mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 7, 2015 17:34:22 GMT -5
I, too, wonder if there isn't something (or several somethings) we don't know. I can see the concern. Kids don't think ahead. I can bet you if they were to break up (and they well may) there's a good possibility one, or all of those pictures will end up going viral on the internet. That's the way of our world these days. There is nothing private about these pictures. If one, or all of them gets out the offended one(s) is bound to have a conniption which could well involve a lawsuit. It's just ugly all the way around.
The young lady, apparently, went with a plea deal. I sure hope that deal included some education regarding what is and what is not private, and what the internet really is. Again, there's too much I don't know to say much more.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 7, 2015 17:38:07 GMT -5
There are plenty of factors that figure in to a juvenile being charged in adult court. Culpability, age, prior record, prospects for rehabilitation in juvenile court, etc. I guess we'd have to know the whole story to know why they are considering that course of action. Again, that probably varies from state to state, also. I don't pretend to know the law in North Carolina. Just putting it out there for thought.
|
|
joemilitary
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 8, 2014 14:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 682
|
Post by joemilitary on Sept 7, 2015 18:04:44 GMT -5
That's why I am wondering what we don't know about the initial "investigation" that led to this.
The police could have been frustrated they couldn't get what they wanted initially so are "throwing everything at the wall" to see what sticks.....
Also I am not sure about how warrants work with cell phones.....
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 7, 2015 18:08:15 GMT -5
That's why I am wondering what we don't know about the initial "investigation" that led to this.
The police could have been frustrated they couldn't get what they wanted initially so are "throwing everything at the wall" to see what sticks.....
Also I am not sure about how warrants work with cell phones..... Precisely. I really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 19:02:13 GMT -5
That's why I am wondering what we don't know about the initial "investigation" that led to this.
The police could have been frustrated they couldn't get what they wanted initially so are "throwing everything at the wall" to see what sticks.....
Also I am not sure about how warrants work with cell phones..... Precisely. We really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO.I disagree. I think we know that if they are "minors" for the purpose of the content of the pictures then they should be "minors" for having them in their possession. To try them as adults would constitute "unusual" if they were to be found guilty and punished.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 7, 2015 19:24:29 GMT -5
And there you go. How many people have now seen her nude photos? He probably could care less who sees his Dick but some women, although usually not those sending nude pictures of themselves, wouldn't like the idea of a lot of strangers looking at them Naked.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 7, 2015 20:20:55 GMT -5
Precisely. We really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO.I disagree. I think we know that if they are "minors" for the purpose of the content of the pictures then they should be "minors" for having them in their possession. To try them as adults would constitute "unusual" if they were to be found guilty and punished. You disagree with the laws of North Carolina? That's your privilege, I'm sure. Despite your disagreement, it is the laws of North Carolina that take precedence here, not your opinion. If they're silly laws, or inconsistent laws, it's up to North Carolina to change that situation. I'm commenting on what information I have available. I'm not in a position to change the laws in North Carolina; nor, do I wish to be.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 7, 2015 20:23:26 GMT -5
I hope to hell my kids haven't done anything this stupid. They've done their share of stupid but sexting is beyond stupid. You can usually recover from stupid but naked is out there forever.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 20:57:55 GMT -5
I disagree. I think we know that if they are "minors" for the purpose of the content of the pictures then they should be "minors" for having them in their possession. To try them as adults would constitute "unusual" if they were to be found guilty and punished. You disagree with the laws of North Carolina? That's your privilege, I'm sure. Despite your disagreement, it is the laws of North Carolina that take precedence here, not your opinion. If they're silly laws, or inconsistent laws, it's up to North Carolina to change that situation. I'm commenting on what information I have available. I'm not in a position to change the laws in North Carolina; nor, do I wish to be. I understand and agree. I was commenting on your " We really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO." comment. That what I disagreed with. I know enough. I know (based on the reports) they were minors IN the pictures, so, to me, they should be minors WITH the pictures. That's my personal stand... and it's pretty strong. I can take a stand on something without being a citizen of that state or having any ability to change the laws of the state. As can anyone.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 7, 2015 21:58:14 GMT -5
You disagree with the laws of North Carolina? That's your privilege, I'm sure. Despite your disagreement, it is the laws of North Carolina that take precedence here, not your opinion. If they're silly laws, or inconsistent laws, it's up to North Carolina to change that situation. I'm commenting on what information I have available. I'm not in a position to change the laws in North Carolina; nor, do I wish to be. I understand and agree. I was commenting on your " We really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO." comment. That what I disagreed with. I know enough. I know (based on the reports) they were minors IN the pictures, so, to me, they should be minors WITH the pictures. That's my personal stand... and it's pretty strong. I can take a stand on something without being a citizen of that state or having any ability to change the laws of the state. As can anyone. Perhaps you can. I cannot. I require facts, and plenty of them. If your requirements are different, I accept that. I'l change the "We" to "I".
