Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Judge Orders Boy to Have an Erection, Let Cops Take Photos

Posted by on Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:37 AM

copphoto-570.jpg

Why the fuck would a judge order a teenage boy to get an erection and let cops take pictures of his cock? More pictures of his cock? (The cops already took pictures of the boy's flaccid cock.) Because this 17-year-old boy is alleged to have swapped sexts with his 15-year-old girlfriend and now the boy—just the boy—is being prosecuted for possessing and manufacturing child pornography. To prove that the erection in the video he sent his girlfriend is his own, and to prove that he made video of a minor (he made the vide of himself himself), the cops want their own pictures of his erection. This is insanity:

The teen is facing two felony charges, for possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography, which could lead not only to incarceration until he’s 21, but inclusion on the state sex offender data base for, possibly, the rest of his life.... [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. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, Foster said. The male teen was served with petitions from juvenile court in early February, and not arrested, but when the case went to trial in juvenile court in June, Foster said prosecutors forgot to certify that the teen was a juvenile. The case was dismissed, but police immediately obtained new charges and also a search warrant for his home. Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will.... Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis,” for comparison to the evidence from the teen’s cell phone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

So to put a teenage boy in prison for sexting—something most teenagers are doing—the Manassas police department is producing child pornography (they've already taken pics of this kids cock!) and the prosecutor is trying to extract a guilty plea by threatening this kid with being dragged to a hospital and forced to get an erection against his will in a room full of cops.

What. The. Fuck.

They're harassing this kid and trying to destroy his life. Let's harass back, shall we?

The Manassas police department's website is here. The Manassas PD is on twitter: @ManassasCityPD.

Prince William County's website is here, a list of Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys is here. This is the only contact info I can find for the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney:

The Commonwealth's Attorneys Office is located in the Judicial Center at 9311 Lee Avenue, Suite 200, Manassas, VA 20110; Phone: 703-792-6050; Fax: 703-792-7081; email: cwoffice@pwcgov.org.

Anyone up for doing some sleuthing and finding the email and phone number for Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson?

 

Comments (111) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
JonnoN 1
uh, 5th amendment??
Posted by JonnoN http://www.backnine.org/ on July 9, 2014 at 10:43 AM · Report this
raindrop 2
Indeed, that's child abuse. And a 17-year-old is a child. Consider your flying monkeys on their way, Dan.
Posted by raindrop on July 9, 2014 at 10:48 AM · Report this
rob! 3
Sounds like they're planning to use Caverject (alprostadil).

So search warrants (and some warrantless searches) have moved from pat-down to gloved finger to x-rays to parenteral injections.

What's next?
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on July 9, 2014 at 10:56 AM · Report this
4
As a physician that took pictures of kid's genitalia to prove that they HAD been sexually assaulted, I was trained that nonprofessionals were never to take photos of genitalia and the child or parent always had to give consent before my exam. The Manassas police department is way out of line.
Posted by wayahdoc on July 9, 2014 at 10:59 AM · Report this
5
Manassas PD's now off Twitter...
Posted by Jazzlvraz on July 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 6
The only winner here is Florida.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on July 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM · Report this
7
It's stories like this and the guy who slapped his coworker and is now being charged with murder that make me glad I never ended up as a district attorney. Prosecution is a dirty, dirty business that naturally leads to perversions like this.
Posted by MRM on July 9, 2014 at 11:04 AM · Report this
IndicaDogwalk 8
This is all public record info, available online:

Claiborne T. Richardson II
Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Office
9311 Lee Avenue
Suite 200
Judicial Center
Manassas, VA, 22110 -5555
Phones: (703) 792-6050
Fax: (703) 792-7081

I am still searching for his email and will post when found.

Also, take note of his side hobby: http://www.reunionmusic.org/about.html
Posted by IndicaDogwalk on July 9, 2014 at 11:05 AM · Report this
IndicaDogwalk 9
Here you go:

Claiborne T. Richardson

Email: crichardson@pwcgov.org
Posted by IndicaDogwalk on July 9, 2014 at 11:08 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 10
Wow, just sick. There aren't enough real criminals for these people? Or are they just into boy's penises?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on July 9, 2014 at 11:08 AM · Report this
seatackled 11
Anonymous found the Stuebenville coverup when they went after the rapists. I bet if there's any sort of sexting among the police and prosecutors, they would be able to dig it up.

(And is the Stranger going to put in a public records request this time?)
Posted by seatackled on July 9, 2014 at 11:10 AM · Report this
The Beatles 12
Let's see here: A state in the American south, an absurd trumped-up felony charge for the crime of two teenagers...well, being teenagers, and the prosecutorial zeal worthy of the Nuremberg Trials. I'm getting a flash here! Could it be...maybe, just maybe, that the real crime was that it was a black boy and a white girlfriend? Maybe?--just maybe?

No, of course not. After all, the complete anonymity of their identities is absolutely sacred, being minors. And of corse the State of Virginia would be purely race-neutral in dealing with matters like this. Silly, race-card-playing me for even suggesting otherwise!
Posted by The Beatles on July 9, 2014 at 11:15 AM · Report this
The Beatles 13
Also, @6 FTW.
Posted by The Beatles on July 9, 2014 at 11:16 AM · Report this
fletc3her 14
It's a real tragedy when prosecutors don't exercise judgement and simply barrel forward with the most black and white reading of the law.

They are trying him as an adult who produced child pornography of himself so as a subject he is a child, but as a photographer he is an adult. Shouldn't those be in alignment? Can he seriously have victimized himself?

