@BillRM,
Quote:
To be fair I myself do not consider that the willing sharing of middle to late teens pictures among themselves should fall under the child porn laws as seems to be the case with Trayvon at least from what I could gather/assume from the news stories.
However Firefly does indeed consider that such willing sharing should be under the child porn laws so yes he did had under age females nude pictures on his phone from the news stories I had read and such pictures would under current law be consider child porn,
You have an inordinate interest in child pornography.You continually bring it up in innumerable threads, where it is completely irrelevant to the topic. And your interest is in the pornography itself, the details of what is depicted, not just the sentences for the offenses. You seem to be quite familiar with the content, so that must come from first hand experience. You don't think the viewing and possession of such material should be illegal, because you have no concern for the sexual exploitation and abuse of the children depicted, and you cannot understand that each viewing of such material repeats the child's exploitation and the invasion of that child's privacy.
And now you are overly concerned with whether one minor, a victim of a homicide, had pictures of other nude minors on his cell phone. Are you getting off sexually from thinking about these things? Funny, I've done extensive reading about this case, and all the evidence, for well over a year, and your comments are the only references I've come across relating to child pornography, let alone trying to tie it to Trayvon Martin. That you're the one even concerned with this matter, and not concerned with even whether your information is true, once again suggests you are doing nothing more than feeding your own prurient interests in child pornography--something you usually refer to in the familiar as "CP".
I've never said that sexting photos of themselves, shared between minors, should be covered under child pornography laws, and that these minors should be prosecuted as adults--I've never commented on that issue, nor do I really care to. As far as I know, when this issue has come to public attention, it is because the threat of prosecution is being used as pressure to get information pertaining to another crime, like rape, or another felony, from the minor in possession of such photos. I haven't come across any cases where minors were prosecuted, as adults, for having sexually explicit photos of friends on their cell phones that were willingly sent to them by the person in the photo.
And, in the case of Trayvon Martin, what was allegedly found on his phone were "nude photos of underage females" --which might be a photo of someone flashing a tit, or her backside, not much more than you can see on any beach, and these photos were not identified as being sexually explicit or child pornography, nor is it known who took the photos. That 16 year old males like to look at photos of nude females is hardly abnormal.
And why is anything on Martin's cell phone relevant to whether Zimmerman was justified in killing him? Did Zimmerman have knowledge of what was on his phone when he profiled Martin? All Zimmerman saw was Martin talking on that phone, something most teenagers do all the time?
Do you know what photos Zimmerman had on his phone? Or on his home computer? Were they searched for porn or child porn?
Do we know what drugs Zimmerman had in his system the night of the shooting? He committed a homicide, why wasn't blood drawn from him for a toxicology test? Whether he was under the influence of any drugs would certainly be a factor which could have affected his perceptions, impulse control, and judgment. The police failed to gather this evidence which might have been crucial, and that was a complaint about the way they handled this case at the outset.
Stop citing my alleged views on how minors should be prosecuted for possession of child pornography unless you can quote me verbatim. You are looking for any excuse, no matter how irrelevant, to keep bringing up child pornography because of your own prurient interests in the topic.
And don't bother with your BS that you were tossed out of that park because the park didn't allow kittens. You went on and on, in another thread, about how you had been profiled as a pedophile because of the way you used the kittens to get young children to engage with you, and that was the reason that other adults, who witnessed your behavior, made sure you were asked to leave the park.
The entire point of your rant about that that incident was to carry on about the unfairness of such profiling, how a single man can't go to a park and talk to young children without being suspected of being a pedophile, how this was an infringement of your civil rights, etc. It was all about how you didn't like being profiled as a pedophile, and a massive denial on your part that pedophiles and child abductors do, in fact, often use animal lures to engage children and break down their resistance about interacting with strangers.
So, for someone who feels he was unfairly profiled, it's quite surprising that you are enthusiastic and ready to support the equally unfair racial profiling of a black middle class high school student, who was simply meandering and talking on his cell phone, as he slowly returned from a trip to the store. Your behavior in that park was considerably more suspect than anything Zimmerman saw Trayvon Martin doing that night.
You seem also to assume, without any justification, that Martin was a "hoodlum". A "hoodlum"? A middle class kid, with no criminal record, and no documented history of anti-social behaviors? A kid with decent and loving and hard-working middle class parents, who clearly wanted their children to succeed, and who clearly worked to instill decent values and behavior in their children, parents you've incomprehensibly and shamefully also blamed for their son's death. In your warped mind you've somehow made these decent and concerned and loving parents responsible for George Zimmerman's unfortunate and tragic racial profiling--because you racially profile black males just as he did that night, and neither of you can face your own attitudes.
Trayvon Martin was not a "hoodlum", he was a teenager, and his occasional school-related infractions indicated nothing really serious about him, other than the normal sorts of things many other teens do--like occasionally smoke pot. He wasn't a trouble-maker and there is no evidence he had ever been in serious trouble. He was likely headed to college after high school, just like his older brother who is a senior in college. He wasn't a ghetto kid, or a street kid, he was a middle class kid, with a decent, loving, supportive, hard-working family, something that you don't want to understand because it doesn't fit in with your own racial profiling and your own bigotry.
Dismissing Trayvon Martin as some sort of lowlife, whose life was inconsequential, and whose death was his own fault, and the fault of his parents, is the clearest expression of your own bigotry and racial bias.
I hope that Martin's death will result in changes in Florida's flawed self-defense laws--laws that even the jurors in this case want to see changed. I hope it will also result in tighter gun control laws and background checks, since Zimmerman had a past history of legal problems for his aggressive behaviors, and he was also in psychological treatment at the time of the shooting. His fitness to carry a concealed weapon, which is something neighborhood watch volunteers are not supposed to do, should have been more carefully scrutinized before he got his gun.
Zimmerman, a pathetic little man, will soon be forgotten, but Martin's needless death may well become the lightening rod for meaningful social and legal change, and that process has already begun.
And I'll always remember you as the creep who was profiled as a pedophile and thrown out of a public park--something you yourself chose to announce to the world.
