It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Gives Man 5 Days for Child Porn, Rails Against Harsh Sentences

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Wether this creep poses a threat or not is beside the point.

It's people like him that fuel the child pornography industry. This idiot of a judge seems to think that's harmless. These people need to be given harsh punishments as a deterrent to others like him that fuel this evil industry that prays on innocent children for the sick gratification of arseholes like this behind closed doors.

This moron of a judge is enabling these vampires and sending a very bad message out. He is the one everyone should be annoyed at, not the sick # from Brooklyn.




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter

I'm trying to understand, and I do, to a degree BUT...

If we "allow" this type of behavior who is going to protect the children's freedom?
This is an honest question!

Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by nature of supply and demand.
Crimes ARE being committed. You can't deny that honestly.

I understand "they are pictures" BUT understand that he has committed a crime of a sexual nature in the past and I believe by his consumption of child porn, today, that it is walking a dangerous tightrope to re-offending.
I believe,
No, I can't prove it.

AND, YES, it IS for the children.


If he has committed an actual sexual assault on a child before or not, I do not know or can tell. The fact is that it is about PICTURES and nothing else! As long as he did not PRODUCE the images himself, - in which case the "porn" issue would not be an issue but the "sexual assault" would be a much graver concern for the courts.
WHO produces these pictures and where is not my concern. My concern is the incarceration of people for LOOKING.
It comes down pretty similar with the marijuana laws; locking people up for a few joints.
A picture can be seen as evidence to a crime. So then identify the persons committing the act on that picture, not the person LOOKING at the same.
Why do people DL the images from Saudi Arabia's executions for example is an enigma for me. But people do so. Does this mean they are now going to copy cat SA in their back yards? I have over 200 books on Nazi's and many old original "manuals" of that period. Does this make me a Nazi?
The PRODUCTION of Child Porn is a crime. But what this case is about is the "crime of LOOKING". And if people cannot see the difference between the very same than I am worried not about the guys LOOKING but about the mases condemning him. Because such a "Mob" is a bit more dangerous than a guy "LOOKING" at some CP.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: angus1745
Wether this creep poses a threat or not is beside the point.

It's people like him that fuel the child pornography industry. This idiot of a judge seems to think that's harmless. These people need to be given harsh punishments as a deterrent to others like him that fuel this evil industry that prays on innocent children for the sick gratification of arseholes like this behind closed doors.

This moron of a judge is enabling these vampires and sending a very bad message out. He is the one everyone should be annoyed at, not the sick # from Brooklyn.


You're wrong.

They are ALL responsible for what they are doing. Are they all Adults, YES they are. Should an Adult be held responsible for Sick and Demented Responses towards children, WHAT DO YOU THINK? Of Course. Crap does anyone have even ONE moral anymore? What the Hell?



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: angus1745
Wether this creep poses a threat or not is beside the point.

It's people like him that fuel the child pornography industry.


Again a question: WHAT CP INDUSTRY? Oh I know you will soon post some "estimated 15-billion$ figure. But unlike the drug lords, I have yet to see the press or the police show us the mansions, luxury yachts and cars of the so called "CP-Lords" IF it is an industry; and this means money has to be exchanged, Guzman does not hand out joints for free, - then were are these "CP-millionaires"?

Children are a very sensitive subject and with alleged or real abuse existing, our emotions can run high quite rapidly. However it is exactly there where we need to hold back, sit back and reflect. It is exactly this unchecked mob mentality that TPTB so much enjoy to hood wink you into more surveillance.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter

I'm trying to understand, and I do, to a degree BUT...

If we "allow" this type of behavior who is going to protect the children's freedom?
This is an honest question!

Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is being infringed upon by nature of supply and demand.
Crimes ARE being committed. You can't deny that honestly.

If some Pedo looked at your children you'd be OK with that? Are you trying to benefit from this new PC way of being? are you without a conscience??
I understand "they are pictures" BUT understand that he has committed a crime of a sexual nature in the past and I believe by his consumption of child porn, today, that it is walking a dangerous tightrope to re-offending.
I believe,
No, I can't prove it.

AND, YES, it IS for the children.


If he has committed an actual sexual assault on a child before or not, I do not know or can tell. The fact is that it is about PICTURES and nothing else! As long as he did not PRODUCE the images himself, - in which case the "porn" issue would not be an issue but the "sexual assault" would be a much graver concern for the courts.
WHO produces these pictures and where is not my concern. My concern is the incarceration of people for LOOKING.
It comes down pretty similar with the marijuana laws; locking people up for a few joints.
A picture can be seen as evidence to a crime. So then identify the persons committing the act on that picture, not the person LOOKING at the same.
Why do people DL the images from Saudi Arabia's executions for example is an enigma for me. But people do so. Does this mean they are now going to copy cat SA in their back yards? I have over 200 books on Nazi's and many old original "manuals" of that period. Does this make me a Nazi?
The PRODUCTION of Child Porn is a crime. But what this case is about is the "crime of LOOKING". And if people cannot see the difference between the very same than I am worried not about the guys LOOKING but about the mases condemning him. Because such a "Mob" is a bit more dangerous than a guy "LOOKING" at some CP.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
And anyone who know's their Science, knows that simply 'Viewing' anything has a Scientific Effect on it. Atoms Protons Electrons, Hello? Everything we Think and Feel and Touch has An Effect on everything else.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: TNMockingbird

Do you ever feel like were living in the book of Revelations? Nothing is normal anymore, everything is pure crap now. What the hell happened ??


