View Full Version : Teens face child porn charges
bobofthedesert
16 January 2009, 03:44
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/
Yeah brilliant, charge teens with child porn for this shit. Morons. By what stretch of lunacy is this a priority for a Police "investigation"? No drug dealer's, gangbangers, or other scum in that town??
These kids, who will be publicly embarrassed and have to register as sex offenders, having "pedophile" on their record for life, will of course retain all their respect for the law and the Police after this. Their parents too. More needless "enemies of the State". I swear we do this shit to ourselves......
I'm sure there was no other alternative. Of course, the law is the law.....:rolleyes: I don't know about anyone else, but ruining my kids future like this would pretty much earn my enmity for life.
Maybe it's the years I spent in Europe, but am I the only one who thinks this is not worth getting that excited about, never mind criminalizing?
Tracy
16 January 2009, 04:18
Hmm...
Technology once again outpacing common sense. I don't blame the Police, but the school and the students need to sit down re-think their actions. Now our justice system has to do the thinking for them.
So, if one one of the male students had a semi-nude picture of Mylie Cyrus on the cell phones or a teacher had a photo, is that child pornography as well?
nofear
16 January 2009, 05:40
Hey...we had a case here last month where "The Simpsons" porn images going around were declared to be child pornography.
We let terrorists walk around free, and drag down our own society's imagination.
Smoke_em
16 January 2009, 11:44
Dang, I know if I was 15 and had girl friends with camera phones I would be doing the same thing.
This just goes to show where Parenting is now days.
wowzers
16 January 2009, 12:16
As I understand it the cell phone was confiscated do to it being used on school grounds. Some of you more legal minded folks help me out here, but why did the school deem it necessary to look into the phone after confiscation. Isn't that borderline illegal search and seizure.
Flying Pig
16 January 2009, 12:19
Schools dont fall under search and seizure. That is a common misconception. The 4th protects you from the government. School zones are free for all's when it comes to searching. Pretty much once you step on campus, you and everything you have is fair game for the overall safety and security of the campus and the students. Many schools clearly have signs posted that state by entering the campus, you are consenting to search of your person and property.
Greenhat
16 January 2009, 19:42
Schools dont fall under search and seizure. That is a common misconception. The 4th protects you from the government. School zones are free for all's when it comes to searching. Pretty much once you step on campus, you and everything you have is fair game for the overall safety and security of the campus and the students. Many schools clearly have signs posted that state by entering the campus, you are consenting to search of your person and property.
With private schools, I could understand that argument. With public schools?
They are mandated, controlled and funded by the government. Attendance is generally mandatory, again, by the government. 4th Amendment not apply?
Bullshit.
US v. Lopez illustrates that school zones are NOT exempt from the Constitution.
Seanmcd82
16 January 2009, 19:53
It all depends on who is doing the searching.....
If the Principal searches a kids locker/cell phone, its G2G. If I as a cop come in and search, not so much. If I ask the Principal to search for me, he is then acting as an agent of the State, bad search.
It is a very gray area with lots of dissent over the years.
MakoZeroSix
16 January 2009, 20:07
No big deal. I'm sure there are a few high priced defense lawyers who'd love to take the case pro bono for the exposure and utterly humiliate the prosecutor when they get the case kicked.
Parajuevos
16 January 2009, 20:40
Whatever happened to the idea of notifying the parents, suspending the kids for a few days and leaving the responsibility of further punishment in the hands of the parents?
This isn't child porn. It is a case of some dingbat juvenile girls, taking pictures of themselves and distributing them to a bunch of adolescent boys, who are going to do what adolescent boys do. They're going to continue sharing the photos.
The D.A. should drop the charges. Child Porn Laws are designed to protect children from adult predators, not to prosecute girls and boys, who engage in the type of immature behavior that took place in this case.
Should they be punished? Yes they should. They should be punished by the school and by their parents. This should never have entered the criminal justice system.
Longrifle
16 January 2009, 23:17
As I understand it the cell phone was confiscated do to it being used on school grounds. Some of you more legal minded folks help me out here, but why did the school deem it necessary to look into the phone after confiscation. Isn't that borderline illegal search and seizure.
Cell phones are contraband here. We confiscate a few each week. Possession is unlawful, period, end of conversation.
A few parents bitch about not being able to communicate with their kid or some such crap, but they are reminded it's in writing in the Student Handbook which they signed at the beginning of the year.
First offense - Parent has to come get it.
Second offense - Parent can come get it at the end of May.:cool:
murphy j
16 January 2009, 23:59
Whatever happened to the idea of notifying the parents, suspending the kids for a few days and leaving the responsibility of further punishment in the hands of the parents?
This isn't child porn. It is a case of some dingbat juvenile girls, taking pictures of themselves and distributing them to a bunch of adolescent boys, who are going to do what adolescent boys do. They're going to continue sharing the photos.
The D.A. should drop the charges. Child Porn Laws are designed to protect children from adult predators, not to prosecute girls and boys, who engage in the type of immature behavior that took place in this case.
