noalarmplanet Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 On a selfish level I feel betrayed. He's someone high school me put their trust in, even if they were just a shitty pop punk band. Music is like that, it makes you feel like you belong. In high school Pop punk let me know it was ok to be a part of the "Broken hearts club" or whatever, that it was okay that I was awkward. I mean human beings will never cease to be shitty, but finding out someone you put trust in at some small level is very, very shitty sucks. I feel terrible for the victims and I feel terrible for his kid(s), they deserve far more attention and I hope they get the care they need, but it's worth acknowledging that if people we put our trust in music wise let us down it sucks. If the lead singer of Frightened Rabbit or some other band I currently love turns out to be a shitty cunt or something I will lose my shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronniegwilliams Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 it's 2014, how the hell has dude not learned "how to hide the shit you don't want anyone else on your harddrive to see:101"? verb1999 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 It's bad. I am not going to deny that, but it isn't nearly as bad as the original accusations. agreed. beating off to clothed girls is not nearly as bad as it sounded when this first surfaced. just going to repeat myself but saying that it's simply bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circuit bored records Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 it's 2014, how the hell has dude not learned "how to hide the shit you don't want anyone else on your harddrive to see:101"? He's recording videos of himself whacking off, I highly doubt this guy is the sharpest tool in the shed. trevorxramage and knifeparty 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnywreck Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 On a selfish level I feel betrayed. He's someone high school me put their trust in, even if they were just a shitty pop punk band. Music is like that, it makes you feel like you belong. In high school Pop punk let me know it was ok to be a part of the "Broken hearts club" or whatever, that it was okay that I was awkward. I mean human beings will never cease to be shitty, but finding out someone you put trust in at some small level is very, very shitty sucks. I feel terrible for the victims and I feel terrible for his kid(s), they deserve far more attention and I hope they get the care they need, but it's worth acknowledging that if people we put our trust in music wise let us down it sucks. If the lead singer of Frightened Rabbit or some other band I currently love turns out to be a shitty cunt or something I will lose my shit. The quicker you realize that everyone is at some small level very, very shitty, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noalarmplanet Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 The quicker you realize that everyone is at some small level very, very shitty, the better. Very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Fuckin' humans and their perversions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 this is still disgusting. the girls being "clothed" doesnt make it any better, he's fucking married with children, he should act like an adult not some prepubescent teen. maybe its not "illegal" but its fucking gross. WHO KEEPS VIDEOS OF THEMSELVES DOING THIS??? , trevorxramage, agaetisbyrjun and futures 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 would it be different if he was using a cam site where he was paying to interact with women masterbating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Yes? That would still be scummy but consent is invoved there. We're talking about teenage girls with his daughter potentially in the room. Not so sure you can compare those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 before anyone thinks i'm condoning his actions- i'm not. but i kind of have to imagine that if he's going to town on himself, and that's what's recorded, then these girls have to be aware of it. wouldn't that be consent right there? and i'll just tie your comment into my last one. is this any different than him paying a cam site to interact with a teenage girl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Anyone under the age of 18 can not legally give consent, it's that way for a reason. We don't know all the circumstances of the situation but these girls could have potentially been really naive to what was taking place or even felt pressure to be put in that situation. Paying to cam with an underage girl would also be considered child pornography so I don't really know where you're going with that one... agaetisbyrjun and futures 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 18 is the age of consent in just a few states- with a majority being 16. 18, which is very much still a teenager, just seems to be the number someone decided on for porn to be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I mean, I get that you're just playing Devil's advocate here but 18 is arguably when you become an independent person. Still technically a teenager, yes, but you're thrown into the world and expected to make your own decisions-good or bad. It's not just some random number, it was an age picked for a reason. I could be wrong, but I believe 16 is the age where it's legal under parental consent. If a 16 year old sends out nudes, anyone caught with those photos could be potentially charged with possession of child pornography. I understand these girls were clothed, but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GradedOnACurve Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 State by state breakdown along with the rest of North America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America Dude should just not do what he did. Ew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billya Posted April 15, 2014 Author Share Posted April 15, 2014 this is still disgusting. the girls being "clothed" doesnt make it any better, he's fucking married with children, he should act like an adult not some prepubescent teen. maybe its not "illegal" but its fucking gross. WHO KEEPS VIDEOS OF THEMSELVES DOING THIS??? , I'm not saying what he did wasn't terrible. He isn't not creepy or anything. I'm just saying that when I read "lewd conduct with a minor under 14" my mind doesn't go to this, it draws a conclusion much more disgusting. Yes? That would still be scummy but consent is invoved there. We're talking about teenage girls with his daughter potentially in the room. I don't know where you are getting that she had to be in the room with him. If that were the case, don't you think that his ex-wife would have specified that? That is FAR more damning than just hearing her daughter's voice in the background. Also - for argument's sake, the girls' identities are still unknown the last that I checked, so this is all circumstantial. He was married, and thus should not have been doing this behind his wife's back, but there's no proof that they were teenagers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviex2shoes Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I don't know where you are getting that she had to be in the room with him. If that were the case, don't you think that his ex-wife would have specified that? That is FAR more damning than just hearing her daughter's voice in the background. Also - for argument's sake, the girls' identities are still unknown the last that I checked, so this is all circumstantial. He was married, and thus should not have been doing this behind his wife's back, but there's no proof that they were teenagers. This is kind of what I was thinking in the case of the daughters voice. I can imagine a situation where he has the door shut in his room when he was home watching his daughter, and maybe she walked by the closed door saying something that was picked up on the video. This whole thing is strange and its extremely strange that they can say its lewd conduct with minors when they don't have the identities of the girls, but maybe by now they do. Like if the girls in the video end up being 18, he's in the clear, and he's just a really weird creepy cheating dude, but not a criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I don't know where you are getting that she had to be in the room with him. If that were the case, don't you think that his ex-wife would have specified that? That is FAR more damning than just hearing her daughter's voice in the background. Also - for argument's sake, the girls' identities are still unknown the last that I checked, so this is all circumstantial. He was married, and thus should not have been doing this behind his wife's back, but there's no proof that they were teenagers. That's what I was referencing, my phrasing was just a little unclear. Also, I already referenced your second point as well. Anyone under the age of 18 can not legally give consent, it's that way for a reason. We don't know all the circumstances of the situation but these girls could have potentially been really naive to what was taking place or even felt pressure to be put in that situation. Paying to cam with an underage girl would also be considered child pornography so I don't really know where you're going with that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billya Posted April 15, 2014 Author Share Posted April 15, 2014 That's what I was referencing, my phrasing was just a little unclear. Also, I already referenced your second point as well. If that's what you were addressing, your phrasing was more than a little unclear. That actually doesn't address my entire point. If the girls were "naive to what was taking place or even felt pressure to be in that situation", that has nothing to do with their age. The only part that is related is that it is all circumstantial. Remember, this is NOT a case where girls (or their parents) brought this to light because they felt that they were being terrorized or taken advantage of. Perhaps they did, but this is a case of California v Klein because of things brought to light by a third party. There's no need to try and make things worse than they already are here by implying that he was pressuring girls into this (I am not going to say that he didn't, but I have no information to lead to me to lead me to conclude anything either way). Again, this isn't me saying that Steve was justified in his actions at all, but speculating things of that nature really doesn't do anyone any good. I also have to say that I find it interesting that you went from the opinion that his ex-wife meant that she heard her daughter's voice figuratively to not only actually hearing it in the videos, but placing her in the same room. Do you not think that there would be an additional charge for someone who was masturbating on a webcam in the same room as his young daughter? A prosecutor could make an easy sheet of charges if there was any sort of implication of that. In short, what I am saying is that this man deserves to be punished for his actions. However, there's no need to take a case of a man being unfaithful to his wife by flirting with young (looking) girls online via webcam and exposing himself and turn it into a case where he pressured girls into watching him masturbate while he sat in a room with his daughter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 You're actually just taking everything I said out of context? My phrasing was unclear, I was typing from my phone and not really trying to start an intense argument. Everything I said, was accompanied by saying it was a "possibility" or "circumstantial." I never once said that anything I stated was fact. I was just throwing in some thoughts to Ryan's questions. Also, I never said I leaned either way on whether she meant figuratively or literally. Earlier I agreed with Ry that the sentence was pretty vague and I still feel that way. When I said the daughter was in the room, I said "potentially" because we don't know where his daughter was etc. etc. etc. I didn't turn this case into anything, even if I was...would it matter to the case in the end? Absolutely not. Ryan and I were just simply tossing some possibilities around and you just happened to read everything I said wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Logan Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 All in all, I think we all just agree with this. Not sure why it had to turn into some crazy ass debate: Dude should just not do what he did. Ew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 It's not just some random number, it was an age picked for a reason. Uhh, k... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verb1999 Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 I think the wife's testimony is spelled out pretty clearly in the article if you pay attention. The daughter's voice was heard in aye video. 1 out of approximately 100. I'm no lawyer, but's my guess that if it was the same video as him going to town on his trouser snake, that the article, and she, would've said so, and a bigger deal would have been made out of it. I'd wager her voice was in the background in the kitchen or living room or something, not during a sex scene. Someone snooping and looking for evidence of cheating is seeing negative, almost no matter what. Where any normal video chat conversation with a kid's voice in the background would go unnoticed, but to the snooping wife looking for courtroom ammo, "troubling", in her own words. I think she'd find it much worse than "troubling" if it was during the sex tape. Something more like shocking, appalling, scary, you get the idea. Not taking any sides just yet, just piecing together logic. If we find out otherwise, I'll be the first to throw the idiot under the bus. I also like to say the picture in the article doesn't look like the New Found Glory Steve we've all known over the years. That guy has a skater hat of sorts, and a guitar, looks kinda young, and like one of the guys. Not like someone who could be capable of such crimes. The guy in the courtroom shows an older looking regular dude, somewhat balding, who I say.... "Eh...ok, maybe I could see it now." He's like Frosty The Snowman, take away the hat & the magic is gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 16, 2014 Share Posted April 16, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.