xeni at July 9th, 2014 16:28 — #1
imb at July 9th, 2014 16:37 — #2
Since he's only 17, shouldn't the prosecutors be charged for seeking child porn? They are requesting shots of the kid's penis.
darkmobius at July 9th, 2014 16:47 — #3
I was going to say the same, how is this not making indecent child images? I don't think I've ever seen anything that would allow exemption to making child porn just because you're police or prosecutor.
vrplumber at July 9th, 2014 16:51 — #4
Worse than seeking child porn, they are trying to Create child porn. Burn the Evildoers!!
catgrin at July 9th, 2014 16:56 — #5
OK, if the press has their story straight, this is truly outrageous! "Foster" is the boy's defense atty, and here's some more about the case.
Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, Foster said.
So, the girl started the sexting (but may not have sent explicit photos), and the boy responded in kind. They're trying to get him on the Virginia statute (18.2-374.1) for child pornography (of his own image) because he was under 18 when he sent it. They already made one attempt:
The case was dismissed, but police immediately obtained new charges and also a search warrant for his home. Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will.
They must not have found any distinguishing marks, because that's what it'll take for them to win this case. The statute says:
"A. For purposes of this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, "child pornography" means sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor. An identifiable minor is a person who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting or modifying the visual depiction; and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor."
So they want to force an erect picture to try to get a reeeeeally direct comparison to see if they can make their claim. It's a low, LOW action by the prosecutor!
mister44 at July 9th, 2014 16:58 — #6
Man - that kid is lucky. I usually have to pay through the nose to get a bunch of guys dressed as cops to stand around me watching me masturbate.
ironedithkidd at July 9th, 2014 17:00 — #7
I must wonder what actual crime with real victims is being ignored so that the prosecutor can indulge his predilections?
I hope the prosecutor is blissfully unaware of how un-electable this escapade makes him, assuming this over-zealous prosecution is a attempt to further a political career.
jim_kirk at July 9th, 2014 17:13 — #8
child porn issues aside, so we have Penis Recognition Software???
catgrin at July 9th, 2014 17:14 — #9
Unfortunately, this prosecutor is in Virginia, so this will probably resound with his base, and then by election time it'll all be comfortably forgotten.
tekna2007 at July 9th, 2014 17:14 — #10
How is this not going to mess him up for a long, long time? How is he not going to associate getting an erection or even just getting sexual, the natural and normal thing, with having his life demolished? Once again, the process is the punishment, and in this case it's cruel and unusual. Unreal.
jandrese at July 9th, 2014 17:16 — #11
It won't matter he'll be in jail anyway because some overzealous prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself or make an example of him and damn any sense of decency or common sense.
catgrin at July 9th, 2014 17:17 — #12
I think that was the problem with the first batch of photos already snapped by the police when they arrested the kid. He was flaccid. The law says you have to have a picture that:
is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature
If it isn't, you can't prove that it's of the person who is under age. So now they want to "pump and pose" him to try to match the shots he sent the girl.
mister44 at July 9th, 2014 17:18 — #13
This looks like the same penis. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quiet a few penises in my time.
macadamia_nuts at July 9th, 2014 17:26 — #14
Excactly. But to prove that the photography the police take of the accused is really of the accused, they will have to take another photography of him, and so on and on, he will spend the rest of his life in a jailcell waiting to pose for the next exercise in penal criminology. He'll never get to trial. It's the perfect set-up!
epinardscaramel at July 9th, 2014 17:28 — #15
That's what I was looking for on the bbs, what's the algorithm? Wait, is it another Facebook research project?
immovableobject at July 9th, 2014 17:30 — #16
mtierce at July 9th, 2014 17:39 — #17
So the prosecution, in the name of enforcing a law meant to protect a child from sexual abuse, victimizes said child by subjecting him to sexual abuse, so that it can convict him as a sexual predator.
Perverse in every sense of the word.
rjmeelar at July 9th, 2014 17:42 — #18
Wow Leave it to America to take everything too far.
chellberty at July 9th, 2014 17:46 — #19
did Bill do the subpeneoring?
brainspore at July 9th, 2014 17:46 — #20
The age of consent in Virginia is 15. I want to know who all these upstanding Virginians are who are OK with the idea of boinking your 15-year-old girlfriend but think you should be classified as a sex predator for sending her a p-mail.
next page →