Should they be punished? Yes they should. They should be punished by the school and by their parents. This should never have entered the criminal justice system.
X2.
Swat1
17 January 2009, 11:49
As someone who works these cases at both the State and Federal level, this is ridiculous. This is a classic case for increased parental involvement. WHAT Prosecutor in thier right mind would want to make these kids convicted felons and registered sex offenders???
Parajuevos is exactly right. There should be consequences, but not criminal justice consequences.
Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Child Pornography) is a very very serious issue, when incidents like this occur it just waters it down and the gives the general public a sense that this material is just teens messing around.
Swat1*
WHAT Prosecutor in thier right mind would want to make these kids convicted felons and registered sex offenders???Apparently more than one (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/us/26sextext.html?hpw) (you may have to register to read the story). The citizens of that place have an idiot for a district attorney (and likely a prudish and/or politicking fuckstick as well)....
UGAfan
26 March 2009, 09:30
Whatever happened to the idea of notifying the parents, suspending the kids for a few days and leaving the responsibility of further punishment in the hands of the parents?
This isn't child porn. It is a case of some dingbat juvenile girls, taking pictures of themselves and distributing them to a bunch of adolescent boys, who are going to do what adolescent boys do. They're going to continue sharing the photos.
The D.A. should drop the charges. Child Porn Laws are designed to protect children from adult predators, not to prosecute girls and boys, who engage in the type of immature behavior that took place in this case.
Should they be punished? Yes they should. They should be punished by the school and by their parents. This should never have entered the criminal justice system.
Doubt that would happen though, cause that makes sense.
:rolleyes:
C-M-R
26 March 2009, 09:38
As someone who works these cases at both the State and Federal level, this is ridiculous. This is a classic case for increased parental involvement. WHAT Prosecutor in thier right mind would want to make these kids convicted felons and registered sex offenders???
Parajuevos is exactly right. There should be consequences, but not criminal justice consequences.
Child Sexual Exploitation Material (Child Pornography) is a very very serious issue, when incidents like this occur it just waters it down and the gives the general public a sense that this material is just teens messing around.
Swat1*
As parent who found nude shots on her kid's phone I couldn't agree more that parents need to pay closer attention to what their kids are doing. We give them phones with all the bells and whistles and expect them either to use them responsibly or ignore all those cool features.
I check Zac's phone on a regular basis to see who he's calling, who's calling him, what his text message are etc. How can I keep him safe if I don't know what direction danger is coming from. The pictures he had were of himself but that wasn't the point was he took them in the first place and God only knows what he planned to do with them since he's a adolescent boy with no sense what so ever.
I think criminal charges are ridiculous but I am going to show both articles to him as a caution against being stupid. Not that I hold out much hope for the lesson to stick for more than 5 minutes.
MikeC2W
26 March 2009, 09:55
Ridiculous.
Whatever happened to the idea of notifying the parents, suspending the kids for a few days and leaving the responsibility of further punishment in the hands of the parents?
Everybody wants their five minute of fame...:rolleyes:
This charge is ridiculous. Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
djmvienna
26 March 2009, 11:44
That truely is a ridiculous charge, and as someone else described not at all the purpose of the laws inplace.
Obviously someone has had the book of PC shoved up their backside.
I agree, this is retarded. This is one of those cases of spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. We as a society seem to have gotten out of touch with common sense.
Terminator2
26 March 2009, 13:26
I agree, this is retarded. This is one of those cases of spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. We as a society seem to have gotten out of touch with common sense.
Totally agree. By the logic this DA is using, if a 16 year old guy and a 15 year old girl have consensual sex that makes them both statutory rapists.
This is like the Duke Lacrosse case: A DA willing to completely wreck people's lives to solidify his own position.
Yep, that's Pennsylvania for you.
I just caught a blip on the local news the other day that the students that are being charged are suing the DA over this, but I couldn't find it via web search.
....but I couldn't find it via web search.Umm, Google again and it might take you to post #14....:biggrin:
Bastards! I knew I should have clicked that link, lol. Although your post has nothing to do with the students suing until after you hit the link.
Thanks, just caught the last of it on the news and didn't understand exactly what they were suing for. Now I do.
John6719
26 March 2009, 14:24
From the article mentioned in post 14:
But since the survey also showed that teenagers who engage in sexting were more likely to have casual sex, Mr. Albert said: “I think it is something else to address and have a conversation about between teens and parents. Is there a role for law enforcement here? That’s an open question.”
The way this is worded (bolded text) I get the impression that Mr. Albert is trying to say: "Sexting is causing teens to have casual sex." --I would argue that teens willing to engage in sexting are also more willing to engage in casual sex, and vice versa, not that one is a precursor to the other-or causes the other.
"Is there a role for law enforcement here?" --IMHO, NO. What is illegal about it. At what point is it made illegal? Can parents have pictures of their toddlers in the bathtub (many-or even most do)? Is there an age limit put in place?(children from the age of 6 to 17 shall never be seen naked by anyone!). What happens when the cops show up at the gravel pit where a group of 10 year old boys stripped down to go swimming? Are they all charge with sex crimes or is it only if someone captures the moment in a picture?
