Lawyer: 16-Year-Old Shouldn't Be Upset By Explicit Photos Cop Sent Her Because She's Probably Seen Penises On The Internet

from the I-see-at-least-one-huge-dick-here dept

Wed, Jan 27th 2016 8:32am — Tim Cushing

Edwin Guzman is currently facing charges of "annoying and accosting" a person of the opposite sex, as well as disseminating harmful material to a minor. That would be Officer Guzman -- and not just any officer -- but Sergeant Guzman, who was promoted around the same time he was sending naked pictures of himself to a 16-year-old girl. (Warning: AUTOPLAY)

“It started off we regularly chat and it's mostly about school and how life is,” the teenager who was 16 at the time told 5 Investigates’ Mike Beaudet.

But she says the conversations kept escalating from there.

“If I gave him like pleasure and let him do things to me, he'd be willing to buy me things,” she said. “He took a picture of his penis and he sent it to me.”

Please note that if a classmate had sent a photo of his penis to this 16-year-old girl, he might be facing child pornography charges and a lifetime on the sex offender registry, rather than "annoying and accosting," which would net Guzman a maximum $200 fine and 6 months in jail.

That an officer -- and a family friend -- would use both of these positions to attempt to coerce a minor into sexual activity is disturbing enough. But what's more disturbing is his lawyer's dismissiveness of the teen's response to the unwanted explicit pictures. (h/t Chris Soghoian)

Afterward, his lawyer, Kenneth Anderson, said there are discussions with prosecutors to resolve  the case.

“I really can’t go into detail given the nature of things. They’re serious charges,” Anderson said.

But he disputed the charges that Guzman sent a 16-year-old girl harmful pictures and said even if the allegation were true, he doesn’t believe the material would have been that shocking.

“You can’t tell me someone her age has never seen a picture of a penis on the Internet,” Anderson said.

So, by this rationale, the teen shouldn't be upset if an older relative, politician, church leader, trusted community figure, random neighbor or anyone else that shouldn't be sending dick pics to minor sent her explicit photos. After all, spend enough time on the internet and you're bound to see a penis. Perhaps Anderson could help her get over her fear of penis pictures by sending a few of his own her way.

This argument never should have been stated out loud. Hopefully, he won't be raising this in court. There's a huge difference between being sent an unwanted explicit photo and just coming across one while surfing the web. Add to this the fact that the person sending them was not only a family friend, but also in a position of power, and the disparity between "random internet dick pic" and what actually happened here becomes even greater. Even if the unnamed minor went searching for penis photos on the web, it would have been a consensual act. But there's nothing consensual about being sent explicit photos by a person in a position of power and trust -- one obviously willing to abuse both -- and arguing that just because someone has seen a penis before means they have no right to be upset about being sent unwanted photos is the lowest (in all senses of the word) form of rhetoric.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: edwin guzman, internet, minors, porn, sexting

55 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Matthew A. Sawtell, 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:44am

So... how thin can the blue line get?
At this rate it will have to be measured in microns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beech, 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:53am
  
  Re: So... how thin can the blue line get?
  ...there's a relevant dick jokein there, i know it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re: So... how thin can the blue line get?
    The blue line has worn so thin that even Edwin Guzman's tiny penis crossed it!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violynne (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:50am

Lawyer: 16-Year-Old Shouldn't Be Upset By Explicit Photos Cop Sent Her Because She's Probably Seen Penises On The Internet

I'm guessing the first dick picture she saw was the profile image of Kennith Anderson when she visited his website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beech, 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:52am

So by this logic can I go flash little old ladies in a nursing home because, odds are, they've seen a penis before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  By that logic, you can flash any pregnant woman. You KNOW she's not a virgin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy2020 (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think that logic would actually imply you could rape a pregnant woman because she's obviously had sex before...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 11:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That only applies if, like Guzman, you're a cop and don't HAVE to get consent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 28 Jan 2016 @ 12:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Incidentally, I have a pair among my acquaintances where indeed the woman got pregnant while still being a virgin in the technical and medical sense. Once the news was out, however, she and her boyfriend decided not to let this state persist if they were going to pay the price anyway. So they don't have a virgin birth to show, and calling the conception "immaculate" would have been quite a stretch as well.
    
    I do admit that at the time of conception she quite likely had already seen a male member, even though I never asked for the lighting details.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 28 Jan 2016 @ 6:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Incidentally, I have a pair among my acquaintances where indeed the woman got pregnant while still being a virgin in the technical and medical sense.
      
      Or at least that's what she told her mom.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - David, 29 Jan 2016 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was no mom story material. I mean, the absence of actual intercourse (which they'd likely had gotten to eventually, though with proper protection) pretty much implies a mess. As I said "immaculate" does not cut it.
        
        Also we are not talking the U.S. and its ridiculous parallel sexual pretend universe here anyway (they did not actually marry until several years later).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Jan 2016 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh I see, she came close enough to get pregnant, without actual penetration. I wonder how often that happens to dumb teenagers. "I can't be pregnant, we didn't have sex!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 27 Jan 2016 @ 8:57am

Does this lawyer have a daughter?
I wonder how kindly he would respond to people sending his daughter a dick pic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Does this lawyer have a daughter?
  He's already sent her his own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 29 Jan 2016 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: Does this lawyer have a daughter?
    While she was unborn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:12am

So the only reason the officer isn't facing child pornography charges is because the law doesn't consider "mental age"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:24am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 27th, 2016 @ 9:12am
  the blue line. do as we say.. dont do what we do.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
drewdad (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:20am

Same old victim blaming.

"She's not a virgin, so the rape couldn't have been that traumatic."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Jan 2016 @ 2:40am
  
  Re:
  ...says every rape apologist everywhere. And you're right, drewdad, that is the "logic" being employed here. And it is just as profoundly wrong as you imply.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:21am

I may be alone in this but I really hope someone puts a bullet in officer pedo's head along with everyone of his buddies helping him get away with not being sent to jail as a pedo.

Or maybe just cripple his legs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Sorry, but someone hitting on a 16-year old is not a pedophile (unless we are talking an uncommonly underdeveloped girl here). He's just out for fresh rather than budding fruit. Probably because he considered her easy prey.
  
  He's just a power-abusing creepo fuckwit. He does not need therapy but jail time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 28 Jan 2016 @ 2:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    That actually is a symptom of a wrecked head and therefore does require therapy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:21am

Is this the reason every p€dophile wants to be a cop, teacher, gubermint employee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:31am

perhaps it was the sheer size that was upsetting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:34am

There's a big difference in going looking for a penis and receiving unwanted penis in your cellphone I assume. But alas, he's a law enforcement agent so he must be exempt from law, right, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:48am
  
  Re:
  Nonsense, you can be sure both the judge and his supervisor will give him a very stern talking to about proper professional conduct, determine that that's punishment enough, and let him continue working at the same job and same rank, same as before.
  
  I mean come now, anything more would just be excessive, I'm sure he's learned his lesson, and that's what's really important in all this. /s
  
  (I wish the first part was sarcasm, but unfortunately I'm pretty sure that's exactly what will happen. A slapped wrist, a wagged finger or two, and nothing more, for an action that would have anyone else behind bars, all because the one who did it has a badge.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy2020 (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey, and other than this *ONE* mistake, he's a great guy! He's very involved in the community and many people say nice things about him especially at the high school where he volunteers a lot even without having a kid that goes there!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:43am

So when a boyfriend does it people in the "justice" system goes stark raving mad and screams "DESTROY HIIIIM!" with spittle flying out and everything.
When someone who should be trusted, in more than one way, who is in a position of power and who is generally not considered to be in the age of stupidity does it, then it is "Meh... no big deal, she has probably seen it before. I bet her boyfriend sent her some as well".

Maybe not word for word, but I still feel like I am in crazy land here. I am about to start pulling my own hair out here because nothing makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  Oh but you see it does make sense. Twisted, rotten and corrupted sense, but it does make sense, you just have to look at it through the lens of power and/or money.
  
  It's simple:
  
  If an average civilian breaks the law, it's a terrible action, a crime, and something deserving of the harshest punishment.
  