And then shouldn't there at least be some latitude for actions between peers like there is in most statutory rape laws?
Posted by fletc3her on July 9, 2014 at 11:16 AM · Report this
IndicaDogwalk 15
More info: In 2002, Claiborne Richardson was involved in a sting operation aimed to catch gay men by accusing them of having sex in a public park:

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virg…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002…
Posted by IndicaDogwalk on July 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM · Report this
AFinch 16
Um, the judge is dragging her feet...it's the Commonwealth's Attorney who is leading the charge...they're playing hardball to get a guilty plea instead of having to try the case...they know they'll lose in court (jury nullification).
Posted by AFinch on July 9, 2014 at 11:22 AM · Report this
this guy I know in Spokane 17
I thought that if both parties are under 18, then the age differential only needs to be 2 years - - - in other words, neither the boy nor the girl is doing anything illegal in this case. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe that's just WA state law.

In any case, this is seriously fucked up. Didn't Virginia have that seriously gayfaced attorney general? I forget his name and I'm not going to look him up, but I suspect he is masturbating to pictures of this kid right at this very minute.
Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on July 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM · Report this
18
If I wasn't at work I'd be emailing these guys a ton of gay porn.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on July 9, 2014 at 11:36 AM · Report this
rob! 19
@8, your link, I think that's someone different, perhaps the Commonwealth's Attorney's father.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on July 9, 2014 at 11:41 AM · Report this
20
How about nice words of support for his defense attorney, Jessica Harbeson Foster. She is very much likely to be court appointed, working for very little pay, and calling bullshit where bullshit needs to be called.

Oh, and, @1, the 5th amendment isn't implicated when the incriminating evidence about the accused is something that can be observed without the accused saying anything.

Also, @16, there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile court.
Posted by missconductpdx on July 9, 2014 at 11:54 AM · Report this
treacle 21
The concept of "consensual crimes" is itself anathema to democracy.

If all parties are consenting to the actions/events involved, there can be no crime. A crime occurs when someone is actually injured. Not someone's mother being offended.
Posted by treacle on July 9, 2014 at 11:59 AM · Report this
seatackled 22
@17

That might refer to actual sexual relations. So they can't get him if he and the girlfriend are sleeping together, but they are pursuing him for child porn, probably for creating it and for distributing or intending to distribute it.

(WWSBS? What would Seattleblues say? Something about welfare parents not supervising their children properly and how he needs to be a registered sex offender?)
Posted by seatackled on July 9, 2014 at 12:01 PM · Report this
23
@17 each state is different. There is also federal law, so if the two were across state lines it would technically be trafficking in child porn (sending porn to the 15 year old) even though it was a consenting sext.

I have not heard of the feds prosecuting this but they could. The feds started under Bush and finished under Obama prosecuted adults for distributing consenting adult porn showing simulated rape over state lines via the internet to other adults!

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/porn…

The case eventually was plead out after the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated jail time. That's one step down from SCOTUS. Not sure why they didn't stick it out and try to appeal to the top, SCOTUS never heard the case due to the plea.

While I agree with Dan that this is nuts, in Security State America, I would not email or phone anything to the district attorney or police. That could constitute harassment or impeding law enforcement.

Disclaimer: None of this is intended to be formal legal advice.
Posted by delta35 on July 9, 2014 at 12:07 PM · Report this
24
@8 I just called and got the "no comment at this time" thing BUT a real person picked up the phone and I told her out outrageous it was. She knew what I meant.

KEEP CALLING!
Posted by wxPDX on July 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM · Report this
25
Some people are obsessed with sex. And I'm not talking about teenagers, for whom it is a given.
Posted by originalcinner on July 9, 2014 at 12:13 PM · Report this
seatackled 26
Holy shit, not that anything is any worse than anything else, but I missed the part where they said they would give the kid a shot to force an erection. So they're going to drug him with some sort of liquid viagra for this?

And:
Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It’s just crazy.”

Special software? From where?
Posted by seatackled on July 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM · Report this
Banna 27
Claiborne T. Richardson II is the most closeted gay name I've ever heard. Add the obsession with catching gay cruisers and pictures of minors' weiners and you get this MAD TV sketch.

Posted by Banna http://www.ucp.org on July 9, 2014 at 12:16 PM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 28
We should have just left the fucking south leave the union back in 1861. DAMN YOU ABE LINCOLN!!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!!
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on July 9, 2014 at 12:30 PM · Report this
The Accidental Theologist 29
Sick fucks.
Posted by The Accidental Theologist http://accidentaltheologist.com on July 9, 2014 at 12:31 PM · Report this
Fnarf 30
@26, you don't know about the special dick comparison and identification software? Where've you been?

Maybe he means the Kodak EasyShare software that came with his 15-year-old digital camera. You can see it, right on the computer! Bigger'n lifesize! Lookit that thang, like a baby's arm with an apple in its fist!

This is, of course, conspiracy to commit sexual abuse of a minor and should put the cops and the judge behind bars, not the boy.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on July 9, 2014 at 12:35 PM · Report this
DowntownTaylor 31
That twitter link is bad -- looks like it was double-pasted or something.
Posted by DowntownTaylor http://www.digitaltaylor.com on July 9, 2014 at 12:37 PM · Report this
32
I look forward to finding out this crazy story is mostly bullshit invented by the defense attorney in order to sway public opinion (note the lack of any corroboration or claims other than "Foster says"), because if not, holy fuck.
Posted by beef rallard on July 9, 2014 at 12:45 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 33
The issue is that our child porn laws are outdated. They were designed to stop perverts from hurting kids, NOT to stop kids from playing the 21st Century version of "you show me yours and I'll show you mine."
The laws should be modified to say that someone under 18 only gets a fine for having or taking lewd pictures of a minor, considering that they themselves are minors and that usually the minor they're snapping a picture of is themselves.

Still, Dan is going to hear it from the feminazis for pointing out that the girl isn't charged. I can hear the #yesallwomen crowd now: "NO! The male did it! He is a horrible rapist like all of the male species! How dare you assume that this double standards is somehow wrong!"
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM · Report this
34
@24: What number did you call?
Posted by Dan Savage on July 9, 2014 at 12:54 PM · Report this
35
I would suggest trying to contact the actual Commonwealth Attorney instead of the Assistant Commonwealth Attorney (who may or may not be just following orders, but, at any rate, isn't up for election). The Commonwealth Attorney is:

Paul B. Ebert
Commonwealth Attorney's Office
Second Floor
9311 Lee Avenue
Manassas, VA 20110-5594
Phone: 703-792-6050, F: 703-792-7081
Email: cwoffice@pwcgov.org
Posted by brent.b on July 9, 2014 at 1:06 PM · Report this
36
Also, it looks like 703-792-6050 is the number for the main office, since it is the the same number listed for all the attorneys in the office.
Posted by brent.b on July 9, 2014 at 1:08 PM · Report this
37
Arrest every adult involved in the sexual assault of this boy and seize the child pornography that they produced by forcefully stripping him and photographing him.

The Manassas City Pedophile Department is not worthy of their badges.

Every officer has the right to refuse even a direct order to commit this type of crime against a child. The fact that they did not is all the proof that should be required to find them willing participants in this sexual assault. Remove them from duty. Arrest these pedophiles.

Any community that does not demand that all adults involved be terminated from their positions immediately and arrested today is complicit in the crimes against this child.

A child is in danger from those charged with his protection.

Stop them.

Now.

Arrest them.

Now.
Posted by HELL NO! Not On Our Watch! on July 9, 2014 at 1:14 PM · Report this
38
Somebody needs to enroll the prosecutor in NAMBLA.
Posted by CPN on July 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM · Report this
39 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
40
@33

No, you're the crazy libernazi. You are. Now quit being such a giant fuckwit and finally bring me my coffee. Lord knows you're not smart enough to do anything else.
Posted by Bloated Jesus is Bloated on July 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM · Report this
41
@33 "someone under 18 only gets a fine for having or taking lewd pictures of a minor"

If only it were that easy.

That's the sort of loophole that would simply have perverts involve more minors in their productions, potentially hurting even more kids.

In short, your simple fix would allow perverts to get off, in more ways than one.
Posted by A Case For Jury Nullification Russian Roulette on July 9, 2014 at 1:33 PM · Report this
42
@33

"Feminazi" here and Dan is absolutely right for pointing out this double standard that we have because we live in a patriarchal society. Your assumption that a crowd of feminists would come here and argue that point with Dan, not to mention your use of a term coined by Rush Limbaugh, demonstrates that you know don't jack shit about feminism.
Posted by "Feminazi" on July 9, 2014 at 1:42 PM · Report this
Helix 43
I feel like maybe the ACLU needs to step in here.
Posted by Helix on July 9, 2014 at 1:49 PM · Report this
Bonefish 44
It would take years of hard work and dedication for the rest of us to become as stupid as #33. It's almost admirable.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on July 9, 2014 at 1:51 PM · Report this
seatackled 45
@40, @44

He wasn't clever enough to work in something about Council Member Sawant this time.
Posted by seatackled on July 9, 2014 at 2:00 PM · Report this
46 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
collectivism_sucks 47
@41
How would making it less of a crime for a minor to have pictures of a friend of there's or themselves on their phone in any way help adult perverts? That makes little sense. If an adult has kiddie porn, throw the book at them, but child porn laws were never designed to throw kids in jail for texting a picture of themselves naked to friends their own age.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 9, 2014 at 2:09 PM · Report this
48
You can leave them a review, too - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Manassas-…
Posted by rakishchick on July 9, 2014 at 2:12 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 49
@44
"Attorney-General Robert Clark said the new law would respond specifically to the issue of sexting to ensure that appropriate penalties applied to those who misused technology."
Source: http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/197…
So I'm in good company to be "this stupid." And yes, indeed, decrying teenagers sending images of themselves to each other as =/= to a child porn ring involving hardcore pedophiles swapping images of toddlers being raped makes me "so stupid it's almost admirable."
Honestly, for your own safety I truly hope you have only safety scissors in your house and have a good caretaker who makes sure you stay away from hot ovens, sharp objects and other such implements that you will most likely end up hurting yourself with.
I can't wait for Summer to be over so you will go back to school. You are starting seventh grade this year, correct?
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 9, 2014 at 2:19 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 50
@45
What the fuck would Sawant have to do with this? Honestly, just stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself again.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 9, 2014 at 2:21 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 51
@28 - You and I are in agreement. Abe Lincoln had the original southern stratergy.

@33 - The first part I agree with, the second part... how many have called for his head in this thread? And why haven't you moved yet?

@45 - Well played.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 9, 2014 at 2:22 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 52
@46 - Why do you wanna do his father?

@47,49 - you're being deliberately obtuse. You know they're referring to your "feminazi" screed.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on July 9, 2014 at 2:27 PM · Report this
53
Still, Dan is going to hear it from the feminazis for pointing out that the girl isn't charged. I can hear the #yesallwomen crowd now: "NO! The male did it! He is a horrible rapist like all of the male species! How dare you assume that this double standards is somehow wrong!"

Someone looks to be working on a run at Bailo's coveted status here. Not a bad start.
Posted by david jw on July 9, 2014 at 2:32 PM · Report this
COMTE 54
Wait, is CS with his comment @46 now asserting to be a black Libertarian homosexual?
Posted by COMTE on July 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM · Report this
55
I'd file a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct with the Virginia State Bar and against the magistrate with the Judicial Commission. This is well beyond the boundaries of ethical.
Posted by davecoffman on July 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM · Report this
56
The biggest villains are the girl's parents for filing this complaint in the first place. They are no only attempting to ruin one young man's life but they are traumatizing their own daughter in the process.
Posted by Beverly Hames on July 9, 2014 at 2:51 PM · Report this
seahorsebear 57
According to the Washington Post, the judge isn't letting it go through, for now. It's the police and county prosecutors who are pursuing this.
Posted by seahorsebear on July 9, 2014 at 2:57 PM · Report this
Bonefish 58
49: Firstly, replacing prison time with a mere fine is nice and all, but this would still entail charging teenagers with a crime for sending pictures of their OWN junk to each other. Which is still stupid. Which still makes you stupid. The sentencing is only tangential to the problem here.

Secondly, read post 52. You may find it enlightening. Although for the record, I disagree with Pridge that you're being "willfully" obtuse. Since you were stupid enough puke out that little "feminazi" non-sequitur to begin with, I believe it's entirely plausible that you're also stupid enough to think that people are reacting to your (slightly) less stupid ideas on how to deal with teens who sext each other.
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on July 9, 2014 at 3:01 PM · Report this
59
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=…

Its up on facebook.
Posted by wolfn4404 on July 9, 2014 at 3:04 PM · Report this
60
@47 "How would making it less of a crime for a minor to have pictures of a friend of there's or themselves on their phone in any way help adult perverts?"

That's not actually what you wrote @33.

I understand that you were not presenting draft legislation there, but still, there is a huge difference between creating a legal bounds and definitions for sexting and muddying child porn laws based on who performed the act of filming.
Posted by A Case For Jury Nullification Russian Roulette on July 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM · Report this
61
Kid is 17 and cops already have his dick picks. So when are the police going to start arresting one another for child pornography?
Posted by treehugger on July 9, 2014 at 3:53 PM · Report this
62
@61 Perhaps you should call the Prince William County Sheriff's Office or the FBI and state that you have credible evidence that the Manassas Police Department and the Commonwealth's Attorneys Office are producing and sharing child porn.
Posted by A Case For Jury Nullification Russian Roulette on July 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM · Report this
63
Here is a release by the Manassass City Police Department's Facebook account:
There is already a good start to the righteous indignation in the replies.

"...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. Beyond that, neither the Police Department nor the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office discusses evidentiary matters prior to court hearings."
Posted by JDLH on July 9, 2014 at 4:14 PM · Report this
64
When I hear about stuff like this, I always wish I was super rich - I would pay all of that boy's legal fees for his defense AND for him to sue the shit out of Virginia for mental suffering. Such a crock of shit...
Posted by I_am_miraje on July 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM · Report this
65
@63 Oh dear, it looks like URLs are getting stripped. Try this:
www facebook.com permalink.php?story_fbid=713736472032146&id=566888640050264
Add in http and / as needed to make it look right.
Posted by JDLH on July 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM · Report this
Call me Scott 66
I tweeted those Manassas PD sob's.
Posted by Call me Scott on July 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM · Report this
67
Dan, where did the judge sign that supposedly requested warrant?
Posted by clashfan on July 9, 2014 at 4:33 PM · Report this
68
Things move quick. Already up on Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manassas,_V…
Posted by Geekwired007 on July 9, 2014 at 4:53 PM · Report this
Puty 69
That poor 17-year-old boy needs lawyers. Big goddamn scary fucking lawyers.
Posted by Puty on July 9, 2014 at 6:15 PM · Report this
70
This is so over-the-top evil and almost comically absurd, that there just has to be something wrong with it. The story is exaggerated, or we're missing some crucial piece of information. Was the girl mentally impaired in some way that she can't be culpable and is a victim? Does the kid have a history with the police and they're out to get him? Are the parents making it up for public attention? I mean really, there has to be another shoe, I'm not ready to buy this yet.
Posted by AllisonM on July 9, 2014 at 6:23 PM · Report this
71
if this warrant goes through for the boner pics and the kid can't get a boner will they charge him with obstructing justice?
Posted by apeak on July 9, 2014 at 6:36 PM · Report this
72
Pridge I have to agree with 58, Collectivism_sucks is stupid and non-self reflective enough to not understand folks were responding to the "feminazi" non-sequitur.

@60 is also spot on with regards to Collectivism_sucks comment @33 as written it leaves a huge glaring loophole for child pornographers to walk through. But alas as @60 also notes CS is not so bright.

All that aside this whole situation is ridiculous and the adults involved all of them should be required to read, "Harmful to Minors, The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" by Judith Levine

Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 9, 2014 at 7:41 PM · Report this
73 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
74
#74:

it must be awfully lonely on whatever planet you posted that from.
Posted by AlaskanbutnotSeanParnell on July 9, 2014 at 8:04 PM · Report this
passionate_jus 75
Please sign this petition:

https://www.change.org/petitions/manassa…
Posted by passionate_jus on July 9, 2014 at 11:20 PM · Report this
76
On July 4th, the Manassas PD tweeted: "#July4th Safety Tip: Take a photo of your child before heading into a big crowd today & pick a meeting place in case someone gets separated."
Makes me wonder what they had in mind.
Posted by Ailurus on July 10, 2014 at 1:01 AM · Report this
77
@68: "Any teenage male that sends sexual images of himself to another teenager will himself be sexually abused by the police as part of their investigation. The teen will be stripped and forced to pose nude for police. If the teen fails to get an erection the police will take the teen to a hospital for a shot that will medically induce an erection. [23]"

Somehow I think that phrasing will change, but I laughed, and then was sad because it is true.
Posted by Hanoumatoi on July 10, 2014 at 2:26 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 78
@72
Yes, a huge glaring child porn loophole: IF YOU'RE A CHILD YOURSELF, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO JAIL FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IF YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR OWN JUNK AND SEND IT TO ANOTHER KID. That's a "glaring loophole" that SHOULD be there. What, should teenagers be stopped from molesting themselves too? I guess under your "logic" every teenager who jerks off should be guilty of child molestation. After all, they are groping a child.
Yes, arrest kids for taking pictures of themselves...but I'm the one who "isn't that bright" By all means, continue typing and embarrassing yourself.

As for @58: first, your grammar is that of a third grader. Second, a fine would be necessary to discourage that behavior. Not because it is the same as an adult taking pictures of a child, but because "sexted" images often end up online for all to see. That's how I obtained those compromising images of your mother with a German Shepherd.

Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you.



Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 10, 2014 at 3:42 AM · Report this
79
@ 9 I'm from the United Kingdom and I emailed that address and gave him a piece of my mind. Now he knows that their actions are causing their department embarrassment overseas too. Dan, your flying monkeys attack from abroad too.

This pisses me off so so much. I'm a strong feminist and using the law to slut shame, sexually humiliate someone and RUIN THEIR LIFE disgusts me to no end! I rarely write angry emails, but this just crosses the line in my books!
Posted by UtenaTenjou on July 10, 2014 at 5:07 AM · Report this
80
So, cops are planning to forcibly strip and photograph a kid's erection. How is this not sexual assault, and WTH is wrong with all the adults involved?!
Posted by SpaceGirl on July 10, 2014 at 6:47 AM · Report this
81
Just popped in to make sure, and yup, people in here are still as confused as ever as to what the definition of "pornography" is.

Carry on, blind followers of the Church of Savage, carry on.
Posted by treehugger on July 10, 2014 at 7:16 AM · Report this
82 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
83
Are these crackpots remnants of Crazy Ken Cuccinelli's stint as VA AG? Did Crazy Ken pack these office with crazyclones of himself. The people of Virginia got rid of Ken, now can they do the same with these lunatics?

Just asking'
Posted by dbillings on July 10, 2014 at 8:24 AM · Report this
84
Are these crackpots remnants of Crazy Ken Cuccinelli's stint as VA AG? Did the Cooch pack these offices with christocrazies like himself. The people of Virginia exorcised the Cooch, now can they do the same for these lunatics?

Just askin'
Posted by dbillings on July 10, 2014 at 8:34 AM · Report this
85
http://www.martindale.com/Claiborne-T-Ri…

If I were the College of William and Mary's law school, I'd disown him.
Posted by No Relation To THAT Richardson on July 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM · Report this
86
We should be agitating for the girl to be arrested too, gender equality and all that.
Posted by high and bi on July 10, 2014 at 9:46 AM · Report this
Bonefish 87
78: After criticizing my grammar (with no specifics, of course), it's hilarious to watch you follow that up with grammar mistakes of your own. Extra punctuation, lacking punctuation, capital letters where there shouldn't be, lowercase letters at the beginnings of sentences, mixing singular nouns with plural linking verbs; this is awful. F!

And the content: trying to paint someone as a hypocrite based on the mere existence of words he didn't actually use. F minus!
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on July 10, 2014 at 9:47 AM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 88
@78: With regard to the loophole:
Aspiring child pornographers could avoid being charged with producing child pornography simply by convincing the KIDS to produce it THEMSELVES. Do you understand how that is a bad idea?
Also, you're an idiot.
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on July 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM · Report this
Bonefish 89
81: I know you're a free-thinking "rebel" who stands way above us Savage Sheeple and all, but you REALLY need to re-read this thread if you think we all literally believe that the cops plan to jerk off to these pictures later.

You can't think of ANY other objection we may have to this fucking clown show?
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on July 10, 2014 at 10:01 AM · Report this
90
@12, that was a good thought, though the teen is white per this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
Posted by PullmanDanFan on July 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM · Report this
91
@12, that was a good thought, though the teen is white per this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-…
Posted by PullmanDanFan on July 10, 2014 at 10:37 AM · Report this
92
@90

Go check out @ManassasCityPD which shows a black teen as the "criminal".
Posted by caution&daring on July 10, 2014 at 11:11 AM · Report this
93
@88, it doesn't seem obvious to you that any such law would include a clause prohibiting adults from coercing such photographs? I mean, isn't this the most obviously phony, never-gonna-happen loophole that ever didn't exist?
Posted by beef rallard on July 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM · Report this
94
@93 Bad legislation gets proposed quite often, even by full time legislators with legal training.

To suggest that everything was obviously considered is excessively optimistic, especially when someone proposes "simple" fixes to complicated issues.
Posted by A Case For Jury Nullification Russian Roulette on July 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM · Report this
venomlash 95
@93: My point is that it's a lot harder to prove that the adult was coercing the kid to take the pictures than to prove he was simply involved. If the whole act is illegal, you can charge the adult for participating in the production; if it's just the coercion that's against the law, you need to prove that as well.

@94: The fact that in several states gay sex is technically illegal but necrophilia or bestiality is legal is testament to that. My favorite example, though, is the apocryphal story of an anti-prostitution ordinance being modified to clarify that, yes, you're not allowed to turn tricks in a hovercraft either.
Posted by venomlash on July 10, 2014 at 3:22 PM · Report this
96
When will the insanity END?
Posted by auntie grizelda on July 10, 2014 at 5:48 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 97
@88
Like I said, ONLY KIDS would be exempt from making OR POSSESSING child porn. That's what I said, "send and receive."
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 11, 2014 at 12:34 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 98
@88
I love how you can't read and comprehend what I'm typing, as is clearly demonstrated by your not understanding what I, and the DA I linked to but you ignored, were saying. Despite this, you call me an "idiot". My reply:
http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i59/5/9/16/fra…
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 11, 2014 at 12:36 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 99
@87
You said "firstly." What the fuck is that? That's something a toddler would say. A simple "first" would suffice. So there, enjoy your example of your appalling grammar. Also, on the internet, capitalized letters are commonly accepted to represent yelling. Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11739…
I suppose you may this error because your parents don't allow you on the internet often. Oh, and I never accused you of using the terms "teabagger" and "Paultard." I was only asking you a hypothetical question to which you provided no answer.
You sir are clearly a prime example of an epic fail.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 11, 2014 at 12:42 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 100
@95
Which is why, as I said, over and over, adults SHOULD be charged with child porn if they have images of the kind. However, if a child themselves sends or receives said images, that is a different matter entirely.
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM · Report this
venomlash 101
@97: A blanket exemption gives too much leeway if you ask me. Someone accused of producing child pornography could argue, as a legal defense, that the kid took the pictures himself, making their production legal, and get off on a lesser charge of possession rather than being convicted of being an accomplice to the (otherwise-illegal) production. The law should recommend prosecutorial discretion with regard to charging minors with producing porn of themselves, but a blanket exemption is too much.

@98: Please, tell me where you linked to a DA. Do you mean an Attorney General in Australia, a whole different country with a substantially-different legal system? And do you refer to a proposed law that, rather than focusing on child pornography, was enacted against what we call "revenge porn"? And do you refer to a local social worker, not an AG or DA, in saying that the proposed law would protect children from being charged with child pornography offenses related to pictures they themselves shared? If so, please explain why that matters.
As for a lack of comprehension, you are one to talk! I am not arguing for throwing kids in prison for taking pictures of their swimsuit areas, insofar as being grounded does not constitute imprisonment. I AM arguing against legalizing the production of such images outright, since it opens the door for child abusers to avoid stricter punishment, able to get off with charges only of possession rather than production as well.
This is something that most people in the thread seem capable of understanding but of which you remain staunchly ignorant. It may come as some surprise to you, as a libertarian and therefore an idealist, but the real world is (figuratively) full of murkiness and confusion, and the road (again, a figurative one given its destinations) to Belial and Gehenna is commonly paved with good intentions and traveled upon by well-meaning fools such as yourself.

@99: I shall correct your grammar, usage, and mechanics somewhat.
1. Unless some punctuation is part of the quotation, put the punctuation outside of the quotation marks.
2. You wrote "may" when you presumably meant "made".
3. The appositive "sir" should be offset with commas.
You also accused Bonefish of claiming that you had falsely accused him of using the terms "Paultard" or "Teabagger". I believe this spat is insignificant in comparison to your ridiculous claim that you possess pictures of Bonefish's mother (implied to be) in congress with a large dog. As far as childish language goes, I believe that such a claim better deserves the label than the use of "firstly" rather than "first".
Do you understand how such wild statements reduce your already-shaky credibility?
More...
Posted by venomlash on July 11, 2014 at 1:39 PM · Report this
Lissa 102
@101: You're like a great big kitty playing with its food. :)
Posted by Lissa on July 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 103

@101

As I said, over and over again, IF AN ADULT HAS KIDDY PORN, HE OR SHE SHOULD GO TO JAIL NO MATTER WHO MADE IT HOW! Why is that so hard to understand? But if a child has images of themselves or other children, then said child should not go to jail.

As for my link to a DA in Australia, the pro-higher minimum wage people always bring up the Australian minimum wage, so why can't I bring up other relevant foreign laws and how they should be used as an example?

As for my grammar: a type-o is not poor grammar, it is an error. Those are two different subjects.
The word "sir" is beholden to the same rules of punctuation as any other pronoun.
And I NEVER accused anyone of calling anyone a "teabagger" or "Paultard." What I said was, and I will use a direct quote: "Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you."
When in the proceeding passage did I accuse anyone of using those terms? I only made it clear that those terms are used in casual conversation and never accused any one person of saying anything. When I said "groups that you disagree with" I did not say "you use against groups you disagree with." No one without a reading comprehension problem would have made that assumption.
Or, to make it as clear as I can, I will rephrase.
"Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Do you also object to people on the internet using those term? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you."
Do you understand now why I'm clearly dominating this debate?
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 12, 2014 at 12:29 AM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 104
@102
No, more like that big monster in The Avengers trying to devour Tony Stark. It was destroyed, as were the "arguments" of my opponents.

Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 12, 2014 at 12:31 AM · Report this
Lissa 105
Oh. Mygod.

You think you're Tony Stark.
You think you're Tony Stark.
You think you "destroyed" Venomlash. Venomlash!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
::pause for breath::
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

You're priceless. Don't ever change.
Posted by Lissa on July 12, 2014 at 1:34 PM · Report this
106
I want to know these kids' races. I absolutely want to know. How do we find out?
Posted by idaho on July 12, 2014 at 2:11 PM · Report this
venomlash 107
@103: You advocate for legalizing the production of child pornography by said child, but not its possession by other parties. If you had actually read my post, you would understand that this could allow people MAKING child pornography to avoid the more serious charge of actually making the stuff and claim that it simply came into their possession after it was legally made, thus being punished only for the lesser charge of possession.
I am not in favor of prosecuting kids for sending pictures of their junk to their boyfriends or girlfriends, but it is important that the production of such images remain technically illegal for the reasons documented above. This is where prosecutorial discretion comes into play.

With regard to the Australian issue, you're barking up the wrong tree. One, your claim that minimum-wage proponents "always" refer to Australia as an example is untrue by a simple counterexample (don't say things like "never" or "always" or "every one of" or "none of" if you can avoid it), and two, it is a prime example of the fallacy known as tu quoque. Three, the bill is intended to criminalize revenge porn, not decriminalize the production of underage nude pictures by their subjects. Four, it is a PROPOSED LAW, NOT AN ENACTED LAW.

Moving on to our little discussion of grammar, mechanics, and usage:
The term you mean to use is "typo", a contraction of "typographical error", which is not correctly rendered as "type-o". The (accidental) use of "may" rather than "made" certainly counts as an error in usage. The word "sir" is in fact a noun, not a pronoun.
I never accused you of accusing anyone of calling anyone a "Paultard" or "Teabagger". I stated that you had claimed that Bonefish had claimed that you had falsely accused him of calling someone a "Paultard" or a "Teabagger". Reading comprehension is important, especially in the case of such nested terms!

Finally, if you feel the need to talk about how you're "clearly dominating this debate", you're probably not doing so well. I rarely‡ make such claims, based on the reasoning that if I'm making a better showing than my opponent, there is no need to say so; that judgment is left to the reader. If my opponent is a thinking being, he will either be convinced or unconvinced depending entirely on the quality of my argument and depending not at all on any claim of victory. If my opponent is ignorant and opinionated, he will refuse to be convinced of anything even if Elijah of Tishbe should descend with a divine writ of such, and so there is no use either in telling him that I have won the argument. To the best of my estimation, you are compensating for something.

I shall leave you with this:
You are fond of accusing others of argumentum ad hominem and the use of strawmen. Your reading comprehension is not terribly good; you have a tendency to skim a post and immediately respond to what you sort of think it is saying rather than what it is actually saying (videlicet the above unpleasantness over who said what about "Teabaggers" and "Paultards"). Such woeful misinterpretation of others' writings is tantamount to deliberately making a strawman argument.

‡The last time I did so on SLOG was probably when I kept showing fairly.unbalanced the math behind the correlation to gun ownership rate and suicide rate by American state and a graph to make things a little clearer, and he kept denying the evidence right in front of his face and insisting that I couldn't address the issues of Japan or England despite the fact that I had done so about thirty posts previously.
More...
Posted by venomlash on July 12, 2014 at 5:35 PM · Report this
collectivism_sucks 108
@107

Let me try to use smaller words this time so it's easier to understand:
A teenager sends their boyfriend or girlfriend a nude photo of themselves. As it stands now, they are both committing a crime. I think they should not be committing a crime and that child porn laws should apply to adults, not children.
If an adult has child porn, no matter how they obtained it, would be a crime. If a child made an illegal image that an adult has, it doesn't matter. Adult possession of child porn, no matter how it came about, would have the same penalty. I'm only talking about treating minors differently, which we already do with juvenile courts.

In other words, child porn, possession and manufacture, should be treated as a juvenile offense by a juvenile and only be a felony if an adult commits the crime, the where and how they got the child porn being irrelevant.

As for people claiming it was made legally...oh yes, so they will manage to convince a court that a child broke into their home, took their camera, and took nude photos of themselves in said perverts home just to send to a friend but said pervert didn't delete it from their camera.
And yes, police can trace a photo to an individual digital camera: http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl…
And the penalty for possession of child pornography is strong enough that even in the unlikely event that your absurd scenario did work as a defense, said pervert would still go to jail: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/do…

Even for someone with reading comprehension of your level should be able to understand that.
Second, sir is indeed a pronoun. Source: http://new.oberlin.edu/dotAsset/2012173.…

And yes, I'm dominating, as my positions usually do. It is just that in the parallel universe of Seattle, any logical idea (read, not-liberal) is laughed at.

Oh, and when on this thread did I accuse anyone of using an argumentum ad hominem? And why is it that I'm the only one providing external links to third party sites to back up my claims? Oh yes: because my claims are based on reality, while the claims of others are based on liberal daydreams. I can find links to back up reality, but no one can find a link to back up their daydreams.

I will leave you with this:
When I was perhaps ten I mentioned to some other children that some scientists think wormholes may exist in space. They laughed, proclaiming there are no worms in space. I tried to explain that wormhole was simply the name scientists give to the phenomenon of a tear in the fabric of space and time, but they wouldn't hear it. I was considered the "dumb kid" because I lost the popular vote. Of course, I was right. It was simply impossible to argue with children who didn't know any better.
We libertarians often have the same problems: our opponents are like children and simply not as intelligent as we are. Hence, any argument ends in a true win for us, but a consensus loss do to the fact that we are outnumbered by those with less intelligence.

Oh, and before you cry foul over my stating that libertarians are smarter: http://www.triplenine.org/poll/press.htm
More...
Posted by collectivism_sucks on July 12, 2014 at 8:32 PM · Report this
ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ 109
@108: YES, YES, YES, WE AGREE THAT POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY SHOULD BE A CRIME. WE HAVE BEATEN THIS TO DEATH AND BACK TO LIFE AGAIN. YOU CAN STOP REFLEXIVELY POSTING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
If you read what I have written exactly three million times now (the "exactly" is a joke), the situation I pose is one in which a sexual predator convinces a minor to produce pornographic images. If the production of such images is legal if it is done by their subject, an accused adult could claim that while they knew the minor, they had nothing to do with the actual production of the images.
Your claim that the punishment for simple possession is a harsh enough deterrent falls flat; if that is the case, why do we even punish the production of such materials, rather than simply punishing the possession?

As for the discussion of pronouns, you have the sort of figurative egg on your face that must have come from an elephant bird. The source you produced to support your claim that "sir" is a pronoun simply uses "sir" as a guide to the pronunciation of certain gender-neutral pronouns! It says nothing about the word "sir" itself, and "sir" is actually a noun! Please explain why, if you know what you are talking about and are capable of reading, parsing, and understanding written material, why you would write something so colossally foolish!

My opinion of your reading comprehension falls further as I read more of your latest post. I did not claim that you accused anyone in this thread of argumentum ad hominem, but rather that you are known for making such accusations and have a history of doing so. Do you dispute this?

Posting links to third-party sources earns you no credit unless those sources actually demonstrate, support, or otherwise advance your arguments. So far in this thread you have posted:
-an article about a proposed law in Australia that doesn't give any details about the law, much less any that would put it in line with your recommendations on the issue
-a picture of Buzz and Woody with a snide caption and a watermark
-a New Republic article about how POSTING IN ALL CAPS DENOTES YELLING
-a Scientific American article about a new way to potentially in the future trace pictures back to the digital cameras that took them
-a write-up of legislative action intended to provide stricter penalties for child pornography offenses
-a guide to gender-neutral pronouns which you recklessly misinterpreted as providing support to your erroneous claim
Posting a link doesn't make your argument right in and of itself.

You claim that you are smarter than the rest of us, correct? I do not claim to know the level of your intelligence, but I am curious to learn the extent of your education, which is more easily measured. (I personally hold a bachelors degree with two majors in the hard sciences from one of the finest universities in the world, if you are similarly curious. You do not spend years of your life studying the sciences without learning how to think critically, trust me.)
At this point, however, I am hesitant to believe that you are all that intelligent; you have claimed repeatedly that government regulation of industry inherently benefits big business at the expense of the working man, that minimum-wage laws are inherently racist, and that it benefits all to allow families to opt out of fire-department coverage. Those positions are not ones supported by fact! Either you are unintelligent, you are misinformed, or you are simply closed-minded, or possibly some combination of the three.

Here is a prime example of your lack of intellectual competence:
You claim that libertarians are smarter than liberals based on the results of a poll. A society of approximately 1200 highly-intelligent people, self-selected, had its American membership of approximately 350 polled on certain issues. 57 responses were gathered, and the responses tended to align with libertarian ideology.
Right off the bat, this is not a proper sampling of, well, ANYTHING. It's not a proper sample of the population as a whole because it excludes people of below-exceptional intelligence. It's not a proper sample of highly-intelligent persons either because its membership is entirely self-selected; it is doubtless that there are other persons in the world who meet the basic criteria for membership but have no interest in applying. Nor is it a remotely proper sampling of libertarians, for reasons similar to the above. Additionally, n=57 is a horrendously small sample size for purposes of drawing conclusions about the population as a whole.
So allow me to lay things out in a way you might understand. Let us suppose that this group of 57 responses is indeed indicative of the attitudes of the super-intelligent, despite the above reasons why this is unlikely to be the case. Even assuming such, nothing is said of the politics of the less-intelligent! Libertarians could potentially be composed of a few highly-intelligent persons and a great many unintelligent persons, giving them an astonishingly-low average intelligence.

I eagerly await your explanation as to why, if you are so smart, you believe that "sir" is a pronoun based on this file. An intelligent and literate being should be able to truly make sense of the written word rather than simply snatch a few characters here and there for purposes of inflating his own ego.
More...
Posted by ɥsɐןɯouǝʌ on July 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM · Report this
110
@Collectivism_sucks, you are an idiot. I've met your type in real time even have politely friendly relationships with a few of them but the bitterness and delusional sophomoric thought process isolates them. Its just sad.

I've no doubt you have a have a few classes beyond High School under your belt but that does not change the fact that you've had your ass handed to you in this thread and don't realize it. That is just sad.

You're probably not a bad guy to have a beer with and shoot some pool, so long as no serious topic comes up. But your mind is untrained to swim in the waters your trying to swim in. In short you are the definition of the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on July 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM · Report this
111
@107 - Actually, I don't think it would ever be relevant in a real case. Lets say you have an adult who possesses child pornography. If the law penalizes people (of any age) who produce child pornography more harshly than those who simply posess it, the prosecutors will have to prove that the adult in question was somehow involved in the production. Likewise, if production was only illegal for people over 18, if prosecutors found an adult in possession of child pornography, they would be able to charge them with production only if they could prove that the adult was somehow involved in the production. Making it legal for minors to take sexually explicit photos of themselves would not change anything. In either instance the posessor would be free to argue they were merely a recipient and the prosecutors would have to prove otherwise if they wanted to convict for production as well as possession.
Posted by brent.b on July 29, 2014 at 12:54 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy