07-11-2014, 01:11 AM
Yeah, I see your points, Cutz. I'm speaking from a legal standpoint.
Virginia is one of a handful of states where the legal age of consent is 18 (the highest age of consent), which pertains to erotic images as well as physical interaction - AFAIK.
However, Virginia, like Georgia, does have a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Virginia age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Virginia age of consent regulations.
"Consensual" could be a key factor and doesn't only have to apply to physical contact.
The warrants in this case have not been made available to the public, probably because both the complainant and the defendant are juveniles under Virginia law. The police are not giving details on the evidence they have in their possession in this active investigation and ongoing case.
All we know is what the boy's defense attorney has told the media, including the claim that the police want a picture of the juvenile's erect penis to compare against other evidence they have obtained (which the police publicly denied in tonight's press release).
Are the police spinning to cover their asses because they overreached and got a lot of public backlash? Or, has the defense lawyer creatively spun what went down in her client's favor and used the media to garner the kind of support for this boy that I'm seeing here. Either one's possible -- neither one is rare.
If the police were really just trying to make an example out of the boy and he sent only pics of himself to his then-girlfriend during their relationship, I think it should be dropped for the same reasons you cited.
On the other hand, if it turns out that police have evidence of this 17-year-old distributing other pornographic images that we don't yet know about to other parties (possibly including images of the 15-year-old ex-girlfriend and/or other minors) and he refused to desist, that's another matter for me. People obviously don't wake up at age 18 or 21 and decide they're old enough to start exploiting others sexually -- sometimes predatory and exploiting tendencies begin much earlier and get progressively worse if left unchecked.
Long story long, I need more evidence before I'm gonna condemn or defend either the police or the male teen.
Virginia is one of a handful of states where the legal age of consent is 18 (the highest age of consent), which pertains to erotic images as well as physical interaction - AFAIK.
However, Virginia, like Georgia, does have a close-in-age exemption, also known as a "Romeo and Juliet law", to the legal age of consent. This provision allows partners who are close in age, or both under the Virginia age of consent, to engage in consensual sex without fear of prosecution under Virginia age of consent regulations.
"Consensual" could be a key factor and doesn't only have to apply to physical contact.
The warrants in this case have not been made available to the public, probably because both the complainant and the defendant are juveniles under Virginia law. The police are not giving details on the evidence they have in their possession in this active investigation and ongoing case.
All we know is what the boy's defense attorney has told the media, including the claim that the police want a picture of the juvenile's erect penis to compare against other evidence they have obtained (which the police publicly denied in tonight's press release).
Are the police spinning to cover their asses because they overreached and got a lot of public backlash? Or, has the defense lawyer creatively spun what went down in her client's favor and used the media to garner the kind of support for this boy that I'm seeing here. Either one's possible -- neither one is rare.
If the police were really just trying to make an example out of the boy and he sent only pics of himself to his then-girlfriend during their relationship, I think it should be dropped for the same reasons you cited.
On the other hand, if it turns out that police have evidence of this 17-year-old distributing other pornographic images that we don't yet know about to other parties (possibly including images of the 15-year-old ex-girlfriend and/or other minors) and he refused to desist, that's another matter for me. People obviously don't wake up at age 18 or 21 and decide they're old enough to start exploiting others sexually -- sometimes predatory and exploiting tendencies begin much earlier and get progressively worse if left unchecked.
Long story long, I need more evidence before I'm gonna condemn or defend either the police or the male teen.