Lauren Boebert’s Son Tyler Arrested on Felony Child Exploitation Charges for Sex Tape With 17-Year-Old Girlfriend.

volsrocks

volsrocks

Verified User
Tyler Boebert, then 18, allegedly filmed a 43-second sex tape with his girlfriend who was just two weeks from turning 18.


772775399_4498319393713056_8905967877363355466_n.jpeg


1786585427436.png
1786585644555.png



So how can he be arrested? The age difference is less than a year....does the DA not have bigger fish to fry than going after what an 18 yo did with his 17 and 11 month of girlfriend?
 

Democrats are usually so supportive of youthful sex​



Tyler's recent arrest was for allegedly filming a sex tape in 2024 ... when he was 18 and his then-girlfriend was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday.

  • Tyler Boebert (then 18, now 21) was arrested Aug. 9, 2026, in Garfield County, Colorado, and released the same day after posting $10,000 bond.
  • Charges include multiple felonies related to sexual exploitation of a child (producing/possessing/intending to distribute sexually exploitative material involving video) and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
  • The central allegation is a ~43-second sexually explicit video recorded in early 2024 (reports cite around Jan./Feb. 2024) of him having sex with his then-girlfriend, who was 17 (roughly two weeks from turning 18). The video was allegedly shot at his home.
  • The girl later reported it to police after the video was sent to her ex-boyfriend (and possibly others). She told investigators she had been dating Tyler and did not want him to get in trouble over it.
 
Diogenes said:

Democrats are usually so supportive of youthful sex​



Tyler's recent arrest was for allegedly filming a sex tape in 2024 ... when he was 18 and his then-girlfriend was 17, two weeks shy of her 18th birthday.

  • Tyler Boebert (then 18, now 21) was arrested Aug. 9, 2026, in Garfield County, Colorado, and released the same day after posting $10,000 bond.
  • Charges include multiple felonies related to sexual exploitation of a child (producing/possessing/intending to distribute sexually exploitative material involving video) and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
  • The central allegation is a ~43-second sexually explicit video recorded in early 2024 (reports cite around Jan./Feb. 2024) of him having sex with his then-girlfriend, who was 17 (roughly two weeks from turning 18). The video was allegedly shot at his home.
  • The girl later reported it to police after the video was sent to her ex-boyfriend (and possibly others). She told investigators she had been dating Tyler and did not want him to get in trouble over it.
Click to expand...
" Democrats are usually so supportive of youthful sex "
Just what the fuck does this have to do with political parties?
What an asshole you are.
 
volsrocks said:
Tyler Boebert, then 18, allegedly filmed a 43-second sex tape with his girlfriend who was just two weeks from turning 18.


View attachment 92031


View attachment 92032
View attachment 92033



So how can he be arrested? The age difference is less than a year....does the DA not have bigger fish to fry than going after what an 18 yo did with his 17 and 11 month of girlfriend?
Click to expand...
He's 21, it would fall within the Romeo and Juliet time if she was 17 his issue is not statutory rape (simple rape in CO) as he would not be able to make a sex tape with her until she was 18 because then you are making child porn and... well... that is sexploitation and will get him arrested... in fact it seems it did.

Basically, if you are 21 and your girlfriend is 17, wait for her birthday to make the sex tapes...
 
Damocles said:
He's 21, it would fall within the Romeo and Juliet time if she was 17 his issue is not statutory rape (simple rape in CO) as he would not be able to make a sex tape with her until she was 18 because then you are making child porn and... well... that is sexploitation and will get him arrested... in fact it seems it did.
Click to expand...
He was 18.....she was 17.....the charges are BullShit.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
He was 18.....she was 17.....the charges are BullShit.
Click to expand...
They are not. Again. It isn't the age difference, it is the video of a child having sex. Make the sex tape on her birthday and you'll be safe. Kids at school passing around photos of their girlfriends can be arrested for child pornography, even if they are the same age when they have sex.
 
Damocles said:
He's 21, it would fall within the Romeo and Juliet time if she was 17 his issue is not statutory rape (simple rape in CO) as he would not be able to make a sex tape with her until she was 18 because then you are making child porn and... well... that is sexploitation and will get him arrested... in fact it seems it did.

Basically, if you are 21 and your girlfriend is 17, wait for her birthday to make the sex tapes...
Click to expand...
He was 18 and she was 17 and 11 months
 
volsrocks said:
He was 18 and she was 17 and 11 months
Click to expand...
Again. the issue isn't the age difference between them, it is that she was underage and on video.

Keep up.

The charge is not rape, which it would be for "statutory rape"...

That didn't happen. What did happen is he made a sexual video of an underage girl. There is no "If you are only 11 months older" clause in that law.
 
Damocles said:
Again. the issue isn't the age difference between them, it is that she was underage and on video.

Keep up.

The charge is not rape, which it would be for "statutory rape"...

That didn't happen. What did happen is he made a sexual video of an underage girl. There is no "If you are only 11 months older" clause in that law.
Click to expand...
what's the age of consent in the state

1786595638321.png
 
volsrocks said:
what's the age of consent in the state

View attachment 92037
Click to expand...
Again this is not about the sex, it is about videotaping underage girls having sex.

Focus. The charges were not rape, which is what it would be if it was the age difference that got him arrested.

Do you understand that if they were both 17 it would be legal to have sex, but the sex tape would be illegal because they were underage? Whoever caused it to be made could be arrested.

If I were 16, and took images of my 16 year old girlfriend topless and they were somehow released to the public, I could be arrested for the images... It wouldn't be about the sex... It would be about the child pornography and it would be sexual exploitation charges.

So, again. If you are 18 and your GF is 17, wait for birthday sex to make the video and you'll be safe.
 
Damocles said:
Again this is not about the sex, it is about videotaping underage girls having sex.

