/b/'s Master Plan. pure genius. those there tags >>. bbe 14 year old boy what with girl of my age wells me she' s into elder guys next with her meeting we i Love You
x
Click to expand

/b/'s Master Plan

/b/'s Master Plan. pure genius. those there tags >>. bbe 14 year old boy what with girl of my age wells me she' s into elder guys next with her meeting we

pure genius. those there tags >>

Tags: i | Love | You
bbe 14 year old boy
what with girl of my age
wells me she' s into elder guys
next with her
meeting
we to her house
ait' s chris Nansen
screw gees to jail fer eating with me
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+1189
Views: 48789
Favorited: 91
Submitted: 09/10/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to thisoneworks Subscribe to 4chan submit to reddit
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#5 - lolerbot (09/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#1 - therichie (09/10/2013) [-]
MFW tags
User avatar #2 to #1 - zaiopeperse (09/10/2013) [-]
I haven't seen that reaction pic in ages Have a thumb :3
#10 - cantankerousotter ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
HFW
#35 - DarkestLink (09/11/2013) [-]
That's a ******* perfect scenario.
#19 - bloodygod ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
I MA, iM A WARRIOR!
I MA, iM A WARRIOR!
User avatar #22 to #19 - dishesaredone (09/11/2013) [-]
what is that comment from
I MA, iM A WARRIOR!
User avatar #24 to #22 - bloodygod ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
The Boondocks
#21 to #19 - bloodygod ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #18 - niggastolemyname (09/11/2013) [-]
dat lightbulb
User avatar #47 to #37 - imadethisforitems (09/11/2013) [-]
This picture will never be relevant again, but I love it.
User avatar #29 - Crusader (09/11/2013) [-]
Can you get in trouble if the other person claims to be old enough?
Isn't that entrapment?
User avatar #38 to #29 - iveseensomethings (09/11/2013) [-]
it's the fact that the guy, who is usually older than 30, is chatting with a girl (sometimes boy) who says she (or he) is under the age of 18 (sometimes under the age of 15) and the guy goes there for sex which is established in the chat.

I don't care what it's called, putting the face of a sexual predator or a pedo for the world to see is a great idea.
User avatar #40 to #38 - Crusader (09/11/2013) [-]
No, but the cast and crew of To Catch A predator can't be charged because anon claimed to be over 18.
User avatar #41 to #40 - iveseensomethings (09/11/2013) [-]
Oh. I thought you were referring to the idea behind the show in general.
User avatar #44 to #29 - dermustang (09/11/2013) [-]
nah. In US law, no matter what age they tell you they are it's still statutory rape (and pedophilia) if they're under the age of consent. The age of consent is actually 16 in most states, but it's 18 in California and NY which is why that's the one you see the most. They can even show you a fake ID saying they're over the legal age and you'll still be charged with statutory rape if anyone reports it. There's been cases of "fishing" where these underage girls go to parties with fake IDs, take some poor bastard home, and then surprise 'em with their real age and threaten to report it if they don't pay up. Luckily they get charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud so they get in big trouble, but the guys often get charged with sex crimes anyway so...

tl;dr No matter what the circumstance is, if the girl is underage, you're a sex offender in the eyes of the law. It's a broke system that we're trying to fix, but that's just how it is.
User avatar #48 to #44 - Crusader (09/11/2013) [-]
No, I'm fairly sure that it's entrapment, because you need two things to be charged guilty.
Guilty mind
Guilty body
Guilty body being you actually have to commit a crime, hence why thinking of murdering someone isn't illegal.
Guilty Mind is knowing what you were doing, hence why there are insanity pleas and mental infirm please for people that are insane and retarded, respectively.
To have the guilty mind you must know you are committing a crime, or know that what you do is illegal, hence why manslaughter is only manslaughter if you can prove that they were doing something to cause the death, often referred to as criminal negligence or (something else, I can't remember at the moment, starts with an "r").
If you are driving drunk, and know you are drunk (because you know drinking and driving is a crime), and hit someone, that's criminal negligence causing death, ie manslaughter
Whereas
If you are driving along the road and there is a person walking down the middle of the road wearing all black and you hit them because you can't see them, that's not manslaughter, because you are do not have a guilty mind, it was just an accident, you can't legally be charged unless it is revealed that there was a problem with your car "blown headlight, etc" that made it so you could not see them and stop in time.
User avatar #49 to #48 - dermustang (09/11/2013) [-]
hitting someone because you can't see them could easily be charged as involuntary manslaughter because even if you didn't mean to hurt anyone and you took all possible precautions, you still killed a person. It's left to the discretion of the jury and DA as far as whether to sentence you and for how long, but it's still possible to be charged.

