17
   

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

NSFW Forums: News, Pervert, Child Pornography, Perverts, Creeps
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 03:50 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
It is the same case. I received my information from Boston TV. Perhaps the spy alerted the crew and then phoned it in to Arizona. But why not immediately to the Mass State Police?

0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 03:52 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
FOUND SOUL wrote:

My point was, the guy who dobbed him in, surely, must have felt he was viewing it for a considerable amount of time in order to act.


The spy must have had really great eye sight.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 03:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
until a full year later, when FBI agents came to White's home and asked permission to examine his hard drive, and White said yes.



He agree for them to search it!!!!!

How stupid can some people be as at best agreeing will do you no harm but no good either.

If they had grounds to get a warrant they would had likely shown up with a warrant!!!!!

File sharing p2p networks can be dangerous to use with special note of anyone who had an ISP address that can be track back to them whether you are looking for illegal files or not.

If is not the FBI it the damn RIAA so everyone hear this do not run a file sharing program from a home site that can be track back to you unless you are into risk taking.

I run such programs from time to time but I can not be back track by a simple subpoena of the ISP address and my computers hard drives can not be examine.

Oh if you are still going to take a chance at least get a wipe program off the net so you can get rid of a damn file if you need to do so.

Footnote wipe programs are not a hundred percent level of protection as windows and the programs that run under windows had a charming habit of putting out all kind of temporary/working files without telling you that could leave traces of the file you had wipe behind.

Best protection is to go to truecrypt.org and download the software to protect your whole hard drive,
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 05:53 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Because everyday in the Federal courts lives are being ruin for no good purpose because of congress rolling over to people like you in writing sex laws and setting punishment guidelines in a crazy and insane manner.

If BillRM were writing the law, what would the Federal minimum sentence be for possession of child pornography?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 06:22 pm
@Ticomaya,
I'm trying to get the fundamental concept into my mind, here.
During my childhood, so far as I am aware,
when I was making love to my girl friends (other children or adult)
no one took a picture; this includes my adulthood: no photography involved,
but if there HAD been, I doubt that I 'd have cared much
(except for the time when I held a public office).

In theory, if I were making love to a lady next week,
and someone took a picture with a telephoto lens
and tried to blackmail me, I 'd offer exactly $ZERO$ and laff it off.

My point is that at any age (except when I held a public office),
it woud not make any difference to me, the same as
I don 't care about the pervert who took my picture in the hospital.

If the photography shows rapes, sodomies, robberies, counterfeiting, or murders,
then the perpetrators thereof shoud be hunted down n prosecuted for those felonies.

Note that I don't see any problem
with capital punishment being authorized by statute for rape or forcible sodomy.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 06:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In theory, if I were making love to a lady next week,
and someone took a picture with a telephoto lens
and tried to blackmail me, I 'd offer exactly $ZERO$ and laff it off.

I imagine the blackmailer would be laffing too.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 06:41 pm
@Ticomaya,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In theory, if I were making love to a lady next week,
and someone took a picture with a telephoto lens
and tried to blackmail me, I 'd offer exactly $ZERO$ and laff it off.
Ticomaya wrote:
I imagine the blackmailer would be laffing too.
SO STIPULATED.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:00 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
If BillRM were writing the law, what would the Federal minimum sentence be for possession of child pornography?


If I were writing such laws, the ONLY things which it would be illegal to merely possess would be nuclear weapons, weaponized disease pathogens, and chemical warfare agents like mustard gas. The idea of somebody who'd never owned a farm being in possession of 100 tons of nitrogen fertilizer would also qualify.

The test would be: Would Al Qaeda merely possessing whatever it is be sufficient to provoke the United States to action?

I have no use whatsoever for perverts or perversions but this one is too much like the war on drugs and it is simply too easy for image files to be PLANTED on a personal computer and that could even be done by some sort of a virus program which the owner was not even aware of. The thought of LE agencies having that sort of power bothers me more than the thought of perverts having pervert images on their computers.



gungasnake
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:01 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
I imagine the blackmailer would be laffing too.



Not about the loss of income...
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:13 pm
@firefly,
Well that's one thing you can't teach is common sense (which isn't all that common).
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yep proof of no common sense you rather have abuse of children - this is not about sex with consenting adults this is about abuse of children - your comment here proves that you lack common sense and parents should be fearful of you around children. My husband feels no oppression what so ever and would be the first one to kick the living sh*t out of some one be it a man or woman that would abuse a child.
Linkat
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:20 pm
@Ceili,
Just today at the grocery store my 9 year old was a little bit away from - I could see her and was watching her as she gathered something I requested. This man was staring at her so oddly - now it may have just been like what the heck you doing kid - but it seemed a bit more.

Of course, besides just keeping my eye on her (which I would have done any way) I did nothing as who the heck knows. But my husband, the oppressed male, would have probably went over and said a few choice words.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:23 pm
@BillRM,
Of course it is harming them - if there were not a demand for this just like this man- then there would be such pictures and therefore these particular children would not have been abused.

Common sense I repeat (actually your case lack thereof)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:38 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
If BillRM were writing the law, what would the Federal minimum sentence be for possession of child pornography?
gungasnake wrote:
If I were writing such laws, the ONLY things which it would be illegal to merely possess would be nuclear weapons, weaponized disease pathogens, and chemical warfare agents like mustard gas. The idea of somebody who'd never owned a farm being in possession of 100 tons of nitrogen fertilizer would also qualify.

The test would be: Would Al Qaeda merely possessing whatever it is be sufficient to provoke the United States to action?

I have no use whatsoever for perverts or perversions but this one is too much like the war on drugs and it is simply too easy for image files to be PLANTED on a personal computer and that could even be done by some sort of a virus program which the owner was not even aware of. The thought of LE agencies having that sort of power bothers me more than the thought of perverts having pervert images on their computers.
Note my general agreement.
As time goes by fewer and fewer things remain legal
because whenever anyone raises an objection to anything
the remedy is invariably to legally curtail freedom; add another iron chain to the body politic.
Either the individual citizen MUST do something
or
he is PROHIBITED from doing something.
Individual freedom is progressively lost in an ocean of mandates & prohibitions.

As time progresses, there is progressively less n less freedom of choice about anything.
Only we libertarians raise objections and we r scoffed n scorned.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:46 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
I am sure the children of the man on the plane is going to be hurt far more by locking him up then his indirect actions harmed any child he happen to had view but who care as you do not care about children at all.
I think that u r incorrect about that, Bill.



BillRM wrote:
Children are just an emotional means of getting crazy laws passed.
I disagree.




BillRM wrote:
Not to mention children who had seen their family home front door broken down in the middle of the night and their parents being held at gun point.

Still can not figure why most warrants can be serve without the swat team but a warrant to search for illegal computer files call for a swat team to raid middle class homes.
I have no information on that.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:48 pm
@Miller,
Miller wrote:
I noticed the spy (!) behind the Professor was also viewing the porn. Why didn't he avert his eyes?
I think he claims to have been weeping.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:52 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I have no use whatsoever for perverts or perversions but this one is too much like the war on drugs and it is simply too easy for image files to be PLANTED on a personal computer and that could even be done by some sort of a virus program which the owner was not even aware of. The thought of LE agencies having that sort of power bothers me more than the thought of perverts having pervert images on their computers.


Agreed. It makes no difference whether I think the state will abuse its power ( I do)....it is the writing of law with a callous disregard for justice which is the morally reprehensible act on the part of the state.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 07:55 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

Yep proof of no common sense you rather have abuse of children - this is not about sex with consenting adults this is about abuse of children - your comment here proves that you lack common sense and parents should be fearful of you around children. My husband feels no oppression what so ever and would be the first one to kick the living sh*t out of some one be it a man or woman that would abuse a child.


What I have, which you apparently do not have, is enough of an education to know that the state which requisitions for itself power in excess of the min required to maintain order will ALWAYS end up using that power to abuse the citizens.

Re your husband...perhaps he is an idiot, I do not know the man.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 08:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
@gungasnake,
Quote:
I have no use whatsoever for perverts or perversions but this one is too much like the war on drugs and it is simply too easy for image files to be PLANTED on a personal computer and that could even be done by some sort of a virus program which the owner was not even aware of. The thought of LE agencies having that sort of power bothers me more than the thought of perverts having pervert images on their computers.


Agreed. It makes no difference whether I think the state will abuse its power ( I do)....it is the writing of law with a callous disregard for justice which is the morally reprehensible act on the part of the state.


The question you have to ask yourself is, Would I want Mike Nifong or Ronnie Earle or Janet Reno to have this sort of power?

And, if you don't know why I include Reno in that question, you might want to do a few google searches on:

Grant Snowden / Janet Reno
Bobby Fijnje / Janet Reno
Frank Fuster / Janet Reno

and read through a bit of what turns up. Fuster in fact is still rotting in a Flori-duh prison for **** which never happened and which in all likelihood, Stephen King couldn't even make up.








hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 08:32 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The question you have to ask yourself is,Would I want Mike Nifong or Ronnie Earle or Janet Reno to have this sort of power?


No, the question is "when would I ever be willing to consider letting one person have this much power over the rest of the American people?

My answer is "after martial was declared, for a very short period of time, maybe".
 

Related Topics

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn - Discussion by tsarstepan
T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
RIP Professor Snape - Alan Rickman Passes at 69 - Discussion by engineer
Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front - Discussion by gungasnake
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Berry's desperate 911 call to police - Discussion by smithy988
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Man's life Over, Cops Decide He Watched Child Porn in First Class
  3. » Page 28
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 06:59:39
▲ ▼