North Carolina is funny

[Devils Advocate]

Oh North Carolina, you've (un)covered quite a bit here, exposing your backwoods morals and conflict with not only modernism but general common fücking sense. I fear this way of thinking will reach beyond the borders of that great state and further deprive Americans of their naturally protected Rights.





This case touches upon several topics discussed many times over here in our lil corner of the interwebs.

Link to the Stink

Quote:A teen looking at felony sex offender charges for taking and keeping nude photos of himself has agreed to a plea deal, and will now spend one year on probation to clear his record. That probation includes not protesting police searches without a warrant.

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2015, 08:34 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Oh North Carolina, you've (un)covered quite a bit here, exposing your backwoods morals and conflict with not only modernism but general common fücking sense. I fear this way of thinking will reach beyond the borders of that great state and further deprive Americans of their naturally protected Rights.





This case touches upon several topics discussed many times over here in our lil corner of the interwebs.

Link to the Stink

Well.... that seems a touch ridiculous.
I think the ban on the cellphone was overreaching enough (that should be up to the parents), but the warrantless searches are despicable.

Oh......I want to know why you are using pics of Roethlisberger twins (Circa Ozarks 1940, shortly before moving to Lima, Ohio), when speaking about people from North Carolina ?

[Devils Advocate]

(09-23-2015, 08:51 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well.... that seems a touch ridiculous.
I think the ban on the cellphone was overreaching enough (that should be up to the parents), but the warrantless searches are despicable.

Oh......I want to know why you are using pics of Roethlisberger twins (Circa Ozarks 1940, shortly before moving to Lima, Ohio), when speaking about people from North Carolina ?

Lol @ Roethlisberger twins. 

I was just trying to convey my anger disappointment with this ruling by taking a jab at rural NC. It was a distasteful attempt. I actually like that state. Been there many times. Hope sunset can forgive me, lol. 

[SunsetBengal]

As part of a plea deal, to clear his record..

Basically, he is guilty. He is at the mercy of the court to gain that clearing of the record. If he has a problem with the conditions, he could always just face the charges and full brunt of their punishment.

Geez, you liberals kill me sometimes!

[Rotobeast]

(09-23-2015, 09:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As part of a plea deal, to clear his record..

Basically, he is guilty.  He is at the mercy of the court to gain that clearing of the record.  If he has a problem with the conditions, he could always just face the charges and full brunt of their punishment.

Geez, you liberals kill me sometimes!

Pssstt.... I'm not a filthy liberal.
Don't tell Bfine.


Sidenote: A judge in my town offered a plea deal containing that the 2 men who had harassed women had to walk down Main St in drag.
They did it.

[Devils Advocate]

(09-23-2015, 09:30 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As part of a plea deal, to clear his record..

Basically, he is guilty.  He is at the mercy of the court to gain that clearing of the record.  If he has a problem with the conditions, he could always just face the charges and full brunt of their punishment.

Geez, you liberals kill me sometimes!

The Warrantless searches, as a condition of probation is disturbing because it's circumventing the rights of this young man. It may be argued that his Rights may be taken away as a result of his actions, but let's not overlook the fact that these pics were of himself. 

 

[SunsetBengal]

(09-23-2015, 10:07 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: The Warrantless searches, as a condition of probation is disturbing because it's circumventing the rights of this young man. It may be argued that his Rights may be taken away as a result of his actions, but let's not overlook the fact that these pics were of himself. 

 

As technically convicted, he has no rights to be violated. 



You should read up.

[Devils Advocate]

(09-23-2015, 10:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As technically convicted, he has no rights to be violated. 



You should read up.

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind :rolls eyes:

I'll suspend debating the Warrantless searches for moment because it'll get deep. 

The kid was caught with pics of himself and his girlfriend, but the article doesn't delve into that.  She was convicted too. But here's the kicker. The age of consent in NC is 16. Guess how old these two were? These were two consenting individuals sharing pics. 

This smells like the DA inflated the charges in order get a lesser conviction. 

Even if you don't buy that, where does it end? Is granny in danger of conviction for having naked pics of her grandchildren?

[SunsetBengal]

(09-23-2015, 11:04 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: Yeah, I'll keep that in mind :rolls eyes:

I'll suspend debating the Warrantless searches for moment because it'll get deep. 

The kid was caught with pics of himself and his girlfriend, but the article doesn't delve into that.  She was convicted too. But here's the kicker. The age of consent in NC is 16. Guess how old these two were? These were two consenting individuals sharing pics. 

This smells like the DA inflated the charges in order get a lesser conviction. 

