contact with a female student will not face criminal charges after prosecutors confirmed the student is 18 years old, district officials said. Josh Lyman, 32, was placed on paid administrative leave April 18 after Granite School District officials said students reported inappropriate contact between the coach and a student.

Hmmm...in the "olden" days, "inappropriate...physical...contact" between a high school coach and a student = sexual abuse.

In Utah, they apparently do things differently there: From the article: The Deseret News reported Friday that no charges would be filed, and Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill made official his FINAL decision Monday not to prosecute.

In fact, it sounds like Salt Lake County's D.A. wants to redefine alleged school personnel-student contact so that it becomes "open season" if the student has had their 18th birthday...note this extremely disturbing quote:

From the article: Gill...also confirmed that the female student with whom Lyman allegedly had an inappropriate relationship was 18 years old, a legal adult. "It really becomes issues of the type of contact, the nature of contact (and) the elements of an offense," Gill said. "If somebody is under 18, consent issues become irrelevant because you're under 18. Over 18, it alters the relationship, and it also changes the elements of the offense."

And here I always thought there was something in the criminal code about abusing a "position of trust" on high school campuses. (Silly me)

1 posted on 05/04/2012 5:02:32 AM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Btw, things just seem a wee bit out of kilter in Utah when it comes to people in authority in Utah and how they describe the sexual abuse of high school students in Utah: Note this one phrase in this other case, also from the DesNews:

PROVO — Police arrested an LDS seminary principal Thursday after they say he spent several months grooming a 16-year-old student for a sexual relationship...Police discovered hundreds of text messages, several of which were sexually explicit and included references to genitalia. Police are in the process of obtaining a warrant to gather the exact content of the messages, said Utah County Sheriff's Sgt. Matt Higley of the Utah Valley Special Victims Task Force. Higley said the acts were CONSENSUAL.

Context here is that Lds high school students have "seminary" class before their high school classes...But what was a Utah Valley Special Victims Task Force rep doing saying that what a 16-year-old high school girl did with a 37 yo was "consensual?"
Source: LDS seminary principal is arrested in sexual abuse [July 9, 2011]

2 posted on 05/04/2012 5:03:26 AM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god from Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Tecnically legal but its stillaninappropriate relationship.
I imagin its kind of creepy for the 16 and 17 y/o’s around them. As well as the other mature aldult faculty.


3 posted on 05/04/2012 5:19:32 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

She’s 18. Not a crime.

Fire him and be done with it.


4 posted on 05/04/2012 5:20:30 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

What is the age of consent in Utah? Those laws vary from state to state, and I suppose that the behavior could be legal.

That shouldn’t prevent the school from firing the teacher if the relationship is verified. (Of course, with the union, it might.)


5 posted on 05/04/2012 5:21:34 AM PDT by Gil4 (Sometimes it's not low self-esteem - it's just accurate self-assessment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Tecnically legal. However, its a inappropriate relationship.
I imagine its kind of creepy for the 16 and 17 y/o’s around them. As well as the other mature aldult faculty.
Basically,its just creepy.


6 posted on 05/04/2012 5:22:06 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the Statist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Well I may get blasted for this, but assuming she was 18 when the relationship started, I see no just cause for criminal charges. It may be a bit slimy, but men are told repeatedly that the age of consent is 18. Are we really prepared to label this guy a statutory rapist when it appears that he followed the rule?

Secondly, how long does the government need to make decisions for a young woman? All indicators are that this was consentual, and as an adult, she can decide when, and with whom. Age 18 seems appropriate to me.

If the relationship violated school policy, then I assume the school (employer) will handle the situation accordingly. Lose his job...fine. Criminal prosecution and labeled a sexual deviate? No way.


7 posted on 05/04/2012 5:28:12 AM PDT by Mich Patriot (Today if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse. RReagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Once again the famous FReeper double standard is in effect.

If this had been a 37 year old female teacher and 18 year old boy, we would be seeing "TTIWWP" and "Why didn't my high school teachers look like that?", etc.....

8 posted on 05/04/2012 5:30:49 AM PDT by verga (Party like it is 1773)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot

Agreed. Even if she was not actually “jail bait”. He should have stayed “WAY-away” from her. Teen age girls are nothing but trouble, particularly for someone in authority


9 posted on 05/04/2012 5:45:02 AM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
and here I always thought there was something in the criminal code about abusing a "position of trust" on high school campuses. (Silly me)

Yes, silly you - why would you even think such a thing? That may fall under a "moral turpitude" clause in the school district's policy, but its certainly not a crime to sleep with another person of legal age.

