Miss Piggy's Grocery Store Checkout Headlines

[TummieGaruda]

If the police want to (they likely won't, unless she refuses to cooperate with them as they try to prosecute her friends), they could charge her with creating and distributing child pornography. There's precedent for doing that. That would certainly ruin her life, even though she will be socially ostracized regardless of what happens now. 13 is a tad on the young age to be experimenting sexually, but it's not unheard of, and it's not outrageous.

Unfortunately, her life was ruined the moment she sent her first nude pic. I am sure the persons she sent the pics to probably passed them around to others.

[Melena]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I'm pretty sure the girl wasn't the one whose idea it was to take nudes of herself and send them. At least not the first time it happened, certainly after getting attention from it the first time she agreed to do it, she realized that that's the way to get the boys to like her and may have initiated it with others.

It's a juvie record so shouldn't they should be sealed anyway? It's a shame that young girls think the only way to get guys to like them is to take their clothes off.

Depends on the charge and if they try her as an adult. See a lot of 16-17 year olds wind up on the sex registry due to them sleeping with an underage girl and that follows them for life.

[Acevalefor]

Butthurt? I just don't see what's so bad about the parents intervening from what is a dangerous path for this girl to go down.

Because going to law enforcement and letting them decide who to charge and what to charge them with is a great way to intervene with a teenager. Why can't you believe that this girl had the idea to send nudes herself? Why was it the horny boys' fault?

[Tricen]

Women don't make decisions, they are always coerced into them.

[Tyrath]

Butthurt? I just don't see what's so bad about the parents intervening from what is a dangerous path for this girl to go down.

Probably the fact that instead of acting as parents they decided to get the police involved.

[hey]

There's nothing about her having been arrested, so I fail to see how the parents are ruining her life.

The girl may also face charges.

Well, not yet

She committed a felony, turning her over to the police is pretty fucking stupid.

[CoreyX]

They should charge the parents for distributing CP since children are 2innocent and can't possibly make any kind of decisions for themselves

[Xantavia]

Because going to law enforcement and letting them decide who to charge and what to charge them with is a great way to intervene with a teenager. Why can't you believe that this girl had the idea to send nudes herself? Why was it the horny boys' fault?

Based on the quote from the mother about her "being cool now", I think the girl may have sent them herself, but was kind of pressured to do it. Like being teased at school for being a nerd or a loser or whatever and decided that sending nude pictures would change that (which it did). Thank you media, for glamorizing that kind of behavior.

This isn't new though. There have been a disturbing number of incidents similar to this in Illinois lately. Middle school kids sending nudes of themselves, which are then getting forwarded to other kids in school. School officials and law enforcement getting involved in some cases. Sadly, it seems like these kids are surprised to realize that once its been sent, its there forever.

[Callisto]

This was a pretty no-win situation for the parents regardless of the situation. If I had knowledge of an 18ish boy being out there trying to sleep with 13 year olds I'd also probably get the cops involved, since there's no good choice really.

I don't think I would turn her over as a criminal, but she'd probably have to deal with cops as a witness at the least.

[Jicent]

About the 16-18ish year old thing, isn't there a Romeo and Juliet law that protects kids from persecution?

[Kohan]

About the 16-18ish year old thing, isn't there a Romeo and Juliet law that protects kids from persecution?

It depends upon the state. There is no universal template, nor is this a thing in all of them.

[Outlaw]

Here is what it says on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statuto...nd_Juliet_laws

I also saw this at the bottom of the page. Idk if anybody remembers this:

In the aftermath of the December 2007 disclosure by then-16-year-old actress Jamie Lynn Spears, the sister of pop star Britney Spears, that the father of her baby is 18-year-old Casey Aldridge,[28] there was talk of the prosecution of Aldridge for statutory rape, which could be done under current Louisiana state law.[29][30] Prosecution in the case was never pursued.

I think it's good that they didn't cause that would've been stupid.

[Kuya]

I'm still dumbfounded over the reality of laws made to protect minors from sexual predators being used to hurt minors by giving them the stigma of a criminal record. The way these laws are sometimes implemented seems downright puritanical to me.

[Cream Soda]

Cops Say Suspect with His Hands Handcuffed Behind his Back Shot Himself in the Chest

The original story from Iberia Parish was that 22-year-old Victor White III was apparently unable to cope with the thought of a simple possession charge, pulled a handgun from somewhere while handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol car, and shot himself in the back while the Deputy had conveniently left him unattended.

On its face, this story is utterly absurd. Now the coroner has released the autopsy which states that White wasn’t shot in the back. He was shot in the chest from the right side, but missed his right lung, and the round exited the left side of his body after perforating his left lung. The bullet, after exiting the torso, injured White’s left arm. This places the weapon slightly to the front of White and put the bullet on a path that runs parallel to the ground.

