It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Teenager facing felony sex offender charges forced to plea and accept warrantless searches

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
This is a topic that has been irritating the crap out of me. So a teenager (or two) act like stupid teenagers, and wind up with some naked pictures of underage individuals on their phone (and it's just them).

It's not just a dumbass teenage indiscretion, that we ALL would have been guilty of if cell phones cameras were as prevalent back in the day, it's now enough to charge a teen with felony child pornography possession.


In North Carolina, creating and possessing sexual photos of minors is considered a sex crime under child pornography laws. The couple’s nude photo exchange put them at odds with the law, and because 16 is the age of adulthood in criminal cases in North Carolina, both are being tried as adults.


Freaking LOL. So you can be charged as an adult, for sharing child pornography of yourself. Go F yourself North Carolina.


As part of the plea deal, Copening accepted two reduced counts of disseminating harmful material to minors, WRAL reports. Like Denson, his year-long probation includes a ban on his cell phone. From the Fayetteville Observer:


Oh the freaking horror.


District Court Judge April Smith sentenced Copening to a year of probation. During that year, her order says, Copening must stay in school, take a class on making good decisions, complete 30 hours of community service, not use or possess alcohol or illegal drugs, not possess a cellphone and must submit to warrantless searches.


What? Why? Why does he have to submit to warrantless searches?

I agree that he got off easy, but getting off easy in this situation still seems far too harsh. A rather extreme exaggeration would be not getting the death penalty for jaywalking.

Laws like these need to be adjusted. Yes, having child pornography on your phone should land you in trouble. No, it's not the same if you're a teenager and you girlfriend sent you some nudes.

They're freaking stupid kids. This shouldn't have been a criminal issue, it should have been a cop laughing at them for being idiots, telling them to delete it and not do it again. I got caught a few times by the cops messing around with girlfriends in my car when I was a teen. It involved a tap on the window (sad trombone noise), asking the girl if she was OK, then making a joke and telling us to GTFO.

This should have been met with some stern words from a judge with a twinkle in his eye and left alone.

Link




posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

edit on 1820150920151 by Domo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
This happens in many countries in the west.

It is the result of politicians having their knee jerk reactions and the rest of the legal system following along like stupid moronic fools.

In my opinion, what the Police and the court did, was to commit child abuse. These two children have been abused by a petty system that can not see right from wrong.

Those images were theirs to give each other.

And it is a truly sad indictment on our society when those same children, having naked pictures of obscenely fat adults making out is acceptable. Give me a break.

If there was ever a case for jury nullification, this is the one.

Stupid people harming children. Reminds me of the inquisition era.

ETA. How can a legal system take away unalienable rights written into the constitution? Madness!

P

edit on 18/9/2015 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Not going into the whole child porn thing.

But he was sentenced to a year probation. Anyone on probation is subject to warrantless searches.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
What? Why? Why does he have to submit to warrantless searches?



Because he is on probation. He's under the jurisdiction of the authorities, just the same as if he was in prison. Probation effectively means that he serves his sentence at home instead of a jail cell. His home is his jail cell, and they don't need a warrant to search a jail cell. As a condition of his probation is that he doesn't possess certain items, they are going to want to ensure that he isn't possessing those items - which means the ability to search.

Once the probation ends, the warrantless searches end.

Whether he should be put in this position in the first place is another matter entirely. Without reading further into the matter, this doesn't appear to be the kind of situation that merits this response. I understand why the response is there, what they are trying to achieve, and the difficulties of handling any such case with anything approaching "discretion" - the authorities would be slaughtered in the press if they exercised discretion in this instance but it later transpired the kid was actually at the start of some mad sex-crime spree.

Two kids who are old enough to know what they are doing (biologically young adults even if not mentally) messing about together doesn't merit sex offender status.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
the beacon of democracy to the rest of the world! hahahaaa


+1 more 
posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
If you are old enough to be tried as an adult for a specific crime, then you should be considered an adult, and therefore, she would be an "ADULT" and it wouldn't be child porn. If you don't want to treat them like adults then you shouldn't punish them like adults.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

So . If i read the OP and link right , he committed an offence because as a 17 year old he had photos of himself as a 16 year old , also the girlfriend but at 17 who thinks to delete photos when they turn 17 . But what really gets me is he can be tried as an adult at 16 for having photos of himself as a 16 year old minor . Did i miss something .
edit on 18-9-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
This is what the knee jerk "tough on crime" motto gets you. Child porn is . ....I don't think there's a word in any language to describe how I feel about it, so let's just go with horrible. But, 2 teens sharing pictures of themselves with each other, shouldn't be classified as "child porn". It's not as if they were sharing them with known pedophiles or putting them on the internet. Sometimes a step back and perspective would save folks some grief and maybe, just maybe? some common sense law enforcement would help too. Some D.A. or cop wanted to make a name for themselves and now these kid's lives are in shambles.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

Laws are intended to fit particular crimes against society. The circumstances of the crime may vary immensely. Nonetheless, the law applies but may be tempered to the extent that it was consider wise. So the kid gets off easy and bitch and moan about what?



