but a 17 year old girl with a mid-40's man is really pushing it. Dear Shane: One of the encouraging signs in Humanity is its ability to change and grow. The Status Quo is never acceptable if humans are to ever reach a level of excellance worthy of being called civilized Human Beings. It is with this principle in mind that I post to these rather frivilous, and sometimes asinine forums. The Truth is a 17 year old is a WOMAN. Regardless of foolish backwards notions that say otherwise. Nature is REAL! Natural Law trumps stupid man tricks! No matter how much people chose to believe that silly fabricated laws can oppress and suppress REAL Natural Laws, it will not happen. There will always be those who "think" beyond their years and Reason higher thoughts than the common herd. Americans waste their Freedoms on silly games while believing the delusion that they are really Free, and allow themselves to be slaves to mythological nonsense and fabricated "laws" designed to keep them from thinking any original thoughts. A new way is possible. Free your spirit from the crazies, exercise your Freedoms by DOING FREEDOM. Dare to think an original thought. Discover the Truth beyond the lies and the social enginers that want you to remain a slave to ignorance and THEIR way of thinking and living. Nature is Boss! Put aside insane delusions that the government is your friend, that the laws were made to protect the innocent, that 17 year olds are still "children". There is only one valid "law" in a free society. That one law is simple to understand and easy to apply. Don't violate other people's Rights! All else is folly and madness!

If exposing ones privates to a minor is not against the law then It should be.

Dear Concerned Parent: And why would you say such a thing? First, he did not "expose his privates". He "allegedly" sent a "picture" by way of a private phone to another private phone. Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. A picture, an image, is not a sexual act. It is just a picture! Pictures have no moral or legal significance. Pictures do not commit crimes. At best photographs MAY be considered evidence of a crime, if they show a criminal act in progress. This case does not qualify as one of those situations. No criminal acts were depicted in the supposed "pictures". They were simply photographic images. Nothing more. Photographs depicting the human body, or body parts, are not unlawful, in spite of common mis-beliefs to the contrary. And, no, there should not be a law.

“Obscene matter” means" Regardless of what the statute reads, the First Amendment forbids ANY law that violates Freedom of Speech. As in: "No law means NO law." However repugnant an image may be to an individual or group of individuals all "obscentity laws" are invalidated by the First Amendment. Even though the States and the Federal government choses to ignore this fact does not erase the fact that such laws are unlawful and forbidden by the USC. Natural Law trumps Man's laws at any rate.

and the exposure was done for the purpose of sexual gratification. Dear a little more info, Please note "for the purpose of sexual gratification" and "intentionally exposes his or her sex organs" I see nothing in this legal text that indicates pictures or images are included. Also, the text says "exposes" HIS or HER. Photographs in themselves is not "exposure" in the meaning of this text. Exposure, in this section of the statute, means a real human body, in the flesh, not a photographic reproduction of a body part. Indecent "exposure" does not apply in this case. He pleaded to a bocus charge. No doubt for his own best interests and other personal reasons. I would have fought the original charges based on several constitutional issues. But perhaps he didn't have a decent lawyer.

it should be thier business and no one elses

Dear Cheer, By golly, I do believe you got a good idea there. Now if you could just convince a few million other brainwashed Amerikans to figure it out we might just have an enlightened society to live in. Sometimes, it seems, the simple truth is really all we need to know. Out of the mouths of .....Amen.

Dear Peter, I hope you get your wish. Just be careful that she is not an undercover metermaid. Entrapment is their specialty!

Ok, first of all, Joe should of known better. The girl was a 17 year old minor. As far as I have heard,she isn't his only victim. There are serveral others. You can take up for Joe all that you want, it still doesn't change things. Why should a 17 year old suffer any punishments over a 40 year old married police officer whom approached her. She is young and he was a man in uniform. Just put yourself into her shoes. Im sure Joe was a nice guy on the outside of things. Joe got himself a measly slap on the wrist. So stop complaining about his consequenses, it could of been worse. & as for "molly" hahahahhaha you must be jealous of that girl, I heard that she gave you a run for your life quite a few times. You must of gotten what you deserved to be bashing her over the internet.

Remember: ignorance is no excuse How Right you are, Shane. But most people use it as one anyway. Therefore, El De!

The girl is a minor. Shane, The word "minor" is a legal term relating to fabricated laws. In Nature it means nothing. The only valid statutory laws are those that respect Nature and serve to protect Human Rights. All else is folly.

I can see a 19 year old using your logic

Dear Shane, It is not MY logic. Logic is not owned by an individual. I rarely express opinions, they are too often effected by emotions that have been tainted by hysteria and paranoia. Pure Reason is the highest level of the thinking process. Logic trumps opinions.

Dear KH, (I wonder what a search of old Delde's hard drive would turn up... ):

There is nothing on my HD that would "warrant" a search by law enforcement. I have no skeletons in my closet. I might wonder about yours though, but my curiosity is controlled by decorum and respect for your privacy. My Hard Drive is legend and I would not hesitate to post anything contained therein to the Web. I often do, in fact, on a regular basis. Both to forums such as this one and to my websites and blogs. So "wonder" no more. They are not difficult to find. Google is easy enough to use, even an "underage" adult can work it. I post under my own real name, always, and proud of it. Nice try with the insinuation though. But no cigar!

I wonder what a search of old Delde's hard drive would turn up...

Delde, although I often agree with your stance toward personal freedom, I have to disagree with you on this one. The girl is a minor. I can see a 19 year old using your logic to explain why he wanted a relationship with a 16 year old, but a 17 year old girl with a mid-40's man is really pushing it. The excuse that he thought she was older holds no water either because I guarantee that officer arrested many people who THOUGHT they weren't breaking the law. Remember: ignorance is no excuse. I am disgusted with the comments by people who are blaming the girl...disgusted! Even if she was a "flirt", this does not make it okay for a grown man to show his privates to a MINOR. Of course, this is coming from the same county where FBI agents get probation for peeping at underage girls for hours at a time. Warning: I have a daughter and will bring great vengeance upon anyone who thinks they can get away with this kind of crap with my daughter...even if she enticed it.

"He was supposed to enforce the law and protect people"

Police officers are not authorized to "enforce the law". Neither is it their job to "protect" people. That is each individual's responsibility, and those who guardian them, parents for example. Police officers, as ruled by the Constitution, the Courts, and common sense, are employed to apprehend and arrest "criminals" or those who have been lawfully charged with a crime. "Law enforcement" when applied to police officers is a term created by tyrants and would be dictators.

"Parents watch out for your children there is a pedofile right down the street" Aside from mis-spelling the word, you appear to lack knowledge of what constitutes a pedophile. The word defines an adult who has sexual desires towards children. Literally, the sexual love of children. A child is a person under the age of puberty. Commonly 12. Teenagers are not children. And, an underage child would be a fetus. Hebophile applies to adults attracted to adolescents. Just being a pedophile, or hebophile is not a crime. Acting on such desires is another matter. Acting on such desires could lead to criminal acts of rape. Rape is the real crime. Violating a person's Rights, the Right not to be raped! Sex, in its self is never criminal, regardless of common beliefs to the contrary. Laws and statutes that claim otherwise are invalid and blatantly absurd. Outlawing Nature and Natural functions is ridiculous and goes beyond rational thinking. Those who promote hysteria and paranoia out of ignorance and emotional immaturity are the more dangerous in this society. There should be a law! (g)

JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS:

A fine and accurate report. Too bad those who condemn without knowledge will not be able to understand the simple language of the Law. My objections to the law are based on the fact that sex is not a crime, rape is! Violating another's Rights is the only valid standard for establishing laws and statutes. Photographs and images do not carry the weight of Rights violations. They are just pictures! At best pictures could be "evidence" of a rape or "evidence" of other crime. Otherwise they are just pictures. Photographs, in and of themselves are not and can not be criminal. Simple possession of "evidence" that a crime MAY have been committed can not be used, in a civilized and intelligent society that practices legal justice, to punish the one possessing the "evidence" UNLESS the possessor is clearly involved, in the photograph, in a criminal act. That is to say, the photographs must be proven to be actual depictions of REAL people engaging in REAL crimes. Possession of, or the "sending" of , pictures of genitalia to another person is not a valid crime. No victim...no one's Rights are violated. Of course, this would be true in an enlightened society with a legitimate legal system...which, sad to say, this society is not!

Ok first off wow she never lied about her age to the officer. He knew she had a fake ID and knew she was using it. He knew she was 17. He talked to her immediately after the incident begging her to say she used her ID to trick him. She never wanted anything to do with him. Ok; so she is a flirty girl (maybe). Does that give the right for a grown man to expose himself to her? Are you saying if my 11th grade Math teacher showed me a dirty picture and came onto him it's ok. Would you want your child exposed to that? No!! So you need to get your story straight before you run your nonsense. And as for " Close to the victim", I think I know this so called "Molly" and she is just a childish spoiled little witch who clearly didn't get her way in life. It's ok. She will get hers...Again! Poor joe this, poor joe that. The proper noun isn't worth capitalizing. I think he should of been fired from the police force; not forced to resign. I guess he needs the pension. Softy judge. Also; I think he should be a registered sex offender and be thrown in prison for at least 2 years. That way he can be with the people he put away probably for similar to the same reasons. Goodnight Marion County. Parents watch out for your children there is a pedofile right down the street and you may not know it.

and another thing: her using her sister's ID to get into a bar has exactly what to do with the fact that an officer of the law sent HER inappropriate pictures? B/c I mean she is the only person to ever use a fake ID. Yeah right, get over yourself "Molly." Sounds like you are just a jealous bitter girl b/c a younger girl took your boyfriend b/c you weren't woman enough yourself to keep him.

First of all, I can't believe someone would have the nerve to write poor Joe and try to make him the victim and put all of the blame on the girl. Maybe he gave her his number and told her that if she was ever in trouble she could call him. Anyone ever think of that? It was obvious that she wasn't interested in anything with him b/c she turned him in. And she actually inadvertantly turned him in. Do you think she wanted to deal with the embarrassment? No. And he got no jail time or anything and she got in no trouble b/c the only thing sexual that happened was the text that HE sent to her. A man in his mid 40s. Older than her father. He was supposed to enforce the law and protect people. Not prey on young women. It's not like she sent him nude pictures. And the investigation looked into her phone bc they kept it for several months and found that she said nor did anything inappropriate. And u ppl who are attacking her with these vicious comments need to look in the mirror. Remember when you point a finger at someone, you got 3 pointing right back at yourself. She is a wonderful person who tried to be taken advantage of by a dirty old man. And yet it's ok for the other county cops to say to her, "that they can't wait til she is 18." So since she is attractive it's her fault she get's harrassed. The MC Deputies are pigs and this one got caught.

I wish some hot chick would sext me.

Didn't this 17 year old tell him she was really 18? Just a thought. What middle aged man married or not wouldn't want to get with an 18 year old? Even in the position he was in as an officer shouldn't have had a bearing on what he chose to do in his personal life. Point is, SHE LIED about her age to him. That's not his fault. IMHO

I have known Joe for many many years and I believe he got the raw end of the deal in this case. Yes he done wrong because he was a married man, but seriously men cheat every day and arent put on probation for it. As far as he knew she was a consenting adult. I see nothing wrong with two consenting adults sending nude pictures of themselves, people do it every day, poloticians, presidents, laywers, doctors, etc... They have all done it and how many of them are on 4 yrs probation? Joes only wrong doing was being a married man when he done it and to me that is between him and his maker not the courts!!!

I met this girl and saw her with 22 year old males. She acted like a young lady of loose morals. All you could do was shake your head though, and she does not look like a kid. She looks like an adult. For the longest time me and my fellow coworkers thought she was over 21 because she always talked about drinking and what not and even went out drinking with one of my corworkers that I know of. I think the only moral issue here was that Joe was married but he and his wife need to work that out, not anyone else. pretty crappy this girl gets nothing and he gets 4 yrs. And i agree with the other guy, I thought the age of consent in this state was 16. If not then there is alot of statutory rape going on out there.

PlEASE KNOW THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE SENDING THESE IGNORANT MESSAGES HAVE KNOW IDEA WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON YOU REALLY ARE. THEY ASSUME!!! QUESTION IS HOW DID THIS GIRL GET YOUR NUMBER I KNOW YOU DIDNT GIVE IT TO HER. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THIS TEASE AND HER BUDDIES WILL GET WHAT THEY HAVE COMING. AND I HOPE I CAN BE THERE TO WATCH. YOUR DAY IS COMING TEASE AND THEN WILL WE BE SENDING COMMENTS ABOUT YOU. HA-HA. JOE HOLD YOUR HEAD EYE YOU ARE ONE HELL OF A PERSON. AND JUST KNOW I AM THERE FOR YOU. AND THE PEOPLE THAT HELPED HER IN THIS SITUATION YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND YOU WILL GET WHAT IS COMING TO YOU. JOE YOUR THE GREATEST REMEMBER THAT.

SHAME,SHAME,caught with his hand in the cookie jar.No wonder our children suffer so !! No Justice done here ! Lord help us all.

i think if someone wants to send a picture of themselves it should be thier business and no one elses, police officer or not.

I am sorry i left this out remember the id she was using to get into the local bars or whatever when reading 61-8A-2(b)(4).

Make sure to read the definitions first!!!! Section (i) will answer most questions.

61-8A-2(b)(4) will answer why he was charged with indecent exposure.

§ 61-8A-1. Definitions. Text When used in this article, the following words, and any variations thereof required by the context, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section:
(a) “Adult” means a person eighteen years of age or older. (b) “Computer network” means the interconnection of hardware or wireless communication lines with a computer through remote terminals, or a complex consisting of two or more interconnected computers. (c) “Display” means to show, exhibit or expose matter, in a manner visible to general or invited public, including minors. As used in this article, display shall include the placing or exhibiting of matter on or in a billboard, viewing screen, theater, marquee, newsstand, display rack, window, showcase, display case or similar public place. (d) “Distribute” means to transfer possession, transport, transmit, sell or rent, whether with or without consideration. (e) “Employee” means any individual who renders personal services in the course of a business, who receives compensation and who has no financial interest in the ownership or operation of the business other than his salary or wages. (f) “Internet” means the international computer network of both federal and nonfederal interoperable packet switched data networks. (g) “Knowledge of the character of the matter” means having awareness of or notice of the overall sexual content and character of matter as depicting, representing, or describing obscene matter. (h) “Matter” means any visual, audio, or physical item, article, production transmission, publication, exhibition, or live performance, or reproduction thereof, including any two or three dimensional visual or written material, film, picture, drawing, video, graphic, or computer generated or reproduced image; or any book, magazine, newspaper or other visual or written material; or any motion picture or other pictorial representation; or any statue or other figure; or any recording, transcription, or mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproduction; or any other articles, video laser disc, computer hardware and software, or computer generated images or message recording, transcription, or object, or any public or commercial live exhibition performed for consideration or before an audience of one or more.
(i) “Minor” means an unemancipated person under eighteen years of age.
(j) “Obscene matter” means matter that: (1) An average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is intended to appeal to the prurient interest, or is pandered to a prurient interest; (2) An average person, applying community standards, would find depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexually explicit conduct; and (3) A reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (k) “Parent” includes a biological or adoptive parent, legal guardian or legal custodian. (l) “Person” means any adult, partnership, firm, association, corporation or other legal entity. (m) “Sexually explicit conduct” means an ultimate sexual act, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, sexual bestiality, sexual sadism and masochism, masturbation, excretory functions and lewd exhibition of the genitals. History History. 2000, c. 193. § 61-8A-2. Distribution and display to minor of obscene matter; penalties; defenses. Text (a) Any adult, with knowledge of the character of the matter, who knowingly and intentionally distributes, offers to distribute, or displays to a minor any obscene matter, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than twenty-five thousand dollars, or confined in a state correctional facility for not more than five years, or both. (b) It is a defense to a prosecution under the provisions of this section that the obscene matter: (1) Was displayed in an area from which minors are physically excluded and the matter so located cannot be viewed by a minor from nonrestricted areas; or (2) Was covered by a device, commonly known as a “blinder rack,” such that the lower two thirds of the cover of the material is not exposed to view; or (3) Was enclosed in an opaque wrapper such that the lower two thirds of the cover of the material was not exposed to view; or (4) Was displayed or distributed after taking reasonable steps to receive, obtain or check an adult identification card, such as a driver’s license or other technically or reasonably feasible means of verification of age.

(c) It is a defense to an alleged violation under this section that a parent had taken reasonable steps to limit the minor’s access to the obscene matter. History History. 2000, c. 193.

