|
|
|
| Thu, Nov. 12 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Stafford looks into possible 'sexting'
Stafford investigating teen "sexting" case
Date published: 6/3/2009
BY KEITH EPPS A 16-year-old Stafford County boy is being investigated for having "sexually explicit" pictures of a 15-year-old girl on his cell phone, court records show. If the investigation results in charges, the boy would become the first person in the county arrested for "sexting," or sending and receiving nude pictures via cell phones. According to an affidavit for a search warrant filed in Stafford Circuit Court, a school resource officer at Brooke Point High School was contacted by a parent who found sexually suggestive pictures on her daughter's cell phone. Some of the pictures were of her daughter and others portrayed an 18-year-old man the woman knows. The parents showed the pictures to Deputy Carol Burgess and gave Burgess the cell phone. Some of the pictures of the girl meet the state code's definition of child pornography, Detective Darryl Wells wrote. Burgess also saw text messages showing that the girl had transmitted at least one of the pictures to the 16-year-old boy, court records state. The boy admitted receiving pictures from the girl, the affidavit states. He also told Burgess he had similar pictures of six other girls on his phone and more in e-mails on his home computer. Burgess took the phone. The boy's mother initially offered to bring the computer in to be examined, but changed her mind and said "get a search warrant." Police went to the boy's home in Aquia Harbour Thursday and seized a number of items, including computers, cameras, cell phones, iPods, game systems and compact discs. The only actual area arrests involving sexting occurred earlier this year in Spotsylvania County. Two male county students, ages 18 and 15, were charged with possession of child pornography with intent to distribute and electronic solicitation. Those felony cases are still pending. Keith Epps: 540/374-5404
Read more stories about Stafford Date published: 6/3/2009
WHAT ABOUT THE SWEET LITTLE GIRLS?
(posted by
NYJean
, June 4, 2009 11:58 am)
Should the most of blame be put on these "sweet little girls" that sent this boy their pictures from the beginning? Shouldn't they also receive some punishment for their crime?
Cont.
(posted by
msdaisy
, June 4, 2009 8:00 am)
If kids weren’t taught that the naked body was such a “nasty taboo” in this country, this kind of thing would not be such a big deal to kids. In other countries nudity is not nearly the shameful thing it is here. How many of you have naked baby pictures of your children? You take them to studios strip them down, put them on fur rugs or in wash tubs, pay big bucks then bring the pics home and hang them on the wall. Is that perverted too? Lighten up people; the naked human body should not be that big a deal.
Cont
(posted by
msdaisy
, June 4, 2009 7:59 am)
Just as any teenage girls that get a chance to see a “wanker” (as Mr. Reality put it) are also going to look, followed by probably giggling themselves to death. All of your kids included. It’s natural curiosity, not perversion. The difference now as opposed to earlier generations is all the electronic toys they have to share these things with. Is it wrong? Yes, but it’s something the parents need to correct, not the courts. This “modern” society of ours has become way to PC, paranoid and prudish.
Dr.Killjoy, death penalty? Please!
(posted by
msdaisy
, June 4, 2009 7:58 am)
Maybe you should look up the word maturity. The bottom line here is that in reality the Walton, Cleaver, and Ingles families are figments of your TV imagination. Every generation has had their share of stupidity. Anyone remember Streaking? Mooning? Anyone ever done it or seen it done? Does that make you a pervert too? Kids are and will always be kids. They sneak out, raid their parents liquor cabinet, tell lies, skip school and any teenage boy that has a chance to see boobs IS going to look. Cont
Parents ultimately pay the price
(posted by
Publius2
, June 4, 2009 6:56 am)
It is apparent that parental priorities have deteriorated to deplorable levels. A child that qualifies for free lunch has aquired expensive phones, music players and athletic shoes? How is htis possible? Parent's attempts to buy their children's love result in attitudes of entitlement. If anyone has a better solution than to remove the cameras from the hands of the children, please provide it. This would only be effective if parents took responsibility and made it happen. A child has no need for a camera.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
