so should 16 year olds since they can drive.lowing wrote:
17 year olds are tried as adults. Or do you think a 17 year old murderer should not be responsible for their actions
apparently exactly the same as YOU are to decide that HE had it coming.lowing wrote:
She had it coming? Who are you t odecide that?
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-11 07:28:01)
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.ruisleipa wrote:
so should 16 year olds since they can drive.lowing wrote:
17 year olds are tried as adults. Or do you think a 17 year old murderer should not be responsible for their actionsapparently exactly the same as YOU are to decide that HE had it coming.lowing wrote:
She had it coming? Who are you t odecide that?
Pot, meet kettle.
She had a coming. Why she dump him knowing he has naked pics of her? Delete naked pics first, then dump.lowing wrote:
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.ruisleipa wrote:
so should 16 year olds since they can drive.lowing wrote:
17 year olds are tried as adults. Or do you think a 17 year old murderer should not be responsible for their actionsapparently exactly the same as YOU are to decide that HE had it coming.lowing wrote:
She had it coming? Who are you t odecide that?
Pot, meet kettle.
AS I HAVE SAID, I don't decide, I just don't give a fuck.
I wonder who will laugh last. Those pics will be long forgotten and he will still be labeled. Oh well, bet he wishes he wasn't such a know it all defiant smart ass after all.Cybargs wrote:
She had a coming. Why she dump him knowing he has naked pics of her? Delete naked pics first, then dump.lowing wrote:
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.ruisleipa wrote:
so should 16 year olds since they can drive.lowing wrote:
17 year olds are tried as adults. Or do you think a 17 year old murderer should not be responsible for their actions
apparently exactly the same as YOU are to decide that HE had it coming.
Pot, meet kettle.
AS I HAVE SAID, I don't decide, I just don't give a fuck.
Shit like that would never have been forgotten by her family and friends.lowing wrote:
I wonder who will laugh last. Those pics will be long forgotten and he will still be labeled. Oh well, bet he wishes he wasn't such a know it all defiant smart ass after all.Cybargs wrote:
She had a coming. Why she dump him knowing he has naked pics of her? Delete naked pics first, then dump.lowing wrote:
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.
AS I HAVE SAID, I don't decide, I just don't give a fuck.
Nope it won't. The reason why I do not give a fuck about him.Cybargs wrote:
Shit like that would never have been forgotten by her family and friends.lowing wrote:
I wonder who will laugh last. Those pics will be long forgotten and he will still be labeled. Oh well, bet he wishes he wasn't such a know it all defiant smart ass after all.Cybargs wrote:
She had a coming. Why she dump him knowing he has naked pics of her? Delete naked pics first, then dump.
none of us decide, but clearly you do give a fuck otherwise why keep posting the same stuff again and again?lowing wrote:
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.
AS I HAVE SAID, I don't decide, I just don't give a fuck.
http://www.unicef.org/pon97/p56a.htmIn the US, the age of criminal responsibility is established by state law. Only 13 states have set minimum ages, which range from 6 to 12 years old. Most states rely on common law, which holds that from age 7 to age 14, children cannot be presumed to bear responsibility but can be held responsible.
Come on man are you serious?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
remove the pictures and not face punishment. He decided to keep the pictures up and faces 12 years, sounds fair..
so any crime can get you put away for 12 years? come on, srsly...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
He faces 12 years for breaking a law, which the officers were willing to forgive as long as he took the pictures down. The officers have to enforce a law regardless of their own views as well as stop a crime. The officers did not have to give him the chance to take the pics down. It us fair to charge him.
Dude, in case you didn't read the past 8 pages of this thread, you'll see we've been discussing the fact that posting naughty pics of his jilted girlfriend and then getting arrested and charged with child pornography offences and facing a possible 12 year sentence is fucked up. At least, most of us have, lowing thinks it's a great idea so you two should get along great.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Not any crime can get you put away for 12 years. We have setencing guidlines here, you should look them up.
The police just arrested and charged him, it's up to a jury to convict and recommand a sentence and the judge to decide the sentence.
American legal system 101 here folks.
You don't have judges with common sense who will just say that this is clearly not a case of child pornography and throw the case out?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Not any crime can get you put away for 12 years. We have setencing guidlines here, you should look them up.
The police just arrested and charged him, it's up to a jury to convict and recommand a sentence and the judge to decide the sentence.
American legal system 101 here folks.
You are putting way too much on that driving thing. I used it as an example to establish that society has decided a person is aware of cause and affect and knows the difference between right and wrong at 16. We have decided that a 16 year old is aware enough to handle the responsibilities that goes along with driving a car and put them in a situation where others could be affected by their actions. In other words, he knew better. So get over it.ruisleipa wrote:
none of us decide, but clearly you do give a fuck otherwise why keep posting the same stuff again and again?lowing wrote:
Do some reading 16 year olds are triedd as adults as well.
AS I HAVE SAID, I don't decide, I just don't give a fuck.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility in your country varies but is as low as 6 or 7 unless something has changed in the last ten years (see below). But they can't drive can they? Your ridiculous arguments are ridiculous.http://www.unicef.org/pon97/p56a.htmIn the US, the age of criminal responsibility is established by state law. Only 13 states have set minimum ages, which range from 6 to 12 years old. Most states rely on common law, which holds that from age 7 to age 14, children cannot be presumed to bear responsibility but can be held responsible.
Not sure why the distinction between being held responsible but bearing responsibility, but even so the minimum age is AT LEAST 14. Young criminals you have over there.
a little experiment, disobey the next cop that orders you to stop. Betcha ya get more than just a ticket, and deservingly so.LostFate wrote:
Come on man are you serious?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
remove the pictures and not face punishment. He decided to keep the pictures up and faces 12 years, sounds fair..
That is absolutely ridiculous, if he had taken them down the charges would have been dropped therfore really he is faced with 12 years of prison for disobaying a policeman which is Ludicrous.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-11 11:13:38)
Where did he say any crime can get you 12 years? You are making up shit to form an argument . A sign of desperation and stubbornnessruisleipa wrote:
so any crime can get you put away for 12 years? come on, srsly...Marlo Stanfield wrote:
He faces 12 years for breaking a law, which the officers were willing to forgive as long as he took the pictures down. The officers have to enforce a law regardless of their own views as well as stop a crime. The officers did not have to give him the chance to take the pics down. It us fair to charge him.
It's not the opfficers job to sentence anyway but the courts.
Again, disobey an order to pull over and you will get more than a speeding ticket, even if you didn't hurt anyone. Lesson here is, respect those that know the law more than you do.ruisleipa wrote:
Dude, in case you didn't read the past 8 pages of this thread, you'll see we've been discussing the fact that posting naughty pics of his jilted girlfriend and then getting arrested and charged with child pornography offences and facing a possible 12 year sentence is fucked up. At least, most of us have, lowing thinks it's a great idea so you two should get along great.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
Not any crime can get you put away for 12 years. We have setencing guidlines here, you should look them up.
The police just arrested and charged him, it's up to a jury to convict and recommand a sentence and the judge to decide the sentence.
American legal system 101 here folks.
Gee, thanks for pointing out about juries and stuff I never knew that
Even if the guy is a douchebag locking him up for that length of time - which probably won't (hasn't?) happened anyway - would be a colossal fuckup and a stupid waste of your tax dollars, not to mention him taking up space that could be filled by a rapist or murderer, and probably emerging a hardened criminal from some fucked up prison.
So no, it would be a stupid idea to lock him up for 12 years, or even one year imo. Fuck it, a month would be enough, tops, or just a fine.
And the fact that he according to you and lowing he has a choice of a) saying sorry mr policeman or b) getting 12 years is fucking stupid as well, since if the crime was THAT bad then he should be put away regardless of whether he apologises or not. It's not like if you're facing a life sentence for murder you can just say oh sorry won't do it again and then go free is it?
We have the same laws here for similar reasons. But in instances like this you don't get convictions, because the judges apply a bit of common sense. Thus getting the best of both worlds.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I skimmed the last 8 pages and saw nothing but a bunch of teenagers posting stupid unwitty "let mee the pictures LOL" comments and misinformed Eurotrash argueing laws they don't understand.
The reason why the punishments are so high for child porn is to help stop it's production. If giving away or selling child porn was only fine worthy there would be a lot more of it being flung all over the place and more openly. For instance if I want to see a 16 year old get creampied I would have to go and risk it on a P2P network but if the punishment was just a fine for distrubting it, I would most likely be able find people selling it openly through a google search since a fine is worth the risk of the profits of selling forbidden porn. Now since there is money in porn, the exploiting of children and others for profit would be more widespread since there would be a large market for it. Keeping the punishment harsh helps make sure people aren't exploited.
a) The OP is not child porn as I would judge REAL child porn worthy of long prison sentences. The girl gave the pictures willingly which cunts for something. He didn't make any money. He made a mistake. He doesn't deserve lowing's life prison sentence. Did you even read the OP?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I skimmed the last 8 pages and saw nothing but a bunch of teenagers posting stupid unwitty "let mee the pictures LOL" comments and misinformed Eurotrash argueing laws they don't understand.
The reason why the punishments are so high for child porn is to help stop it's production. If giving away or selling child porn was only fine worthy there would be a lot more of it being flung all over the place and more openly. For instance if I want to see a 16 year old get creampied I would have to go and risk it on a P2P network but if the punishment was just a fine for distrubting it, I would most likely be able find people selling it openly through a google search since a fine is worth the risk of the profits of selling forbidden porn. Now since there is money in porn, the exploiting of children and others for profit would be more widespread since there would be a large market for it. Keeping the punishment harsh helps make sure people aren't exploited.
According to laws in the US, as I've said the legal age of responsibility is routinely totally different than the driving age. Being of driving age just shows you can drive legally - NOTHING ELSE. Don't you think the voting age wold be a better point at which you can recognise full civic responsibility. At least if you can vote you can in theory have some effect on the system. My point was in response to YOUR post saying that the age you can drive should be the age you're legally responsible for everything you do and subject to exactly the same sentences (seemingly mandatory life sentences in your opinion) as someone who is for example a 50 year old pervert, which is bollocks. You might think I'm making too much of it cos you realise it was a stupid thing to say in the first place.lowing wrote:
You are putting way too much on that driving thing. I used it as an example to establish that society has decided a person is aware of cause and affect and knows the difference between right and wrong at 16. We have decided that a 16 year old is aware enough to handle the responsibilities that goes along with driving a car and put them in a situation where others could be affected by their actions. In other words, he knew better. So get over it.
He saidlowing wrote:
Where did he say any crime can get you 12 years? You are making up shit to form an argument . A sign of desperation and stubbornness
which I read as meaning any law, perhaps due to his bad use of punctuation.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
He faces 12 years for breaking a law
And your point is what? Don't pull over and get an extra ticket for not pulling over? errr..ok. Thanks for that, really helpful to the case in hand.lowing wrote:
Again, disobey an order to pull over and you will get more than a speeding ticket, even if you didn't hurt anyone. Lesson here is, respect those that know the law more than you do.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-11 23:05:34)
As I said before look it up, 16 year olds are routinely being charged as adults. Pretty much making your argument an untruth.ruisleipa wrote:
a) The OP is not child porn as I would judge REAL child porn worthy of long prison sentences. The girl gave the pictures willingly which cunts for something. He didn't make any money. He made a mistake. He doesn't deserve lowing's life prison sentence. Did you even read the OP?Marlo Stanfield wrote:
I skimmed the last 8 pages and saw nothing but a bunch of teenagers posting stupid unwitty "let mee the pictures LOL" comments and misinformed Eurotrash argueing laws they don't understand.
The reason why the punishments are so high for child porn is to help stop it's production. If giving away or selling child porn was only fine worthy there would be a lot more of it being flung all over the place and more openly. For instance if I want to see a 16 year old get creampied I would have to go and risk it on a P2P network but if the punishment was just a fine for distrubting it, I would most likely be able find people selling it openly through a google search since a fine is worth the risk of the profits of selling forbidden porn. Now since there is money in porn, the exploiting of children and others for profit would be more widespread since there would be a large market for it. Keeping the punishment harsh helps make sure people aren't exploited.
b) you seem to be new so I dunno where you get off coming in with dumbass statements like "saw nothing but a bunch of teenagers posting stupid unwitty "let mee the pictures LOL" comments and misinformed Eurotrash argueing laws they don't understand."
Way to make a good impression. There's a couplea people here think I talk shit but at least I've worked up to it.
Actually, did lowing make another account just to support himself?According to laws in the US, as I've said the legal age of responsibility is routinely totally different than the driving age. Being of driving age just shows you can drive legally - NOTHING ELSE. Don't you think the voting age wold be a better point at which you can recognise full civic responsibility. At least if you can vote you can in theory have some effect on the system. My point was in response to YOUR post saying that the age you can drive should be the age you're legally responsible for everything you do and subject to exactly the same sentences (seemingly mandatory life sentences in your opinion) as someone who is for example a 50 year old pervert, which is bollocks. You might think I'm making too much of it cos you realise it was a stupid thing to say in the first place.lowing wrote:
You are putting way too much on that driving thing. I used it as an example to establish that society has decided a person is aware of cause and affect and knows the difference between right and wrong at 16. We have decided that a 16 year old is aware enough to handle the responsibilities that goes along with driving a car and put them in a situation where others could be affected by their actions. In other words, he knew better. So get over it.He saidlowing wrote:
Where did he say any crime can get you 12 years? You are making up shit to form an argument . A sign of desperation and stubbornnesswhich I read as meaning any law, perhaps due to his bad use of punctuation.Marlo Stanfield wrote:
He faces 12 years for breaking a law
You ignore all my salient points you don't have an answer to and come back with some vague personal insults ('desperate and stubborn') which you love calling other people out on but equally are happy dishing out yourself. A sign of desperation and stubborness, perhaps?And your point is what? Don't pull over and get an extra ticket for not pulling over? errr..ok. Thanks for that, really helpful to the case in hand.lowing wrote:
Again, disobey an order to pull over and you will get more than a speeding ticket, even if you didn't hurt anyone. Lesson here is, respect those that know the law more than you do.
can't really argue with this.Cybargs wrote:
He faces UP to 12 years for breaking a law, doesn't mean he will get 12 years. Well it's shitty US law that makes child pornography of anyone under 18. Yes they should make further classification as who is a child. But this guy is a dumbass and the girl is a dumbass as well. Yeah the kid should be charged as a minor but hes still pretty fucking stupid of not making it go away.