An ex-cop from Missouri will spend the next seven years in prison not for having sex with a 17-year-old boy, but for taking nude pictures of him.
47-year-old Justin Watson was working as a highway patrol trooper in south-central Missouri at the time of the offense. He also umpired baseball games at Mountain View Liberty High, which is where he met the 17-year-old.
The two engaged in a consensual sexual relationship. At some point, Watson took four x-rated photos of the teen on the teen’s cellphone and then sent them to his own device. Unbeknownst to him, however, in doing so, he was violating a federal child porn law.
Under Missouri law, the legal age of consent for sex with a 17-year-old. Taking nudie pictures, however, has to wait until a person is 18.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
There is another Missouri law that outlaws school employees and volunteers from engaging in sexual contact with students.
Because of this, Watson faced a potential 20-year prison sentence.
Prosecutors recommended a 12-year sentence for “grave abuse of the defendant’s position of power”. Meanwhile, Watson’s attorney, Brian Risley, asked for something closer to the federal minimum, which is five years.
Risley argued that the relationship between Watson and the 17-year-old was consensual and that Watson immediately took responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty.
But Judge Doug Harpool was unmoved, calling the case “complex and peculiar” and voicing his disapproval of a 40-something man sleeping with a 17-year-old boy.
This week, Harpool sentenced Watson to seven years in federal prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release.
“Photographing sexual activity by people who are minors under federal law is not something that can be tolerated,” the judge said.
Related: Teacher busted for hooking up in classroom during school hours with student he met on Grindr
justgeo
Why would a kid put out for this troll?
PoetDaddy
What a lovely thing to say. You must be a very happy person.
JamJewel
You assume the kid isn’t a troll himself! You should broaden your perspective before making a silly statement like that!
Donston
Yes, who knows how the teenager looks. Also, there are plenty of young pretty people in relationships with older individuals who many would consider not everyone’s version of “attractive”. While a decent percentage of “queers” in particular are known to mostly date quite older for a variety of different reasons.
Heywood Jablowme
“Why would a kid put out for this troll?”
$$$ 🙂
jonmcw
Your comment shows your ignorance.
Why shouldn’t he?
jakejacob
That is so wrong to say. Did you ever think he’s probably good in bed.
darren michaels
Considering physical attraction is subjective and different for everyone
whats unattractive to one is a considerable turn on to another.
Whos to say, to each his own.
But justgeo, how can we be sure it’s not you who is the troll.
Tearing another down to build yourself up.?
“Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You”.
TimothyBeauchamp
I would have when I was 17. He looks like a hot daddy, ex-police officer and probably hung like a horse. LOL! That said, yea, he shouldn’t have done it since he worked for school and the whole taking photos of him sleeping naked was pretty damned stupid.
batesmotel
He’s not a troll in everyone’s eyes. From the perspective of a teenager I probably would’ve gone for it.
seaguy
Your kid.
Raphael
Great, we have murderers that walk away, but taking a few consensual pictures with someone who you can legally sleep with, can get you 20 years in prison… And he got 5 + 10 supervised years? What happened to community service!? Also, since it’s legal, this judge should mind his own business about the age thing.
Satman_99
My thoughts exactly! Punishment should fit the crime. We’re building more prisons than schools for these nonviolent crimes, seriously?!
Heywood Jablowme
How were they “consensual” pictures when he was asleep?
Greg
The relationship was consensual, not the pictures.
Mozo83
“But Judge Doug Harpool was unmoved, calling the case “complex and peculiar” and voicing his disapproval of a 40-something man sleeping with a 17-year-old boy.”
Um, but the law you’re to follow says the 17-year-old isn’t one. I’m not for hooking up with students, legal and certainly not otherwise, but methinks the judge has issues with teh gayz!
batesmotel
I agree. It’s Missouri, so I think it’s more that it’s two males.
SinthiaDoom
I totally agree, if I read the article correctly, the crime was sending the pics from the 17yo’s phone to his phone period. Wether or not the pic was consensual and that their relationship was against school policy were two separate matters. Yes he should have been terminated for breaking school policy. The jails are full enough, he should have received probation for this offense.
Lacuevaman
unfortunate…. no one won here…. certainly not John q public.
oldgayguy
The american justice system seems to be out of control. Completely politicized. I agree 17 years old perhaps is a bit young if the other person is in a position of trust or authourity. But seven years? Insane. Three months maybe.
JamJewel
This is America today!
A cop can kill someone and continue to work a desk job racking up enough overtime to double his salary….
A 50-year-old evangelical can marry a 12-year-old girl with her parent’s consent….
I wonder if Judge Doug Harpool, Deacon of the South Haven Baptist Church, finds “disapproval” in any of these.
There also seems to be an attempt to “get” him since they couldn’t charge him under state or local law which is how he ended up in front of a federal court judge….. only because of the pictures.
Esscourt
Welcome to Trump Land.
t
The judge doesn’t approve of a 40 something year old man sleeping with a 17 year old boy (man) but I’d bet he wouldn’t have a problem if it were a 17 year old female. The 17 year old is an adult according to that state’s laws but they are outlawing nude pics being taken of the legal adult male according to the age of consent? Two ridiculous issues with this situation. Missouri – the “Show Me State” unless they are nude pics taken by a man OF a man but only after a certain number of years once the boy becomes and adult by age of consent. A bit discriminatory how the state can say WHEN to allow nude photos be taken between two consenting adults.
Billy Budd
The sentence is completely absurd. He should be acquitted.
Donston
This is ridiculous. If in that state he can have consensual sex and a relationship with someone that is 17 giving him seven years for taking photos of that person (and apparently not posting online) makes zero sense. It’s morally questionable, to say the least, for a guy to volunteer to be a coach and hook up teenage students. And maybe some jail time is warranted and certainly a firing. But that’s just too far.
rray63
This is yet another case of the police, DA, and judges doing whatever they want to members of the LBGTQ community. I was held in a horrible GA jail for almost a year. They never prosecuted because there was not a case. If, IF, they had investigated they would have known this, however, they didn’t bother. In the end the judge used some GA legal trickery and dead-docketed the case. They set me free. Never a trial or anything but took that time from my life and I can never sue the state of GA or anyone involved as long as they keep it in dead-docket status. I have asked for help from every LGBTQ group and can’t even get a return phone call to ask what my case is about. I called the ACLU, they won’t help, again, never asked. Wrote to Oprah, Ellen and the list goes on, never even an email that said what happened. If you don’t fit a certain profile, you are ignored. Tell me life is fair. This man’s life is ruined. Mine was and I was never even in a courtroom except for the day the judge said, “we have to let him go, we’ve held him almost a year”. Anyone else with similar situation?
Greg
You left something out. What were you being held for? Why did you get arrested in the first place? Nobody ever said life is fair.
Kangol
Why were you arrested and jailed initially
Kangol
Let me try again: Why were you arrested and jailed initially? You mention contacting LGBTQ organizations; did you speak with the Gay Family Law Center? They are based in California, but they may be able to direct you to someone who can help you in Georgia. There’s also Lambda Legal, and Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia, which might be able to locate a lawyer near you to help.
rray63
@Lacuevaman, your compassion shows what is wrong with all communities, not just ours. Change your name to caveman.
geb1966
You want compassion & understanding then you might answer the question that has been posed 3 times already, dude. Why were you arrested? The fact that you leave that IMPORTANT detail out tends to cast suspicion on your claims. If you were wrongfully incarcerated, you’d think you’d tell why.
Vince
Anyone see the connection between Missouri and it’s tough hiv penalty laws and this? I’ve always known this had more to do with criminalizing gay sex then protecting victims.
Esscourt
I’m sorry, but a 17-year-old is not a boy.
Mick406
Damned right. The 17 year old could have probably enticed the older man into ‘activities’. There wasn’t much I wouldn’t do at that age. I think the sex laws are WAY to harsh for non-violent things like this. Just a few months in age is all that separated this from being illegal to legal. The judge should have given the man some slack, especially after knowing the young stud was all for it and never mentioned he felt he was violated. This case was way overblown. Feel sorry for the man.
Jay
Be that as it may, but the older man took the pictures of someone under 18. I am not judging his relationship with the younger guy, but he was a police officer so you can’t tell me he didn’t know the risks of keeping naked pics of an underage person.
