[ousoonerchic]

Crazy

[Spiffyfable]

Originally Posted by vipersna ↗

Hahaha..... I'm sure this is ridiculous. If they followed the letter to a T I bet most everyone here would have been arrested at some point for "producing child pornography". They should have charged him with indecent exposure, or just held a shotgun tk his face and told him never to do it again she's not charged either and she instigated it. I know from experiance that if you send some tit or twat shots you're gonna get a dick back.

I wanna play

[Megamel29]

Originally Posted by invertigo ↗

Sexual curiosity is now a felonious crime? What kind of message does that send

On the other hand...
... That IS sexually predatory behavior, or at the least sexually dysfunctional behavior. Just because you had consent to do something in the past doesn't mean you get free reign to sexually harass your partner under any circumstance. No means no, stop means stop

Good point. But was the kid really told not to? Did the mother tell the kid to stop? Or did the daughter say she told him to stop but didn't? It could be either way. At any rate, I don't think it's appropriate for the police to get a picture of the kid's genitals in this case.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by 30564U ↗

In most state's you are correct. Eighteen is generally considered the age of consent, but some state's have it as low as sixteen...I think that would be Louisiana off the top of my head.

They were both minors which makes the charges even more stupid. Think about that...children making child pornography...and the police wanting to take photos of a child's erect penis to do some halfassed dick line up...which under their logic would also be considered child pornography.

in Washington State it's 16 as well. a few years ago there was an indecent involving a 16yo girl and a 30 something year old firefighter. the girl consensually had sex with the man, then told her 16yo boyfriend. the boyfriend got pissed and turned the firefighter in claiming it was rape and that he had conned her into doing it. the situation got to be a confusing mess because the firefighter had recorded the sexual encounter on his cell phone.

so, he had evidence to show that the sex was consensual and not rape... however, he had sexually explicit materials involving a minor, which is technically 'producing child pornography'. he showed the cops that came to arrest him his phone and they claimed to have seen the pictures on his phone, then told him to erase them because they were illegal. when investigators came to look at his phone, the memory card had been switched and the pictures werent found.

no charges were filed because it was determined that there wasnt enough evidence to go on and it would have been a huge waste of money to try to prosecute.

http://www.khq.com/story/5006508/no-...h-teenage-girl

[Mr Poo]

That is insane.. They know what phone it was sent from, why do they need pics?

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by have2poo ↗

That is insane.. They know what phone it was sent from, why do they need pics?

To make the production charge stick. Knowing the phone only proves that he sent pics of a cock; it doesn't prove that it was his cock.

[CrunchyCripple]

Child porn is illegal, no matter the age of the possessor. A minor in possession of c.p. Is still breaking the law and can be charged.

[30564U]

Don't forget they did the same thing in the Michael Jackson case. They took penis pictures looking for any penial abnormalities that victims could identify. It sounds completely stupid, but it's part of the evidence gathering procedure. It's just damn funny to imagine a penis line up...or a police sketch artist drawing a penis...and penis wanted posters.

[gibeog]

porkys, the gym teachers dream did come true!

[Emperor Wang]

I'm suprised they didn't put up wanted posters of the boys wang, as suggested by "Roy" in the film Porkies