Even if you don't buy that, where does it end? Is granny in danger of conviction for having naked pics of her grandchildren?

Yeah, its tricky.


The age of consent is 16, but technically he's still a minor.  The crime is a felony, and in NC at 16 you can be tried as an adult. 

So, while his crime may seem rather juvenile in nature, he is still tried as an adult in NC.

My guess is, that unless his family has plenty of money, or a generous attorney wants to devote a lot of pro bono time, he should just take the deal and accept it as a lesson learned in life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-24-2015, 12:03 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, its tricky.


The age of consent is 16, but technically he's still a minor.  The crime is a felony, and in NC at 16 you can be tried as an adult. 

So, while his crime may seem rather juvenile in nature, he is still tried as an adult in NC.

My guess is, that unless his family has plenty of money, or a generous attorney wants to devote a lot of pro bono time, he should just take the deal and accept it as a lesson learned in life.

What's the life lesson?  Don't take naked selfies?  Or a law which makes you both the perpretrator and victim simultaneously is absurd?

[Mike M (the other one)]

There's a lot more to the story than this.

First: yes they did the swap of photo's when they were 16 (and legal age of consent in NC).

Second: The cops were investigating the High School because of nudes being shared.

Third: Neither student was a linked in any way to the group that was sharing.

Fourth: There was no search warrant issued to search Copening's phone, where they found the pic of his GF Brianna and his own selfie.

Fifth: Brianna was charged with making and possessing a nude of herself.

Sixth: Copening was charge with 5 counts of sexual exploitation. 2 for each photo of himself (making and possessing) and 1 for possessing the photo of his gf.

To wrap it all up, this whole thing is absurd. Saddest part is that they are both were responsible enough not to share the nude pics with others and apparently are going to get punished for it as if they did share. Not only all of that, I'm at odds as to how you can be charged for this considering that they are both victim and criminal in their own respective cases.

Recent studies suggest that 24% of all high school teens share naked pics of themselves with their gf/bf. Not only that, but we've been sharing pics for years, back in the day, you'd take picks with a polaroid and keep them or draw a naked pic of yourself in a love note. I think the laws need to be updated because they weren't made with the technology in mind that we have today.

[GodHatesBengals]

So he didn't even SEND these photos to anybody? He just had some pictures of himself for whatever reason? This kid should not be in trouble for "taking and keeping nude photos of himself". Come on.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-24-2015, 04:02 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So he didn't even SEND these photos to anybody? He just had some pictures of himself for whatever reason? This kid should not be in trouble for "taking and keeping nude photos of himself". Come on.

That's correct, and he didn't send his GF's either.

Yet, he's been kicked off of the High School Football team (he's the QB) so if he's any good, then a college scholarship just went bye bye as well. As well as facing the charges that he's facing (which he will take the plea), that's way to much by way of punishment.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-24-2015, 11:46 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What's the life lesson?  Don't take naked selfies?  Or a law which makes you both the perpretrator and victim simultaneously is absurd?

The life lesson would be to not keep things that may later get you into trouble.  Obviously the QB of the football team must have known that there was an investigation regarding nude photos going on in his school, he should have been smarter than that.



The law is the tricky part, as there is no freedom of speech/expression when it comes to minors in the educational environment.


Tinker v. Des Moines School District 1969

Bayless v. Martine 1970

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-24-2015, 06:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The life lesson would be to not keep things that may later get you into trouble.  Obviously the QB of the football team must have known that there was an investigation regarding nude photos going on in his school, he should have been smarter than that.



The law is the tricky part, as there is no freedom of speech/expression when it comes to minors in the educational environment.


Tinker v. Des Moines School District 1969

Bayless v. Martine 1970

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988

His mom is the dummy, she could've protected him by making the cops get a search warrant. Again, he was not a target or even linked to the investigation. So why were the cops even wanting to search his phone in the first place?

[fredtoast]

I may do some research on this later, but I'll bet there was some evidence that he showed other people the picture of his naked girlfriend.

No way of knowing what happened. These laws sound crazy when they start getting used to make the same person both the victim and the perpetrator.

The loss of rights regarding his privacy is only for the one year probationary period and it can be directly related to the crime he was convicted under. It is like requiring a person convicted of drug charges to be subject to random drug screens.

To be honest with you it is usually a standard condition of probation that the person be subject to search at any time. I have actually dealt with this issue before, and it was in the probation order that he would be sujbect to search at any time. In my case the guy reported to his officer while high, so they went out and searched his car. That was justified under the terms of his probation, and it was a standard provision, not something special to his case.