Greg
The cop took pictures of the 17 year-old, then sent them to his phone. How did the anybody, the authorities find out? The judge said, “Photographing sexual activity by people who are minors under federal law is not something that can be tolerated,” The cop wasn’t a minor.
PinkoOfTheGange
Federal courts have minimum sentencing guild lines. This sentence fits that. Don’t like it, elect congress people to change the law.
But want too hear a good one? Two 17 year olds doing the same thing could get the same sentence.
Jay
Could not agree more. It is the laws that are the problem. He most certainly knew the law, and decided to break it, so he knew the risks.
Lacuevaman
simple. obey the rules and obey the law. granted a hard dick has no conscious but a wise man can avoid the temptations. ….or don’t…..and then…. stop your crying and do your time.
Mack
Talking about jail time, in Nevada they’re handing out mega sentences for different crimes, mainly sex crimes. The sentence don’t reflect the crime. Some are receiving more time for a sex crime than they are for murder or armed robbery.
Calin
What the fcuk, your concern is the kid should not be sleeping with an ugly troll!! This shouldn’t be happening at all. You people are demented.
Bob LaBlah
It serves him right. The idiot should have pulled out the old Polaroid Instamatic for those types of pics and put them out in the barn buried under the hay in the back of the horse bin. They still exist and film for them is still sold in stores. Of course I have no need to own one but a few of you girls out there should look into getting one to avoid such embarrassment.
QueerTruth
7 years???? That’s crazy. There better be more to this story. That’s ridiculous.
rray63
@Greg Let me put you in jail for almost a year, whatever the charge is. No investigation is conducted by the police or the DA. They finally let you out and dead-docket the case. I’ll tell you life isn’t fair bud.
crowebobby
Maybe the kid has discovered some bizarre reason to be attracted to another human being that doesn’t involve physical beauty. I can’t imagine it myself, but I suppose it’s possible.
Jay
As someone that works for the federal courts I can say the sentence is appropriate. It has nothing to do with the fact that they were both men, if it was an opposite sex couple, they would have been charged the same, and received similar sentences. The fact that he TOOK the pictures means production of child porn. Keeping them is possession fo child porn. The Judge has only so much discretion. These charges had a mandatory minimum of 5 years, so he could have gotten a lot more time. If you want to blame anyone, look at the US Attorney’s that decided to pursue the case. Or maybe Congress for not making exceptions to make a distinction between child pornographers and pedophiles and two consenting individuals.
As it was said earlier, if this was two 17 year olds, they could have gotten the same sentence. It is a crazy catch 22 that you can have sex with someone younger than 18 in most states, but take a picture gets you in a lot of trouble. I think the laws need to be changed. I see much much worse, like adults with actual children and toddlers that turn your stomach
IzzyLuna
What I’m wondering is – how did this leak and how was it revealed to the authorities? Did someone disapprove and tell? If so, whom?
Doug
The article doesn’t mention how the pictures were discovered… obviously the 17-year-old must have admitted the guy took them, as he could have denied it. Maybe they were found on the highway patrol officer’s cell phone? In any case, this has to be one of the most ridiculous laws I’ve ever heard of.
batesmotel
Yeah that was the first thing that crossed my mind as the information wasn’t in the article. And that is, how did the feds know about this? How did anyone know about this?
batesmotel
The sentencing is ridiculous. The age of consent was 17. But I’d like to know is how did they even know he sent those pics to his phone. The boy had to have told, but that doesn’t make sense either. Unless the feds are spying on the phone. Seems odd. Something missing in this story. And the jail sentence especially for that long is absurd. The judges response seemed more morally judgmental than legally judgmental. Because sleeping with the seventeen year old is not a crime there. Odd that sending photos is. So this now has to lose 7 years of his life over it. And finding a job in Missouri after that with a criminal offense won’t be easy either.
ROBTWILO
It’s a moral thing. The guy is much older and, should of thought about what he was doing. You might think it’s okay but at 17, most teenagers are still mentally developing. And, those who blame Trump for things like this, is unacceptable!! There are more Gay men in America, that support Trump. That’s just an excuse not a fact!! Every state has different laws.