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
 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 08:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
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?
hawkeye10 wrote:
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".
Is there a Constitutional foundation for martial law??????
For what "period of time" is that ????



When r u opening your new restaurant ?





David
gungasnake
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 08:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
There is no legitimate basis for putting all of America under martial law. You should assume that the system we have known is irrevocably gone the day martial law is ever implemented and act accordingly.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 3 Dec, 2011 08:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Is there a Constitutional foundation for martial law??????
For what "period of time" is that ????


We came pretty close to it during WW2, I dont know how such stuff as pentagon control of manufacturing and the ration card square with the Constitution however....maybe you can tell me.

Quote:
When r u opening your new restaurant

Cant say for sure...we just got the financing and now we need to figure out where to put it, then do the build-out. A few months I hope.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 07:17 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
If BillRM were writing the law, what would the Federal minimum sentence be for possession of child pornography?


I would do a cut and paste for the most part on the current UK concerning child porn with the most important part breaking such a crime down into levels so that videos of 17 years of willingly having sex is not the same as a video of an infant being rape.

I would go with the light punishment for the lower levels of the UK system, moving onto long probations and monitoring and treatment for the middle levels and only having harsh punishments for the last two levels.

There would not be a minimum sentence of all CP is the same nonsense of the current US Federal law.
BillRM
 
  0  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 07:30 am
@Linkat,
Quote:
this is not about sex with consenting adults this is about abuse of children


CP however under current federal law can be about minors who have every right under state law to consent to having sex.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 07:54 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
There is no legitimate basis for putting all of America under martial law. You should assume that the system we have known is irrevocably gone the day martial law is ever implemented and act accordingly.


You should keep up with the news of late if the government claim you are a terrorist you will have no access to the courts systems and you can disappear under a senator bill American citizen or not on American soil or not.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/2692/senate-attacks-due-process-rights-with-national-defense-act

In a move that would have the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves, the Senate voted to strike down an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have stripped the bill of a controversial provision that would allow the military to detain U.S. citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without trial if they are suspected terrorists. This outrageous provision, passed with bipartisan support, is borderline treason as it contradicts every American’s Sixth Amendment rights and is, therefore, in direct violation of the oath every member of Congress swore upon taking office. If the bill is passed in its current form it faces a presidential veto, however, regardless of the final outcome of the bill, the fact that the amendment to strip the bill of the controversial detainment provision was struck down is a shocking display of how detached the Senate has become from its duty to the American people.



0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 08:33 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
There would not be a minimum sentence of all CP is the same nonsense of the current US Federal law.

But what would the minimum sentence be, say, for someone convicted of possession of 500 images of child pornography? 5 years is too long, so what is appropriate? Probation?
BillRM
 
  0  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 09:21 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
But what would the minimum sentence be, say, for someone convicted of possession of 500 images of child pornography? 5 years is too long, so what is appropriate? Probation?


Five hundred video of infants and young children being rape or five hundred pictures/videos of 16 and 17 years taking part willingly in sex videos?

Off hand the worst cases should be punish harshly with prison terms but not so harshly that a person who had in fact have sex with a young minor is facing less time then someone with pictures of that event occurring.

Five years for the worst of the worst might be call for but not as a minimum that a judge could set.

In fact I would tend to leave it up to the judges who heared the cases and all the conditions around the individual cases then set a hard and fast minimum sentence.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 09:45 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
There is no legitimate basis for putting all of America under martial law.
Is there a Constitutional basis for putting PART
of America under martial law?????





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 09:55 am
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
Is there a Constitutional foundation for martial law??????
For what "period of time" is that ????
hawkeye10 wrote:
We came pretty close to it during WW2, I dont know how such stuff as pentagon control of manufacturing and the ration card square with the Constitution however....maybe you can tell me.
The Constitution provides power to Congress to raise and support an army
and to call forth the militia (not the militia of the 2nd Amendment).
That 's about it.





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 10:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Is there a Constitutional basis for putting PART
of America under martial law?????


Yes see the actions taken during the civil war including the shutting down of newspapers.

And the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended for public safety reasons see the senate bill I had already posted about.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 10:35 am
@BillRM,
DAVID wrote:
Is there a Constitutional basis for putting PART
of America under martial law?????
BillRM wrote:
Yes see the actions taken during the civil war including the shutting down of newspapers.
That means that Lincoln raped the Constitution,
not that martial law is authorized.


BillRM wrote:
And the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended for public safety reasons
see the senate bill I had already posted about.
A Senate bill cannot justify the additional jurisdiction.
The Senate does not have that authority.
The full Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus.


Quote:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Note incidentally, that is one of the powers of Congress.

Lincoln did not have that authority.





David
BillRM
 
  0  
Sun 4 Dec, 2011 10:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
If the bill pass congress and is sign it will be come the law of the land unless and until the courts step in.

The point is that the senate at least does not see a constitution problem with granting marshal laws powers.

As far as in theory of what the executive can do or not do under the constitution that is meaningless as the clear history is that a president will declare and assume marshal laws powers and the rest of government will ever not interfere or aid him in so doing.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 11:32 am
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/plane-passenger-who-turned-in-porn-viewing-professor-scarred-from-images-20111129


(FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - A Utah professor arrested for viewing child pornography during a flight may have gone undetected if not for the actions of a fellow passenger.

“It was kind of sad. Tough stuff to see,” an emotion Kurt Wade told FOX 25’s Bob Ward in an interview Tuesday night.

Even days after his Salt Lake City to Boston flight, Wade still can’t get the disturbing images out of his head.

Wade witnessed disturbing pictures of child pornography, including young girls, on the lap top of Grant Smith, a first-class flier who sat only a few feet away.

"He kept scrolling through the pictures and they became sexual and explicit. Little by little they were semi-nude, then completely nude. Just terrible, terrible stuff," said Wade.

The 47 year-old professor from Cottonwood Heights, Utah, was arrested when his flight landed in Boston. Smith was in Boston for a conference.

Wade said as soon as he saw the images he notified a flight attendant. He also took a cell phone picture of Smith looking at his screen.

"Even as I was trying to explain it, I broke down I couldn't contain it. So disturbing what was going on," said Wade.

Wade wanted to make sure something would be done so he e-mailed his son in Phoenix and asked him to call police in Boston.

Police told Wade they found even more disturbing images on Smith's laptop.

"When I was in the interview room with forensic computer police down the hall, they confirmed for me there were other images of sexual activity with grown ups," Wade told FOX 25.

"You decided to get involved. Do you consider yourself a hero?," Ward asked Wade.

Wade answered, "No. I think any common sense person would see this and understand what was going on. "




Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/plane-passenger-who-turned-in-porn-viewing-professor-scarred-from-images-20111129#ixzz1gLIcDOJW
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 11:37 am
@BillRM,
Any particular reason you are posting old news stories?

Or are you just trying to revive this thread so you have an excuse to discuss child porn?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 11:45 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Any particular reason you are posting old news stories?

Or are you just trying to revive this thread so you have an excuse to discuss child porn?


There is little to talk about at the moment, he finally made bail and now we wait. Maybe the interesting thing is what we have not heard, which is the state adding to the charges...they expected to add just off of the porn they claimed to find on the computer he had when them, but they also say that they confiscated "significant" amounts of private property out of his home, which to date has amounted to nothing.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 11:53 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Trust me, this is going to be yet another case of a man being ruined because he had pics of his kids on his computer that the state does not approve of, or near that.


Why would anyone in their right mind want to do that? You reflexively side with the male in just about any such scenario and are clearly not able to think impartially about these matters due to your obsessions.

Even if you end up being right about it it will just be like a stopped clock accidentally being right. Not from having employed sound reason but merely from having fixated on a spot that reality passes over.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 12:17 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Why would anyone in their right mind want to do that?


Why would a person want to look at innocent pics of their kids??!! Drunk

As I pointed out long ago Grant Smith was not doing that....I was wrong for a change.
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 12:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
As I pointed out long ago Grant Smith was not doing that....I was wrong for a change.

I imagine you are frequently "wrong for a change."
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 12:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Maybe the interesting thing is what we have not heard, which is the state adding to the charges... they also say that they confiscated "significant" amounts of private property out of his home, which to date has amounted to nothing.

That's because his next court date hasn't come up yet. You want them to brief you, continuously?
They have said they found evidence of his distributing child pornography, but they added that this was a continuing investigation and they did not wish to discuss details.
Quote:
they expected to add just off of the porn they claimed to find on the computer he had when them..

That is never the case in investigations like this. They always search the home for evidence of more child pornography, any evidence of production or distribution of child pornography, and evidence of possible abuse of actual children, etc.

At his next court date, you'll likely learn more about the charges against him.

Still don't see that as any reason for BillRM to be re-posting old news stories, which I think were previously posted in this thread.
 

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 29
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 09:58:06
▲ ▼