17
   

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

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Thu 22 Dec, 2011 10:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
.the presumption is that no harm has been done, the one who is accusing needs to prove their case.

Now your thinking is as confused as BilRM's.

There is no presumption that no harm has been done.

When criminal charges, involving child pornography, are lodged, there is a presumption of guilt by law enforcement.

The child pornography laws are based on the assumption that harm is done to the chidren involved when those laws are violated--that children are indeed harmed when they are abused and exploited in child pornography--including when their sexualized images are distributed and viewed. That is why child pornography is illegal. And that has clearly been stated, including by the U.S. Supreme Court. And that was previously posted, by me, in this thread.

The presumption of innocence refers to the defendant's legal status at the start of the trial. What must be proved, to a jury's satisfaction, is simply that the defendant violated the child pornography laws, that he is guilty as charged.

And the conviction rate in child pornography cases is over 90%--the evidence is generally clear-cut and unambiguous, which is why over 90% of the defendants wind up pleading guilty.

Trying to wave the Constitution doesn't make you any less of a creep. The U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with your rather fanciful interpretations of the Constitution when it comes to child pornography.

Wait for BillRM. His understanding of the law is as distorted as yours. He'll tell you you're right, he'll agree with you, you'll both make each other feel good and really, really important. BillRM buys your bullshit, he laps it up. You're a perfect couple. You don't need women interrupting your conversation--you boys have each other. Wait for BillRM.
All you want is an audience, an audience that is as uncritical as humanly possible, so then you can feel you are winning your imaginary debate, and pat yourself on the back, and tell yourself how you scored . And BillRM is your perfect audience. He uncritically slobbers over your every word and cheers you on, mainly because no one wants to listen to him, except you. Wait for BillRM, the two of you are made for each other.



hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 22 Dec, 2011 11:52 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Now your thinking is as confused as BilRM's.

There is no presumption that no harm has been done.

When criminal charges, involving child pornography, are lodged, there is a presumption of guilt by law enforcement.


There is an assertion of guilt by the state, which according to the Constitution must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a just trial where the defendant is allowed to confront his accuser(s) and to attack the credibility of the state's evidence.

Quote:
Trying to wave the Constitution doesn't make you any less of a creep. The U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with your rather fanciful interpretations of the Constitution when it comes to child pornography


I note that you have NOT shown up with a SCOTUS case that backs up your assertion that recidivism rates are seen by the arbiters of justice to be a basis for deciding sentencing.......it appears that not having any defense for your position that you have resorted to the more comfortable for you tactic of taking the offense.

Quote:
Wait for BillRM. His understanding of the law is as distorted as yours. He'll tell you you're right, he'll agree with you, you'll both make each other feel good and really, really important. BillRM buys your bullshit, he laps it up. You're a perfect couple. You don't need women interrupting your conversation--you boys have each other. Wait for BillRM.
All you want is an audience,


Yeppers....it is damn hard for you to stick to the subject matter isnt it. Maybe they have a 12 step program for your problem, Have you looked into it?

I see that you have referred to Bill 6 times in a post that ostensibly is a response to my post....are you having trouble focusing tonight dear? Maybe you should head for bed before you further embarrass yourself.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 01:05 am
Quote:
it is damn hard for you to stick to the subject matter isnt it.

Hawkeye...

You consider your interminable bullshit the subject of this thread?

You regard your insubstantial crap as some sort of "debate"?

You actually think you are making points that anyone takes seriously?

You think you are regarded as anything other than a self-deluded creep?
http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/2/1/4/7/7/1/a3234523-52-animated-laughing.gif?d=1273492044

As I said, wait for your faithful follower, the semi-literate, buffoon BillRM. He tells you what you want to hear, and you love it. BillRM gives you the unthinking, uncritical audience you crave. You validate each other. You make each other feel important. The two of you mutually masturbate each other. And that's about the level that both of you are on. The two of you are nothing more than a creep show, a sick joke without a punchline. Laughing
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 02:23 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
it is damn hard for you to stick to the subject matter isnt it.

Hawkeye...

You consider your interminable bullshit the subject of this thread?

You regard your insubstantial crap as some sort of "debate"?

You actually think you are making points that anyone takes seriously?

You think you are regarded as anything other than a self-deluded creep?
http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/2/1/4/7/7/1/a3234523-52-animated-laughing.gif?d=1273492044

As I said, wait for your faithful follower, the semi-literate, buffoon BillRM. He tells you what you want to hear, and you love it. BillRM gives you the unthinking, uncritical audience you crave. You validate each other. You make each other feel important. The two of you mutually masturbate each other. And that's about the level that both of you are on. The two of you are nothing more than a creep show, a sick joke without a punchline. Laughing



You will get back to the subject when you figure out something to say, you always do. See you in a few days. Put your thinking cap on, you can do this......
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:09 am
@firefly,
Like a lot of abusers, Chicken Little thinks he's being persecuted for holding a different philosophy from the rest of us. He probably does think children enjoy being abused by him, which is all part of his delusional mindset, and allows him to avoid dealing with what a despicable person he really is. In his eyes, the pain that victims of child abuse suffer isn't caused by the actual abuse, but by the stigma of being abused. Therefore the answer is to allow the abuse, and those children will come to the conclusion that they've not been abused, but educated. You're never going to be able to reason with someone like tha,t because he likes to think of himself as a hero, because the problem isn't the abuser but the way society treats abused children and paedophiles.

Interesting how their argument for a more codified approach to child pornography seems to have become rather muted of late. I do prefer our system of jurisprudence for the exact opposite reasons they expound. They argue that when anyone is accused of watching child pornography the wider public automatically thinks of images of extreme abuse, but the perpetrator is only viewing mild images of naked children splashing about in paddling pools. This viewpoint has become increasingly more muted as evidence came out as to the more disturbing images this individual was viewing. So the opposite is the case, Chicken Little and his slobbering sidekick argue that these individuals are being persecuted for viewing images that could easily grace an art gallery, but they're not, they're looking at images of actual abuse.

Over here the headline cases that make the news, always involve abusers watching images that are in the most extreme categories. That's the reality, and those two wish to muddy the waters to give a thoroughly misleading account of what is going on.

As for abusers being treated the same as those found guilty of manslaughter, why not? Most of us can envisage a situation where we would have to kill someone else. If that were not so, we wouldn't have a military worth talking about. Very few of us can envisage a situation where we would have to abuse a child. Paedophiles are a far more serious problem than those guilty of manslaughter, that's a fact.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:19 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
Paedophiles are a far more serious problem than those guilty of manslaughter, that's a fact.


Would you care to flesh out how it is that those who like to jack of to erotic thoughts of kids are a far more serious problem than are killers??

Seriously, you sound ready for some quality time in the loony bin.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:26 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Paedophiles are a far more serious problem
than those guilty of manslaughter, that's a fact.
Lemme get this straight:
Izzy says that if u r below voting age,
then it is better to be murdered than to be raped ?

( May I also point out something that is deeply, very pervasively ingrained
in nearly all members of this forum:
u almost all continually create run-on sentences. Y not just make 2 sentences?? )
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
then it is better to be murdered than to be raped ?


being dead is not as bad as MAYBE being hurt??!! Drunk
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:32 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Seriously, you sound ready for some quality time in the loony bin.
Comments like that only distract from the issues in dispute.

He did not solicit a psychiatric diagnosis from a layman.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:34 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Comments like that only distract from the issues in dispute.

He did not solicit a psychiatric diagnosis from a layman.


Extreme irrationality deserves a comment, silence is consent.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:43 am
@hawkeye10,

Quote:
Comments like that only distract from the issues in dispute.

He did not solicit a psychiatric diagnosis from a layman.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Extreme irrationality deserves a comment, silence is consent.
Its an OFF TOPIC distraction which helps nothing.
This thread is not about the state of his mental health.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 03:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
This thread is not about the state of his mental health.


It was not till someone said that erotic interest is kids is worse than is the killing humans, then it was. Pushy sounds like he is nuts, now lets see if he can explain himself well enough to allow for an alternate explanation for his whacked out comment. His dim view of humanity re the propensity to murderous rage does not begin to explain the position that the finality of death is not as bad as is injury.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 04:01 am
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
This thread is not about the state of his mental health.
hawkeye10 wrote:
It was not till someone said that erotic interest is kids is worse than is the killing humans, then it was. Pushy sounds like he is nuts,
What if he WERE nuts?? (There r people in this forum who openly admit SEVERE mental disorders, but who post anyway.)
The disputed issues still remain; thay r defined by the title
and by the opening paragraf of the thread, which do NOT include
questions about his mental viability. With all respect: please stop distracting.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 04:09 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
What if he WERE nuts?? (There r people in this forum who openly admit SEVERE mental disorders, but who post anyway.)
The disputed issues still remain; thay r defined by the title
and by the opening paragraf of the thread, which do NOT include
questions about his mental viability. With all respect: please stop distracting.


you should save your sermon till I take the position that he is nuts, for the moment all I am saying is that is assertion is so warped that he sounds nuts, while calling for an explanation. I am being very reasonable here, and on point.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 04:33 am
@hawkeye10,
DAVID wrote:
What if he WERE nuts??
(There r people in this forum who openly admit SEVERE mental disorders, but who post anyway.)
The disputed issues still remain; thay r defined by the title
and by the opening paragraf of the thread, which do NOT include
questions about his mental viability. With all respect: please stop distracting.
hawkeye10 wrote:
you should save your sermon till I take the position that he is nuts,
for the moment all I am saying is that is assertion is so warped that he sounds nuts,
while calling for an explanation.
I am being very reasonable here, and on point.
Recommending remedys (institutionalization)
for alleged mental derangement
in a thread on the legitimacy of censorship laws is NOT "on point".
If we were litigating in court, I 'd object on grounds of relevance.

I 'm reminded of a thread a few years ago,
when a woman wanted us to render moral support
for her whipping her daughter with a strap.
I argued in opposition to that practice.
Her refutation of my counter-suggestion
was to declare me to be "delusional."

I pointed out that she shoud not be hitting anyone with a whip,
whether I am delusional or not.





David
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 05:53 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
This viewpoint has become increasingly more muted as evidence came out as to the more disturbing images this individual was viewing. So the opposite is the case, Chicken Little and his slobbering sidekick argue that these individuals are being persecuted for viewing images that could easily grace an art gallery, but they're not, they're looking at images of actual abuse.


The problem is once more under the current US Federal law it does not matter how mild or how severe the pictures are or are not the law call for the same degree of punishment and that punishment is so harsh that Federal judges are rebelling sentencing offenders under the guide lines.

Break the damn offense into levels just to start with and get the emotions out of the issue and have more reasonable punishments.

Oh one more thing get the private sharing of pictures between lovers removed from being cover by this law at all.

Frankly even Firefly and Izzy should not had a problem with any of the above assuming that their were operating as reasonable people.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 06:06 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Would you care to flesh out how it is that those who like to jack of to erotic thoughts of kids are a far more serious problem than are killers??

Seriously, you sound ready for some quality time in the loony bin.


As always you paint the paedophile in glowing terms, as a man who has erotic thoughts about children and does nothing else. That person hasn't broken any laws, as opposed to those who are a real danger to children by abusing them, or watching images of abuse. Those are the paedophiles, and your scaremongering, by trying to include other groups, says more about your motives than the law.

If you think I'm insane, I'm obviously on the right track, ss you're just a sick abuser. I was talking about manslaughter not murder. Most people found guilty of that can be rehabilitated, they feel remorse. The only way to rehabilitate a paedophile is to castrate them.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 06:08 am
One other comment when you used emotions instead of reason in setting the punishment for looking and I repeat owning and looking at pictures so harshly you are doing far more harm then good.

Unless it can be shown the the engineering prof harm a child or children in some manner other then looking at pictures of someone else misdeeds that could date back decades the punishment should not be so harsh that you turn a useful citizen into a drain on society for the rest of his life.

By so doing you are harming his children is a very very direct manner and harming the society who will need to spend large amount of funds to imprison him and then lose the services of a very valuable member of society for the rest of his life.

Now as far this level of harsh punishment reducing the trading or even the existence of this material from all the government own statements the trading and the owning of these pictures are increasing not decreasing.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 06:12 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Oh one more thing get the private sharing of pictures between lovers removed from being cover by this law at all.


Why would you want that Bill? Is there a 15 year old lad down the road with a hot girlfriend? Have you offered him money if he can get you pictures of her naked?
Of course, if 15 year olds sending each other pornographic pictures were exempt from the child pornography laws, the authorities would not need to investigate further. If they do investigate further they'll be knocking on your door.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Fri 23 Dec, 2011 06:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Lemme get this straight:
Izzy says that if u r below voting age,
then it is better to be murdered than to be raped ?


I was talking about the threat people posed. I'm talking about manslaughter, not murder. These people are more likely to be rehabilitated. I know you could see yourself in a situation where you would need to kill someone, you've spoken of it often. Are you honestly saying you cannot see any circumstances where you could end up facing a manslaughter charge?
 

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 04/19/2025 at 03:02:24