The inappropriate relationship (sexting) with minor

Status
Not open for further replies.
tycla posted above:
The father was exchanging nude photos with six women, including teenagers, even on the day his son died

Imoo there is no way this won't be used in some context during the trial because it points to dad's inappropriate behavior with a minor (s).
Add to that dad sexting with someonie while his son was dying in the car... ugh.

This guy is a real .
 
what????? :jawdrop:
But but dad isn't a teacher.
I am just saying Georgia /Cobb County won't prosecute even if he did have sex with a 16 year old.
They set a precedent in 2010.
They can get her for the sexting, because she is under 18and him for sending *advertiser censored* to a minor.
Feds could come after him for sex with a minor but I don't see that happening.
It doesn't matter that he isn't a teacher. Any man can have sex with a 16 year old in Georgia.
They just don't press charges.
I don't agree with it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
moo
 
I am just saying Georgia /Cobb County won't prosecute even if he did have sex with a 16 year old.
They set a precedent in 2010.
They can get her for the sexting, because she is under 18and him for sending *advertiser censored* to a minor.
Feds could come after him for sex with a minor but I don't see that happening.
It doesn't matter that he isn't a teacher. Any man can have sex with a 16 year old in Georgia.
They just don't press charges.
I don't agree with it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
moo
Yes, definitely worth mentioning. It will be interesting to see what charges will be dealt.
 
Images of child *advertiser censored* are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child *advertiser censored* as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child *advertiser censored* are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child *advertiser censored* if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html
 
maybe they are shooting for federal statutes. MOO the sexting the teen is the least of RH's issues but may explain the searches about same and the search about prison. JMO.

I didn't know this stuff til I started looking at it because of this case. But it looks like not matter state law about age of consent the sending pics back and forth can still be a problem for RH with this particular girl.

Also, I tend to think the threat of such charges and the fact that fighting them would involve all the dirt coming out is a threat, intended to make RH consider very hard if he wants to consider pleading out on the charges against him pertaining to Cooper.

Just some stuff I am kicking around in my head.
 
Images of child *advertiser censored* are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child *advertiser censored* as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child *advertiser censored* are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.

Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child *advertiser censored* if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/citizensguide/citizensguide_porn.html
I was just going to post this...he probably should have googled this too
 
I have a feeling RH was overconfident in the area of his research, as in so many other areas. lol. Shoulda looked a bit deeper.
 
I am just saying Georgia /Cobb County won't prosecute even if he did have sex with a 16 year old.
They set a precedent in 2010.
They can get her for the sexting, because she is under 18and him for sending *advertiser censored* to a minor.
Feds could come after him for sex with a minor but I don't see that happening.
It doesn't matter that he isn't a teacher. Any man can have sex with a 16 year old in Georgia.
They just don't press charges.
I don't agree with it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
moo

Talk about some screwed up laws... IMO

"Yes, my sweet-sixteen darling, let's get together and... BUT DON'T SEND ME ANY PICTURES!"

If they won't fix that, they should at least expressly correct that TEACHERS should not have sex with their 16 year old students!!!! Consensual DOES NOT EXIST in those types of relationship, IMO.... would be like telling you it's ok to have sex with your psychotherapist if it's "consensual."

All just MO... don't mind me ;)
 
What I can't understand is how LH & RH's mother could sit in the courtroom so calmly while Stoddard is telling a packed courtroom and national television that this is sending pictures of his erect penis to a 17 y/o. I'm pretty sure I would have to get up and leave to keep from strangling him myself. Do they not feel completely humiliated? I just can't believe they are that good a actor. Ewww
 
What I can't understand is how LH & RH's mother could sit in the courtroom so calmly while Stoddard is telling a packed courtroom and national television that this is sending pictures of his erect penis to a 17 y/o. I'm pretty sure I would have to get up and leave to keep from strangling him myself. Do they not feel completely humiliated? I just can't believe they are that good a actor. Ewww

Paralyzed is what I think
 
So sexting with a 17 yr.old is a felony. He forgot his child in the car and didn't remember during the time he was committing a felony, and the baby died.
How.does.his lawyer claim it jas nothing to do with Cooper's death? He knew he was headed to work and what he would get involved in once he got there.
moo
 
I am sickened by this case. Just sickened. What kind of sick ticket is this guy?
 
Good to see you tezi! Been missing you lately, like ships passing we are.

This is one sick puppy, for sure.
 
I have also see folks speculating that the sexting may not get into trial because it may not be considered as relevant to that MORNING's activities and therefore whether RH forgot Cooper that morning or left him on purpose. I don't think this can stay out.




Anybody else wonder if the 30 seconds in his car before exiting it in the morning at the treehouse were so he could get his little erection and photograph it in a place more "private" than his cubicle? Just a thought.

:sick:

I think he had to have a stand in for his member. Probably an internet download
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,863
Total visitors
3,013

Forum statistics

Threads
592,612
Messages
17,971,810
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top