Focus. The charges were not rape, which is what it would be if it was the age difference that got him arrested.

Do you understand that if they were both 17 it would be legal to have sex, but the sex tape would be illegal because they were underage? Whoever caused it to be made could be arrested.

If I were 16, and took images of my 16 year old girlfriend topless and they were somehow released to the public, I could be arrested for the images... It wouldn't be about the sex... It would be about the child pornography and it would be sexual exploitation charges.

So, again. If you are 18 and your GF is 17, wait for birthday sex to make the video and you'll be safe.
Click to expand...
So he can butt fuck her...just cant film it?
 
Basically, you are quoting one law, but he was arrested for another.

The sexual exploitation of a child occurs when sexual images are created (child porn)... You can be busted for this crime even if you didn't distribute them if you are caught when the images on your computer. Child pornography was the problem not the age difference of the people having sex.
 
volsrocks said:
So he can butt fuck her...just cant film it?
Click to expand...
Correct. The law states that only an adult (over 18) can participate in such imagery...

If you video two people having sex and one of them happens to be 17, even though you weren't having sex you can be arrested for Sexual Exploitation of a Child.

He wasn't arrested for having sex with her, he was arrested for making a video of her having sex.
 
Now in the trial, the question will be "who caused the video to be made?" If they can make it so it appears that she set up the video thing, then he could walk.

I will say that this is a scenario where the letter and not the intent of law is being followed.
 
Tbird19482 said:
" Democrats are usually so supportive of youthful sex " Just what the fuck does this have to do with political parties?
Click to expand...

Plenty.

Does one political party consistently advocate for youth-oriented sexual policies?



One major party more consistently advocates policies that expand the role of government, schools, and medicine in the sexual and gender development of minors. The other more consistently advocates restricting those interventions and maximizing parental control.


The Democrat Party and aligned institutions support:


  • Comprehensive, LGBTQ-inclusive sex education that includes gender identity and sexual orientation starting in middle school or earlier in some districts.
  • Affirmation of gender identity in schools (pronouns, facilities, records, sports participation).
  • Access to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and in some cases surgeries for minors, with opposition to state bans and support for “sanctuary” policies that protect those pathways.
  • Framing these as medically necessary care and civil rights issues for youth.

This is reflected in national and state platforms, voting records (e.g., opposition to Medicaid restrictions on gender-related treatments for minors), and legislation like California’s SB 107 (the “trans refuge” bill).


The Democrat Party is more apt to back relaxed interpretations of sexual propriety as it relates to minors.


This shows up consistently in platforms, legislation, voting records, and public opinion data:


  • Sex education content: Democrat parents, teachers, and elected officials are more likely to support including sexual orientation, gender identity, contraception, and related topics in middle- and high-school curricula. Republican counterparts more often prefer abstinence emphasis, limits on gender-identity discussion, or parental opt-outs. Polls (Pew and others) show large partisan gaps on whether students should learn that gender can differ from sex assigned at birth, and on whether LGBTQ themes belong in classrooms.
  • School policies: Democrats more reliably support affirmation of gender identity for minors (preferred pronouns, facilities access, records changes, sports participation). Republicans more reliably support biological-sex rules, parental notification, and restrictions on “gender ideology” in K-12.
  • Medical interventions: Democrat lawmakers and platforms more consistently oppose bans on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related treatments for minors, framing them as necessary care decided by families and doctors. Republican lawmakers and platforms more consistently support restrictions or bans, viewing the interventions as experimental or inappropriate for minors. Recent House votes and state-level actions track this divide almost entirely along party lines.
  • Registration and related criminal-justice approaches: Cases like California’s SB 145 (authored by a Democrat senator) illustrate a preference for equalizing or softening certain collateral consequences in close-in-age voluntary cases involving 14–17-year-olds, without changing the underlying illegality or the age of consent (which remains 18).


Democrat Scott Wiener authored Senate Bill 145, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2020.

  • California (Democrat-dominated) law already gave judges discretion on whether to require sex-offender registration for voluntary (non-forcible) vaginal intercourse involving a minor aged 14–17 and an adult no more than 10 years older.
  • SB 145 extended that same judicial discretion to voluntary oral or anal sex (and certain related acts) under the identical age parameters.
  • The goal, as stated by Wiener and supporters (including Equality California and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office), was to eliminate what they described as discriminatory treatment of "LGBTQ people".
 
Damocles said:
Now in the trial, the question will be "who caused the video to be made?" If they can make it so it appears that she set up the video thing, then he could walk. I will say that this is a scenario where the letter and not the intent of law is being followed.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a certain someone sounding off on a relevant matter.

Jarod said:
IT should not be illegal, not for gay people and not for straight people. If kids are in school together they are very likely to hook up. The fact that its two women should not enter the equation. I was sleeping with a 14 year old girl when I was 18.
Click to expand...

Jarod said:
Now that I think about it she turned 15 four days before I turned 18, but the same argument holds true. I was 17 and she was 14 at one point.
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
He's 21, it would fall within the Romeo and Juliet time if she was 17 his issue is not statutory rape (simple rape in CO) as he would not be able to make a sex tape with her until she was 18 because then you are making child porn and... well... that is sexploitation and will get him arrested... in fact it seems it did.

Basically, if you are 21 and your girlfriend is 17, wait for her birthday to make the sex tapes...
Click to expand...

He was 18 at the time, wasn't he? Not that it matters per statute. She wasn't. That's why he's fucked.
 
Diogenes said:
He was 18 at the time, wasn't he? Not that it matters per statute. She wasn't. That's why he's fucked.
Click to expand...
I was just going by the age he is now. It really doesn't matter. The law they arrested him on wouldn't require him to be active in the sex tape at all, it just requires people in sex tapes to be over 18.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top