Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hypothetical: What would be your reaction if it turned out that she genuinely didn't know the kid's age and the whole scandal consisted of a single texted pic that really wasn't all that revealing?
The way pergrinator has his nose up his ass I bet HE did.
Nah...
...pere's likes his nose so far up his own pathologically lying ass I just can't see him sharing it with shorn.
+1
No one has confirmed that the manatee was an avowed predator.
+1
I believe the reality here is far more this than the prurient construct. I've said as much. No one has confirmed that the manatee was an avowed predator. I'll read the offered confirmed record.
847.0138(2) Transmitting An Image, Information, Or Data That Is Harmful To Minors To An Individual Known To Be A Minor In This State
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.
(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.
(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
That statement was offensive to manatees everywhere.
Someone that shall remain nameless, unless they want to come forward.
I did get a PM from an alt, though, here it is:
try the actual charge that ended up sticking.
Nah...
...pere's likes his nose so far up his own pathologically lying ass I just can't see him sharing it with shorn.
.....try the actual charge that ended up sticking.
847.0138(2) Transmitting An Image, Information, Or Data That Is Harmful To Minors To An Individual Known To Be A Minor In This State
(1) For purposes of this section:
(a) "Known by the defendant to be a minor" means that the defendant had actual knowledge or believed that the recipient of the communication was a minor.
(b) "Transmit" means to send to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor via electronic mail.
(2) Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an image, information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s. 847.001, to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in this state commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
.....
This is a just law...
...intent - knowledge - must unquestionably be established for the crime to occur.
LMAO. She hurt you bad, huh?
Great. You hold up the very net used to snag the pig instead of the circumstances under which it was felled. I did not dwell this far into the cavern. Whatever! Charges stick because they're convenient. The actual offense may have been far more subtle. I'm not here to defend an idiot. (Funny how it's actually harder to defend an obese idiot.) Yes, Kips... I guess these are the charges that "stuck" - though no "conviction" seems to have adhered. Shall we provide links now to dancing banana evidence? No. Your dick's bigger.... it's a gimme at this club.
Lookit eyer acting like miles.
Lookit you acting like a husband. You are the creepiest poster here. Even creepier than sean or niggermcgee
should have been a gif.
should have been mwf.
That reads like it was written by a 12 year old Czech ESL student.
That reads like it was written by a 12 year old Czech ESL student.
Awesome.
that's great, but i think you can figure out the meaning of it if you actually bother to try. basically, she was convicted, but the judge likely chose to show mercy by giving her a chance to be a decent human being by giving her probation and a chance to have the conviction wiped if she manages to do that instead of up to five years in prison and no chance of having the conviction removed. why? you'd have to ask the judge, but i'm guessing it was because she's a woman and it was her first known offense not because she's some persecuted innocent.
LMAO. She hurt you bad, huh?