Jared from Subway's house is currently being raided by the FBI...

Maximus said:

I didn't realize he was married and the father of two.

14 year olds? The younger the better? Jesus...

Click to expand...

There was a 14 year old?

gourimoko said:

There was a 14 year old?

Click to expand...

Edit: I'll just go straight to the story instead of screwing up the facts:

"Fogle is accused of having sex with two 16-year-old girls at hotels in New York City. One of the girls told investigators she had sex with Fogle three times in November 2012, when she was 16, and again two months later, when she was 17.

After that meeting, Fogle allegedly texted the girl and offered to pay her a fee if she could find him another underage girl to pay for sex acts.

During these discussions, Fogle "stated that he would accept a 16-year-old girl, while stating that the younger the girl, the better," the documents said.

Between 2011 and 2013, Fogle also repeatedly sent text messages to other escorts, "soliciting them to provide him with access to minors as young as 14 to 15 years," the documents said, adding that he would only make such requests after engaging in sex acts with the escorts to "insure that they were not undercover police officers."

The documents also alleged that Fogle on multiple occasions received sexually explicit images and videos produced by Russell Taylor, 43, who ran the charitable Jared Foundation.

Two months before Fogle's home was raided, authorities arrested Taylor on seven counts of production of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. Investigators said they discovered a cache of sexually explicit photos and videos Taylor allegedly produced by secretly filming minor children at his home.

Prosecutors also allege that Fogle received from Taylor multiple images and videos, some of which were taken by a video camera hidden in a clock radio that filmed children changing clothes or bathing. Some were taken in buildings were Taylor lived.

The documents said Fogle knew those depicted were minors, some as young as 13 or 14 years old, and in some cases knew the minors involved by name and had met them "during social events in Indiana."

In other cases, the documents said, Taylor allegedly obtained sexually explicit images taken by others outside the U.S., including videos of children around age 6, and shared them with Fogle."

spydy13 said:

I'm not sure if he actually was with a 14 year old, but he told a 17 year old girl he paid recently that he would give her money if he could find him someone that was 14/15 and that the younger they were the better.

Click to expand...

Is that a text message, or is that on tape, or do we just have her word to go on? Honest question.

gourimoko said:

Is that a text message, or is that on tape, or do we just have her word to go on? Honest question.

Click to expand...

I updated my post with the text from the article. It sounds like they have texts from him, so it's not just hearsay.

gourimoko said:

Is that a text message, or is that on tape, or do we just have her word to go on? Honest question.

Click to expand...

Read the article above. It's disturbing. The head of his foundation shared videos of kids...some as young has 6. Jared is paying $100k to over a dozen kids he had relations with.

Going to throw up now...

Maximus said:

Read the article above. It's disturbing. The head of his foundation shared videos of kids...some as young has 6. Jared is paying $100k to over a dozen kids he had relations with.

Going to throw up now...

Click to expand...

Sick predator, damn....

Who the hell knows how much more twisted shit he's done, that they don't have.

Watching a video of a 6 year old, WTF!

Maximus said:

Read the article above. It's disturbing. The head of his foundation shared videos of kids...some as young has 6.

Click to expand...

This.. is far more disturbing. I mean, this is death penalty type shit.

Maximus said:

Jared is paying $100k to over a dozen kids he had relations with.

Click to expand...

Who were all 16 years or older.. Which is again, why I'm not understanding why on the radio today they're saying this is the most heinous child sex crime imaginable.

I think that's ridiculous.

Maximus said:

Going to throw up now...

Click to expand...

I feel you.. The actual child rape/porn stuff is vile, and I've always been a proponent of maximum punishment for those folks - and I've said why on this board before.

But Jared's situation to me is of varying degrees of weirdness, creepiness, and then ultimately with what I'm finding out today, actual child sex predatory behavior.

1) Having sex with a 16 year old, I simply could care less about. This is not a crime in most states.
2) Paying for sex with someone to me isn't an issue. It shouldn't be a crime even though it is.
3) Soliciting sex from people who are 16-18 is creepy.. It's a very strange fetish, but I'm not going to call a guy who buys a 17-year old prostitute a pedophile - because I've seen pedophiles in real life, and they aren't after 17-year olds.

I just want to point out that these behaviors are not and should not be criminal. But that's not all Jared did.

So, with all of that, I changed my mind having read @spydy13 's post that he was soliciting girls 14 and 15-years old, and he was quoted, in a text message, as saying "the younger the better."

That's the mark of a pedophile. And now, I'm pretty comfortable saying Foley is very likely a pedophile.

Agree, the 13 and 14 year old girls thing is really fucked up. I mean, especially since he was "looking" for those type. Definitely a sick pervert bastard, but the 6 year old?

He should get life, he's a predator, kinda disturbing they made a deal with him (they seemed to have enough to nail his ass anyways). He can be out in 5 years, doing the same old shit.

