4 ms·

I'm not really sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I really don't see a crime happening here. Maybe you ground them and take away their phones, but, I mean,

I'm not really sure if I'm in the minority or not, but I really don't see a crime happening here. Maybe you ground them and take away their phones, but, I mean, these kids are under the guardianship of their parents and are presumably in a relationship that both sets of parents have (at the very least) acknowledged. It's not like he just sent her the video out of the blue with no warning. I don't see a crime here, when both parties are in a relationship and both consent to the transaction. I dunno. Maybe I'm naive or something.

fragsworth 12y ago
Considering how inaccurate news reports tend to be when it's about something you are personally aware of, I'm guessing this article was pretty much written by the defense lawyer in an attempt to paint the prosecutor in a bad light. You have no idea how many important details could have been left out.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  Like what? The facts of the case are pretty well laid out in the article. What are you suggesting they covered up that could really change our perspective of the case? Even if the two teenagers were sleeping together that wouldn't change most people's perspective of this case, it certainly wouldn't change mine.
  - kaonashi 12y ago
    Probably that the girl's parents are spearheading the prosecution; I wouldn't be surprised if this also had a racial element.
    - oldmanjay 12y ago
      Hey now, Virginia is pretty progressive. We legalized same-sex relationships this year!
  - fragsworth 12y ago
    All I know is people who write these kinds of news reports with obvious motives behind them are strongly incentivized to misrepresent the facts or leave some out entirely. Maybe the boy is being charged with other crimes as well - bad ones, and this charge is expected to get dropped. The story just seems ridiculous as written, and that's usually a sign that there is much more to it than what they wrote.
- duaneb 12y ago
  What could possibly explain injecting a teen at a hospital to induce an erection? It's just plain disgusting even if there is a legal explanation (highly unlikely).
eloff 12y ago
You're thinking logically, it really is the rest of the world that's crazy in this case. Two teens, in a relationship, who can legally have sex with each other (and likely have) what is the fuss about?
- tomp 12y ago
  Actually, it's mostly the USA, where age of consent is 18 in many states and at the federal level. In the rest of the world, teens can legally fuck :)
  - duaneb 12y ago
    Hmm, the federal law might actually apply in this case as it's a text that presumably crosses state lines. However, I grew up in a state where I could legally have sex at 16; even then there were romeo and juliet laws that would allow sex with an older individual if they are close in age. It's a little crazy to find that you can have sex but not over the phone.
mpthrapp 12y ago
I agree. This is a completely victim-less "crime". The part that bothers me the most, however, is that the girlfriend is not being charged too. Explain that. EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.
- saraid216 12y ago
  Sexism isn't that hard to explain.
  - mpthrapp 12y ago
    No, I know that's what it is. I just want to hear the justification from the legal system how it's anything but that (assuming there even is one).
- Steuard 12y ago
  The article says that the mother of the girl filed the complaint. It doesn't indicate whether anyone has filed one in the other direction; perhaps the guardians of the boy find the idea of prosecuting this behavior repugnant. (And I think it's common for the authorities to choose not to pursue consensual underage cases in the absence of a complaint.)
  - ibejoeb 12y ago
    The complaint made by the girl's mother merely made the state aware of the situation. The state is prosecuting. It is free, and some would say obliged, to prosecute the girl as well, since it has the same reason to she has committed a crime.
clarky07 12y ago
I really hope you aren't in the minority. I agree with you. I find it absurd that it's a crime for 2 dating teenagers to be "sexting". The worse part is when one is 18 and the other is 16 or 17 or something (depending on where you live laws are different). The things they be charged with is absurd. And then as a bonus they get to be on the sex predators database for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex with their significant others.
- vlunkr 12y ago
  I've heard of a few cases where people end up on the sex offender list for things like this. Things that don't sound like a "predator" at all, like being caught with a prostitute. I understand what the list is for, but we need to be careful putting people on it, because you could be ruining their life.
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    I've heard of people getting put on the sex offender list for taking a leak in public. I guess if your wang is out for any reason you are a sexual predator and must be punished as such. stupid.
jtokoph 12y ago
While I think most people generally agree, the idea here is that a minor can't legally 'consent' because they supposedly aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves.
- crisnoble 12y ago
  In this case he took a picture (allegedly) of his own penis, so who needed to collect his non-applicable consent?
- leot 12y ago
  Except they are, apparently, mature enough to be put in prison for their decisions and actions. Funny how that works.
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    It's a lot like how you can apparently still be liable for your decision if you drive drunk, but if you have sex drunk you were raped in the eyes of the law (two drunk people raped each other?)
    - DavidJRobertson 12y ago
      > (two drunk people raped each other?) Don't be silly, it's always the man's fault.
- Jemaclus 12y ago
  Right, but in this case, both are minors. Since neither can consent, the consent rests in the hands of the legal guardians -- the parents, and since we can probably assume the parents were aware of the relationship (if not the sexual aspects of it), then that means the parents are ultimately responsible... at least that's my interpretation of it. Either way, a crime has not been committed here, imo.
adwn 12y ago
> Maybe I'm naive or something. No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.
chrisgd 12y ago
I agree. Though I am a little upset at the mother of the girl for filing charges against the boy. Seems like a drastic step.
- cbhl 12y ago
  I remember my first girlfriend's mother threatened to call the police unless I would promise to "never see/talk to [her] daughter again". I consider myself lucky, because at least she decided to call my parents first, rather than pressing charges right away.
300bps 12y ago
The strangest thing about this is that the boy is considered both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime. The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws. It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.
- 21echoes 12y ago
  > 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. He possesses the photos of his girlfriend, and he manufactured the photos of himself.
  - marvin 12y ago
    It isn't certain that he is in possession of anything. Which yields another question: If you receive sexually explicit photos of an underage person on Snapchat, which deletes the photos immediately after you receive them, what child pornography laws did you violate? And could you be prosecuted for it, given that you had no idea what you were about to receive before you opened them?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fardoche 12y ago
You're not naive. It's just that with pot becoming legal in more and more places, something has to be done to sustain the American terror mindset.
h4pless 12y ago
You're likely not in the minority by being in the group that would look at this case and think, what a load of nonsensical bullshit, this obviously is contrary to justice and is harming everyone much more than the original "offending" act thereby victimizing all involved regardless of guilt or affiliation to the act. You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone. Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child. Speaking of which: My Son, the Sex Offender: One Mother's Mission to Fight the Law (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-mothers-mission-fight-law-n98876 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-...)

fragsworth 12y ago

Considering how inaccurate news reports tend to be when it's about something you are personally aware of, I'm guessing this article was pretty much written by the defense lawyer in an attempt to paint the prosecutor in a bad light. You have no idea how many important details could have been left out.

Someone1234 12y ago
Like what? The facts of the case are pretty well laid out in the article. What are you suggesting they covered up that could really change our perspective of the case? Even if the two teenagers were sleeping together that wouldn't change most people's perspective of this case, it certainly wouldn't change mine.
- kaonashi 12y ago
  Probably that the girl's parents are spearheading the prosecution; I wouldn't be surprised if this also had a racial element.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Hey now, Virginia is pretty progressive. We legalized same-sex relationships this year!
- fragsworth 12y ago
  All I know is people who write these kinds of news reports with obvious motives behind them are strongly incentivized to misrepresent the facts or leave some out entirely. Maybe the boy is being charged with other crimes as well - bad ones, and this charge is expected to get dropped. The story just seems ridiculous as written, and that's usually a sign that there is much more to it than what they wrote.
duaneb 12y ago
What could possibly explain injecting a teen at a hospital to induce an erection? It's just plain disgusting even if there is a legal explanation (highly unlikely).

eloff 12y ago

You're thinking logically, it really is the rest of the world that's crazy in this case. Two teens, in a relationship, who can legally have sex with each other (and likely have) what is the fuss about?

tomp 12y ago
Actually, it's mostly the USA, where age of consent is 18 in many states and at the federal level. In the rest of the world, teens can legally fuck :)
- duaneb 12y ago
  Hmm, the federal law might actually apply in this case as it's a text that presumably crosses state lines. However, I grew up in a state where I could legally have sex at 16; even then there were romeo and juliet laws that would allow sex with an older individual if they are close in age. It's a little crazy to find that you can have sex but not over the phone.

mpthrapp 12y ago

I agree. This is a completely victim-less "crime". The part that bothers me the most, however, is that the girlfriend is not being charged too. Explain that. EDIT: Not that I think either of them should be charged, just that if one is, they both should be.

saraid216 12y ago
Sexism isn't that hard to explain.
- mpthrapp 12y ago
  No, I know that's what it is. I just want to hear the justification from the legal system how it's anything but that (assuming there even is one).
Steuard 12y ago
The article says that the mother of the girl filed the complaint. It doesn't indicate whether anyone has filed one in the other direction; perhaps the guardians of the boy find the idea of prosecuting this behavior repugnant. (And I think it's common for the authorities to choose not to pursue consensual underage cases in the absence of a complaint.)
- ibejoeb 12y ago
  The complaint made by the girl's mother merely made the state aware of the situation. The state is prosecuting. It is free, and some would say obliged, to prosecute the girl as well, since it has the same reason to she has committed a crime.

