Megan Partin: Pedophile or Party Girl?
Gonzales, LA - Pedophile or jackass? You be the judge. Megan N. Partin, 19, bought herself a keg of trouble last month when she was arrested on a simple count of marijuana possession. During that arrest, police say that her cell phone camera confirmed drug use. No big deal, right? Lots of people smoke a little weed. Some stupid people even take pictures of themselves hitting the pipe, so whatever. Except that when police officers got a search warrant to examine the contents of the cell phone, they found “explicit” videos involving a little boy under seven years old. Um, WHAT?
Now please note that Miss Partin is a white girl who does pageants and therefore has parents who will no doubt have obtained her the finest available legal counsel. Should said counsel locate this page, hi there, and welcome to the site! Please note that no copyright or other laws have been infringed upon during the making of this article.
Megan Partin has a Myspace with lots and lots of public pictures. Mostly, they’re her senior pics and party pics and pics of her hugging people and sticking her tongue out, but there is a definite propensity, albeit a tame one, for dumbass party pictures. I’m a big fan of this one:
But here’s the thing. I really wanted to give this girl a break. I can kinda see a stupid party girl, boundaries already blurred by years of pageants and keg-stands, shooting some cell video of a little kid taking a piss or a bath. I really don’t know whether that would get her arrested in Gonzales, Louisiana. Maybe that’s all it would take.
But there was something on that cell phone that police found disturbing enough to toss a cute white girl in the slammer and hit her with multiple charges of molestation. Molestation means that she was touching the kid, or having the kid touch her. And this is a little boy, not yet seven. Somehow I’m not at all sure she was just blowing raspberries on his tummy in light of those charges.
Megan Partin has been booked on possession of child pornography, indecent behavior with a juvenile, two counts of molestation of a juvenile and contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. As of last night, she was being held in the Ascension Parish jail, and bond had not yet been set. And now, here’s Morbid with the weather!
Hi Lindsey–
The reason Kathy suspected you of playing with Barbies (since you asked why she did) is probably because you don’t actually write in sentences…
But onward: it’s totally understandable that you were upset when you first posted (and also why our responses were what they were, especially when you consider, as others have said, that what all of us who post have in common is our extreme dislike for people who abuse children).
If she’s innocent, that’s wonderful and it sucks that she had to go through that over some pot, which many people who post here, myself included, think should be legal anyway.
If she was manhandled unnecessarily by the arresting officers, as you say, that’s a real shame. Also not that surprising. There are police who abuse their positions of power. Heck, there are people who got badges in order to be jerks. And, yes, I would think it was wrong even if she is guilty.
That said,***Unless*** the police in your area are just complete wasters of taxpayer money, there’s something bad on that phone. It’s interesting that they didn’t also charge her with possession of child pornography if there are allegedly pictures of her molesting a child. The kid, anyway, may have his clothes on in these pics. There are some other possibilities, though.
Anyway, y’all, you’d have to go thru all the case law to know for sure what the penal code means in practice, but no, a picture of a kid in his underwear or even naked such as a mother might take (a non-pedo mother, of course), like a kid splashing around in the tub, is not the issue–and wouldn’t be EVEN IF this were a PORN case. Which it isn’t. She was arrested for alleged MOLESTATION…
…no idea how I posted that one part twice. sorry!
And the truth is, if Lindsey hadn’t reminded us, Megan Partin wouldn’t stand out in our minds at all.
True, Lizard, true. But now I’m truly curious about what these are pictures OF…because I forgot this wasn’t a porn charge but a series of molestation charges. We were all going on about “what if it’s a picture of a kid naked playing a guitar.” Lindsey, do you know yet why they charged her?
She was charged with possession of child pornography, indecent behavior with a juvenile, two counts of molestation of a juvenile and contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile. Yet it was Lindsey who said it was a picture of the kid playing a guitar in his underwear.
Something is being left out in this story.
Yeah, is he playing the guitar or humping it?
Thanks, Kathy, I kinda lost track. To follow up on your earlier posting about the Cali penal code, for child pornography there has to be engagement in “sexual conduct” with the child
Code 311.3 (is this what you posted before, Kathy?I can’t recall) stipulates that they define “sexual conduct” as:
(1) Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital,
anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or
opposite sex or between humans and animals.
(2) Penetration of the vagina or rectum by any object.
(3) Masturbation for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the
viewer.
(4) Sadomasochistic abuse for the purpose of sexual stimulation of
the viewer.
(5) Exhibition of the genitals or the pubic or rectal area of any
person for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer.
(6) Defecation or urination for the purpose of sexual stimulation
of the viewer.
***You’ll note that some of these, like 6, must not be what’s recorded in the picture, since she was also charged with molestation.
Funny… Lindsey is suprisingly mute now… can’t come up with anymore bullshit, honey?
::yawn::
Cali Penal Code 288.a (Child Molestation):
288. (a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or
lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes
provided for in Part 1, upon or with the body, or any part or member
thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent
of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or
sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three,
six, or eight years.
Yeah…To get hit with child molestation in CA, they must reasonably think you actually touched the child for the purpose of sexual gratification.
hence-she is a disgusting bitch
They are in Louisiana though. I cited that earlier.
They don’t have to touch there, but someone has to be getting sexual gratification at the encouragement or persuasion of the adult. Which is why I am thinking that maybe Morbid was right when he siad it may have been video of the kid masturbating or simulating masturbation.
Oh, thanks, Kathy. Well…I guess I really did lose track. Yep, sounds like you’re right. Well, if that’s the case, there is no excuse for recording a child masturbating (while being egged on or whatever). Honestly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone with common sense would realize that’s child pornography. And as for egging the child on while doing so? No excuse at all. Picture this: an adult, saying “yeah, yeah, touch yourself, yeah,” and filming it? That’s completely sick, even assuming that there was no actual “sexual gratification” of the adult. This kid will be very exploitable in the future. That’s really sad.
You don’t have to touch in LA to get a molestation charge? That’s all sorts of problematic, I can imagine. CA penal code is easy to find, and I didn’t reckon it would vary too dramatically from one state to another, regarding the definitions of the specific charges. My mistake.
Yeah…I’m not sure I’m ready to demonize this girl, knowing that.
Really, Athena? Would you–seriously–stand there and film a child masturbating? Man, I hope not…I guess it seems very wrong to me on principle.
Just to refresh our collective memory on what molestation is defined as in the state, below is the actual wording of the Louisiana penal code (which suggests that if the kid was filmed masturbating, it wasn’t just a case of “I just happened to see it” while my camera was pointing that way”). Commisioned? I think that’s pretty darn bad. But for what purpose would one film something like that anyway, with or without commissioning kid to do it/continue doing it on film? But here’s the wording:
Molestation of a juvenile is the commission by anyone over the age of seventeen of any lewd or lascivious act upon the person or in the presence of any child under the age of seventeen, where there is an age difference of greater than two years between the two persons, with the intention of arousing or gratifying the sexual desires of either person, by the use of force, violence, duress, menace, psychological intimidation, threat of great bodily harm, or by the use of influence by virtue of a position of control or supervision over the juvenile. Lack of knowledge of the juvenile’s age shall not be a defense.
For those with reading comprehension issues, I will state it more clearly:
I’m not comfortable with the “child molestation” charge not involving direct contact with a child. There are plenty of other laws that cover that type of behavior. If you don’t have to actually physically touch a child to incur a molestation charge, that means there are a number of less clearly defined behaviors that qualify. “Less clearly defined” is a bad thing, when it comes to the law.
We have no idea what is on that phone, if I recall correctly.
