Manassas City Police Trying to Sexually Abuse 17-Year-Old to Convict Him as a Sex Offender

[Majinash]

I sent an e-mail to the police and this is hat I got in return

"stuff"

I think it was a great idea on your part to seek out more information on the subject from one of the parties involved. I'd like to point out that the press release there has already been posted in this thread by someone. People posting here just don't seem to be paying attention to it. Hopefully your double post may bring some attention to it to help move the discussion forward.

I find it pretty cool the the message you got was from their chief.

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

Age of consent doesn't matter because they didn't have sex. They both created and distributed child pornography, which is what he is being charged with.

The question on my mind is: Why isn't she being charged with that as well? Is it a gender issue? Or is it because he's older?

I mean, the boy shouldn't be going through this at all, but if he did something illegal then surely she did as well.

Because, as we all know, in the U.S women are exempt from the law. Which is the primary reason I'm a supporter of the equal rights movement. As usual, even when she is the perpatrator of this not-crime, the boy in this instance is getting diddled by the cops. It's utterly despicable and every single fucking policeman in that department deserves a pinkslip.

Awww, you're precious.

Wanna add some content to that post or not? And if you don't think this whole thing is messed up there's something wrong here.

I do think it's messed up. But not for the reasons that you do. Whereas I believe that this is an issue of the law is unable and unwilling to reevaluate the itself to allow kids to be stupid kids, you see this as an "equal rights issue." Which it is not.

 

[forgo911]

I sent an e-mail to the police and this is hat I got in return

"stuff"

I think it was a great idea on your part to seek out more information on the subject from one of the parties involved. I'd like to point out that the press release there has already been posted in this thread by someone. People posting here just don't seem to be paying attention to it. Hopefully your double post may bring some attention to it to help move the discussion forward.

I find it pretty cool the the message you got was from their chief.

Yea sorry about the double post, I couldn't find my original post on the board so I put it up again. I keep flagging it try to get one of the moderators to delete it but to no avail,

OT: It wasn't the only email I got a reply to; the other one was just pointless to post. All it said was that the prosecutor was on vacation and wouldn't be back till later this month. Hmmmmm just a day after ordering a really invasive test in order to confirm him as a "child porn maker", I wounder why he left???

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

Age of consent doesn't matter because they didn't have sex. They both created and distributed child pornography, which is what he is being charged with.

And you agree that is a proper assessment of the situation? You sound like you agree. There's a big difference between nudes and porn, just as there is a big different between child porn and sexting.

Regarding the law, pornography has a wide range of definitions. Nudes can be porn. Regardless if there's penetration or any obvious sexual act. And before you say, "Der... What about movies?" The obscenity laws of the US give leeway to feature films to a point and allow films autonomy because of the MPAA. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled that porn is protected by the First Amendment. But not child pornography, which is the creation and distribution of any pornographic material involving minors. It doesn't matter the purpose, intent, who made it, or how it was distributed.

By the way, it's not an assessment; it's fact. And I didn't say one way or another if I agreed with this. So kindly take those words and shove them down your own throat.

That's.... a bit off topic. I was asking you if you felt the law was written to cover these situations, or if it's been created as too large of a blanket that covers other scenarios outside of the original intent for the law.

There was nothing about my response that was off-topic. Our personal views on the subject of teens sexting one another doesn't change the law, which at this time says it's illegal, regardless of circumstance. My first post was an expressionless response to the people who kept bantering about age of consent laws, which will have no bearing on the resulting proceedings.

Should age of consent play a factor? Yes. Will it? No. Because as I told someone else, no person of the law is going to try and promote the idea that age of consent should allow kids to take naked pics and record sex acts. Even if it is just to send to each other.

 

[zen5887]

I view it as an issue of police favoritism and pettiness, punishing a minor for something utterly harmless. If there is no victim there is no crime. Of course if you're going to humilate one you might as well go ahead and humilate both the girl and boy, unless of course they entire department is corrupt in which case society has failed.

This is 100% a shitty law issue and 0% a gender issue.

There shouldn't be a crime in the first place, you're right, but to punish both kids because of some baseless crusade for 'equality' is horrible and dangerous. Why would that even come up?

We should be trying to stop punishment for this, not delivering more.

 

[El Luck]

Well that's enough internet for one day. Seriously? Poor kid.

 

[Weaver]

I know exactly how I feel on the matter. You own you. And no fucking cop or justice system in the the world should make it illegal to take pictures of yourself or share them with your partner.

 

[Signa]

Age of consent doesn't matter because they didn't have sex. They both created and distributed child pornography, which is what he is being charged with.

And you agree that is a proper assessment of the situation? You sound like you agree. There's a big difference between nudes and porn, just as there is a big different between child porn and sexting.

Regarding the law, pornography has a wide range of definitions. Nudes can be porn. Regardless if there's penetration or any obvious sexual act. And before you say, "Der... What about movies?" The obscenity laws of the US give leeway to feature films to a point and allow films autonomy because of the MPAA. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled that porn is protected by the First Amendment. But not child pornography, which is the creation and distribution of any pornographic material involving minors. It doesn't matter the purpose, intent, who made it, or how it was distributed.

