|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 06 2016 09:05 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 07:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 06 2016 05:34 JW_DTLA wrote:On January 06 2016 05:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 06 2016 03:25 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 06 2016 02:20 Seuss wrote:On January 06 2016 01:18 Mohdoo wrote: If Rubio doesn't win one of the first few states, I think it's officially Cruz vs Trump. It's also interesting to see the establishment can't wrap it's head around how much less effective TV ads are nowadays. The problem is bigger than that. Trump's voting bloc isn't going to abandon him for establishment candidates. Even if an ad campaign successfully hurts Trump it won't be Rubio or Jeb getting a windfall, it'll be Cruz. I think the establishment's goal is to drive Trump out of the race or marginalize him by crushing his "I'm a winner" narrative immediately after Super Tuesday. Trump won't waste his money if he's clearly getting battered. Then they can bring all cannons to bear on Cruz and consolidate behind whichever establishment candidate remains. It's not like any substantial amount of states will have voted at that point and a Rubio/Bush/Christie win is not inconceivable at that point, a la McCain's win in 2008. Christie has zero chance of winning, fwiw. Last I heard Christie is something like 33% favorable / 66% unfavorable in NEW JERSEY. The guy is a sitting governor and he doesn't bother staying in state because his state hates him. Guy needs to just resign and retire. As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm this lol. The one thing Christie has done right in NJ, to his credit, is Hurricane Sandy. He warned the shit out of everyone beforehand, worked tirelessly to help afterwards, and even gave Obama props because Obama was quick to act too. But Christie has pissed off every public servant in the state with him screwing over our wages and tenures and pensions, hasn't made NJ any better of a state, has completely forgotten about governing us as he campaigns, and frequently just fires off his big mouth for no good reason. Didn't he also more or less drop the ball on finishing the Sandy clean up though, or am I thinking of something/one else?
I think the last 10% or so of the clean-up/ reconstruction was half-assed.
|
Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
I wrote about Copening’s story on Tuesday. Since then, I’ve learned new information that makes the local sheriff’s office’s actions seem even more ludicrous.
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
I discovered this when I asked Fayetteville Observer Executive Editor Mike Adams about his publication’s decision to release the names of the teens (something countless other local news reports did as well). He explained to me that it’s the company’s policy to publish the names of adults charged with felony crimes, which includes Copening and Denson, in this case. But The Observer didn’t fully comprehend that Copening and Denson were also the victims—and, by some bizarre quirk of the law, minors in a different sense—until after its original reporting on the issue had already been published.
“I don’t think sexting was considered when this sexual exploitation law was put on the books,” Adams told me.
Indeed. Maybe the legislature should revisit the issue. In the meantime, there is still no excuse for local cops to pursue charges against Copening. They have already humiliated him and damaged (perhaps irreversibly) his high school football career over mildly worrisome behavior that should not even constitute a crime. Cumberland County should exercise some discretion—perhaps some maturity as well—and let this matter go.
The Observer's Paul Woolverton also covered the insanity of North Caorlina's sexual exploitation law as applied in this case. Read his excellent story here. ~ https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha
-Basically, a 16/17 year old male is legally allowed to have sex with his 16/17 year old girlfriend, but he's not allowed to send her nude photos of himself because he's legally not an adult (18 years old) and so he'd be committing sexual exploitation of himself.
-He privately sent her nude pics of himself, and she privately sent him nude pics of herself, and then cops (illegally? no search warrant) found nude photos of himself and of his girlfriend privately stored on his phone (and not sent to anyone else), and as a result he's getting charged with sexual exploitation crimes because he has nude photos of his girlfriend and nude photos of himself.
I feel like the Jackie Chan WTF Meme is quite appropriate in this case.
|
On January 06 2016 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
I wrote about Copening’s story on Tuesday. Since then, I’ve learned new information that makes the local sheriff’s office’s actions seem even more ludicrous.
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
I discovered this when I asked Fayetteville Observer Executive Editor Mike Adams about his publication’s decision to release the names of the teens (something countless other local news reports did as well). He explained to me that it’s the company’s policy to publish the names of adults charged with felony crimes, which includes Copening and Denson, in this case. But The Observer didn’t fully comprehend that Copening and Denson were also the victims—and, by some bizarre quirk of the law, minors in a different sense—until after its original reporting on the issue had already been published.
“I don’t think sexting was considered when this sexual exploitation law was put on the books,” Adams told me.
Indeed. Maybe the legislature should revisit the issue. In the meantime, there is still no excuse for local cops to pursue charges against Copening. They have already humiliated him and damaged (perhaps irreversibly) his high school football career over mildly worrisome behavior that should not even constitute a crime. Cumberland County should exercise some discretion—perhaps some maturity as well—and let this matter go.
