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
 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 08:24 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
“The State Police would like to thank the alert airplane passenger whose observations of the defendant’s despicable actions — and that witness’s decision to tell a flight attendant and a family member — ultimately led to our being notified. The witness should be commended for standing up against a horrible crime,” said Massachusetts State Police spokesperson Dave Procopio, in a press release.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/11/27/man-accused-of-watching-child-porn-on-flight-bound-for-boston/

So much for the Constitution saying we citizens have the right to presumption of innocents...the state flat out refuses to follow that part of the law.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 08:31 pm
@Ticomaya,
You assured us of his innocence in your first post:

In the first post in this thread, 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. In this case it was a video however.



That was a prediction, not a statement of fact. This case has all the markings of a massive over reaction on the part of the state. We will have to wait to see if my suspicions are confirmed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  5  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
So much for the Constitution saying we citizens have the right to presumption of innocents...the state flat out refuses to follow that part of the law.

... "despicable actions" ... "horrible crime" ... you still stand by your prediction that he was watching home movies?

You think it's highly unlikely a pedophile would watch kiddie porn on a public airplane, I think it's highly unlikely a police spokesperson would refer to the defendant watching home movies of his kids as "despicable actions," and a "horrible crime." But we shall see.

A defendant is presumed innocent in a court of law, not by the police. The police evidently believe he's guilty of a crime, and that's why they charged him with that crime. The "presumption of innocence" means the prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant's guilt of the charged crime.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:20 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
The police evidently believe he's guilty of a crime, and that's why they charged him with that crime
Last time I looked a press release accusing the arrested of commuting "despicable actions" was not part of the statute, but maybe I am behind the times... it does tie in nicely with the American perp walk though. Putting the arrested in Pillory on front of the police station would seem to be the next step in the state's imperative of exacting vengeance upon the accused...for damn sure the state feels no need to wait for the formality of a trial.

My, aren't we so CIVILIZED! *sarcasm*
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Yes, we are civilized. He will be given a trial. The police must follow certain procedures. The prosecutor must follow certain procedures. He will have a jury.

That actually sounds pretty civilized to me.





There is a very bright line for the age of consent to be 18 years old, so I have a hard time understanding how "the state" wants people to be afraid of breaking the law.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
If I'd know your real name I send the police to your house. You're the creepiest person I've ever encountered. I pity your kids and everyone else that has to endure you.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:55 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
There is a very bright line for the age of consent to be 18 years old, so I have a hard time understanding how "the state" wants people to be afraid of breaking the law.
So far all we know is that the state claims that he has pics of girls under 18 on his computer, and they dont like it. How many he has and what the nature of these pics are we have no idea, but just about everybody in America has pictures of girls under 18 so that does not say anything.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 09:59 pm
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

If I'd know your real name I send the police to your house. You're the creepiest person I've ever encountered. I pity your kids and everyone else that has to endure you.
The state claiming that citizens are consuming kiddie porn has a lot of similarities to when back in the old country the GESTAPO would come around and haul people away for "treason" .....some people never learn.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
You seem to have more information than I could dig up online. How do you know it's girls?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
I'll also add that I follow TechDirt fairly closely, which is a site that focuses on civil liberties related to technology, and they don't seem to be too upset.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:16 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
After troopers allegedly found images of young girls, Smith was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography.

Read more: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/29863537/detail.html#ixzz1eyDYMFXB


Other reports are that he has a young son and a young daughter with his wife, whom he is separated from....thus my wondering if what we have here are pics of his daughter that the police do not like. This is the most likely explanation based upon what we know so far.
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Other reports are that he has a young son and a young daughter with his wife, whom he is separated from....thus my wondering if what we have here are pics of his daughter that the police do not like. This is the most likely explanation based upon what we know so far.

No, that is NOT the most likely explanation based upon what we know so far.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:24 pm
@DrewDad,
The EFF is also strangely silent on this outrageous attack on civil liberties....
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:25 pm
@hawkeye10,

Quote:
No, nothing about burkas. He's saying adult men who get sexually aroused by very young girls have a problem and are clueless as to why it is a problem.
hawkeye10 wrote:
You are about 30 years behind the times, a pervert is now one who admits to enjoying watching females under the age of 18 for any reason, there is no need for any "Bong!" action from the penis, nor any need to make contact with the young female to be classed as a predator by this government.

Just to be clear though, the state does not have the right to lay sanctions upon those who are sexually excited by individuals under the age of 18...

so long as looking and thinking are all that happen the state has no jurisdiction.
Well, what about the jurisdiction for hate crimes?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:39 pm
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:


No, that is NOT the most likely explanation based upon what we know so far.
You were too fast on the send button buddy, you forgot the other half the post where you give your view on how a successful scientist could get himself arrested on Child Porn charges using is computer on the airplane.
Ceili
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:49 pm
@hawkeye10,
Bravado, arrogance, stupidity, laziness, couldn't control himself, deranged... anyone of these could be a reason a smart guy could find himself arrested, but I`d bank on all of them.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 10:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
No, that is NOT the most likely explanation based upon what we know so far.
You were too fast on the send button buddy, you forgot the other half the post where you give your view on how a successful scientist could get himself arrested on Child Porn charges using is computer on the airplane.

Who knows why he viewed it on the airplane. Maybe he got a bigger thrill out of the danger involved.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 27 Nov, 2011 11:58 pm
@CalamityJane,
Interesting that you would wish the power to send the police to someone home because they do not agree with the current PC view of the world.

Too bad we could not send you by time machine to Germany of the 193os but perhaps the current Cuba would do.

Where you could get the police to go to people homes for such reasons.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:06 am
@DrewDad,
Your bright line does not mean that in a large percent of the US you can not **** a below 18 years old legally or married her but you just can not had a sexual pictures of her.

It surely make sense to me and I can not wait until some 20 years old husband with a 17 years old wife is try for having sexual pictures of his wife.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:30 am

If someone took a picture of child porn,
that is making child porn. Those are 2 felonies.

That reminds me of an elderly lady in NY years ago
who took a handgun to police that she found in her attic, inherited from her husband.
She was arrested for unlicensed possession of a handgun.





David




 

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 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 08:41:36
▲ ▼