| Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum. |
 | | 
04-26-2013, 04:21 PM
|
#151 | | MOD MOD MOD MOD MOD
Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: vancouver
Posts: 5,848
Thanked 3,511 Times in 1,156 Posts
|
shit... im gonna start carrying waivers around for girls to sign before having sex from now on. I don't care if it ruins the mood, it'll save my ass later.
__________________ Quote: | [03-07, 03:26] Yodamaster - The feeling when you quickly insert without hitting the sides | | 
|  | |
04-26-2013, 04:26 PM
|
#152 | | I keep RS good
Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,661
Thanked 5,539 Times in 1,502 Posts
|
so it makes me think, if i secretly record every session i have, and then one of them screams rape, and i use it in the court of law... do i win?
i guess i gotta install hidden cams everywhere. ill buy google glasses too. you guys can join my google hangout. i need witnesses that can claim she was moaning in ecstasy, not agony.
what's the limit of ppl in hangouts? i promise ill try not to look at my dick too much.
| |
| | |
04-26-2013, 11:01 PM
|
#153 | | resident Oil Guru
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,716
Thanked 10,457 Times in 1,794 Posts
| Rehtaeh Parsons's family has 'heartfelt' talk with Harper - Nova Scotia - CBC News Quote: |
Two weeks after their daughter died following months of alleged online harassment, the family of Rehtaeh Parsons sat down with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and urged him to ban the distribution of intimate images online under the Criminal Code of Canada.
| Quote: |
"For the way the laws are set up in Canada right now there was absolutely nothing we could do to help our daughter but stand there and watch her die."
|  | |
| | |
08-08-2013, 09:22 PM
|
#154 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: bedroom
Posts: 3,112
Thanked 3,492 Times in 1,176 Posts
|
Although I hesitate to bump this thread... Child-porn charges laid against Halifax teens in Rehtaeh Parsons case - The Globe and Mail Quote:
Two men have been charged in connection with the Rehtaeh Parsons case, four months after the Nova Scotia teenager’s family had complained that she killed herself after she was gang-raped and a cellphone photo of the alleged assault was circulated among her school peers.
In a joint press conference Thursday evening, the RCMP and Halifax Police said that an 18-year-old male from Halifax is facing two counts of distribution of child pornography, and a second 18-year-old male is facing charges of making child pornography and distributing child pornography.
RCMP Chief Superintendent Roland Wells said that both men are being released on the promise to appear in court on Aug. 15. The names of the accused are not being released as they were young offenders at the time of the incident, he added.
“We hope that today’s arrests help the entire community to heal. A young girl has died in what is a tragic set of circumstances,” he said. “We all need to reflect on how we as a community can come together in Rehtaeh’s memory and see what we can do to work together to support our youth.”
Halifax Police Chief Jean-Michel Blais said there was insufficient evidence to support sexual assault charges in the case.
“The evidence before us did not support the laying of sexual assault charges in the initial investigation concluded in November 2012. After the investigation in April of this year, investigators again examined whether charges could be laid and determined the available evidence did not meet the threshold of sexual assault charges against the two individuals in this matter,” he said.
For months, the case had divided residents of Cole Harbour and Eastern Passages, two neighbouring suburbs of Halifax. Rehtaeh’s family and friends complained that her plight hadn’t been taken seriously. Supporters of her alleged assailants, whose identities were known through the community, complained that they were unfairly vilified. At one point, posters defending her alleged assailants were nailed on utility poles in their neighbourhood.
Rehtaeh’s family could not be immediately reached for comment after the announcement that charges had been laid. On a memorial web page dedicated to her daughter’s memory, Rehataeh’s mother, Leah, wrote earlier in the day: “All I can say is that it’s about time they were arrested and it’s now their chance to tell `Their side of the story’”.
“They complain that its all one sided go ahead and speak, we are all ears!”
Ms. Parsons was notified of the arrests about 10 minutes after they took place and was given the names of the suspects, she told CBC.
Speaking in Saint John where he was touring the Irving Oil refinery earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he hoped the arrests will provide some comfort to Rehtaeh’s family.
“I just want to say how pleased we are to see that progress is being made,” Mr. Harper said.
Coincidentally, the arrests came a day after the province implemented stricter cyberbullying legislation, which gives victims the ability to sue their tormentors.
The legislation stemmed in part from the public outrage sparked by Rehtaeh’s case.
A 17-year-old girl from Cole Harbour, N.S., Rehtaeh died in hospital in April after a suicide attempt.
Her family says she was raped in November, 2011, when she was 15, by four boys during a party at a friend’s home in the Halifax suburb of Eastern Passage. She was distressed because a cellphone photo of the assault was circulated and the authorities failed to stop the harassment and prosecute the boys, the family alleges.
Her relatives said they were initially told by police that detectives could not prove who had sent the photo and that the Crown didn’t think they could clinch a prosecution.
However, a week after her death unleashed a nationwide uproar, police in Halifax say they had reopened their investigation because someone stepped forward and gave “new and credible information.”
In a Facebook post Wednesday marking the four-month mark since her daughter’s death, Ms. Parsons revealed that she had been raped in similar circumstances when she was 14 and that she had told her daughter about it and cautioned her about situations where there are more boys than girls.
“When Rehtaeh told me what happened to her that November 2011 night, I was immediately transcended right back to my own horror,” she wrote.
She added: “Why me? why my daughter? Not that it should happen to anyone but Why?”
| | |
| | |
08-09-2013, 06:51 AM
|
#155 | | Survivor MOD
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,138
Thanked 1,623 Times in 577 Posts
| | |
| | |
08-09-2013, 07:09 AM
|
#156 | | Hacked RS to become a mod
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sunny Hong Kong
Posts: 52,297
Thanked 23,808 Times in 8,185 Posts
|
Can't get them for rape, might as well get them for having pictures of a naked passed out drunk puking 15 year old girl who just had sex
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 08:13 AM
|
#157 | | Head Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1982 Location: Great White Nor
Posts: 22,661
Thanked 6,462 Times in 2,081 Posts
|
Is it still considered child porn if the males were underaged at the time? That's the one thing I find a little weird about Canadian laws. If you're both underage, you can have consentual sex. You just can't take pictures of one another? Or am I missing something?
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 08:23 AM
|
#158 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: bedroom
Posts: 3,112
Thanked 3,492 Times in 1,176 Posts
|
Maybe its the distribution of the photographs?
Posted via RS Mobile | |
| | |
08-09-2013, 12:36 PM
|
#159 | | I keep RS good
Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cosmos
Posts: 28,661
Thanked 5,539 Times in 1,502 Posts
|
judging from the lack of replies, i think it's safe to say the majority of people here feel no sympathy for the family or girl.
millions of people go through much worse hardship than she does, every single day of their lives, and every single day of their remaining lives. They wouldn't kill themselves in a second.
she killed herself out of shame and embarrassment for her own actions. she couldn't bring herself to face the retarded decisions she made.
the guys don't deserve to be charged for anything, except maybe getting yelled at. The only thing they should feel shame is not thinking about how their actions could affect a weak human being.
this is sickening:
"Two men have been charged in connection with the Rehtaeh Parsons case, four months after the Nova Scotia teenager’s family had complained that she killed herself after she was gang-raped"
the family complains? what do they hope to achieve? resurrection through punishment?
it seems like they just want to point fingers externally. if i were her parents, i'd start by thinking what kind of daughter i raised, would fucking kill herself.
you only commit suicide to save yourself from an dishonorable death. she did the exact opposite, she killed herself, and suffered a very dishonorable death. she hid and ran away.
gang raped? GANG RAPED? they should be forced to watch what a real fucking gang rape looks like.
when someone kills themselves dishonorably, you can't blame the world. the world has never changed since the beginning of time. there's nothing to blame externally. you have to look internally. you have to take a look at people that have gone through the same and or worse situations and NOT killed themselves. are they stronger people? are they better people?
people laugh at people that do stupid shit and get themselves killed. darwin awards.
well this is just another form of the same shit. getting yourself involved in situations where you can't handle the outcome. darwin award.
one less weak human being is going to pass on her likeness to the next generation.
i mean don't get me wrong, the family should feel sad. but they are gonna live the rest of their life miserably holding onto some external blame. when in reality, the blame isnt external at all.
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 12:42 PM
|
#160 | | The Lone Wanderator
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,090
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac  Is it still considered child porn if the males were underaged at the time? That's the one thing I find a little weird about Canadian laws. If you're both underage, you can have consentual sex. You just can't take pictures of one another? Or am I missing something? | I took law in high school, and when I was taking the class, there was a case of a guy who was being charged with child porn possession--several hundred counts if I recall correctly. A very good chunk of them, however, were thrown out for exactly the reason you mention: the courts decided that so long as a recording (including pictures) is made of two people of consenting age and that it is solely for personal use and it is never shown or distributed to others, it does not count as child pornography.
What does that mean here? If underage kids have sex and take pictures and/or video and never show anyone except the person(s) involved, then it's not child porn and you'll be charged with neither creation, possession, or distribution. If, however, even a single other person sees it, it then becomes child pornography.
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 11:20 PM
|
#161 | | Need my Daily Fix of RS
Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 295
Thanked 199 Times in 87 Posts
|
That's not right.
Creation of child pornography (s163.1(2)) and distribution/possession/accessing child pornography (s163.1(3, 4, 4.1)) are completely separate charges. The material doesn't 'evolve' into child pornography once it's disseminated. It's strictly defined by statute (s163.1(1)).
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 11:30 PM
|
#162 | | Head Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1982 Location: Great White Nor
Posts: 22,661
Thanked 6,462 Times in 2,081 Posts
|
But then s163.4 talks about anyone who possesses child pornography is guilty of:
(a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offense punishable on summary conviction.
I couldn't find any reference about what happens if that person who takes that photo is also underage.
| |
| | |
08-09-2013, 11:34 PM
|
#163 | | Need my Daily Fix of RS
Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 295
Thanked 199 Times in 87 Posts
|
I dunno. I don't practice criminal law so I'm not really familiar with it, but just based on principle alone...
A) if it doesn't explicitly permit discretionary decisions, then judges don't have any wiggle room to make exceptions for children; and
B) as a child you can't legally consent to anything anyway. You can consent to sexual activity once you reach a certain age (I think it's 16, used to be 14), but I would think that the statute means that even if you're 16-17, you can't create/distribute/access stuff made from your own activities.
| |
| | |
08-10-2013, 07:07 AM
|
#164 | | Ready to be Man handled by RS!
Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 1,798
Thanked 1,502 Times in 506 Posts
|
I have a feeling they're trying to get the guys who took the pictures to see if they'll talk about the guys IN the pictures (as in, did they rape her or not).
From what I've gathered it seems everyone involved has clammed up and with nobody talking it's impossible for the police to figure out what really happened. Code of silence.
So the police are probably hoping the guys charged will roll over on the other guys to save their own asses. The real question is do they actually have anything to offer the police? The way I see it this can go several ways:
- The girl wasn't raped and the guys taking the pictures will get convicted of the child pornography offenses and this will be the end of it.
- The girl wasn't raped, but the guys try to make a deal and lie saying she was raped hoping to save their own asses. This would make for a messy trial since it wouldn't be the truth.
- The girl was raped but the guys stay quiet and take the fall for everyone else.
- The girl was raped and these guys provide police with evidence for them to charge the others for rape. It goes to trial.
| |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:33 PM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
