uh, 5th amendment??
Indeed, that's child abuse. And a 17-year-old is a child. Consider your flying monkeys on their way, Dan.
Sounds like they're planning to use Caverject (alprostadil).

So search warrants (and some warrantless searches) have moved from pat-down to gloved finger to x-rays to parenteral injections.

What's next?
As a physician that took pictures of kid's genitalia to prove that they HAD been sexually assaulted, I was trained that nonprofessionals were never to take photos of genitalia and the child or parent always had to give consent before my exam. The Manassas police department is way out of line.
Manassas PD's now off Twitter...
The only winner here is Florida.
It's stories like this and the guy who slapped his coworker and is now being charged with murder that make me glad I never ended up as a district attorney. Prosecution is a dirty, dirty business that naturally leads to perversions like this.
This is all public record info, available online:

Claiborne T. Richardson II
Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Office
9311 Lee Avenue
Suite 200
Judicial Center
Manassas, VA, 22110 -5555
Phones: (703) 792-6050
Fax: (703) 792-7081

I am still searching for his email and will post when found.

Also, take note of his side hobby:
Here you go:

Claiborne T. Richardson

Wow, just sick. There aren't enough real criminals for these people? Or are they just into boy's penises?
Anonymous found the Stuebenville coverup when they went after the rapists. I bet if there's any sort of sexting among the police and prosecutors, they would be able to dig it up.

(And is the Stranger going to put in a public records request this time?)
Let's see here: A state in the American south, an absurd trumped-up felony charge for the crime of two teenagers...well, being teenagers, and the prosecutorial zeal worthy of the Nuremberg Trials. I'm getting a flash here! Could it be...maybe, just maybe, that the real crime was that it was a black boy and a white girlfriend? Maybe?--just maybe?

No, of course not. After all, the complete anonymity of their identities is absolutely sacred, being minors. And of corse the State of Virginia would be purely race-neutral in dealing with matters like this. Silly, race-card-playing me for even suggesting otherwise!
Also, @6 FTW.
It's a real tragedy when prosecutors don't exercise judgement and simply barrel forward with the most black and white reading of the law.

They are trying him as an adult who produced child pornography of himself so as a subject he is a child, but as a photographer he is an adult. Shouldn't those be in alignment? Can he seriously have victimized himself?

And then shouldn't there at least be some latitude for actions between peers like there is in most statutory rape laws?
More info: In 2002, Claiborne Richardson was involved in a sting operation aimed to catch gay men by accusing them of having sex in a public park:……
Um, the judge is dragging her's the Commonwealth's Attorney who is leading the charge...they're playing hardball to get a guilty plea instead of having to try the case...they know they'll lose in court (jury nullification).
I thought that if both parties are under 18, then the age differential only needs to be 2 years - - - in other words, neither the boy nor the girl is doing anything illegal in this case. Maybe I'm mistaken, or maybe that's just WA state law.

In any case, this is seriously fucked up. Didn't Virginia have that seriously gayfaced attorney general? I forget his name and I'm not going to look him up, but I suspect he is masturbating to pictures of this kid right at this very minute.
If I wasn't at work I'd be emailing these guys a ton of gay porn.
@8, your link, I think that's someone different, perhaps the Commonwealth's Attorney's father.
How about nice words of support for his defense attorney, Jessica Harbeson Foster. She is very much likely to be court appointed, working for very little pay, and calling bullshit where bullshit needs to be called.

Oh, and, @1, the 5th amendment isn't implicated when the incriminating evidence about the accused is something that can be observed without the accused saying anything.

Also, @16, there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile court.
The concept of "consensual crimes" is itself anathema to democracy.

If all parties are consenting to the actions/events involved, there can be no crime. A crime occurs when someone is actually injured. Not someone's mother being offended.

That might refer to actual sexual relations. So they can't get him if he and the girlfriend are sleeping together, but they are pursuing him for child porn, probably for creating it and for distributing or intending to distribute it.