The Observer's Paul Woolverton also covered the insanity of North Caorlina's sexual exploitation law as applied in this case. Read his excellent story here. ~ https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha -Basically, a 16/17 year old male is legally allowed to have sex with his 16/17 year old girlfriend, but he's not allowed to send her nude photos of himself because he's legally not an adult (18 years old) and so he'd be committing sexual exploitation of himself. -He privately sent her nude pics of himself, and she privately sent him nude pics of herself, and then cops (illegally? no search warrant) found nude photos of himself and of his girlfriend privately stored on his phone (and not sent to anyone else), and as a result he's getting charged with sexual exploitation crimes because he has nude photos of his girlfriend and nude photos of himself. I feel like the Jackie Chan WTF Meme is quite appropriate in this case.
if police doesn't have the power to search your phone the terrorists win.
|
On January 06 2016 10:12 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Teen Boy Will Be Charged As Adult For Having Naked Pics of a Minor: Himself
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult. But one of the minors he supposedly exploited is himself—which raises an obvious question: how can a teen be old enough to face adult felony charges, but not old enough to keep a nude picture of himself on his phone?
Unfortunately, that’s the Kafka-esque nightmare in which Fayetteville-area high schooler Cormega Copening finds himself after exchanging private nude photos with his girlfriend—with whom he is legally allowed to have sex, but not to sext.
I wrote about Copening’s story on Tuesday. Since then, I’ve learned new information that makes the local sheriff’s office’s actions seem even more ludicrous.
But first, to recap: Copening and his girlfriend—now identified as Brianna Denson—are like other teenagers in that they have more than a passing interest in sex. Indeed, when they were 16, they exchanged racy sexy photos via text message. Denson sent pictures to Copening, and Copening sent pictures to Denson. It appears that no one else saw the pictures until local authorities searched Copening’s phone and discovered them.
Why did they search his phone? It’s not clear, but local news reports claimed that it had nothing to do with the sexts themselves. The Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment. According to fayobserver.com, there is no record of a search warrant being issued for Copening’s phone.
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.
But consider this: North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.
I discovered this when I asked Fayetteville Observer Executive Editor Mike Adams about his publication’s decision to release the names of the teens (something countless other local news reports did as well). He explained to me that it’s the company’s policy to publish the names of adults charged with felony crimes, which includes Copening and Denson, in this case. But The Observer didn’t fully comprehend that Copening and Denson were also the victims—and, by some bizarre quirk of the law, minors in a different sense—until after its original reporting on the issue had already been published.
“I don’t think sexting was considered when this sexual exploitation law was put on the books,” Adams told me.
Indeed. Maybe the legislature should revisit the issue. In the meantime, there is still no excuse for local cops to pursue charges against Copening. They have already humiliated him and damaged (perhaps irreversibly) his high school football career over mildly worrisome behavior that should not even constitute a crime. Cumberland County should exercise some discretion—perhaps some maturity as well—and let this matter go.
The Observer's Paul Woolverton also covered the insanity of North Caorlina's sexual exploitation law as applied in this case. Read his excellent story here. ~ https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha -Basically, a 16/17 year old male is legally allowed to have sex with his 16/17 year old girlfriend, but he's not allowed to send her nude photos of himself because he's legally not an adult (18 years old) and so he'd be committing sexual exploitation of himself. -He privately sent her nude pics of himself, and she privately sent him nude pics of herself, and then cops (illegally? no search warrant) found nude photos of himself and of his girlfriend privately stored on his phone (and not sent to anyone else), and as a result he's getting charged with sexual exploitation crimes because he has nude photos of his girlfriend and nude photos of himself. I feel like the Jackie Chan WTF Meme is quite appropriate in this case. if police doesn't have the power to search your phone the terrorists win.
I know you're joking but it always blew my mind that people will use that line of reasoning when the exact opposite is true. You giving away your privacy and rights wantonly is letting the terrorist's win. I don't understand how people can't see that.
|
I've read that article 3 times and I still don't get why his girlfriend got off and he's being charged. Wouldn't they both have the same photos on their phones?
|
On January 06 2016 10:39 ZeroChrome wrote: I've read that article 3 times and I still don't get why his girlfriend got off and he's being charged. Wouldn't they both have the same photos on their phones?
From the article:
Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself.
So apparently, both the guy and the girl got charged for some things, but the guy had more so he got charged more.
|
On January 06 2016 10:39 ZeroChrome wrote: I've read that article 3 times and I still don't get why his girlfriend got off and he's being charged. Wouldn't they both have the same photos on their phones? The only thing I can think of is she no longer had pictures of herself, so she wasn't being charged with the additional "3rd degree sexual exploitation" charges like he was?
Shit, damn you DPB for getting your post first.
|
So I take it the girl was charged less because she sent him the photos and then deleted them, leaving her with only the photos he sent her. That's so fucked.
On January 06 2016 10:43 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 10:39 ZeroChrome wrote: I've read that article 3 times and I still don't get why his girlfriend got off and he's being charged. Wouldn't they both have the same photos on their phones? The only thing I can think of is she no longer had pictures of herself, so she wasn't being charged with the additional "3rd degree sexual exploitation" charges like he was?
ninja'd but yeah
|
On January 06 2016 10:49 ZeroChrome wrote: So I take it the girl was charged less because she sent him the photos and then deleted them, leaving her with only the photos he sent her. That's so fucked.
Well, that was my guess, I don't actually know that to be the case.
|
On January 06 2016 10:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 10:39 ZeroChrome wrote: I've read that article 3 times and I still don't get why his girlfriend got off and he's being charged. Wouldn't they both have the same photos on their phones? From the article: Show nested quote +Both teens were charged with sexual exploitation. Denson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was given 12 months of probation.
Copening, however, is still facing two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation and three counts of third-degree exploitation. As Ricochet’s Tom Meyer points out, the third-degree charges—which constitute a majority of the total charges—actually stem from the pictures Copening had of himself. So apparently, both the guy and the girl got charged for some things, but the guy had more so he got charged more.
She plead guilty to a lesser charge. She was originally going to be charged with two felony counts against herself for sexual exploitation of minor which would put her on the sex offender listing for life. Instead she took a plea deal for a misdemeanor and probation.
It appears the boy was not offered the same deal or he didn't accept it. The charges seem bogus regardless, although if you got offered the deal she got and you didn't accept it you're an idiot.
|
What are the odds Trump gets banned from the UK? Either way it's kind of hilarious and sad that the leading person for the Republican nomination is at risk of being banned from one of our best ally's country.
|
probably below 1%? Wasn't that already adressed in the UK?
|
On January 06 2016 11:57 Toadesstern wrote: probably below 1%? Wasn't that already adressed in the UK?
MPs are to debate whether to bar Donald Trump from entering the UK in response to a public petition calling for action against the US Presidential candidate.
About 568,000 people have backed a petition calling on the tycoon to be barred for comments he made about banning Muslims from the US.
Labour MP Paul Flynn will lead a debate in Westminster Hall on 18 January.
David Cameron has condemned Mr Trump, who has major business interests in the UK, but said he should be allowed in. The Commons petitions committee decided to hold a debate on the issue after considering the matter at a meeting on Tuesday. Under the current rules, MPs have to consider any petition with 100,000 signatures for discussion in Parliament.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35238349
|
Days after Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) apologized for toxic tap water in the city of Flint and accepted the resignations of multiple state officials, the U.S. Justice Department said it has opened an investigation into what went wrong.
"In an effort to address the concerns of Flint residents, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District is working closely with the EPA on the investigation into the contamination of the city of Flint's water supply," Gina Balaya, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan, told HuffPost on Tuesday.
The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped expose the poisoning of Flint's water, was the first to report the Justice Department investigation, highlighting it as an "unusual step."
Last week, a task force appointed by Snyder squarely blamed the high lead levels in Flint's water on the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The agency failed to address the water's corrosiveness after switching the city's water source to the Flint River as a cost-saving measure in 2014. At the time, Flint was under the authority of an emergency manager appointed by the state of Michigan.
The new water absorbed lead from Flint's aging pipes, and researchers discovered a corresponding increase of lead levels in the bloodstreams of local children. The MDEQ continued to deny a lead poisoning problem even as evidence mounted last year.
“I want the Flint community to know how very sorry I am that this has happened," Snyder said in a statement last week. In that statement, the governor also announced the resignation of MDEQ director Dan Wyant. Flint switched back to Detroit's water supply in October after high blood lead levels came to light.
Snyder spokeswoman Laura Biehl said Tuesday that the governor's office would cooperate with the Justice Department.
Source
|
Oh, I thought the innitial statement from Cameron meant the consideration of wether or not they need a meeting resulted in a "no, just this statement is enough"
|
United States43529 Posts
On January 06 2016 11:32 GreenHorizons wrote: What are the odds Trump gets banned from the UK? Either way it's kind of hilarious and sad that the leading person for the Republican nomination is at risk of being banned from one of our best ally's country. 0%. It's not going to be seriously debated.
|
Yet another demonstration of the stupidity of online petitions.
|
north korea reports they successfully tested a hydrogen bomb.
no fucking way.
|
On January 06 2016 12:40 ticklishmusic wrote: north korea reports they successfully tested a hydrogen bomb.
no fucking way.
And Rodman didn't even give us a heads up!
|
On January 06 2016 11:57 Toadesstern wrote: probably below 1%? Wasn't that already adressed in the UK?
I think that was a golf course in the UK. Something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|