Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class

When people have crazy opinions, that is not news.
How long did thay believe in the flat Earth??

Have u considered getting a keyboard that works ??





David

sure, but we are all not like you David....flush in our bank accounts. I am starting a risky business, and would rather spent my limited funds treating my boy to a trip to the great city of San Francisco by way of Amtrak than keeping u happy with a new computer.

so sorry * sarcasm*

no occasion for sorrow

Good Luck with your boy.

How old is he ?

18......going on 25. i appreciate the gumption of the kid, but he is always too cocksure and risky for my blood. good thing he has been blessed with good genetics and is thus very bright!

U shud tell him about Mensa.
We have quite a lot of interesting SIGs & fun gatherings, all year long.
He can create n add as many new SIGs as he wants; its libertarian.
http://www.us.mensa.org/

Its a good place to meet chicks & make new friends. Thay can last for years,
decades & centuries, since 1978, in my case; time flies when u r having fun.

Has he chosen a profession ?





David

People have heterogeneous & disparate hierarchies of values.
That is timeless.





David

Can't you get a cheap new keyboard, a regular PC keyboard, and just plug it into your laptop, and use it instead of the laptop keyboard? Wouldn't that work? I'm guessing the problem is with a laptop. That would make things easier for you, as a temporary fix, if you could do that.

I can't imagine who he takes after, or who he's been listening to.

haha.. Hawkeye!



Me neither firefly

You would think the assholes would had investigated first and then arrested not the other way around.

Now in this let make a deal so call justice system I am betting they will try to get him to plead to some very minor misdeed instead of just dropping the charges.


http://www.adn.com/2012/09/14/2624737/no-child-porn-on-computer-of-charged.html

No child porn on computer of charged Minn. coach

By AMY FORLITI
Associated Press

By AMY FORLITI
Published: September 14th, 2012 12:26 PM
Last Modified: September 14th, 2012 04:37 PM

MINNEAPOLIS - Investigators found no evidence of child pornography on computers taken from the home of a Minnesota football coach accused of having nude videos of his children on his cellphone, authorities said Friday.

tool nameclose tool goes here Minnesota State, Mankato coach Todd Hoffner was charged with two child pornography counts after three videos of his children were found on his work-issued cellphone when he took it to the university for service.

His attorney and wife have publicly rejected the charges as ridiculous, saying the videos simply captured the family's children being silly.

Blue Earth County Sheriff's Capt. Rich Murry said Friday a search of computers taken from the Hoffner home found "no additional items that would be considered child pornography." The information was being forwarded to the county attorney's office.

Hoffner's attorney, James Fleming, said he was confident authorities would not come up with any additional evidence and the case will focus on the images recovered from the cellphone.

"So now we are dealing with: Are these images in fact, child pornography?" Fleming said. "And I believe that it's going to be shown very clearly - they are not."

The videos include images of Hoffner's children behaving "silly" after a bath, Fleming said.

Prosecutor Mike Hanson did not return phone messages seeking comment.

Hoffner was charged last month with one count of using minors in a sexual performance or pornographic work and one count of possessing child pornography. Both are felonies.

He was escorted off the football practice field after the videos were found, and remains on leave pending a university investigation.

At a hearing earlier Friday, Fleming pressed for greater access to the cellphone videos, saying he needed them to mount his defense. Fleming has seen the images but must go to the Blue Earth County Sheriff's Department to view them - with officials looking over his shoulder.

Blue Earth District Court Judge Krista Jass took that request under advisement.

According to an affidavit in the case, audio on one of the videos includes a child saying: "Dad, that's not the show, make him do it right," and a man's voice says, "Do it over."

Fleming said the suggestion that Hoffner was directing his children is "absolutely wrong."

"I've seen that affidavit. And I have seen the video. And that representation is wrong," he said.

The affidavit says university officials also came across a video of a roughly 40-year-old "naked adult male jumping off a boat skinny dipping."

Fleming said Hoffner is frustrated, and the publicity has made the case difficult.

"He's very protective of his family," he said.

Hoffner is entering his fifth year as head football coach at Minnesota State, Mankato. He led the team to the playoffs in 2008 and 2009 and a share of the Northern Sun Intercollegiate Conference title in 2011.

He has a 34-13 record at Minnesota State, Mankato, and was named NSIC coach of the year in 2009.

No matter HOW innocent he is,
this will cost him tons of money for his defense lawyers.

The charges against him are based on what was found on his cell phone.

The fact that nothing was found on his computer doesn't affect those charges.

Don't you ever accurately understand what you read?

You're the last person who should be calling anyone else an "asshole".

Sorry dear I do not think that there is a chance in the world that a parent having taped his kids at play naked without any other indication that he is a CP collector is going to fly with any jury.

They jumped the gun as the sane thing to do would have been to get a warrant to look for CP and interview the children and others such as the man wife and family members before dragging the man off in a very public manner for having such material on his cell phone.

