Red Dead Redemption

CapoValley, HuskerPowerVA, et.al. https://www.vix.com/en/inspiration/529488/man-who-steals-truck-save-lives-las-vegas-shooting-gets-huge-reward He should be charge with a felony, amirite?

Interesting that even though at 16 she was legally able to consent to engage in sexual conduct, she was nevertheless charged with child pornography simply because of the technicality that she was still a minor. Absolutism FTW!!!!!11111oneoneone

Absolutism FTW!!!!!!!!! Maryland’s Unjust Court Decision on Sexting A Maryland teen shared a video of her own sex act. She was punished as a child pornographer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/31/maryland-court-teen-girl-video-law The top court in Maryland ruled this week that a teen who sent a sexually explicit cellphone video of herself to two friends violated state child pornography law. The student identified as SK was 16 at the time and therefore “legally able to consent to engage in sexual conduct”. According to the ruling, she and her two best friends swapped “silly photos and videos” in a cellphone-based group chat “in an effort to ‘one-up’ each other”. The other group members were identified as AT, a 16-year-old female, and KS, a 17-year-old male. During the 2016-17 school year, SK sent them a “one-minute video of herself performing [oral sex] on a male”. Prosecutors charged SK as a juvenile with filming a minor engaging in sexual conduct, distributing child pornography and displaying an obscene item to a minor. The judges said they did “recognize that there may be compelling policy reasons for treating teenage sexting different from child pornography” and said legislation differentiating the two “ought to be considered by [Maryland’s] general assembly in the future”. SK, humiliated and horrified, found herself charged as a child pornographer. The system failed her at every step, from the school resource officer who treated her like a criminal, to the prosecutor who inexplicably brought a criminal case against her, to the courts that affirmed the prosecutors’ ridiculous reading of the law.” Rebecca Roiphe, a professor of law at New York Law School and former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, agreed. “This is a ridiculous reading of the statute,” she said in an email. “The law uses two different terms, ‘person’ to describe the perpetrator and ‘minor’ to describe the victim. The legislature clearly did not intend to criminalize the victim. “I think the case illustrates how troubling the enforcement of sex crimes can be and how important it is that prosecutors use their discretion wisely.”

Who are you? Cleopatra?

Absolutism FTW!!!!!111111oneoneone So did his ex, and her mom. Why were they not charged?

Just a guess, but maybe the difference is because anyone not intellectually dishonest can see that the child pornography is a BS charge

*oughta

Do any of the absolutists have a comment on this?

absolutism FTW! Absolutism FTW!

You've got another think coming

I thought you said you were leaving? We can't miss you until you are gone.

buh-bye

I am absolutely glad I don't live in a world of absolutes.

"Kiddie porn, bad!!!!"

"Nah, coach. I'm not gonna run those stairs. I don't like that class either, so I'm not going to attend"

And I've told others, because of that statement by Frost, I wouldn't begrudge the coaches for dismissing MW from the team, because if the coaches were aware of what MW did when it happened, he might not have even been recruited in the first place. But preventing someone from entering your circle in the first place is different (and easier) than kicking someone out that's already been allowed in. Once someone has been brought into your fold, and you see first hand what kind of person they are and what kind of character they have, it's not unreasonable for an incident from their past to be seen as more of an anomaly rather than a definition of who they are, so attempts to help them redeem themselves instead of kicking them to the curb are understandable. But feel free to push the "win at all costs" narrative; I can't say there's no truth to it. What MW did was morally wrong, but that doesn't mean the cries of "child porn" from the peanut gallery are accurate.

She's dead now, so would that make her a dirt bike? I didn't know you were into necrophilia

And if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bike

And California sex offenders, no matter their offense, have to stay registered for life, including public urinators, underage sexters, and women who flash their boobs at concerts. The punishment doesn't fit the crime

Sounds like you're made of spare parts. Re-read my post and try again. This time pay attention to the part where I said I don't care if he's a football player or not.

When the full context and circumstances are taken into consideration, and compared against what the law was created to combat, yes it is. And I don't care if he's a football player or not. I'd feel the same way if it was some random kid from some random city. What he did was morally wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean the felony charges and potential punishments that go with them are appropriate for this scenario. But its not the first time someone has faced excessive charges that don't appropriately or justly define what happened. Some laws are trying to hit a moving target. This is why there are lawyers, judges, juries, plea bargains, and appeals to mitigate scenarios like this.

Order an uber to take you to Wendy's

For years on HM, each user could select the option of how many posts per page. But with the last software upgrade, that option was taken away.

https://forum.huskermax.com/threads/david-max.112319/