Posted by forever_lost_in_dixie (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Does anyone want to know why we are in trouble here in Selma? Statute 13A-13-197? Now it may be a misprint by the STJ, but I was informed that this was a press release by the SPD. Alabama does NOT have a statute 13A-13-197. The statute is 13A-12-197 (which is a Class A felony). This may seem like a simple typo, but the press release also shows the lack of judicial knowledge by the SPD and especially their Chief of Police. This crime also comes under the federal law Title 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2008), which imposes a sentence of imprisonment not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, but, if such person has a prior conviction of the same offense (or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward), the law requires a punishment of imprisonment for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.

The question is…is the SPD and its chief so inept at understanding the law, or is this another case of the “good old boys” taking care of its own? So who is the father of this 19 year old? A relative, a cop or perhaps a frat brother? Come on Selma, how long are we going to continue to sit back and allow this “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” mentality?

It amazes me that the SPD is still being lead by a chief that has repeatedly claimed that it is “not his or his department’s job to verify the addresses of sex offenders here in this city“.

I understand that this 19 year old was being stupid and that comes with the age…but a crime is a crime and should be punished accordingly. There should never be a quote “This is a local incident” uttered by our police department ever again!

Posted by Toad (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please explain why the Chief is responsible for a STJ typo, or do you know for a fact that the PD released it as 13A-13-197? I mean really, of all the problems you can complain about, a typo when we don't even know who is responsible, and it really doesn't change the essence of a story? Please.

Posted by popdukes12 (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Toad: I can see how interested you always are in police work, but in this case, forever_lost_in_dixie said he was "informed" and this must mean that he has checked (in some manner) where the fault lay. So, let's don't jump on the STJ to quickly. Someone will check on this and clear it up. popdukes12

Posted by Toad (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just think that moaning about one typo, who ever it was committed by, takes away from the point of the article. There was a terrible act committed against a young person in this town. An invasion of privacy so heinous that it is a state crime and potentially a federal crime (only if the feds want to prosecute). The outrage should be dirtected towards the criminals, not the person that made a simple typo.

If you don't like the police, that is your business, and I'm sure you have your reasons, but at least make sure it was their mistake, and it was something that makes the difference in a case. They catch enough crap working in this city without dealing with stuff like this. And some people wonder why its hard to get good people to apply.

Posted by saveselma (anonymous) on November 26, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I fault the parents as much as the 19 year old. Most parents don't know (or sadly, care) where their kids are. How was the picture taken?

If my daughter had her picture taken while she was in the nude, I would have to assume someone else was there to take the picture. That is the problem. At the bottom of the issue is not really the fact that the picture was sent via a cell phone. It is a morality issue that won't end until parents start parenting.

Posted by popdukes12 (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Toad: Don't get me wrong, I love the cops. They should put the cops in city hall and put the city government back in the Cecil Jackson building where that started. If we just had another Chief Summerland or Wilson baker or Chief Laporte ( notice I didn't say Randy) we would be in a lot better shape. popdukes12

Posted by Toad (anonymous) on November 27, 2009 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry Pops, I wasn't referring to you. My mistake for not being clear. It just seems that FLID seems to have an axe to grind with the PD to flip out like he/she did over a typo.

I sincerely hope that young people and parents can learn a lesson from this incident. Now that I've said my piece and I'm ready to move on.

Posted by misslady27 (anonymous) on November 29, 2009 at 11:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am totally against 19 year olds dating 16 year olds; but whose to say she didn't willingly take the picture then flip her story after she got caught. We are always blaming the men when something like this happen when majority of the time its the hot in the pants girl who plays the major role. I think spd should investigate this fully because 9 times out of 10 she allowed it to happen

Posted by jonsavant (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In this day and age there are really no innocent 16 year old anything, some 16 year olds have more knowledge and in some cases, more experience than the average 40 year old from years pass. The saddest part of the whole matter is - "Why let someone look up your most private area for free, when you can get paid big bucks from Playboy, Maxim and other publications?" How quick you people of Selma forget - I can recall when Craig Air Force base was in full swing it was no big thing for the Airmen from the base to date high school girls and all were under the age of 18 years of age. Before you attack me check this out, it is not something that I am just writing.

Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like the "Parents" of the "under 18" year olds dating airmen must have had some issues of their own. But on the other hand, sounds like the airmen had issues of not being able to "date" girls their own age and had to resort to young girls. Some guys are just naturally "desperate types" anyway.

Posted by popdukes12 (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We lost a lot of our best "honeys" to airman. We had all "been out" with them anyway. We would see the wedding announcments in the paper and laugh. popdukes12

Posted by saveselma (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jonsavant, ever heard that it is best to keep your mouth closed and be thought an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt. What you said made no sense.

popdukes12, those girls couldn't "be out" all by themselves. You dogs had to lay down with them in order to "go out" with them. Honestly, your comment sounds like you are a pig.

Posted by popdukes12 (anonymous) on November 30, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

saveselma: Just saying the ones they took weren't really on the social pages of the STJ. popdukes12

Posted by jonsavant (anonymous) on December 1, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To [saveselma] it is not my intent deal with other thoughts. I wrote what is a known fact, whether it made sense has nothing to do with what really happened. Careful how you attack - you just might be an off spring or closely related to some of the so called "dogs" that you refer to.
How you feel, what you say or think about me does not alter the facts in any way, in other words pal - I did not make or control the world - I just live - love and enjoy the world with no regards to how other view me or the world.
Tune in to REAL4LIFE @ www.harambeeradio.com at 7 p.m. your time each Wednesday - Listen up and learn how to really live and carry life to another level.

Posted by 12345678 (anonymous) on December 10, 2009 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

IT REALLY IS THE 16 YEAR OLD'S FAULT BECAUSE TO MY KNOWLEDGE SHE SAW HIM WITH THE PHONE AND HE TOLD HER HE WAS TEXTING.. THATS THE DUMBEST THING I EVER HEARD B4 LOL! SHE DUMB FOR THAT!!