10 posted on 05/04/2012 5:46:06 AM PDT by bill1952 (Choice is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin

Yes, he should have stayed away...asking for trouble.


11 posted on 05/04/2012 5:49:31 AM PDT by Mich Patriot (Today if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse. RReagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: verga

Men have a flaw. In some situations their brains do not receive enough oxygen, allowing the stupid gene to take over

Some situations

Some women cannot resist taking advantage of that weakness. The man pays the price


12 posted on 05/04/2012 5:51:30 AM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bill1952; All
Yes, silly you - why would you even think such a thing? That may fall under a "moral turpitude" clause in the school district's policy, but its certainly not a crime to sleep with another person of legal age.

Arkansas gave teacher David Paschal a 30-year-sentence...so initially, yes, that state DID see that as a crime...arrested and convicted him in March 2011.

A year later (I believe this past March), the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned the case and OK'd educators sexually preying on 18 yo students. (They OK'd it because they don't deal with 'moral turpitude' issues, I guess)

Well I KNOW this will NOT pass in liberal CA:

In response to the recent CA situation... Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen has introduced Assembly Bill 1861 in CA...This would make it a felony for a high school teacher to have an inappropriate relationship with a student, even if that student is an adult.

13 posted on 05/04/2012 6:00:38 AM PDT by Colofornian (Mom when I grow up, I want 2B like Ike. Mom when I grow up, I want 2B a god from Kolob like Mitt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Is that how Billy Boy got away with it with Monica? Over the age of consent so they chinged the whole position-of-power aspect of this? The war on women continues and there’s a RAT at the helm.


14 posted on 05/04/2012 6:05:42 AM PDT by NonValueAdded (Chen Guangcheng: Gutsy call, Obama /UltraMegaDrippingSarc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mich Patriot
how long does the government need to make decisions for a young woman? All indicators are that this was consentual, and as an adult, she can decide when, and with whom.

Which government? This isn't Federal, it's local. Fornication at any age is wrong and destructive of the community. And if I were the girl's father, the dude would know what destruction means. If she has a father at home. Hitting on students is criminal. A school district would be insane not to eject teachers for extra-marital misbehavior of any kind, because of the example of students as targets for adults' exploitation, or promoting disrespect for marriage.

Yes they would also be insane (and many are) to put up with teachers notoriously committing adultery. Without respect for marriage, civil society collapses. And in case we've forgotten, a school is a place where people put their kids in loco parentis, specifically because they trust they will be educated with selfless care and respect. If you want to start a career like the Marquis de Sade, fishing for action at the local high school will get you shot. With good reason.

15 posted on 05/04/2012 6:13:18 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
"Which government? This isn't Federal, it's local."

ANY government. I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but understand no law was broken...that was my point. I didn't catch that the man was married, but obviously I don't condone that either. I also pointed out that the school probably has a policy to enforce, as it should.

16 posted on 05/04/2012 6:27:09 AM PDT by Mich Patriot (Today if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse. RReagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

18 is legal. For a teacher to take advantage of a love-struck student is wrong, stupid, undesirable and immoral, but not criminal.

For those of low/no morality, 15 will still get you 20; 18 is all good.


17 posted on 05/04/2012 6:34:43 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Sounds like Dad needed to be more involved in this girl’s life so she didn’t go looking for another “Dad”.


18 posted on 05/04/2012 6:35:44 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Galt's cousin
Men have a flaw.

Several, including a tendency to think with the little head instead of the big one.

19 posted on 05/04/2012 6:37:22 AM PDT by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Donate here!

FReepers who believe in and support our pro-life, pro-family, pro-limited government conservative causes, enjoy reading and participating on FR, think it’s a worthwhile endeavor and would like to help us keep it going.
Please click the link.
The Republic you save may be your own.



20 posted on 05/04/2012 7:30:23 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Your Dad explained that one to you as well? I assumed my Dad made it up

;-)


21 posted on 05/04/2012 3:31:53 PM PDT by John Galt's cousin (Principled Conservatism NOW! * * * * * * * * * * Repeal the 17th Amendment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson