World's Coolest Mom Charged by Police

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-05-30 05:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

So what excuse are the apologists going to give now? Why is it so hard to get people to admit it when a bunch of southerners turn to be puritanical asshats?

I get the feeling the asshat puritans will say something very longwinded to the effect of "Look over there! Bible!"

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2005-05-30 06:04pm

Man, the bible belt must be the best place to live in the whole world...If you are a puritan asshat. Why should this be illegal?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-05-30 06:20pm

Rule #1 of nude pictures: Don't develop them at a photo place.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2005-05-30 06:35pm

Darth Wong wrote:It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

With this in mind the police have no business getting involved with this. They have no case whatsoever. Or rather, shouldn't.

UK News wrote:“In some of the pictures, she is sitting in their lap or her breasts are in some of the children’s faces,” Detective Matt Chance, of Nashville’s Sex Crimes Unit, said.

As Rye pointed out earlier, these kids are considered, under the law, to be old enough to have sex. But having a stripper sit on their laps while nude or stick her breasts in their face, no that's evil.

Asshats. Do they not have more important nonsense to waste their fucking time on? How many 100's of thousands are going to be wasted on the investigation/trial? It's inexcusable.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-05-30 06:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

So what excuse are the apologists going to give now? Why is it so hard to get people to admit it when a bunch of southerners turn to be puritanical asshats?

Obviously, she only obtained permission from the boys' fathers.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2005-05-30 06:38pm

I feel sorry for them. My Mum hired a stripper for my 21st, it was great!

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-05-30 06:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

So what excuse are the apologists going to give now? Why is it so hard to get people to admit it when a bunch of southerners turn to be puritanical asshats?

As far as I can tell, I'm the only one here who's even tried to come up with a valid reason for the charge and even I said that if the parents of the other kids knew about the stripper, then there should be no charges filed.

That said, and just to satify my curiosity, doesn't Canada have any age restrictions on people who enter strip joints that don't serve booze?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2005-05-30 07:00pm

I will reinforce this: WHile I think the charges are beyond reidiculous, especially as she had the consent of the other parents, poeple need to not go harping on the photoshop workers. Lacking any knowledge all they would have seen was an obvious minor with an older naked woman in such a case they would be required to notifiy the police simply because there might be evidence of statutory rape. It would be unethical for them to do otherwise, the fact that the actual crime is non-existant doesn't detract form the fact that they had apublic duty to notify the police that a POTENTIAL act may have been committed. It falls on the asshat of a DA who decided to fish for votes by attacking "immoral behavior" for the blame here.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2005-05-30 07:30pm

Cmdr Wilkens wrote:

... I think the charges are beyond reidiculous, especially as she had the consent of the other parents, poeple need to not go harping on the photoshop workers. Lacking any knowledge all they would have seen was an obvious minor with an older naked woman in such a case they would be required to notifiy the police simply because there might be evidence of statutory rape. It would be unethical for them to do otherwise, the fact that the actual crime is non-existant doesn't detract form the fact that they had apublic duty to notify the police that a POTENTIAL act may have been committed. It falls on the asshat of a DA who decided to fish for votes by attacking "immoral behavior" for the blame here.

You could make the same argument of the DA, who might feel bound to test this unprecidented case in court.

If those pictures had not been of a stripper, but some pics of a family vacation in Europe, where they have topless beaches, or some nudist resort, and there are prudes who want to stick it unto their less-uptight neighbors, then feed the prudes to the system too.

If the the photoshop people can't exercise reasonable judgement, the photoshop should be sued for damages, of the mother's reputation, psychological harm, and the legal expenses incurred. Make 'sue you' syndrome work for some positive good.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-05-31 01:55am

Holy shit.

Private residence, parental consent from all parents, and I'd imagine no voices of dissent from the audience...

What the FUCK is the problem here?

I mean, yes, it is illegal - but who the fuck are they hurting. The kids are 16 and probably all have broadband at home. I'm sure they've seen worse.

GAH. I mean, last night on Big Brother Uncut (don't crucify me, Sarah watches BB, I just sit there and read) they showed about 20 minutes of masturbation and though they never showed any X-rated bits (no genitals, plenty of T&A though), but, it was still "non-simulated sex acts", even *I* was feeling a little uneasy about having that on TV. Especially when the "plaster de-bubbler" thingy (that the girls figured out was a great clit stimulator) was being handed around and generously applied to each other by the girls. And that was all on commercial, free-to-air TV. America - land of the free. Unless you want to do anything to do with sex. Or swearing. And then its time to go to gaol for being naughty.

Il Saggiatore · Post by **Il Saggiatore** » 2005-05-31 07:12am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It turns out that she had permission from every single one of the kids' parents.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 99,00.html

So what excuse are the apologists going to give now? Why is it so hard to get people to admit it when a bunch of southerners turn to be puritanical asshats?
I get the feeling the asshat puritans will say something very longwinded to the effect of "Look over there! Bible!"

And "think of the children!"

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-05-31 07:26am

If the the photoshop people can't exercise reasonable judgement, the photoshop should be sued for damages, of the mother's reputation, psychological harm, and the legal expenses incurred. Make 'sue you' syndrome work for some positive good.

I dunno about Tennessee, but most states that require the reporting of child abuse also give those doing the reporting immunity from civil lawsuits.

Also, we really don't know what age the kids appeared to be in the pics.
Hell, If it was me and I saw a pic of a stripper shoving her tits in the face of someone who appeared to be 12 or so, I'd be calling the cops as well.

IMHO, the problem mostly lies with an overzealous prosecutor out to make a name for himself and not so much with the photo store workers.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-05-31 07:40am

Just a quick irrevent comment from something I noticed in this thread..

Maybe its just me, but I was under the impression you can't buy Strippers, just rent them

Sephirius · Post by **Sephirius** » 2005-05-31 03:32pm

another amusing tidbit, my first name is Landon too.

General Brock · Post by **General Brock** » 2005-05-31 08:22pm

Glocksman wrote:
I dunno about Tennessee, but most states that require the reporting of child abuse also give those doing the reporting immunity from civil lawsuits.

Also, we really don't know what age the kids appeared to be in the pics.
Hell, If it was me and I saw a pic of a stripper shoving her tits in the face of someone who appeared to be 12 or so, I'd be calling the cops as well.

IMHO, the problem mostly lies with an overzealous prosecutor out to make a name for himself and not so much with the photo store workers.

Well, OK. Not knowing what was actually in the pictures and that particular state's laws limit any arguement I could make. That the photoshop could be protected from promoting a frivolous charge is kind if disturbing though.

There have been a lot of false abuse claims in the news in recent years, and its not like over-zealous prosecutors have been made to pay for the lives they ruin. I'm not even sure if it would be wise to limit the present powers of a state prosecutor. Making the ordinary citizens more responsible for their actions seems the better way to go. If this dosen't fly in court, the photoshop should be liable for a lawsuit.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-05-31 08:38pm

General Brock wrote:
There have been a lot of false abuse claims in the news in recent years, and its not like over-zealous prosecutors have been made to pay for the lives they ruin. I'm not even sure if it would be wise to limit the present powers of a state prosecutor. Making the ordinary citizens more responsible for their actions seems the better way to go. If this dosen't fly in court, the photoshop should be liable for a lawsuit.

This would be an insanely dangerous step - you basically are telling them to not report anything unless it is a "smoking gun" proof of child abuse. How often does that happen?. The whole point of these forced disclosure laws is to ensure that bright lights are shined on any "questionable" activity that hints at child/sexual abuse. Too many cases have been buried over the years. (Look at the entire priest scandal - who aren't subject to these rules AFAIK). The store is required to report - that is its sole responsibility. How and whether to pursue the case is up to the cops and (eventually) the DA.

Most of the situations that have gone off the rails can be attributed to:
a) suppressed memory "theory" (guess).
b) overzealous and/or incompetent police/prosecutors
c) vindictive parents

In this scenario, the store did what it thought it was required to do. Put the blame on the right parties - the police, DA, and the state.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-31 08:54pm

That is one cool bunch of parents. How do people like that show up in Tenesee, god damnit?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-06-01 12:51am

This is society's fault. Usable fake IDs (the way I got into strip clubs at that age) are harder to get these days, so this loving parent did the next best thing. Next thing you know, they'll bust Dad for having a beer with Junior.

Let's take this bullshit to its logical conclusion. What if a parent lets his or her kid watch R-rated movies like the softcore stuff on Skinamax or teen sex comedies like Eurotrip (a classic film!) and other kids come over and watch? Tits are still tits, whether they're live or on TV. Just about every straight guy I know who was a teenager in the late 1980s/ early 1990s watched Dangerous Liasons just to see Uma Thurman whip 'em out. If parents let their teenage kids invite their friends over and they watch this film, they should be prosecuted?

I know a lot of parents who let their kids watch this stuff and it's not any business of the local police or busybody prosecutors. My dad let me have a subscription to Playboy when I was 13. I guess these wowser fucks think he belonged in jail. Fuck 'em!

These inbred fundie assholes should collectively fuck right off.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-06-01 12:56am

Why do they do this sort of shit?

Do they think that a teenager seeing strippers will somehow harm him?

Also, hiring a stripper is a hell of a lot safer than having the kid going out with his friends, and doing who-knows-what, too.

So yes, the "think of the children" arguement can be applied for the other side.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2005-06-01 01:01am

wolveraptor wrote:That is one cool bunch of parents. How do people like that show up in Tenesee, god damnit?

The same way that one Neo-Nazi group ended up in Israel, I guess. Before you know it, you'll see someone from... uh... from a given place who exhibits behavior opposite to the common stereotype of people from that place.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-01 01:28am

Jalinth wrote:The whole point of these forced disclosure laws is to ensure that bright lights are shined on any "questionable" activity that hints at child/sexual abuse.

Oh puh-lease, if you see a picture of a roomfull of guys ogling a girl and notice that a lot of them are obvious adolescents, do you seriously think she is sexually abusing them?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2005-06-01 02:24am

Darth Wong wrote:
Jalinth wrote:The whole point of these forced disclosure laws is to ensure that bright lights are shined on any "questionable" activity that hints at child/sexual abuse.
Oh puh-lease, if you see a picture of a roomfull of guys ogling a girl and notice that a lot of them are obvious adolescents, do you seriously think she is sexually abusing them?

Probably not but it is a potential case of statutory rape. So long as the kid is underage and the other person isn't you've got a case you need to turn over to the cops. Just because we have one situation where a store turned over material from an incidnet that seems clearly acceptable does not mean they should never do so. It comes down to the fact that if this had NOT been a stripper bought by the mother then it involves a felony and to have knowledge of it and then keep that knowledge from the police could in itself been deemed a felony (aiding and abetting). In this case the fact that the case is being prosecuted is extreme but it isn't the fault of the clerks, they are charged with placing the informaiton in the hands of those whose job it is to determine if a crime has been committed (The Police) and if it should be prosecuted (the DA).