N.J. cop received nudes from 17-year-old, pleads guilty to child pornography

[Danee]

A borough officer who has since resigned has admitted to receiving nude photos from a 17-year-old girl over a four- to six-month period, authorities said. Chad RybkaKimberly Redmond | NJ Advance Media  Chad Rybka, 33, of Bernards Township, pleaded guilty Thursday to third-degree possession of child pornography, Morris County Prosecutor Fredric M. Knapp and Madison police Chief Darren P. Dachisen said in a news release.
Police in Brunswick, Ohio learned on Feb. 23 that a 17-year-old girl was using a Twitter account to communicate with a man and that she sent nude images of herself to the man at his request, they said.
Investigators in Ohio determined the man was Rybka and he'd been in contact with the girl for four to six months on Twitter's messenger application. Brunswick police reported the matter to the Madison Police Department who then informed the Morris County Prosecutor's Office.


Read more here: http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2016/05/nj_cop_received_nudes_from_17-year-old_pleads_guil.html


My thoughts:  She sent them to him, she is 17.  She was stupid to do that, and he was stupid to accept or ask for them. Kids do this all the time and had she done it with a boy who was her age group, it would not be better.  She was very stupid.  

[Marzipan]

Ugh. I feel like this is an example of a gray area in the law. She is old enough to know what she was doing and he is getting flack because he is law enforcement. The world is not black or white, on or off or ones and zeros. It's everything in between.

[steve tanner]

Sad situation

[DrgHybrid]

Not to stray from the original story...but beyond him being a cop...what was ultimately wrong here? Age of consent in both Ohio and New Jersey is 16. So, the two of them could have sex but she isn't allowed to send nudes to him? I'm confused. Even though I know it's an older story...any thoughts @Danee ?

[Danee]

@DrgHybrid , is the age of consent applicable for young people within their own age grouping?  If not, then I too, fail to see the issue.

[cp]

I too can't see the issue here, if the age of consent is 16 then i fail to see it... unless i'm missing something, lol

[DrgHybrid]

@Danee , well, obviously I don't know the laws for every single state, which can then be even further detailed down into the counties or cities, haha. However, from reading around there is the certain age group, but it's only until the age of 16. Like, technically a 13 year old can have sex in the state of New Jersey, but only if it's with someone 4 years older then them. So, a 13 can have sex with a 17 year old (that's creepy) 14 with 18, etc...etc.

So, I wish that I could find more details on this specific case. Seeing as age of consent is 16, teen in question was 17, no one involved was under 13...I don't see why. However, looking around I can't find anymore traces of this story beyond basically what you have here.

[Riot.EXE]

@DrgHybrid , is the age of consent applicable for young people within their own age grouping?  If not, then I too, fail to see the issue.

It's only for consentual sex between two people. Him owning pics is still Child porn. Doesn't matter HOW he got 'em.

[DrgHybrid]

It's only for consentual sex between two people. Him owning pics is still Child porn. Doesn't matter HOW he got 'em.

Which is even more stupid. If someone can legally have sex at X age with Y person, then the pictures shouldn't even be an issue. It's like, yah, you can full on screw that 17 year old girl...but don't take a picture of her and keep it!

[Danee]

It's only for consentual sex between two people. Him owning pics is still Child porn. Doesn't matter HOW he got 'em.

Which is even more stupid. If someone can legally have sex at X age with Y person, then the pictures shouldn't even be an issue. It's like, yah, you can full on screw that 17 year old girl...but don't take a picture of her and keep it!

Thought provoking..humm..

[Riot.EXE]

It's only for consentual sex between two people. Him owning pics is still Child porn. Doesn't matter HOW he got 'em.

Which is even more stupid. If someone can legally have sex at X age with Y person, then the pictures shouldn't even be an issue. It's like, yah, you can full on screw that 17 year old girl...but don't take a picture of her and keep it!

Thought provoking..humm..

I remember a case where a young couple kinda got broken up due to consent laws clashing with child pornography laws. They were both minors when they hooked up, but the boyfriend was a few MONTHS older than his girlfriend, so he turned 18 first. Homegirl gave him some nude photos of herself and they were in his gym bag. Apparently, someone at his gym found them (I don't remember how) and reported him and he got arrested for having child porn. It was fucked...

[Danee]

It's only for consentual sex between two people. Him owning pics is still Child porn. Doesn't matter HOW he got 'em.

Which is even more stupid. If someone can legally have sex at X age with Y person, then the pictures shouldn't even be an issue. It's like, yah, you can full on screw that 17 year old girl...but don't take a picture of her and keep it!

Thought provoking..humm..

I remember a case where a young couple kinda got broken up due to consent laws clashing with child pornography laws. They were both minors when they hooked up, but the boyfriend was a few MONTHS older than his girlfriend, so he turned 18 first. Homegirl gave him some nude photos of herself and they were in his gym bag. Apparently, someone at his gym found them (I don't remember how) and reported him and he got arrested for having child porn. It was fucked...

It was, and so, so, so wrong.

[Trilogy]

Age of consent laws of the state don't apply if they are from different states.  The laws of the United States are that states can set their own age of concent, but if you cross a state or national border, it will go by the federal laws, which is 18 years old.  If they are from the same state,  sex would be legal, but open pics would not until 18. 

[Tree]

This is an example of the law treating a young adult as a child. A 17 year old is not a baby and should not be treated as one. Many of the laws in several English speaking countries relating to age based issues were changed without thinking them through last century.

As an example, until 1991, women in Australia could marry at the age of 16 (or even at 14 with parental consent). The only reason the age was raised to 18 was because it was seen as a symbol of inequality. Did anyone take into account that young ladies generally mature faster than their male peers? That was the whole reason for the age difference in the first place.

I'll agree that it was stupid to create a situation where the policeman's job and name would suffer as a result. But the very idea that 17 year olds need legal protection to stop them from doing what many of them want to do anyway is irrational. For thousands of years young adults have married and started families at ages that suddenly somehow became disrespectable in the 20th century Can't the lawmakers see the problem with this?

I have cousins who were mothers at 16 and now one of them is an awesome mum with lots of little walking noise machines around her house. She's happy, she's strict but fun, and the children love her. Now I wouldn't encourage young people to race into these things, but some of them are going to do so anyway and their lives would be a lot better if we as a society supported them instead of condemning them.

At the same time, had this young lady been a year older, nobody would have cared. So why should the punishment for an image of a 17 year old who herself choose to take and send the pictures be the same as the punishment for an image of a six year old who did not choose to have her image taken in a certain way? Laws ought to recognise real differences between cases.

[Danee]

This is an example of the law treating a young adult as a child. A 17 year old is not a baby and should not be treated as one. Many of the laws in several English speaking countries relating to age based issues were changed without thinking them through last century.

As an example, until 1991, women in Australia could marry at the age of 16 (or even at 14 with parental consent). The only reason the age was raised to 18 was because it was seen as a symbol of inequality. Did anyone take into account that young ladies generally mature faster than their male peers? That was the whole reason for the age difference in the first place.

I'll agree that it was stupid to create a situation where the policeman's job and name would suffer as a result. But the very idea that 17 year olds need legal protection to stop them from doing what many of them want to do anyway is irrational. For thousands of years young adults have married and started families at ages that suddenly somehow became disrespectable in the 20th century Can't the lawmakers see the problem with this?

I have cousins who were mothers at 16 and now one of them is an awesome mum with lots of little walking noise machines around her house. She's happy, she's strict but fun, and the children love her. Now I wouldn't encourage young people to race into these things, but some of them are going to do so anyway and their lives would be a lot better if we as a society supported them instead of condemning them.

At the same time, had this young lady been a year older, nobody would have cared. So why should the punishment for an image of a 17 year old who herself choose to take and send the pictures be the same as the punishment for an image of a six year old who did not choose to have her image taken in a certain way? Laws ought to recognise real differences between cases.

You, sir, put things so well. You should be our legal counsel!