I've been having that feeling more and more lately.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter

Even the two words,

child

And

porn


DO N O T belong in the same paragraph (much less article/page). Just sayin.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter



However it is exactly there where we need to hold back, sit back and reflect.

Okay, I did.

IMO, comparing smoking a joint with child porn is just ridiculous and furthermore I feel that the marijuana laws are ridiculous.
I, respectfully, say that you are comparing apples and oranges.

Not all lusts must be fulfilled. Not all desires must be socially acceptable. That is depravity.
I understand what you are saying about it being "just pictures". Then why can't the sick individuals just draw something?!
Then burn it!
NO, they can't because they (the sickos) want human souls, living, breathing, children being tortured and suffering to fuel their twisted fantasies.
If there were no demand, the supply would stop.
There COULD be money exchanging hands, who knows?

SOMEONE is getting, kidnapping, borrowing these children for this purpose...

I went back and looked into the OP article again and this "person" may have been in "treatment" for the original offense so I do not know, also, if he had committed prior.
It is stated that he engaged in online conversations with youth and that is what alerted the authorities to look into his computer.
He had, possibly, not offended....yet....

What if I liked kicking puppies and so I don't want to get caught kicking them so I pay the kid down the street to do it for me...or maybe just encourage him...don't I become complicit? If I allow it?

WE teach people, at my work, that although you have the freedom to do just about whatever you want to, you certainly have the right to make choices but, there are consequences for those choices.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter



However it is exactly there where we need to hold back, sit back and reflect.

Okay, I did.

IMO, comparing smoking a joint with child porn is just ridiculous and furthermore I feel that the marijuana laws are ridiculous.
I, respectfully, say that you are comparing apples and oranges.

Not all lusts must be fulfilled. Not all desires must be socially acceptable. That is depravity.
I understand what you are saying about it being "just pictures". Then why can't the sick individuals just draw something?!
Then burn it!
NO, they can't because they (the sickos) want human souls, living, breathing, children being tortured and suffering to fuel their twisted fantasies.
If there were no demand, the supply would stop.
There COULD be money exchanging hands, who knows?

SOMEONE is getting, kidnapping, borrowing these children for this purpose...

I went back and looked into the OP article again and this "person" may have been in "treatment" for the original offense so I do not know, also, if he had committed prior.
It is stated that he engaged in online conversations with youth and that is what alerted the authorities to look into his computer.
He had, possibly, not offended....yet....

What if I liked kicking puppies and so I don't want to get caught kicking them so I pay the kid down the street to do it for me...or maybe just encourage him...don't I become complicit? If I allow it?

WE teach people, at my work, that although you have the freedom to do just about whatever you want to, you certainly have the right to make choices but, there are consequences for those choices.


I agree with your arguments. However the issue is none of the above. The charges are concerning his Possession or looking at CP. What caused the authorities to put him on the radar and so forth is not the issue. The issue is the LOOKING at CP. Why and for what reasons and whatsoever is not the discussion. The judge found the CP "LOOKING" laws as idiotic as you and I find the marijuana laws idiotic. What ever else this guy did or did not do is not up for discussion because the OP was outraged about the 5 days sentence!

And concerning money to be exchanged. Well see my post above. The so called CP-Industry does NOT exist. No matter how many moralist will cite "estimated figures" ranging from 11 Billion to 15 Billion $. Each time someone has to PAY, - and online transactions are traceable via CC and Paypal, - you can bet your house on it that behind that "Pay-site" sits a guy with a badge. So there are no "CP Guzman or Escobar" LORDS. What money is exchanged on lower levels is debatable pretty similar if I get a few gallons of your private moonshine from your barn.

All it translates to is huge public outcry and more laws to be "begged for" to snoop.

if people are really serious about ending the abuse of children, then stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign countries. The REAL CP is the kid with no arms and legs because they just got blown off by a damn bomb.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TNMockingbird

You had me @ choices Tmock (☆)

That about sums it up!!

Thanks for posting



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter



What money is exchanged on lower levels is debatable pretty similar if I get a few gallons of your private moonshine from your barn.

Hey!!!!
Do I know you?!

We agree!


if people are really serious about ending the abuse of children, then stop bombing the crap out of people in foreign countries


We shall...sigh... continue to disagree on the rest...



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

The judge he obviously a paedophile himself.

Any normal like us would not have given such a light sentence and then write a document justifying it.

