If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTVR)   DUMB: Posting revenge porn of your ex on Facebook. DUMBER: Posting revenge porn of your ex when she was a child on Facebook. DUMBEST: Posting revenge porn of your ex when she was a child on Facebook -- then tagging her sister in the post   (wtvr.com) divider line 89
    More: Dumbass, Facebook, Henrico, prompt corner  
•       •       •

13284 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Oct 2013 at 7:23 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-29 07:04:33 AM
What an idiot.
 
2013-10-29 07:24:32 AM
I can't wait to see his next check-in status.
 
2013-10-29 07:26:45 AM
So, Like?
 
2013-10-29 07:30:47 AM
"There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.
 
2013-10-29 07:31:44 AM
Heh, Subby didn't even get to DUMBESTER:  lying on your sworn counter-charges against your victim.
 
2013-10-29 07:33:01 AM

HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.


Meh, more likely just three fat patrolmen milling about the front yard who had nothing better to do.
 
2013-10-29 07:33:57 AM
I know it's illegal and all, but when it said child I was thinking like 13 and under, not 16.
 
2013-10-29 07:38:03 AM
TTIWWOP?

// goes to have a seat
// hey, somebody had to say it


PainInTheASP: I can't wait to see his next check-in status.


I think your username about covers it.


feickus: I know it's illegal and all, but when it said child I was thinking like 13 and under, not 16.


And if the pics are "just" nudes, it's not even child porn. But the guy still sounds like a jerk and should probably still be taken out behind the woodshed.
 
2013-10-29 07:38:19 AM
Really dumb, but I was expecting that he somehow posted something like a childhood bath photo and people were calling it porn.

That said, 16 yrs old is pushing the traditional definition of what one expects when the term child porn is used.

Ie: 16 yes old sets off my 'throw the guy in jail for a bit', whereas if it were 10 yes old I'd be more 'throw him in jail for a significant time'
 
2013-10-29 07:39:44 AM
Auto correct yrs to yes...

Bleh.
 
2013-10-29 07:40:13 AM

HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.


That's the really ham-handed part.  I suspect that in a similar situation in the evil USSR, a couple of guys in civvies would quietly knock on your door in the middle of the night and you'd leave with them.  That's how you run a police state.  American cops have too much fun playing soldier for that level of professionalism though.
 
2013-10-29 07:41:47 AM

kim jong-un: Ie: 16 yes old sets off my 'throw the guy in jail for a bit', whereas if it were 10 yes old I'd be more 'throw him in jail for a significant time'

a pit of crocodiles.

FTFEveryone.
 
2013-10-29 07:42:39 AM

PainInTheASP: HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.

Meh, more likely just three fat patrolmen milling about the front yard who had nothing better to do.


Yeah you're probably right.
 
2013-10-29 07:43:17 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-29 07:44:54 AM

kim jong-un: Really dumb, but I was expecting that he somehow posted something like a childhood bath photo and people were calling it porn.

That said, 16 yrs old is pushing the traditional definition of what one expects when the term child porn is used.


well yes. 'child' porn is porn for paedophiles, and paedophilia is attraction to pre pubescent children

so this guy is an asshat, for shiz, but the whole child porn angle is a bit of a storm in a teacup
 
2013-10-29 07:45:45 AM
Thanks for posting the article in the headline, subbeh.
 
2013-10-29 07:46:45 AM

HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.


Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?
 
2013-10-29 07:48:41 AM

kim jong-un: Really dumb, but I was expecting that he somehow posted something like a childhood bath photo and people were calling it porn.

That said, 16 yrs old is pushing the traditional definition of what one expects when the term child porn is used.

Ie: 16 yes old sets off my 'throw the guy in jail for a bit', whereas if it were 10 yes old I'd be more 'throw him in jail for a significant time'


It sounds to me like they were BOTH 16 when they were sent, seeing as how they're both 23 now.

... and by the way, if the prosecutor really wanted to, he could throw her in the pen for production and distribution of said child porn.

Yes, that's how the American legal system works. If you send someone a nude selfie when you're 16, you're a criminal.
 
2013-10-29 07:49:50 AM

the8re: kim jong-un: Ie: 16 yes old sets off my 'throw the guy in jail for a bit', whereas if it were 10 yes old I'd be more 'throw him in jail for a significant time'a pit of crocodiles.

FTFEveryone.


General population while all the guards go on a coffee break.
 
2013-10-29 07:49:55 AM
The alleged victim's sister, according to the affidavit, was tagged in the photos. Court records reveal the woman is now 23 herself and that she admits to sending nude photos to her boyfriend when she was a teen, but says she never authorized anyone to post them.

Sounds like the girl is admitting to being a child pornographer, chief.

Good work, Lou. You'll make sergeant for this.

I already am a sergeant, chief.

Watch it Lou. Any more lip and I'll bust you down to sergeant.

/not an exact quote
 
2013-10-29 07:52:42 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.

Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?


your default assuption should always be that the media are full of shiat
 
2013-10-29 07:52:43 AM

AngryDragon: Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?


Clearly you didn't read it enough then. FTFA:

"The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page.  The posts bragged about having guns and they were going to be used to kill the suspect. But when detectives did an address search of the computer that sent the messages, they learned those threats originated from the suspect's Correnty Drive address "

Guy posting threats against himself as his ex-girlfriend. Legit? No idea, but the cops seem to have had reason to believe there were guns in the house. Still not sure that justifies a raid like that, but it's more understandable than being over "just a picture."
 
2013-10-29 07:52:53 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.

Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?


I'm convinced that next to thug rappers, policemen are the most repressed culture of closeted homosexuals in existence. They looooove to wear all that gear and feel hard metal against their bodies. I don't know how they manage to not suck each other off in public.
 
2013-10-29 08:01:25 AM
Bslim:

I'm convinced that next to thug rappers, policemen are the most repressed culture of closeted homosexuals in existence. They looooove to wear all that gear and feel hard metal against their bodies. I don't know how they manage to not suck each other off in public.

You say those things like they're disgusting and wrong.
What's the matter with you? Don't you like having another guy's fecal matter plugging up your urethra?
 
2013-10-29 08:07:11 AM
Oh, I bet he tagged the sister all right.  POW, BAM, if you know what I mean.
 
2013-10-29 08:08:56 AM
Court records show police were searching the home of a 23-year-old Henrico man after photographs of a naked 16-year-old girl showed up on Facebook.

Really? Somebody posted a couple of naked boobs on Facebook and this justified a battering ram and riot gear? This seemed to reasonable to somebody, somewhere, at some point in time because...?
 
2013-10-29 08:11:25 AM

HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.


Did you read the entire article? Because it stated that the suspect had already gone to police to state the victim was harassing him and had threatened him with pictures of guns she was going to use on him. The police had backtracked the IP from which those pictures had been posted to his house, which means that they were dealing with weapons-grade insanity here. A little shock and awe in that case might be in order.
 
2013-10-29 08:12:10 AM

AngryDragon: HotWingConspiracy: "There was a battering ram, and police walking up and down the street," said David Brown.  "Police were in riot gear with their shields."

Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.

Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?


Of pictures SHE sent him 7 years ago.

/sounds like someone has friends/family at city hall.
 
2013-10-29 08:12:19 AM

hstein3: AngryDragon: Holy fark.  I couldn't believe it when I read it, had to read it twice.  Riot gear.  For a picture posting.  Of a girl who is considered "legal" for many purposes in many jurisdictions.  What the fark is going on in this country?

Clearly you didn't read it enough then. FTFA:

"The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page.  The posts bragged about having guns and they were going to be used to kill the suspect. But when detectives did an address search of the computer that sent the messages, they learned those threats originated from the suspect's Correnty Drive address "

Guy posting threats against himself as his ex-girlfriend. Legit? No idea, but the cops seem to have had reason to believe there were guns in the house. Still not sure that justifies a raid like that, but it's more understandable than being over "just a picture."


I'm missing something.  Those posts were supposedly made by the victim not the suspect.  If they were fabricated, why would that lead someone to suspect that the suspect was armed?
 
2013-10-29 08:12:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Because someone posted a picture on the internet. We don't live in a militarized police state though.

The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page.  The posts bragged about having guns and they were going to be used to kill the suspect.

 
2013-10-29 08:12:38 AM
Reading comprehension FTW!
 
2013-10-29 08:13:14 AM
The alleged victim's sister, according to the affidavit, was tagged in the photos. Court records reveal the woman is now 23 herself and that she admits to sending nude photos to her boyfriend when she was a teen, but says she never authorized anyone to post them.

So, was the sister nude too? What exactly where they doing together, I wonder?

/I'll go sit over there...
 
2013-10-29 08:13:54 AM
rdu_voyager:

feickus: I know it's illegal and all, but when it said child I was thinking like 13 and under, not 16.

And if the pics are "just" nudes, it's not even child porn. But the guy still sounds like a jerk and should probably still be taken out behind the woodshed.


I was reading a New Yorker article on the Steubenville rape case, and it said that under Ohio law, any picture of a nude child is automatically considered child pornography. So all of you parents who like taking pictures of your baby in the bathtub to send to the grandparents - you're pornographers! Get ready to enjoy PMITA prison!
 
2013-10-29 08:14:16 AM

hstein3: No idea, but the cops seem to have had reason to believe there were guns in the house.


I wonder what would have led them to that conclusion?
 
2013-10-29 08:14:23 AM

AngryDragon: Those posts were supposedly made by the victim not the suspect.


no they weren't.
 
2013-10-29 08:16:29 AM
So she was stupid enough to take naked pictures at 16 and send it to someone...who posts it 7 years later...and she wants him in jail for child pornography? What a dumb hobag biatch. Here is an idea...don't take nude pictures of yourself if you don't want them to wind up on the internet.
 
2013-10-29 08:20:00 AM

hailin: So she was stupid enough to take naked pictures at 16 and send it to someone...who posts it 7 years later...and she wants him in jail for child pornography? What a dumb hobag biatch. Here is an idea...don't take nude pictures of yourself if you don't want them to wind up on the internet.


because if there is one thing teens are known for, it's thinking things out fully.
 
2013-10-29 08:22:58 AM
Tagging your ex's sister is always a mistake.
 
2013-10-29 08:24:21 AM

log_jammin: AngryDragon: Those posts were supposedly made by the victim not the suspect.

no they weren't.


"The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page. "
 
2013-10-29 08:26:32 AM
Am I the only one objecting to her for sexting her boyfriend?  We're going to inundated with underaged girls on the web unless we start holding these girls responsible for sexting.  As long as the only people who get in trouble for this is the guy, these pictures will just keep getting made.
 
2013-10-29 08:32:06 AM

AngryDragon: log_jammin: AngryDragon: Those posts were supposedly made by the victim not the suspect.

no they weren't.

"The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page. "


one sentence later....

But when detectives did an address search of the computer that sent the messages, they learned those threats originated from the suspect's Correnty Drive address
 
2013-10-29 08:35:03 AM

hailin: So she was stupid enough to take naked pictures at 16 and send it to someone...who posts it 7 years later...and she wants him in jail for child pornography? What a dumb hobag biatch. Here is an idea...don't take nude pictures of yourself if you don't want them to wind up on the internet.


You should really consider taking a vow of silence.

log_jammin: The affidavit also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page. The posts bragged about having guns and they were going to be used to kill the suspect.


I'm a little unclear on how a guy sitting in his house posing as his ex to threaten himself on Facebook justifies sending in Robocop.

Maybe there was more to this story that just didn't make it to the local news writeup, which is always possible and even likely, but based on that article alone I have a hard time believing riot gear and battering rams were justified.

The key here is that the availability of the SWAT team shouldn't be used as an excuse not to be doing any background checking before heading out to bust someone's front door down. Too often they just armor up and go in screaming now that they have access to military weapons and NATO armor where in the past they would have taken some time to actually investigate first to make sure they weren't running into trouble.
 
2013-10-29 08:37:13 AM
Just wondering, is there anything identifying the girl as 16 in the photo? Unless she was very underdeveloped, he could probably argue that she was 18 when the photo and that she is claiming to be younger to get him into legal trouble.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-10-29 08:43:09 AM

skozlaw: Maybe there was more to this story that just didn't make it to the local news writeup, which is always possible and even likely, but based on that article alone I have a hard time believing riot gear and battering rams were justified.


there's always more to the story.

my dad had his wallet returned to him after he lost it 35 years ago. local paper did a story on it, then it went on the internet. it had like 400+ comments on huffpo. unfortunately, they left things out and flat got things wrong (said he didn't offer a reward, said he had pictures of him in the navy when the pictures they ran with the article clearly said "army" on his uniform) etc.. so huffpo crowd(not all of them) started commenting about what a cheapskate he was for not giving a reward and the like, with spittle and typical internet hate. small exapmle yes, but the media is never held accountable for their errors, and lies.

should you trust the cops? not always.

should you trust the media? no. at least not individual stories/articles like this.
 
2013-10-29 08:46:23 AM
My question is: Why Facebook? Why not a porn site, then post the link to everyone. I did not think that Facebook allowed for such content. (Though underage content, you can't really post anywhere)
 
2013-10-29 08:47:00 AM

log_jammin: hailin: So she was stupid enough to take naked pictures at 16 and send it to someone...who posts it 7 years later...and she wants him in jail for child pornography? What a dumb hobag biatch. Here is an idea...don't take nude pictures of yourself if you don't want them to wind up on the internet.

because if there is one thing teens are known for, it's thinking things out fully.


Exactly, because if someone really wants to push a good defense to revenge porn charges, they should go for the nude pics are in my possession to use as I see fit.  She gave him the pics, which means they were gifts and he doesn't have to give them back or use only per her instructions.  I kind of feel, if she was 18, she really doesn't have say over something she gave away.  Just like on Kimmel last night, Jimmy used a pic of a guy in a t-shirt, which they paid the guy $200 for, and put "I have sex with ferrets" on the shirt.  Because why, because they could since the pic is the show's property to use in anyway they feel like.

/Now of course, if the pics were acquired without the nude person's consent and not given to the other person, that would change things.
//If he goes down for kiddie porn, so should she.
 
2013-10-29 08:47:52 AM
The only stupid stupider than Virginia stupid is Texas/Tennessee stupid.
 
2013-10-29 08:52:42 AM
DUMBESTDER: Thinking that a 16 year old girl constitutes a child for pornographic purposes
 
2013-10-29 08:56:37 AM

log_jammin: AngryDragon: log_jammin: AngryDragon: Those posts were supposedly made by the victim not the suspect.

no they weren't.

"The affidavit  also says that alleged suspect swore out a warrant against the victim, claiming the victim was threatening him with posts on her page. "

one sentence later....

But when detectives did an address search of the computer that sent the messages, they learned those threats originated from the suspect's Correnty Drive address


I've got that.  But it's not like the victim told the police there were firearms there.  If the first part was bullshiat, isn't it probable that the second part is too?  I can see caution but the militarized response is excessive.
 
2013-10-29 08:56:45 AM

lack of warmth: //If he goes down for kiddie porn, so should she.


he's got a lot more against him than that.
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report