You are all talking like you know what was on that tape. Everyones imput is appropriate if our assumptions are true. What if they’re not? Instead of speculating about whats on the tape, lets condemn her for the FACT that she was CHARGED and INCARCERATED for child molestation. Period. She has NOT yet been exonerated. Nor has she been CONVICTED. Don’t cast stones at Athena for wanting to give this girl the benefit of the doubt. That’s her decision to make. In my opinion, she is a little pedo-skeeze, but that is neither here nor there. I’m just saying, don’t talk shit if you don’t know what you’re talking about. With the exception, of course, of the girl in question.
Jeeze.
What if the kid was playing guitar in his underwear and Miss Thang flashed her boobs at him, like some people might do at a concert? Would that qualify? I have no clue, just saying…
Athena: please don’t be rude. I don’t have “reading comprehension issues.” You get zero points for saying so, although I’m sorry if I offended you. You wrote what you wrote. I’m happy to take responsibility for what I wrote. I asked a rhetorical question, no? So, peace. MY point was, if it wasn’t clear: I think commissioning a kid to jack off and filming it are demonizable.
Meanwhile, it doesn’t really matter what anyone is comfortable with; I mean, the laws of that state are the laws of that state. The law is pretty clearly defined in LA, actually, I’d say, although I won’t be rude and cranky and accuse you of having “reading comprehension issues.” It does seem clear to me, though: “An adult commissioning a child for the sexual gratification of either party constitutes molestation in Louisiana.” And then the finer details get worked out in case law, precedents are set. That’s how it goes. “Law” isn’t just about the penal code, it’s also about the case law.
Funkmama: you can cool your jets. I haven’t cast any stones at Athena. The issue there, also, wasn’t about “the benefit of the doubt.” Everyone ahas said repeatedly that the girl might not have done anything. I’VE said it. A lot. I’ve even used the word “alleged.” The question was whether or not people should be demonized (Athena’s word) for what Kathy and Morbid guessed might have happened.
Meanwhile: no one knows what was on the tape, but if you read the penal code and then think about it, there are not many possibilities that come to mind. What KATHY AND MORBID SUGGESTED might be the case is frankly one of the lesser crimes of molestation that can be imagined in this case, no?
As I’ve said BEFORE, though, yes, maybe these are just terrible cops wasting taxpayer money over nothing.
I am gonna say it. Put me on the cross if you must.
The more I read, the longer I wait for more info, the less likely I am ready to send this chick to hell. Until I know, exactly “what” was in that cell phone video I am undecided on my verdict. Maybe she was stupid, stoned, drunk, I don’t know. I will wait before I place my judgement. She just doesn’t fit the profile- I know, there are exceptions. I know.
HAHAHA!
Athena, I hope we’re cool. I have to go. And no, I wasn’t suggesting you would do that. It was a rhetorical…peace. In fact, in the sake of please, I’ll assume your reading comprehension dig was also rhetorical.
Here’s the thing: someone could do something in violation of that code w/out meaning anything perverted about it and w/out ill intentions, stupid, drunk, or stoned, or not. We’ll have to wait and see what the “something” in question consists of…
With all respect, Funkmama, people can cast stones at whoever they see fit. Including other members.
Besides, I am not one to condemn people just because they were charged. If I did, I would have been blasting Bobby Jones for his sunburned kid instead of being on his side.
This girl is not a pedophile any more than an 18-year-old charged with sex crimes for pulling down the pants of a 15-year-old girl as a prank. She may be dumb for filming this and saving it, but she is no pedophile.
I agree.
Being a guitar connoisseur I must say that few things can liberate a persons mind and laziness than playing their guitar in a set of skivies, it’s actually quite fun, but I feel that the odds of that being the case are astronomical as I have yet to play the guitar in my undies and have some woman flash me or cell phone tape me while touching me.
as for the videotape and all that stuff, something spooked the authorities into these charges and a good chunk of info has yet to see the light of day, but I can gurantee that once she was pulled in drunk and high, an old saying came into play “in vino veritas” (In wine lies Truth)
some little boy touching, Beer bonging, Blunt smoking pageant queen got caught up and in a stupor sobbingly confessed to these crimes. once again, someone needs a hobby other than drug use, molestation and promiscuity.