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Because of being a stupid kid, LIKE WE ALL WERE, this kid has to live the REST OF HIS LIFE AS A SEX OFFENDER. Do you know the hell that it is?
Not only that, hes now a felon, goodbye certain rights, such as the 2nd amendment, he cant hold certain professional licenses and if he wanted to, he cant join the military.
He goes to apply for a job and does a background check, boom, his status shows up, no job. Noone wants to hire felons, much less a sex offender.

All for a stupid mistake.

ETA: The pics were of HIMSELF! So now he faces a lifetime of crap because of pics of himself!
Basically, if there are naked pics of you as a baby, dont let the police find them, you'll be in possession of child pornography



The Fayetteville, NC 17-year-old, Cormega Copening, faced five charges of sexual exploitation after police found the photos while searching his phone in an unrelated incident at his school last fall. The photo was taken when he was 16. Copening faced four counts over two photos: one for taking sexually explicit photos of a minor; another for possessing sexually explicit photos of a minor. The minor in both cases was the teen himself, who was named both victim and perpetrator of the crime.


utterly sickening
edit on 9/18/2015 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: HomerinNC

Because of being a stupid kid, LIKE WE ALL WERE, this kid has to live the REST OF HIS LIFE AS A SEX OFFENDER. Do you know the hell that it is?


Distribution of materials harmful to a minor isnt a sex crime, or a felony. He's fine.

Honestly after reading the article and shaking my head at the initial charges, and comparing them to what he ended up getting he's a lucky kid. I'd say the prosecutor held the same opinion as all of us.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Lipton




Honestly after reading the article and shaking my head at the initial charges, and comparing them to what he ended up getting he's a lucky kid. I'd say the prosecutor held the same opinion as all of us.


Can you expand on that . Hint i am Australian . I dont understand the felony thing to well .



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622

Can you expand on that . Hint i am Australian . I dont understand the felony thing to well .


Felonious acts are generally more severe than a misdemeanor. An example of this would be if you and another person were to get in a scuffle. Sure you may be arrested, but generally the charge would be something like simple assault, if the prosecutor even feels like wasting their time. To me it looks like he got a suspended sentence and probation, which means you stay out of trouble for a while and it goes away (there may not even be a permanent record, all of my misdeeds while on probation and under a suspended sentence don't exist), but if you screw up in the future youll be hit with both the old and new offense at the same time.

Now if you were to get a length of pipe and beat the guy obviously you'll be on the hook for more serious charges. Like I said, the prosecutor gave this kid a song of a deal, because technically both kids were producing, disseminating and storing kiddie porn. The courts could of come down with all their righteous fury, but didn't.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Lipton




Like I said, the prosecutor gave this kid a song of a deal, because technically both kids were producing, disseminating and storing kiddie porn.


So are you saying even though these kids broke a law where you can be convicted as an adult for having pictures of yourself ....... never mind .

Rude of me , Thanks for clearing that up.
edit on 18-9-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

this was in north Carolina huh, normally NC justice system is known for using rationale, poise, and wisdom
/sarc

so if i carry old family albums and im showing old photos to relatives at a restaurant lets say, some of those photos of me and my siblings happen in the nude as a child, i am a sex offender huh what about my NANA who carries the album with her everywhere she goes.... i guess she'd be a 76 year old pedo...

unfacking real.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Lipton

Did you READ the article???



A teen looking at felony sex offender charges for taking and keeping nude photos of himself



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: HomerinNC

That's what he was charged with, his lawyer got him a deal to plea down which he obviously had to take because if found guilty of the original charge his life is over. The prosecutor deliberately overcharged them just so they would be coerced into plea bargains.



posted on Sep, 18 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
'kids" sometimes commit adult crimes and they should be charged as such,at least he got off easy and learned a lesson, don`t be disseminating child porn . obey the laws or be prepared to pay the consequences.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: Lipton

Did you READ the article???



LOL did you?

As part of the plea deal, Copening accepted two reduced counts of disseminating harmful material to minors, WRAL reports. Like Denson, his year-long probation includes a ban on his cell phone. From the Fayetteville Observer:

District Court Judge April Smith sentenced Copening to a year of probation. During that year, her order says, Copening must stay in school, take a class on making good decisions, complete 30 hours of community service, not use or possess alcohol or illegal drugs, not possess a cellphone and must submit to warrantless searches.


You do know what a plea deal is, right?


edit on 19-9-2015 by Lipton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join