Manassas City Police Trying to Sexually Abuse 17-Year-Old to Convict Him as a Sex Offender

[kurupt87]

Never mind, guess I don't know age of consent laws as much as I thought. Damn Virginia, get it together.

More like, "Damn the rest of America, get it together."

 

[RA92]

"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."

I'm going to drop this quote from the public information officer at the police department. I know most people are going to skim right over it and miss it. But the thread seems to have devolved into a "the police are evil, justice system doesn't work" ect ect.

Like I said earlier, the original article (and original post here even more so) seem VERY biased. The police statement seems to clear a lot of this up, give it a read.

Just feels disrespectful to all parties when something is reported on this way.

If that's true, then why didn't they tell the Washington Post to retract that claim?

Also, this is coming from the office of Paul Ebert, who has a nasty history of lying and suppressing evidence to get prosecutions.

Prince William County, Virginia, State?s Attorney Paul Ebert

This Paul Ebert?s third nomination. Ebert, you may remember, made the list several years ago for refusing to investigate the massive corruption among public officials in Manassas Park, Virginia in their efforts to shut down David Ruttenberg?s Rack & Roll pool hall. In 2008 and 2009, Ebert was the special prosecutor in the Ryan Frederick case. Frederick shot and killed Chesapeake, Virginia Det. Jarrod Shivers during a drug raid on Frederick?s home. Frederick had no prior criminal record, and says he thought he was being robbed. Which is credible, given that police informants had broken into Frederick?s home days earlier to obtain probable cause for the raid, part of a possible pattern of illegality among police informants Ebert found unimportant.

Ebert tried Frederick for capital murder. He attempted to change the venue, arguing that bloggers and Internet writers had made it difficult for the state to get a fair trial. He told jurors Frederick was a pot-crazed killer, then sought to exclude video of Frederick?s post-raid interviews at the police station, where a clearly despondent Frederick bursts into tears and vomits upon being told that he had killed a cop. Best of all, Ebert put on the stand a perfectly-named jailhouse snitch named Jamal Skeeter who claimed that during their one hour per day of rec time at the jail, Frederick repeatedly boasted about killing Shivers and mocked Shivers? widow. Skeeter was so utterly devoid of credibility, fellow Virginia State?s Attorney Earle Mobley made the admirable and rare move of speaking up in mid-trial to say that he and other area prosecutors had determined Skeeter was a professional liar, and had stopped using him years ago. You?d think that?s something a prosecutor might look into before using a witness to help put a man in prison for the rest of his life.

Ebert makes the list again this year after getting reprimanded by a federal judge in a death penalty case. In August, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson vacated all charges against Justin Wolfe, whom Ebert convicted in a 2002 murder-for-hire case. The hit man who testified that Wolfe had hired him recanted in 2005, claiming police told him he?d get the death penalty unless he implicated Wolfe. Even though the state?s entire case hinged on the hit-man?s testimony, Ebert fought another six years to protect his conviction. From Slate?s Dahlia Lithwick:

Jackson?s 57-page memorandum opinion is scathing in its findings of prosecutorial misbehavior by Ebert and his assistant, Richard A. Conway. Conduct evidently included choreographing and coordinating witness testimony, withholding tapes of witness interviews from the defense, and knowingly allowing false testimony to be introduced at trial. Jackson finds that prosecutors failed to turn over a report showing that it was police detectives who first introduced the idea to Barber that Wolfe had masterminded the killing, and who gave him the option of implicating Wolfe or receiving the death penalty. He finds that they suppressed evidence that Barber confessed to his roommate that he?d acted alone.

Ebert?s incredible justification for withholding exculpatory evidence: He feared that it would have allowed Wolfe?s attorneys to ?fabricate a defense around what is provided.? Ebert is the longest serving prosecutor in Virginia. He also leads the state in capital convictions, with 13.

source: http://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/02/the-2011-worst-prosecutor-of-the-year-award/

 

[AntiChri5]

"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."

