The roommate situation
- Thread starter moyetoy1228
- Start date
gregthomas77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='moyetoy1228']Ok, so I thought this was hilarious at first, but it seems a lot weirder now. I have two other roommates in an apartment at college. I've known one of them for a long time, and the other I didn't know before living with him. Let's call him "Tucker". "Tucker" is 20. We recently found out that he has started dating someone online that he met on Myspace. She lives in California. He talks to her on the phone all the time. We thought this was reason alone for us to make fun of his internet girlfriend.
But even more recently we found out that she IS 15 YEARS OLD. A five year difference, and her being significantly underage. "Tucker" doesn't seem to think this is a big deal and he talked about flying out to California from NC so he can GO TO HER SWEET SIXTEEN in Feb. He talked about going back out there for Spring Break as well.
I keep imagining FBI agents busting in to arrest "Tucker" for solicitation from a minor or something.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll advise him again about not taking that trip. He's annoying, but I don't wanna see him on the news jeez. That would be classic though[/QUOTE]
So are you going to tell us which college?
But even more recently we found out that she IS 15 YEARS OLD. A five year difference, and her being significantly underage. "Tucker" doesn't seem to think this is a big deal and he talked about flying out to California from NC so he can GO TO HER SWEET SIXTEEN in Feb. He talked about going back out there for Spring Break as well.
I keep imagining FBI agents busting in to arrest "Tucker" for solicitation from a minor or something.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll advise him again about not taking that trip. He's annoying, but I don't wanna see him on the news jeez. That would be classic though[/QUOTE]
So are you going to tell us which college?
GuyWithGun
CAGiversary!
[quote name='6669']No, but if they find out they're on the phone for hours a night, thats enough evidence to get a warrant, trace calls, track emails, etc. After that, they start looking for anything sexual in content. It only takes one concerned parent.[/quote]
That warrant would never hold up in court. The best way to go about it would be to approach the concerned parent without the girls knowledge, and get permission to tap the parent's line. If the parents pay for the line/cell phone/IM then there is nothing wrong with them giving permission to the police to tap into it.
After that happens, then if the phone calls become illicit, that's when they have a much stronger case for a search warrant of the guys house, etc. You need evidence to get a warrant, and long conversations aren't really enough. The consent of the owner of the phone line doesn't require evidence or a warrant at all.
[quote name='wubb']Change his desktop to that image. Do it now![/QUOTE]
That warrant would never hold up in court. The best way to go about it would be to approach the concerned parent without the girls knowledge, and get permission to tap the parent's line. If the parents pay for the line/cell phone/IM then there is nothing wrong with them giving permission to the police to tap into it.
After that happens, then if the phone calls become illicit, that's when they have a much stronger case for a search warrant of the guys house, etc. You need evidence to get a warrant, and long conversations aren't really enough. The consent of the owner of the phone line doesn't require evidence or a warrant at all.
[quote name='wubb']Change his desktop to that image. Do it now![/QUOTE]
David85
Banned
Ma7ybe the "15 year old" is really the cops. But he's a dumbass, just ignore him. But you should sneak on his computer and download all kinds of kiddie porn and have bomb making such on his computer. That way when the cops come they see that stuff too and he goes to jail even longer.
A
Apossum
Guest
haha, this reminds of the time some guy on /b/ got a kid in his dorm busted for having child porn. the dumbass had it listed under itunes, which had file sharing turned on. the files were named "sex with 12 year old boy" and "13 year old boy blowjob" and shit. he was arrested and had his pc confiscated the next day :lol:
guinaevere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 114 (100%)
[quote name='wubb']Aaah, now it's much much creepier. WTF kind of dad is that?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='moiety']The kind that resulted in a daughter that would seek older guys online.[/QUOTE]
Wisdom.
[quote name='Kayden']
k ?
[/QUOTE]
bwaHAHAHahaha!! That was needed in here. Thanks Kayden.
