17
   

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

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:42 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
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. y


Not a bit of proof of those silly claims but that is the point that the child porn issue is being use as a tool to get people to shut up about little things like the right of privacy.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:44 am
@hawkeye10,
I don't give a **** about your 'oppression,' I care about the safety of children. Sick pieces of **** like you should be oppressed with extreme prejudice.
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:44 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
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.


Sorry dear but you do not have the power to shut anyone up in fact you have zero power here and most likely also in your real life.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:47 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

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.


When the state goes after my fellow citizens I have a right to know the nature of the evidence against them.....bad sounding but nearly meaning less terms like "child porn" and "simulated sex acts" dont cut it. Just about any physical contact between two females could be claimed to be a lesbian sex act, in cases where a man's life is on the line because of viewing this kind of exchange we need to now the nature of the contact in more detail.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:50 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I don't give a **** about your 'oppression,' I care about the safety of children. Sick pieces of **** like you should be oppressed with extreme prejudice.


I view you and your fellow idiots who are willing to give up your freedom and mine after the state tells you we must for the SAFETY! of the children to be the dangerous ones.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:52 am
Bill, it appears that you have been off on a wild goose chase, as Smith does not own the laptop and under US law he had no right to keep it from the cops

Quote:
Prosecutor Erik Bennett said that a fellow passenger in first class on Smith’s flight number 270 saw him watching the movies and told flight attendants. They subsequently alerted officials and told Smith to shut his university-issued Mac Book

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/11/dr-grant-d-smith-child-porn-pornography-flight-not-guilty
CoastalRat
 
  3  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:55 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
When the state goes after my fellow citizens I have a right to know the nature of the evidence against them.....bad sounding but nearly meaning less terms like "child porn" and "simulated sex acts" dont cut it. Just about any physical contact between two females could be claimed to be a lesbian sex act, in cases where a man's life is on the line because of viewing this kind of exchange we need to now the nature of the contact in more detail.


I see. So you want to know whether the two kids were simulating sex by grinding their bare pelvises together or whether they were pretending to eat each other out or whether they were just kissing and touching? Does it really matter?

I'm beginning to agree with others here that you really are a sick pervert.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:57 am
@hawkeye10,
I'm quite pissed off about having my freedom taken away from me. If some sick pervert tries to rape one of my kids I should be free to rip his genitals off. That's the sort of freedom we need, not this sick rapist worship you and Bill salivate over.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:59 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
I see. So you want to know whether the two kids were simulating sex by grinding their bare pelvises together or whether they were pretending to eat each other out or whether they were just kissing and touching? Does it really matter?
Of course. one is normal young girl behavior and the other is adult erotic behavior..... one the state has zero grounds to criminalize and the other they at least have an argument.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:00 pm
@BillRM,
At least I can write coherently. Ever heard of Occam's razor? You write like a braindead pice of **** because you are a braindead piece of ****.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:01 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I'm quite pissed off about having my freedom taken away from me. If some sick pervert tries to rape one of my kids I should be free to rip his genitals off. That's the sort of freedom we need, not this sick rapist worship you and Bill salivate over.
I see, you dont believe in the law, you would rather go back in time to primitive justice...that explains a lot.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Bill, it appears that you have been off on a wild goose chase, as Smith does not own the laptop and under US law he had no right to keep it from the cops


Hawkeye the link you gave clearly state that he was watching child porn on his laptop and was told to shut it down.

Now shutting down any of my or my wife computers would means that they could not be access again without my or my wife aid.

They could keep the laptop but is would be completely worthless to them as the hard drive by any known test would just be full with random digits.

Oh the ownership of the hardware does no matter on the issue of if it can be read once WDE had been put into place nor can I see how it would effect his 5 amendment rights not to give up the keys.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:03 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

in fact you have zero power here and most likely also in your real life.


So speaks the man forced to retire early. You sure can wield that power of yours.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:04 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

At least I can write coherently. Ever heard of Occam's razor? You write like a braindead pice of **** because you are a braindead piece of ****.
Being emotionally flooded as you are now is a sign of weakness in a man...this is what women do, not us. Please attempt to be not so much of an embarrassment to men.
CoastalRat
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Of course. one is normal young girl behavior and the other is adult erotic behavior.


One is normal girl behavior (in your view, at least) UNLESS it is done in front of a camera and distributed at which point it is child pornography and anyone possessing it is subject to criminal penalties if found guilty.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:06 pm
@BillRM,
You erroneously claimed "... you can not sue a citizen who in good faith report a possible crime to the police," which is flatly incorrect. I agree that such a suit would probably be dismissed with the filing of a motion for summary judgment, but that's not what you said. You implied that there is some magical shield that prevents the lawsuit from being filed, and the good Samaritan would never be sued, and would never have to file that motion for summary judgment. Looking up terms like "malicious prosecution" in a legal dictionary does not make your argument for you.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:06 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
They could keep the laptop but is would be completely worthless to them as the hard drive by any known test would just be full with random digits.


Do you have the right to encrypt a computer that you do not own? I dont think you do.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:07 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.

Huh?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:11 pm
@Ticomaya,
Well any lawyer who file such a suit may be in trouble with his state bar and he would know filing such a claim would be a pointless exercise so that seems off hand a good shield from such suits.
firefly
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 12:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Of course. one is normal young girl behavior and the other is adult erotic behavior..... one the state has zero grounds to criminalize and the other they at least have an argument

It is not "normal young girl behavior" for young girls to kiss each other and touch each other's bodies--particularly when it is being photographed by an adult and distributed as erotica for sexual arrousal. That sort of behavior is much more typical of children who have been sexually abused.

How do you know what is "normal young girl behavior" and what isn't? Spend much time looking at kiddy porn?
 

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 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:56:48