Hacker News Reader

The police intend to commit child abuse.

There's no other way to put it.

(Besides the sexist application of a misguided law)

I think what the parties involved intend to do is garner votes, fluff their career, or "just follow orders". What those parties are ignoring, either willfully or otherwise, is that they have to commit child abuse in order to achieve those goals. (And, sure, there are probably a few pedophiles in the chain that are looking forward to the implementation of the Assistant Attorney's wishes.)

Manassas is in northern VA, not that far from DC. It's not exactly a bastion of puritanical fundamentalism or anything. I really shudder to think that this kind of behavior is the sort of thing that would bolster your career there. If there are people there who are ready to vote for officials because they pull shit like this, then I have lost all hope for humanity.

While I agree with almost your entire line of thought, your () makes me facepalm. Wanting to see a 17 year old naked does not make one a pedophile. In this case it's definitely wrong, a misuse of power, and breaks the law. However, he is definitely not a prepubescent child.

The already have:

"Police also arrested the teen and took him to juvenile jail, where Foster said they took photos of the teen’s genitals against his will."

The want ANOTHER picture.

I read that article very carefully and the whole crazy claim comes from the defense lawyer, who has a vested interest in portraying the prosecution as massively overstepping their bounds. I'm skeptical that they actually threatened to drag the kid down to the hospital and give him an involuntary erection so they can take photos of it. And I'm even more skeptical that they'd actually try to do it.

Note the quote from the Commonwealth Attorney: Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert said that police told him “these allegations [by the lawyers] lack credibility.” They're saying that it's not credible that the threat actually occurred, which likely means that even if it did, they realize how stupid it would be to actually follow through with it at this point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea of them prosecuting the kid for sending dick pictures, but I'd like to see that fail on its own (lack of) merit.

Presumably WaPo verified the claims made in this article. Frankly, I find it very easy to believe. It reminds me of the case of a man pulled over for a minor infraction (not wearing a seatbelt?) and the cop was convinced the man had drugs. He searched the man, the car, and found nothing. Called a search dog. Claimed the dog found something - and wanted a cavity search. Dragged the man to a hospital to force him to be cavity searched - the doctor refused. At the next hospital, the doctor agreed. They found nothing, of course. Then, the hospital proceeded to bill the man they searched for the procedure. He's suing the hell out of the police department, but who knows what will happen.[1]

And then of course there was this woman, who had something similar happen.[2] And you know that they are not the only ones - they are just the ones who made a stink about it and got national news coverage.

More generally, prosecutors love leverage, the more the better (which is a big reason why they don't want to legalize pot). They leveraged Aaron Swartz, too.

I trust the Washington Post - and I further trust that if the WaPo made a mistake, the Manassas PD and DA would be making a big stink about it.

Who I don't trust are juries who, like you, still have an irrational belief in the government and the police - that they are infallible, impartial, and concerned only with serving justice and keeping us safe. The truth is that they are vicious, prejudiced bullies who have a tremendous amount of unchecked power and almost no accountability, operating within a complicated system that they have mastered against suspects who are often cowed in to pleading guilty just to avoid inordinate punishment for things they never did. It's a shit show.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-laws... [2] http://www.elpasotimes.com/latestnews/ci_26100843/aclu-woman...

> Presumably WaPo verified the claims made in this article.

If they had verified the claims, why wouldn't they say so? It would certainly make the article more effective. I don't have any particular belief in the government and police, but I do pay close attention to what articles are implying versus what they are claiming, because for an honest news source, it tends to highlight the differences between what they have verified and what they haven't.

Edit: to be completely clear, the article does not say the prosecutor made these threats. The article says that the defense attorney says the prosecutor made these threats.

They can't verify the claims because the documents in the case are under seal, not least because of it being a juvenile case and the search warrant not having been served yet.

Newspapers can and do report surprising legal claims that originate with an attorney because such claims are essentially backed by the attorney's professional reputation, and could result in sanctions or even disbarment if they were made without foundation.

Edit to add: Who I don't trust are juries [...]

I'm with you on that. If unjustly accused I would far rather have the decision made by someone trained to weigh evidence and who will have to state the basis of his/her findings of fact for the record, where they can be challenged at appeal if they are not well founded.

One needs to weigh the balance of probabilities: what is the probability that the defense attorney is mischaracterizing the prosecutions demands, vs the probability that the DA is actually demanding a forced medical procedure unless the kid pleads guilty?

Given the evidence of past police misconduct in the narrow area of forced medical procedures as a form of extra-legal coercement, the benefit of the doubt here has to go to the defendant.

That's true, but bear in mind that the defense lawyer is asserting that a) police have already taken a photo of the defendant's genitalia; and b) the affidavit for the search warrant they have filed with the court describes the idea of taking the teen to the hospital to induce and photograph an erection. (EDIT: I'm inferring the latter slightly, but justifiably I believe. If they expect to find other sexually-themed pictures the search warrant could be for his computer, digital camera etc., and chances are it includes those search targets. But if, per the story, the warrant can't be served without the defendant being around, I think it's a reasonable inference that the defendant's person is itself an object of their search.)

While these allegations sound bizarre, the existence of the photo and affidavit's contents are questions of fact, and if they do exist those materials are in the possession of the court. I can't think of a court that would entertain motions concerning documents whose existence the court knew to be a fiction. Even making unfounded claims of this sort in public seems like it could result in sanctions.

It's at least as plausible that the government attorneys and/or the police are being dishonest. Prosecutors have already fouled the case up once resulting is a dismissal (for failure to certify the defendant as a juvenile). Since people on the government side have a great deal to lose if the allegations turn out to be true, they certainly have an interest in denying the allegations.

>> The idea of taking a male teen and stimulating his penis to erection for the purposes of the prosecution sounds nuts

>> Man, I've heard of some verticals in my day, but I'm hoping that's an outrageously small market.

Well played.

"But, man, if I lived in that area I would be running for election come the next round, and I'd beat this story into the ground for the entire campaign."

The "root" of all this evil is the fact that politicians have little incentive and much disincentive to run on a platform (or mention an issue) where they would actually even come close to touching a subject like this with a ten foot pool.

I mean if there ever was a third rail it is this entire subject.

A platform like "not subjecting your kids to insane prosecutions" would be a pretty good one, I'd imagine.

"The police are supposed to protect your children from predators. The Attorney General's office is supposed to prosecute those who would do your children harm. But as the events in Manassas City demonstrate, they are wolves in sheep's clothing. mikestew promises to protect your children, not prey on them. Elect mikestew and he'll make sure the people you're supposed to trust aren't taking nekkid pictures of your kids."

Okay, that last sentence might need a little rewording, possibly explaining why I've never been elected to office. But I can't imagine that a decent campaign manager couldn't pull this off in a tasteful manner while still getting the point across.

I feel the best way to fix this situation is to apply some pressure on said ACA; report his conduct to the state bar.

http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/inquiry