Naked pictures/videos of your kids at play is not CP unless it can be shown by other evidences that it was created for sexual gratification and without any sign that the man had any interest in such materials good luck on that.

Somewhere in this home I am sitting in at this very moment there is a naked pictures of your truly when I was a year or so old sitting on a small training toilet of some kind with all of me showing.

Such pictures are not CP and I can see the video he had on the cell phone beginning an investigation but not an arrest.

We live in a sick society where any male is profile to be a likely child molester on the slights indications.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that, the lack of child pornography on his computer is unrelated to the charges against him.

You just can't correctly understand what you read or post.

The lack of CP on his computer is one hell of a blow to the idea that he taped his kids playing around naked for his sexual gratification and that is an important and needed element to turn a video of someone kids just playing naked into child porn.

You do know I assume that video of kids running around and horsing around naked is not child porn in and by itself unless there is some sexual play or focusing on the kids sexual organs or some such or a showing it was once more created for the purpose of sexual gratification.

So far no news story had claimed any such sexual play or focusing in the video so that just leave trying to convict a jury that the man was not just acting as a parent and filming some private fooling around that is a few decades he can used to tease his children over.

The news story--the one you yourself posted--definitely did report what the man is charged with. And the state certainly is claiming it's child pornography on his cell phone.


You really can't correctly understand or interpret what you read.

And, the more you prattle on, the even clearer that becomes.

I read fine dear and with zero indication that the man have any interest in CP or had molester his kids or any one else kids so it going to be a hard road to convict any jury that family videos repeat family videos naked or not naked kids in them are in fact child porn.

I know that you would wish any parents with naked pictures or naked videos of their children playing to be guilty of having child porn but that is not the law.

The idiots clearly jumped the gun and unless they can come up with something other then his kids fooling around naked the case will fall apart.

One fun fact is that not only is his home computers and his work computers being look at but the colleges he worked for in the past had on their own are looking at all the computers ever assign to him.

The DA better hope like hell something turn up somewhere or this is a case looking to make the DA look like a fool.

By the way one wonder how the DA is going to get re-elected if he does not drop this in a very fast manner if nothing more turn up as there are a hell of a lot of voters who are parents that had such pictures/videos of their kids naked then people like you who think that all such materials should be consider CP.

From a legal BLOG

http://www.henrycountycriminallawattorney.com/2012/09/family-videos-reported-to-police-end-in-child-pornography-charges.shtml

Family videos reported to police end in child pornography charges
On behalf of Power, Jaugstetter & Futch PC posted in Sex Crimes on Wednesday, September 12, 2012

It may seem utterly ridiculous to Atlanta parents that a father would be arrested and charged with two counts of child pornography for what are being described has home videos of his children. Unfortunately, one college football coach has been charged with this sexual crime after a member of his school's information technology department turned the videos over to police.

The man's wife has been quite vocal in support of her husband, saying that their children were not sexually exploited and that these videos were merely videos of their children being silly; they were no different than many other parents' pictures or videos of their children. Many legal commentators, including a former county attorney responsible for prosecuting numerous child sex crimes, have said that while the videos may be in poor taste for a work phone, they are not criminal or pornographic.

Investigators are trying to cobble together evidence to prove that this father is sexually exploitative and a child pornographer, but they need to show that the father had been directing his children in the video, not simply talking with them. There would likely need to be evidence of a pattern of criminal behavior, too.Many people who have been following the case do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support the child pornography charges. Even though three videos have been collected, they still do not think there is enough to prove the father had child pornography in his possession. It remains to be seen, however, what the mere accusation of child pornography will have on this coach's career and personal life.

Source: Star Tribune, "Mankato coach's child-porn case tests definition of criminal," Richard Meryhew, Aug. 30, 2012

Tags: Sex crimes, child pornography, children

The fact remains you automatically assumed that, because nothing was found on his computer, that charges against him would be dropped. But the charges against him were unrelated to anything that might have been found on his computer.

You clearly don't understand what you read.

How do you know exactly what is on that man's cell phone? How does anyone, outside of law enforcement, know exactly what's on that cell phone?

You don't understand what is fact, and what isn't--and the fact is, you don't really know exactly what is on that cell phone, and why it resulted in the charges against him.

The written law, and not you, defines what is considered child pornography. If what's on that cell phone appears to clearly fit the definition, they'll go forward with their case.

You don't understand what you read, you don't understand the laws, and, as usual, you don't know when to shut up.

Sorry if I do not understand the situation it would appear that a number of lawyers who had also address the issue do not also understand the case in the same way you are claiming that I do not understand it.

By themselves those family videos are not enough to likely support the charges against the man for the reasons already given.

So without further evidences of wrong doing such as CP or sexual abuse the charges should be drop as they do not likely stand if supported by those family videos alone.

The case had all the ear marks of a rush to judgment by a DA who wish to bag another 'pedophile' coach and therefore gain the credit and the PR for doing so.

The law should really be changed so that the taxpayers are always forced to reimburse innocent people for all their legal costs.