17
   

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

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:18 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.
1. I have not checked all 50 jurisdictions.
2. I will NOT check them, especially not in exchange for NO money.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You started this thread with the assumption that this was another innocent man being victimized by the government for some innocuous sexually-related behavior
I started with a prediction that it would turn out that this guy did little to nothing wrong and that the state and some airline passengers were getting their panties in a twist. It is now looking slightly less likely that this is a good guy caught in a web of puritanical zeal, but he has certainly been abused by the state, as I have pointed out in several points, one of which is my last post before this in this thread.

Quote:
It has already been viewed by the police and D.A..It is rather presumptuous of you to demand that you have to personally view the porn, or be given a highly graphic and detailed lurid description, before deciding whether the man has been appropriately charged. Your interest in this seems clearly prurient.
The state has proven to be untrustworthy continually, and in sexual matters of the citizens particularly, I dont trust any DA further than I can kick them. Until the American "Justice" system works well enough that I can trust it to deliver justice I expect to be able to review the evidence, and I have that right. Any state that is willing to put out a press release about how despicable the accused is the day after the event, who arrests the accused almost as soon as they make contact, needs to be watched carefully. Justice is more important than is the law and order aims of the state.
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
the logic of it indicates to me that both passengers
woud be (figuratively speaking) cellmates for similar federal crimes:
looking at child porn and PRODUCING child porn
(after looking at it).

Well, the logic of it indicates to me that one passenger was committing a crime, and the other passenger photographed the commission of a crime--i.e. photographing the man watching images on his laptop.

By no stretch should the passenger who took the photo be charged with producing, or even re-producing, child pornography. That is not the intention of the law, nor was it the intention of the passenger who took the photo and immediately passed it on to the police so they could investigate the situation.
.
If a store security video captures images of a child being sexually assaulted, and that documents the commission of a crime that leads to the arrest of the perpetrator involved, you would not charge the store owner with production of child pornography either.

Do you really see the D.A.'s as being completely mindless, and without judgment, in how the law is applied in such situations?
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Firefly in fact once told me that perfection in sexual assault cases would be a 100% conviction rate

I never said any such thing. Your tendency to blatantly lie does nothing to enhance the already dim view of your character.

Meanwhile, you made a fool of yourself by starting this thread. Whatever images that man had on his computer will speak for themselves at his trial.

If this man's life is over it will be his own fault.

The victims in child pornography are the children who are abused and exploited in those images. Spare me your bleeding heart crap for the people who view this stuff to get sexually aroused--they are not the victims, no matter how much you identify with them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:52 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
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.
Your point is very well taken about the real estate fraud.
I don 't know where the line will be drawn; I cannot predict it.
( I can only predict that come hell or hi water, our grandchildren will become the Borg.)
The anti-porn legislation appears to be in furtherance of naked emotion,
without evidence of harm to the alleged victims.

HOWEVER, if
children or ANYONE is forced to pose in sexual scenes
for the financial exploitation of photographers,
that is a moral offense that is very properly addressable by criminal law
and presumably by civil law as well.





David
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 07:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I expect to be able to review the evidence, and I have that right.

You can go sit in the courtroom at his trial. You will then be able to view all evidence presented to the jury.

You do not otherwise have "the right" to view or review the evidence. And it is not up to you to decide what constitutes child pornography and what doesn't.

Your interest in this is clearly prurient. You really are sick.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 08:31 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
I expect to be able to review the evidence, and I have that right.

You can go sit in the courtroom at his trial. You will then be able to view all evidence presented to the jury.

You do not otherwise have "the right" to view or review the evidence. And it is not up to you to decide what constitutes child pornography and what doesn't.

Your interest in this is clearly prurient. You really are sick.


You have not yet obtained your dream job of North Korean Bureaucrat..in America we the citizens own the government (at least in theory, in practice is is currently corrupt) and we always retain the right to monitor the government as well as pass judgement on its behavior.

Quote:
2. COURT RECORDS ARE PRESUMPTIVELY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. “In Massachusetts, the right of public
access to judicial records is governed by overlapping constitutional, statutory, and common-law rules.”3 There is a
common law “general principle of publicity” that court records are presumptively open to the public.4 For some types
of records, this qualified right is also secured by the First Amendment.5

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/pubaccesscourtrecords.pdf

as it turns out this state does not support my right to look at obscene evidence in all cases, which I think is a mistake in the law, but the state clearly indicates that it is aware that citizens have the right to monitor the functioning of the courts by looking at the records from individual cases.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 08:35 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Meanwhile, you made a fool of yourself by starting this thread
This has been an interesting and informative wide ranging conversation populated with smart people with divergent views......this honey counts as a WIN.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 08:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
citizens have the right to monitor the functioning of the courts by looking at the records from individual cases.

That's what I said--go sit in the courtroom and watch the trial. Then you can see the evidence.

You can look at the judicial record--after the trial. Before that time, the evidence isn't presented in court.

Your interest is stil prurient. You want to know all about those images of child pornography in as much graphic lurid detail as possible, if you can't see the actual images, which I am sure you would prefer.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 08:56 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Your interest is stil prurient. You want to know all about those images of child pornography in as much graphic lurid detail as possible, if you can't see the actual images, which I am sure you would prefer.


I know what my interest is, and I trust that others will in time get to know me well enough that they will see what my interests are as well. I dont feel a great need to defend myself against your slime, because I choose to have faith in my fellow man, I choose to believe that most people will eventually understand what a manipulative lying bitch you are as your push your pet programs for human advancement by way of deception.
firefly
 
  2  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 09:01 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I trust that others will in time get to know me well enough that they will see what my interests are as well.

They have already gotten to know you--quite well. That's why so many people describe you in terms like "creep" "perv" "sicko" ...
jcboy
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 09:05 pm
@firefly,
You left out belt whipping child beater. Smile
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 09:21 pm
@jcboy,
jcboy wrote:

You left out belt whipping child beater. Smile


OH BOY! that does IT!...I am all filled with shame now *sarcasm*
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 09:29 pm
Quote:
During an interview, Smith granted written consent for a trooper assigned to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force to view his MacBook Pro, which he said was purchased through a research grant from the University of Utah, according to a news release from Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.

Smith allegedly said he was the sole user of the computer.

Troopers recovered from the computer a number of still images depicting young girls, some naked and some engaged in explicit sexual activity with adult males, Conley said in the news release. Based on captions embedded in the images and troopers’ estimates, the children depicted were between the ages of 5 and 14 years old.

"These weren’t photos of a child in the bath that a parent might keep," Conley said. "These were explicitly sexual and extremely disturbing."

The Associated Press reported that Massachusetts state police spokesman David Procopio said in a statement: "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."

Smith’s laptop and iPhone were seized as evidence. Investigators will seek a search warrant to conduct a thorough forensic examination of their contents, Conley said.

Under Massachusetts law, even possessing child pornography is punishable by up to five years in state prison, Conley said. A person convicted of that offense must also register as a sex offender.

On Monday, Smith was arraigned in East Boston District Court, where Judge Kenneth V. Desmond set bail at $75,000.

Prosecutors had asked the judge for a bail of $150,000. But Smith’s attorney, Patrick Murphy, argued for a lower amount, saying Smith has no prior criminal record and has been at the U. for 14 years, the Associated Press reported.

The judge imposed a number of conditions if Smith is freed, including no unsupervised contact with children under 16 and no use of the Internet except for professional purposes. Smith also must allow probation or law enforcement officers to search his personal and work computers and digital media at any time, according to Conley.

Smith’s next court date is Dec. 27.

Smith went to Boston to attend the Materials Research Society’s week-long fall meeting and exhibit, scheduled to start Monday, according to the Associated Press.

All of Smith’s post-secondary education occurred at the U., where he earned his doctorate in 1990. He is a specialist in molecular dynamics working with the U.’s Center for the Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosions, or C-SAFE, an interdisciplinary research group funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, as well as his own research lab. His current salary is $170,000, according to Utahsright.com.

A statement from the University of Utah said Smith had been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.

"Professor Smith deserves a full and fair investigation into this issue," the statement said. "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."

If the allegations against Smith are discovered to be true, the university will "immediately seek Professor Smith’s dismissal," the statement said.

"We are making all appropriate measures to cooperate with the investigation and contain evidence of criminal activity," a university spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the laptop Smith was using belongs to university if it was bought with grant money. The spokesman said he did not know how Smith’s travel arrangements were paid, but noted that the university’s policy is not to reimburse for first-class accommodations.