§ 61-8-9. Indecent exposure. Text (a) A person is guilty of indecent exposure when such person intentionally exposes his or her sex organs or anus or the sex organs or anus of another person, or intentionally causes such exposure by another or engages in any overt act of sexual gratification, and does so under circumstances in which the person knows that the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm: Provided, That it is not considered indecent exposure for a mother to breast feed a child in any location, public or private. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in jail not more than ninety days, or fined not more than two hundred fifty dollars, or both fined and confined. (c) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section by intentionally exposing himself or herself to another person and the exposure was done for the purpose of sexual gratification, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in jail not more than twelve months, or both. For a second offense, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars and confined in jail for not less than thirty days nor more than twelve months. For a third or subsequent offense, the person is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than three thousand dollars and imprisoned in a state correctional facility for not less than one year nor more than five years.

this is what he pled to.

§ 61-8B-1. Definition of terms. Text In this article, unless a different meaning plainly is required: (1) “Forcible compulsion” means: (a) Physical force that overcomes such earnest resistance as might reasonably be expected under the circumstances; or (b) Threat or intimidation, expressed or implied, placing a person in fear of immediate death or bodily injury to himself or herself or another person or in fear that he or she or another person will be kidnapped; or (c) Fear by a person under sixteen years of age caused by intimidation, expressed or implied, by another person who is at least four years older than the victim. For the purposes of this definition “resistance” includes physical resistance or any clear communication of the victim's lack of consent. (2) “Married”, for the purposes of this article in addition to its legal meaning, includes persons living together as husband and wife regardless of the legal status of their relationship. (3) “Mentally defective” means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders that person incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct. (4) “Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct as a result of the influence of a controlled or intoxicating substance administered to that person without his or her consent or as a result of any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent. (5) “Physically helpless” means that a person is unconscious or for any reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act. (6) “Sexual contact” means any intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the breasts, buttocks, anus or any part of the sex organs of another person, or intentional touching of any part of another person's body by the actor's sex organs, where the victim is not married to the actor and the touching is done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party. (7) “Sexual intercourse” means any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ by the male sex organ or involving contact between the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another person. (8) “Sexual intrusion” means any act between persons involving penetration, however slight, of the female sex organ or of the anus of any person by an object for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the person so penetrated or for gratifying the sexual desire of either party. (9) “Bodily injury” means substantial physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition. (10) “Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, which causes serious or prolonged disfigurement, prolonged impairment of health or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ. (11) “Deadly weapon” means any instrument, device or thing capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried or used as a weapon. (12) “Forensic medical examination” means an examination provided to a possible victim of a violation of the provisions of this article by medical personnel qualified to gather evidence of the violation in a manner suitable for use in a court of law, to include: An examination for physical trauma; a determination of penetration or force; a patient interview; and the collection and evaluation of other evidence that is potentially relevant to the determination that a violation of the provisions of this article occurred and to the determination of the identity of the assailant. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56; 1986, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 11; 1996, c. 105; 2000, c. 85; 2007, c. 65. § 61-8B-2. Lack of consent. Text (a) Whether or not specifically stated, it is an element of every offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed without the consent of the victim. (b) Lack of consent results from: (1) Forcible compulsion; or (2) Incapacity to consent; or (3) If the offense charged is sexual abuse, any circumstances in addition to the forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor’s conduct. (c) A person is deemed incapable of consent when such person is: (1) Less than sixteen years old; or (2) Mentally defective; or (3) Mentally incapacitated; or (4) Physically helpless. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56. § 61-8B-3. Sexual assault in the first degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the first degree when: (1) The person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person and, in so doing: (i) Inflicts serious bodily injury upon anyone; or (ii) Employs a deadly weapon in the commission of the act; or (2) The person, being fourteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is younger than twelve years old and is not married to that person. (b) Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than fifteen nor more than thirty-five years, or fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than fifteen nor more than thirty-five years. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, the penalty for any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this section who is eighteen years of age or older and whose victim is younger than twelve years of age, shall be imprisonment in a state correctional facility for not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred years and a fine of not less than five thousand dollars nor more than twenty-five thousand dollars. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56; 1991, c. 41; 2000, c. 85; 2006, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 15. § 61-8B-4. Sexual assault in the second degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree when: (1) Such person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person without the person’s consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion; or (2) Such person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is physically helpless. (b) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years, or fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than ten nor more than twenty-five years. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56; 1991, c. 41. § 61-8B-5. Sexual assault in the third degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual assault in the third degree when: (1) The person engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated; or (2) The person, being sixteen years old or more, engages in sexual intercourse or sexual intrusion with another person who is less than sixteen years old and who is at least four years younger than the defendant and is not married to the defendant. (b) Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one year nor more than five years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one year nor more than five years. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56; 2000, c. 85. § 61-8B-6. Text Repealed by Acts 2000, c. 85. Annotations

Editor's notes. — Former § 61-8B-6 (enacted by Acts 1984, c. 56), concerning sexual assault of a spouse, was repealed by Acts 2000, c. 85, effective June 7, 2000. For similar provisions, see §§ 61-8B-1 through 61-8B-3 and § 61-8B-5. § 61-8B-7. Sexual abuse in the first degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree when: (1) Such person subjects another person to sexual contact without their consent, and the lack of consent results from forcible compulsion; or (2) Such person subjects another person to sexual contact who is physically helpless; or (3) Such person, being fourteen years old or more, subjects another person to sexual contact who is younger than twelve years old. (b) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one year nor more than five years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned in a state correctional facility not less than one year nor more than five years. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, the penalty for any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) of this section who is eighteen years of age or older and whose victim is younger than twelve years of age, shall be imprisonment for not less than five nor more than twenty-five years and fined not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56; 2006, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 15. § 61-8B-8. Sexual abuse in the second degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree when such person subjects another person to sexual contact who is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated. (b) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in the county jail not more than twelve months, or fined not more than five hundred dollars and confined in the county jail not more than twelve months. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56. § 61-8B-9. Sexual abuse in the third degree. Text (a) A person is guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree when he subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter’s consent, when such lack of consent is due to the victim’s incapacity to consent by reason of being less than sixteen years old. (b) In any prosecution under this section it is a defense that: (1) The defendant was less than sixteen years old; or (2) The defendant was less than four years older than the victim. (c) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in the county jail not more than ninety days, or fined not more than five hundred dollars and confined in the county jail not more than ninety days. History History. 1976, c. 43; 1984, c. 56.

remeber he was not charged with this section this is just to answer the question about being 16 and able to consent.

I thought the age of consent in WV is 16??? Does that not matter because he is a police officer, therefore in a "custodial" role??

Just to clarify.. If a minor send nude pics of himself or herself to another minor then it is a felony and a sex offender status added on. If an "adult" police officer commits the same crime he merely gets probation. With that said, I disagree that he should have received 4 years in prison. No person should receive 4 years of prison for such an act.

You know what? too bad, too sad, and who cares about a law enforcement officer who can't be trusted with teenage girls. He obviously was thinking with the wrong head.....hmmm.... and of course we have to look at the teenage girl as just that, a teenage girl. We as adults are trusted to make the right decisions and set the examples for our children to see. This officer failed to do that and he will suffer the consequences......the teenager goes on to do what she knows best....(be a teenager) and well such is life......Have a blessed day......

Deldem always gets his panties in a bunch when underage females are the topic of discussion. Wonder why?

What about morals? This is a grown man, an officer of the law. She was a child. How is this any different than someone exposing himself?? He should have at least had to register as a sex offender. He should know the law and abide by it. If exposing ones privates to a minor is not against the law then It should be.

First off I would like to say this man life has been ruined over some lil 17 year old punk!! He has lost his job, friends, income and many more to the effect! Just cause you past judgement on MY FRIEND!! doesnt mean you are better than him! He is a great guy and i still stand behind him no matter what!! Joe you know no matter what i'll stand behind you and be here for you..never left and never will! FOR those who think they know everything get real!! you dont no the damage this girl has caused and she gets off without nothing!! I dont care 17 or not you no the difference between right and wrong!! This man is a great person and you should be ashamed of yourself for ruining him!! That girl deserve some punishment!! She ruined a man's life for shit and giggles as far as im concern she is as bad!! Joe, hunny bunny you know im here and im not going anywere anytime soon! You no this..you no this no this slv. will be here for you mst. no matter what!! I will stand by him forget what ya'll think about him I know the real joe!! I STAND BY MY BOY NO MATTER WHAT DARLING!!

The deputy needed to use better judgement. After all, he knows the law. Granted, the alleged victim probably is not totally innocent. I thought he was charged with a harsher crime to being with.

Ok before everyone starts bashing me.. I am going to be one of the "honest" parents who have had a reality check about my 17 year old daughter... and I have been that age once myself.... so bash me if you like but if you take a long look at what i am about to say you will probably find some truth in it...My 17 year old is no angel.. she is not "loose" but she is we will say for lack of a better word "playful"! Does she admit this to me , well not exactly but I watch what goes on.. I am not stupid as some parents choose to be. I am well aware that when watching teens at lets say football games , that she is NO different then the rest... yes ladies and gentleman your child has hormones raging and no matter what restrictions you place on them and how well you watch them they are going to do what they are going to do.. lets face the facts! With that being said, I dont think "ol cool Joe" is all to blame in this matter... Like someone said before I am sure he didnt just get the number and WHAM send a pic of the penis.... I am sure as most teenagers I know are that this girl wanted to be "buddies" if not in a sexual way even but to keep him on her side..just in case she got in a little trouble later on.. and if from the posts you can believe what you read about being in a bar I am sure she would have been headed that way at some point.. Now as I said I have a 17 year old daughter who plays the same games.. it may not be with a cop but she along with her friends and co classmates have been taught who to ' smooze " in the system from teachers to lawmen... doesnt matter.. I understand you all are upset because he choose to act upon it.. but I also agree that if she wanted it to get this far then they are both to blame....one question I have is did she send him pics or expose herself in any way? I am sure that isnt going to come out because any good parent would want their child to look innocent in this... and maybe even thought they might profit from the county from all of it. you never know what goes through peoples minds... But, my amazement in this is.. how far did the sex-texting go before the pic was sent... had they talked online text or meet in person prior to this.. I would think any man especially one in law enforcement for so many years would have played the sernerio out in his mind before sending such a pic, he must have felt confident that he could trust the girl.... and she must have been keeping some secrets..I am being honest when i say I dont think he is all to blame ... my daughter or one of her friends or schoolmates would have done probably the same thing.. also how close to being 18 was this girl... was she sexually active before this happened.. if she was truly in a bar drinking at some point then we know she must be hanging with older kids, and I do agree what were her parents thinking....if they even knew.. Joe I think was dealt a bad rap because he wore a badge, and yes I do agree with the person who posted that if he were not in law enforcement he would have suffered a much stiffer penalty....but in the end we cant change how are kids are brought up or how public officials deal with so called criminals.. you just have to learn to raise your child better and remember you voted for the officials who enact the laws.. IN the end where does this leave the girl involved .. what happened to her, did they investigate the home to see why she was in a bar if she truly was , did they see if she had other encounters with Joe, as in public or private meetings, prior texting or calls, and did she send pics.. maybe if we made our children just a little more libel for the things they did we wouldn't have quite the problem or maybe if parents were more understanding that your child doesn't always wear a "halo" I know mine doesn't and she knows that the rule here is there are two sides to every story and i want to hear it all... Joe, sorry this happened.. I agree you should have thought it through more but i also understand you may not be entirely to blame.. and to you who ever you may be the 17 year old girl.. only you know the truth... and I hope you understand that one man and his family has been destroyed because of this whole situation.. if you truly did not sexually play or taunt him in any way then you have nothing to worry about at the pearly gates but if you did..... a true confession to both the public and God is in order... remember what I said I understand I have a 17 year old to.......... god bless both of you

She's a minor still. A minor is a minor is a minor.

A 17 yr. old is not a child. The morals of either one of these people is not a news story. It is not a legal matter. It's a personal matter that is not anyone's business except those personally involved. This story is an example of people...and government, intruding into personal affairs,private affairs, of people that they do not know and have no right to get involved with. It is pure gossip. People in this country need to understand that Freedom demands that we all mind our own business and leave other people alone to deal with their own lives, either good or bad. The government has no authority to legislate the private lives of anyone. Once the sheeple come to understand how freedom works perhaps we will all learn how to live as a free and honorable people. Regardless of your personal emotional opinion, this case is pure and simple, private affairs are not subject to judicial review unless someone's Rights have been violated. All else is milicious folly and gossip.

So Joe Cool strolls up to some underage gal, strikes up a conversation, and they mutually decide they like one another, enough to exchange phone numbers. Then Joe Cool decides he'll follow up the encounter by taking a pic of his package, and forwarding it on to the gal??? Whatever happened to dinner and a movie? Not Joe, just a pic of his business, and probably a clever message like: HEY, WE MET EARLIER TODAY. WANNA SEE MY WEINER?

First question why is a 17 year old using her older sisters ID to get in to the bars and giving her number to older men? Second questions where the heck was the parents of this 17 year old as she went into bars?

So Men and Women watch out, if you don't know the persons age for sure don't get involved. Guess we need to start asking for certified proof of age before dating.

This was wrong on so many levels its not funny.

Deldemcclung - In this case there seems to be a lot we don't know, and a 17 year old girl, while still a minor, likely wouldn't be too damaged by a picutre of a penis, BUT....

She's a minor still. A minor is a minor is a minor, and they all get treated similarly. If he had sent a picture of his genitals to a young girl, I'm hoping your response would be a little different.

Knowing on the inside... I agree that the girl was most likely not completely innocent in all of this. There's a good chance she even initiated some or most of it. However, he is the responsible adult in this situation and should have had the common sense not to do this. If he is a victim, it's because the girl consensually had this 'relationship' and it was all a trick to get in trouble... not because he didn't do anything wrong.

Teenagers who do the same thing get child-porn charges.

OK, just a few points that I think need to be brought up.. First when this was originally brought to the news back in the fall, a few people whom I know through fire/ rescue who are known to not be the "in" crowd you want to hang with.( I was in their presence for medical reasons) were the first to defend him and say he had done NO wrong.. turns out Joe had turned a "blind" eye to some of the things these individuals were doing in the Farmington area..and they would gladly tell you he had looked the other way.. NOW, with that being said and being an intelligent person you have to look at who is spreading the news. My only defense for him that I would stand on his side and defend what he did is this.".Was the seventeen year old girl a willing participate?" What many people fail to realize is some girls who are this age first of all act alot more mature then they are in age... and some girls do want relations with older men.. plain and simple. You can't blame Joe if he was just a willing participate in what this young lady had initiated.How did he get her number and I am sure the first thing the didnt do was send a "penis" pic to her... there had to be a much more involved conversation prior to the pic being sent, heck even high school boys have more cooth then that! I think with all points considered.. Joe was just as much the victim here as the young lady... and just one other thing i want to bring to point.... 40 years ago young ladies of this age and men of Joes age were a "standard " they were accepted to have this much of an age difference and be sexually active with one another... honestly.. guys and girls give him a break....

Emotional rants against Joe, and others who engage in private activities that do NOT violate anyone's Rights, are not a legal issue, and have no bearing on this case. There was NO abuse involved in Joe's case, according to the details revealed to the public. There may be personal issues with his family but that is not a legal matter either...private matters are private and none of the public's business. Joe's personal problems are a non-issue for anyone but Joe and his family. This case is a prime example of how American society is both immature and legally ignorant. The judicial system is corrupt beyond civilized comprehension. Perhaps one day The American people will realize just how conflicted they are with Liberty and Justice for all. I will not hold my breath though...humans are resistent to being rational and truly Free.

I hope the Marion County residents remember Judge David Janes at reelection time. It is sad that the justice system in WV is so screwd up. If you want to get away with murder, rape, or child abuse of any kind, just come to WV.

That was verbal abuse and he should have gotten the four years of jail time. If it would have happen to a non police personal they would have. YES he should have to register as a sex offender.... This is the ONLY time he has been caught.. HOw many more young ladies out there, please arise up against this has been cop.

First off nudity is not a crime. Secondly, sending pictures of one's penis over a private telephone to another private phone is not indecent "exposure". Thirdly, if he had had a decent Constitutional lawyer he could have beat the bad rap. This whole case was most likely a politically motivated fabrication built on hysteria and social manipulations in order to discredit a man. The bottom line is...in an enlightened society this sort of thing is a non-issue. Personal issues have no legal bearing.

I wonder if he will also have to register as a sex offender?Probably not since it wasn't physical...But he should have to in my opinion.