17
   

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

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:35 am
@BillRM,
You are constantly defending those who view child pornography, as well as those who sexually abuse minors. This thread is yet another example of that.

And you constantly brag about how your computer is so heavily protected that the government couldn't find what you have stored--and you most often mention that fact in threads concerning kiddy porn, and you helpfully give others advice on the programs they should use to protect their compters. Well, who needs to protect their computer like that? What are you hiding? And why are you always so fast to mention it when the topic is child pornography?

You also seem to regard the viewing of child pornography as a relatively harmless act, forgetting that the children involved are being exploited as objects to satisfy an adult's need for sexual arousal.
Quote:
In response to the arrest, Massachusetts State Police Spokesman David Procipio issued this statement:

In the view of the State Police, child pornography is a form of child sexual abuse-nothing less. Those who possess it -- a crime unto itself -- foster an evil network that sexually abuses and exploits children irreparably.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57331963-504083/man-arrested-after-viewing-child-porn-on-airplane/





BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:40 am
@CalamityJane,
Seem that you wish to be allow to make a legal claim as a non-lawyer such as the passenger can be sue for reporting what he think is a crime but only a lawyer can challenge your clearly false information.

I love the logic here.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:46 am
According to boston.com in court today the state claimed that this guy was watching real child porn as in nakid or partly nakid girls 8-10 pleasuring each other. The university promised to fire him if guilt is established.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
"The notion that someone would be so bold as to view it in public is extraordinary, and I'm not sure what the explanation is," Wendy Murphy, identified by WCVB as an attorney and victim's advocate, says to the station.

As for the passenger who is reported to have videotaped the alleged crime, Murphy tells WCVB:

Someone who not only sees it but is smart enough to take a picture of it is very solid evidence. Reporting it immediately to law enforcement, law enforcement then being able to do their own immediate investigation -- that's a very strong case -- at least at this point.
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2011/11/flight-child-porn-arrest/573281/1

If this man's life is over, because his computer contained child pornography, he's done it to himself. Stop blaming the citizen who reported him, and the cops who arrested him, and the government that will prosecute him if he's violated the laws. He's responsible for his own actions and the consequences of those actions.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:52 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
David you must as a lawyer be aware that anyone in good faith reporting a crime to the police is cover by immunity from law. suits and any such would be dismiss
In which jurisdiction ?
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:58 am
@firefly,
Hmm Firefly I am a great believer in leveling the ground between the overwhelming power of the state and the individual dealing with the state as far as possible.

I am a great believer in everyone having rights they should be free to exercise no matter what the crime they happen to be charge with.

Sorry that you do not wish some people to know or exercise those rights.

As far as computers are concern that is the first device that law enforcement will seized no matter what the crime being charge not just child porn.

The fifth amendment case working it way through the court system now over a demands by the FBI that a woman turn over her encrypted keys to her laptop deal with a real estate fraud case not child porn.

Child porn/terrorism are great emotional excuses for us to give up our right to privacy that the government is making but the government does no wish any of us to had any right to privacy not just child porn traders.

Any technology that limit the government abilities to spy on their citizens at whim make then unhappy.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
ALL.......however David if you can come up with a state in the US that does not grant such immunity I would be very interested in learning of such.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:10 am
@firefly,
It may turn out that this guy was doing something that I think should be illegal, but as we have discussed before your "ITS THE LAW!" argument does not impress me when I think that so many laws are wrong/poorly written/abused by the state.

Right now I am still waiting for more information about what he was watching. I assume that the passenger who took the cell phone shot will be on 60 minutes this week to tell us all about it.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:12 am
@BillRM,
Sorry, people have no rights to sexually exploit or sexually abuse others.

And in every thread we have had on child pornography, you have chimed in to tell us how well encrypted your computer is.

And you are fast to start trivializing the crime and making excuses for those charged with it.
Quote:
Child porn/terrorism are great emotional excuses for us to give up our right to privacy

There are also not just emotional excuses--there are also valid and legitimate reasons to forgo activities such as the viewing of child pornography, and for the government to regard such activities as criminal.

That point seems to escape you.

firefly
 
  5  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:21 am
@hawkeye10,
No, you started out with your usual BS that this was another poor innocent man, being victimized by the state, whose life was being ruined by the cops, blah, blah, blah. And now it looks like you have egg on your face.
Quote:

East Boston
11/28/2011 11:46 AM
University of Utah professor arraigned in East Boston court on child porn charges
By Brian R. Ballou and Martin Finucane, Globe Staff, and Evan Allen, Globe Correspondent

A University of Utah professor pleaded not guilty today in an East Boston courtroom to charges that he viewed child pornography on his laptop while flying from Salt Lake City to Boston.

Grant D. Smith, 47, of Cottonwood Heights, Utah, was ordered held in lieu of $75,000 cash bail and a judge slated a pretrial hearing for Dec. 27.

Prosecutor Erik Bennett said that a passenger seated behind Smith’s first-class seat on the Delta flight on Saturday took a picture of what Smith was doing and sent a text message to his son with the picture, asking him to contact Massachusetts police.

The passenger also alerted a flight attendant who confronted Smith and told him to shut off his MacBook, which was bought by a grant from the university, Bennett said.

After being confronted by the flight attendant, Smith allegedly tried to erase images from his computer.

The images were mostly of girls between 8 and 10 years old, naked or nearly naked, engaging in simulated sex acts. Some of the pictures were of children as young as 6, Bennett said.

State Police met Smith’s flight on Saturday, searched his laptop, and allegedly discovered “disturbing images of child pornography,” said State Police spokesman David Procopio.

Smith is a professor of material science and engineering and an adjunct professor of chemical engineering at the University of Utah. He has two bachelor’s degrees and a doctorate, and he has worked at the university for 14 years, Bennett said.

Smith wore a dark gray blazer over a black polo shirt in his court appearance,. He stared into the distance and did not speak. His lawyer entered his not-guilty plea for him before Judge Kenneth Desmond.

He was placed on administrative leave by the university, following his arrest.

“Professor Smith deserves a full and fair investigation into this issue,” the university said in a statement released on Sunday. “The University of Utah, however, has no tolerance for the viewing or possessing of child pornography by any of its employees, regardless of where it occurs.

The school’s statement continued, “As a result, if the allegations against professor Smith are found to be true, the university will immediately seek professor Smith’s dismissal.”

Procopio said the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which is run by the State Police and specializes in investigation of online sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, has joined the investigation.

Smith had been held on $15,000 cash bail since his arrest.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/11/utah-professor-pleads-not-guilty-child-porn-charges/83M6ssM6eLLfcwr2Ng44AN/index.html

They've upped his bail and he may face further charges.

I'm sure you'd love to view the images he looked at, for yourself, to make your own determination about whether you consider them child porn. Rolling Eyes


hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:28 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The images were mostly of girls between 8 and 10 years old, naked or nearly naked, engaging in simulated sex acts. Some of the pictures were of children as young as 6, Bennett said.

What is a "simulated sex act" between 8 year olds?? It sure sounds bad, but I dont know. I seriously doubt that it means that they were rubbing there genitalia together though.

The only thing we know is that I was probably not correct in my suspicion that these were innocent pics of his daughter that he had no reason to think were offensive....the description above indicates that the state has more than that.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:28 am
@firefly,
Quote:
Sorry, people have no rights to sexually exploit or sexually abuse others.


People do have the right not to give up all ten amendments rights when charge with such crimes however.

Quote:
There are also not just emotional excuses--there are also valid and legitimate reasons to forgo activities such as the viewing of child pornography, and for the government to regard such activities as criminal.


It is not however a valid reason for the government to be allow to spy on all of us for the claimed reason of tracking down the tiny fraction of us dealing with child porn.

It not a valid reason to keep records/databases that the government and civil law suits can access for any reason of all of our movements on the net.

It not a valid reason to interfere with secure communications on the net between citizens.

In other word it is not a valid reason to assume that we are all child porn traders unless proven otherwise.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:29 am
@BillRM,
My heart's far from pure, but you're the one who supports rapists and knows more about child pornography laws than is healthy.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:32 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Sorry, people have no rights to sexually exploit or sexually abuse others.

And in every thread we have had on child pornography, you have chimed in to tell us how well encrypted your computer is.


That's a very good point, it seems like Bill has learnt a lot from what happened to Gary Glitter.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:35 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

My heart's far from pure, but you're the one who supports rapists and knows more about child porography laws than is healthy.
Defense attorneys who defend alleged rapists and child pornographers are the salt of the earth, they who defend the most hated are owed a debt a gratitude from all of us for making justice possible. But Pushy would rather slime all those who are associated with alleged sex offenders, which goes to show that he does not get it.
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:39 am
@izzythepush,
Support rapists, as in the man who was fast asleep alone in bed when a woman jump into bed with him and begin sexual activity and he ended up getting charge with rape the next day when the woman regret her actions.

Yes indeed I support such 'rapists'.

And I know too must about child porn laws so anyone that is not a dumb ass like you is likely to be a child porn trader?

In fact I know this information due to the government and such special interests as the movie and music industries are using child porn trading issue as an excuse to get laws pass that had little to do with child porn trading.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:40 am
@hawkeye10,
Bill is not a lawyer, he would have to be literate for that. He, like you, is a sick pervert who fantasises about having sex with little girls, and needs to put extra security on his computer so he doesn't end up like Gary Glitter.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:41 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

What is a "simulated sex act" between 8 year olds?? It sure sounds bad, but I dont know. I seriously doubt that it means that they were rubbing there genitalia together though.

You really do want all the lurid details, don't you? Rolling Eyes

I'm sure the images will be presented in court as part of the evidence against him. A jury will be able to view them. Sorry, Hawkeye, you won't get to see them.
Quote:
Defense attorneys who defend alleged rapists and child pornographers are the salt of the earth

Defense attorneys defend those accused of any and all crimes, as part of our adversarial system of justice--everyone is entitled to a defense.

But you're not a defense attorney. You defend rapists and child pornographers because you can see yourself standing in their shoes.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:42 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Bill is not a lawyer, he would have to be literate for that. He, like you, is a sick pervert who fantasises about having sex with little girls, and needs to put extra security on his computer so he doesn't end up like Gary Glitter.
As has been explained to you I am a defender of freedom, my interest in the most hated among us is to judge how free I am from oppression at the hands of the state.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:42 am
@BillRM,
When you can construct a basic sentence, you can call someone a dumbass, until then keep your ignorant mouth shut, you disgusting, slobbering proto-hominid.
 

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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 08:44:16