GuywithGun, 66 has been entirely correct in everything she's passed along in here and the warrant would very likely hold.
[quote name='moiety']The kind that resulted in a daughter that would seek older guys online.[/QUOTE]
Wisdom.
[quote name='Kayden']
k ?
bwaHAHAHahaha!! That was needed in here. Thanks Kayden.
GuywithGun, 66 has been entirely correct in everything she's passed along in here and the warrant would very likely hold.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
"Tucker" will be his nickname in the big house, when Big Earl makes him tuck his genitals in between his legs.
GuyWithGun
CAGiversary!
[quote name='guinaevere']GuywithGun, 66 has been entirely correct in everything she's passed along in here and the warrant would very likely hold.[/quote]
Not really. Without any real indication that the phone conversations were sexual, there is no basis for the warrant. Assuming some idiotic judge actually granted the warrant, all the guy's lawyer would have to ask the police during the trial is, "Did you have any evidence about the content of the phone conversation?"
And the officer will respond, "It lasted a long time."
And the lawyer would say, "So you based your warrant on the fact that a phone conversation, in which you have no clue what was said, was long?"
Officer, "Correct."
And then the warrant would be ruled unconstitutional and every shred of evidence resulting from that original warrant would subsequently be thrown out, and the prosecution will have to throw the case out.
Trust me, in this case the police will actually have to:
a) Have some indication from the girl or the guy that the conversations became sexual in nature
b) Have consent from the parent to tap the phone.
In order to obtain a warrant from a judge, a police officer has to go through a lot of red tape and present a good amount of probable cause. Especially to tap a private phone conversation between two people.
And if you call a judge to obtain a warrant to tap a private line, and he asks for the evidence you have obtained. He/she will hang up on you when you say, "Well, we've heard that they've had some long phone conversations."
As I have said before, getting consent from the parents to tap the phone would be the easiest and best way to go. Consent to tap someone else's phone cannot be fought in court by the defendant. A warrant based on a long conversation would be thrown pretty damn quick.
Not really. Without any real indication that the phone conversations were sexual, there is no basis for the warrant. Assuming some idiotic judge actually granted the warrant, all the guy's lawyer would have to ask the police during the trial is, "Did you have any evidence about the content of the phone conversation?"
And the officer will respond, "It lasted a long time."
And the lawyer would say, "So you based your warrant on the fact that a phone conversation, in which you have no clue what was said, was long?"
Officer, "Correct."
And then the warrant would be ruled unconstitutional and every shred of evidence resulting from that original warrant would subsequently be thrown out, and the prosecution will have to throw the case out.
Trust me, in this case the police will actually have to:
a) Have some indication from the girl or the guy that the conversations became sexual in nature
b) Have consent from the parent to tap the phone.
In order to obtain a warrant from a judge, a police officer has to go through a lot of red tape and present a good amount of probable cause. Especially to tap a private phone conversation between two people.
And if you call a judge to obtain a warrant to tap a private line, and he asks for the evidence you have obtained. He/she will hang up on you when you say, "Well, we've heard that they've had some long phone conversations."
As I have said before, getting consent from the parents to tap the phone would be the easiest and best way to go. Consent to tap someone else's phone cannot be fought in court by the defendant. A warrant based on a long conversation would be thrown pretty damn quick.
[quote name='GuyWithGun']Not really. Without any real indication that the phone conversations were sexual, there is no basis for the warrant. Assuming some idiotic judge actually granted the warrant, all the guy's lawyer would have to ask the police during the trial is, "Did you have any evidence about the content of the phone conversation?"
And the officer will respond, "It lasted a long time."
And the lawyer would say, "So you based your warrant on the fact that a phone conversation, in which you have no clue what was said, was long?"
Officer, "Correct."
And then the warrant would be ruled unconstitutional and every shred of evidence resulting from that original warrant would subsequently be thrown out, and the prosecution will have to throw the case out.
Trust me, in this case the police will actually have to:
a) Have some indication from the girl or the guy that the conversations became sexual in nature
b) Have consent from the parent to tap the phone.
In order to obtain a warrant from a judge, a police officer has to go through a lot of red tape and present a good amount of probable cause. Especially to tap a private phone conversation between two people.
And if you call a judge to obtain a warrant to tap a private line, and he asks for the evidence you have obtained. He/she will hang up on you when you say, "Well, we've heard that they've had some long phone conversations."
As I have said before, getting consent from the parents to tap the phone would be the easiest and best way to go. Consent to tap someone else's phone cannot be fought in court by the defendant. A warrant based on a long conversation would be thrown pretty damn quick.[/QUOTE]
Not in internet predator cases. The FBI will take what little evidence they have to dig up more dirt, and then they will through the book at you.
And the officer will respond, "It lasted a long time."
And the lawyer would say, "So you based your warrant on the fact that a phone conversation, in which you have no clue what was said, was long?"
Officer, "Correct."
And then the warrant would be ruled unconstitutional and every shred of evidence resulting from that original warrant would subsequently be thrown out, and the prosecution will have to throw the case out.
Trust me, in this case the police will actually have to:
a) Have some indication from the girl or the guy that the conversations became sexual in nature
b) Have consent from the parent to tap the phone.
In order to obtain a warrant from a judge, a police officer has to go through a lot of red tape and present a good amount of probable cause. Especially to tap a private phone conversation between two people.
And if you call a judge to obtain a warrant to tap a private line, and he asks for the evidence you have obtained. He/she will hang up on you when you say, "Well, we've heard that they've had some long phone conversations."
As I have said before, getting consent from the parents to tap the phone would be the easiest and best way to go. Consent to tap someone else's phone cannot be fought in court by the defendant. A warrant based on a long conversation would be thrown pretty damn quick.[/QUOTE]
Not in internet predator cases. The FBI will take what little evidence they have to dig up more dirt, and then they will through the book at you.
GuyWithGun
CAGiversary!
[quote name='6669']Not in internet predator cases. The FBI will take what little evidence they have to dig up more dirt, and then they will through the book at you.[/quote]
But a long conversation still wouldn't be enough. Even for the FBI. Trust me. They have no reason whatsoever to believe that the conversation was sexual in nature at all.
They may see a long conversation as reason to look into it, and interview the girl, or the guy, or even the parents. And from there they can start building probable cause for a warrant. But having just the fact that there was a long conversation means nothing.
Not to get political, but as an example they have actual sexual related emails from Former Rep. Mark Foley, and the FBI still says that they are having a hard time making a federal case out of it.
But a long conversation still wouldn't be enough. Even for the FBI. Trust me. They have no reason whatsoever to believe that the conversation was sexual in nature at all.
They may see a long conversation as reason to look into it, and interview the girl, or the guy, or even the parents. And from there they can start building probable cause for a warrant. But having just the fact that there was a long conversation means nothing.
Not to get political, but as an example they have actual sexual related emails from Former Rep. Mark Foley, and the FBI still says that they are having a hard time making a federal case out of it.
[quote name='GuyWithGun']But a long conversation still wouldn't be enough. Even for the FBI. Trust me. They have no reason whatsoever to believe that the conversation was sexual in nature at all.
They may see a long conversation as reason to look into it, and interview the girl, or the guy, or even the parents. And from there they can start building probable cause for a warrant. But having just the fact that there was a long conversation means nothing.
Not to get political, but as an example they have actual sexual related emails from Former Rep. Mark Foley, and the FBI still says that they are having a hard time making a federal case out of it.[/QUOTE]
From a legal standpoint you make great points. But come on why in the hell is a grown ass man talking to a underage teenage girl across the country on the internets. I wonderk
They may see a long conversation as reason to look into it, and interview the girl, or the guy, or even the parents. And from there they can start building probable cause for a warrant. But having just the fact that there was a long conversation means nothing.
Not to get political, but as an example they have actual sexual related emails from Former Rep. Mark Foley, and the FBI still says that they are having a hard time making a federal case out of it.[/QUOTE]
From a legal standpoint you make great points. But come on why in the hell is a grown ass man talking to a underage teenage girl across the country on the internets. I wonder
k[quote name='GuyWithGun']They may see a long conversation as reason to look into it, and interview the girl, or the guy, or even the parents. And from there they can start building probable cause for a warrant.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[quote name='Graystone']From a legal standpoint you make great points. But come on why in the hell is a grown ass man talking to a underage teenage girl across the country on the internets. I wonderk[/QUOTE]
Which is why they take it so seriously, and go for warrants.
Exactly.
[quote name='Graystone']From a legal standpoint you make great points. But come on why in the hell is a grown ass man talking to a underage teenage girl across the country on the internets. I wonder
k[/QUOTE]Which is why they take it so seriously, and go for warrants.
GuyWithGun
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Graystone']From a legal standpoint you make great points. But come on why in the hell is a grown ass man talking to a underage teenage girl across the country on the internets. I wonder k[/quote]
Oh yeah, I know he's wanting the freaky sex.
But like you said, I'm just coming at this from a legal standpoint.
[quote name='6669']Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Wait...
So are we in agreement now that a long conversation alone is not enough for a warrant?
k[/quote]Oh yeah, I know he's wanting the freaky sex.
But like you said, I'm just coming at this from a legal standpoint.
[quote name='6669']Exactly.[/QUOTE]
Wait...
So are we in agreement now that a long conversation alone is not enough for a warrant?
gregthomas77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='jPoD']I still wish to know which academic institution this is...[/QUOTE]
Same here.
Same here.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Don't worry about which college he goes to. You can reasonably assume that a good number of the male population harbors jailbait fantasies and might act out on them given the "right" circumstances. Concentrate on protecting your daughter. Give her the wisdom to sniff out a predator and the abiltity to fight one off is she has to.
kittycatgirl2k
Banned
this is either two things:
1. they both have alot of things in common and genuinely like each other just from talking online. Age gaps are not as apparent over the internet especially if she is mature for her age.
OR
2. He just wants some underage girl action which is sick of course. Not to mention illegal.
1. they both have alot of things in common and genuinely like each other just from talking online. Age gaps are not as apparent over the internet especially if she is mature for her age.
OR
2. He just wants some underage girl action which is sick of course. Not to mention illegal.
Mr_hockey66
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 258 (100%)
Your just jelous Iv been chating on line allday with hot babes.
Im training to be a cage fighter!!!!!!
Im training to be a cage fighter!!!!!!
[quote name='kittycatgirl2k']this is either two things:
1. they both have alot of things in common and genuinely like each other just from talking online. Age gaps are not as apparent over the internet especially if she is mature for her age.
OR
2. He just wants some underage girl action which is sick of course. Not to mention illegal.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with either of those, unless he tries to meet her.
1. they both have alot of things in common and genuinely like each other just from talking online. Age gaps are not as apparent over the internet especially if she is mature for her age.
OR
2. He just wants some underage girl action which is sick of course. Not to mention illegal.[/QUOTE]
Nothing wrong with either of those, unless he tries to meet her.
guinaevere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 114 (100%)
[quote name='jPoD']I still wish to know which academic institution this is...[/quote]Just about every one.
kittycatgirl2k
Banned
[quote name='6669']Nothing wrong with either of those, unless he tries to meet her.[/QUOTE]
well hitting it is legally "wrong". When I was 16 my b/f was 22 and someone I had met over the internet so my view is askew on this topic. He was not some child predator or anything like that either... so it could work if the intentions are right.
well hitting it is legally "wrong". When I was 16 my b/f was 22 and someone I had met over the internet so my view is askew on this topic. He was not some child predator or anything like that either... so it could work if the intentions are right.
ing pig. Confront him and if he doesn't stop call the cops. Little kids do not need an old loser hitting on them.
bread's done