(WWSBS? What would Seattleblues say? Something about welfare parents not supervising their children properly and how he needs to be a registered sex offender?)
@17 each state is different. There is also federal law, so if the two were across state lines it would technically be trafficking in child porn (sending porn to the 15 year old) even though it was a consenting sext.

I have not heard of the feds prosecuting this but they could. The feds started under Bush and finished under Obama prosecuted adults for distributing consenting adult porn showing simulated rape over state lines via the internet to other adults!…

The case eventually was plead out after the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated jail time. That's one step down from SCOTUS. Not sure why they didn't stick it out and try to appeal to the top, SCOTUS never heard the case due to the plea.

While I agree with Dan that this is nuts, in Security State America, I would not email or phone anything to the district attorney or police. That could constitute harassment or impeding law enforcement.

Disclaimer: None of this is intended to be formal legal advice.
@8 I just called and got the "no comment at this time" thing BUT a real person picked up the phone and I told her out outrageous it was. She knew what I meant.

Some people are obsessed with sex. And I'm not talking about teenagers, for whom it is a given.
Holy shit, not that anything is any worse than anything else, but I missed the part where they said they would give the kid a shot to force an erection. So they're going to drug him with some sort of liquid viagra for this?

Foster said Detective Abbott told her that after obtaining photos of the teen’s erect penis he would “use special software to compare pictures of this penis to this penis. Who does this? It’s just crazy.”

Special software? From where?
Claiborne T. Richardson II is the most closeted gay name I've ever heard. Add the obsession with catching gay cruisers and pictures of minors' weiners and you get this MAD TV sketch.

We should have just left the fucking south leave the union back in 1861. DAMN YOU ABE LINCOLN!!! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!!
Sick fucks.
@26, you don't know about the special dick comparison and identification software? Where've you been?

Maybe he means the Kodak EasyShare software that came with his 15-year-old digital camera. You can see it, right on the computer! Bigger'n lifesize! Lookit that thang, like a baby's arm with an apple in its fist!

This is, of course, conspiracy to commit sexual abuse of a minor and should put the cops and the judge behind bars, not the boy.
That twitter link is bad -- looks like it was double-pasted or something.
I look forward to finding out this crazy story is mostly bullshit invented by the defense attorney in order to sway public opinion (note the lack of any corroboration or claims other than "Foster says"), because if not, holy fuck.
The issue is that our child porn laws are outdated. They were designed to stop perverts from hurting kids, NOT to stop kids from playing the 21st Century version of "you show me yours and I'll show you mine."
The laws should be modified to say that someone under 18 only gets a fine for having or taking lewd pictures of a minor, considering that they themselves are minors and that usually the minor they're snapping a picture of is themselves.

Still, Dan is going to hear it from the feminazis for pointing out that the girl isn't charged. I can hear the #yesallwomen crowd now: "NO! The male did it! He is a horrible rapist like all of the male species! How dare you assume that this double standards is somehow wrong!"
@24: What number did you call?
I would suggest trying to contact the actual Commonwealth Attorney instead of the Assistant Commonwealth Attorney (who may or may not be just following orders, but, at any rate, isn't up for election). The Commonwealth Attorney is:

Paul B. Ebert
Commonwealth Attorney's Office
Second Floor
9311 Lee Avenue
Manassas, VA 20110-5594
Phone: 703-792-6050, F: 703-792-7081
Also, it looks like 703-792-6050 is the number for the main office, since it is the the same number listed for all the attorneys in the office.
Arrest every adult involved in the sexual assault of this boy and seize the child pornography that they produced by forcefully stripping him and photographing him.

The Manassas City Pedophile Department is not worthy of their badges.

Every officer has the right to refuse even a direct order to commit this type of crime against a child. The fact that they did not is all the proof that should be required to find them willing participants in this sexual assault. Remove them from duty. Arrest these pedophiles.

