17
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 01:22 pm
@firefly,
I never hear of the type of child porn that he was looking at and the story gave that information and therefore to me was worthwhile posting.

Quote:
little they were semi-nude, then completely nude. Just terrible, terrible stuff," said Wade.


Naked pictures with no sexual activity being shown although the passenger claimed he was told by the cops that such pictures did also exist on the laptop.

Quote:
"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.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 02:10 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
they were semi-nude, then completely nude. Just terrible, terrible stuff," said Wade.


Naked pictures with no sexual activity being shown although the passenger claimed he was told by the cops that such pictures did also exist on the laptop.


So something that the witness described as 'terrible, terrible stuff,' is pretty tame by your standards.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 02:53 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
So something that the witness described as 'terrible, terrible stuff,' is pretty tame by your standards.

BillRM previously said, in this thread, that only the most horrible child porn images should be illegal, like sexually explicit photos which involve torture of children.

BillRM, also omitted a portion of the quote from that news story...
Quote:
"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.


His comprehension of English is on a par with his ability to communicate in written English. Rolling Eyes The man never said that the only images he saw were of just nude children, he also said they became "more sexual and explicit".

BillRM demands the really hardcore stuff, even with kids. So does Hawkeye.


Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 02:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
No, I was questioning why anyone should trust you on the predictions. You invariably assume a masculist position, there's no discerning going on.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:11 pm
@izzythepush,
Semi and even naked picture of children by itself seem not that horrible off hand to me and your country lawmakers seems to agree with me.

If that all he had and the plane had landed in the UK he would had been looking at a fine and perhaps some probation at worst or at least that in my understanding of your system.

Of course that would not apply if his computer also contained pictures of adults abusing children with sexual activities.

Picturing young children in a sexual manner with or without cloths on seems almost equally bad to me and picturing children in a non-sexual manner without cloths seem fairly harmless to me also.

Between picturing naked children at play and eight years old girls dress and acting as adults in some beauty contest I know which ones I would had the most problems with and it not kids playing.

BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
BillRM previously said, in this thread, that only the most horrible child porn images should be illegal, like sexually explicit photos which involve torture of children.


Lying once more Firefly as I had make it clear I support the UK system and the UK system does not make only the most horrible child porn images illegal however they adjust the punishment to the type of child porn and just naked pictures would call for fairly minor punishment.

You would not be taking a father away from his children and turning a highly useful citizen into someone who life is ruin for having naked pictures of children not being harm.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:19 pm
@BillRM,
Except the other passenger never said that all he saw were pictures of naked children--he said the pictures became more sexual and more explicit.

The man who was arrested had pictures of children 5-14 years old, engaging in sexual activity with adults, on his computer.

Your drinking is affecting your memory. Drunk You don't even remember the facts of the case we are discussing. Drunk

And you are in fantasy land about the actual sentences handed out for child porn in the U.K.--they are no more accepting of child porn than we are.
We also take into account the nature of the images when sentences are handed out--that's why people can receive sentences as mild as probation on the state level, and much less than the 5 years minimum on a federal level (thanks to plea deals).

We've been over this many times. You don't remember, and you perseverate. Drunk
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:27 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The man who was arrested had pictures of children 5-14 years old, engaging in sexual activity with adults, on his computer
.

The man claimed he was told by the police that such pictures exist however the man did not see them and if the prof had such pictures on his laptop he would be punish severely in the UK also and I would have no problem with that occurring.

The passenger emotional reaction to seeing the pictures he did see tell us zero in how bad or not bad those pictures he did see happen to be.

Note the UK had train experts that break such pictures into levels and they do not depend of a passenger sitting in back of the man on a plane viewing those pictures to reach such judgments!!!!!!!!!


firefly
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:41 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The man claimed he was told by the police that such pictures exist however the man did not see them

You really can't comprehend English very well, can you? Drunk
Quote:
"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 man said they became sexual and explicit. The next statement, about semi-nude and nude, simply describes the progression, which became sexual and explicit.

The police simply confirmed for the man that what he saw was what he thought he saw.
Quote:
if the prof had such pictures on his laptop ...

That's why they arrested him, dummy, he had such pictures.

It was the police who verified that the prof had pictures of children 5-14 years old, engaging in sexual activity with adults, on his computer. They made this info public, it was widely reported, and it was previously posted in this thread.

Your memory is shot. Drunk
therapyqueen
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
I think that the guy worked for Utah Valley University. It's so sad that things like this can happen to average guys! I hope that his life isn't ruined for innocent pictures Sad
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 03:58 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
That's why they arrested him, dummy, he had such pictures.



Any naked picture of any child or sub 18 years old for that matter would had resulted in his arrested it does not take pictures of young children having sex with adults and no one had claimed that he did not have naked pictures of children!!!!!!!!!!!!

It all the same crime calling for the same minimum punishment of five years under federal laws.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:01 pm
@therapyqueen,
Quote:
I think that the guy worked for Utah Valley University. It's so sad that things like this can happen to average guys! I hope that his life isn't ruined for innocent pictures

The man is a professor at the University of Utah.

Do you really think that sexually explicit photos of 5-14 year olds, engaging in sex with adults, are "innocent pictures"?

If you do, you'll love talking to Hawkeye and BillRM--they are the deviant duo around here.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:12 pm
@firefly,
Yes Firefly, I am a deviant along with the majority of the lawmakers in the UK and something like 80 percents of all Federal judges who happen to disagree with the current Federal law minimum punishment levels for child porn.

In fact anyone who disagree with you and think it would be wise to added more common sense into the Federal child porn law is a sexual deviant.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:14 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Any naked picture of any child or sub 18 years old for that matter would had resulted in his arrested it does not take pictures of young children having sex with adults and no one had claimed that he did not have naked pictures of children!!!!!!!!!!!!

But he did have pictures of children engaging in such acts. Man, are you dense!
Quote:
Prosecutors say after Smith granted written permission, an inspection of Smith’s laptop yielded numerous images of nude girls between 5 and 14 years of age, some of them allegedly engaged in sex acts with adult males.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53059824-78/smith-boston-massachusetts-utah.html.csp

Quote:

It all the same crime calling for the same minimum punishment of five years under federal laws.

At the moment, he is charged under state law. Sentences begin at probation.

And, those charged under federal law can receive much less than 5 years. I earlier posted a news story about a man in Florida, your home state. sentenced to 36 months, in federal court, for possession of child porn. Plea deals, on the federal level, result in sentences of considerably less than 5 years.

We have discussed all of this before, in this thread, yet you continue to repeat the same inaccuracies and distortions, over and over. Doesn't anything ever sink in with you?

Why are you even re-hashing this stuff again? You are like a broken record.

BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:18 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
But he did have pictures of children engaging in such acts. Man, are you dense!


An once more the witness did not see any such pictures it is only an unproven claims that he also had such pictures and nor would it matter if he did or did not have them as just the naked pictures of children would be enough to ruin his life and get him into prison for five years or more.

firefly
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:38 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
it is only an unproven claims that he also had such pictures

Quote:
Prosecutors say after Smith granted written permission, an inspection of Smith’s laptop yielded numerous images of nude girls between 5 and 14 years of age, some of them allegedly engaged in sex acts with adult males.

The arrest was not based on the witness report--it was based on what was found by police after an examination of his laptop. Rolling Eyes
I am sure they will prove that claim in court--with an actual display of the images from his laptop.
Quote:
the naked pictures of children would be enough to ruin his life and get him into prison for five years or more.

If the naked pictures of the children were of a sexual nature he ruined his own life.. In this case, the police specifically said these were not innocent pictures of one's children or grandchildren, in the bath or playing. Haven't you read any of the news stories about this case, including those previously posted in this thread? Try educating yourself before shooting your mouth off and sounding like a fool.
Quote:
When a flight attendant asked Smith to shut down his computer, he began deleting images, prosecutor Erik Bennett said, CNN affiliate WCVB reported. Police who met the plane were able to recover 66 images from the computer, said the station, citing authorities.

Smith's laptop and cell phone were seized as evidence, and investigators will seek a search warrant to examine their contents thoroughly, according to the statement.

"These weren't photos of a child in the bath that a parent might keep," Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said. "These were explicitly sexual and extremely disturbing."
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-28/justice/justice_massachusetts-child-porn-arrest_1_flight-attendant-flight-crew-assistant-professor?_s=PM:JUSTICE


Quote:
and get him into prison for five years or more.

There is no minimum sentence for possession of child porn in Massachusetts, and the maximum sentence under their state law is five years. He is currently charged under state law.

Talk to yourself. Better yet, go read about this case. You are ignorant regarding basic facts about it.








BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 04:59 pm
@firefly,
Let go slowly first my problem is with the current federal law and this is a crime that can be try under federal law in all cases at the whims of the local federal prosecutor.

In fact it can in theory be try both under Federal and states laws and result in two prison sentences.

Our laws should be sane and written with commonsense at both the states and the federal levels and clearly the federal child porn law is neither for the reasons already given.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 05:09 pm
@BillRM,
blah, blah, blah

Meanwhile, you seem to know very little about this actual case.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He knowingly violated the law--both state law and federal law.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 05:57 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He knowingly violated the law--both state law and federal law.


So the society had no duty to try to fit the punishment to the crime as all you need to do is not to do the crime?

So putting some young person in prison for years as had been done in the past is fine with you for having a few Marijuana cigarettes?

Sorry it will not wash as the punishment level should have something to do with the crime and a minimum federal sentence for having a CP picture that is one year over the maximum sentence in CA for manslaughter is crazy on it face.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 12 Dec, 2011 06:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

End of story.

No one forces someone to view and possess child pornography. The professor who is the subject of this thread knowingly violated the law.

Go encrypt your computer some more. Maybe that will help you to stop worrying about the sentences if you are caught.
 

Related Topics

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
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 01:25:02