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.

 

Court: Dad can paste daughter's face on porn photo

page: 26
39
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Thepreye
 





Psychological harm is often more injurious to an individual than none lethal physical harm, I really don't get why anyone would express sympathy for the devil in open forum.


But masturbating to these pictures in private does not cause psychological harm to anyone.


kinda makes you wonder how much of the psycological harm was caused by the over reaching legal system that and with the coverage of it the poor kid will probably have a hard time in school areosmith might make a comeback man that song got over played back then poor kid




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SickOfLies
reply to post by TKDRL
 


The point is no matter how you twist it, this sicko is wanking over his 13 year old daughter otherwise he would have left the picture how it was. Im finished with this i find it disgusting people are trying to justify this or saying that there is nothing wrong. This guy is a father he is there to protect his daughter and to love her as a father should and that doesnt involve jacking off over her face which is what he did or like i said he would've left the picture how it was. Say what you want but its wrong and one day when he does take it to the next level he will get what he deserves, jail time and alot of blokes showing him first hand just how it feels only this time he'll be on the recieving end. anyway like i said thats all i've got to say.


your right their is something wrong with it.just nothing the court could do about it besides make it worse by airing it out in public he will probably be on a watch list thingy karma will get him in its own time
edit on 10-6-2011 by jonco6 because: forgot something



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by felonius
Personally, a family member should take this sucker and feed him to the hogs.


when you were 14 yrs old and jerked off in your
bed at night to the thoughts of your 13 yr old
girlfriend or a hot girl at school, were you not
committing the same offense?
Your 13 yr old gf was underage.
Should somebody have fed you to the
hogs then ???

between birth and present day,
about 99% of us have committed
this very same act. Yet some
stand up high and mighty and have
a holier than thou attitude.



Look man, there is a HUGE difference between a 14 year old jerkin' off to thoughts of another 13-14 year old than a FATHER having incestuous thoughts and feeding those thoughts with shopped pics...

How could someone think such things about their own spawn? it's just ridiculously sickening, perverted and down right WRONG. It may not be illegal but it is morally wrong and the child should at least be removed from the environment NOW.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I am just disturbed all the way around by this thread. Or maybe shocked is the better word. So many people think that creating x rated pictures of a child (or even your own child) is fine. It's fine to be morally corrupt and perverted, or even to ask your child to pose in their underwear so you can look at it while you masterbate and think of having sex with your own child......it's like nothing is off limits. Does anyone realize your thoughts are what drives you? What do you do before you act? You THINK about it. It's the core of who you are. I'm not saying that warped sexual fantasies lead to the act in EVERY case, but it is well documented that in many cases, it does. Interviews with serial killers reveal a deep seated obsession with porn. I'm not talking about the average guy, I'm talking about things like this dude. The serial killer BTK did this same exact thing for years before he started killing people. He cut out pics from catalogs of kids modeling underwear, he "created" pics, by putting people's heads on porn pics.....he even took pictures of himself in bondage or hanging from a tree, or even himself dressed as a girl in a grave which he dug. But hey....according to some people here, who are we to say that's wrong and it's fine if he wants to do this....right? He isn't hurting anyone just because he created sick photos according to some here....just having some innocent fun right? Wrong. He went on to kill many people. He said himself that it escalated to the point where fantasy alone was not enough. That's when it went from fantasy to reality. Ted Bundy is another example....and Jeffrey Dahmer. Do some research and you'll see. In all these cases, warped sexual fantasy and porn was a major factor. Sure, we ALL have fantasies, and some enjoy porn.....but I am talking about a sick individual with sick sexual preferences....not the average person. Anyway, I know someone will come back saying this kind of behavior is just fine....and that's the part that bothers me. I am not saying I have the right to judge, and we all have our demons.....but the line has to be drawn somewhere. To think that what this guy was doing was ok is sick in itself. If his behavior is ok, then I guess it's ok for perverts to be peeping toms and look in kid's bedroom windows to get their jollies, because according to some here, that would be ok because he's not physically harming the child if the child doesn't know he's there.........which is sick. I'm sure when I post this I'll get another round of some saying I am being judgemental, etc. ....but there has to be a line drawn...this isn't about a random guy fantasizing about a random girl....it's a so-called Dad and his young daughter. If people can't see what's wrong with that, well it's just sad. Have we really been so corrupted that we can't see the harm of this kind of behavior? It's very sad.
edit on 6/10/2011 by StealthyKat because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/10/2011 by StealthyKat because: sp



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SickOfLies

13yrs old and his an adult = pedo or soon to be pedo. its his daughter = incest or wishes/soon to be incest.

is the law supposed to wait till he has enough of just a face and goes for the real thing and destroys not only some poor kids life but that kids familys life and his familys life as well???


Yes. Unless you want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship.

Adult out of money = thinking about robbing a bank=arrest and charges based on what?

Soon-to-be bank robber?
edit on 10-6-2011 by Heliocentric because: a world of dew, and within every dewdrop a world of struggle



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I have read some of the posts, the back and forth, it seems to me, people are not suggesting it is right. I personally believe it is pretty deplorable, however, as long as he did not actually physically do something to his daughter, then he broke no law, again I must stress it does not make his actions right.

It is wrong and pretty sick, but like some have said, more damage is being done to the girl by publicly advertising it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by beltemps
should he be punished? I don't know... further prosecution means more publicity and wife and girl don't deserve this...


So we don't prosecute people in order to spare innocent family members from suffering?

The only snag here is, there's nothing to prosecute. No crime has been committed. Whatever people are revolted about happened inside this person's head.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Heliocentric because: so very still, even cherry blossoms are not stirred by the temple bell


no, of course crimes need to be prosecuted no matter if anyone's feelings get hurt.. but as you said yourself there's no law broken in this case and the question of this whole thread was whether such behaviour should be criminalized or not... and that's a tough question imho...



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
It's very odd to copy and paste a picture of your child to some other naked person body. I wouldn't consider it child pornography, but I would consider it normal either. what was this guys main goal by doing this? If anything, I believe the father need to see a psychiatric cause something is wrong with his head.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Majestic Lumen
 


I totally agree with you on this one..



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye fantasy should be a crime

The law might have saved us from the Heavy Metal movie.

I don't get the lynch mob mentality. I see people all around me who seem vacant and programmed. I don't understand the families around me as portrayed on TV and film. I must have been napping during my programming. I've run with artists all my life. We've explored many possibilities, that I don't think most of the pasty gelatinous people around me have. Their minds seem to be closed and on a media approved track. Maybe one of the nice folks here could get me in a soundproof room with a weapon of choice and program me. What time's good for you?

I'd like to think if something like this happened in my small freakish family, we'd respond "Are you OK? Have some pizza."
edit on 10-6-2011 by gentledissident because: stuff



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Thepreye
 





Psychological harm is often more injurious to an individual than none lethal physical harm, I really don't get why anyone would express sympathy for the devil in open forum.


But masturbating to these pictures in private does not cause psychological harm to anyone.




Err as was always likely the masturbation has been exposed thus opening the psychological Pandora's box for the entire family, what is so hard about grasping the shear wrongness of this situation.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
Err as was always likely the masturbation has been exposed thus opening the psychological Pandora's box for the entire family, what is so hard about grasping the shear wrongness of this situation.


Who was responsible for exposing it?



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Thepreye
Err as was always likely the masturbation has been exposed thus opening the psychological Pandora's box for the entire family, what is so hard about grasping the shear wrongness of this situation.


Who was responsible for exposing it?


If you wana play tennis who was responsible for making the disgusting image in the first place.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by StealthyKat
 


I am just disturbed all the way around by this thread. Or maybe shocked is the better word. So many people think that creating x rated pictures of a child (or even your own child) is fine.


I've been reading this thread since it started and I wasn't going to even respond until I read your thread but really Kat I have to agree. This thread has completely opened my eyes to just how critically deficient in morals people have become. Honestly I'm more shocked by the so called 'normal people' here who view this as 'alright' than I am of the sicko father! He's got a psychological problem - with or without being a pedo! What excuse does the general consensus of people in this thread have?

IMO? The only problem with the people who think this behavior is 'ok' (because it didn't 'hurt anybody)' is lack of backbone. That and a complet lack of conviction to stand up for what's right and what's wrong. Bunch a sheep afraid to take a stand. Thank God I'm not cursed with that cause I'll tell you - THIS IS WRONG! The 'father' should have kept it in his head - his fantasies, but noooo, he went that extra step of going to the trouble of photshoping, cropping picts, etc. That's where he crossed the line and he should be convicted.

Thought crime? Nope. If it was a thought crime we wouldn't have the proof of it in pictures.


Wake the hell up people.

peace



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


Making pictures is not a crime, nor should it be. Lots of pictures people make as art are disgusting to me, doesn't mean they should be illegal to make. Some bible thumpers would love to see all nudity banned based on their moral compass, and they are wrong as well. Some muslims would love to see any picture of a woman without one of those things they are supposed to wear illegal. Who gets to decide?
edit on Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:49:14 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
If you wana play tennis who was responsible for making the disgusting image in the first place.


Facts are facts, not tennis.

Creating the images didn't cause harm, exposing them did. If you want to punish someone punish the person whose action (making the daughter aware of the images) actually caused the harm.
edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Who gets to decide? [


All of us collectively at elections, whereupon we elect our representatives in the hope that they carry out our wishes in the formulation of laws according to the prevailing norms, morality and ethics of the society from which they were elected, as apparently happened in this case.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Abney
Of COURSE Boondock is not seeing anything wrong here.
Why am I not surprised?


Of course I see lots of stuff wrong here.
Just saying that what you think in your
mind is not illegal. You cannot be
prosecuted by man-made law for
an act only committed in your mind.

I have already stated it to be un-ethical
and immoral but it's not illegal which is what
they were charging him with.

I think the court got it right on the appeal

Finally



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Thepreye
If you wana play tennis who was responsible for making the disgusting image in the first place.


Facts are facts, not tennis.

Creating the images didn't cause harm, exposing them did.


Come on poster! what was there to be exposed until the weirdo made the image.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye
Come on poster! what was there to be exposed until the weirdo made the image.


Flawed logic.

What was there to shoot someone with before the weirdo manufactured the gun... blah, blah, blah.

Making the gun and making these images harmed no one.

edit on 10-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join