Any community that does not demand that all adults involved be terminated from their positions immediately and arrested today is complicit in the crimes against this child.

A child is in danger from those charged with his protection.

Stop them.


Arrest them.

Somebody needs to enroll the prosecutor in NAMBLA.

No, you're the crazy libernazi. You are. Now quit being such a giant fuckwit and finally bring me my coffee. Lord knows you're not smart enough to do anything else.
@33 "someone under 18 only gets a fine for having or taking lewd pictures of a minor"

If only it were that easy.

That's the sort of loophole that would simply have perverts involve more minors in their productions, potentially hurting even more kids.

In short, your simple fix would allow perverts to get off, in more ways than one.

"Feminazi" here and Dan is absolutely right for pointing out this double standard that we have because we live in a patriarchal society. Your assumption that a crowd of feminists would come here and argue that point with Dan, not to mention your use of a term coined by Rush Limbaugh, demonstrates that you know don't jack shit about feminism.
I feel like maybe the ACLU needs to step in here.
It would take years of hard work and dedication for the rest of us to become as stupid as #33. It's almost admirable.
@40, @44

He wasn't clever enough to work in something about Council Member Sawant this time.
How would making it less of a crime for a minor to have pictures of a friend of there's or themselves on their phone in any way help adult perverts? That makes little sense. If an adult has kiddie porn, throw the book at them, but child porn laws were never designed to throw kids in jail for texting a picture of themselves naked to friends their own age.
You can leave them a review, too -…
"Attorney-General Robert Clark said the new law would respond specifically to the issue of sexting to ensure that appropriate penalties applied to those who misused technology."
So I'm in good company to be "this stupid." And yes, indeed, decrying teenagers sending images of themselves to each other as =/= to a child porn ring involving hardcore pedophiles swapping images of toddlers being raped makes me "so stupid it's almost admirable."
Honestly, for your own safety I truly hope you have only safety scissors in your house and have a good caretaker who makes sure you stay away from hot ovens, sharp objects and other such implements that you will most likely end up hurting yourself with.
I can't wait for Summer to be over so you will go back to school. You are starting seventh grade this year, correct?
What the fuck would Sawant have to do with this? Honestly, just stop talking. You're embarrassing yourself again.
@28 - You and I are in agreement. Abe Lincoln had the original southern stratergy.

@33 - The first part I agree with, the second part... how many have called for his head in this thread? And why haven't you moved yet?

@45 - Well played.
@46 - Why do you wanna do his father?

@47,49 - you're being deliberately obtuse. You know they're referring to your "feminazi" screed.
Still, Dan is going to hear it from the feminazis for pointing out that the girl isn't charged. I can hear the #yesallwomen crowd now: "NO! The male did it! He is a horrible rapist like all of the male species! How dare you assume that this double standards is somehow wrong!"

Someone looks to be working on a run at Bailo's coveted status here. Not a bad start.
Wait, is CS with his comment @46 now asserting to be a black Libertarian homosexual?
I'd file a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct with the Virginia State Bar and against the magistrate with the Judicial Commission. This is well beyond the boundaries of ethical.
The biggest villains are the girl's parents for filing this complaint in the first place. They are no only attempting to ruin one young man's life but they are traumatizing their own daughter in the process.
According to the Washington Post, the judge isn't letting it go through, for now. It's the police and county prosecutors who are pursuing this.
49: Firstly, replacing prison time with a mere fine is nice and all, but this would still entail charging teenagers with a crime for sending pictures of their OWN junk to each other. Which is still stupid. Which still makes you stupid. The sentencing is only tangential to the problem here.

Secondly, read post 52. You may find it enlightening. Although for the record, I disagree with Pridge that you're being "willfully" obtuse. Since you were stupid enough puke out that little "feminazi" non-sequitur to begin with, I believe it's entirely plausible that you're also stupid enough to think that people are reacting to your (slightly) less stupid ideas on how to deal with teens who sext each other.

Its up on facebook.
@47 "How would making it less of a crime for a minor to have pictures of a friend of there's or themselves on their phone in any way help adult perverts?"

That's not actually what you wrote @33.

I understand that you were not presenting draft legislation there, but still, there is a huge difference between creating a legal bounds and definitions for sexting and muddying child porn laws based on who performed the act of filming.
Kid is 17 and cops already have his dick picks. So when are the police going to start arresting one another for child pornography?
@61 Perhaps you should call the Prince William County Sheriff's Office or the FBI and state that you have credible evidence that the Manassas Police Department and the Commonwealth's Attorneys Office are producing and sharing child porn.
Here is a release by the Manassass City Police Department's Facebook account:
There is already a good start to the righteous indignation in the replies.

"...It is not the policy of the Manassas City Police or the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office to authorize invasive search procedures of suspects in cases of this nature and no such procedures have been conducted in this case. Beyond that, neither the Police Department nor the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office discusses evidentiary matters prior to court hearings."
When I hear about stuff like this, I always wish I was super rich - I would pay all of that boy's legal fees for his defense AND for him to sue the shit out of Virginia for mental suffering. Such a crock of shit...
@63 Oh dear, it looks like URLs are getting stripped. Try this:
www permalink.php?story_fbid=713736472032146&id=566888640050264
Add in http and / as needed to make it look right.
I tweeted those Manassas PD sob's.
Dan, where did the judge sign that supposedly requested warrant?
Things move quick. Already up on Wikipedia...,_V…
That poor 17-year-old boy needs lawyers. Big goddamn scary fucking lawyers.
This is so over-the-top evil and almost comically absurd, that there just has to be something wrong with it. The story is exaggerated, or we're missing some crucial piece of information. Was the girl mentally impaired in some way that she can't be culpable and is a victim? Does the kid have a history with the police and they're out to get him? Are the parents making it up for public attention? I mean really, there has to be another shoe, I'm not ready to buy this yet.
if this warrant goes through for the boner pics and the kid can't get a boner will they charge him with obstructing justice?
Pridge I have to agree with 58, Collectivism_sucks is stupid and non-self reflective enough to not understand folks were responding to the "feminazi" non-sequitur.

@60 is also spot on with regards to Collectivism_sucks comment @33 as written it leaves a huge glaring loophole for child pornographers to walk through. But alas as @60 also notes CS is not so bright.

All that aside this whole situation is ridiculous and the adults involved all of them should be required to read, "Harmful to Minors, The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" by Judith Levine


it must be awfully lonely on whatever planet you posted that from.
Please sign this petition:…
On July 4th, the Manassas PD tweeted: "#July4th Safety Tip: Take a photo of your child before heading into a big crowd today & pick a meeting place in case someone gets separated."
Makes me wonder what they had in mind.
@68: "Any teenage male that sends sexual images of himself to another teenager will himself be sexually abused by the police as part of their investigation. The teen will be stripped and forced to pose nude for police. If the teen fails to get an erection the police will take the teen to a hospital for a shot that will medically induce an erection. [23]"

Somehow I think that phrasing will change, but I laughed, and then was sad because it is true.
Yes, a huge glaring child porn loophole: IF YOU'RE A CHILD YOURSELF, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO JAIL FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IF YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF YOUR OWN JUNK AND SEND IT TO ANOTHER KID. That's a "glaring loophole" that SHOULD be there. What, should teenagers be stopped from molesting themselves too? I guess under your "logic" every teenager who jerks off should be guilty of child molestation. After all, they are groping a child.
Yes, arrest kids for taking pictures of themselves...but I'm the one who "isn't that bright" By all means, continue typing and embarrassing yourself.

As for @58: first, your grammar is that of a third grader. Second, a fine would be necessary to discourage that behavior. Not because it is the same as an adult taking pictures of a child, but because "sexted" images often end up online for all to see. That's how I obtained those compromising images of your mother with a German Shepherd.

Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you.

@ 9 I'm from the United Kingdom and I emailed that address and gave him a piece of my mind. Now he knows that their actions are causing their department embarrassment overseas too. Dan, your flying monkeys attack from abroad too.

This pisses me off so so much. I'm a strong feminist and using the law to slut shame, sexually humiliate someone and RUIN THEIR LIFE disgusts me to no end! I rarely write angry emails, but this just crosses the line in my books!
So, cops are planning to forcibly strip and photograph a kid's erection. How is this not sexual assault, and WTH is wrong with all the adults involved?!
Just popped in to make sure, and yup, people in here are still as confused as ever as to what the definition of "pornography" is.

Carry on, blind followers of the Church of Savage, carry on.
Are these crackpots remnants of Crazy Ken Cuccinelli's stint as VA AG? Did Crazy Ken pack these office with crazyclones of himself. The people of Virginia got rid of Ken, now can they do the same with these lunatics?

Just asking'
Are these crackpots remnants of Crazy Ken Cuccinelli's stint as VA AG? Did the Cooch pack these offices with christocrazies like himself. The people of Virginia exorcised the Cooch, now can they do the same for these lunatics?

Just askin'

If I were the College of William and Mary's law school, I'd disown him.
We should be agitating for the girl to be arrested too, gender equality and all that.
78: After criticizing my grammar (with no specifics, of course), it's hilarious to watch you follow that up with grammar mistakes of your own. Extra punctuation, lacking punctuation, capital letters where there shouldn't be, lowercase letters at the beginnings of sentences, mixing singular nouns with plural linking verbs; this is awful. F!

And the content: trying to paint someone as a hypocrite based on the mere existence of words he didn't actually use. F minus!
@78: With regard to the loophole:
Aspiring child pornographers could avoid being charged with producing child pornography simply by convincing the KIDS to produce it THEMSELVES. Do you understand how that is a bad idea?
Also, you're an idiot.
81: I know you're a free-thinking "rebel" who stands way above us Savage Sheeple and all, but you REALLY need to re-read this thread if you think we all literally believe that the cops plan to jerk off to these pictures later.

You can't think of ANY other objection we may have to this fucking clown show?
@12, that was a good thought, though the teen is white per this article:…
@12, that was a good thought, though the teen is white per this article:…

Go check out @ManassasCityPD which shows a black teen as the "criminal".
@88, it doesn't seem obvious to you that any such law would include a clause prohibiting adults from coercing such photographs? I mean, isn't this the most obviously phony, never-gonna-happen loophole that ever didn't exist?
@93 Bad legislation gets proposed quite often, even by full time legislators with legal training.

To suggest that everything was obviously considered is excessively optimistic, especially when someone proposes "simple" fixes to complicated issues.
@93: My point is that it's a lot harder to prove that the adult was coercing the kid to take the pictures than to prove he was simply involved. If the whole act is illegal, you can charge the adult for participating in the production; if it's just the coercion that's against the law, you need to prove that as well.

@94: The fact that in several states gay sex is technically illegal but necrophilia or bestiality is legal is testament to that. My favorite example, though, is the apocryphal story of an anti-prostitution ordinance being modified to clarify that, yes, you're not allowed to turn tricks in a hovercraft either.
When will the insanity END?
Like I said, ONLY KIDS would be exempt from making OR POSSESSING child porn. That's what I said, "send and receive."
I love how you can't read and comprehend what I'm typing, as is clearly demonstrated by your not understanding what I, and the DA I linked to but you ignored, were saying. Despite this, you call me an "idiot". My reply:…
You said "firstly." What the fuck is that? That's something a toddler would say. A simple "first" would suffice. So there, enjoy your example of your appalling grammar. Also, on the internet, capitalized letters are commonly accepted to represent yelling. Source:…
I suppose you may this error because your parents don't allow you on the internet often. Oh, and I never accused you of using the terms "teabagger" and "Paultard." I was only asking you a hypothetical question to which you provided no answer.
You sir are clearly a prime example of an epic fail.
Which is why, as I said, over and over, adults SHOULD be charged with child porn if they have images of the kind. However, if a child themselves sends or receives said images, that is a different matter entirely.
@97: A blanket exemption gives too much leeway if you ask me. Someone accused of producing child pornography could argue, as a legal defense, that the kid took the pictures himself, making their production legal, and get off on a lesser charge of possession rather than being convicted of being an accomplice to the (otherwise-illegal) production. The law should recommend prosecutorial discretion with regard to charging minors with producing porn of themselves, but a blanket exemption is too much.

@98: Please, tell me where you linked to a DA. Do you mean an Attorney General in Australia, a whole different country with a substantially-different legal system? And do you refer to a proposed law that, rather than focusing on child pornography, was enacted against what we call "revenge porn"? And do you refer to a local social worker, not an AG or DA, in saying that the proposed law would protect children from being charged with child pornography offenses related to pictures they themselves shared? If so, please explain why that matters.
As for a lack of comprehension, you are one to talk! I am not arguing for throwing kids in prison for taking pictures of their swimsuit areas, insofar as being grounded does not constitute imprisonment. I AM arguing against legalizing the production of such images outright, since it opens the door for child abusers to avoid stricter punishment, able to get off with charges only of possession rather than production as well.
This is something that most people in the thread seem capable of understanding but of which you remain staunchly ignorant. It may come as some surprise to you, as a libertarian and therefore an idealist, but the real world is (figuratively) full of murkiness and confusion, and the road (again, a figurative one given its destinations) to Belial and Gehenna is commonly paved with good intentions and traveled upon by well-meaning fools such as yourself.

@99: I shall correct your grammar, usage, and mechanics somewhat.
1. Unless some punctuation is part of the quotation, put the punctuation outside of the quotation marks.
2. You wrote "may" when you presumably meant "made".
3. The appositive "sir" should be offset with commas.
You also accused Bonefish of claiming that you had falsely accused him of using the terms "Paultard" or "Teabagger". I believe this spat is insignificant in comparison to your ridiculous claim that you possess pictures of Bonefish's mother (implied to be) in congress with a large dog. As far as childish language goes, I believe that such a claim better deserves the label than the use of "firstly" rather than "first".
Do you understand how such wild statements reduce your already-shaky credibility?
@101: You're like a great big kitty playing with its food. :)


As I said, over and over again, IF AN ADULT HAS KIDDY PORN, HE OR SHE SHOULD GO TO JAIL NO MATTER WHO MADE IT HOW! Why is that so hard to understand? But if a child has images of themselves or other children, then said child should not go to jail.

As for my link to a DA in Australia, the pro-higher minimum wage people always bring up the Australian minimum wage, so why can't I bring up other relevant foreign laws and how they should be used as an example?

As for my grammar: a type-o is not poor grammar, it is an error. Those are two different subjects.
The word "sir" is beholden to the same rules of punctuation as any other pronoun.
And I NEVER accused anyone of calling anyone a "teabagger" or "Paultard." What I said was, and I will use a direct quote: "Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you."
When in the proceeding passage did I accuse anyone of using those terms? I only made it clear that those terms are used in casual conversation and never accused any one person of saying anything. When I said "groups that you disagree with" I did not say "you use against groups you disagree with." No one without a reading comprehension problem would have made that assumption.
Or, to make it as clear as I can, I will rephrase.
"Third, if "feminazi" is stupid, then I suppose "Paultard" are also stupid? Or how about the word "Teabagger"? Do you also object to people on the internet using those term? Or is it just that political epithets are only "stupid" when used against groups that you disagree with? How convenient for you."
Do you understand now why I'm clearly dominating this debate?
No, more like that big monster in The Avengers trying to devour Tony Stark. It was destroyed, as were the "arguments" of my opponents.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.