  If someone with a large enough bank account, someone with the right personal connections, or someone in the police, government agencies or politics does it, then there's 'extenuating circumstances', it 'was a mistake', it's 'not that big of a deal', or something similar, and to insist on punishment or equal treatment under the law is 'being vindictive'. After all, 'everyone makes mistakes', right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 11:03am
  
  Re:
  government workers and police are apparently immune to the law. Think about that next time you see a law you do not like. Ask yourself why follow the law when it is not applied equally to everyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 27 Jan 2016 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  Uh, that's not a case of "us vs them". The distinguishing difference is that a potential boyfriend is likely underage so if he sends dick pics of himself, he is distributing child porn. And that's what he will get the life-long stigma for.
  
  You know, to warn people that this is a guy who might exploit himself while underage.
  
  I can't wait until they prosecute boys as child pornographers for drawing dick pics. If Hentai can be labelled as child pornography, a dick pic drawn by an underage boy will most certainly count much more, given that his depiction of underage genitals is more likely than not based on the availability of himself as model.
  
  It's definitely not a victimless crime. Common sense died convulsing with laughter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:52am

Hypothetical question
So logically, Edwin Guzman and his lawyer, Kenneth Anderson, wouldn't be upset if the trolls of the internet figured out their email addresses and sent them penis pictures?

I assume they each have one, so they've probably seen one before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:52am

And rape victims shouldn't be too upset either - they've probably had some penis before, too, so it's not like they don't know how it's like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 11:35pm
  
  Re:
  Isn't that how a texas police chief phrased it when one of his men harrassed and assaulted a woman just walking down the street solely because she ignored his advances towards her
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:00am

Also note the absurd (presumably police union-negotiated) leave arrangement
Seargent Guzman was arraigned November 2014 and placed on paid administrative leave until the Internal Affairs investigation is concluded. Internal Affairs will not begin their investigation until the criminal case is resolved. So even assuming his next court appearance in early February 2016 resolves the case (regardless of the resolution), he gets more than a year of paid administrative leave before Internal Affairs even begins working on his case. Where else can you get a year off, paid (and, presumably, not in pre-trial detention, because this is a police officer we're talking about), because you were alleged to have committed a serious crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 10:04am

Someone needs to remind this cop about the law. It's a violation of state and federal law to disseminate depictions of pornography to minors. Just what the hell did this cop think he was doing?

They arrest minors all of the time and charge them with distribution of child pornogrpahy when minors sext-text each other with pictures of themselves and now this is cop is claiming that this teen probably saw a penis on the internet so it's okay to send an underaged teenager a picture of a penis?

What the bloody hell? Damn cops engaged in child porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 27 Jan 2016 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re:
  What makes you assume the cop to be underaged?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck Double Standards, 27 Jan 2016 @ 11:54am

First of All
We should send ALL Lawyers to the Moon. Secondly, send that cop to rehab on his way to prison. Pay that 16 year old girl $12,000,000.00.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 12:11pm

Here is the funny thing, in most states, the age of consent is 16. You can go to prison for sending a 16 year old a picture of your dick (well, if you are not a cop) but you can actually bang her brains out and not break the law. How much sense does that make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 27 Jan 2016 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re:
  A lot. The crucial difference being that of "consent". Which is why it is called "age of consent".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthony Weiner, 27 Jan 2016 @ 12:50pm

What's all the fuss?
Age of consent in Massachusetts is sixteen for girls. Funny though, it's eighteen for boys. WT living F?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
michael, 27 Jan 2016 @ 1:41pm

age of consent
As others have pointed out, it's hard to get really upset about this considering the age of consent in many states is 16.

Conduct unbecoming? Absolutely.
Lost job? Absolutely.
Is the guy a slimeball? Absolutely.

Jail time? That's a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 11:37pm
  
  Re: age of consent
  police and people given positions of power as well as access to legal state sanctioned weaponry should be held to a higher standard not a lower one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 1:43pm

The Reasonable Guzman
Remember, LEOs are special people who have to make quick decisions or people die. Because of this we have to give leeway to them as to what was reasonable to him in that moment.

