- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Indecent behavior with juveniles - Grooming
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:53 am
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:53 am
Grooming
Last year, La. made "grooming" a criminal offense.
Last year, La. made "grooming" a criminal offense.
This post was edited on 5/10/26 at 9:54 am
6
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:53 am to Champagne
Yeah, definitely not clicking that one, baw.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:53 am to Champagne
This statute, in fact, exists, yes.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:54 am to shutterspeed
quote:
Yeah, definitely not clicking that one, baw.
At least for now, it’s just a link to the statute, but fair
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:57 am to Champagne
We’ve been watching the Chris Hansen Livingston Parish episodes. This is what those men are charged with.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 9:58 am to shutterspeed
It's the new La. criminal statute that criminalizes grooming. Grooming activities need not be sexual in nature in any way. Child molesters engage in campaigns of gaining trust in their targeted victims. These campaigns need not be sexual in nature.
The state of La. has taken a big step in protecting children by passing this criminal statute.
The statute itself is worth reading.
The state of La. has taken a big step in protecting children by passing this criminal statute.
The statute itself is worth reading.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:01 am to Champagne
Are we trying to criminalize the priesthood?
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:02 am to Champagne
quote:
the new La. criminal statute that criminalizes grooming. Grooming activities need not be sexual in nature in any way. Child molesters engage in campaigns of gaining trust in their targeted victims. These campaigns need not be sexual in nature. The state of La. has taken a big step in protecting children by passing this criminal statute. The statute itself is worth reading.
Sex still has to be the goal, though. I’m sure the new statute closes the loop on a few cases, but I imagine the overwhelming majority of new “grooming” cases could have already been prosecuted under our existing computer aided solicitation statute. Not a bad thing, but I’m not sure whether this is the major shift some people are saying it is.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:12 am to shutterspeed
Scared it might pertain to you?
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:22 am to Champagne
1. Frankly, grooming is a vague word that seems pretty hard to prosecute (unlike something less more tangible like solicitation), and this is really just a law change to keep politicians the appearance of being tough on crime.
2. I’m not sure why you care that much about this unless you’re afraid that you’ll be one of the few people who’s actually arrested under the statute.
2. I’m not sure why you care that much about this unless you’re afraid that you’ll be one of the few people who’s actually arrested under the statute.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:24 am to UFFan
quote:
1. Frankly, grooming is a vague word that seems pretty hard to prosecute (unlike something less more tangible like solicitation), and this is really just a law change to keep politicians the appearance of being tough on crime. 2. I’m not sure why you care that much about this unless you’re afraid that you’ll be one of the few people who’s actually arrested under the statute.
They defined it pretty narrowly, which is why I don’t think it’s a big deal, as it has pretty significant overlap with our computer aided solicitation statute:
quote:
(1) "Grooming" shall mean the pursuit of an intimate relationship with a child under the age of seventeen by means of seduction, emotional manipulation, threats, promises, coercion, enticement, isolation, or extortion with the specific intent to commit a sex offense as defined in R.S. 15:541 against the minor, whether aggravated or not.
So unless you can prove specific intent to commit a sex offense, you can’t prove “grooming”.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:33 am to Joshjrn
This is intended so we don't have to wait for a child to be raped to get the offender locked up. In every child rape or molestation that we tried, we presented a ton of grooming evidence that showed it coming. There's evidence there. If you can prove it prior to a kid having his/her life ruined, that's a win.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:36 am to tLSU
quote:
This is intended so we don't have to wait for a child to be raped to get the offender locked up. In every child rape or molestation that we tried, we presented a ton of grooming evidence that showed it coming. There's evidence there. If you can prove it prior to a kid having his/her life ruined, that's a win.
Computer Aided Solicitation of a minor has been on the books since 2005. Again, I’m sure there will be a subset of offenses that will fit the new statute that wouldn’t have fit the old one, but the real world overlap is going to be pretty significant, in my opinion.
This post was edited on 5/10/26 at 10:42 am
Posted on 5/10/26 at 10:53 am to Champagne
If this is not bad enough, get a load of this pervert that I met at a party last weekend. I asked what she did for a living, and she replied, " I'm a dog groomer". I shite you not. Gross.
Posted on 5/10/26 at 11:03 am to Champagne
quote:
Grooming activities need not be sexual in nature in any way.
quote:
The statute itself is worth reading.
You should probably read it yourself
Posted on 5/10/26 at 12:30 pm to Proximo
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News