- 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
re: Teen sends dick pic to 22-year-old woman, now he’s a child pornographer
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:53 pm to iPadThai
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:53 pm to iPadThai
The prosecutor had complete discretion as to whether to pursue the charge.
Once pressed, the court had to do its duty and apply the statute as written, no matter how stupid the result.
All blame lies with the prosecutor (and the dick-pic kid).
Once pressed, the court had to do its duty and apply the statute as written, no matter how stupid the result.
All blame lies with the prosecutor (and the dick-pic kid).
1
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:54 pm to stelly1025
i hope the left is as outraged by this as they are about the idea of prosecuting a pregnant woman who aborts.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:00 pm to iPadThai
Good. Sick frickin' kid deserves to be locked up.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:04 pm to iPadThai
Welders wouldn't frick up this decision that bad.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:15 pm to iPadThai
quote:
Eric Gray is both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime
So fricking stupid. I bit my tongue this morning during breakfast. Guess I need to turn myself in for battery and pay my debt to society.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:15 pm to iPadThai
It's his own fricking dick.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:19 pm to iPadThai
I'm confused. Who is the victim? Did the 22 year old get offended and turn him in?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:20 pm to fr33manator
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:27 pm to Rouge
Okay to send it to a 15 year old but not an adult? Stupid application of the law to reach an absurd result.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:32 pm to McLemore
quote:
i hope the left is as outraged by this as they are about the idea of prosecuting a pregnant woman who aborts.
They are, but they don't really see the similarity between did-pic texting and abortion.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:33 pm to iPadThai
Will his photo stand up in a court of law?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:39 pm to OweO
quote:
That is stupid. So a 17 year old who sends a picture of his dick to a 22 year old woman will be categorized with sick fricks who are actually potential threats to children?
Yep, the law makes no distinction between inadvertent downloading or possession. I'm surprised the 22 yr old woman wasn't charged with possession of child porn.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:44 pm to iPadThai
As the victim, can't he get out of this by simply not pressing charges?
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:46 pm to McLemore
quote:
but a doctor can prescribe a 15 yo sex-change hormones with impunity and even earn a bravery badge.
Nice false equivalency
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:52 pm to OweO
quote:
That is stupid. So a 17 year old who sends a picture of his dick to a 22 year old woman will be categorized with sick fricks who are actually potential threats to children?
I'm not sure why it is instantly assumed that sex offender = barely constrained pedo, but it certainly has made the the label more onerous than it should be.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:56 pm to iPadThai
quote:
Teen sends dick pic to 22-year-old woman, now he’s literally a child pornographer
I like when the word literally is used correctly.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 8:59 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
Once pressed, the court had to do its duty and apply the statute as written, no matter how stupid the result.
bullshite.
There is a degree of interpretation (that is literally the entire purpose of the Supreme Courts), and while I'm not a big fan of legislating from the bench, IMO the angle of the defense was sound: lawmakers obviously did not intend for the statue to apply to the victim doing it to themselves.
quote:
Dealing in depictions of minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
(1)(a) A person commits the crime of dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the first degree when he or she:
(i) Knowingly develops, duplicates, publishes, prints, disseminates, exchanges, finances, attempts to finance, or sells a visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in an act of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(4) (a) through (e); or
(ii) Possesses with intent to develop, duplicate, publish, print, disseminate, exchange, or sell any visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in an act of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(4) (a) through (e).
(b) Dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the first degree is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(c) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each depiction or image of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.
(2)(a) A person commits the crime of dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the second degree when he or she:
(i) Knowingly develops, duplicates, publishes, prints, disseminates, exchanges, finances, attempts to finance, or sells any visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in an act of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(4) (f) or (g); or
(ii) Possesses with intent to develop, duplicate, publish, print, disseminate, exchange, or sell any visual or printed matter that depicts a minor engaged in an act of sexually explicit conduct as defined in RCW 9.68A.011(4) (f) or (g).
(b) Dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in the second degree is a class B felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(c) For the purposes of determining the unit of prosecution under this subsection, each incident of dealing in one or more depictions or images of visual or printed matter constitutes a separate offense.
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 9:01 pm
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:09 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:
It's his own fricking dick.
To paraphrase Jake Bragance - now imagine this 22 year-old woman is your daughter.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 9:13 pm to SlapahoeTribe
quote:
Any prosecutor is fricking nuts to actually enforce it - this is exactly why we have prosecutorial discretion and our DA is an elected position.
Posted on 9/14/17 at 10:14 pm to Volvagia
quote:
while I'm not a big fan of legislating from the bench, IMO the angle of the defense was sound: lawmakers obviously did not intend for the statue to apply to the victim doing it to themselves
Strict constructionists like Scalia would tell you that the legislator's intent is not what is important; the only thing that counts is the word on the page.
You have to decide if you are a principled strict constructionist (nobody really is despite what they claim) or one who bends or interprets the words to fit the meaning that you think is the wiser result when strict application looks fricking stupid.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News