Like so many have said on here already, the laws (pertaining to sex crimes) that are in place are not meant (IMHO) to protect kids from kids or to punish child stupidity, they are meant to protect kids from Uncle **** who tends to get a little too excited about little Johnny. They are very strict because they need to be to prevent, deter, and punish disgusting behavior by adults, not silly, stupid, or otherwise distasteful behavior by adolescents.
grog18b
26 March 2009, 15:51
Yep, that's Pennsylvania for you.
Yeah... I feel very alone here... I should move to a more weapon friendly state, as well as one that has more common sense in Government.
Any ideas? :biggrin:
Alex F
26 March 2009, 15:58
Virginia's not bad.
Any ideas? :biggrin:
Nope we are stuck here with what we have until we can vote the dumbasses out, lol.
Virginia was pretty nice while I was there, Pa could use some of the same laws.
grog18b
26 March 2009, 19:15
I don't think there is enough of us, not on welfare, to vote anyone out... Sad but true...
Been to Williamsport lately??? I grew up on the outskirts, left there in 85. Now... Good grief.
Flaken
26 March 2009, 21:10
Virginia's not bad.
Nope, Virginia's not bad, but we have our own problems with this as well.
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0309/604118.html
In this case the main student being accused is 18 and at least one of the girls he was keeping and distributing photos of is in elementary school. A slightly different situation, IMHO.
ANOTHER (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510862,00.html) example of one of those dangerous teens that need to be incarcerated and then for life labeled as a sex offender....
John6719
26 March 2009, 22:43
ANOTHER (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510862,00.html) example of one of those dangerous teens that need to be incarcerated and then for life labeled as a sex offender....
Yep, better lock her up. We can't have her growing up and posting naked pictures of herself all over the place. That would be extremely dangerous for adolecent boys.... they could sprain their wrist, or worse, shoot themselves in their eyes and go blind! :rolleyes:
armymom1228
26 March 2009, 23:10
As parent who found nude shots on her kid's phone I couldn't agree more that parents need to pay closer attention to what their kids are doing. We give them phones with all the bells and whistles and expect them either to use them responsibly or ignore all those cool features.
I check Zac's phone on a regular basis to see who he's calling, who's calling him, what his text message are etc. How can I keep him safe if I don't know what direction danger is coming from. The pictures he had were of himself but that wasn't the point was he took them in the first place and God only knows what he planned to do with them since he's a adolescent boy with no sense what so ever.
I think criminal charges are ridiculous but I am going to show both articles to him as a caution against being stupid. Not that I hold out much hope for the lesson to stick for more than 5 minutes.
My kids were teens when cell phones were not that common for kids... in any case. I think that teenagers with cell phones is ridiculous. I would never allow a camera phone, for all the above reasons and more.
If it is any consolation..that is pretty normal behavior for boys. My grandson is 4.. he got his hands on his mom's new digital camera..dropped his drawers and immed. photographed 'it'.. She was shocked when she discovered the photos. I was merely very amused.
The cell phones should have been confiscated..parents notified.. kids given suspension and that should have been that.
Mraughh
27 March 2009, 01:06
I grew up about 15 miles from that school. small town mentality. DA dosent have better things to do i'd guess.
That's PA for ya. goin to hell in a handbasket.
8Ball
27 March 2009, 01:41
I dont buy the "sexting causing casual sex" argument. Cell phones were non existent when I was a teen and "casual sex" was a pastime in my small town...
It may have something to do with age and hormones and such. But, I am no scientist.:rolleyes: I aint saying. I'm just saying....
And, Grog: Brother, I have always visualized you as a southern boy despite your geography. You would fit in much better down here! Come on down below the Mason-Dixon!!:biggrin:
grog18b
27 March 2009, 08:20
Common sense knows no geographical boundries... But, it's too hot down there. Alaska is looking good lately... Plus Sierra is there! Downside? Volcanoes. Upside? Plenty of bears to wrestle. All you southern boys have is gators. Jumpin on their backs and holdin their jaws shut don't work on grizzlies. It only pisses them off.
Jumpin on their backs and holdin their jaws shut don't work on grizzlies. It only pisses them off.
Bah. You have to fuck them, like the Father of our Country. :biggrin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
jasonglh
27 March 2009, 08:46
Last time I was at the AT&T store I didn't see any phones that did not come with a camera.
8Ball
27 March 2009, 14:53
Common sense knows no geographical boundries... But, it's too hot down there. Alaska is looking good lately... Plus Sierra is there! Downside? Volcanoes. Upside? Plenty of bears to wrestle. All you southern boys have is gators. Jumpin on their backs and holdin their jaws shut don't work on grizzlies. It only pisses them off.
Actually, you have a good point. I have strongly considered Alaska and Montana in the past...........
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.