I'm going to drop this quote from the public information officer at the police department. I know most people are going to skim right over it and miss it. But the thread seems to have devolved into a "the police are evil, justice system doesn't work" ect ect.

Like I said earlier, the original article (and original post here even more so) seem VERY biased. The police statement seems to clear a lot of this up, give it a read.

Just feels disrespectful to all parties when something is reported on this way.

Bias can only go so far. Unless they have outright stated falsehoods (which is a great deal more then mere bias) the outrage is both predictable and justified.

 

[Majinash]

They forcefully stripped a minor to take pictures of his penis, and now planning to force him to have an erection so that they can take more pictures. That's fucking traumatizing and sexual abuse to me. Just because it's the cops doing it doesn't mean it's okay (see the last link of this post).

Tell me, if pictures of his penis aren't explicit, then why is he being charged with spreading indecent images in the first place, and being punished so heavily for it?

Ok, first point. You acknowledge in your post (the part I didn't quote, in response to someone else) that the police statement denied them taking pictures, yet seem to state as fact in this post that they did. You have 2 sources of information, a 3rd hand account (the article, quoting the boys aunt, quoting the boy) that says they did, and an official statement from the police saying they did not. How is it that you seem so sure the police are lying?

Second: I'm very much pro-transparency honesty and discussion. If you misunderstood what I said that is fine, I understand it can be hard to understand people over the internet. But if you are intentionally talking past me that isn't helping any kind of dialogue. I did not say "pictures of his penis are not sexually explicit". I said that you can take a picture of a penis without it being in any way sexual. It seems dishonest to try and discredit the statement with some fallacy that if a picture used in an investigation of his penis isn't sexually explicit, no picture of his penis ever can be sexually explicit.

Also, once again, just because something is traumatizing, that something isn't abuse. If you argue other than that, I'll point you in the direction of every pediatric ER in the world to find children being forced into traumatizing experiences.

 

[Majinash]

Bias can only go so far. Unless they have outright stated falsehoods (which is a great deal more then mere bias) the outrage is both predictable and justified.

I disagree because bias should cast enough doubt in people to suspect falsehoods. This article is inflammatory and 1 sided. I feel like as soon as you get done reading the first paragraph you should suspect that they don't have the whole story. The police statement attached after the fact supports that you SHOULD suspect falsehoods in this article.

Bias, in that the article got information from the 17year old's aunt and his lawyer, and no one else, means they are very likely to be missing part (maybe an important part) of the story. Bias leads to sloppy fact checking which leads to falsehoods.

Give me all the facts and let me rage at the situation, but don't give me this.

 

[RA92]

Ok, first point. You acknowledge in your post (the part I didn't quote, in response to someone else) that the police statement denied them taking pictures, yet seem to state as fact in this post that they did. You have 2 sources of information, a 3rd hand account (the article, quoting the boys aunt, quoting the boy) that says they did, and an official statement from the police saying they did not. How is it that you seem so sure the police are lying?


Maybe you should have read the rest of the post as well, where it shows that the attorney covering their asses has a history of lying and suppressing evidence to get prosecutions?


Also, once again, just because something is traumatizing, that something isn't abuse. If you argue other than that, I'll point you in the direction of every pediatric ER in the world to find children being forced into traumatizing experiences.

How on earth can you even equate the two? The prosecution office is literally trying to extort a guilty plea out of that kid by threatening to whack a needle into his dick and taking pictures of his junk.

Also, I originally said traumatizing and sexually abusive, not thus.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen.

God I fuckin' hate the police.

 

[Majinash]

Maybe you should have read the rest of the post as well, where it shows that the attorney covering their asses has a history of lying and suppressing evidence to get prosecutions?

Adrienne E. Helms
Crime Prevention Specialist &
Public Information Officer
Manassas City Police Department

Is where the response came from. While the police work with lawyers, they are two separate entities. That response came from the police department from what I can tell, so I don't think it fair to bring the attorney's history into the equation when determining the validity of the statement. If it is in fact a fabrication, that is an important issue. It still doesn't answer my question as to how you are so completely sure of 1 side of the story and dismissive of the other. Even if we take the police statement as possibly incorrect, we should afford the same consideration of the aunt's statement.

