[DamienCasanova]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/10/1...-sex-tape/
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/10/1...-sex-tape/

"SHINGLE SPRINGS (CBS13) – An underage sex tape investigation has led to the arrests of two teen boys.

Investigators say the alleged video involves three teenagers at Ponderosa High School and a cell phone camera.

El Dorado County sheriff’s investigators say the video shows a teen boy and girl, both minors, engaging in sex acts. Another boy, also a minor, used a cell phone to film it.

It’s still unclear if the act happened on or off campus and whether the act was consensual. For now, investigators will only confirm that the two boys were booked at juvenile hall, accused of distributing child porn and sexually exploiting a child.

The girl is not in trouble.

Legal experts tell CBS13 the girl is going to be seen as a victim even if she’s a willing participant because, according to investigators, disseminating child porn plays a big factor."

----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure she could parlay that into a career at the strip club though

[Veloce]

Meh, sucks for them but they got off easy. Sounds like they won't be tried as an adult.

Better they learn this early in life what they have to look forward to. They didn't get expelled from college, didn't get fired from a job, didn't get divorce raped or forced to pay alimony.

I wonder if they'll have to register as a sex offender?

[Captainstabbin]

"disseminating child porn plays a big factor"

They're in trouble for the distribution, not the production? Guess the girl didn't agree to have the video released.

[tynamite]

Child porn laws for consenting children in america are retarded. One time a 17 year old child got charged with producing child porn for sending a child a nude picture. Who is being raped or coerced here? He sent it to his girlfriend. You can't make this shit up. Oh wait, you can! The recipient was a female and the sender was a male.

Quote:

A 17-year-old Virginia boy allegedly sexted a video of his erect peen to his 15-year-old girlfriend and is facing felony charges of possessing and manufacturing child pornography as a result. Now, to prove the penis in the video is his, investigators reportedly want to force the boy to go to the hospital, inject him with a drug that would produce an erection, and snap more photos.

Yes, that’s right—to convict a 17-year-old boy of making a video that featured his penis, police now want to forcibly induce an erection and take pictures of his penis so they can throw him in a cage for years and label him a sex offender for life.

Even though his 15-year-old girlfriend appears to have started the ball rolling by sexting photos of herself to him last winter, she’s not being charged with manufacturing kiddie porn. Her mother, outraged by the video he sent her daughter, is the one who initially complained to police.

The 17-year-old boy was arrested and sent to juvenile jail in June, where officials allegedly snapped photos of his dick against his will. Apparently those photos weren’t a convincing enough match, because according to his defense lawyer, prosecutors now seek to obtain a search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis.” His lawyer says that someone from the prosecution told her,
“We just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

http://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/...-more-pics

Who in the relationship is the sex offender here, and who is the paedophile taking photos of children without their consent?

So basically, when a child sends another child a nude on snapchat, they're breaking the law? Who is being wronged here? Oh I forgot. Women can't be a rapist. Only women can't consent to sex when they're drunk. Even in British law, it's technically impossible for a woman to rape a man.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-19-2015 12:30 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Meh, sucks for them but they got off easy. Sounds like they won't be tried as an adult.

Better they learn this early in life what they have to look forward to. They didn't get expelled from college, didn't get fired from a job, didn't get divorce raped or forced to pay alimony.

I wonder if they'll have to register as a sex offender?

agreed. My Dad scared the shit out of us about getting a girl pregnant when we were teenagers...I think I'll scare the shit out of my son with child porn laws and false rape stories.

I'll tell him "Being with a woman, is like sleeping with a tiger in your own bed...except the tigers never got Mike Tyson...a woman did"

[WanderingSoul]

What shitty reporting (as usual). What actually happened? They make no mention at all if these boys actually posted or sent the videos to anyone. Are they being charged solely by taking the video? Or did they actually send the video to people or post it online?

Did the boy having sex with the girl send the video to people? Or did he only have sex with the girl while being video taped? If he didn't send the video, how can he be at fault while the girl is not?

If the boys both send this video to people, I understand the charges, though I think in this day and age that is going to happen ALL OF THE TIME, so some laws need to be changed.

If a minor sends a dick pic, is that a crime? If a minor sends a tit shot? is that a crime? If a minor sends a nude photo to an adult, is that adult committing a crime by simply receiving it? Is the minor committing a crime for SENDING "child porn"?

These are all somewhat rhetorical. We all know the answer is "YES!....if it is a male" and "NO!....it it is a female"

Off topic but I find it strange that they interviewed so many black women in this. Shingle Springs is a very small town that is literally almost 90%. I have friends that went to Ponderosa High. I bet they didn't even go to Shingle Springs, they just interviewed random people around Sacramento.

[MrLemon]

If you're the parent of an average horny/stupid teenage boy who is doing any sex play that is biologically normal for boys that age...such as

Playing doctor
showing their weinies to each other
looking at porn
trying to feel up girls in the school
having a girlfriend
taking videos of any of the above

Then the local prosecutors WILL at the drop of a hat, charge your boy (age 10-15) with crimes that were originally designed for hardened sex criminals and gangsters.

There is NO defense. You will NOT get a trial (97% of such prosecutions are won without a trial, simply because prosecutors have Gestapo-like powers in the USA.)

As a parent, you will be stripped of your house, your retirement plan, every penny you have in order to pay legal fees that will make you gasp with horror when you see them.

Your otherwise totally normal boy, who might not have fought a fight in his life, will be sent to a juvenile hall where he WILL be beaten into a coma by the local gang kids. It will destroy his life and your family forever. No, he will not "be all right". He will never be all right every again. If charged with a Felony he will never get a job, never have an apartment, and can never get a passport.

None of this will get into the newspaper. There will be no outrage by other parents, because the prosecutor can say "these are minors" and this is used to create a press blackout...the goal of this is to give the prosecutors unlimited powers.

Prosecutors go after kids FIRST because kids and parents are weak in society and unable to defend themselves well. So going after kids and putting kids in jail is an easy way to boost their career as a prosecutor and get on the fast-track to judge in a few years.

For those of you who are American citizens, remember:
-- There is no right to a free trial. We are literally and factually, a police state.
-- you live in a society that aggressively targets children for jail simply because, children are an easy "win" for prosecutors.

Completely evil? Yep.

[Jvramerys]

(10-19-2015 02:06 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

There is NO defense. You will NOT get a trial (97% of such prosecutions are won without a trial, simply because prosecutors have Gestapo-like powers in the USA.)

So a minor don't have a right to have a lawyer? How is that even possible, isn't it against the constitution? Do you have more info about this? I'm not doubting you but it seems surreal.

[Akwesi]

(10-19-2015 03:41 PM)Jvramerys Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 02:06 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

There is NO defense. You will NOT get a trial (97% of such prosecutions are won without a trial, simply because prosecutors have Gestapo-like powers in the USA.)

So a minor don't have a right to have a lawyer? How is that even possible, isn't it against the constitution? Do you have more info about this? I'm not doubting you but it seems surreal.

I think what he means is, defendants have rights, but nevertheless the way the system works 90 percent plus never go to trial. This is because you will typically be forced to take whatever deal they offer you or risk going to jail almost indefinitely, if you are an adult at least. They will tell you, you have to take one year suspended with all kinds of bogus anger management, rehab, counseling, community service bullshit or we'll slap you with five or ten years in fucking hardcore prison for a minor offense, just because we can (and don't think the judge and jury are about to be "soft on crime"). So, if you don't have some kind of superhero lawyer, you'd better get with the program or put your life on the line because you have "rights." If everyone actually started having trials and getting convictions that fully reflect all the draconian laws on the books the criminal justice system in the U. S. would collapse in a matter of weeks.

[WanderingSoul]

Akwesi is on point.

My friend got charged for felony assault with a deadly weapon for allegedly running someone over with his truck (not even remotely close to what happened) and was already a convicted felon for selling dime bags when he was 18.

They basically told him accept public fighting and illegal lane change (even though the police report stated someone else was driving) and get off with probation, or face YEARS in prison. His public defender told him there's a 95% chance they beat the charge no problem, but a 5% chance they lose and my friend would be facing multiple years in prison with a prior drug felony, and now a violent felony, so the prison they sent him to probably wouldn't be so nice.

Instead of playing Russian roulette, my friend took the horseshit deal.

US court system is a fucking joke. You only have as much rights as you can pay for.

[MrLemon]

(10-19-2015 04:30 PM)Akwesi Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 03:41 PM)Jvramerys Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 02:06 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

There is NO defense. You will NOT get a trial (97% of such prosecutions are won without a trial, simply because prosecutors have Gestapo-like powers in the USA.)

So a minor don't have a right to have a lawyer? How is that even possible, isn't it against the constitution? Do you have more info about this? I'm not doubting you but it seems surreal.

