![]() |
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. Spoiler! |
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. |
Rehtaeh Parsons's family has 'heartfelt' talk with Harper - Nova Scotia - CBC News Quote:
Quote:
|
Although I hesitate to bump this thread... Child-porn charges laid against Halifax teens in Rehtaeh Parsons case - The Globe and Mail Quote:
|
:facepalm: |
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 |
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? |
Maybe its the distribution of the photographs? Posted via RS Mobile |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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)). |
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. |
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. |
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. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net