Posted on 07/05/2018 3:25:28 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments
...FBI agents later interviewed Marrero's ex-girlfriend, who confirmed that she was 17 at the time the pictures were taken. A conviction will force Marrero to register as a sex offender and could land him in prison for up to 30 years. According to the U.S. Department of Justice's guide to federal child pornography law, "a first time offender convicted of producing child pornography...face fines and a statutory minimum of 15 years to 30 years maximum in prison." Under Ohio law, which also sets the cutoff for child pornography at 18, Marrero would have faced between six months and eight years. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
.
Nice try troll!
Nothing in this thread but you is about pedophiles!
.
“Try to figure out who you are talking to.”
I only see what you post .... damning the FBI for taking pedophiles off the street.
Cringe... it may be the minimum but it's not the requirement, I don't think.
Our statutes are violating the first amendment’s Free exercise clause at a minimum.
That's going a little far. That's from the Old Testament, I'm guessing, when women and children were property.
“A twenty year old taking consensual sexual explicit photos of a seventeen year old girlfriend or boyfriend should never have been classified as child porn.”
It is when it is found in the child porn collection of a convicted child molester.
Little over-excited, pervis? Sticky keys?
“Nothing in this thread but you is about pedophiles!”
LOL. IT IS ALL ABOUT THOSE TWO PEDOPHILES!
**** “I just learned last Month while serving on Jury Duty that in Texas you are Charged as an Adult at the age of 17 ...
BUT Females cannot Consent until 18. (?)” ****
Learned some more since I posted ... In Texas Consent at 17 is Legal but the parties involved must be within a 3 year difference in age ...
Really. And what part of my advice did I not follow?
“You to have ALL of the information to make a decision, “
“This is insane. The FBI is completely out of control. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.”
Jury nullification. When a case like this comes up tell the prosecutor to go pound sand.
“This was an act between consisting adults. “
Where did it say she gave consent to put her sexually explicit photos in a convicted pedophiles child porn collection?
I would hope that if one were on the jury one would not convict because if he wasn’t guilty they would not put him on trial, or some BS reasoning like that.
“When a case like this comes up tell the prosecutor to go pound sand.”
I love these threads where dudes get all jerked around by click-bait articles!
Not sure what your point is.
The ex girlfriend was quite clear that she consented to the photos. Where they were found should only matter if the person who is now in possession obtained them without the ex-girlfriends consent. I will say she was foolish to expect that they would always remain private.
When I say I would definitely let this guy go?
A twenty year old who is sexually attracted to a normal seventeen year old is not a pedophile.
“Where they were found should only matter if the person who is now in possession obtained them without the ex-girlfriends consent. “
I am sure she didn’t give consent for her photos to go out to pedophiles
“A twenty year old who is sexually attracted to a normal seventeen year old is not a pedophile.”
His roommate is a convicted child molester with a kiddie porn collection.
And somehow her photos got into the collection ...
“A twenty year old who is sexually attracted to a normal seventeen year old is not a pedophile.”
Could be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.