I think what he means is, defendants have rights, but nevertheless the way the system works 90 percent plus never go to trial. This is because you will typically be forced to take whatever deal they offer you or risk going to jail almost indefinitely, if you are an adult at least. They will tell you, you have to take one year suspended with all kinds of bogus anger management, rehab, counseling, community service bullshit or we'll slap you with five or ten years in fucking hardcore prison for a minor offense, just because we can (and don't think the judge and jury are about to be "soft on crime"). So, if you don't have some kind of superhero lawyer, you'd better get with the program or put your life on the line because you have "rights." If everyone actually started having trials and getting convictions that fully reflect all the draconian laws on the books the criminal justice system in the U. S. would collapse in a matter of weeks.

Correct. In theory you have rights. In reality, such rights are long gone. Prosecutors are so powerful that they can crush you instantly.

Do kids have a "right" to a lawyer? Yes, but it takes years and years (held in jail) to get one, and then that lawyer will be so incompetent and rushed, so utterly uncaring, that the kid will be convicted instantly.

Judges LOVE convicting 13 year old boys. They literally are masturbating under their robes while they watch this poor little teen boy cry in horror facing a life of misery, torture, and dishonor, simply because, what, he tried to kiss the 11 year old girl next door.

Teenage boys used to be shipped off to be slaughtered in the battlefield. Now we have no battlefields to send them to, so as a culture we have come up with these alternatives.

There is a deep human need to destroy teen boys. Older men and male institutions formerly kept this need in check. Now a Feminist controlled society, with older men blocked from power, the hatred for teen boys is growing virally, exponentially.

[Thoroughbred]

(10-19-2015 05:25 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

There is a deep human need to destroy teen boys.

Any more insight on this MrLemon or anyone else?

[Suits]

Plea deals should be outlawed.

They've become nothing more than an opportunity for prosecutors to fluff up their conviction records. Because, you know they all want a judgeship.

[Merenguero]

(10-19-2015 06:51 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Plea deals should be outlawed.

They've become nothing more than an opportunity for prosecutors to fluff up their conviction records. Because, you know they all want a judgeship.

There's not enough time in the day to try everything and many, or even, most lawyers aren't competent enough to try cases (I don't want to start a big controversy with that comment, but it is my true opinion). In criminal cases, I push everything to trial unless I'm really, really screwed, but for every person like me there are several hundred who are in a hurry to enter into a plea deal in every case.

[WanderingSoul]

(10-19-2015 07:17 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 06:51 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Plea deals should be outlawed.

They've become nothing more than an opportunity for prosecutors to fluff up their conviction records. Because, you know they all want a judgeship.

There's not enough time in the day to try everything and many, or even, most lawyers aren't competent enough to try cases (I don't want to start a big controversy with that comment, but it is my true opinion). In criminal cases, I push everything to trial unless I'm really, really screwed, but for every person like me there are several hundred who are in a hurry to enter into a plea deal in every case.

And a lot of people want the plea deal as well because they can't possibly afford a competent attorney, especially if it goes to trial. You're looking at thousands of dollars, possibly tens or hundreds of thousands.

My friend who got busted when he was 18 had to pay several grand for his attorney, and the attorney would require several more thousand if it went to trial. And this is in a small town with a low cost of living. And after paying several thousand STILL got hit with a felony drug conviction for literally having less than an ounce of weed, but with scales and extra bags so he got hit with manufacturing I believe it was.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the more money you have, the longer you can drag out a case, and the more likely you are to get a good deal or get off. If you don't have the money for it you're fucked.

[Merenguero]

(10-19-2015 07:33 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 07:17 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 06:51 PM)Suits Wrote:  

Plea deals should be outlawed.

They've become nothing more than an opportunity for prosecutors to fluff up their conviction records. Because, you know they all want a judgeship.

There's not enough time in the day to try everything and many, or even, most lawyers aren't competent enough to try cases (I don't want to start a big controversy with that comment, but it is my true opinion). In criminal cases, I push everything to trial unless I'm really, really screwed, but for every person like me there are several hundred who are in a hurry to enter into a plea deal in every case.

And a lot of people want the plea deal as well because they can't possibly afford a competent attorney, especially if it goes to trial. You're looking at thousands of dollars, possibly tens or hundreds of thousands.

My friend who got busted when he was 18 had to pay several grand for his attorney, and the attorney would require several more thousand if it went to trial. And this is in a small town with a low cost of living. And after paying several thousand STILL got hit with a felony drug conviction for literally having less than an ounce of weed, but with scales and extra bags so he got hit with manufacturing I believe it was.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me the more money you have, the longer you can drag out a case, and the more likely you are to get a good deal or get off. If you don't have the money for it you're fucked.

There is usually, but not always, a direct relationship between the amount of money you pay to a lawyer and the results that you obtain. That being said, if a lawyer decides to enter into an agreement with a client in which the client will have to pay more if the case goes to trial, the lawyer is just setting himself up for ethics problems, possible postconviction proceedings, and a million headaches. A client not paying or not paying a certain amount of money is never a valid excuse for not doing work. If there is an issue of whether a lawyer is competent in an ethics and/or malpractice proceeding, the worst defense that a lawyer could possibly have is that the client didn't pay him. After years of doing this, I have come to the conclusion that all that works, both for the client and me, are flat fees. Sometimes I charge a high flat fee and the case is very easy and sometimes I charge a low fee and the case is extremely complicated. It works both ways. I have a case going right now which is set for at least a five-day jury trial and if I told people what I charged the client, I really don't think they would believe me. In a bad way.

[Tex Cruise]

(10-19-2015 01:29 PM)RioNomad Wrote:  

If a minor sends a tit shot? is that a crime? If a minor sends a nude photo...

These are all somewhat rhetorical. We all know the answer is "YES!....if it is a male" and "NO!....it it is a female"

I remember hearing a news story on the radio some time ago about a teenage girl charged with producing and disseminating child pornography - of herself. I'm not sure how it panned out in the end, but from memory the media outrage was about her being classified as a registered sex offender, and not the actual charges. I'd try to find a link, but the required search words are not something I want in my browser history.

[Fast Eddie]

(10-19-2015 01:01 PM)tynamite Wrote:  

Child porn laws for consenting children in america are retarded. One time a 17 year old child got charged with producing child porn for sending a child a nude picture. Who is being raped or coerced here? He sent it to his girlfriend. You can't make this shit up. Oh wait, you can! The recipient was a female and the sender was a male.

Quote:

A 17-year-old Virginia boy allegedly sexted a video of his erect peen to his 15-year-old girlfriend and is facing felony charges of possessing and manufacturing child pornography as a result. Now, to prove the penis in the video is his, investigators reportedly want to force the boy to go to the hospital, inject him with a drug that would produce an erection, and snap more photos.

Yes, that’s right—to convict a 17-year-old boy of making a video that featured his penis, police now want to forcibly induce an erection and take pictures of his penis so they can throw him in a cage for years and label him a sex offender for life.

Even though his 15-year-old girlfriend appears to have started the ball rolling by sexting photos of herself to him last winter, she’s not being charged with manufacturing kiddie porn. Her mother, outraged by the video he sent her daughter, is the one who initially complained to police.

The 17-year-old boy was arrested and sent to juvenile jail in June, where officials allegedly snapped photos of his dick against his will. Apparently those photos weren’t a convincing enough match, because according to his defense lawyer, prosecutors now seek to obtain a search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis.” His lawyer says that someone from the prosecution told her,
“We just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

http://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2014/...-more-pics

Who in the relationship is the sex offender here, and who is the paedophile taking photos of children without their consent?

So basically, when a child sends another child a nude on snapchat, they're breaking the law? Who is being wronged here? Oh I forgot. Women can't be a rapist. Only women can't consent to sex when they're drunk. Even in British law, it's technically impossible for a woman to rape a man.

So let me get this straight..the teenager in this case is being charged with manufacturing and possessing child porn..which is a picture of his own penis? So if you're under the age of 18 and you take a picture of your own genitals, for whatever reason, you've just committed a crime and will serve years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender list if "caught?"

But let's take this further. If an adult possesses photos of a minor's genitals, that adult is a sex offender. If a minor has photos of his own genitals, that minor is likewise a sex offender. No distinction is being made on whether the photos in question are of the person possessing them. Only the age of the subject matters. Now, most people would agree that looking at photos of minors, while pedophilia, is nowhere near as bad as looking at naked minors in person. So in effect, if age is the only factor and no distinction is being made based on whether an action is carried out by oneself or not, isn't looking at your own junk while a minor an even worse crime than merely taking and looking at a photo of said junk?

This is some horrific shit, in other words. We have just set a precedent that the government can imprison you for taking a picture of your own genitals. This is insane. Once you cross the boundary into insanity, everything else can follow. Is it any less insane for the government to arbitrarily imprison kids merely for having genitals while "underage," when they have already set the precedent that they can imprison kids for possessing photos of those very same genitals? And what about the lunatic push to criminalize not merely normal sex, but even the "positive consent" sex that we were complaining about just last year, as not rigorously consenting enough? Will they soon seek to legislate and enforce how often and at what times we can eat and take a shit?

I don't see this as a male vs female issue. Sure, they are using the feminist angle as justification to push this madness forward. But ultimately the goal is to make us all into literal slaves. If they can teach you to accept that your son is going to prison for taking a photo of his own dick, I'd say accepting that you have to pick cotton under penalty of the whip is either already in the rear-view mirror or soon to appear there.

