All I got when I turned 16 was my dad saying "get a job"...
- Thread starter bdc30
- Start date
Awesome!!!
I'm not sure how much her being present matters. Does BOTL have any laywers that can chime in on this?
Philip DeFranco summed it all up well.
Basically the child endangerment is anything that detracts from a child (under 17)'s physical, mental, emotional, or moral well being. By putting them in a highly sexual situation, this crossed that line.
-That's just me reiterating Philly D though.
Basically the child endangerment is anything that detracts from a child (under 17)'s physical, mental, emotional, or moral well being. By putting them in a highly sexual situation, this crossed that line.
-That's just me reiterating Philly D though.
kockroach
BoM August 2010/2011
All I'm saying is it sounds like a flimsy charge. It was at a bowling alley, the strippers have a bodyguard with em, the bowling alley possibly had at least one employee in there to make sure things were not out of hand (to protect themselves). The birthday boy's mom was there. So it wasn't abandonment, neglect or leaving a kid in the care of another kid. Were there drugs or alcohol involved?
So how is it endangerment? Why not a different charge? What about charges for the bowling alley, strippers/bodyguard? If she is the only one charged...it looks like a veiled attempt to save face by the local government.
Other than possible contact...how is it different than a parent taking a kid to a NC17 movie that has nudity?
So how is it endangerment? Why not a different charge? What about charges for the bowling alley, strippers/bodyguard? If she is the only one charged...it looks like a veiled attempt to save face by the local government.
Other than possible contact...how is it different than a parent taking a kid to a NC17 movie that has nudity?
kockroach
BoM August 2010/2011
I'm sure the parents will try to find some way to go after the woman. All I am saying is, it doesn't appear that what she was charged with is a solid charge.
Frankly, when seeing the clients, the strippers/bodyguard should have left. The bowling alley should have done something too.
And based on what this DeFranco guy says....taking an underage kid to a NC17 or rated R movie should be against the law. Or even letting them watch those movies at home. So should buying kids video games that are for an older age.
Frankly, when seeing the clients, the strippers/bodyguard should have left. The bowling alley should have done something too.
And based on what this DeFranco guy says....taking an underage kid to a NC17 or rated R movie should be against the law. Or even letting them watch those movies at home. So should buying kids video games that are for an older age.
Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene. This statute offers an alternative 2-pronged test for obscenity with a lower threshold than the Miller test. The matter involving minors can be deemed obscene if it (i) depicts an image that is, or appears to be a minor engaged in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse and (ii) if the image lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A first time offender convicted under this statute faces fines and at least 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison.
I agree with you Jere. But you want to know whats blowing my mind...is can you imagine being 16 and having a stripper grinding up on you? I know how I act now when around strippers and I'm 28! Just think, only a few yrs ago these guys were dancing with girls at the school Valentine's Day Dance with their butts pushed about 8 inches behind their bodies. LOLOLOLOLOL. Now they got nasty ass strippers grinding up on em!
kockroach
BoM August 2010/2011
And I'm not saying what this mom did is right. But, it just doesn't seem clear to me what is putting these kids in danger. If this is endangerment...then what is the defining line? It's too blurry...and the government could use this to make things even more restrictive.
And I for one don't want more government!
And I for one don't want more government!
