HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sex tape revenge backfire...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:18 PM

 

Sex tape revenge backfires on Burnsville woman

HASTINGS, Minn. (KMSP) -

A Burnsville, Minn., woman is facing felony charges after investigators claim she posted a sex tape she found on her boyfriend's cell phone in an attempt to get revenge.

According to criminal complaints filled in Dakota County, Kayla Jo Henry-Heagle, 21, found video of her boyfriend and his younger brother having oral sex with a couple of 17-year-old girls. Investigators say their oldest brother, 28-year-old Antonio Trice, was behind the camera in a Burnsville hotel room last June.

"I suspect, once this is reviewed further, there may be additional charges against the person who did the filming," said John Kingrey, executive director of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.


Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/20495846/sex-tape-revenge-backfires-on-burnsville-woman#ixzz2HWGM14oc

31 replies, 2584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sex tape revenge backfires on Burnsville woman (Original post)
banned from Kos Jan 2013 OP
leftstreet Jan 2013 #1
TXDem72 Jan 2013 #2
rbixby Jan 2013 #3
rbixby Jan 2013 #4
banned from Kos Jan 2013 #6
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #5
Scuba Jan 2013 #7
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #9
Scuba Jan 2013 #10
TheManInTheMac Jan 2013 #23
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #24
redqueen Jan 2013 #11
seabeyond Jan 2013 #12
rbixby Jan 2013 #13
seabeyond Jan 2013 #14
Sissyk Jan 2013 #26
polly7 Jan 2013 #15
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #16
AngryAmish Jan 2013 #17
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #18
AngryAmish Jan 2013 #21
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #22
Last Stand Jan 2013 #20
MicaelS Jan 2013 #27
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #28
MicaelS Jan 2013 #29
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #30
samsingh Jan 2013 #8
mnmoderatedem Jan 2013 #19
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #25
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #31

Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:19 PM

1. What's the point of this post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:20 PM

2. Drama

Don't believe LE and CJ involvement is the necessarily best though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:20 PM

3. I'll find a better source, the story is very bizarre

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to rbixby (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:32 PM

6. yes, that is a better story and link. The moral is -

 

Never post vids unless you get a signed age of consent form!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:31 PM

5. I find it interesting ...

that the woman that posted the video would be facing charges, when unless she knew the 17 years involved, she would have no way of knowing of their being under-age; while the people that actually were in contact with the girls (and were in a position to know the girls' ages) MIGHT face charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:39 PM

7. Alternatively, she had no knowledge that they were adults, yet she posted the video.

I believe the onus would fall on her to have verification of their ages before posting the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:14 PM

9. But in most jurisdictions ...

your belief would be incorrect. A lack of knowledge or (reasonable) mistake of age is an affirmative defense to distribution of porn charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 06:51 PM

10. Thanks. I obviously shouldn't be giving legal advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:50 PM

23. Before November 18, 1988 you would be correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheManInTheMac (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 01:02 PM

24. And after the 1994 SCOTUS Decision ...

in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., I'm still correct.

... one would reasonably expect to be free from regulation when trafficking in sexually explicit, though not obscene, materials involving adults. Therefore, the age of the performers is the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/513/64/case.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:25 PM

11. Yeah... 'interesting' is one word for it. nt



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 07:56 PM

12. ya. i am thinking about those that had a sex act with the minors. and the one filming

(did the gals know? we didnt hear) the sex act. and it is the woman prosecuted. i agree she should be. and what she did was wrong. but the wrong was well after all the other wrongs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:48 AM

13. I'm pretty sure everyone is facing charges in this case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 10:58 AM

14. i do not know why you would be pretty sure. i heard just a possibility of added charges to the one

filming.

that does not even sound likely let alone "pretty sure everyone is facing charges in this case"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:16 PM

26. The guy that film is also being prosecuted

according to the article. He for filming underage porn, and the woman for distributing underage porn.

The two guys that had sexual relations with the two teens are not charged because the age of consent in Minnesota is 16, all according to the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:29 AM

15. I'd read other articles about this yesterday, apparently she knew.

"The age of the girl is not specified in the complaint. The other two minors are identified as 17-year-olds. The age of consent in Minnesota is 16, but it's a crime to make or distribute sex videos depicting anyone younger than 18.

Henry-Heagle uploaded the video to a social networking site in June 2012 because she was angry that the man, whom she was dating when the video was made, "had been with another female," the complaint said.

She told police she knew participants in the video were minors but didn't care because she was so angry. After she posted the video, many people left comments on her social networking page telling her to take it down because of the age of the people involved."


http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22298562/charges-ex-girlfriend-posts-sex-tape-online-but


"Authorities were able to identify Trice as the creator of the video because at one point in the recording he turned the camera on himself, the criminal complaint said. A detective used a “snipping tool” to cut Trice’s image from the video and send it out to other law enforcement agencies. A Minneapolis detective saw the image and identified it as being one of Trice.

Trice is charged with using a minor in a pornographic work, a felony. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and/or a $20,000 fine."


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/cops-woman-angrily-posts-sex-tape-faces-child-porn-charges/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:37 AM

16. Okay ...

It appears that "Angry Woman" has a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:42 AM

17. It is a strict liability law

Her intent is irrelevant. The only 2 questions would be 1. Did she post them. and 2. Were the youngsters underage. If so, she has distributed child pornography and is going away for more than a decade.

Strict liability laws are very, very dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:19 PM

18. No ...

In most jurisdictions, it is not. In the vast majority of jurisdictions, a lack of knowledge of, or a reasonable mistake regarding the age of a subject is an affirmative defense to distribution charges. Here's my source:

... one would reasonably expect to be free from regulation when trafficking in sexually explicit, though not obscene, materials involving adults. Therefore, the age of the performers is the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/513/64/case.html


Please cite your source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:34 PM

21. You are right, I am wrong

617.247 POSSESSION OF PORNOGRAPHIC WORK INVOLVING MINORS.

Must know or should have known of the nature of the images. So I guess intent is needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:39 PM

22. Yep ...

That's what the SCOTUS said. And the Decision has firm Constitutional support ... it is consistent with just about every modern 1st Amendment decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:29 PM

20. Not sure about the particular state, but

the age of consent for sex may actually be under 18 while legal authority to give permission to post a video may need to come from a guardian if the person is not 18. Just a guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:29 PM

27. She admits she knew they were underage.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_22298562/charges-ex-girlfriend-posts-sex-tape-online-but

She told police she knew participants in the video were minors but didn't care because she was so angry. After she posted the video, many people left comments on her social networking page telling her to take it down because of the age of the people involved.


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/cops-woman-angrily-posts-sex-tape-faces-child-porn-charges/

Kayla Henry-Heagle told police that on June 28, 2012, she uploaded a video onto her social networking page that showed multiple people engaging in sex acts, a criminal complaint said. Three of those people, however, were minors – something Henry-Heagle told police she knew.

Henry-Heagle told investigators she “didn’t care” that minors were in the video because she was so angry.



I'd say she's toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:50 PM

28. Yep ...

But I have a question:

How did she think posting a video of her guy getting laid ... that he took ... was going to hurt him in any way. HE TOOK THE VIDEO! And she, made him into a porn star.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:54 PM

29. Jealousy and anger can make people do weird things.

Like the one I have often heard where a woman catches a man cheating and then she proceeds to cut up his clothes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:06 PM

30. I can see that ...

when she gets done, he's without clothes; but publicizing his prowess? I'm thinking if the video would have caused him shame, he probably wouldn't have made the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 05:52 PM

8. wierd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 12:21 PM

19. Wow you won't believe this but...


I live and work in Burnsville MN, and am typing this from Burnsville, which is why this thread caught my eye.

I had nothing to do with said incident, to be clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 02:02 PM

25. So it's okay for a 16-year-old to have sex in MN, but it's a crime to film a legal activity? Weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to banned from Kos (Original post)

Thu Jan 10, 2013, 03:43 PM

31. Sounds like the tape backfired on everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread