Is Jared Fogel from Subway fame dead?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113
    It is codified in a number of places and forms in the revised code. IC 35-42-4-9(e) is one such place. 35-49-3-4 is another variation. It isn't the most well written law, while it facially applies to anyone under 22, mathematically it sometimes cannot.

    To make the discussion a bit easier, here are the current codes:

    IC 35-42-4-9
    Sexual misconduct with a minor
    Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with
    a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16)
    years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other
    Indiana Code 2015
    sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) commits sexual
    misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:
    (1) a Level 4 felony if it is committed by a person at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Level 1 felony if it is committed by using or threatening
    the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a
    deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the
    commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim,
    without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
    IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
    drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child
    at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of
    age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the
    child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual
    desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual
    misconduct with a minor, a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is:
    (1) a Level 5 felony if it is committed by a person at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Level 2 felony if it is committed by using or threatening
    the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or
    if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
    victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
    in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
    drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that
    the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the
    conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense
    described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married.
    However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in
    subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the
    following apply:
    (1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the
    victim.
    (2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a
    dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The
    term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family
    relationship.
    (3) The crime:
    (A) was not committed by a person who is at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age;
    (B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of
    deadly force;
    (C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
    (D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
    Indiana Code 2015
    (E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
    victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
    IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with
    the drug or controlled substance without the victim's
    knowledge; and
    (F) was not committed by a person having a position of
    authority or substantial influence over the victim.
    (4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as
    defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would
    be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other
    person.
    As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996, SEC.9;
    P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003, SEC.1;
    P.L.216-2007, SEC.45; P.L.158-2013, SEC.445

    IC 35-49-3-4
    Defense to prosecution for dissemination of matter or conducting
    performance harmful to minors
    Sec. 4. (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under section 3 of this
    chapter for the defendant to show:
    (1) that the matter was disseminated or that the performance was
    performed for legitimate scientific or educational purposes;
    (2) that the matter was disseminated or displayed to or that the
    performance was performed before the recipient by a bona fide
    school, museum, or public library that qualifies for certain
    property tax exemptions under IC 6-1.1-10, or by an employee
    of such a school, museum, or public library acting within the
    scope of the employee's employment;
    (3) that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the
    minor involved was eighteen (18) years of age or older and that
    the minor exhibited to the defendant a draft card, driver's
    license, birth certificate, or other official or apparently official
    document purporting to establish that the minor was eighteen
    (18) years of age or older; or
    (4) that the defendant was a salesclerk, motion picture
    projectionist, usher, or ticket taker, acting within the scope of
    the defendant's employment and that the defendant had no
    financial interest in the place where the defendant was so
    employed.
    (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is a defense to a
    Indiana Code 2015
    prosecution under section 3 of this chapter if all the following apply:
    (1) A cellular telephone, another wireless or cellular
    communications device, or a social networking web site was
    used to disseminate matter to a minor that is harmful to minors.
    (2) The defendant is not more than four (4) years older or
    younger than the person who received the matter that is harmful
    to minors.
    (3) The relationship between the defendant and the person who
    received the matter that is harmful to minors was a dating
    relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. For purposes
    of this subdivision, the term "ongoing personal relationship"
    does not include a family relationship.
    (4) The crime was committed by a person less than twenty-two
    (22) years of age.
    (5) The person receiving the matter expressly or implicitly
    acquiesced in the defendant's conduct.
    (c) The defense to a prosecution described in subsection (b) does
    not apply if:
    (1) the image is disseminated to a person other than the person:
    (A) who sent the image; or
    (B) who is depicted in the image; or
    (2) the dissemination of the image violates:
    (A) a protective order to prevent domestic or family violence
    issued under IC 34-26-5 (or, if the order involved a family or
    household member, under IC 34-26-2 or IC 34-4-5.1-5
    before their repeal);
    (B) an ex parte protective order issued under IC 34-26-5 (or,
    if the order involved a family or household member, an
    emergency order issued under IC 34-26-2 or IC 34-4-5.1
    before their repeal);
    (C) a workplace violence restraining order issued under
    IC 34-26-6;
    (D) a no contact order in a dispositional decree issued under
    IC 31-34-20-1, IC 31-37-19-1, or IC 31-37-5-6 (or
    IC 31-6-4-15.4 or IC 31-6-4-15.9 before their repeal) or an
    order issued under IC 31-32-13 (or IC 31-6-7-14 before its
    repeal) that orders the person to refrain from direct or
    indirect contact with a child in need of services or a
    delinquent child;
    (E) a no contact order issued as a condition of pretrial
    release, including release on bail or personal recognizance,
    or pretrial diversion, and including a no contact order issued
    under IC 35-33-8-3.6;
    (F) a no contact order issued as a condition of probation;
    (G) a protective order to prevent domestic or family violence
    issued under IC 31-15-5 (or IC 31-16-5 or IC 31-1-11.5-8.2
    before their repeal);
    (H) a protective order to prevent domestic or family violence
    issued under IC 31-14-16-1 in a paternity action;
    Indiana Code 2015
    (I) a no contact order issued under IC 31-34-25 in a child in
    need of services proceeding or under IC 31-37-25 in a
    juvenile delinquency proceeding;
    (J) an order issued in another state that is substantially
    similar to an order described in clauses (A) through (I);
    (K) an order that is substantially similar to an order described
    in clauses (A) through (I) and is issued by an Indian:
    (i) tribe;
    (ii) band;
    (iii) pueblo;
    (iv) nation; or
    (v) organized group or community, including an Alaska
    Native village or regional or village corporation as defined
    in or established under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.);
    that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and
    services provided by the United States to Indians because of
    their special status as Indians;
    (L) an order issued under IC 35-33-8-3.2; or
    (M) an order issued under IC 35-38-1-30.
    As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.33. Amended by P.L.180-2011,
    SEC.4; P.L.158-2013, SEC.649.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    26,155
    149
    The legal standard for causing a juvenile to go on the sex offender registry is vastly different from what you describe. There isn't automatic registry, there is a contested hearing in front of a judge where the state has to prove that the child is a continuing danger etc.

