|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
Man arrested for painting & shooting 7 year old
Dizeman wrote: Your lawyers have failed miserably, I would fire them. Oct 02 09 01:33 am Link  Oct 02 09 01:34 am Link Nude photos of minor children is pornography. Where do you live that you imagine that not to be true. And about baby baths, I know... I have photos of my own son weeks after his arrival home from the hospital, nude in a bath. When he was three I dressed him up for Halloween and plainted some liquid latex on his chest to simulate a burn type scar. The film was sent to Kodak in Whittier California and then called the cops on me who where there to meet me when I arrived to pick up the film. Fortunately, they were friends of mine who knew I would never do anything to abuse my son, now 26 and my best friend. YES! Sometimes the laws get out of hand, such as the photographing of your own baby in a bath, but... the law actually defines that as child pornography in 2009. Oct 02 09 01:36 am Link Dizeman wrote: no Oct 02 09 01:37 am Link Amazing! Lol! Simply amazing! Oct 02 09 01:41 am Link This dizeman dude here sounds like the guys who thought those baby pics of total nekkabutts in the tub were the same thing as kiddie pr0n. I mean, even I know the law regarding minors and nudity. I don't even shoot minors and rarely nudity but I know its not a felony for someone under 18 to be nekkid. It IS if they are nekkid and depicted sexually but nakey is not a felony in and of itself. I know a ton of stuff goes around saying all sorts of crazy crap like that but come on, I thought sally mann took care of this shit. Btw, that link there is 18+ if your name starts with a D and rhymes with Heismann. Oct 02 09 01:44 am Link The Divine Emily Fine wrote: that's exactly what he's saying Oct 02 09 01:46 am Link Danger Ninja Production wrote: Well then call my parents incestual pedophiles for those funny pics of me in tub when I was 2. Hehe, dad used the shampoo and made my hair into a mohawk. Oct 02 09 01:48 am Link The Divine Emily Fine wrote: I know all parents do it, but the secret is it is blackmail for when the first boyfriend comes round for tea Oct 02 09 01:50 am Link TanyaDal wrote: Oh dear, Steve hasn't seen... Oct 02 09 01:51 am Link Dizeman wrote: Since when do "sexually explicit conduct" and "nudity" in and of the act of being nude become one in the same? The simple act of being nude does not automatically become sexually explicit just because you want it to, nor does the law you incite state that it does. Oct 02 09 01:53 am Link I do find it even more hilarious that he posted the law and the law has the word nudity in it...nowhere, apparently. Oct 02 09 01:55 am Link Gosh! I guess all of these COPS and PROSECUTORS just made these charges up huh. ------- TRENTON, N.J. -- A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on http://MySpace.com - charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if and fave 17 years in prison if convicted. The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. She was released to her mother's custody. ------ Gosh, your LEGAL ARGUMENTS could have saved these parents from being convicted. Chaska couple get fine, probation on child pornography charges; They were convicted of taking sexually explicit pictures of a 12-year-old girl.(NEWS) Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN) | May 23, 2001| Adams, Jim | COPYRIGHT 2001 Star Tribune Co. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. A Chaska couple were fined $1,500 each and sentenced to 10 years' probation Tuesday for taking pornographic photos of a child. Carver County Attorney Mike Fahey said it was the county's first prosecution for child pornography since he took office 15 years ago. Paul N. and Rose M. Dube were convicted of taking nude pictures of Rose Dube with a 12-year-old girl, Fahey said. The couple testified that they are nudists and that the photos were made while they were goofing around, the prosecutor said. ----------- They don't have to be sex acts depicted to be porn legally, the Congressional Law I posted above showed LASCIVIOUS images of genitals... Which is defined as LEWED or LUSTFUL images, no sex act required. I guess details like that escape you though. Oh well... can't save the world! Oct 02 09 01:57 am Link you're still wrong, dude your "30 years" of studying the law clearly weren't spent studying i see Oct 02 09 01:59 am Link The Divine Emily Fine wrote: You really can't be that THICK can you? Can you possibly be that THICK? Oct 02 09 02:00 am Link That's right Danger, I am certain your 24 years on the planet has provided you with all the answers to all of the questions. Lol! I already said AMAZING! didn't I... I must have by now. Oct 02 09 02:02 am Link Dizeman wrote: Where the fuck is a superb irony image when you need one. Oct 02 09 02:02 am Link Dizeman wrote: drugs are bad holmes Oct 02 09 02:03 am Link Dizeman wrote: But these terms are not synonymous with nudity... the law is talking about lascivious, lewd, lustful images... not simple nudity. Oct 02 09 02:04 am Link Dizeman wrote: I don't know, can you possibly be this thick? Oct 02 09 02:06 am Link Tessa... did you missed the news article about the parents charged with porn for photographing their child, NUDE? They are NUDISTS! Now they are NUDIST SEX OFFENDERS! Nobody told their DA they were charged wrongly I guess! I will call their District Attorney and tell him he cannot charge the couple, because photographers in Model Mayhem said nudity was not against the law when it comes to minor children. CLEARLY they did not get the memo! Oct 02 09 02:07 am Link Tessa Chernoi wrote: Try a different language? Oct 02 09 02:08 am Link Dizeman wrote: No the law states no sexually explicit pictures, if you find pictures of children naked in the bath sexually explicit then there nis something wrong with you Oct 02 09 02:08 am Link I swear, if the Heismann Trophy only knew how many fashion models, some who pose topless in Vogue, aren't actually over the age of 18. Oct 02 09 02:09 am Link Dizeman wrote:
Oct 02 09 02:09 am Link Public Nudity is against the law in all but two states. Think not, take as stroll down to the police department NUDE tomorrow and see how well that works out for you. Here in Las Vegas, public nudity is against the law as are nude images in public. We push the line sometimes, but if nudity is not against the law, then why not walk around nude in public? You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Oct 02 09 02:10 am Link Oct 02 09 02:11 am Link Dizeman wrote: You should stop posting because you clearly have no idea about either the law or what constitutes pornography. Oct 02 09 02:12 am Link Oh before we get totally lost in silliness here... NINJA, you do excellent work! KUDOS on your photography! I have to give credit where credit is due. Oct 02 09 02:12 am Link Dizeman wrote: If anyone here is arguing for the sake of arguing, its you. Taking a seemingly simple law and somehow twisting it around into "if nudity wasn't pr0n and so totally a felony then why am I not naked in town square at this very instant" yeah, that is arguing for the sake of arguing. Oct 02 09 02:13 am Link The Divine Emily Fine wrote: i have no goddamned idea but it's funny just to watch him pound his keyboard in continuing frustration over it Oct 02 09 02:13 am Link Dizeman wrote: Ok, I get that. But I'm wondering what exactly the pictures involved... you stated that they were of their child with another young girl and that the parents claimed they were just goofing around... this would lead me to suspect that this was not just a picture of two young girls naked but that something else was going on in the image that could be construed as 'lascivious' or 'lewd' etc. I haven't seen the pictures so I cannot possibly claim (or indeed refute) that they were illegal purely on the basis that they involved a child naked. Oct 02 09 02:13 am Link Dizeman wrote: Your noose is getting longer and longer. Give up while your ahead. Oct 02 09 02:19 am Link Seems like some folks got of the op point and are so egotistical you can't stop argueing about your own view point to the point of practical thread jacking.Sad to see such bs from supposed adults. Now on the issue of the OP what that man did to those children is awful and its a shame the law doesn't allow me and some of my boys to have at that guy out in the woods for a couple of days with steel pipes and a couple pairs of rusty scissors but fortunately the low life was stupid and took pics so the evidence is perfect and now I am sure there are some men in prison where he will go that have 7,8,9,10 etc etc yr old daughters and they will do exactly what needs to be done to him and they will continue to do it for his entire sentence which I hope is nothing less than 20 years without seeing the parole board.For such people as that man death would be the wrong sentence and far to nice,he deserves to live the rest of his life tortured in the worst of ways continuosly for the rest of his life.Those 7 year old girls probably don't even realise what he actually did and when they get older and can comprehend the mental repercussions are going to be devestating.What kind of monster does such a thing and derives pleasure? And for those of you who can't stop debating the differance in a picture taken of a child by their parent and a none parent touching a child and want to debate it I say come over here to norcal where me and a few fathers I know will help you understand real quick what the differance is.. now stfu you self indulgent morons what happened is awful and all you care about is your opinion so sad in everyway Oct 02 09 02:22 am Link Oregon has a public nudity exemption and there is one other state, I can't remember at 2:30 a.m., I did not know there was going to be a test. Oct 02 09 02:22 am Link CK2 Photography wrote: hahaha and now we got someone getting brigged Oct 02 09 02:23 am Link Cherrystone wrote: *raises hand* ooh! pick me! I know! I know! Oct 02 09 02:23 am Link Talk about abstracts of law, here is a guy in jail, not because he had photos of minor children, but he had cartoons of minor children... children that never really existed. HE'S IN JAIL! The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."[2][3][4] He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.[5] On December 19, 2008 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.[6] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exists." I know! I know! Not a story about simple nudity, just something I found INTERESTING! Oct 02 09 02:24 am Link The Divine Emily Fine wrote: Go ahead, correct him. He was wrong.....imagine that. Oct 02 09 02:24 am Link Back to the OP, Yeah, that's molestation and totally not the same as the title suggested. To be honest, I'm totally creeped out by the title of the thread itself, at least after reading the real story. Oct 02 09 02:25 am Link |
