17
   

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

 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:06 pm
@hawkeye10,

So, I am doing the guilty until proven innocent? Smile

Yes, the press will twist words... that's evident in gossip magazines.

Let's assume that it's all factual.. but the verdict (un-judged) will be gleened purely and solely on evidence. Taking it as a probability that at least 50% of that is factual... If he took photos of girls at airports, and does watch paid porn of these little things that somehow have been made to have sex at 5,6,7 isn't it fair to assume that he is a risk to children full stop?
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:08 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Yes, the press will twist words... that's evident in gossip magazines.
The government twists words in their effort to bully the citizens...THAT is a much more serious problem!

Quote:
If he took photos of girls at airports, and does watch paid porn of these little things that somehow have been made to have sex at 5,6,7 isn't it fair to assume that he is a risk to children full stop?


No, and when we were a better country we did not condemn people for what we feared that they would do, only for the wrong that we could prove that they did.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:10 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You like it when the state chops citizens off at the knees on a whim and an emotional appeal.
firefly wrote:
You mean when they arrest these pedophiles for possessing child pornography in their homes, or on their computers,
in clear violation of existing laws?

Yes, I approve of the state doing that.

And what "chops [such] citizens off at the knees" is the fact that the child pornography is found in their possession, and they don't have a bullshit defense to hide behind. If they don't like the penalties they might face, they should not violate the laws.

As I said, I'm not joining you in being a bleeding heart for pedophiles.
The USSC failed to do its job,
in defending the Bill of Rights,
which IS a bill of rongs that government is (in theory) disabled from doing.

Usurpatory ultra vires legislation to influence or curtail the thoughts
and their free expression of the citizens applies the blade of the ax
to the root of American freedom, which is the free MIND of each American citizen,
based upon hysteria. About 100 years ago, it was a scandal
if a woman revealed her ankle. Guys were known to loiter
around street car stops, watching the ladies mount n dismount.

If a murder is fotografed, the killer shud be prosecuted,
not the fotografer.





David
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The government twists words in their effort to bully the citizens...THAT is a much more serious problem!


And, the press cause anquish to those that they, bullshit about as well... That anquish is accusations, defimation of character, emotions are just as important in the bully tactic stakes.

Quote:
No, and when we were a better country we did not condemn people for what we feared that they would do, only for the wrong that we could prove that they did.


Oi Smile I said "assume" that he is a risk to children for goodness sake, if it is "true" that he watches these little things being sexually taken advantage of or sexually doing things to men, (they are children who are being told they have to do this) and then taking pictures of clothed little ones at airports, he is a risk... My question was "if it is true" and he is proven 100% guilty, is he then not a risk to children? YES he is...

It's interesting.. I get what you are saying "feared they would do"... So do we wait for him to rape and murder a little girl at the airport? And, then say, darn I thought he would one day, but the law said I can't assume.. How do we then protect those little children? Proof they did it, means he then went and raped a child... And, we did nothing, to stop him.

You have kids Hawekeye, put yourself in the picture it was your child...
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:31 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Taking photos of 5 - 10 year olds, at airports, fully clothed is a step beyond, watching porn of children... It's a scary thought



I would hate to be a child photographer in this day and age such as Kim Anderson.

http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090903/kim_anderson_children_pics_01.jpg

http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090903/kim_anderson_children_pics_15.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:32 pm
I read page 1 and page 69. Has the guy been charged, jailed, convicted, sentenced?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:33 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
So do we wait for him to rape and murder a little girl at the airport?


So far as the criminal justice system goes yes you wait for him to do harm to another, and looking at a pic of children is rarely doing harm. There are places in Europe where they are using the public health system to offer services to guys who like little girls...so long as they dont harm any actual girls they have nothing to fear from the state. America is not that civilized, as here liking little girls sexually is in and of itself considered a criminal activity much of the time.
firefly
 
  0  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
we dont have the slightest idea of what he was looking at.

Who's the "we"? Speak for yourself, others do have an idea of what he was looking at.
Quote:
The pornographic images allegedly from a paid site showed naked girls, ages 5 to 10, engaging in sexual activity with adult males, according to the warrants.

This man knowingly violated existing child pornography laws, and he was caught, and now he will face punishment--as is the case with all other criminals who are caught red-handed.
Quote:
The state routinely uses language in an organized effort to mislead the people, look no further than the run up to the invasion of Iraq for illustration.

If you can't distinguish the Iraq situation, or foreign policy, from rather precisely worded criminal laws, your thinking is so disorganized and confused you shouldn't be expecting anything you say about laws to be taken seriously.
Quote:
No, and when we were a better country we did not condemn people for what we feared that they would do, only for the wrong that we could prove that they did.

He was arrested for what he did--he had illegal child pornography on his computer. They have the evidence, they will have no difficulty proving it.



BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
I guess we should lock up anyone who take pictures of children at play that does not belong to them as why take a chance!

That is the kind of insane path we are going down it would seems!!!!!
JTT
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:43 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
If you can't distinguish the Iraq situation, or foreign policy, from rather precisely worded criminal laws, your thinking is so disorganized and confused you shouldn't be expecting anything you say about laws to be taken seriously.


One would think that the rule of law would/should apply across the board, in an even handed manner, FF. You come on like gangbusters vis a vis the law for JohnQ but you're awfully damn quiet about those who murder/destroy the lives of millions.

What's up with this huge, unexplainable dichotomy?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
How stupid do you think we are at A2K?


You're uffering from delusions of grandeur again. Your name ain't Liz. Incidently I know you're very stupid Chicken Little.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  0  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 03:47 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
I guess we should lock up anyone who take pictures of children at play that does not belong to them as why take a chance!

If those pictures are intermingled with child pornography showing children of the same age, it should raise suspicions.

But, you're apparently too concrete to understand that.

Want to tell us how you go to the park and "innocently" photograph strange young children who are not related to you? Or do you only take kittens, and not a camera, when you go to the park to interact with young children?
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 04:42 pm
@BillRM,
Bill, get a life.

Seriously.

Though those photos are cute, they are "art" ...

They are "innocent"..

If you can not differentuate over my question of "if he was guilty" of looking at children having sex, 5,6,7 years of age and then was also caught taking photos of children at an airport, how do we protect those children on probability, verses cute photos you need a mental check up.

You just want to argue full stop...
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 04:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Isn't having sex with a minor , a child harming that child?

Thou penis is much bigger than a little girls virgina.

Let alone the mental harm later in life, and even before, like at the time some big scary man comes on top of her and shoves it in her.

Sorry for the graphics but .....
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:16 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Isn't having sex with a minor , a child harming that child?
Is our alleged perp accused of doing that? I did not notice "rape" in the list of charges.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:19 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
One would think that the rule of law would/should apply across the board, in an even handed manner, FF. You come on like gangbusters vis a vis the law for JohnQ but you're awfully damn quiet about those who murder/destroy the lives of millions.


And even more interestingly damn quiet when the state violates the supreme law of the land.....the US Constitution, and abuses the US citizens as it does.
0 Replies
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
No, I understand that, hypothetical is good though...

The question was "if he was found guilty"...

But still, I stand by this.... A child is a child, I said that at the beginning of this thread and should be protected... Those kids should not be having sex full stop, there should be no videos full stop. What, creates crime half the time? What man puts out there for man to view.

hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:26 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
FOUND SOUL wrote:

.

But still, I stand by this.... A child is a child, I said that at the beginning of this thread and should be protected... Those kids should not be having sex full stop, there should be no videos full stop. What, creates crime half the time? What man puts out there for man to view.




That does not include seeking out and locking up all those who think of little girls in a sexual way out of fear that they might some day harm a little girl. That is nuts, that is criminalizing desire and is using our thoughts rather than our feelings as justification for punishing us. We are all proud of ourselves for condoning homosexuality, we say that this makes us so much better than an ancestors, but we practice the exact same BS....only the target has changed.

We know through history where this train goes, once the state is allowed to claim the right to police our thoughts in one area it will always work to expand the claim. We see this right now as the American Government works to set up stooges on terrorism charges. What will be next? Something will until and unless we the people say ENOUGH!, and cut back the powers of the state in response to the states continual pattern of abuse of power.
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
No I agree. There has to be some reason for belief that, that person may be dangerous to children, not a "thought".. If they "think" then they can put that person under surveylance for as long as needed and that will save that child.

BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 22 Jan, 2012 05:51 pm
@FOUND SOUL,
Quote:
Though those photos are cute, they are "art" ...

They are "innocent"..


In your eyes and mine they are innocent that does not mean that they are in others eyes........................

0 Replies
 
 

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 0.04 seconds on 04/18/2025 at 10:12:46