    Putting a juvenile on the sex offender registry is actually very difficult in Indiana.

    Hell, the prosecutor can't even charge a juvenile without first receiving permission from the judge who has to make specific legal findings of probable cause and the best interest of the child and the community.
    Would not a conviction for felony child porn distribution increase the odds of being placed on a sex offender registry?
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113
    The first code looks the same as the 2013 code, just updated for 1-6 instead of A-D.

    The second code added:

    (b) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is a defense to a
    Indiana Code 2015
    prosecution under section 3 of this chapter if all the following apply:
    (1) A cellular telephone, another wireless or cellular
    communications device, or a social networking web site was
    used to disseminate matter to a minor that is harmful to minors.
    (2) The defendant is not more than four (4) years older or
    younger than the person who received the matter that is harmful
    to minors.

    (3) The relationship between the defendant and the person who
    received the matter that is harmful to minors was a dating
    relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. For purposes
    of this subdivision, the term "ongoing personal relationship"
    does not include a family relationship.

    (4) The crime was committed by a person less than twenty-two
    (22) years of age.
    (5) The person receiving the matter expressly or implicitly
    acquiesced in the defendant's conduct.
    (c) The defense to a prosecution described in subsection (b) does
    not apply if:
    (1) the image is disseminated to a person other than the person:
    (A) who sent the image; or
    (B) who is depicted in the image; or
    (2) the dissemination of the image violates:
    (A) a protective order to prevent domestic or family violence
    issued under IC 34-26-5 (or, if the order involved a family or
    household member, under IC 34-26-2 or IC 34-4-5.1-5
    before their repeal);

    I'm missing the slippery slope angle, I guess. It seems pretty clear this is for teens who are dating and that the image cannot be shared beyond the person who made it and the willing party that received it. Outside of those boundaries, such as forwarding to a 3rd party, hidden cameras, etc. the same rules apply.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    Would not a conviction for felony child porn distribution increase the odds of being placed on a sex offender registry?
    There are no convictions in juvenile court, only adjudications. If a child were adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would be child pornography as an adult, they would not automatically go on the registry and nor would they even be eligible to be.

    Before such a child could be placed on the registry, the prosecutor would have to ask the court for a hearing where the prosecutor would have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is a significant danger to reoffend again. Only if the state carries its burden at such a contested hearing, with sworn at witnesses and rules of evidence, can the child be placed on the registry.

    It is a very significant burden, and it happens very rarely in my experience.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    I don't believe you are looking at the current version of the IC. The one on findlaws website is not the current code.

    The one on the state website, or the one on lawserver appear to be current.

    I found the states pdf of 2015 and it appears a bit different, but I still have no issues with it, as written. It's to protect young people from a draconian system. I still have no issues with it.
    35-49-3-4 had some stuff added to it, but it's still under the Romeo and Juliet law. Written to protect teens from themselves. No real slippery slope there. Just a jot of sanity in an otherwise corrupt system. I don't have any issues with them and see no slippery slope at all.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    The first code looks the same as the 2013 code, just updated for 1-6 instead of A-D.

    The second code added:



    I'm missing the slippery slope angle, I guess. It seems pretty clear this is for teens who are dating and that the image cannot be shared beyond the person who made it and the willing party that received it. Outside of those boundaries, such as forwarding to a 3rd party, hidden cameras, etc. the same rules apply.
    I don't recall making an argument on this, much less a slippery slope one. I simply pointed out that the law was recently changed to allow 18 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds and that the prevailing political climate is in favor of such revisions to the age of consent.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    I found the states pdf of 2015 and it appears a bit different, but I still have no issues with it, as written. It's to protect young people from a draconian system. I still have no issues with it.
    35-49-3-4 had some stuff added to it, but it's still under the Romeo and Juliet law. Written to protect teens from themselves. No real slippery slope there. Just a jot of sanity in an otherwise corrupt system. I don't have any issues with them and see no slippery slope at all.
    Couple things:

    First, I'm not the one making a slippery slope argument on this, I'm just pointing out the recent changes in the law.