Right, if it’s a film of a kid jacking off. It’s still child porn, though. One doesn’t usually think of a non-pedo creating child porn, but that could have happened here. Bizarre case. If she did it, it doesn’t mean she’s a pedo, but it means she made a big mistake. And it also means, unfortunately–and this is the demonizable part to me–that this kid is now likely to associate certain things with his sexuality–praise from adults, encouragement from adults, filming by adults, being watched by adults. It’s “grooming,” even if it wasn’t meant that way–which I can well imagine it wasn’t (and, once again, we don’t actually know what happened, I know). So, sometimes people do stupid things that can harm children, without thinking about the child’s best interests…doesn’t mean they aren’t guilty of harming the child. If she didn’t intend something shitty, then I’m sure that will be taken into account. I would surely hope so, anyway.
At the risk of being flame broiled…
would we even be having this conversation about possible innocence of this was a male instead of an very attractive brunette female??
Just askin….please carry on…
double standards do suck, but it is the natural way of things, they will always exist and that is the sad thing.
Good point, but it doesn’t hurt that her myspace page–the personality it projects–supports the idea of did-something-foolish, didn’t-mean-anything-bad-by-it. That isn’t the same as being innocent, though, and it doesn’t mean whatever she did was right as regards this mysterious footage on her phone.
I am bothered by the fact that, according to Lindsey, this was already a vulnerable little boy who may in some way already have been victimized. Didn’t Lindsey say his parents were already being investigated, independently of this, by DCF? I wonder what they are being investigated for, exactly, and I hope whatever act is represented in the footage (the alleged, mysterious, not-badly-intentioned, etc, whatever footage) doesn’t add to whatever issues he may already have. Because that’s what makes it all the more condemnable, to me.
Actually, Sugarglider, you changed the text of that law (though you put it in quotes), and in so doing, changed the meaning. The original text which appeared in post 166:
So Molestation is the commission of the act upon the juvenile….as in: the act has been committed upon them. It has nothing to do with commissioning (remunerating) the juvenile to perform said acts.
Double standards exist because men and women are different. Stereo-types exist because there is truth to them. If not, we wouldn’t have comedians. They are both generalizations and there are exceptions to all. Stil,l I tend to go with the odds and my gut. I will wait for the evidence.
This has nothing to do with her looks. It has everything to do with the circumstances surrounding this arrest, her friends, the fact that the family of the boy is supporting her, etc. She may have committed a crime by definition, but she is not a (sexual) threat to children, and not a pedophile.
There is a double standard also present because there IS a difference when dealing with the two sexes. I feel that it is more likely that a young woman may find it funny to see a 7-year-old boy running around pulling his pud. Not sexual.
Had a man been filming, and encouraging, a 7-year-old girl to finger herself, well…that just seems different. Under the law, both cases would be the same, but to me they are not.
I have a good friend of mine who had a lot of pictures taken of her naked, in the tub, taking a bath with her son who was probably around two. They were developed at Wal-Mart. No questions by them or anyone else she showed the to. Let a man do the same with his daughter and see what happens.
yeah, morbid makes a great point, some thing that men do arent suitable for women and vice versa. james hetfield once said “You know its sad but true”
Well since we actually don’t have any facts outside of what she has been charged with I am going to wait and see. I think assumptions are becoming facts here but I could be wrong.
There is nothing verifying the photo or video is of a boy (under the age of 7 as the charge states) in his underwear playing a guitar. That came from “a friend”.
As for masturbation, it is possible the boy may have his hand on his penis but all we know is this boy is under 7 years of age. Yes young boys sometimes touch themselves however they don’t “masturbate” like an adult. Someone may have been instructing him to touch himself I suppose.
Anyway since we have not one more fact about this case since the day Imp wrote the story I am surprised that folks are suddenly changing their opinions about this case.
My opinion hasn’t changed at all. I am almost willing to bet that the charges will be dropped.
My opinion hasn’t changed either. I still think Megan is a dirty dirty girl who filmed something that she thought was funny but turns out that it was against the law and she got busted.
If she gets charges dropped because of a double standard, I will be disappointed. I will also be happy that I am the mother of a daughter, because it looks like even the pre-pubescent boys can’t be protected against sex crimes.
It is difficult to speculate because I don’t know what really was on her phone. There should be no double standard between the sexes I agree Kathy. This is a boy under the age of 7 period and if he was my son this little twit would have more to fear from me than she would the cops.
Just chiming in on the “Differences between the sexes” thing. Not particularly as it involves this case, since we don’t know any specifics about what may be on the camera phone, but just in general:
There are biological differences between the sexes. A female doesn’t have to be “aroused” in order to be forced to commit a sexual act; depending on the act, a male does have to be aroused. The vast majority of males are physically stronger than the vast majority of females–testosterone and muscle mass are going to win out over even the most fit of females–so the issue and threat of physical force is much more prevalent with male threatening female than it is vice-versa.
There is also the issue of possible pregnancy with females; there isn’t the same issue with males. Pregnancy at a young age can be extremely difficult and physically dangerous for a girl; fathering a child at a young age just isn’t physically dangerous for a boy in the same way. Yes, they are both emotionally and psychologically at risk from young parenthood, but statistically, young mothers–much more so than young fathers–are much more at risk of dropping out of school and living in poverty (thereby increasing the burden on society–which is part of what all laws must consider; the collective good, not just the individual good).
There really isn’t a double-standard when it comes to sentencing female vs. male sex offenders in molestation cases. There might be a societal double standard, but there isn’t a sentencing double standard. While male offenders tend to get harsher sentences, that’s because those cases generally involved either multiple victims, a greater discrepancy between the age of the molester and the age of the victim, or threats and/or use of force. When you look at similar cases–first-time offenders, no physical forced used, etc.–female offenders get much stiffer sentences than do males…perhaps because girls are sexualized so young in our society that we don’t tend to look on “male teacher dates female student” as harshly as “female teacher dates male student,” despite the social perception that we actually treat the two scenarios vice-versa. (After all, all studies show how much more quickly girls mature.)
Not that any of this relates to this particular case–or any case involving pre-pubescent children. Just that that particular misconception is a pet peeve of mine. There is no “easier on female offenders” when it comes to sentencing sex offenders–statistics just don’t bear that out. And when we throw it around like it’s fact, it just tends to obscure the fact that when you look at the rates of sexual assault, women are far more likely to be the victims than they ever are to “get away with” anything. On the other hand, how many times is a female rape victim not believed, or told that she “asked for it?” There’s no pro-female bias in the court system.
http://www.slate.com/id/2134158/
Ruby, I’m pretty sure that the confusing legalese-language of the law provides for the commission of the juvenile committing said acts upon themselves. Legal language really is hard to glean understanding from (I should know–I went to law school for a yr, then quit ’cause it wasn’t my cup o’ tea), but one can commit an act upon oneself. So, I still am with Morbid’s guesses about what went down…at least, I think it was Morbid…dang, this is an old story now…though I still want to know what actually happened…
thanks to leemouse for setting the record straight about megan. im glad to know everyone isn’t so quick to believe the worst. i know megan as well and i have children. not everyone has dirty thoughts when taking pictures of their children in the tub or of them running around naked. its just funny. thats what little children do and parents take pictures cause thats what we do. the parents that take them for dirty reasons are sick people. chldren are a gift from god. treat them as such
Looks like ‘ol Meg’s Roman Catholic priests taught her well. Even the crackers are getting caught.