UTR Provider - Possibly Dishonest about Age on Facebook

Ok. I met this UTR provider through a dancer that I know. Via Facebook, she stated and confirmed that she was of legal age, however, now I’m very suspicious now becuz she can’t drive a car and in hindsight some thingz don’t add up (pun intended!)…

….I know for online stings, LE will say that they are such and such an age to get someone to meet at a park or house because they had “intent” to see someone not of legal age. So, if the situation is reversed where a girl states that she is legal age online and unbeknownst to you she is possibly lying about her age…are you guilty of crime?

Logan,

My understanding of the law is that if they are underage, it is against the law, fake ID's and statements made by the person have no bearing.

Better to be safe than sorry.

The Colonel

Before I answer your question, Logan, let me say...

WTF ARE YOU THINKING??? If you have a reasonable suspicion the girl is a minor (as per ShysterJon's 'Klong Rule'*), then LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE and move on to hunting legal pussy!

*See "Texas Laws Regarding Underage Providers".

Now with that being said....

I know for online stings, LE will say that they are such and such an age to get someone to meet at a park or house because they had “intent” to see someone not of legal age. So, if the situation is reversed where a girl states that she is legal age online and unbeknownst to you she is possibly lying about her age…are you guilty of crime? Originally Posted by Logan

My answer is 'No,' assuming your hypothetical guy doesn't harbor doubts about the girl's age like you do. This is the statute at issue, with the relevant part in red:

TEXAS PENAL CODE SEC. 33.021. ONLINE SOLICITATION OF A MINOR.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Minor" means:
(A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or
(B) an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.
(2) "Sexual contact," "sexual intercourse," and "deviate sexual intercourse" have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.
(3) "Sexually explicit" means any communication, language, or material, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25.
(b) A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:
(1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or
(2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person.
(d) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that:
(1) the meeting did not occur;
(2) the actor did not intend for the meeting to occur; or
(3) the actor was engaged in a fantasy at the time of commission of the offense.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that at the time conduct described by Subsection (b) or (c) was committed:
(1) the actor was married to the minor; or
(2) the actor was not more than three years older than the minor and the minor consented to the conduct.
(f) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if the minor is younger than 14 years of age or is an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. An offense under Subsection (c) is a felony of the second degree.
(g) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

See Tex. Penal Code § 33.021.

So for purposes of this particular statute, a person younger than 17 years of age is not a 'minor' if she states she's 17 years of age or older and she's not, as long as the defendant doesn't believe she's younger than 17 years of age.

Colonel: Logan's question pertains to online communications with a minor, not sexual contact with a minor.

Shyster Jon,

Thanks for the clarification.

The Colonel

Thankz for the info – it lookz like that I didn’t knowingly violate any lawz. I’ll try to be more careful next time.


Now I'm confused after reading your comment again -

So for purposes of this particular statute, a person younger than 17 years of age is not a 'minor' if she states she's 17 years of age or older and she's not, as long as the defendant doesn't believe she's younger than 17 years of age. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

If she stated she was of legal age online (I believed her) and then (hypothetically) there was subsequent sexual contact - a crime has been committed , despite representing herself as an adult on FB???

Before I answer your question, Logan, let me say...

WTF ARE YOU THINKING??? If you have a reasonable suspicion the girl is a minor (as per ShysterJon's 'Klong Rule'*), then LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE and move on to hunting legal pussy!

*See "Texas Laws Regarding Underage Providers".
Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Unfortunately, my little head sometimes doesn’t think before acting and doesn’t believe it is a crime unless “he” is caught. I’ve read your commentz to my dick and he is now fully aware of the law. Damn it, I just noticed that my penis doesn’t have earz!!! But made sure that he was fully aware of the law. Thankz.

Unfortunately, my little head sometimes doesn’t think before acting and doesn’t believe it is a crime unless “he” is caught. I’ve read your commentz to my dick and he is now fully aware of the law. Damn it, I just noticed that my penis doesn’t have earz!!! But made sure that he was fully aware of the law. Thankz. Originally Posted by Logan

Sorry SJ, but that was funny! Logan......

I can say one thing about this, my sons father cheated on me with a 14 yr old girl,
she admitted to the police she told him she was 18, she had tatts piercings and fully developed. He is now serving a 5 yr prison sentance. So regaurdless if you knew her age or not if you get caught you get caught the state of texas does not care.
Guys please be careful when in doubt belive it!

If she stated she was of legal age online (I believed her) and then (hypothetically) there was subsequent sexual contact - a crime has been committed , despite representing herself as an adult on FB??? Originally Posted by Logan

Of course!

Under Texas law, it's a second-degree felony (punishable by 2 to 20 years in the big house) to have sexual contact with a person 16 years of age or younger. But if she's a provider, it's a second-degree felony if she's 17 years of age or younger.

The mental state of the defendant regarding the girl's age is irrelevant in determining whether he is guilty of the offense of having sex with a minor. A civilian girl may tell you she's 17, or a provider may tell you she's 18. She may produce what looks like valid ID and pass a polygraph test you administer. She may bring her mother with her, who says she's an adult. She may have the Pope, Queen Elizabeth, and Chief Justice Roberts with her, who all swear on The Bible that she's an adult. None of that would matter if the State can prove at trial that she's a minor.

This might be a good place to restate my Klong Rule. (A "klong" is a Yiddish word for the sick feeling a person gets in the pit of their stomach when they realize something is wrong, like when you pull your wallet from your pocket to pay a provider for the great time you've had and you realize you forgot to go to the ATM.) The Klong Rule, applied to providers, is:

If the provider looks as if she COULD BE 17 years of age or younger, then assume she IS 17 years of age or younger, no matter what she says or what's shown on her ID. In such a situation, head to the nearest exit.

...If the provider looks as if she COULD BE 17 years of age or younger, then assume she IS 17 years of age or younger, no matter what she says or what's shown on her ID. In such a situation, head to the nearest exit. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

And when you are an old fart like me, any lady under 25 probably looks like she is under 18.

I think we are over looking 2 huge issues here. First, the original question was "Am I committing a crime". The answer is of course, yes. You are engaging in prostitution. It doesn't matter if she is 16 or 60.

The second issue is kinda hard to explain, but it goes something like this. If she's 16 and a provider, she obviously knows what she is doing. Who is she going to tell? Now, this is one of those with everything being equal situations. By that I mean the girl is truly doing this independent of any pimp, coercive BF, etc. In other words, she decided to do this all on her own to make money or have some thrills or both. Which brings me back to the statement, who is she going to tell? Even if she did tell, it still is a he said; she said situation given I seriously doubt there would be any corroborating forensic evidence.

If LE or her parents find out. Yes, your ass will be in the slammer regardless of what she has told you or what physical evidence she can provide you.

I think we are over looking 2 huge issues here. First, the original question was "Am I committing a crime". The answer is of course, yes. You are engaging in prostitution. It doesn't matter if she is 16 or 60. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

No, that's not correct. Logan's original question was limited to whether he was committing a crime by communicating online with the girl.

The second issue is kinda hard to explain, but it goes something like this. If she's 16 and a provider, she obviously knows what she is doing. Who is she going to tell? Now, this is one of those with everything being equal situations. By that I mean the girl is truly doing this independent of any pimp, coercive BF, etc. In other words, she decided to do this all on her own to make money or have some thrills or both. Which brings me back to the statement, who is she going to tell? Even if she did tell, it still is a he said; she said situation given I seriously doubt there would be any corroborating forensic evidence. Originally Posted by Cpalmson

So you reason that, because the girl is 16 years-old, ipso facto that means she knows what she's doing and doesn't have a pimp? No offense, but my experience tells me the exact opposite could be true. Maybe you can explain your theory that the younger the provider, the more saavy she is and the less chance she has management.

If she has 17 year old looking titties, run!

Ok. I met this UTR provider through a dancer that I know. Via Facebook, she stated and confirmed that she was of legal age, however, now I’m very suspicious now becuz she can’t drive a car and in hindsight some thingz don’t add up (pun intended!)…

….I know for online stings, LE will say that they are such and such an age to get someone to meet at a park or house because they had “intent” to see someone not of legal age. So, if the situation is reversed where a girl states that she is legal age online and unbeknownst to you she is possibly lying about her age…are you guilty of crime? Originally Posted by Logan

Yes, ignorance of her age is not a defense, even if she lied to you or had a fake ID etc.
If she looked of age and misrepresented herself, you could "try" to use it as a defense, as in persuading the jury any horny red blooded guy would have hit it too, especially if they thought she was 18! But it's would be a long shot.

I would like to ask this about girls who represent themselves as being 17 or older when they are not:

What if they do a Traci Lords and have fake documentation that shows they are legal?

Its one thing to lie online but if you have a fake ID etc... from what looks like the state..... does that at least get her in trouble and jail time too?