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

[DefunctTheory]

As for the original press release, all it said was that is was not part of normal procedure to do this sort of thing, and they were not going to discuss further investigations with the press. That does not equal 'will not do this time.'

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.

If you have no problem believing the defense attorney, why do you have a problem believing the police?

Because the police didn't say they wouldn't do it until after people bitched.

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 discusses evidentiary matters prior to court hearings.

No where did it say 'we wont do this.'

And because a warrant was actually issued to do the invasive procedure, which at least shows the intent of the prosecutor's office to carry this forward.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Ah, the land of the petty and the home of the prude.

It's a 'southern' state, what do you expect? Besides, apparently the male is black and the girl is white, so I'm guessing this is more racially motivated then anything else.

 

[Spearmaster]

Honestly both teens should be held in jail, why should the man in this case bear the burden for the equal indiscretions of both parties. The parents of the male teen should be seeking prosecution of the girl for the same reasons just to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

I don't think either party should be punished but sadly the sexist bird has flown. Now wheres the equality?

 

[Shingeki no Gingerbeard]

Unfortunately laws oftentimes don't leave room for prudence or interpretation. Even if they're both of consenting age for sexual intercourse, laws governing the possession and distribution of pornography are clear. A minor may not possess any, nor may they distribute. If the boy is being charge, then so should the girl; otherwise it's gender bias (and Constitutional grounds for dismissal).

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Can I get a source please? Because it seems kind of weird to release a statement saying that you're not going to do something if you never intended to do it. Did they also say that they aren't going to water-board him and pull his finger nails out as well?

Source has been linked to and posted in this thread already. The snide remark about water-boarding is uncalled for.

Could you post it again? Because I can't find any link where the police said they weren't going to do it, as others have pointed out a warrant was actually issued to do the invasive procedure.

It wasn't a snide remark it was an honest question. Why would anyone release a press statement saying they were never going to do something unless they planned on doing something? Is that so hard to understand? I mean, I assume that they aren't going to water-board him and pull out his finger nails so by the logic that you say they labour under they would have released a statement saying that they weren't going to engage in those activities also.

 

[Asita]

Can I get a source please? Because it seems kind of weird to release a statement saying that you're not going to do something if you never intended to do it. Did they also say that they aren't going to water-board him and pull his finger nails out as well?

Source has been linked to and posted in this thread already. The snide remark about water-boarding is uncalled for.

Could you post it again? Because I can't find any link where the police said they weren't going to do it, as others have pointed out a warrant was actually issued to do the invasive procedure.

It wasn't a snide remark it was an honest question. Why would anyone release a press statement saying they were never going to do something unless they planned on doing something? Is that so hard to understand?

The police did issue a statement saying that they weren't going to do it, but that doesn't mean that the warrant wasn't issued. Indeed, I think the official statement was that the police planned to let the warrant expire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/10/manassas-city-police-say-they-will-not-serve-search-warrant-in-teen-sexting-case/

On Thursday, Prince William authorities decided to drop that plan [to induce and photograph the teen's erect penis]. Lt. Brian Larkin of the Manassas City police said, ?We are not going to pursue it.? He said the police planned to allow the search warrant, obtained last week, to expire. He would not say why the decision had been made to abandon the warrant or discuss the reasons for the search.

 

[Macsen Wledig]

Can I get a source please? Because it seems kind of weird to release a statement saying that you're not going to do something if you never intended to do it. Did they also say that they aren't going to water-board him and pull his finger nails out as well?

Source has been linked to and posted in this thread already. The snide remark about water-boarding is uncalled for.

Could you post it again? Because I can't find any link where the police said they weren't going to do it, as others have pointed out a warrant was actually issued to do the invasive procedure.

It wasn't a snide remark it was an honest question. Why would anyone release a press statement saying they were never going to do something unless they planned on doing something? Is that so hard to understand?

The police did issue a statement saying that they weren't going to do it, but that doesn't mean that the warrant wasn't issued. Indeed, I think the official statement was that the police planned to let the warrant expire.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/10/manassas-city-police-say-they-will-not-serve-search-warrant-in-teen-sexting-case/

On Thursday, Prince William authorities decided to drop that plan [to induce and photograph the teen's erect penis]. Lt. Brian Larkin of the Manassas City police said, ?We are not going to pursue it.? He said the police planned to allow the search warrant, obtained last week, to expire. He would not say why the decision had been made to abandon the warrant or discuss the reasons for the search.

Thanks. That's cleared thing up.
So the prosecution wanted to enact this incredibly creepy order, managed to get a warrant from one fucked up judge and the police were going to ignore the warrant probably because they all didn't want to stand around taking pictures of a 17 year old's erect penis. Makes sense.

 

[JoJo]

Unfortunately laws oftentimes don't leave room for prudence or interpretation. Even if they're both of consenting age for sexual intercourse, laws governing the possession and distribution of pornography are clear. A minor may not possess any, nor may they distribute. If the boy is being charge, then so should the girl; otherwise it's gender bias (and Constitutional grounds for dismissal).