If Guzman was standing there, phone in hand, pants down, thumb hovering over the picture button, we have to understand the pressure he was under, and that if he didn't take that picture, then Share as fast as possible to an unwilling recipient how much worse things would have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re: The Reasonable Guzman
  I am having a difficult time factoring "I feared for my life" into the scenario your proposing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 27 Jan 2016 @ 3:50pm
    
    Re: Re: The Reasonable Guzman
    Had his balls exploded, the whole block might have gotten levelled.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nonya beeswax, 27 Jan 2016 @ 2:05pm

Bad cop
The govt can molest children now and get away with it now. Really sick.
I tryed to save my son from his mother who had problems. She was molested by her cousin, and did not get the help she needed. The judge's that i had to deal with would tell me to shut up, and let her use hear say in court. I had evidence that the judge's would not look at.
I had to call child protective services against my own son. Too late to do anything now. What is a judge gonna do now. Use magic and say your son is not a gay pedophile any more.
The govt is really really sick in the head.
Thanks for the heart attack. I have proof of that too and more. A lot more.
At this point if this happened to my daughter who i had with a different mother i would put a cap in his ass. Then his head.
Our government is dead in the head, and too stupid to prevent whats comming. DON'T F**k WITH PEOPLES KIDS. I AM NOT ALONE ON THIS.
Now poisoning little children with lead in Flint, MI.
Is there any part of government that is not that sick in the head?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2016 @ 2:42pm

I found this part much more disturbing:

“If I gave him like pleasure and let him do things to me, he'd be willing to buy me things"

Depending on what things he's referencing (and I assume it's not brushing her hair), isn't this akin to soliciting a minor for prostitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melissa S., 27 Jan 2016 @ 4:06pm

No minor looks at porn. Ever. (But especially not girls, heaven forbid)
So if a 16-year-old girl had seen a penis on the internet previous it's because she stumbled on it unintentionally? She couldn't have sought it out on purpose? And I'm sure we all believe 16-year-old boys would never seek out images of vaginas/breasts online either. Because otherwise that would be sexism. Good call author.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 5:54pm
  
  Re: No minor looks at porn. Ever. (But especially not girls, heaven forbid)
  So if a 16-year-old girl had seen a penis on the internet previous it's because she stumbled on it unintentionally?
  
  Did you miss this? "Even if the unnamed minor went searching for penis photos on the web..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CommonTater (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 7:18pm

and what about the lawyer?
It is one thing to try to help your client weasel out of the consequences of his actions. When your client is supposed to be protecting us from crime, and is instead apparently choosing to perform those crimes himself.... Find evidence to prove mitigating circumstances, propose alternative sentences to make sure this action isn't repeated - maybe a lobotomy? Under NO circumstances suggest that the victim isn't really a victim. Any competent lawyer needs to be aware of what they law saws, and I doubt any law says that this is ok. Maybe he needs to get a new job himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jan 2016 @ 9:10pm

And we wonder why this is even being attempted...
It works in "terrorism" cases...

we sent in a female to seduce him & encourage violence... and hid that evidence.

we contacted someone our CI, who spends ALL of his payments on feeding his drug habit & we threatened to cut off unless the CI got us a solid lead, and crafted a plan & manipulation to encourage cooperation in the plot we created, pushed forward, & bankrolled.

we saw them buying hydroponic things, found wet plant matter, so we raided the house & owe nothing for being so very wrong.

Because terrorism
Because war on drugs
Because penii (penises?) on the internet

We swallow it all the time, why be shocked they want to go further?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Experience Tours (profile), 28 Jan 2016 @ 2:08am

hire luxury tempo traveller on rent in delhi
book luxury tempo traveller in best price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Triple88a, 28 Jan 2016 @ 12:02pm

Why stop there?
By his logic is rape acceptable too as long as chicks arent virgins? What kind of idiot is this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Jan 2016 @ 12:41am
  
  Re: Why stop there?
  lawyer for a cop. Lawyers around cops are used to everyone just believing what they say to excuse the inexcusable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]