    Second, if you think Indiana's juvenile justice system is draconian, I would posit that perhaps you know very little of what it actually consists of.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113
    I don't recall making an argument on this, much less a slippery slope one. I simply pointed out that the law was recently changed to allow 18 year olds to have sex with 14 year olds and that the prevailing political climate is in favor of such revisions to the age of consent.

    Perhaps I misread this, then.

    Indiana just lowered the age of consent for both sex and photo/video to 14 in many circumstances last year. The trend is definitely in that direction.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    Ah. Ok, what trend were you discussing then, and what direction is it heading?

    Anyway.
    Jared Fogle to be sentenced on November 19 in child pornography case | Fox 59

    November, if he doesn't swan dive off a bridge.
    The information I was pointing out was that legislatively Indiana has recently legalized sex at a younger age than it was two years ago. I was simply pointing out that there is currently a trend toward more permissive statutes on younger sex, particularly as sexting has exploded. As I stated above, I wasn't really trying to advocate for or against this, I was just pointing out that it is actually happening.

    I wasn't really trying to start a debate over what the age of consent should be, I just wanted to point out that the current trend seems to be to lower it as evidenced by our very own state.
     
    Last edited:

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    26,608
    113
    The information I was pointing out was that legislatively Indiana has recently legalized sex at a younger age than it was two years ago. I was simply pointing out that there is currently a trend toward more permissive statutes on younger sex, particularly as sexting has exploded. As I stated above, I wasn't really trying to advocate for or against this, I was just pointing out that it is actually happening.

    Ok, let's look at that part, then. I'm still trying to find where sex was legalized at a younger age than it was 2 years ago. The statue you posted is the same, other than 1-6 replacing A-D.

    2013 code:

    (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. However, the offense is:
    (1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
    (1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:
    (1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
    (2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.
    (3) The crime:

    (A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
    (B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
    (C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
    (D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
    (E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
    (F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.
    (4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.

    and once again, 2015 Code

    IC 35-42-4-9
    Sexual misconduct with a minor
    Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with
    a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16)
    years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other
    Indiana Code 2015
    sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) commits sexual
    misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony.
    However, the offense is:
    (1) a Level 4 felony if it is committed by a person at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Level 1 felony if it is committed by using or threatening
    the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a
    deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the
    commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim,
    without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
    IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
    drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child
    at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of
    age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the
    child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual
    desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual
    misconduct with a minor, a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is:
    (1) a Level 5 felony if it is committed by a person at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age; and
    (2) a Level 2 felony if it is committed by using or threatening
    the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or
    if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the
    victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined
    in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the
    drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
    (c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that
    the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the
    conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense
    described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married.
    However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in
    subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
    (e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the
    following apply:
    (1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the
    victim.
    (2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a
    dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The
    term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family
    relationship.

    (3) The crime:
    (A) was not committed by a person who is at least
    twenty-one (21) years of age;
    (B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of
    deadly force;
    (C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
    (D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
    Indiana Code 2015
    (E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the
    victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in
    IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in
    IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with
    the drug or controlled substance without the victim's
    knowledge; and
    (F) was not committed by a person having a position of
    authority or substantial influence over the victim.
    (4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as
    defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would
    be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other
    person.

    So what changed that you are saying the age lowered by 2 years? The exact same exemption is present in both, within 4 years in age, ongoing dating relationship, etc.

    I looked at the statutes for child molest as well, and 14 is the bar for that in both 2013 and 2015 as well, with no new exemptions.
     

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,443
    113
    ...everybody understands..."jailbait"

    As we were dropping off the boy for the start of his freshman year at college, I hugged him and whispered in his ear, remember kid, 2 forms of ID and a signed consent form.;)
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    111,863
    149
    Southside Indy
    I don't think anybody's is saying such things are imminent. But when all other sexual mores are modernized, when previously thought of mental illnesses are no longer considered illnesses, and later embraced as normal, logically, how can any other remaining ones seriously be considered off limits?

    As was mentioned elsewhere, look at how we're sexualizing our kids at ever younger ages. It really doesn't take a wild imagination to see how other things have advanced to accept that this one may too.

    Yeah... I'll just leave this here...

    jonbenet-ramsey-665x385.jpg
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    Ok, let's look at that part, then. I'm still trying to find where sex was legalized at a younger age than it was 2 years ago. The statue you posted is the same, other than 1-6 replacing A-D.

    2013 code:



    and once again, 2015 Code



    So what changed that you are saying the age lowered by 2 years? The exact same exemption is present in both, within 4 years in age, ongoing dating relationship, etc.

    I looked at the statutes for child molest as well, and 14 is the bar for that in both 2013 and 2015 as well, with no new exemptions.

    I think I may have screwed up which year they added it. It looks like it was 2013, not 2014. Look at the 2012 code as your starting point, not the 2013.

    If memory serves, I think it didn't become effective until 2014 which may have thrown me off. That or just that I'm getting old...
     
    Last edited:

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom