Mac Swift wrote:

What ever.  Your opinion.  Just because you can't control your carnal desires doesn't make nudes of a 16-17 year old immoral or unethical (I think those were the words you were trying to use).  For the purpose of my discussions I am not talking about 'Hustler' style images here.  I am always referring to figure nudes.

For the record ... so am I

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Does that sound like a complete answer ???

No, because you are vastly over generalizing.  Under the federal standard, there has to be real or simulated sex or a lascivious display of the genitals.  Sex is defined as intercourse, masturbation, oral/genital contact or insertion of any kind.  So it is pretty easy to know what constitutes sex.

A lascivious display of the genitals need not be nude, but it does need to be a genital display.  For example, if a model were topless wearing a pair of jogging shorts riding her skateboard, there really is no issue.  For most images, it is pretty easy to tell if an image is a lascivious display of the genitals.  There are specific court cases that help to define it.  The "Dost" test is the one most commonly used in Federal cases.   The problem isn't the images that clearly have no lascivious display nor the ones that clearly do, it is the ones that are borderline.  So to the extent that there is a range in which it could be interpreted differently by different juries, I agree with you.

However, you brought up Jock Sturges.  He shoots full nudes of minors, even with their genitals exposed.  The grand jury declined to indict him in a federal case.  The state of Alabama went after Barnes and Noble for carrying his books and they got no conviction either.

You are correct as to state law.  Most of the states fall into two categories.  In California (as with a lot of states), the language of our statute comes out the the same statute as federal law (18 USC 2256).  So the Dost test is a good set of guidelines.

In Texas, mere nudity of a minor isn't illegal unless it is lewd as well.  There have been numerous cases around the country that have held that mere nudity, in and of itself, isn't lewd.  There have also been cases in Texas which have tried to define lewd conduct.

So you have the same situation.  There will be some images where are clearly nude but not lewd.  Jock Sturges' shots are an example.  Naturist photos of minors are legal in every state.   There will be images that clearly are lewd as well.

Again it comes down to the same thing, there will be some images that are lewd in the eyes of one jury but not in the eyes of another (remember, it has to be unanimous).  In those cases where it is on the grey line, I totally agree with you.  There is a danger of being arrested based on uncertainty.

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Question: what about LE sending in a 16 year old to ask for nudes  If I do it ... wouldn't it be entrapment.

The answer is that it could be entrapment.  A lot has to be known before a judgment could be made.  It is true that if the model approached the photographer, it would make the defense of entrapment easier to prove, but it isn't necessarily entrapment.  But it could well be depending on how everything unfolded.

Bear in mind that merely having a sixteen year old approach a photographer to shoot nudes and having a photographer say yes, isn't necessarily a crime (although in some states parental consent would be needed).  So it gets even more confusing.

All of that having been said, I will repeat what I always say, just because it might be legal to shoot a minor in the nude doesn't make it a good idea.   There is risk that you might inadvertently cross the line plus you subject yourself to scrutiny.  My advice is to just not do it.

Ched wrote:
Hey, if they look good in a bracelet...

What if it is a small bracelet?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

The answer is that it could be entrapment.  A lot has to be known before a judgment could be made.  It is true that if the model approached the photographer, it would make the defense of entrapment easier to prove, but it isn't necessarily entrapment.  But it could well be depending on how everything unfolded.

Bear in mind that merely having a sixteen year old approach a photographer to shoot nudes and having a photographer say yes, isn't necessarily a crime (although in some states parental consent would be needed).  So it gets even more confusing.

All of that having been said, I will repeat what I always say, just because it might be legal to shoot a minor in the nude doesn't make it a good idea.   There is risk that you might inadvertently cross the line plus you subject yourself to scrutiny.  My advice is to just not do it.

we are so on the same page

Doug Swinskey wrote:
other then proving the point that texans believe anything they are told and are not concered with the rights garenteed to them by the constitution, i am not sure what your post has to do with anything...

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Follow my Suggestion ... DO THE SHOOT and send the pics to your DA...
be the test case ... come on ... go for it

You know as well as I do that "rights" have limits... just go to your local theater and scream fire... or tell the fight atttendent on your next flight that you forgot to take the gun out of your bag.  Both of these are rights under the constitution.  but I'd bet you will quickly find the limits of those rights.