clarky07 12y ago

I really hope you aren't in the minority. I agree with you. I find it absurd that it's a crime for 2 dating teenagers to be "sexting". The worse part is when one is 18 and the other is 16 or 17 or something (depending on where you live laws are different). The things they be charged with is absurd. And then as a bonus they get to be on the sex predators database for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex with their significant others.

vlunkr 12y ago
I've heard of a few cases where people end up on the sex offender list for things like this. Things that don't sound like a "predator" at all, like being caught with a prostitute. I understand what the list is for, but we need to be careful putting people on it, because you could be ruining their life.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  I've heard of people getting put on the sex offender list for taking a leak in public. I guess if your wang is out for any reason you are a sexual predator and must be punished as such. stupid.

jtokoph 12y ago

While I think most people generally agree, the idea here is that a minor can't legally 'consent' because they supposedly aren't mature enough to make decisions for themselves.

crisnoble 12y ago
In this case he took a picture (allegedly) of his own penis, so who needed to collect his non-applicable consent?
leot 12y ago
Except they are, apparently, mature enough to be put in prison for their decisions and actions. Funny how that works.
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  It's a lot like how you can apparently still be liable for your decision if you drive drunk, but if you have sex drunk you were raped in the eyes of the law (two drunk people raped each other?)
  - DavidJRobertson 12y ago
    > (two drunk people raped each other?) Don't be silly, it's always the man's fault.
Jemaclus 12y ago
Right, but in this case, both are minors. Since neither can consent, the consent rests in the hands of the legal guardians -- the parents, and since we can probably assume the parents were aware of the relationship (if not the sexual aspects of it), then that means the parents are ultimately responsible... at least that's my interpretation of it. Either way, a crime has not been committed here, imo.

adwn 12y ago

> Maybe I'm naive or something. No, your opinion falls under "common sense" and "healthy attitude towards sexuality" – two traits that quite a number of members of our species seem to lack.

chrisgd 12y ago

I agree. Though I am a little upset at the mother of the girl for filing charges against the boy. Seems like a drastic step.

cbhl 12y ago
I remember my first girlfriend's mother threatened to call the police unless I would promise to "never see/talk to [her] daughter again". I consider myself lucky, because at least she decided to call my parents first, rather than pressing charges right away.

300bps 12y ago

The strangest thing about this is that the boy is considered both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime. The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography The only thing he's being charged with is manufacturing and possessing pictures of himself. These laws obviously exist to protect children from predators and in this case, the district attorney is saying that he is both the child and the predator. It's a preposterous (though not unprecedented) use of these laws. It's quite clear the the mother doesn't approve of this relationship and she is using the law to clamp down on it. There may be something about the relationship that offends some people's sensibilities (ex: interclass or interracial dating) which is providing the DA cover to do this nonsense.

21echoes 12y ago
> 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. He possesses the photos of his girlfriend, and he manufactured the photos of himself.
- marvin 12y ago
  It isn't certain that he is in possession of anything. Which yields another question: If you receive sexually explicit photos of an underage person on Snapchat, which deletes the photos immediately after you receive them, what child pornography laws did you violate? And could you be prosecuted for it, given that you had no idea what you were about to receive before you opened them?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fardoche 12y ago

You're not naive. It's just that with pot becoming legal in more and more places, something has to be done to sustain the American terror mindset.

h4pless 12y ago

You're likely not in the minority by being in the group that would look at this case and think, what a load of nonsensical bullshit, this obviously is contrary to justice and is harming everyone much more than the original "offending" act thereby victimizing all involved regardless of guilt or affiliation to the act. You however would be in the minority if you were upset about the atrocious state of sex laws and their enforcement/sentencing (with mandatory sentencing provisions in most cases) so much so that you felt compelled to support the reform of sex laws and registry requirements (a subject that few would touch with a pole of any length). But you wouldn't be alone. Even Patty Wetterling, board chair of the National Center for Exploited and Missing Children, has stated that "We've cast such a broad net that we're catching a lot of juveniles who did something stupid or different types of offenders who just screwed up.. They are very different from the man who took Jacob" referring to her son who was abducted as a young child. Speaking of which: My Son, the Sex Offender: One Mother's Mission to Fight the Law (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-mothers-mission-fight-law-n98876 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/my-son-sex-offender-one-...)