While the laws don't leave much room for interpretation, that's the prosecutor's job to decide whether it's in the public interest to prosecute or not. There's no legal obligation that says they have to prosecute these minors and it's pretty clear what the sensible option would be, considering how far removed this case is from the original reasons the laws were written for.

 

[Harrowdown]

Just when we've all gotten accustomed to the US justice system failing to convict rapists, they go well into the other extreme and criminalise horny teenagers? *Sarcastic slow clap*

 

[shintakie10]

Unfortunately laws oftentimes don't leave room for prudence or interpretation. Even if they're both of consenting age for sexual intercourse, laws governing the possession and distribution of pornography are clear. A minor may not possess any, nor may they distribute. If the boy is being charge, then so should the girl; otherwise it's gender bias (and Constitutional grounds for dismissal).

While the laws don't leave much room for interpretation, that's the prosecutor's job to decide whether it's in the public interest to prosecute or not. There's no legal obligation that says they have to prosecute these minors and it's pretty clear what the sensible option would be, considering how far removed this case is from the original reasons the laws were written for.

As the SO and I discussed when this case popped up, the biggest problem is with the judges. Yeah there's the whole issue of overzealous DA's bastardizing the law to seem tough on crime, but at the end of the day that's what they do. Cops lie and DA's lock people up for bullshit reasons. However judges are supposed to see through the bullshit. All it would take is a single judge lookin at one of these ridiculous cases where a DA wants to get a teenager on child pornography charges and going "You're fucking kidding...right? This has to be a joke because no sane person could possibly think this is in the spirit of the law." Then slap the DA's office with a censure for being fuckin stupid.

Judges need to start doing this. They need to stop letting these cases be pleaded out and they need to stand up for the spirit of the law. The spirit of child pornography laws is to protect children from sexual predators. Two dumb teenagers texting naked pictures of each other should not fall under that category and the fact that judges keep letting this stuff slide is disgusting beyond belief.

edit -

Also, I get why the DA wanted the search warrant. They always come up with ridiculously fake warrants to get what they want. Why the hell would a judge ever agree to it though? Was he high at the time? Did he think it was some strange prank and he just wanted to be in on the joke? I don't know, but that's one messed up judge if you ask me.

 

[zen5887]

Honestly both teens should be held in jail, why should the man in this case bear the burden for the equal indiscretions of both parties. The parents of the male teen should be seeking prosecution of the girl for the same reasons just to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

I don't think either party should be punished but sadly the sexist bird has flown. Now wheres the equality?

No, neither party should be punished. Asking for both teens to be held in jail makes absolutely no sense.

The system has failed this kid so why argue that it should fail his partner?

 

[Spearmaster]

Honestly both teens should be held in jail, why should the man in this case bear the burden for the equal indiscretions of both parties. The parents of the male teen should be seeking prosecution of the girl for the same reasons just to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

I don't think either party should be punished but sadly the sexist bird has flown. Now wheres the equality?

No, neither party should be punished. Asking for both teens to be held in jail makes absolutely no sense.

The system has failed this kid so why argue that it should fail his partner?

Well it has to for equality's sake of course. If they are going to claim the literal interpretation of the law to harass one they have to do it for both.

Making a claim that its unfair to one party just sounds like whining but when you ask for them to punish the girl for the same crime they have to respond with doing so, or they put a heavy burden on themselves to justify their actions. Having to answer if the crime was so bad to warrant punishment why only the male party should be punished.

 

[snave]

While that is horrible and all, the question on my mind is... who developed "special software" to correctly identify an erect penis?

It was likely a Tool developed for investigations/prosecutions in Rape cases where the victim only saw the assailant's genitals and can reliably identify them. I have heard of genitals being identified for successful productions so its not that strange to have made tech that specializes in it realy.

Bear in mind that using Photoshop or GIMP or heck, Paint, to simply line the two dicks up and have a "trained professional" look at them could count as using special software. It's low-level meaningless technobabble.

 

[thewatergamer]

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..

Serve and Protect... yeah right...

Oh yes and before I get called a "evil misogynistic pig" by the internets underbelly

I would be calling BS if it was the flip side of things as well

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Gee, no wonder people criticize the legal system and the police force. This is just disgusting, and anyone who took part in this should lose their job.

You don't deserve to be 'upholding justice' when you'll molest someone just so you can accuse them of such unbelievable B.S.

 

[spoonybard.hahs]

...Should age of consent play a factor? Yes....

You're still dodging the question. I'm asking about if the law should be applied to this situation in your opinion. Laws are written to prevent bad situations from happening, and what to do about them when the line they draw is breached. In my opinion, a child pornography law shouldn't be applied to sexting, even if there are similar definitions to the situations.

How is that not an opinion?