[GlobalMan]

My Parisian girlfriend once told me how high schools there give out condoms to the kids. Makes sense to me. I get tired of the ultra protectionism of children and sexuality here in the U.S.

[Jukes]

(10-19-2015 06:49 PM)Ollave Wrote:  

(10-19-2015 05:25 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

There is a deep human need to destroy teen boys.

Any more insight on this MrLemon or anyone else?

Second on this one.

[MrLemon]

It's important for college-age men to know that it's crucial to fight back, hard -- fight like it's life verses death -- against the Yes-means-Yes bullshit sex police on college campus.

As a college man you might feel you you can just keep your head down and ignore it all. But if you do that, you empower the man-haters...and once empowered, these people go to the high schools and the middle schools and go after your younger brothers and your nephews and the geeky kid next door.

Again, these fanatics want to put kids in jail. They get off on that thought.

Every time the fanatics win at the college level, they gain money and power, and they push younger and younger. They won't go after grown men. Grown men are far too legally savvy and have the ability to defend. The feminists are too cowardly to take that risk. They're going after helpless boys and parents, a group uniquely unable to defend itself.

The incarceration of boy children. That will be the legacy of the 4th wave feminism.

[debeguiled]

(10-20-2015 10:50 AM)MrLemon Wrote:  

Again, these fanatics want to put kids in jail. They get off on that thought.

These feminists and their enablers would have no power if it didn't serve some purpose for the elites.

A contraction is coming, a contraction of economies, a contraction of resources, and a contraction of freedoms.

The people in charge want to stay there, and the only way to do it is to get consent from the people. Not just enthusiastic consent, as the feminists call it.

They will take any sort of consent they can get. Silence is consent. Patient forbearance is consent. MGTOW is consent.

Even resistance is consent if it is flaccid, symbolic resistance.

Anyone with any experience in controlling large groups, indeed, even anyone who is a careful observer of human nature knows too, that there is no threat ever to the status quo from women themselves. They will do what everyone is doing.

Hence the meek German women, flip flopping from powerful independent women to obedient welcome committees to the strangers flooding into their country with plans to destroy it.

Only men will get mad. Only men will organize. Only men will take action.

When the Soviet army left explosives that looked like toys for Afghan children to pick up and blow off a limb, it wasn't because they were worried about the next generation of fierce women warriors.

So here's the bad news. One of the most effective forms of consent is:

CONFUSION.


If you don't know what is legal or what isn't, what is appropriate or what isn't, what is fair or what isn't, what a man is or what he isn't. When even obvious certainties are undermined, and you don't know if men and women are different, or whether it is some heinous thing assigned at birth, a shackle to be fought off, when you don't know what rape is or what it isn't, and a stray comment may mean the whole school now thinks you might show up with a gun some day, you are in a confused state all right.

Confusion is like a low level fear, and here's the deal about confusion:

Confused people don't act. They are passive. They are waiting to figure things out (being prudent in other words) before they do something.

This is the deeper significance of feminists attacking men constantly. It wouldn't happen without the blessing of the hands that hold the strings, and it shields the true nature of political control.

You don't need Orwell's symbolic boot smashing people's faces forever if you have a confused generation of men, and the longer you can keep them that way, confusion leads to demoralization, and then on the surface it just seems like they are a bunch of pussies who made their own choices.

And the Boomers and Gen Xers will trash them, and they will even start to trashtalk themselves. How many times have you heard a Millennial say:

"I hate my generation."

It is a tough situation, and it will not only take courage, but also ingenuity to turn it around. You can't go around with a placard and a bullhorn trumpeting your views on a college campus. You will just be ostrasized, and eventually expelled.

The starting point is to get in touch with your own intuition. At least know what you believe about a person or an idea, and ask yourself what you want to be doing instead. Find that place inside yourself of simple, quiet conviction, and then ask: What is the best strategy to achieve what I believe.

And fashion a life that you can believe in.

(But batten down the hatches, because you are entering a storm.)

[PrimeTime32]

Like I've always said I'd rather be rich and guilty than poor and innocent.

[Game_Started]

Quote:

“The parents have got to be heartbroken. I can’t imagine that being something a girl would want to be taped,” said Lynne Randolph, a grandmother.

Grandma is so out of touch with girls of today.

[mammal]

(10-20-2015 02:02 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

My Parisian girlfriend once told me how high schools there give out condoms to the kids. Makes sense to me. I get tired of the ultra protectionism of children and sexuality here in the U.S.

In many places in the US too. Likewise abortions without parental consent. Huge disconnect here: sex ok, naked pic=child porn.