Doesn't sound like something he's just going to walk away from, either. I mean, he had all the money he needed, he was successful, and he still couldn't control himself.

godfather said:

Agree, the 13 and 14 year old girls thing is really fucked up. I mean, especially since he was "looking" for those type. Definitely a sick pervert bastard, but the 6 year old?

Click to expand...

Wait, so Jared was involved with the 6-year old too? Or was that a different guy?

godfather said:

He should get life, he's a predator, kinda disturbing they made a deal with him (they seemed to have enough to nail his ass anyways). He can be out in 5 years, doing the same old shit.

Click to expand...

I don't know what he did.. I can't say. If he actually paid for sex with 14-year old girl, he should do hard time; not life though. Anything with someone who is 6, I'm in agreement with you there.

godfather said:

Doesn't sound like something he's just going to walk away from, either. I mean, he had all the money he needed, he was successful, and he still couldn't control himself.

Click to expand...

No, he's fucked for life, regardless.

I'm just not sure what he actually did, rather than what he's been accused of and copped a plea to.

gourimoko said:

Wait, so Jared was involved with the 6-year old too? Or was that a different guy?



I don't know what he did.. I can't say. If he actually paid for sex with 14-year old girl, he should do hard time; not life though. Anything with someone who is 6, I'm in agreement with you there.



No, he's fucked for life, regardless.

I'm just not sure what he actually did, rather than what he's been accused of and copped a plea to.

Click to expand...

Part of the case involves images Fogle received from Russell Taylor, the head of Fogle's foundation. According to the complaint, Taylor sent Fogle photos and videos from hidden cameras in Taylor's house, featuring children as young as approximately 6.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/08/19/jared...ornography-charges-plea-prison/#ixzz3jHbGAja7

I mean, he wasn't involved in sexual acts with kids that young (that we know of at least), but had video tapes and pictures of them that young in his house.

So, he must have been "okay" with that. How fucked up are these two, though?

Here's the actual legal documents for the case:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-document.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

I'm having trouble with how some of you are okay with the statutory rape part.. I find it no coincidence that a full-grown adult who was paying legally underage kids to have sex with him would also be sketchy enough to be involved in porn of kids even younger..... To me, if you're sketchy enough to lure underage chicks, you're sketchy enough to dabble even further over the moral (and legally defined) line. Jared did it and many other douchey 20+ year olds have as well.

Soda said:

I'm having trouble with how some of you are okay with the statutory rape part..

Click to expand...

It's been explained upthread, but I don't mind explaining it further.

The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old. That means sex with a 16 year old is not a crime in Ohio. You might think it's creepy, but it's legal. Beyond that, the larger point is that, IMHO, a 16-year old can consent to sex. I did, at a much younger age, and I knew full well what the fuck I was doing.

If a 40-something dude is seeking to have sex with 18-year olds, yep, that's creepy, but.. I don't give two shits. If those girls are 16, and 17, and he's paying them to have sex; I find that creepy as fuck, but, not criminal behavior.

If someone has sex with a 17-year old girl he meets in a bar (happens more than you might think), I don't think he should be called a "rapist." I think the distinction of rape here is absolutely fucking absurd and offensive. I say that as someone who has dealt first-hand with a child rape case and whose best friend was a child rape/porn victim.

Soda said:

I find it no coincidence that a full-grown adult who was paying legally underage kids to have sex with him would also be sketchy enough to be involved in porn of kids even younger.....

Click to expand...

I don't either.. I agree with you, I think it's definitely telling and if they've got him in a text message than he should be prosecuted for whatever law that is that he broke. But all of this: "he paid for sex with 16 and 17-year olds" isn't important to me. So what? He's a creep. That in itself doesn't define a "rapist."

The 14-year old talk, the 6-year old child porn; that's what turns the tables for me, not Fogle fucking a 17-year old girl.

Soda said:

To me, if you're sketchy enough to lure underage chicks, you're sketchy enough to dabble even further over the moral line.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by underage. I'm thinking you mean 16/17-years old here? If that's the case, then I think that's problematic.

Soda said:

Jared did it and many other douchey 20+ year olds have as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're meaning girls who are 16-17-years old having sex with 20-somethings. I have no problem with that at all. It's been going on since forever. It's no one's business but theirs, and it's not criminal behavior in most states as far as I know.

tl;dr, statutory rape laws protecting 16 and 17-year old minors are ridiculous. Rape laws that imprison peers for having sex due to a slight age difference are also ridiculous.

gourimoko said:

It's been explained upthread, but I don't mind explaining it further.

The age of consent in Ohio is 16 years old. That means sex with a 16 year old is not a crime in Ohio. You might think it's creepy, but it's legal. Beyond that, the larger point is that, IMHO, a 16-year old can consent to sex. I did, at a much younger age, and I knew full well what the fuck I was doing.

If a 40-something dude is seeking to have sex with 18-year olds, yep, that's creepy, but.. I don't give two shits. If those girls are 16, and 17, and he's paying them to have sex; I find that creepy as fuck, but, not criminal behavior.

If someone has sex with a 17-year old girl he meets in a bar (happens more than you might think), I don't think he should be called a "rapist." I think the distinction of rape here is absolutely fucking absurd and offensive. I say that as someone who has dealt first-hand with a child rape case and whose best friend was a child rape/porn victim.



I don't either.. I agree with you, I think it's definitely telling and if they've got him in a text message than he should be prosecuted for whatever law that is that he broke. But all of this: "he paid for sex with 16 and 17-year olds" isn't important to me. So what? He's a creep. That in itself doesn't define a "rapist."

The 14-year old talk, the 6-year old child porn; that's what turns the tables for me, not Fogle fucking a 17-year old girl.



I don't know what you mean by underage. I'm thinking you mean 16/17-years old here? If that's the case, then I think that's problematic.



Yeah, I think you're meaning girls who are 16-17-years old having sex with 20-somethings. I have no problem with that at all. It's been going on since forever. It's no one's business but theirs, and it's not criminal behavior in most states as far as I know.

tl;dr, statutory rape laws protecting 16 and 17-year old minors are ridiculous. Rape laws that imprison peers for having sex due to a slight age difference are also ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I read upthread and this, but I'm bolding this because I feel like it's where I differ in opinion.. I think the statutory laws (in the states that have them) are there because I believe there's a causal relationship between hawking for vulnerable teens and being open to going younger.

Soda said:

I read upthread and this, but I'm bolding this because I feel like it's where I differ in opinion.. I think the statutory laws (in the states that have them) are there because I believe there's a causal relationship between hawking for vulnerable teens and being open to going younger.

Click to expand...

Follow this with me for a second...

A guy meets a girl at a club. This club (like many) requires men are 21+ and women are 18+. He's 24. He meets a girl there and she has a pink wristband. She says "I'm 20!" She's gorgeous. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is what she looks like:




(*note: Here's a 17-year old girl that's been spotted in a near-infinite number of clubs and dating a 25-year old man )

They have a great time, end up making out in a cab on the way back to his place, have some more drinks, they fuck. She gets up after, says she's late and has to get back and takes off.

They continue texting for a few days and she says "I need to tell you something." He's like, "oh.. fuck.. here comes the I have herpes/AIDS line." She says "I'm not really 20." "Well, how old are you?" "I'm 17.. is that cool?"

Whatever his decision at this point, it's irrelevant. He's now committed, in your eyes, rape. He raped a child.

So, this can go one of two ways. No one finds out, or the cops find out and press charges. This "creepy 20-something" in your view gets jail-time and put on a list, forever, that says he's a pedophile, rapist, and predator. He's no longer allowed to use smartphones, computers, or the internet.

The State has determined that he has committed rape, and therefore his life is effectively over.

Now, using your logic here, this is justified, not because the 17-year old couldn't consent; and not because it is indeed rape - but instead - because you believe that someone who might have sex with and is attracted to a younger woman has a preclusion to having sex with children. Therefore, it's irrelevant if they've actually raped anyone, they are a threat and we should simply assume they've done so preemptively.

Now honestly, am I misunderstanding your position?

gourimoko said:

Follow this with me for a second...

A guy meets a girl at a club. This club (like many) requires men are 21+ and women are 18+. He's 24. He meets a girl there and she has a pink wristband. She says "I'm 20!" She's gorgeous. Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is what she looks like:

They have a great time, end up making out in a cab on the way back to his place, have some more drinks, they fuck. She gets up after, says she's late and has to get back and takes off.

They continue texting for a few days and she says "I need to tell you something." He's like, "oh.. fuck.. here comes the I have herpes/AIDS line." She says "I'm not really 20." "Well, how old are you?" "I'm 17.. is that cool?"

Whatever his decision at this point, it's irrelevant. He's now committed, in your eyes, rape. He raped a child.

So, this can go one of two ways. No one finds out, or the cops find out and press charges. This "creepy 20-something" in your view gets jail-time and put on a list, forever, that says he's a pedophile, rapist, and predator. He's no longer allowed to use smartphones, computers, or the internet.

The State has determined that he has committed rape, and therefore his life is effectively over.

Now, using your logic here, this is justified, not because the 17-year old couldn't consent; and not because it is indeed rape - but instead - because you believe that someone who might have sex with and is attracted to a younger woman has a preclusion to having sex with children. Therefore, it's irrelevant if they've actually raped anyone, they are a threat and we should simply assume they've done so preemptively.

Now honestly, am I misunderstanding your position?

Click to expand...

First, let me just say that I'm about as open to changing my opinion as you. In this case, though, the guy wasn't toeing the moral/legal line. I don't think there is intent there to break a law or bang a teenager. Is the law perfect? No.. I mean, people get put on that same predator list for taking a piss outside and getting caught. IMO, the law is erring on the side of caution and I'm, for the most part, okay with that.