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,451
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 7, 2015 22:08:11 GMT -5
"Cormega's ordeal began when authorities asked his mother's permission to examine his cell phone in 2014 as part of a statutory rape investigation in which Cormega was not a suspect, according to [Sgt.Sean] Swain. "He was not a victim, suspect or witness, but was considered an 'involved other' in that case," Swain told FoxNews.com. When police searched Cormega's phone -- registered in his mother's name -- they found five sexually explicit photos Cormega and his girlfriend had exchanged of one another. "Some people think we targeted these kids, but we saw this and we couldn’t ignore it," Swain said. "The law is written by the legislators and we are obligated to follow what the legislators tell us to. We have no choice." "The easiest way for the state to fix it is just to treat everyone under 18 as a minor," he noted. Swain said the law is designed to catch individuals like North Carolina teenager Mark Adair, a 17-year-old honor roll student at Pine Forest High School who was arrested Wednesday for allegedly soliciting children for sexually explicit photos and videos. Adair was charged with 23 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor involving children between the ages of 12 and 14, according to his arrest warrant" NC high school gridder faces felony charges over 'terrible' sexting law
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2015 22:47:32 GMT -5
I understand and agree. I was commenting on your " We really don't know enough to take any strong stands, IMO." comment. That what I disagreed with. I know enough. I know (based on the reports) they were minors IN the pictures, so, to me, they should be minors WITH the pictures. That's my personal stand... and it's pretty strong. I can take a stand on something without being a citizen of that state or having any ability to change the laws of the state. As can anyone. Perhaps you can. I cannot. I require facts, and plenty of them. If your requirements are different, I accept that. I'l change the "We" to "I". Fact: They were 16 at the time (so "minors" for just about every other "non-violent" crime a person can commit) Fact: They are charged as "adults" Fact: In the case of the "adult" (for charging purposes) 16 year old boy, the pictures were of a 16 year old ("minor") girl. Fact: In the case of the "adult" (for charging purposes) 16 year old girl, the pictures were of a 16 year old ("minor") boy. Fact: The same boy that was a "minor" in a picture is an "adult" for purposes of charging a crime (how can you be a "minor" for one, and yet an "adult" for the other?) Fact: The same girl that was a "minor" in a picture is an "adult" for purposes of charging a crime (how can you be a "minor" for one, and yet an "adult" for the other?) Fact: In North Carolina the "age of consent" is 16. Fact: Both were above that age and could legally see each other naked and even have sex with each other Fact: In North Carolina they have a "Romeo & Juliet" exception to "statutory rape" - ANYONE of ANY AGE can legally have "consensual" sex with someone else so long as that other person is not more than four years older than the person they are having "consensual" sex with. That's 9 facts. That's enough for me. That should be enough for anyone. The scariest "fact" though is that last one. ANY age (as long as the other person is no more than 4 years older)? really? ANY age? Wow. The actual law in NC reads:
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 7, 2015 23:48:59 GMT -5
Sorry, Richard. You don't decide what "should" be enough for me and you don't decide what should be enough for the state of North Carolina. I make that decision for myself, just as North Carolina makes that decision for North Carolina. I will continue to make my own decisions. Thanks kindly, though. I'll be North Carolina will continue to make their own decisions, too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 0:25:13 GMT -5
LOL... I'm "good" with that. You said you required facts... I was just giving you several.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 6:42:59 GMT -5
"Cormega's ordeal began when authorities asked his mother's permission to examine his cell phone in 2014 as part of a statutory rape investigation in which Cormega was not a suspect, according to [Sgt.Sean] Swain. "He was not a victim, suspect or witness, but was considered an 'involved other' in that case," Swain told FoxNews.com. When police searched Cormega's phone -- registered in his mother's name -- they found five sexually explicit photos Cormega and his girlfriend had exchanged of one another. "Some people think we targeted these kids, but we saw this and we couldn’t ignore it," Swain said. "The law is written by the legislators and we are obligated to follow what the legislators tell us to. We have no choice." "The easiest way for the state to fix it is just to treat everyone under 18 as a minor," he noted. Swain said the law is designed to catch individuals like North Carolina teenager Mark Adair, a 17-year-old honor roll student at Pine Forest High School who was arrested Wednesday for allegedly soliciting children for sexually explicit photos and videos. Adair was charged with 23 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor involving children between the ages of 12 and 14, according to his arrest warrant" NC high school gridder faces felony charges over 'terrible' sexting lawSure they could have ignored it once it was established that it was pictures of his girlfriend and she and he both were 16yo or older. Police let things go all the time. They may say something cautioning the offender when they stumble up on someone clearly breaking the law, but they don't always arrest or cite them. How many people have been pulled over for traffic violations that they really did commit, but the officer let them go with just a warning instead of a ticket? I have. I know someone that as pulled over and the police saw an open container in the car. He made them pour it out right then and there and let them go. And maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I can't think of how one can be an "involved other" in a case if they're not a victim, suspect or witness. How can you be involved at all, to the point that your cell phone has to be searched, if you're neither of those 3?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,451
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 8, 2015 7:24:52 GMT -5
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 8, 2015 7:38:21 GMT -5
Yea, I'm wondering why mom handed over they phone if he wasn't a victim, suspect, or witness. I don't think I'd let them go on a fishing trip on my phone voluntarily.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 7:45:23 GMT -5
She probably handed it over because she thought he was not involved and had nothing to hide. I'd think she'd be more likely to require a warrenton if she felt there was something to hide.
|
|
joemilitary
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 8, 2014 14:26:13 GMT -5
Posts: 682
|
Post by joemilitary on Sept 8, 2015 9:21:09 GMT -5
This is why even if I was totally innocent I would never say or do anything in a police investigation without a lawyer present.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 9:22:42 GMT -5
Agreed. Yet on other threads people have advocated for allowing their children to cooperate and associating asking for a lawyer with guilt.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 8, 2015 10:44:12 GMT -5
I don't know that I'd jump for a lawyer, but I'd ask why they wanted it first. And if he wasn't directly involved, at least from what they're telling me, I'd want a damn good reason. What they're looking for and why they think it's on my phone.
Mostly because teens are stupid. It could have really been photos of smoking pot or drinking on the phone.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 8, 2015 10:45:09 GMT -5
I actually said to DH this morning that I didn't really think that SWAT teams just attack random houses and that I would assume if one was supposed to attack here, I would hope they would look at who lives here which is two old farts and question "WTF?" That being said, because of who lived here before, I would not allow the police to search without a warrant because the could be stuff here that I'm unaware of, left by former owners. If they obtained a warrant, I'd be sure to follow them every step of the way to make sure nothing got "planted."
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 8, 2015 10:47:14 GMT -5
Teens should cooperate with situations like traffic stops. Looking into someone's phone which is the same as looking into someone's computer would require a search warrant to me. I cooperate with traffic stops, I don't cooperate with ha ding over my phone or computer without a warrant, which should state the reason.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,237
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 8, 2015 11:22:46 GMT -5
I would be polite with the cops and cooperative in that I am going to be calm, keep my hands at my side, make eye contact, etc.
But if they want inside and want to search my belongings or those of my children they better have a warrant. If they do not then they are not getting in and are not being permitted to go thru my stuff.
Depending on how it escalates my next step would be a lawyer.
I may have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I need to allow them to run roughshod over me either. I have rights and the only person who is going to care about exercising them is me.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Sept 8, 2015 11:54:25 GMT -5
Do people really have lawyers they can readily call in 5 minutes
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,237
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 8, 2015 12:09:14 GMT -5
Do people really have lawyers they can readily call in 5 minutes
I don't but depending on the situation finding one would become a pretty high priority.
Hopefully it would be as simple as "Do you have a warrant?" "No" "Then come back when you have one" and everyone respects the law and we go onto the next step.
Which is where being polite and cooperative within reason comes in. If I come out the door swinging it won't go well.
But cooperation doesn't have to extend into me handing over my phone or my child's phone just b/c they asked for it either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 27, 2024 16:56:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2015 12:09:53 GMT -5
When I lived in the hood, I went in to work some overtime early one morning, like 4am, and someone broke a window out on the front of my house. My house alarm went off and I got a call on my cell right after I got to work. By the time I got back to the house, the police were already there. One officer told me he had already climbed through the broken window to go through the house and make sure no one was in there. I've never been sure how I felt about that. I didn't have anything to hide, but I've always wondered what would've happened if I had and he saw it.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Sept 8, 2015 12:13:31 GMT -5
Do people really have lawyers they can readily call in 5 minutes Not me. I think that only applies to rich people in movies. If a police officer is at my door at 9:00 pm, Perry Mason isn't on speed dial where he'll get out of bed and come read the search warrant or note the lack thereof. It will be up to me to decide what to do and if I have problems with how the whole thing was handled, that will come out in court when I've had time to hire an attorney to represent me.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 8, 2015 12:48:58 GMT -5
Do people really have lawyers they can readily call in 5 minutes Not me. I think that only applies to rich people in movies. If a police officer is at my door at 9:00 pm, Perry Mason isn't on speed dial where he'll get out of bed and come read the search warrant or note the lack thereof. It will be up to me to decide what to do and if I have problems with how the whole thing was handled, that will come out in court when I've had time to hire an attorney to represent me.
Nah. Lawyers have friends, too. I know a couple I could call if a situation presented that required me to "lawyer up" in a hurry.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,101
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 8, 2015 13:15:16 GMT -5
Not me. I think that only applies to rich people in movies. If a police officer is at my door at 9:00 pm, Perry Mason isn't on speed dial where he'll get out of bed and come read the search warrant or note the lack thereof. It will be up to me to decide what to do and if I have problems with how the whole thing was handled, that will come out in court when I've had time to hire an attorney to represent me.
Nah. Lawyers have friends, too. I know a couple I could call if a situation presented that required me to "lawyer up" in a hurry. ditto. but it just occurred to me that i should have their numbers on my cell phone.
|
|