Cody Wilson Back in the US, Held in Houston Jail Pending $150,000 Bond

Cody Wilson Arrested Jailed Sexual Assault Taiwan

courtesy kvue.com

Well that didn’t take long. According to Austin station KVUE,

Cody Wilson is back in the United States and is booked in the Harris County Jail as of 4:20 a.m. Sunday morning.

He has an active warrant out for his arrest in Travis County for felony sexual assault. This after investigators with Austin Police say he paid a 16-year-old girl for sex.

His bond is currently set for $150,000 and he has agreed to personally hire an attorney.

This comes after Wilson was arrested in Taipei, Taiwan on Friday. The US doesn’t have an extradition treaty with Taiwan.

They believe he recently fled to Taiwan after he was tipped off about the warrant by a friend of the victim.

While there, police said Wilson missed a scheduled flight back to the U.S.

“We know Mr. Wilson frequently travels for business, we don’t know why he went to Taiwan. But we do know before he left, he was informed by a friend of the victim that she had spoken to police and police were investigating him for having sex with a minor,” said Commander Troy Officer.

On Friday, he was escorted through the airport to board a flight back to Houston, Texas.

 

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    And so grows the long list of great men brought down by their own wieners.

    1. avatar dph says:

      Hey baby, I’m a big deal, my name’s Cody Wilson, lets have sex and I’ll pay you $500. He’s not that all that great if this is all true and not too smart either.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      What qualifies you to be a great man?

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        Apart from one’s opinion of oneself, you mean? Because there are a lot of great men by that criterion…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          None greater than me. Don’t believe, just ask me. 😉

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Anyone who sticks his neck out in defense of the Second Amendment qualifies as a ‘great man’ in my book.

        That said, he WAS a great man (assuming the charges are true).

        1. avatar kevin says:

          A “great man” is a ridiculous concept, it implies some sort of deity. It IS possible to separate a man’s good acts from his bad acts. Thomas Jefferson did great things, but kept slaves. The latter (bad as it is) does not vitiate the former. Nearly every “great man” has probably done bad things at some point in time. Except Jesus. Back to that deity thing.

          Assuming that Wilson actually did the deed, the “badness” of his act (to me anyway) depends a great deal on whether he knew she was underage or not. And even more importantly, whether he sought out an underage girl. Its illegal either way, of course, but being a pedophile is immeasurably worse than “just” hiring a hooker. In legal terms, its his mens rea (whether he knew he was committing the crime that he committed) – a concept that is almost totally irrelevant when it comes to the malum prohibitum crime of statutory rape.

          Would we even care about this crime if the woman was 36 instead of 16? Probably not, or not as much.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Calling someone a ‘great man’ is quite different than deifying him, as a man is not a god. A man is made of flesh and blood and suffers from all of the imperfections that plague us all. Even great men sin. Just in some the sin negates the greatness, in others not.

          And Thomas Jefferson was very much a great man who did great things. He just happened to live in a time when you could be an abolitionist slave owner. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson#Slavery )

        3. avatar California Richard says:

          “Great and good are seldom the same man.”
          Winston Churchill

    3. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      Great??? Not hardly!! Cody Wilson was an arrogant asshole. You think that just because he fought to publish plans for “plastic/3D printed” guns that he was for the second amendment? He was doing it for the money and notoriety! I initially purchased on of his first run “ghost-gunner” CNC machines, but because he couldn’t meet numerous claimed deadlines I cancelled. He was a real jerk about it!!!

      Well now, if cody is convicted, he won’t be enjoying any 2nd amendment rights as a felon!

    4. avatar Rattlerjake says:

      It takes a really “bright” man to screw around with underage girls when the federal government is on your ass! It doesn’t matter if he knew or not, he should have been smart enough to not put himself in that situation. With the crap going on with the left vilifying Kavanaugh over a 35 year old romp in the hay (that he wasn’t even a part of), that there is NOT one single piece of physical evidence of, that there are NO witnesses to, and there has NEVER been a police report on, and Cody decides it’s smart to hump a “KID”! There is no help for STUPID!!!

    5. avatar Michael says:

      This stinks of a CIA Set up by NSA Obama led Coup d’etat .To win the argument of all guns need to be taken any idea of self defense is out of this Argument. This sex offense is a set up,and has to be!

  2. I would have thought the Bail would be Higher, considering Cody Wilson’s “Flight” to Taiwan…

    1. avatar dph says:

      Hard to go anywhere outside the US without a passport, which I’m sure was confiscated as soon as he cleared customs and immigration.

      1. Cody Wilson had a Passport to FLEE the Jurisdiction of the United States! And Live on What. If Cody Wilson had a Passport to flee the country and the means of Supporting Himself after doing so. I suspect he could also try it again, this time Trading His Program for a Means Out. And How Many Mentally Challenged Idiot’s out there wouldn’t hesitate for a NY Minute to do so…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Technically, he didn’t flee as there was no warrant issued until after he left.

        2. So why his Immediate Need to go the Taiwan! They have Chinese Food in Texas too…

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          Probably to see his taiwanese honey before he went abstinent for the next few years in prison:

          Cody Wilson Calls into The Dick Show Between the SugarDaddy Incident and his Arrest

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’d think that the trip was scheduled long in advance. It’s not uncommon to meet with equipment suppliers in their home country.

        5. And HE (Cody) decided to leave just after having Sex with a Minor. So Cody “Planned” to have Sex with a Minor, by making his Taiwan Trip in advance. That’s not Entrapment…

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or he had no idea what was going on and just took a long planned trip. Until we get evidence, there’s no way to tell one way or the other.

        7. Why the need to leave the country at that time! Little suspicious to leave the country at the same time You get Caught having Sex with a Minor…

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Um… because he has a business to run? It’s not rocket science. Most of my overseas trips are booked months in advance.

        9. Doesn’t explain why Cody had to Flee the Country that particular Day! If the Trip was planned that Particular Day, why was he Arrested when arriving in Taiwan and Extradited back to the United States. Doesn’t sound like a Planned Business Trip, “IF” the Business Trip gets you arrested getting off the plane…

        10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Hmmm… Here’s an interesting quandary; suppose Wilson is acquitted of the charges. How is he supposed to answer the question on the 4473, ‘Are you or have you ever been a fugitive from justice?’

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          The answer would still be “no” as he did not leave the country AFTER there was a warrant for his arrest. The timing matters.

        12. So leaving Texas (No Warrant) and ~16 hours later in Taiwan (w/an Int’l. Arrest Warrant)?/! What did Cody Do? Get stinking drunk, pull down his pants and Shit on the Beverage Cart. Too get himself arrested in Taiwan. Yeah, real bright…

        13. avatar Bob Jones says:

          Think of the millions of dollars of taxpayer’s money that will be wasted over a dimwit having sex with an under aged slut. It’s not like it’s the crime of the century. The age of consent in most European countries is 14 or 15.

        14. Emancipation age in Texas is 17, or 16, IF she’s not living with her parents. Unfortunately she was, and still was under 17 too. So a No No Win for Cody…

        15. avatar Broke_It says:

          Ulnar, may I ask what is up with this random unnessecary capitalization of words? I knew a group of people when I was younger that had a similar peculiar habit of capitalizing non proper nouns. It sets me on edge as they were very bad men. Is it to stress a point?

        16. What was the last website you were on, where everyone spoke in perfect English and “Didn’t” add a few “Emoji’s” and/or “Leet” in the Sentencing Structure?/! If you know of one, please tell what website that was…

        17. avatar B-Rad says:

          Yeah, the Europeans are totally right about their laws, we should just do everything exactly like them.

        18. avatar Pg2 says:

          @broke-Ulnar Is an auto bot profile. Not a real person.

        19. Yeah, a real “Pica”…

        20. avatar Broke_It says:

          Pg2, thanks for clearing that up. For a second I thought I had stumbled across another one of the many criminals/sadists that made up Ken Kay’s WWASP goons. I’ve never been so happy to discover I was only talking to a robot. There is a quiet evil in this country that flourishes in the most unexpected of places.

  3. avatar Pg2 says:

    Probably set up. But he’ll fall hard. Poking the elephant sometimes ends badly.

  4. avatar Matt says:

    So 150k bond for a guy that probably had consensual sex with a minor but 25k bond each for the 2 guys charged with 1st degree murder in Abilene.

    There is no way this is political. /sarc

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      The DA protested the Millers’ bond and had them re-arrested, neither he nor the police chief was happy that they bonded out. Dammit, we need to punish you before your trials…

      Anyway, the judge disagreed with the magistrate who set the 25k bond and raised it to 250k.
      AFAIK, they’re sitting in jail, and they haven’t even been indicted yet. It’ll be really embarrassing (and probably unlikely) if the grand jury no-bills them.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Thank you, that is good information that never seems to make it into any update, and certainly more appropriate for 1st degree murder than 25k.

        RE cash bond, thanks for the info as well. I still think 25k, regardless of it being means based, does not fit the charge.

    2. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

      Cash bail is means based, not necessarily based on the severity of the crime. 25k is far more money to white trash than 150k is for someone who can get that donated to him.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        The Millers clearly aren’t the sort of people who pay hookers $500 for an hour’s amusement, or buy plane tickets to Taiwan on a moment’s notice.

        Furthermore, there is good reason to call Wilson a flight risk after the Taiwan stunt.
        No indication the Millers aren’t eagerly awaiting their day in court.

        Anyway, back to the setup at hand.
        When you buy your hookers from a web site that promises to check everybody’s ID and make sure they’re over 18, you don’t expect to get stuck with a 16 year old.

        It’s like John Holmes getting arrested for starring in a Traci Lords movie. Actually, I’m kind of surprised that didn’t happen. I guess criminal intent mattered back in the 1980s.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Those videos *are* out there of Traci and Mr. Holmes, and woe be to anyone caught with a copy.

          *Especially* in Polk county, with sheriff Grady Judd…

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          And some of those movies were filmed when she was 15, which I’m pretty sure was rape in California in the 1980s.

          So a dozen or more porn stars were as guilty, with video proof, as Mr Wilson is alleged to be.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Most who have seen any of Tracy’s movies when she was 15 aren’t real worried about it, just require the jury to view the movie and try to guess which girl is 15. She looked more like 30.

      2. avatar Rick says:

        I looked it up in Texas, and that’s not how it works, they use a bunch of factors, and means isn’t one of them. $10k is the minimum, and $150k is the max for a class 2 felony.

    3. Just exactly how do you have “Consensual Sex” with a “Minor”, if the Sex Partner defined may Law is a MINOR…

      1. avatar arc says:

        Because contrary to the wise ass OPINIONs of a bunch of old men called congress, teenagers aren’t robots, devoid of all autonomy and self-governance. Kids are going to go fuck if they want to, its kind of what sentient creatures do.

        1. My Father got Laid in the 1920’s, when he was barely 16. If sex was available then, why should it be any different now…

      2. avatar Cody's Great International Adventure says:

        Yeah, that slut asked for it, how can you say yes and that be my problem, I don’t care what her actual age is, on the website it said 99, so that’s her/their problem, they tricked my penis? She was on the internet, everyone knows that all things on the internet are always true, there was no reason to ask her age in person, it was the internet. I was tricked I tell you.

    4. avatar Stand Your Ground Fail says:

      Abilene trash fight murder suspects re-arrested, bonds raised to $250,000 each

      https://www.ksn.com/news/crime/abilene-trash-fight-murder-suspects-re-arrested-bonds-raised-to-250-000-each/1464841732

  5. avatar RogueVal says:

    Let’s see how long the Incel, He Man Woman Hater’s Club, come in and starting talking about if the child lies about their age, its a crime, against the old man. 16, 12, whatever, they were asking for it. What crime? Just throw some word salad against the wall and turn it up to 11. Years old that is.

    And go…

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Don’t take pwrserge seriously. He’s either being paid to make gun owners look mentally unstable, angry, aggressive online, or he really needs help. Either way, he’s full of shit and a class A douche bag.

    2. avatar Stateisevil says:

      Rogue, those of us not brought up in the state’s educational system know there is a big difference between illegal and immoral. I happen to believe that what Wilson did was immoral but should not be illegal, assuming the whore wasn’t a sex slave. It’s sad, ridiculous, and hilarious that the state, guilty of incredible crimes and abuse of people worldwide is going after Wilson with such vigor simply because he symbolizes freedom, which statists hate and cannot abide. The original purpose of the jury is to judge the law as well as the facts, even though the current system tells the idiot publik they are to simply rubber stamp whatever statute and blacked robed ones say. No Amerikan prosecutor would have me on their jury, but unless this whore looks like she is in grade school, I’d nullify the law and let Wilson go. Hopefully, some decent people make it on his jury but I’m sure they will be sure to get some “law is the law” types on there (98% of voters).

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Sure, but you need all 12 for a conviction. I bet they get him to plead out, but I wouldn’t. Let’s go to trial!

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          If I were him and was offered a misdemeanor with no jail time and no sex offender status I’d take it.

          Unless he never had sex with the girl and can prove it.

      2. avatar UPS Driver says:

        Both of my very Christian parents legally married in Texas in 1949. They met in church.
        My mother was 19 and my father was 16. It wasn’t illegal or immoral.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Sure, I’ll play devil’s advocate here. It first depends on whether TX treats statutory rape as a strict liability crime. Then it depends on whether Wilson’s lawyers can prevail with a good faith defense. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)#United_States

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Texas does strict it as a strict liability crime, but there is federal appeals court precedent offering a good faith defense as an affirmative defense anyway. I’m of the opinion that strict liability is patently unconstitutional as a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Per the Wikipedia article, ‘strict liability’ is a 19th century invention for pursuing criminal charges against employers for unsafe working conditions. They’re usually applied to minor offenses like parking tickets.

          Statutory rape is a bit tricky. I can’t be left to ‘don’t ask – don’t tell’. It should probably come down to what a ‘reasonable person’ would think the victim’s age was. Which is basically the ‘good faith’ defense.

    4. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh you’re adorable Val…

      1. You assume hating feminazis because of the observed consequences of their actions equates to hating all women. (Thereby implying that all women are feminazis.)
      2. You support a legal theory that would throw a rape victim in jail because their rapist was under age.
      3. You ignore the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law just so long as it suits your little misandrist bullshit jihad.

      Yeah… which one of us is crazy here?

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        If you go to a website called sugarBABIES, register, see that the age field is a drop down, a reasonable person would check when you meet the child for sex, therefore this would violate not just the strict, but also negligently and recklessly test of the MPC.

        Recklessly. A person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.

        Negligently. A person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.

        You lie for effect constantly and are pro-child rape, your continued justification that as long as the child says yes, then its fine, is completely asinine.

        Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like hookers, you like young hookers, so this makes you feel at risk based on your behavior. All females are bad, evil, less than people deserving nothing other than to be objects of your desire. Fine, but your feelings have no influence on reality. Blah, blah, it’s sad.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Val, he makes good points on this, but you’ve nailed him. He often lies and often literally makes thing up. When it comes to modern medicine, he’s stated on many occasions that the public isn’t qualified to make its own decisions, and all medical decisions should be the doctors right, and not the patients. He laughs at informed consent, and pretends to post from a position of science while never, not once producing a sliver of the science he pretends exists. There’s a real insecurity and immaturity about pserge, and he definitely is pro-autism, pro-SIDS, PRO AUTO-immune disease, and now that you mention it, he really seems to be anti kids.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Fair enough – but it’s not relevant to the discussion here. If he makes a logical error, prove him wrong. I didn’t agree with him in the past either, but don’t bring up past events that aren’t relevant to the topic.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Holy fucking shit Val… Strawman.

          Thanks for demonstrating exactly why I despise feminazi cunts like you.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          Says the king of straw man, logical fallacy, and circular logic. Get some help serge, you’re not helping yourself and you’re sure as shit not helping people who support individual rights and especially gun rights.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          You lie for effect constantly and are pro-child rape, your continued justification that as long as the child says yes, then its fine, is completely asinine.

          Yeah I don’t think that is what he said at all.

          The serge is appears to be a bit skeptical, simply because she put herself out there, and she “may” (we don’t know) have lied to him.

          I thought about typing this, but I already made this point earlier – so I’ll just paste it here:

          Pwrserge is right guys. I don’t condone what Wilson did. I feel there is a gradient between right and wrong the younger they get. When you are 30 or 45, an 18 yr old isn’t much better than 16 or 15. Have some dignity and date someone a little closer to your age. However the law says that 17 is Ding, Ding, Ding ok! and 16 is way… way way wayyyyyyyyy off limits. There is this magical boundary on the day of her bday that makes everything alright. Right?

          Now having said that, the difference between a felony shouldn’t be a birthday, but it is. It’s not a logical law, not rational or even reasonable. But the law makes boundaries, even when we can see that there is not really a boundary here, but a gradient. It may be the law, and Cody may have broken it, and cody will have to face the music. But if the boundary is 17, and she is 16.5, and she lied to him to make him think she was 18, then it’s a injustice to me to give him 20 years in prison with a felony conviction. Maybe he deserves shame and some form of punishment. But certainly not 20 years in a prison and a felony conviction. And I guarantee you! the “Austin” liberals are looking for that felony! I’d make bets on it!

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like hookers, you like young hookers, so this makes you feel at risk based on your behavior. All females are bad, evil, less than people deserving nothing other than to be objects of your desire. Fine, but your feelings have no influence on reality. Blah, blah, it’s sad.

          Didn’t see anywhere, where he said he liked hookers.

          Didn’t see anywhere, where he said all females are bad, evil, or simply objects of desire.

          In fact pwrserge made the statement below:

          If he knew… well, I’ve got no pity for him, despite all the strawmen the local feminazi apologists have been stuffing around here.

          His entire argument, in a nutshell, the entirety of it, is if she lied to you it shouldn’t be your fault. – And to a great degree I agree with him on that.

          For example. My asian wife looks a lot younger than me. When I met her she was 26, but she could have passed for 17.9 years of age. Luckily she didn’t lie to me, and she was honestly 26, because if the law caught me, I would have paid for her lies. She wouldn’t pay for her lies. I would. And that is the injustice that the serge is talking about. Sure, the serge gets a bit fruity and goes off the rails on a sensationalized dramatic spiel sometimes, but his core argument is correct. If you are lied to, you pay the price for their lie.

        7. avatar RogueVal says:

          Ahem…
          “pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 12:50

          The point is that at this juncture, telling the difference isn’t worth the risk. It’s cheaper for me to rent a hooker than to pay a divorce lawyer and hand over half my shit. A grown man needs a ho like a fish needs a bicycle.

          pwrserge says:
          September 22, 2018 at 12:20

          Whatever you say soyboy vermin. Some of us still have our balls. Oh… and FYI every man pays for sex. I prefer cash up front to room and board. But hey if you want to trust some possibly crazy feminazi with your shit. Feel free. It’s not my alimony payment.”

  6. avatar jwm says:

    He was warned by a friend of the victim? Does that mean that he knew or was part of her circle before the sex act? How does a friend of the victim know him if they’re not parts of the same circle?

    Am I missing something here?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      He met her through a sugardaddy web site ad, but he knows her friends?

      Or his other sugarbaby knew the 16 year old sugarbaby and told him not to deal with the 16 year old?

      1. avatar jwm says:

        It sounds as tho cody and his sex mate had at least one mutual friend. Now we need to find out if he knew in advance that the girl was under 17. And how far under 17 she was.

        A lot has been said about how an underage girl can look older. Which is true.

        But I have daughters and granddaughters and I was single in my late 30s and early 40s. One thing I found in the dating scene, without exception, was that I could tell about how old a woman was in a quick conversation. When you’re 40 and talking to a mature looking 20yo she simply doesn’t have the experience of life that you have. Her taste in music, movies, etc. is going to be different from yours.

        I never met a 16 yo that could hold an adult level conversation for any length of time.

        My gut tells me cody is not the victim here.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Technically, the difference between an illegal sexual act with a minor and one of legal age of consent can literally be measured in seconds/minutes/hours/days and not necessarily month or years. Can you tell the difference between a 16 year old who turns 17, and legal, the next day? I couldn’t. But only because as a 52 year old married man, it’s not something that interests me in the slightest. Lol, I have a 17 year old daughter myself.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Yes. A few days or months can be hard to tell. But you know as an older, more experienced person that you may not be able to pin her exact age but you can get close enough for all sorts of alarm bells to go off.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          If he knew… well, I’ve got no pity for him, despite all the strawmen the local feminazi apologists have been stuffing around here. If he didn’t and he relied on her signing a legal document to attest to being at least 18, (You know, the legally binding contract she entered into when she signed up for that website.) then a good faith defense has a solid chance of working. At the very least, there is federal appeals court precedent that even in strict liability cases, a judge’s jury instructions must include the possibility of a good faith defense.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Difficult to detect minors through conversation if you don’t speak the same language. Listen, I’ve been around a bit, and I’ve seen hookers who could have been any age, and I knew that if they didn’t find a customer they were not going to eat, and their brothers and sisters may not, either. Laws preventing hookers from selling something they have in order to get something they need seem pretty cruel to me. Whatever their age. Although, those girls were asking $10-20, not $500.

        5. avatar Hannibal says:

          Someone clicking a box on a website (or anything else with no verification) has no more meaning than someone saying “I’m 18” to you on the street- the very situation ‘strict liability’ laws are meant to prevent as a defense. If someone relies on that sort of ‘contract’ (which is meaningless to a minor anyway), they’re an idiot. If someone relies on that and has sex with someone underage, they’re an idiot that will spending some unpleasant time in prison.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      That also struck me as odd.

      It might not be a setup, but something’s still off with this mess.

    3. Talking on a Porn/Swingers Website “Isn’t” a crime! Acting out your Sexual Urge with a Minor “IS”…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Moraly, that’s only true if you knew, or should have knows that the person in question was a minor. If you were deliberately mislead to believe otherwise through criminal fraud… well, then the precedent gets a lot more interesting.

        1. IF his Friend told him and he did it anyway! He Knew…

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Agreed. That’s why a good faith defense requires him to be acting in good faith.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Pheewwwwww, looks like your mood stabilizer kicked in serge. You might want to get that medication/dosage a little more regulated. Sometimes your anger and mental instability are Totally unhinged.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          If you read back over my comments, that has always been my position. People stuffing strawmen of my arguments does not constitute my arguments. Pardon me if I get a bit pissed when people ignore the actual argument and just spout misandrist bullshit.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          How many other adult men has the young lady been with since Cody left for Taiwan?

        6. avatar RogueVal says:

          When he pleads out, the sentencing recommendation is where it will take many things into consideration, forcible or not, history, communication, etc. That is why the sentence is from 2-10 years, because the circumstances matter, but the act of having sex with a minor is always illegal. The fact that you can’t tell the difference between forcible rape, regardless of age, and statutory rape, just makes you look foolish.

          Oh, and you’re “never said that” Umm….

          pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 11:44

          He DID verify her age fucktard. The little whore committed rape by deception and federal wire fraud. At that point, if she’s old enough to commit fraud and rape, I don’t really care much about her age

          pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 12:48

          Go fuck yourself Zippy. Wilson consented to have sex with a 18yo woman that didn’t exist. That’s rape by deception. But please, keep carrying water for 300lb dried out feminazi harpies. The whamenses can never do anything wrong and fuck all the men whose lives they destroy.

          pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 14:04

          Rape by deception is statute in many states. Basically, when you defraud somebody into consent, the consent is null and void. It’s no different than getting somebody drunk off their ass and then having sex with them.

          As for why I have feminazis… There are several reasons.

          I’ve seen a guy have to pay child support for kids that aren’t his.
          I’ve seen a 22yo get charged with rape for getting drunk at a party and then having sex with another similarly drunk co-ed who was trying to jump him all night and then had buyer’s remorse in the morning.

          This sort of shit happens every day and nobody cares because of the whining of numerous whamenses and the soyboy enablers.

          The standards for sexual assault in this country are grossly unconstitutional and almost always favor the woman. So yes, I’m more than a bit bitter about the issue. Especially when I see bullshit like the Kavanaugh accusations destroy men in prominent positions with zero evidence decades after the fact. In this country, men are 2nd class citizens and you damn well know it.

          pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 12:06

          Yeah. How dare he become a victim of wire fraud? Blaming Wilson in this situation is no different than blaming any other rape victim. But hey, I’m sure no whamen have ever lied about their age ever. It’s not like there’s an entire industry set up to help them do so… oh… wait.

          Yeah… because fuck mens rea and 800 years of legal tradition. The guy should have psychic powers and know that the whore was lying.

          Sorry kiddo… anybody who supports a law that requires someone to be psychic to avoid breaking it needs to be stood up against a wall and shot.

          Pretty sure that there is a world of difference between mistake of fact and deliberate FRAUD. In any case, as I said, I don’t care what the law says on the matter. Any law that allows somebody to be defrauded into a major felony is a bad law. It spits in the face of hundreds of years of legal tradition and anybody who supports applying such a law in such a case is a case in point as to why the 2nd amendment exists.

          In short… I DON’T CARE. A bad law is no law at all.

          pwrserge says:
          September 20, 2018 at 17:06

          Holy fucking shit Val… Do you even know what a strawman is?

          I’m talking about the fact that HE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW THAT HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW and on top of everything else, he took reasonable precautions to AVOID breaking the law.

          This kind of bullshit is why I despise feminazis.

          pwrserge says:
          September 20, 2018 at 17:26

          Holy shit Val, you just don’t stop. Nobody is claiming ignorance of the law. What is being claimed is that he is a VICTIM of CRIMINAL FRAUD.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… Val… what part of “wire fraud” didn’t make it obvious that I don’t believe that he knew her age and was actively prevented from reasonably learning that information. What do you expect him to do? Check her teeth?

  7. avatar Duane says:

    In some states and a lot of countries16 is the age of consent in some states 16 is a misdemeanor.

    To think that only after 24 hours that one can get arrested across the world and be brought back to the US.

    Some one high up was pulling strings.

    1. avatar arc says:

      Yep, not even pedos get this kind of fast track treatment. Someone wanted him in jail.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        One did. Badumpbumptsh.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        He happened to go to a country that is a known haven from extradition, and he wasn’t a US citizen, while Wilson went to a country that routinely extradites.

        1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          America does not have an extradition treaty with Taiwan.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

        2. “Officially” NO! “Unofficially” YES, since April 1979 with the “Taiwan Relations Act”…

        3. avatar FedUp says:

          The moral to that story:

          Never hide from the US government in a country that depends on the US government to save it from Communism.

  8. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I’m sure now there’s gonna be a thorough investigation of his money, too. Dummy.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      I’ve made a couple of short comments about this on the other posts about our boy. He was begging money to defend and sue with. How much of that donated money was spent on hookers? What else did he spend gofundme money on?

      It will be interesting to see if the IRS gets in his mix.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Exactly. And is that money gonna be used to pay for these new lawyers?

      2. avatar Rocketman says:

        All the alphabet agencies that can get involved WILL get involved if they can. The IRS will crawl up his behind to see if the donations that he received were legally supposed to go to DD instead of a hooker which is what she really is. This guy thumbed his nose at the official “this is the way it’s done so shut up or we’ll throw your ass in jail” way of doing things and the poor bastard is going to be made an example out of.

        1. avatar HP says:

          I think the moral of this is if you’re going to fight city hall, you basically need to conduct yourself like an Eagle Scout. Incredibly dumb move on Cody’s part, given the enemies he’s made.

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        How much of that donated money was spent on hookers? What else did he spend gofundme money on?

        From his recent 400k fundraiser, $0 went to cody or even DefDist. All of it went to SAF.

  9. avatar Department of Voter Miracles says:

    Victimless crime.

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      Better check with the victim before you spout such ignorant bilge.

  10. avatar Jim Wilson says:

    That’s why I ask a girl for an ID when she looks under 65.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Which, ironically, is STILL not a defense according to some Legal Eagles here… She shows you the same fake ID she uses to buy booze… you still go to jail.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        This is where the good faith defense should get the charges dismissed. For both crimes.

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          A} there is no such thing as a “Good faith defense” in Texas, its a strict liability state, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court within the last 9 months and 24 days as being constitutional, but this also fails the negligence and reckless standard and B), I’ve never seen anyone say that she, wasn’t 65, and I’m pretty sure she didn’t LOOK like a 65-year-old.

          A child cannot consent, a child cannot consent, a child cannot consent, when you’re an adult, especially an adult more than 3 years over the age, you better be sure. That’s not some controversial thing, don’t have sex with children, adults aren’t supposed to be this stupid. That’s why it was completely foreseeable as a risk, and was not just strict liability, but also negligence, and recklessness.

          You don’t go looking for sugar BABIES, and not know that there might be a risk, its kind of baked in. He’s a moron, morons do dumb reckless things. Texting nekkid pictures back and forth with someone you don’t know, or anyone, on the internet, is a really really reckless and dumb thing.

          When he pleads this out, saying he was tricked is admitting it happened, so that is not a defense, he’ll get 2 years, serve the minimum, unless the running, child porn charges, tack on a bit. Plus, he’ll be remanded for the duration as well.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Val doesn’t give a shit about context. According to val, a 30yo woman forcibly raped by a 16yo ganbanger should get the same punishment.

          I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Fuck you Val.

        3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          Could it be that the bail was set so low (150,000) that they recognize the problems they might have with the case?

        4. avatar RogueVal says:

          Do you really not know the difference between forcible rape and statutory rape? Strawman, yeah, everybody else is building strawmen.

          I get it, you’re pro-rape, you believe in having sex with prostitutes, you don’t care about the age of consent, so anything to make you feelz better.

          Build the strawman, vomit up you’re word salad, rinse and repeat. If that one burns down, you’ll build another, you’re something like 16 different ones in at this point.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Could it be that you don’t understand that being raped by a 16yo, according to you, means you’ve just committed statutory “rape”?

          If context and consent doesn’t matter, according to you, then having a knife to your throat is legally no different than being lied to and defrauded.

        6. avatar Rick says:

          In Texas a Class 2 Felony carries a minimum bond of $10k, a maximum of $150k, and it averages $30k in Travis county. So he got the max.

        7. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Val, ‘good faith’ is ONLY a defense against strict liability laws. Otherwise the lack of mens rea is sufficient to acquit the accused of the crime. By your imagination, a minor goes in with a very good professionally forged ID and buys beer the store owner and clerk who sold it to him should get the book thrown at them. If they only had to ‘knowingly’ sell the minor alcohol they would have no need to ask for the ID in the first place. But in this case they were deliberately misled into breaking the law and would plead that the beer was sold in ‘good faith’.

        8. avatar RogueVal says:

          The Supreme Court has ruled on Strict Liability, specifically in the case of Statutory Rape, within the last year, Dec 23rd, and it was upheld as completely legal.

          Once the MPC was adopted in 1957 as the standard for criminal law in the United States, mens rea, as the concept was known, was formalized, I’ll annotate below. You do not need any consciousness of guilt for a felony in criminal law, there are certain violations that by statute require it, but it is not, nor has been, a requirement for a crime.

          There are 5 elements, and depending on the statute, you need violate a single one. Hence, rape of a minor has no defense of fraud, a judge will not allow it, you must argue on the fact that either the event happened or it did not. For statutory rape, states have interpreted it that way for 150 years. Different states have had different ages of consent, but that has been the case for a very long time. The exceptions are married where one or both parties are under the age of consent and in some cases Romeo and Juliet laws, which are a relatively new thing, and not applicable in any way in this case.

          Under the MPC, crimes are defined in terms of a set of “elements of the offense,” each of which must be proven to the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. There are three types of elements:

          conduct of a certain nature,
          attendant circumstances at the time of the conduct, or
          the result of that conduct.

          The elements are those facts that:

          are included in the definition of forbidden conduct as provided by the statute, or
          establish the required culpability, or
          negate an excuse or justification for such conduct, or
          negate a defense under the statute of limitation, or
          establish jurisdiction or venue.

          All but the last two categories are material elements, and the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the required kind of culpability with respect to that element.

          Notice, none of those are consciousness of guilt, under the MPC fundamentally that concept was replaced with culpability.

          The tests for what was considered mens rea as it purtains to the elements, are, and you need only one:

          Purposely. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or cause the result. If the element involves attendant circumstances, he is aware of the circumstances or believes or hopes that they exist.

          Knowingly. If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that the circumstances exist. If the element involves a result, he is practically certain that the result will occur. Further, if the element involves knowledge of the existence of a particular fact, it is satisfied if he is aware of a high probability of the existence of that fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

          Recklessly. A person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe.

          Negligently. A person should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists or will result, such that the failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.

          As I’ve said, the SCOTUS has also ruled that a strict liability law is perfectly legal and constitutional.

        9. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Too many words, Val. Nobody reads 14 paragraph comments.

          That said, after briefly skimming through your diatribe, I’m not sure of the particular SCOTUS case, but I’m doubting it involved the rejection of a ‘good faith’ defense. Good faith, duress, entrapment, etc. There are several defenses against a strict liability law. Otherwise the cops could set up a minor with an actual but fraudulent ID to go in and buy beer and then nail the clerk and store owner for selling to a minor. But that would be entrapment and the case would be thrown out. Otherwise there is no rule of law, only a tyrannical government.

        10. avatar RogueVal says:

          “Otherwise the cops could set up a minor with an actual but fraudulent ID to go in and buy beer and then nail the clerk and store owner for selling to a minor. But that would be entrapment and the case would be thrown out. Otherwise there is no rule of law, only a tyrannical government.”

          Actually, that is exactly how the ABC works, or at least can. Most state ABC boards have a policy where they will give judicial notice prior to using the minor, but it is in fact not legally required. See Bartlett v. ALABAMA ABC BD.

          The key section of the decision is as follows:

          Applying this rationale to the present case, we note that there is ample evidence of record to show that the minor was delegated, and that he performed, certain police functions in participating and assisting in the undercover operation. The minor at all times followed the instructions given by the ABC Board agents and at all times was under their supervision and control. In addition, the ABC Board agents, at least three and one-half hours before starting the undercover operation in question, furnished the minor with a transmitter and administered a pat-down search to ensure that he had in his possession only his valid driver’s license and the bills from which the agents had recorded the serial numbers. These facts reflect the planning and organization of the undercover operation in question and the supervision and control exercised by the ABC Board agents over the minor, and they support the conclusion that the minor was operating as a “public servant” under § 13A-3-22.

          Furthermore, the minor was used for the purpose of obtaining evidence indicating violations of § 28-3A-25(a)(3). This fact supports the Board’s contention that the use of minors to discover illegal sales of alcoholic beverages to minors is a reasonable exercise of official powers, duties, or functions. The purpose of the operation was not to aid and abet the commission of a criminal offense, but to exercise and carry out the very powers and duties assigned by law to the ABC Board and set out in its regulation power and duties to be exercised in controlling the sale and use of alcoholic beverages.

          The analogous case of People v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App. 3d 842, 134 Cal. Rptr. 361 (1976), involved a statute, similar to § 28-3A-25(a)(3), prohibiting the sale of marijuana to minors. In that case, a 17-year-old minor volunteered his services to the San Mateo Police Department in efforts to assist in stopping drug traffic in the local high schools. Id., 65 Cal. App. 3d at 844-45, 134 Cal. Rptr. at 362. The minor was furnished bills from which the serial numbers had been recorded, was equipped with a transmitting device, and was taken by an undercover police officer, who parked in a van on a nearby street, to interact with students near a high school. Id., 65 Cal. App. 3d at 845, 134 Cal. Rptr. at 362-63. The minor made a purchase of “one lid of marijuana” from the defendant. Id., 65 Cal. App. 3d at 845, 134 Cal. Rptr. at 363. Subsequently, the minor made another larger *1143 purchase of marijuana from the defendant. Id.

        11. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘…to ensure that he had in his possession only his valid driver’s license’

          Way to miss the point. You can’t argue a good faith defense when someone shows you an ID that indicates he’s a minor. That would be a ‘bad faith’ argument.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    Most likely he was set up. The mistake he made was taking the bait.
    A fish wouldn’t get in trouble if he kept his mouth shut.

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      Set up or not, YOU DO THE CRIME YOU DO THE TIME, period, end of story. P.S. How, exactly, is anyone set up to have sex with a minor? That is like claiming one was set up to shoplift by going to a grocery store.

  12. avatar RogueVal says:

    Defenses to a Statutory Rape Charge

    Defendants charged with statutory rape have the usual defenses available to all criminal defendants, such as “Someone else committed this crime,” or “The alleged conduct did not occur.”

    Statutory rape marital exemption

    Texas has a marital exemption for statutory rape that allows consensual sex between a married minor and his or her adult spouse even though their ages would prohibit it if they were not married. The marital defense is a remnant of the marital rape exemption.

    Minors are legally incapable of giving consent to having sex; so for example, if Jen, a 15-year-old willingly has sex with Tony, her 21-year-old boyfriend, Tony can be charged with rape, since Jen is not legally capable of giving consent in the first place.

    But if Jen and Tony are married and living in Texas, Tony need not fear criminal charges for having consensual sex with Jen. This is because Texas has a marital exemption to the state’s statutory rape laws.

    However, if Tony were to rape Jen (force her to have sex against her will), he would have no protection under the law even if the two are married.

    When both parties are minors: The “Romeo and Juliet” exception

    Named after Shakespeare’s young lovers, “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions are intended to prevent serious criminal charges against teenagers who engage in consensual sex with others close to their own age. In Texas, there is a Romeo and Juliet exemption for consensual sex between a minor who 14, 15, 16, or 17, and an opposite-sex partner who is three or fewer years older than the minor.

    Mistake of age

    Defendants accused of statutory rape often claim that they had no reason to know that their partner was underage. They may argue that the child said that he or she was of age, and that a reasonable person would have believed it. But even if this is true, a defendant cannot rely on a mistake of age—even a reasonable one—to avoid conviction in Texas. As in most states, mistake of age is not a defense in Texas. (Tex. Penal Code §§ 21.11, 22.011, 22.021 (2018).)

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Go fuck yourself Val. You’re defending a law that throws victims of fraud in jail.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        You’re saying there is no difference between forcible rape where one person is forced, hence forcible, to have sex specifically against their explicit will, is exactly the same thing as statutory rape, having sex with a child that by their age cannot consent.

        The Wilson case exists, he’s in real-world jail, he isn’t a 30-year-old woman, and the child isn’t a “thug” with a knife. So who’s building what now?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          No Val, you’re the one saying that…

          In both scenarios the adult had sex with the minor due to the illegal actions of the minor. According to you, the illegal actions of the minor are not a valid defense.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          Umm….
          pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 16:39

          Yeah… you have no idea what you’re talking about. But please, let’s ignore the obvious issues with this case and the law in general. According to your legal theory, a 30 year old woman who gets raped at knifepoint by a 16yo ganbanger should be treated like a child molester. Betcha wouldn’t be quite as ready to throw Wilson to the wolves if he was a she and got trolled by a 16yo man looking to bang a soccer mom…

          But hey, if feminazi vermin didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

          FYI, Incels want to be treated like equals and not have their lives destroyed just for being socially awkward. MGTOWs however are just done with your misandrist bullshit. Have fun with the rapefugees that cretins like you let in.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes Val… That’s the whole point of a thought experiment to prove how retarded your position is.

          Let me break it down for you purple dinosaur style.

          Person 1: 30yo woman
          Person 2: 16yo ganbanger

          Scenario: Person 2 catches person 1 in a dark alley and rapes them at knife point.

          According to me: 1 crime occurred. The forcible rape of person 1.
          According to you: 2 crimes occurred. The forcible rape of person 1 AND the statutory rape of person 2. Since you have repeatedly claimed that criminal acts leading to intercourse are not a defense for statutory rape, you clearly support punishing person 2 (aka THE RAPE VICTIM) under statutory rape statutes.

          I have neither the time nor the crayons to give you a simpler explanation of your retardation.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Correction, since the edit function fucked up again.

          “According to you: 2 crimes occurred. The forcible rape of person 1 AND the statutory rape of person 2. Since you have repeatedly claimed that criminal acts leading to intercourse are not a defense for statutory rape, you clearly support punishing person 1 (aka THE RAPE VICTIM) under statutory rape statutes.”

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        According to RogueVal’s laws – All cody needs to do is claim the two got married and come up with the appropriate documentation.

        LOL

        1. avatar RogueVal says:

          Not my laws, the State of Texas, and every other State in the US, but he would have to actually have been married to her, with permission from her guardian, since she is unable to consent to marriage as she is under the age of majority. Of course, that is immaterial as its just a hypothetical that didn’t actually occur in reality.

          You see how that works, you have sex with children, you are breaking the law, there is no freebie if they “defrauded” you, there is no get out of jail card. It is the adult’s responsibility, burden, and culpability, under the law.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          The law is unconstitutional bullshit. The exact sort of bullshit the 2nd amendment exists to answer.

      3. avatar Clark Kent says:

        PLEASE tell me you have never had a child or intend to do so. There are too many abused children in the world. Now quit posting your blathering, ignorant bilge water.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      But please Val… post the comment where I expressly stated that “It’s ok for a grown man to knowingly have sex with a minor.”… I’ll wait… You’re a lying cunt Val.

      Serge’s actual positions…
      – Prostitution is not a real crime, nor should it be when consenting adults are involved.
      – Having sex with someone you believe to be of-age because they deliberately misled you for monetary gain is not a crime, it’s being the victim of a crime.
      – Strict liability is fundamentally unconstitutional as it flies in the face of the 14th amendment’s “due process” protections.
      – Women have only themselves to blame for why a lot of men don’t consider their bullshit worth the risk anymore.

      Serge’s position according to Val
      – Huh huh huh deliberately having sex with someone you know to be a minor is just fine.
      – Serge hates all women… derp…

      Once again… Fuck you Val.

      1. avatar RogueVal says:

        Yeah, that makes you look like a much more sane person, great, continue with you’re brilliance, you shine like a diamond.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Once again… Fuck you Val.

          Provide the quote of shut the fuck up you lying cunt.

        2. avatar RogueVal says:

          I did, you can scroll up and read them, or you can look back at your screeds over the last two days.

          I’ve quoted you letter and verse of state and federal law, SCOTUS decisions, US criminal law standards, linked you to at least 3 attorney’s articles specifically spelling out the law, and regardless of that, uhhrr wire fraud, uhhrr whore asked for it, whore tricked him.

          You’ve talked about your love of hookers, that you’re an incel, that its women’s fault they get raped, and on and on and on, to the point that you don’t even know what you said.

          Then you curse a bit, keep saying strawman, without actually knowing what it is.

          If you have sex with a minor in America, you cannot claim fraud, 134,000 people are currently in jail in the United States for statutory rape, 42% are for non-forcible, the average age difference is 9 years, 18% is for men having sex with prostitutes, 94% of those are female prostitutes.

          None of this is news, minors cannot consent, and if you have sex with someone, you must have consent, non-consensual sex is rape, the charge in Texas is a Class 2 Felony of Sexual Assult, if the victim is under 15, it’s aggravated, with a sentence of 5-20 years, else 2-10. Again, none of this is new, this is the reality, that is how reality world works.

          If you are an adult, don’t have sex with a child, it’s always illegal, always, in every case, in every state.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok Val…

          1. Never have I claimed to be an incel. You can’t provide a quote to that effect because you’re pulling that claim out of your ass. I’ve simply pointed out that you have no fucking idea what an Incel is.
          2. Never have I claimed that it’s a woman’s fault for being raped. Rape being defined as FORCIBLE rape. Good luck proving otherwise.
          3. Never have I claimed that I LOVE hookers. I pointed out that they are a better option than rolling the dice with feminazi cunts like you. I have also pointed out that there are places in the United States where prostitution is perfectly legal. I’ve also claimed the position that prostitution between consenting adults is not a crime.

          Keep lying Val, you’re making yourself look like more and more of a dried out feminazi harpy who’s never met a misandrist law she couldn’t defend logic and fairness be damned. Your “legal articles” aren’t an argument. They are simply more evidence that the law is unconstitutional thanks to it’s blatant disproportionate impact and blatant flouting of due process.

        4. avatar RogueVal says:

          OK, I’ll bite.

          1) I guess I could have not understood your screed, but this really looks like you’re saying that…

          “pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 16:39

          Yeah… you have no idea what you’re talking about. But please, let’s ignore the obvious issues with this case and the law in general. According to your legal theory, a 30 year old woman who gets raped at knifepoint by a 16yo ganbanger should be treated like a child molester. Betcha wouldn’t be quite as ready to throw Wilson to the wolves if he was a she and got trolled by a 16yo man looking to bang a soccer mom…

          But hey, if feminazi vermin didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

          FYI, Incels want to be treated like equals and not have their lives destroyed just for being socially awkward. MGTOWs however are just done with your misandrist bullshit. Have fun with the rapefugees that cretins like you let in.”

          2) Rape isn’t just forcible rape, there are different categories of rape, and in fact, you claimed this was rape by deception, you know, not forcible rape, by the girl, so that kind of makes your statement, stupid, and a lie, but nothing new…and here it is…

          “pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 11:44
          He DID verify her age fucktard. The little whore committed rape by deception and federal wire fraud. At that point, if she’s old enough to commit fraud and rape, I don’t really care much about her age.”

          3, uhh…
          “pwrserge says:
          September 21, 2018 at 12:50

          The point is that at this juncture, telling the difference isn’t worth the risk. It’s cheaper for me to rent a hooker than to pay a divorce lawyer and hand over half my shit. A grown man needs a ho like a fish needs a bicycle.

          pwrserge says:
          September 22, 2018 at 12:20

          Whatever you say soyboy vermin. Some of us still have our balls. Oh… and FYI every man pays for sex. I prefer cash up front to room and board. But hey if you want to trust some possibly crazy feminazi with your shit. Feel free. It’s not my alimony payment.”

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Thanks for providing quotes that prove my points Val. You have no idea how to debate, do you? HINT: Proving your opponent’s points is NOT a way to win a debate.

          1. I’m looking for the part where I claimed to be an Incel. (Something that is contradicted by your later prostitution quotes, unless you don’t know what In-Cel stands for.)
          2. Yes… SHE committed rape, not Wilson. That’s my point. Thanks for reinforcing it.
          3. Yes honey, all men pay for sex. It doesn’t matter if it’s dinner and a movie, a wedding ring, a huge alimony check, or a stack of cash up front, we’re still expected to pay one way of the other.

          I’ll leave you with the immortal words of Riley Freeman.
          https://youtu.be/kQqUC43Bkz0

        6. avatar RogueVal says:

          You’re hilarious, not very smart, but hilarious.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Honey, you have yet to present anything approaching an actual argument and have misrepresented me at every turn. You don’t have a logical or moral leg to stand on. Maybe that’s what passes for debate in whatever underwater basketweaving class you took at the learning annex, but in the real world, strawmaning your opponent is a sign that you have lost the argument. I sincerely hope that you never attended law school, as any institution that issued you a degree should also issue you a complete refund as they have obviously failed to prepare you for a career that requires any degree of debate or critical thinking.

          My personal favorite is you claiming that someone you also claimed LOVES prostitutes is an In-Cel… Hint: In-Cel stands for Involuntary Celibate… Maybe they didn’t cover this in “muh’ feefees 101” but someone who uses the services of prostitutes is not celibate… by definition.

          Run along honey, you’ve humiliated your entire gender enough for one night.

        8. avatar RogueVal says:

          I’ll stand by my adjudication of fact, and I have quoted you with 100% accurately with your own words.

          Again, your feelings are unimportant to me. You are very obviously ill, so I take no pleasure in making you look foolish, well, maybe a tiny bit, but I’m genuinely trying to explain legal reality to you, and you are actively trying to refute it, and in doing so, using arguments that you yourself have argued against within the last 72 hours.

          I’m sorry you feel like the world is out to get you, it really isn’t. It just doesn’t care, but you must recognize that ignoring reality is not a good way to live in this world.

        9. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh Val… you’re back…

          Got an actual argument yet or do you want to explain to the class why deliberately misrepresenting your opponent in a debate is a recipe for getting your ass humiliated?

          The hilarious part to me is that feminazis like you are in a lose-lose situation. Either your misandrist bullshit loses and vile harpies like you are mocked like the despicable scum that you are or you win and the third world takes over… Betcha you’ll like their solutions to your bullshit a whole lot less than mine. But hey, if you want to be the guest star of the latest taharush goat-rapist ganbgang hour, feel free to buy yourself a ticket to Quatar and leave the civilized world out of it. God knows that’s the only way you’ll ever get a sober man to touch you after you open your mouth around him for more than five minutes.

        10. avatar RogueVal says:

          Somehow do you think you’re making an argument, in English at least? It’s pretty obvious that you’re bonkers, unable to grasp reality? Only one of us keeps talking about their predilection for hookers, your continual insults to anything about nice, stable relationships with women, indeed, women in general. Normal heterosexual males have splendid relationships with women, why are you stupendously, indefinably, spiteful about them, and why so down on normal men that actually like their wives and kids? Plus you’re allergic to spelling, grammar, logic, etc.

          Do you think you’re converting minds to some principle? I’ve yet to figure out what it is you keep babbling on about. You try to use Alinsky-ite strategies, but you can’t seem to figure out if you’re extreme left, alt-right, anarcho-fascist, it just bounces around. You make up stories that fit a narrative, ahem, strawmen, that are unrelated to the topic, like that’s going to somehow obscure the actual facts, if birds had gills, then obviously hamburgers need laptop. It’s thought salad.

          Are you even the same person, is this some sort of shared account that 8 people use?

          I’m going to refrain from making you feel so bad for a while, obviously, you have some deep seeded need to act like you know some things. I think it would probably be better for you to take a mental health day, and try to figure out what it is that has you so wound up about grown men having sex with children.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…mistake of age is not a defense in Texas.’

      No it wouldn’t be, TX being a strict liability state. But that has no bearing on whether being deliberately defrauded into breaking the law is a legitimate defense.

      And if it’s not a legitimate defense then the law in TX is wrong.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Val doesn’t care about right and wrong… According to her legal theory we should charge the 30yo victim of a 16yo ganbanger rapist with statutory rape.

        1. avatar Rick says:

          I thought the 16 year old was a girl. I haven’t heard that she was in a gang? Where is this written up so I can see it, because all the news I’ve seen said it was consensual, just her being underage.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s a thought experiment expanding Val’s position to its logical conclusion.

          If criminal acts by others are not a defense to strict liability, then the context in which the intercourse occurred literally doesn’t matter. Thus, expanding that thread of logic, if a 16yo ganbanger rapes a woman at knifepoint in a dark alley, two crimes occurred.
          1. The forcible rape of the 30yo woman.
          2. The statutory rape of the gangbanger by the 30yo woman.

          Naturally, such a position is patently absurd, but it is the logical conclusion of what Val has been spouting for the past few days. Feminazis aren’t huge on logic, so she decided to start throwing around ad-hominem attacks rather than refuting the argument or admitting that perhaps context does matter, in which case, the “good faith” standard has to apply.

        3. avatar Rick says:

          Are you saying that is a scenario you are proposing, you’re saying that forcible rape is the same as statutory rape? I’m not being difficult, are you saying that, or is someone else saying that? I thought this was about the Cody Wilson’s case in Austin which there has been no reporting about physical force at all, I just reread the Austin Statesman article. https://www.statesman.com/news/local/gun-advocate-cody-wilson-posts-150-000-bail-released-houston/1uYJ8W7099GHHrmDrWVb8I/

          He paid his bond and he’s out, I did look up the bail amount and he got the max, if there was physical violence or drugs, I guess, then it would have been a rape charge and bail would have been much higher.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Nice try, but a 17 year-old girl lying and saying that she is 18 is not comparable to rape. First of all, it’s not a crime to say you’re 18. There is also ZERO coercion, except that coming from his blue balls, which the court does not recognize as a legal defense.

          It’s actually pretty simple. Don’t bang underage girls. Most people don’t have a problem with this.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Actually, it is a crime. It’s called fraud.

        6. avatar pg2 says:

          Funny how do don’t give a shit about the CDC fraud resulting in autism, SIDS, and the most unhealthy generation of disabled children this country has ever seen. You really do hate women and children, don’t you? Makes sense.

  13. avatar jwm says:

    I’m getting old and slow. I should have thought of this before. Did cody buy his air plane ticket the day he left? Or was this a planned trip that just had weird timing?

  14. avatar Joe smith says:

    When a man has powerful enemies, he would be well advised to keep everything on the down low. Dont go around doing private stuff and telling everyone who you are. Cody, I admire your fight for freedom, but you are an idiot.

  15. avatar Kap says:

    when I lived in Texas it was legal for a 12 year old too marry! then it went too 14, not sure now! but it seems a 16 year old, out too make a buck, hooked Cody Wilson into the Game finding out who he was made her turn him in so she and parents could sue for a bigger payday!
    Probably a Democrat family!

  16. avatar US says:

    Pwrserge, give up on arguing with RogueVal. The guy obviously has a statist/bootlicker mentality to a pretty strong degree. His whole argument is more or less a glorified version of “well that’s the law so that’s that.”

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      I think Val is a woman, and she’s been kicking serges hypocrite ass all weekend on this. While many of us agree that if this minor misrepresented herself, Wilson should be exonerated, Val has exposed serge(again) as lying, insecure, woman and child hating hypocrite. Serge is not doing gun owners and people supporting the individual rights, including the 2nd Amendment, any favors. If he was getting paid to make us look like mentally unstable losers, he couldn’t be doing a better job.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        RogueVal has nothing better to do than troll the shit out of pwrserge incessantly. They are both a couple of billy goats banging heads together, and they have the mentality of such.

        RogueVal is not a woman, but a video game character. I’m guessing RogueVal is just a trolling keyboard warrior getting his jollies off infuriating the serge. They are both guilty of lying and strawmen. I don’t see RogueVal as anything better than pwrserge.

        Serge is not doing gun owners and people supporting the individual rights, including the 2nd Amendment, any favors.

        Neither is some keyboard warrior sitting at his computer ready for some multiplayer action, head phones on, trolling the shit out of TTAG regulars solely for the point of making them rabid for everyone to see.

        RogueVal would never concede anything remotely linked with pwrserges argument, regardless of its validity. He’s like a baby chick in a pen full of other baby chicks. He sees a little spot on one of the other chicks (in this case, pwrserges temper and relentless drive for a perceived injustice) and what does RogueVal do? Just peck at, endlessly, and it seems only for the sake of pecking at it. He gets enjoyment out of the pecking. That’s why he continues. That’s why he’s still here. And he’s obsessive about it. No doubt about that, even to the point of archiving and indexing Serges own comments so he can post 37 pages of those comments here.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Agree, to a point. I don’t have much experience with val, but have seen enough of serges bullshit to know he either a pathological liar, or some paid freak trying to make gun owners look bad online. I did notice Val making huge assumptions, but they deserve each other.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          I never had any problem with pwrserge, and typically agreed with the points that he tried to make (gun control wise), except for his insane forced immunization program he had dreams of implementing. His state mandated vaccine program I disagreed with. But he’s always been a bit hard headed and rigidly opinionated, which is good and bad. He’s been here a long time though. Longer than RogueVal, and I don’t think he is trying to make gun owners look bad. I just think he’s really excited about the things he values and he’s also really excited about perceived injustices. I think Cody Wilson is the more articulate and better entrepreneurial version of pwrserge (with exception to the kiddie shafting part), and pwrserge deeply aligned and supported Cody Wilson’s aim, and he is pissed off about what is happening here, with Cody, and he’s got RogueVal pecking him endlessly while he tries to put his thoughts out here. What they are doing isn’t helping anything at all. Pwrserge is saying that the law isn’t fair, and RogueVal is rubbing the law in his face.

          And even though Cody unzipped and shafted a 16 year old (allegedly!). The idea of such is very disappointing, because Cody was kind of an unstoppable force against gun control. Granted, it was all eye candy. It was all politics. The files have always been in the public domain and shared. But Cody was the voice of it. Cody was the face of it. And Cody did a great job, honestly, he was articulate, and masterful with his words. And the left didn’t like to see his face and didn’t like to hear his voice. And I was really excited about seeing how it ended. 21 AGs suing him. Him laughing at them, and sharing the files anyways for $0.01. It was epic for those that supported freedom. But – if true – all our disappointments are materializing, at the concept of Cody unzipping and shafting a 16 year old. And I suspect RogueVal never really cared about Cody’s gun control aim, and pwrserge deeply did. And so their aggression for each other, to me, manifests itself on different layers.

          That’s by guess anyways.

        3. avatar pg2 says:

          It’s likely most rational people share serges opinion on this, that IF Wilson had sex with a minor who misrepresented herself, the charges are bullshit. The problem is how he states it. Outside of the allegations, we have no real information on this. Serges blatantly hypocritical stance on mandatory vaccination….he’ll lie to the point of posting links which do not even back his opinions and feelings, but maybe he believes a link in itself is all the proof he needs regardless of the content? I stick to my position on this, he makes himself look bad along with gun owners in general. No respect for him, he deserves another troll busting his balls.

        4. avatar Rick says:

          I know that I looked up the things Val posted, and he/her were right on the law. I’m not a lawyer, so I didn’t know that mens rea hasn’t really been a thing for a long while. I sort of knew they you didn’t need to know the law, ignorance of the law, to break it. I’d never heard about the model penal code, you can even learn things on the internet.

          Lots of people have been talking about fraud as some sort of excuse, for stat. rape, I really don’t give a hoot about why you slept with a kid. If you slept with a kid, and Cody is far from close enough in age to get any benefit of the doubt from me, F that guy.

          As for serge, who cares, if he’s arguing on a side, I think I’ll choose the other side. He’s the example of you’re not helping in an argument. He builds these elaborate strawmen to argue about something that has nothing to do with reality, then claims that reality is the strawman. I went around with him on the 1st amendment and just won’t do that again, the constitution is right there for you to read, if you don’t like the words, as we tell the gun grabbers, there’s a way to change it, go for it. So F that guy too.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    The age of consent is 16 in 31 states.

    Is a 16 yo (the legal age) in Massachusetts more mature than a 18 yo (the legal age) in California, or is the age of consent purely political?

    1. And how does that apply to Texas!/? Age of Consent in 2018 in Texas is 17, which she wasn’t according to the article…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email