I do agree with you on a point ... I really don't see AT ALL the problem with shooting the 16 year old nude from a moral standport.  It is the ethical and legal ramifications that bother me greatly.

You wanna call it paranoid ... for now I will accept that ... at least until you finish your test case for us.

another point you make...folks dont seem willing to stand up for thier own rights, they always want someone else to do it for them....

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

What if it is a small bracelet?

Maybe we should ask a stylist. Are small bracelets going to be in for spring?

RAHNDEVUE STUDIOS wrote:
Man! That is an accident waiting to happen!  You just got to say NO... Consenting to shoot anyone that age..........is asking for problems
Tyler

Almost all my models are that age. And 5'11".

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=3478997 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=3051872 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=2496346 (15/5'10.5")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=2496322 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=368948 (17/5'9")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1673389 (18/5'11")

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
The fact is that you HAVE been arrested by that point and paid hard earned dollars for defense.  Would you have a winnable defense - likely.  In todays climate could you be arrested for taking the images ... Yes ... with the right a-hole of a DA.

It would be very unlikely that the police would arrest you without the DA either issuing a warrant or seeking an indictment from the grand jury.  You don't get arrested merely because you have taken a photo.  Someone in the process has to determine that it has violated state or federal law.

It is more likely that you are going to be hassled by the police or that they will get a search warrant (as they did with Jock Sturges) and go through all of your photos and computers trying to find images they feel they can prove were illegal.

In Sturges' case, after he wasn't indicted, he tried to sue for the damage they did with no success.  In some states suit is possible, it depends on state law.  However, if you are arrested and are later acquitted, depending on the circumstances, a suit may or may not be possible.  There are a lot of factors involved.

So to the extent that you are subjecting yourself to a great deal of hassle, I do agree with you.  There are checks and balances though as to the issue of arrest.   

On the other hand, if you get indicted by the grand jury, you can be fairly certain that it is going to cost you some money.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Just so we are clear, it isn't "Nightline" that is being sued, it is "Dateline."  Also, as I understand it, they were sued because one of their subjects committed suicide after being caught.  To my knowledge, to date, nobody that has been nabbed on the show has ever been acquitted.

Just FYI ... the local DA declined to file charges on anyone involved in the Murphy, TX situation

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287209,00.html

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

It would be very unlikely that the police would arrest you without the DA either issuing a warrant or seeking an indictment from the grand jury.  You don't get arrested merely because you have taken a photo.  Someone in the process has to determine that it has violated state or federal law.

Likely the local LE would not even give a Damn unless motivated by higher ups in the structure ... the problems (or issues ) would be at the DA level and I can see a politician like to DA or a JP latching on to this kind of issue.

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Just FYI ... the local DA declined to file charges on anyone involved in the Murphy, TX situation

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287209,00.html

That is good information.  I have always had serious misgivings about the show.  Did you read the article in it's entirety?  Bear in mind that it took place in Texas.

In part, it read:

Eric Nichols, a Texas deputy attorney general, said that when law enforcement authorities pull an Internet sex sting, officers posing as decoys follow strict rules. Detailed chat logs are kept to ensure that "sex talk" is initiated by the potential predator. That way, a defendant cannot claim entrapment.

I want to emphasize here it says "is initiated by the potential predator." That goes back to the discussion which has taken place in this thread where people have tried to define entrapment far more broadly than it is.

Police don't initiate things because they don't want to create a situation where they lose a case because they can't prove that a defendant was pre-disposed to commit the crime.

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
Likely the local LE would not even give a Damn unless motivated by higher ups in the structure ... the problems (or issues ) would be at the DA level and I can see a politician like to DA or a JP latching on to this kind of issue.

That I agree with 100%.  There are always those that want to win some brownie points and get elected for higher office.

Ched wrote:
Almost all my models are that age. And 5'11".

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=3478997 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=3051872 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=2496346 (15/5'10.5")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=2496322 (17/5'11")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=368948 (17/5'9")
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=1673389 (18/5'11")

Nice work.  I have shot many under age girls  The one in my avi is one--she's 17.  I don't think beauty is bounded by age.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

That is good information.  I have always had serious misgivings about the show.  Did you read the article in it's entirety?  Bear in mind that it took place in Texas.

In part, it read:

Eric Nichols, a Texas deputy attorney general, said that when law enforcement authorities pull an Internet sex sting, officers posing as decoys follow strict rules. Detailed chat logs are kept to ensure that "sex talk" is initiated by the potential predator. That way, a defendant cannot claim entrapment.

I want to emphasize here it says "is initiated by the potential predator." That goes back to the discussion which has taken place in this thread where people have tried to define entrapment far more broadly than it is.

Police don't initiate things because they don't want to create a situation where they lose a case because they can't prove that a defendant was pre-disposed to commit the crime.

In sex chat stings that is always the case because entrapment by the defendant would be easy to argue.

ImageFusionStudio wrote:

In sex chat stings that is always the case because entrapment by the defendant would be easy to argue.

on our topic ... pre-disposition can be determined by other evidence (body of work)

ImageFusionStudio wrote:
on our topic ... pre-disposition can be determined by other evidence (body of work)

I have discussed this enough.  No more, you have beaten it to death.  We aren't accomplishing anything.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

That is good information.  I have always had serious misgivings about the show.  Did you read the article in it's entirety?  Bear in mind that it took place in Texas.

In part, it read:

Eric Nichols, a Texas deputy attorney general, said that when law enforcement authorities pull an Internet sex sting, officers posing as decoys follow strict rules. Detailed chat logs are kept to ensure that "sex talk" is initiated by the potential predator. That way, a defendant cannot claim entrapment.

I want to emphasize here it says "is initiated by the potential predator." That goes back to the discussion which has taken place in this thread where people have tried to define entrapment far more broadly than it is.

Police don't initiate things because they don't want to create a situation where they lose a case because they can't prove that a defendant was pre-disposed to commit the crime.

LOL! Damn, a link that states what Alan has been trying to beat into people's heads, I probably would have helped but he is much better at clear thoughts then I am. I prefer jokes and insults.

ImageFusionStudio wrote:

Wrong Frigging answer

TX Code---

§ 8.06. ENTRAPMENT. 

(a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the conduct charged because he was induced to do so by a law enforcement agent using persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense.  Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

(b)  In this section "law enforcement agent" includes personnel of the state and local law enforcement agencies as well as of the United States and any person acting in accordance with instructions from such agents.

Someone brought up hookers ...
Here is a real situation

Prostitution stings (aka john stings) involve female officers dressing up as call girls/hookers, hanging out in high crime areas, and approaching men (usually in cars), and asking them if they “want a date”. The conversations proceed from there, often with the undercover officer being the first one to actually raise the prospect of exchanging sex for money (which is the legal definition of prostitution in Texas).

Dallas Police Department runs these sorts of sting operations several times a year. Well, if you’re arrested in this sort of operation, can your lawyer successfully argue entrapment?

Probably not. Through caselaw, the definition of entrapment in Texas includes not only inducement or persuasion by the officer to commit the crime. It also must be of such a nature that the ordinary law abiding citizen would have been induced or persuaded to commit it.

Thus, at jury trial, if the defense were even successful in having an entrapment charge submitted to the jury, the prosecutor can simply argue this: “Find this defendant not guilty, if you too, the jury members would have agreed to have sex with this undercover officer for money.” That’s a pretty high standard to get a juror to agree with (at least back in the jury room with the other members)

Get it ..

You have it exactly right.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
why would i give a shit about what some dumpwater state DA thinks...

why isnt that completely unacceptable to everyone here...why would we tolerate some bum fuck hick stomping out our liberties without challenge..

No one here is saying that you shouldn't challenge an illegal arrest if it happens to you, but it's prudent to avoid unpleasant situations if you can.  I doubt that you'd find it fun or amusing to be the test case.  On the other hand, if you feel that strongly about it, go on down to Tickfaw, Louisiana and start photographing some naked 16 year old girls in front of the local police station and see how much fun you can have proving to that bum fuck hick sheriff that you're right and he's wrong.