IT's not rape, and not a big deal unless he published it, in my opinion. If he published it, I'd call it distribution of child porn.
I did not read the article, did he publish it?
Lauren Boebert’s Son Tyler Arrested on Felony Child Exploitation Charges for Sex Tape With 17-Year-Old Girlfriend.
- Thread starter volsrocks
- Start date
I did not read the article, did he publish it?
As far as I know he did not. Hence the charge of "Sexual Exploitation of a Child"... If he distributed it, it would be "The distribution of Child Pornography" or something of that sort.
If he is the person who published it, i'd call it child porn.
If he recorded it for personal use, and was not negligent or intentional about it getting published, he should not be prosecuted, even if he did not follow the letter of the law.
This is not RAPE in my opinion, regardless of the law, but it could be distribution of child porn.
If he recorded it for personal use, and was not negligent or intentional about it getting published, he should not be prosecuted, even if he did not follow the letter of the law.
This is not RAPE in my opinion, regardless of the law, but it could be distribution of child porn.
Sexual Exploitation of a child could be valid if he was negligent or intentional about it being published. I do not know the letter of the law in Colorado, this is just my opinion about how it SHOULD be... (disclaimer before idiots start on about, how could Jarod be a lawyer if he did not know Colorado law).
lol. No. Lawyers have to take the bar in each state for a reason. I agree. I believe that he is being arrested for the letter and not the intent of the law.
It's political, or no one would ever hear about it.
This is also true. I also do not think he would be arrested at all if he weren't Lauren Boebert's son or if Boebert were Democrat.
Depends on the wording of the exploitation law, Ill look it up.
Regardless of how I feel about it... Looks like if he did what is alleged, he is guilty under the law, if the girls parents pushed, this would be prosecuted in any jurisdiction regardless of party affiliation.
If I were the prosecutor, Depending on how or why it got published, I would use my discretion.
In my opinion if this kid put it on the Internet, or shared it with his friends, he should be prosecuted. If the kid made every effort to keep it for himself or his girlfriends viewing, I would use desecration and not file it.
@Damocles
If I were the prosecutor, Depending on how or why it got published, I would use my discretion.
In my opinion if this kid put it on the Internet, or shared it with his friends, he should be prosecuted. If the kid made every effort to keep it for himself or his girlfriends viewing, I would use desecration and not file it.
@Damocles
Historically, in Florida, that certain someone wouldn't have needed to be making a film (or taking Polaroids) to be in violation of the statutes as they then existed, to wit;
- § 800.04 (Lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault or act upon or in the presence of a child)This was the primary statute used for sexual activity with a child under 16.
- Pre-1984 versions (e.g., 1979–1983) generally covered handling, fondling, or assaulting a child under 14 (later raised) in a lewd/lascivious/indecent manner, or committing a lewd act in the child’s presence, without the intent to commit sexual battery. It was a second-degree felony.
- In 1984 (Ch. 84-86, Laws of Florida), the Legislature amended it to expressly cover acts defined as sexual battery under § 794.011 upon any child under 16, and clarified that neither the child’s consent nor lack of chastity was a defense. The age threshold became under 16. The Florida Supreme Court in State v. Lanier (1985) held that consensual sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old (and by extension a 14-year-old) violated § 800.04 both before and after the 1984 amendment.
- A 1990 amendment further expanded the description of prohibited acts (actual or simulated sexual intercourse, etc.) with a child under 16.Consent was irrelevant; the offense was essentially strict-liability regarding the minor’s age for these purposes.
- § 794.05 (Carnal intercourse with unmarried person under 18 of previous chaste character)This was Florida’s classic “statutory rape” statute throughout most of the 1980s. It made it a second-degree felony for any person to have unlawful carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under 18 who was of previous chaste character.
- It applied to a 14-year-old.
- The “previous chaste character” element was a required element of the offense (and a potential defense if the victim was not previously chaste, subject to limited exceptions for prior acts with the same defendant).
- This version remained in force until major changes in the mid-1990s (the modern § 794.05 focuses on persons 24+ with 16- or 17-year-olds).
Other relevant points
- Sexual battery (§ 794.011): This primarily addressed non-consensual acts or acts involving force, coercion, incapacity, or very young children (under 12). Consensual activity with a 14-year-old was generally handled under § 800.04 or § 794.05 rather than as sexual battery, unless other aggravating circumstances existed.
- Age of consent context: Florida treated sexual activity with someone under 16 as criminal regardless of the minor’s purported consent. There was no broad “Romeo and Juliet” exemption in the 1980s comparable to later law; an 18-year-old and 14-year-old fell squarely within the prohibited range.
- Ignorance of the victim’s age was generally not a defense under these child-protection statutes.
- Penalties: Both main statutes were typically second-degree felonies (punishable by up to 15 years under the sentencing scheme then in effect).
Exact charging and outcome would have depended on the precise year within the 1980s (pre- vs. post-1984 amendment to § 800.04), the charging decisions of the prosecutor, proof of chastity (for § 794.05), and other case-specific facts. The above reflects the statutes and controlling case law of that decade.
Even if a certain someone amended his confession as follows, "she turned 15 four days before I turned 18. I was 17 and she was 14 at one point", the same core statutes from Florida law would have still applied to any sexual activity that occurred while the girl was under 16. The close timing of the birthdays would not create an exception.
Isn't it true that the only time you ventured into that area of practice, it did not end well for you?
Your usual version of "due diligence", then?
evince
Truthmatters
You just love it when men post their sex tapes the girl never knew existed
People who know don't even expect you to know Florida law. Understandably.
Who told you she didn't know it existed?
evince
Truthmatters
A perfect example of how it ruins humanity
I concur. I find it amusing that lefties are playing the morality card.