Coincidentally, a Utah judge on Friday signed Smith’s divorce decree against his wife. Smith filed for divorce in September, citing irreconcilable differences. The Smiths have two children, ages 8 and 11, according to court documents.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53002672-78/smith-child-university-according.html.csp

Quote:
Prosecutors say state police at Logan inspected the suspect's computer and found seven different files -- all of them with pictures of girls between the ages of five and 14.

Authorities say Smith -- a divorced father of an eight and 10 year old -- tried to erase some of his files. They say he was evasive during questioning, but claim he later admitted to having the images and frequenting chat rooms on the internet dedicated to child pornography.
http://www.necn.com/11/28/11/Man-who-tipped-authorities-off-to-child-/landing_newengland.html?blockID=602008&feedID=4206


This man's marriage just ended, and, if he is found guilty, his career just ended.

The only interesting thing about this story is that the man is a college professor and he was viewing these images in a public place. But, in today's news, another college professor was also in the news for sex-related and pornography charges.
http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2011/11/27/warwick-university-professor-charged-with-child-sex-offences-66331-29848305/

Just because people are college professors doesn't mean they don't have sexual problems.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 09:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You started this thread with the assumption that this was another innocent man
being victimized by the government for some innocuous sexually-related behavior
hawkeye10 wrote:
I started with a prediction that it would turn out that this guy did little to nothing wrong and that the state and some airline passengers were getting their panties in a twist. It is now looking slightly less likely that this is a good guy caught in a web of puritanical zeal, but he has certainly been abused by the state, as I have pointed out in several points, one of which is my last post before this in this thread.
Did u expect us to check thru all earlier threads ??????????????

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:12 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
During an interview, Smith granted written consent for a trooper assigned to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force to view his MacBook Pro, which he said was purchased through a research grant from the University of Utah, according to a news release from Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley.

Smith allegedly said he was the sole user of the computer.


None of the above would any defense lawyer tell him he should had done in fact from a legal point of view he should had refused to talk to the cops let alone grant written consent to search his compute or admitted that he is the sole user of the computer.

The police and the prosecutors are lucky that so many of us are so willing to do their work for them and convicted ourselves of crimes.

I remember a case of a spy ring for the Russians during the cold war where the government had almost zero evidence against one very minor player in the ring and the fool went willingly in front of a grant jury and admitted to so must wrong doing that he got more time in prison then the ring leader who work a deal with the government.

The story can be google under the Walker spy ring or the Walker family spy ring.




0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:35 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
By no stretch should the passenger who took the photo be charged with producing, or even re-producing, child pornography. That is not the intention of the law, nor was it the intention of the passenger who took the photo and immediately passed it on to the police so they could investigate the situation.


As far as I am aware the intent of the child porn laws was not to charge late teens under it for taking pictures of themselves and willingly sharing them with their sexual partners either.

The intent seldom matter when dealing with badly written laws.

firefly
 
  4  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 10:42 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

The intent seldom matter when dealing with badly written laws.

Have you actually read any of these laws? Rolling Eyes

You're the last person who should criticize anything for being badly written, given how most of your posts read. Laughing

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Mon 28 Nov, 2011 11:48 pm
Quote:
When asked if there were any illegal images on his computer, Smith, a divorced father of an 8- and a 10-year-old, debated the definition of child pornography and told troopers he had traded pornographic images of “teens” on the Internet, police said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1384449&srvc=rss

So he has a boy and and girl 8 and 10 with a mother he just recently divorced, was liking looking at nakid girls 8-10, did so on a plane where people could watch him, and then cooperated with police as they nabbed him??!! I have a feeling someone from law enforcement has talked to his kids in the last couple of days. Maybe his lawyer should want to get him a shrink.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Tue 29 Nov, 2011 12:14 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
There are a lot of non-lawyer litigants out there, who do not feel the constraints of Rule 11. (Google it.)

The low risk of pointless law suits that will be dismiss at first hearing is not what you and others was implying in stating that the airline or the passenger could be facing large laws suits for reporting the man to the police.

No, I never said anything about the airline or the passenger facing "large" or any other kind of lawsuits for reporting to the police. My first comment on the issue was to rebuke your claim that "you can not sue a citizen who in good faith report a possible crime to the police".
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:32:28