A 13-year-old student was expelled from a Louisiana middle school after hitting a male classmate who she said created and shared a deepfake pornographic image of her, according to her family’s lawyers.

A 13-year-old student was expelled from a Louisiana middle school after hitting a male classmate who she said created and shared a deepfake pornographic image of her, according to her family’s lawyers.___

  • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
    181·
    7 hours ago

    Webre added that he does not expect to criminally charge the young girl.

    “Due to the totality of the circumstances, we chose not to pursue charges on the female student,” he said.

    What the fuck. Why is this is a question. Why would it even be possible to criminally charge the victim. Why are you acting like you’re doing her a favor by not “pursuing charges”. WHAT fucking charges would you be fucking pursuing.

    I don’t expect commenters to know the answers to this. I just want to emphasize how American cops hate women so fucking much that when they have a 13-year-old female victim of a sex crime they ask themselves what crimes they can charge her with.

    And men wonder why women don’t report.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      41·
      2 hours ago

      We won’t pursue charges but she will be expelled

      Welcome to the US of fucking A

    • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 hours ago

      Sue the fuck out of the kid that made the deepfake. I’m sure any good law firm could deliver some emotional distress, defamation, whatever. Maybe she’d get community service at 13 if charged, but creating a wreckage of the school district and the kid that did it would send a message. Worst thing is that the taxpayer would be on the hook to pay for any compensation, not the shitty people at the district choosing to punish her.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 hours ago

      A long, long time ago, someone told me that crimes are committed separately. (I don’t even remember the person who told me this.) The situation that was discussed in that conversation was that a burglar had entered a home illicitly, fallen due to some code violation, and hurt themself.

      The homeowner was able to conduct a case against the invader, but the criminal was also able to sue for … Whatever you sue for when you get hurt in someone else’s house. Neither jury was allowed to know the details of the other’s case, or perhaps they were instructed to disregard their knowledge.

      The point is, in one possible suit the person we would likely agree is the victim is legally the victim; and in the other they are legally the perpetrator. According to the law, the two are not relevant to each other.

      … Is what I was told decades ago by this person I barely remember.

    • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      41·
      4 hours ago

      The name of the crime would be assault. Would you like a definition? ;)

      100% agree she should not be charged as I believe it’s 100% justified here, but to say you don’t know what they would charge her with when it’s pretty clear… That said, it should be understood that when someone does something that deserves a slap or a punch or a kick, while the person might be guilty of the crime, the justification means you do not pursue it. Like the father who catches the guy messing with his kid and he kills the guy. Yes it’s Murder 2 but you don’t charge him if there’s a decent bone in your body. You help him get the body off his property so he can tend to his child.

      I also agree the focus should be on the actual crime, the guy making CP of a minor. Even if he used technology to fake it. It’s still portraying a child; ergo, it’s CP. The focus should be on him being placed on a sex offender registry for however many years. But, it’s Louisiana so who knows. The girl would have no rights, especially if she has dark skin.

      ETA: First part is meant to be funny, not argumentative. Apologies if it came across that way! Agree with you, was trying to be funny.