Posted on 06/28/2006 5:15:27 AM PDT by wagglebee
NORFOLK - A judge ordered that a grand jury should consider a felony charge against a man accused of propositioning a 14-year-old girl at a shopping mall.
The man, Charles A. Speller, was charged in March with producing sexually explicit material after the girl said Speller offered her $200 to be in his "porno."
The girl and her father testified on Tuesday during a preliminary hearing. The Virginian-Pilot is withholding their names to protect the girl's privacy.
The girl's father said he saw the man approach his daughter twice as they walked through The Gallery at Military Circle. He lagged behind his daughter by about 20 feet.
The first time the man approached, the daughter testified, he asked her, almost in a whisper, if she would like to make $200.
She shook her head no.
Her father saw the exchange, and wondered why a strange man was speaking to her. The father decided to tail the man, who had walked away but then doubled back and followed the girl.
The girl walked outside to meet her mother. The man followed her and approached again.
This time, there was no mistaking what he wanted.
"He said, 'Do you want to make a quick $200 in my porno?' " the girl testified.
She said no. The man walked away, but passed her father on his way back into the mall. The father questioned the man, who said he had asked the girl for directions.
"I said, 'All these grown folks going by, why don't you ask one of those?'" the father testified.
When the father reached his daughter, and she told him what the man said, the father turned to chase the man. The father saw a security guard and explained that the man had propositioned his daughter. But the man was halfway down the hall, the father said, and getting farther away all the time, and the security guard did nothing.
The father broke down on the witness stand as he described the scene.
"I said, 'This man propositioned my daughter,' "the father said, each word coming slowly.
He dropped his bags and chased the man, catching him near the mall's information desk. He prevented the man from leaving until police arrived.
Speller remained free on bond pending his trial. Prosecutor Jill Harris asked that Speller be banned from contact with children and the victim and that he be banned from libraries.
Speller has asked library workers to modify the filters on the computers, Harris said. The only reason to do that, she said, is to look at pornography online.
If I had been the father he would have needed paramedics before the police ever got there.
Library ping.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
Grand jury to hear case of alleged sexual offer at mall (Man wanted 14 y.o. to make porn movie)
This is just another instance of how pornography is not as harmless as people would like us to believe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
However, it's not clear to me that a crime was committed. No one did anything. Words were exchanged. If I were the father, I'd be upset, but I don't expect a court to do anything.
Most fathers probably would not involve the Courts, anyway.
I agree.
There was no law broken as far as I can tell. It's not illegal to be stupid.
If he had made this contact over the internet his home would be raided and all of his records seized. In that case the "victim" would have been a middle aged male police officer. Does that make a difference? I can't see any reason for him to solicit a child in this manner unless he had "evil" intentions.
What part of soliciting a 14 yo to be in a porno film don't you understand?
Why do you think these people were testifying, if the judge did not think the act was illegal?
I would have told the guard, "Call 911. That SOB is going to need an ambulance."
I'm fairly certain that soliciting a minor for child pornography is a crime.
P.S. Guess that's why you are not in jail.
Good answer! LOL
Am I missing something here? How does asking a 14 year old girl (who might plausibly be mistaken for an 18+-year-old) if she'd like to make a quick buck by being in a "porno" constitute "producing sexually explicit material"? And since when is "producing sexually explicit material" a crime, unless one actually uses one or more minors in the process? Per the info in this article, the guy never even touched the girl, much less used her in producing a porn flick.
I can't fathom why the courts are involved in this. The girl's parents should teach her how to handle this sort of crap, i.e. to respond by loudly yelling in the guy's face "NO, I WOULD NOT LIKE TO MAKE A QUICK $200 IN YOUR PORNO!" That way, when her father was 20 feet away from her, he wouldn't have had to "wonder why a strange man was speaking to her" and "tail the man, who had walked away but then doubled back and followed the girl." And what kind of parent walks AWAY from his unattended adolescent daughter in a mall, after seeing a "strange man" approach her and speak to her?
But according to the article, that's not what Speller is charged with.
It's my guess the police merely charged him with something to assuage the father. The charge will certainly be thrown out, as nothing was produced.
Exactly! Should we doubt this guy wouldn't have been able to find some kid who was eager for the chance to make money if he kept looking?
He played with fire and he got burned, they oughta fry him.
Scum!
Someone DID do something, Solicitation of a minor is a crime. Child pornography is a crime. Soliciting a minor to make child pornography is a crime.
Kudos to this dad for chasing this POS down.
It's the same as if asking them if they want to get a drink (alcohol) or go grab a smoke.
Um, you are legally required to ascertain a person's age before selling or providing said persons with alcohol or tobacco. Same applies to pornography.
Saying you didn't know how old they are is not a defense to the law.
"This is just another instance of how pornography is not as harmless as people would like us to believe."
With all due respect sir,
The pervert is generating the porno, not the other way around. Lets at least put the blame on the person and his behavior, then hold him accountable. In my humble opinion, blaming "porno" only distracts some attention away from the real issue and the guilty party.. a perverted bastard walking mall hallways and approaching children for sexual gratification.
Each day is seems that we become a more blameless society where individuals are not held accountable for their action, rather... we blame the tools used to carry out such actions. It really is bewildering to me how people justify this line of thinking.
Let's leave the porno alone and castrate the pervert after he does 30 years.
sorry, didn't mean for that to turn into a rant.
Even police need to have money exchanged to have a case for something totally illegal such as prostitution.
No, testimony showing intent to break the law is sometimes all that is necessary.
Some crimes are prosecuted before they are committed, murder for hire, terrorist acts, solicitation, etc.
Planning to commit a criminal act can be a criminal act in and of itself and has been successfully prosecuted many times in many variations.
I'm going to assume the POS in the article was charged with producing explicit material because they intend to show that offering a 14 yr old $200 to be in a porn flick (without first ascertaining her age as he is pro-actively required to do) is a substantial "act" of production, i.e. he was seeking to cast his production.
I am surprised that they haven't hung a string of charges on him. OTH, maybe they have and this is an additional charge the judge also wants the GJ to consider adding to the pile.
Er, how about stalking?
He talked to the girl - walked away and then tailed her once more.
If that had happend to my daughter when she was 14, she would have clocked him on the spot. 'Course not everyone encourages the children to take kickboxing lessons.....
Indecent solicitation of a child is a felony in every jurisdiction. An adult cannot legally ask a minor to participate in sex acts.
see post 26
§ 18.2-370. Taking indecent liberties with children; penalties.
Read sections A(4) and A(5) of the code section I linked you to in post 28.
And again --
§ 18.2-348. Aiding prostitution or illicit sexual intercourse.
There is no requirement that money change hands.
And again, ignorance is not a defense to the law. Period.
If you wish to solicit someone for an activity, you have a pro-active duty to ascertain that they are of legal age to engage in that activity.
Ignorance does not equal innocence in the eyes of the law.
Why does the law say "knowingly and intentionally"?
I agree ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when the law specifically states something and someone goes against that (for instance, if the pervert knew the girl was 14 because of something told to him from any source), then you are right--just because he didn't know doesn't mean he's not accountable under it.
But that is obviously not the case here.
It may seem a difficult concept, but you are presumed to know whether a person is a legal adult or not when you ask or solicit them to engage in adult behavior. If you do not know, you are expected to find out and make sure.
If you do not know and make no effort to find out, it is presumed your intent was in fact to solicit a child with knowledge and intent to do so.
Take the sex out of it and make it a simple sales contract. Would a car dealership attempt to sell a car to a 14 yr old that looked 18 or would they take pro-active steps to ascertain that the person was legally able to sign contracts?
Would the courts hold the child liable for the contract just because the dealership claimed they didn't know the buyer was a child?
A legitimate "porn producer" knows this damn well. Any failure to ask is knowing and intentional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