So to combine these stories with a quick recap, a church-going man arrested for a relatively minor charge managed to will a firearm into existence out of thin air while sitting in the back of a patrol car. Then in a feat that would make Stretch Armstrong jealous, he managed to shoot himself in the chest despite the fact that his hands were cuffed behind his back and he was seated within the tight confines of the rear of the patrol car.

Not the abdomen, the chest. That’s the upper part of the front torso. To add insult to improbability, the coroner ruled the death a suicide.

The glaring holes in the story go far beyond the fact that what was described is a physical impossibility. Seriously, buy some toy handcuffs and try it. Even given free range of motion outside a police car, attempt to pull your arms up high enough to shoot yourself in the chest. Then remember that you have to find a way to keep the round on a trajectory parallel to the ground. I’ll give a cookie to anybody that can send me a video of how this is done.

The Deputy said he left White unattended because he became uncooperative and wouldn’t exit the vehicle, so the Deputy ran to get help. Even in Louisiana, cops have radios to call for backup. It’s unlikely that a cop would run away and leave a belligerent suspect alone in a car. More importantly, when in the history of law enforcement has a cop armed with a utility belt of weapons that would make Batman proud been unable to subdue a handcuffed man that is already in the back of a patrol car?

http://theantimedia.org/cops-say-sus...-in-the-chest/

[Nephlite]

Couple of these floating around:



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...olice-car?lite

http://nypost.com/2014/01/11/handcuf...ck-of-cop-car/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2247728.html

They say it's nearly impossible, but can happen. Supposedly. I know I couldn't do it.

A video I saw not too long ago about this:

[NynJa]

Guess that chain link on the cuffs is about to get shorter

[Nephlite]

I carry these: http://www.peerless.net/hinged-handcuffs.html for this reason. Although, one of the trainers in the Academy showed us how to unhinge and break them from behind his back. No one, not even the muscular guys in ERT could replicate it. Dunno how the hell he does it...

[notorious bum]

This article comes from a not-so forum-friendly news website, sorry.

Warner Bros. Sues New York Bar For Playing 80-Year Old Song
Warner Bros. has filed a lawsuit against a small bar from Amityville, New York, for playing one of their songs without permission. The track in question is not a recent pop song, but the 80-year old love song "I Only Have Eyes for You" which first appeared in Warner's 1934 movie "Dames."

Many bars, pubs and restaurants like to entertain their guests with live music, with bands often playing covers of recent hits or golden oldies.

As with all music that’s performed in public, the bar owners are required to pay the royalties, even if there are just handful of listeners present.

Royalty collection agencies take this obligation very seriously and drive around the country visiting local bars and pubs to check whether they obey the law. Those who don’t usually get a bill in the mailbox, and if they refuse to pay up it gets worse.

Every year hundreds of small establishments are sued by copyright holders, often with help from performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI. This week, Giacomo Jacks, a restaurant/bar from Amityville, New York, became a target.

The bar is being sued by Warner Bros. and Pure Songs for playing two songs without permission back in February. As they failed to secure the rights, Giacomo Jacks now faces a maximum of $60,000 in damages.

While these lawsuits are fairly common, the song over which Warner Bros is suing stands out immediately, as it’s more than 80 years old.

The song in question is the classic love song “I Only Have Eyes for You,” written by Harry Warren and lyricist Al Dubin and used in Warner Bros’ 1934 movie Dames. Since then it has been covered dozens of times, including the well-known Flamingos version.


In the lawsuit Warner Bros. claims to have been severely harmed by the public performance in the Amityville bar, for which it demands proper compensation. Since the actual damage can’t be calculated they ask for up to $30,000 per infringement.

“The said wrongful acts of the Defendants have caused and are causing great injury to the Plaintiffs, which damage cannot be accurately computed, and unless this Court restrains the Defendants from the further commission of said acts, said Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury,” the complaint (pdf) reads.

While Warner Bros. appear to be on sound legal ground (the song’s copyright only expires after 95 years) suing a small local business over a 80-year old song is not the best PR. That said, considering previous cases that dealt with the same issue, Giacomo Jacks will most likely lose the case or end up paying a hefty settlement fee.

Meanwhile, various unauthorized copies of the track are played hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube and elsewhere.

[Anoat]

So every bar or club across the country that has a cover band that night is breaking the law? What about karaoke nights? Seems like quite the bullshit law.

[Buffy]

So every bar or club across the country that has a cover band that night is breaking the law? What about karaoke nights? Seems like quite the bullshit law.

It's an old law based on radio stations and the 20s. The law hasn't evolved to the times and companies taking advantage of it, as usual.