Omegle With a Minor

[emerson1]

Thanks for your time and advice. He chose to call an attorney and seek professional legal advice as suggested at the bottom of the site.

[Mr. Knowitall]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: MA

My friend(I know everyone says that) is convinced the police are going to bust down the door any day now. He video chatted with someone on Omegle who actively started sexual activity on themselves and they mutually performed acts for each other. At some point in the actual chat part she stated she was under legal age and he didn't notice it until after because they weren't really typing that much after a certain point.

So now out of paranoia he is convinced it was a police sting. I tried to tell him that it was highly unlikely they would use someone to openly perform sexual acts on themselves on camera as part of a sting. Not that this makes it any better, but I told him it's not like he offered to meet up or exchanged contact information like you hear about on the news when people are busted.

Any ideas on if this was possibly a sting? If it was would they focus resources on someone who didn't try and make additional contact? Again, not that it makes it any better, but it's not like he does this on a daily basis and actively sought out someone who might be a minor.

When you choose to engage in this type of conduct with children, you also get the joy of having to wait and see if you end up in trouble with the law. There are more ways to get charged with sexual impropriety with children than a sting operation.

[emerson1]

Can I have a mod PM me? I think I created a real situation out of a fake scenario. I am writing a paper for an Information Securities class. The topic is child pornography. I didn't think a real attorney would be free to talk to so I posted here(found out they would later). I came up with the scenario from reading some of the other threads and thought I would get legal advice to get me some ideas on the paper. Hindsight I should have said I was gathering information for a paper. I guess I wanted it as "real" as possible and ended up making way to real.

I used my real email address and I know people might see this and report to the authorities. Although I have nothing to fear I figured taking the original out would just let it go away. I don't want anyone else's time wasted with my bad idea of gathering advice. Thanks and sorry again.

[cbg]

We don't do homework.

[Mr. Knowitall]

You just posted your explanation.

[emerson1]

We don't do homework.

Which I had kind of assumed and partly why I posted as a "real" person. I wanted authentic advice. Never knew attorneys would talk over the phone for free. I'll have to remember to post the paper in an off-topic part of the site(if there is somewhere nobody would mind). I didn't want to be banned from the site due to someone thinking I was spamming or else would have made this explanation when I first edited it after I got real legal advice. Never know when I might need advice here for a ticket or something.

I wasn't sure how long it would take someone to respond to my reported post I sent so I went ahead and posted the explanation. I thought I was getting a leg up with some insider advice. Can i have the original post edited to reflect this? So at least people know what was going on before reading the quoted post? I'm sorry again for the time I've wasted.

[souperdave]

So you learned a bit of a "side" lesson during this also.....misrepresentation of any sort is never a good idea, no matter the reason.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Can i have the original post edited to reflect this? So at least people know what was going on before reading the quoted post?

You edited the original post to say "Thanks for your time and advice. He chose to call an attorney and seek professional legal advice as suggested at the bottom of the site."

[emerson1]

So you learned a bit of a "side" lesson during this also.....misrepresentation of any sort is never a good idea, no matter the reason.

Indeed I did. I would re-edit the original post again, but it won't let me. Your sig quote is pretty accurate in this case.