By the way, it's not an assessment; it's fact. And I didn't say one way or another if I agreed with this. So kindly take those words and shove them down your own throat.

That's.... a bit off topic. I was asking you if you felt the law was written to cover these situations, or if it's been created as too large of a blanket that covers other scenarios outside of the original intent for the law.

There was nothing about my response that was off-topic. Our personal views on the subject of teens sexting one another doesn't change the law, which at this time says it's illegal, regardless of circumstance. My first post was an expressionless response to the people who kept bantering about age of consent laws, which will have no bearing on the resulting proceedings.

Should age of consent play a factor? Yes. Will it? No. Because as I told someone else, no person of the law is going to try and promote the idea that age of consent should allow kids to take naked pics and record sex acts. Even if it is just to send to each other.

You're still dodging the question. I'm asking about if the law should be applied to this situation in your opinion. Laws are written to prevent bad situations from happening, and what to do about them when the line they draw is breached. In my opinion, a child pornography law shouldn't be applied to sexting, even if there are similar definitions to the situations.

 

[VileTerror]

I suspect, jpz719, that the reason no one is going after the girl is because either the parents of the boy are not assholes enough to try, or because their lawyer consoled them against doing so. When it would become a gender issue is when (rather if) both childrens' parents pulled the same inflammatory stunt and the societal outrage leaned more in favour of the girl than the boy . . . but that could also be an agist issue, as there is a two year difference between the two.
As it stands, the police are essentially following orders laid out to them by "the public." Or, in this case, the girl's irrate parents.

 

[epicdwarf]

I know exactly how I feel on the matter. You own you. And no fucking cop or justice system in the the world should make it illegal to take pictures of yourself or share them with your partner.

The problem here is that they are both underaged. Taking nude pictures of minors and spreading them is considered disturbing child pornography.

OT: This is really stupid. Couldn't the police just check the phones of both teens for pictures on the hard drive? Or for who sent what when?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Why isn't the girl being charged with creating and distributing child pr0n too? It's the same crime both committed.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

**snip**

What?!

WHAT?!

Both of the individuals involved are of the age of consent (to be with one another). They sent eachother pics and videos. That's it?

WHAT THE FUCK VIRGINIA?!

Seriously, don't you have anything better to do with your legal system? Like convict ACTUAL criminals?

 

[kuolonen]

Ah 'murica. In order to show how bad child abuse is they make it into legal practice.

Then again it is his fault for living in the Virginia in the first place. I mean what are you doing kid, you know nothing good is ever going to come from that!

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Apparently the cops have re-though this really, really creepy plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79F6svKS9Go

 

[Majinash]

Apparently the cops have re-though this really, really creepy plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79F6svKS9Go

What? no. The statement they released stated they NEVER intended to do it. Just because people thought they were going to do it, and now understand they weren't going to do it doesn't mean they changed their minds.

This is like the most disturbing game of telephone I've ever seen.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Apparently the cops have re-though this really, really creepy plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79F6svKS9Go

What? no. The statement they released stated they NEVER intended to do it. Just because people thought they were going to do it, and now understand they weren't going to do it doesn't mean they changed their minds.

This is like the most disturbing game of telephone I've ever seen.

Can I get a source please? Because it seems kind of weird to release a statement saying that you're not going to do something if you never intended to do it. Did they also say that they aren't going to water-board him and pull his finger nails out as well?

 

[DefunctTheory]

Apparently the cops have re-though this really, really creepy plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79F6svKS9Go

What? no. The statement they released stated they NEVER intended to do it. Just because people thought they were going to do it, and now understand they weren't going to do it doesn't mean they changed their minds.

This is like the most disturbing game of telephone I've ever seen.

There's no evidence that they didn't plan to to begin with. The prosecutors certainly wanted to, or they wouldn't have gotten the warrant. And if the defense attorney is to be believed (And I don't see why not), the police are the ones who described the procedure to her, so at the very least they were up to date on the prosecutor's plan.

As for the original press release, all it said was that is was not part of normal procedure to do this sort of thing, and they were not going to discuss further investigations with the press. That does not equal 'will not do this time.'

 

[Majinash]

As for the original press release, all it said was that is was not part of normal procedure to do this sort of thing, and they were not going to discuss further investigations with the press. That does not equal 'will not do this time.'

It is not the policy of the Manassas City Police or the Commonwealth Attorney's Office to authorize invasive search procedures of suspects in cases of this nature and no such procedures have been conducted in this case.

If you have no problem believing the defense attorney, why do you have a problem believing the police?

Can I get a source please? Because it seems kind of weird to release a statement saying that you're not going to do something if you never intended to do it. Did they also say that they aren't going to water-board him and pull his finger nails out as well?

Source has been linked to and posted in this thread already. The snide remark about water-boarding is uncalled for.