How on earth can you even equate the two? The prosecution office is literally trying to extort a guilty plea out of that kid by threatening to whack a needle into his dick and taking pictures of his junk.

Also, I originally said traumatizing and sexually abusive, not thus.

I may have misread your post then as I took from it that because the situation was traumatizing it counted as abuse. If that was not your opinion I'm sorry I misread it. If that is the case I still pose the question as to how it is abuse? The police "force" you to pull over when they turn on their lights behind you in a car in the same way they can "force" him to drop pants for a picture. They instruct you to do something (verbally or with signals like lights) with the understanding that there are consequences if you don't do it. Sounds heavy handed, but thats simply how law works: "Don't murder someone, if you do you'll go to jail".

Did they hold him down on the floor and rip his clothes off to take the pictures? If so where did we hear this? Why do we think this is how it happened and not "drop your pants and stand facing the camera... click"? the first one sure sounds abusive, the second one sounds like an unorthodox mug shot. But seeing as one claim simply says "forced" and the other claim says "nothing happened" I think it is dishonest to label what happened as sexual abuse.

I don't know for sure what happened, I wasn't there. But the way you are expressing yourself it sounds like you DO know exactly what happened, as if you were there. If you were there, then great, we should hear your side so we can get a first hand account of the incident. If you weren't there then I question how you can be so sure of all the events.

 

[Signa]

Age of consent doesn't matter because they didn't have sex. They both created and distributed child pornography, which is what he is being charged with.

And you agree that is a proper assessment of the situation? You sound like you agree. There's a big difference between nudes and porn, just as there is a big different between child porn and sexting.

Regarding the law, pornography has a wide range of definitions. Nudes can be porn. Regardless if there's penetration or any obvious sexual act. And before you say, "Der... What about movies?" The obscenity laws of the US give leeway to feature films to a point and allow films autonomy because of the MPAA. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled that porn is protected by the First Amendment. But not child pornography, which is the creation and distribution of any pornographic material involving minors. It doesn't matter the purpose, intent, who made it, or how it was distributed.

By the way, it's not an assessment; it's fact. And I didn't say one way or another if I agreed with this. So kindly take those words and shove them down your own throat.

That's.... a bit off topic. I was asking you if you felt the law was written to cover these situations, or if it's been created as too large of a blanket that covers other scenarios outside of the original intent for the law.

 

[JoJo]

Erection injection? That's a thing? (Or is it just Viagra in a syringe?) They couldn't just give the teenager a porn mag or something and let nature take it's course? Ugh...

But seriously, this sort of stupid shit happens when people forget that the law is intended to be applied with discretion, that's why there's such a thing as not prosecuting someone when it's not in the public interest. Most jurisdictions have figured out that prosecuting minors for consensual sex isn't in the public interest as you're criminalising kids for breaking laws which were written up to protect them in the first place, it would laughable if it didn't leave teenagers or sometimes even younger kids being traumatised in juvenile detention centres and ending up with 'sex offender' records for the rest of their life. Sort yourselves out, states where this still happens.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'm away for weeks and when I return, I run into this?

Excuse me, I need to find a sharp object and drive it through my skull.

Seriously, this is just fucked up.

 

[Something Amyss]

Because, as we all know, in the U.S women are exempt from the law. Which is the primary reason I'm a supporter of the equal rights movement.

It's generally a bad idea to join any movement on a false premise.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Just another body in the large pile of broken lives that the police leave behind them. Move on nothing to see here.

 

[forgo911]

I sent an e-mail to the police and this is hat I got in return

It is the policy of the Manassas City Police Department to welcome both positive and negative comments. In reference to the recent case that is generating interest, we feel the below press release may be helpful in fully understanding the case to this point. Given that, the decision to pursue prosecution or not lies with the Commonwealth Attorney?s Office and not the Police Department. We do work together to gather the facts of the case. 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.

Additionally, it should be noted that any comments to this post that contain or suggest acts of violence, inappropriate language or criticism of the 15 year old female victim may be removed.

**PRESS RELEASE**

On January 23, 2014 Manassas City Police were contacted by a parent of a 15 year of age female juvenile who was sent pornographic videos by a 17 years of age male suspect after repeatedly being told to stop. Upon further investigating the incident charges of manufacturing and distributing child pornography were brought against the 17 YOA male suspect on January 28, 2014 after consultation with the Commonwealth Attorney?s Office. The matter was set for trial on June 4th 2014 where charges were nolle prosqui by a Prince William County Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. The circumstances on the decision to dismiss charges and bring forward new charges cannot be released at this time due to this incident being an active investigation and involving juveniles. New charges of manufacturing and distributing child pornography have been brought forward and a court date is pending. 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 discuss evidentiary matters prior to court hearings.





Douglas W. Keen, Chief of Police

Manassas City Police Department

9518 Fairview Ave.

Manassas, Va. 20110

Office (703) 257-8001

Fax (703) 368-6966

 

[forgo911]

I sent a letter to the police department, this is the response I got


It is the policy of the Manassas City Police Department to welcome both positive and negative comments. In reference to the recent case that is generating interest, we feel the below press release may be helpful in fully understanding the case to this point. Given that, the decision to pursue prosecution or not lies with the Commonwealth Attorney?s Office and not the Police Department. We do work together to gather the facts of the case. 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.

Additionally, it should be noted that any comments to this post that contain or suggest acts of violence, inappropriate language or criticism of the 15 year old female victim may be removed.

**PRESS RELEASE**

On January 23, 2014 Manassas City Police were contacted by a parent of a 15 year of age female juvenile who was sent pornographic videos by a 17 years of age male suspect after repeatedly being told to stop. Upon further investigating the incident charges of manufacturing and distributing child pornography were brought against the 17 YOA male suspect on January 28, 2014 after consultation with the Commonwealth Attorney?s Office. The matter was set for trial on June 4th 2014 where charges were nolle prosqui by a Prince William County Assistant Commonwealth Attorney. The circumstances on the decision to dismiss charges and bring forward new charges cannot be released at this time due to this incident being an active investigation and involving juveniles. New charges of manufacturing and distributing child pornography have been brought forward and a court date is pending. 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 discuss evidentiary matters prior to court hearings.





Douglas W. Keen, Chief of Police

Manassas City Police Department

9518 Fairview Ave.

Manassas, Va. 20110

Office (703) 257-8001

Fax (703) 368-6966

 

[Something Amyss]

The premise that women can get slaps on the wrist for sexually assaulting a child?

Selectively true, but then, anyone CAN get a slap on the wrist for such an affair.

The premise that women win most custody cases, even when they're factually less capable of caring for a child?

Well, that would be a better premise, but now you've shifted the goalposts.

 

[Dragonbums]

Holy bananas. Wow, someone must hate this kid. Dang man.

But knowing how most convictions of scumbag police go, he's probably going to have paid leave.

 

[Dragonbums]

So, let me get this straight.

Both individuals within legal consent age.
Girlfriend sexting her boyfriend.
Boyfriend sexts back.
Boyfriends gets arrested for child porn crimes. (why not her?)
Police intends to sexually abuse boyfriend, to incriminate him as a sexual abuser. (is that even legal?)

What??

They are legally able to consent to sex in real life but not via images/texts?.
If neither shared it on the 'net. I don't see a problem.

Absurd..

Sexting is extremely weird stuff. It doesn't matter if both of the people in question are 17. If either one is caught with a "sext" they can be charged with possession of child pornography regardless of what the circumstances are.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sexting is extremely weird stuff. It doesn't matter if both of the people in question are 17. If either one is caught with a "sext" they can be charged with possession of child pornography regardless of what the circumstances are.

True of pretty much anything that a minor can do besides intercourse, though. It really is strange territory.