Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

3D Gun Guy Charged with Sexual Assault of a Child

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Daniel75 View Post
    Last, they could press charges on her for child ****ography because they're not within 2 years of age of each other (that's when sexting with a minor is legal)
    Where are you getting this info? Has this changed? In the cases I’ve heard of at a local school district they asserted that charges could be filed.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by donpablo View Post
      Where are you getting this info? Has this changed? In the cases I’ve heard of at a local school district they asserted that charges could be filed.
      Scroll to the bottom, it's under (f)(3)

      Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD. (a) In this section:

      (1) "Sexual performance" means any performance or part thereof that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age.

      (2) "Sexual conduct" means sexual contact, actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals, the anus, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.

      (3) "Performance" means any play, motion picture, photograph, dance, or other visual representation that can be exhibited before an audience of one or more persons.

      (4) "Produce" with respect to a sexual performance includes any conduct that directly contributes to the creation or manufacture of the sexual performance.

      (5) "Promote" means to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmit, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, or advertise or to offer or agree to do any of the above.

      (6) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of sexual conduct that creates the appearance of actual sexual conduct and during which a person engaging in the conduct exhibits any uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.

      (7) "Deviate sexual intercourse" and "sexual contact" have the meanings assigned by Section 43.01.

      (b) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character and content thereof, he employs, authorizes, or induces a child younger than 18 years of age to engage in sexual conduct or a sexual performance. A parent or legal guardian or custodian of a child younger than 18 years of age commits an offense if he consents to the participation by the child in a sexual performance.

      (c) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if the victim is younger than 14 years of age at the time the offense is committed.

      (d) A person commits an offense if, knowing the character and content of the material, he produces, directs, or promotes a performance that includes sexual conduct by a child younger than 18 years of age.

      (e) An offense under Subsection (d) is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the victim is younger than 14 years of age at the time the offense is committed.

      (f) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that:

      (1) the defendant was the spouse of the child at the time of the offense;

      (2) the conduct was for a bona fide educational, medical, psychological, psychiatric, judicial, law enforcement, or legislative purpose; or

      (3) the defendant is not more than two years older than the child.

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
        To limit liability to the website, I am sure the terms of service probably requires that you represent yourself as 18 or older. The affidavit doesn't contain any information that he did or did not know her true age. Unfortunately, that isn't a defense.

        17 is legal in Texas but 30yo on a less than 22yo seems cringeworthy.

        Once you hit 30 the following formula applies

        1/2 your age + 7 years = youngest you are allowed to "date"
        Never really did the math but seems about right.

        Comment


          #79
          I wonder what David Hogg has to say about this ... I'm sure he was there.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by J-Fish View Post
            So, do you think Brett Kavanaugh sex scandal is legit too or just another made up scandal?

            They couldn't stop this guy from distributing his product one way or another.... Isn't it odd that he would take his eye off the "ball" for something like this? Just saying, maybe its a way to keep him from sharing his ideas around the world.
            Brett K. was set up because people like him... but any time the media throws out the word "child" or under aged sex...or the likes.. the person is auto guilty and needs to be hung.... And God forbid someone defend the guy facts or no facts or you're a pervert also!

            Just think how many times you hear "wait for facts to judge" or wait for jury to decide...But not on these threads. People get too emotional and let the media play them.

            Comment


              #81
              Two Different Laws

              Originally posted by Daniel75 View Post
              Scroll to the bottom, it's under (f)(3)

              Sec. 43.25. SEXUAL PERFORMANCE BY A CHILD.
              This law deals with consent/intercourse. That's a totally different law. The one regarding sending/receiving images is a child ****ography law.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by adam_p View Post
                Whatever she tells him her age is does not matter. All that matters is she was under 17. She could have told him she was 30 and showed him a fake ID. Still against the law.
                If I am 17 and go into a bar, tell them I am 30, show them a fake ID, and I get caught. Wouldnt I get in trouble? Not the bar. Why would it be different here?