Guilty body is the main component in criminal cases, guilty mind just determines the severity of the charge. Guilty mind is the biggest difference between Murder and Manslaughter. When it comes to sexual offenses, statutory rape in particular, guilty mind is hardly taken into consideration. Rape is sex under the condition of duress, so guilty mind is heavily implied but the coercion is still a part of guilty body. That's why there's a couple of different degrees, with the more minor ones being for sex while intoxicated (consent can't be given but it wasn't necessarily violent, i.e. no guilty mind) and the major ones for raping someone at gunpoint (guilty mind is definitely there).
I'm in BLET (basic law enforcement training) right now in NC so I'm really only well-versed in those laws. If there's huge differences in our regions, that would explain the different policies. But to the best of my knowledge, statutory rape is nationally punished by hundreds of degrees all mainly based around the difference in age between the two parties. Because of this, guilty mind is rendered basically obsolete. Even if you have full reason and logical support to believe someone is of the legal age, you can still be charged with a sex offense for having intercourse with them if they are underage.

CAN is the big word there, as many consensual cases of this are left unreported for obvious reasons. The biggest cause of reports is pissed-off parents not liking their 15 year old daughter having an 18 year old boyfriend. But even if they had an ID saying they were 18, a minor is a minor and it's an offense to sex anyone under the age of consent
User avatar #50 to #49 - dermustang (09/11/2013) [-]
Although like I said before, and like you mentioned right now with mens rea and habeus rea, the person entrapping the offender doesn't always get off scott-free. The offender is still breaking a federal statute and could be arrested and charged, but the underage party could be subject to charges of fraud, conspiracy, possession of illegal documentation, and other offenses based on the situation.

tl;dr The person having sex with an underage party is still a sex offender if they get reported, but the underage party could be liable for criminal offenses of their own if they're trying for entrapment or something else. To Catch A Predator is fine in most cases because the target is voluntarily following clearly underage children around, but some other cases on that show are in a greyer area. It's technically not entrapment, but it's a dick move and it's definitely a fluke in our flawed justice system.
#63 - godzillaeatslazers (09/15/2013) [-]
**godzillaeatslazers rolled a random image posted in comment #36083 at Drawing & Art - drawing games, drawing online, how to draw, drawing lessons online ** HFW its Chris
#62 - kevintk (09/11/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#59 - iamphoenix (09/11/2013) [-]
Nothing could possibly go wrong with this.
#61 - olafthebard (09/11/2013) [-]
WILD CARD BITCHES!
WILD CARD BITCHES!
User avatar #60 - reginleif ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
I don't think Hanson's group actually exchanges those types of images though.

From what I've seen it's all promises of sex.
0
#57 - iitoxictz has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #45 - sunice (09/11/2013) [-]
still child pornography on 14yo part
User avatar #51 to #45 - phsycokidx (09/11/2013) [-]
Sexting isn't pornography
User avatar #53 to #51 - ronsha ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
It can be if pics are involved. Otherwise its not.
User avatar #55 to #53 - phsycokidx (09/11/2013) [-]
The child pornography law is very flawed..... two 16 year olds could send eachother pictures and both be registered as sex offenders... but, they can legally have sex due to to closeness in age.. this law was created to stop older adults from taking advantage of children.. not locking up teens and ruining their lives... this law is currently being abused
User avatar #56 to #55 - ronsha ONLINE (09/11/2013) [-]
Of course half the laws in the book are ignored (ie. jay walking, no sodomy, underage sex, etc.) not to mention the laws that were created because of highly improbable happenings to stop it from happening again (I reiterate highly improbable)
The main problem is we're following a law book that was written ages ago, and only editing or inserting things into it that benefit the people that do the "editing"
#36 - anon (09/11/2013) [-]
He went to jail because he was sexting with someone who lied about their age? Seems a little weird, maybe its just me.
0
#11 - jrondeau **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)