These sub human monsters infilrate all the highest positions. Just look at the cluster # in the UK with pedos.
edit on 30-1-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: Guenter



What money is exchanged on lower levels is debatable pretty similar if I get a few gallons of your private moonshine from your barn.

Hey!!!!
Do I know you?!



I buy QUALITY Only!




posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter

originally posted by: ReadLeader
This article makes me cringe. We have a 53 yr old man with 5 children. He is engaged in sending and receiving child porn. This is not normal behavior. I am shocked the judge wrote a 98 page doc. On WHY he decided NOT to lock this pedafile up....

What say you ATS? Are you ok with this? Is this ok, or am just old fashioned? I think he deserves a good 15yrs or so in the pen


I'm not good w/this. He was already engaged in this discusting activity in the past.


The judge noted that the man was undergoing sex offender treatment and was deemed unlikely to relapse and that a psychiatrist testified he was not a danger to his own or other children.



A Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge who sharply criticized punishment guidelines for failing to distinguish between dangerous offenders and those who pose little threat.

U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision explaining why he bypassed the guidelines and chose not to put the man in prison for possessing two dozen photos and videos — some showing men sexually assaulting girls as young as 3 years old, according to court papers.

"Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials.


L I N K



He was looking at PICTURES! When are you people finally realize that it was the very so called "Child-Porn" scare that had all run and cry for help for better "Online Policing"! And yet the same people who complain against Government snooping still want to see a guy in jail for PICTURES! This is the disgusting part of you! Either you want FREEDOM or you want none, but you can't just "chose" what pictures are OK to look at and what are not and need "policing".


Children are RAPED, ABUSED and often KILLED makeing those pictures.



Anyone that defends pedos is no better than one themselves!
edit on 30-1-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Crazy, your last 2 posts, right oN target....



Thanks for posting



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Guenter

I see where you're coming from, but this is not one of those cases where you should be standing up for the freedom to look. He had the freedom to look at them, but we as a society also have the freedom to lock this man up for looking at child porn.

I can't believe you're denying an entire # up industry. I live in Belgium, we've had our fair share of pedophile disasters over here, hell I even protested along with a couple hundreds of thousands of us back in the day when the Dutroux trial was going awry. Denying that it exists does more harm to the cause then anything else. It truly boggles the mind that you're denying the existence of these networks.

Like a poster before me has stated, it is only because there are people out there that look at these things that there is a supply. Take away the viewers as much as possible as to reduce demand would be one of the basic things to do to combat this despicable, hideous behaviour.

No mercy for the pedos, ever !



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadLeader

Doesn't surprise me one bit unfortunately


Seeing as I almost spent 6 months behind bars for something not even close to being as bad or disgustingly inhuman.

They should of gotten that prosecutor to go after this guy, he sure as hell was bent on sending me to jail on trumped up charges with no evidence.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Balans
a reply to: Guenter

I see where you're coming from, but this is not one of those cases where you should be standing up for the freedom to look. He had the freedom to look at them, but we as a society also have the freedom to lock this man up for looking at child porn.

I can't believe you're denying an entire # up industry. I live in Belgium, we've had our fair share of pedophile disasters over here, hell I even protested along with a couple hundreds of thousands of us back in the day when the Dutroux trial was going awry. Denying that it exists does more harm to the cause then anything else. It truly boggles the mind that you're denying the existence of these networks.

Like a poster before me has stated, it is only because there are people out there that look at these things that there is a supply. Take away the viewers as much as possible as to reduce demand would be one of the basic things to do to combat this despicable, hideous behaviour.

No mercy for the pedos, ever !


So with your logic we then should lock up all the drug USERS to stop the drug industry?

And NO the CP Industry does NOT exist! IF it did exist it would be a PR dream for all the LEA and other moralists to parade us the riches and wealth of these "producers" before the cameras.



posted on Jan, 30 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Guenter

originally posted by: Balans
a reply to: Guenter

I see where you're coming from, but this is not one of those cases where you should be standing up for the freedom to look. He had the freedom to look at them, but we as a society also have the freedom to lock this man up for looking at child porn.

I can't believe you're denying an entire # up industry. I live in Belgium, we've had our fair share of pedophile disasters over here, hell I even protested along with a couple hundreds of thousands of us back in the day when the Dutroux trial was going awry. Denying that it exists does more harm to the cause then anything else. It truly boggles the mind that you're denying the existence of these networks.

Like a poster before me has stated, it is only because there are people out there that look at these things that there is a supply. Take away the viewers as much as possible as to reduce demand would be one of the basic things to do to combat this despicable, hideous behaviour.

No mercy for the pedos, ever !


So with your logic we then should lock up all the drug USERS to stop the drug industry?

And NO the CP Industry does NOT exist! IF it did exist it would be a PR dream for all the LEA and other moralists to parade us the riches and wealth of these "producers" before the cameras.


Where do you get the audacity to compare child porn to drug use...

And wow, try telling that to all the parents who've lost their children to this industry. Do some soulsearching and internet browsing, it's not hard to find evidence of their existence...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join