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Chasing_bone View Post
                  I’m not saying that at all. Believe it or not but making someone disappear would be a lot less exposure than what is being said about this man being set up. I just refuse to believe that even our corrupt government would go as far as putting a child in danger in this manner.
                  ok

                  Have you seen or listened to politicians lately?

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Texastaxi View Post
                    I wonder what David Hogg has to say about this ... I'm sure he was there.
                    LOL

                    I heard this happened on the day Burt R. died. So maybe it doesn't count.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by batmaninja View Post
                      If I am 17 and go into a bar, tell them I am 30, show them a fake ID, and I get caught. Wouldnt I get in trouble? Not the bar. Why would it be different here?
                      It is the way the law is written.

                      "Generally speaking, a person commits the crime of statutory rape when he or she is over a certain age and has sex with a person under a certain age (the statutory age of consent), even if the underage person consented to have sex. Statutory rape is usually a “strict liability” crime, meaning that the intent or state of mind of the offender is irrelevant. So long as he or she had sex with someone under the statutory age of consent, he or she has committed the crime. So, what the offender thought, including what he or she thought was the victim’s true age, does not matter and will not be the basis of a defense to the crime."

                      An adult who has sex with someone under the age of consent can face a variety of criminal charges depending on the state. Here's an overview with links to state-spec

                      Comment


                        #86
                        y Lenore Skenazy . . . Even Zach Anderson’s probation officer wanted him off probation, but the judge ruled no. Zach’s one night of consensual teen sex means he still cannot live at home, drink alcohol, leave his county, or walk by a pre-school. He had hoped to get off probation on the 8th, but an early Christmas was not to be. Instead, the Elkhart, Indiana, 22-year-old will continue to live under probation’s strict rules until spring.

                        That means he cannot use the internet for anything other than schoolwork. He is forbidden to live with his family, as they reside near a dock, and children could — conceivably — gather there. He is not allowed to drink alcohol or make any purchase over $200 without pre-approval from his probation officer. He must be home between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. every day. He is not allowed to “go or be” within 500 feet of a park, pre-school or municipal pool. He cannot leave his county without first obtaining his probation officer’s permission. Zach is also required to notify the officer of any dating relationship he pursues.

                        All for sleeping with a girl when he was 19 who said she was 17 (but turned out to be 14).

                        On Friday, Anderson appeared before Judge Angela Pasula in Niles, Michigan. His probation officer told the judge that Zach had done all that was required of him and even got good grades. For the officer, it was a slam dunk: Zach had served two years of probation already and now merited release. The officer had gone so far as to fill out the termination papers. (This is not to be confused with Zach’s probation officer in Indiana, who almost derailed Zach about a month ago. Details here.)

                        The judge said no.

                        Her reasoning, according to Zach’s father, Lester Anderson, was that she never allows anyone in Zach’s situation early release. Instead, Zach must earn his freedom.

                        Zach’s situation is this: When he was first tried for his crime — and the girl and her mother both pleaded with the judge to drop the case, arguing that there was no way Zach could have known the girl’s real age — Judge Dennis Wiley gave Zach 25 years on the sex offender registry, along with no internet privileges. But when his case hit the front page of the New York Times, he got a new sentencing. As the South Bend Tribune explains:

                        Zach Anderson was sentenced to 90 days in prison by Judge Dennis Wiley earlier this year after driving 20 miles from his parents' Indiana home to Niles, Michigan, and having sex with the girl.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          That makes sense Adam. I want to say something similar happened to LT.

                          The guy was pretty high profile, could have been a number of antigun organizations in that area that could have gone after him.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            You conspiracy theorists need to take a seat. The dude looked in to a sketchy website and ordered a woman. There was no mind control or government entrapment involved.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Is this guy on the run now? Thought I read that it appeared he had skipped the country and was suspected to be in Thailand.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Playa View Post
                                Is this guy on the run now? Thought I read that it appeared he had skipped the country and was suspected to be in Thailand.
                                Taiwan. He is now in custody.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X