how fucked could someone get if

[Anonymous No.22661494]

how fucked could someone get if they're 18 years old and there's only text message evidence of them "sexting" a minor? by text message evidence I mean no images, just text messages containing sexual language.

[Anonymous No.22661543]

kill yourself pedo faggot, tell me where you live I won't "if" you, I'm gonna give you the prison treatment

[Anonymous No.22661562]

>>22661543
define "if"

[Anonymous No.22661565]

>>22661494
you dun goofed

[Anonymous No.22661601]

>>22661494
Depends, what state and how old is the minor

[Anonymous No.22661603]

before you faggots kill me ive been watching a hsit ton of to catch a predator unironicalyl recently and I've been thinking about how retarded the people on the show are. then I started wondering the process of how they catch people. no other board is capable of discussion anymore hence I'm here

[Anonymous No.22661640]

>>22661601
lets say its across states/entriely online. age I don't really think matters, more just the fact that there's a technically legal adult with someone who's under 18 talking sexually.

[Anonymous No.22661676]

>>22661640
It matters what state the 18 year old is in legally and the age of the minor matters too because many states have laws protecting young adults doing this sort of thing with minors only a few years younger than the adult.

[Anonymous No.22661712]

>>22661676
>>22661676
yeah i know about the "romeo juliet law" but as far as I can see that's just about in person relatinships.

[Anonymous No.22661776]

>>22661712
It's equivalent. But regardless, if you're purely interested in how texting about doing something differs from actually doing something, as far as I know the texts can be treated as a confession/admission of guilt as long as they came from the phone owned by the adult. The adult would have to prove that either they weren't in possession of their phone at the time/thought they were texting someone else, which probably would not be easy.

[Anonymous No.22661858]

>>22661776
that definitely makes sense. i mean what if they pulled a classic " I didn't know she was under 18" since the two people don't even know the age of each other?

[Anonymous No.22662172]

>>22661494
I think you're fine as long as you don't show up to meet her. That's how the pedos get caught in to catch a predator, it's a misdemeanor to sext online and then a felony if they show up to meet as that shows intent. You can probably be charged with a misdemeanour max. But stop being a fucking pedo and sort your life out you faggot

[Anonymous No.22662203]

>>22662172
>But stop being a fucking pedo and sort your life out you faggot
this is based. but its just my curiosity getting the best of me.

[Anonymous No.22662269]

>>22661494
Prison time IS possible.

https://www.timminspress.com/2013/05/29/30-days-for-online-bullying/wcm/5842baa6-7376-5976-0118-c1896591cc6d

[Anonymous No.22662286]

>>22662269
From the article:

A young man who tried to bully an underage girl into sending nude photos of herself has been stung with a 30-day jail sentence.

Ryan Nevers, a 21-year-old from New Brunswick, was sentenced in Timmins provincial court Tuesday after pleading guilty to Invitation to Sexual Touching.

[Anonymous No.22662296]

>>22662269
>30 days

Nigga that’s a 21 day sentence of sitting in a boring room

[Anonymous No.22662332]

>>22661494
18 is the age of consent faggot.

[Anonymous No.22662428]

>>22662296
Plus a criminal record for sex crime once you get out.

[Anonymous No.22662497]

>>22661494
if ur not in high school and ur sexting a high schooler, ur a pedo and a loser.

[Anonymous No.22662519]

>>22661494

[Anonymous No.22662524]

>>22661494
look up underage sextortion scams

[Anonymous No.22662550]

>>22661494
Pedos belong in jail with untamed BBC. Kill yourself pedofag

[Anonymous No.22662570]

>>22662269
>>22662286
also from article: "Nevers threatened to “ruin her reputation” by posting their private messages if she didn’t send him the photos he demanded."

yeah this guy deserved to be fucked over. in my mind I was thinking of it was "consensual" between the two people.

also in article:
"Nevers’ defence lawyer, Ted Tichinoff, said his client does not fit the category of an online predator.

He portrayed the victim and the accused as a pair of sexually curious teenagers, noting Nevers was age 19 at the time.

The prosecutor took exception to this portrayal.

“This was not innocent experimentation by any stretch,” O’Hanley said.

The fact Nevers repeatedly threatened and tried to coerce the victim into sending him nude photos of herself “takes us out of the usual case” of sexually curious teens, O’Hanley said."

[Anonymous No.22662585]

>land of the free

[Anonymous No.22662680]

>>22662570
Even without the blackmail, he would have still been convicted of "Invitation to Sexual Touching", which is a crime (in Canada).

[Anonymous No.22662753]

>>22662680
>"Invitation to Sexual Touching
makes sense. doesn't look like that holds up in the States? i see nothing about it aside from Canadian related shit

[Anonymous No.22662774]

>>22662428
In Canada. He got a six-figure job after that.

[Anonymous No.22662833]

>>22661494
It entirely deepends on your local law and the age gape. Here in germany for example its not even a problem to get soft nudes of 16-18 year olds, if you dont harass them.

[Anonymous No.22662849]

You're fucked if it's sexts. Something about digital crimes fall under federal law, also pornographic crimes and such. Even if you could legally date an underage girl through Romeo and Juliet you couldn't send sexts or nudes, that would be illegal. So you're probably fucked, sorry man.

[Anonymous No.22662882]

>>22661494
why dont you just gtfo back to /b and kys nigger

[Anonymous No.22662927]

>>22662849
>land of the free

[Anonymous No.22662954]

>>22661494
Is she 16 or older? You're fine realistically. Is the younger? You could get fucked pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.22663071]

As your financial advisor I advise you to invest the sexts into SPY

[Anonymous No.22663096]

>>22662849
even sexual language covers "sexts?" even with consent? hmmm

[Anonymous No.22663131]

>>22663096
by this i mean NO photography between them is shared

[Anonymous No.22663188]

>>22663131
How can you confirm here age then?
Most likely it was just an larping old pervert in that case.

[Anonymous No.22663282]

>>22663188
huh? lemme rephrase

a minor and an 18-year-old sexted in the past, the only evidence left is text messages containing ONLY sexual language, NO images are held by either party. what trouble is the 18 year old in?

[Anonymous No.22663615]

>>22662497
Or just trying to get a decent girl as a wife before (((they))) get to her.

[Anonymous No.22663638]

>>22661494
Oh, you have a bright future in the DNC. Send your CV now !

[Anonymous No.22663656]

>>22663282
None, if your country isnt insane.

[Anonymous No.22663721]

>>22663656
in america, how fucked is the person?

[Anonymous No.22663883]

>>22663721
>land of the free