If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Man interrupted while downloading kiddie porn--by police serving him a warrant for downloading kiddie porn. Awkward   (blogs.browardpalmbeach.com) divider line 132
    More: Florida, child pornography, peer-to-peer networks, warrants, search warrants  
•       •       •

12397 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Sep 2011 at 11:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-05 08:47:44 AM
That guy looks like an adult version of the fat kid from Modern Family.
 
2011-09-05 09:12:15 AM

FirstNationalBastard: That guy looks like an adult version of the fat kid from Modern Family.


I don't watch the show so I had to look it up but holy shiat, you're right he does.


Vindal could face a maximum sentence of 765 years in prison

For just possessing pictures and video? Damn. He's probably kicking himself for not just raping the kids himself, he would have gotten the same thing. But you know, hindsight's 20/20.
 
2011-09-05 11:23:34 AM
Comedy is all about timing.

/ty for the laugh, kiddie porn guy
 
2011-09-05 11:29:36 AM
He told the cops he has thousands of videos, but when he finds child pornography, he deletes it. On the other hand, police say he told them he knows it's illegal to have child porn, and identified what kind of kiddie porn he had on his computer -- which he reportedly told police included boys and girls.

Don't talk to police.
 
2011-09-05 11:30:02 AM
It's naked!
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2011-09-05 11:33:02 AM

Mugato: FirstNationalBastard: That guy looks like an adult version of the fat kid from Modern Family.

I don't watch the show so I had to look it up but holy shiat, you're right he does.


Vindal could face a maximum sentence of 765 years in prison

For just possessing pictures and video? Damn. He's probably kicking himself for not just raping the kids himself, he would have gotten the same thing. But you know, hindsight's 20/20.


Kiddie porn people are scum, but wtf do they think 765 years in lock up will accomplish?
 
2011-09-05 11:35:00 AM

Mugato: For just possessing pictures and video?


Taken individually and strung along consecutively (as the press usually does), it sounds a lot worse than it actually will be.

But 'just possessing'? "a man having sex with a kid under 9 years old."
Dude needs to go away for a long time.
 
2011-09-05 11:35:07 AM

deevo: He told the cops he has thousands of videos, but when he finds child pornography, he deletes it. On the other hand, police say he told them he knows it's illegal to have child porn, and identified what kind of kiddie porn he had on his computer -- which he reportedly told police included boys and girls.

Don't talk to police.


For some reason I have no problem with this idiot telling the police everything. And hopefully the cops did read him his rights so that all his comments are admissible.
 
2011-09-05 11:40:39 AM
That article reads like something from a high school newspaper.

Vidal, 50, told police "he is very knowledgeable about computers," which apparently isn't the case since the cops found out,

That's a paragraph. That's how it ends.
 
2011-09-05 11:43:09 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: Mugato: For just possessing pictures and video?

Taken individually and strung along consecutively (as the press usually does), it sounds a lot worse than it actually will be.

But 'just possessing'? "a man having sex with a kid under 9 years old."
Dude needs to go away for a long time.


For intentionally witnessing a criminal act?

He didn't rape these girls or even financially support their rape. You're suggesting putting him away for a long time for simply witnessing it. There is no net benefit to what you're suggesting.
 
2011-09-05 11:43:24 AM
AbbeySomeone:Kiddie porn people are scum, but wtf do they think 765 years in lock up will accomplish?

A very musky cell.
 
2011-09-05 11:44:32 AM
My natural instinct for people like this is they should DIAFS... but I also find myself wondering what the psychology behind this is... meaning is it because they were abused as children, or perhaps they never did mature sexually, or something else entirely different... Is it a sickness (like serial killers - unable to feel empathy, etc)? Is there perhaps a brain tumor to blame? Whenever I see a criminal of this type (sexual predator, serial killer, etc) I always have to wonder about these things.
 
2011-09-05 11:45:03 AM
Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....
 
2011-09-05 11:47:17 AM

tankjr:
He didn't rape these girls or even financially support their rape. You're suggesting putting him away for a long time for simply witnessing it. There is no net benefit to what you're suggesting.


I kind of wish the American Judicial system spent half as much time hunting down the people actually MAKING these videos and pictures, instead of just locking up everyone who happens to see them. It does seem somewhat absurd that someone is facing 765 years for looking at pictures and video. Sick fark or not, he didn't make what he was caught with, so by my count he can't be even half as sick as the pederasts who actually make the child porn. Wouldn't it be better to catch them?
 
2011-09-05 11:48:05 AM

NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....


I believe the reasoning has to do with supporting the child pornography industry by downloading and viewing the pictures. Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).
 
2011-09-05 11:49:46 AM

Sync9: tankjr:
He didn't rape these girls or even financially support their rape. You're suggesting putting him away for a long time for simply witnessing it. There is no net benefit to what you're suggesting.

I kind of wish the American Judicial system spent half as much time hunting down the people actually MAKING these videos and pictures, instead of just locking up everyone who happens to see them. It does seem somewhat absurd that someone is facing 765 years for looking at pictures and video. Sick fark or not, he didn't make what he was caught with, so by my count he can't be even half as sick as the pederasts who actually make the child porn. Wouldn't it be better to catch them?


not just catch them, but lock them away forever. in my book, child molestation = a one way trip to jail... you never get out... no chance of parole.
 
2011-09-05 11:51:59 AM

d3bug: My natural instinct for people like this is they should DIAFS... but I also find myself wondering what the psychology behind this is... meaning is it because they were abused as children, or perhaps they never did mature sexually, or something else entirely different... Is it a sickness (like serial killers - unable to feel empathy, etc)? Is there perhaps a brain tumor to blame? Whenever I see a criminal of this type (sexual predator, serial killer, etc) I always have to wonder about these things.


Hey Hey Hey, that's sounds like you advocate trying to prevent the problem and rehabilitate the criminals as opposed to just locking them all up. That's not the american way.
 
2011-09-05 11:54:26 AM

d3bug: Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).


He was using a p2p client like Limewire. Seriously, pay sites? Do those even exist or do people just keep saying that, because in all the stories I've seen of these sick freaks who get caught none of them were using a pay site. Seems it's always p2p or image boards. Also it seems like a pay site would be super easy to shut down since there would be a money trail going to the owners.
 
2011-09-05 11:55:13 AM

d3bug: My natural instinct for people like this is they should DIAFS... but I also find myself wondering what the psychology behind this is... meaning is it because they were abused as children, or perhaps they never did mature sexually, or something else entirely different... Is it a sickness (like serial killers - unable to feel empathy, etc)? Is there perhaps a brain tumor to blame? Whenever I see a criminal of this type (sexual predator, serial killer, etc) I always have to wonder about these things.


Just so you know, he did nothing to be considered in the same group as sexual predators and serial killers. He had pictures of something that we (and the general population) find extremely disagreeable on his computer. Before you burn him at the stake, at least be honest about what he did. He didn't kill anyone, and he didn't rape anyone, nor is there any indication that he had done so in the past. I think it's just as sick as you do, but I don't pretend for a minute that this guy raped or killed anyone, and you shouldn't either, or you're just part of the problem.

If they made it illegal to look at other types of pornography on the internet because they felt that some of the subjects were being abused, then you could be just as guilty as him. We each have our own sexual tastes and there are thousands of types of pornography on the internet.

I just don't think the punishment befits the crime. If he was the guy who made the video, he should be strung up by his balls and stoned in a public crowd, sure. But ruining the life of someone who has no criminal record and has never indicated tendency towards molestation, rape, or murder -- just because he has material that the vast majority finds offensive... It just doesn't seem very American. I always understood that in America you were free to pursue happiness so long as it wasn't at the expense of the freedom and rights of others. I fail to understand how someone looking at pictures or video that they downloaded from the internet (even if we all think that what he was looking at is sick) is at all a crime worse enough to merit a jail sentence beyond 5 years -- much less 700+.

Go find the sicko who made the video and actually protect the children, how about that?
 
2011-09-05 11:57:03 AM
(NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn? Back in the 90's you were bound stumble upon it if you only surfed for porn long enough, but these days it seems they've clamped down on it pretty hard. Certainly no website could post it and stay up for very long. Is this a peer-to-peer thing?
 
2011-09-05 12:00:05 PM

Hand Banana: d3bug: Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).

He was using a p2p client like Limewire. Seriously, pay sites? Do those even exist or do people just keep saying that, because in all the stories I've seen of these sick freaks who get caught none of them were using a pay site. Seems it's always p2p or image boards. Also it seems like a pay site would be super easy to shut down since there would be a money trail going to the owners.


unless they were based in a non-cooperative country... I must have missed the p2p reference in the article. At some point in the chain though, that video or picture was paid for... examples would be link sites that link to places like that have advertisers (I doubt the advertisers know what kind of site they are getting clicks from though)... I doubt the actual site that the link site links to has advertisers, but who knows. Regardless of all of that though, I was simply trying to explain what I believe the reasoning is (on the part of the justice department) for the illegality of the download and possession of child pornography... I am afraid I don't know personally how they make money or even IF they make money, so I don't know if their reasoning is justified or not. It was just a theory.
 
2011-09-05 12:00:40 PM
So is it illegal to buy possess porn that shows consenting adults performing oral in states where sodomy laws are still on the books?

I'm asking for a friend.
 
2011-09-05 12:01:05 PM

ShannonKW: (NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn? Back in the 90's you were bound stumble upon it if you only surfed for porn long enough, but these days it seems they've clamped down on it pretty hard. Certainly no website could post it and stay up for very long. Is this a peer-to-peer thing?


Probably is, not sure why the police wouldn't try and cut a deal with criminals like in TFA to get him to tell them where he got it all. I'd be all for shortening his sentence if it meant information that gets to the source.

/Cue I'm_behind_7_proxies.jpg
 
2011-09-05 12:01:43 PM
I think this guy should hang for looking at illegal activities.

Just like people should go to jail for looking at people taking videos of themselves speeding. Or even looking at photos of grafitti! And the cop should burn for having to watch the video to verify-

"The detective downloaded one of the videos to be sure, and the one he picked was a man having sex with a kid under 9 years old."

Burn them all!
 
2011-09-05 12:02:10 PM

ShannonKW: (NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn?


4chan.
 
2011-09-05 12:03:58 PM

Sync9: tankjr:
He didn't rape these girls or even financially support their rape. You're suggesting putting him away for a long time for simply witnessing it. There is no net benefit to what you're suggesting.

I kind of wish the American Judicial system spent half as much time hunting down the people actually MAKING these videos and pictures, instead of just locking up everyone who happens to see them. It does seem somewhat absurd that someone is facing 765 years for looking at pictures and video. Sick fark or not, he didn't make what he was caught with, so by my count he can't be even half as sick as the pederasts who actually make the child porn. Wouldn't it be better to catch them?


I'm guessing this stuff gets made in countries where run aways are ubiquitous and crime rampant. That would be like fighting a flood with a teaspoon.
 
2011-09-05 12:04:04 PM

d3bug: Sync9: tankjr:
He didn't rape these girls or even financially support their rape. You're suggesting putting him away for a long time for simply witnessing it. There is no net benefit to what you're suggesting.

I kind of wish the American Judicial system spent half as much time hunting down the people actually MAKING these videos and pictures, instead of just locking up everyone who happens to see them. It does seem somewhat absurd that someone is facing 765 years for looking at pictures and video. Sick fark or not, he didn't make what he was caught with, so by my count he can't be even half as sick as the pederasts who actually make the child porn. Wouldn't it be better to catch them?

not just catch them, but lock them away forever. in my book, child molestation = a one way trip to jail... you never get out... no chance of parole.


Absolutely. Give ANYONE involved with the molesting of the children the maximum penalty. That would have a chilling effect on the production of this shiat. Some pedo spankin' it to internet CP? Idk but supporting him financially for the rest of his natural life doesn't seem all that appealing to me.
 
2011-09-05 12:04:18 PM

d3bug: NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....

I believe the reasoning has to do with supporting the child pornography industry by downloading and viewing the pictures. Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).


Yep, which is why hand draw and animate pictures are still considered free speech like regular porn, since there is noone being harmed in the making of it.

/is not into that sort of stuff just pointing out why it's illegal.
 
2011-09-05 12:13:37 PM

Sync9: d3bug: My natural instinct for people like this is they should DIAFS... but I also find myself wondering what the psychology behind this is... meaning is it because they were abused as children, or perhaps they never did mature sexually, or something else entirely different... Is it a sickness (like serial killers - unable to feel empathy, etc)? Is there perhaps a brain tumor to blame? Whenever I see a criminal of this type (sexual predator, serial killer, etc) I always have to wonder about these things.

Just so you know, he did nothing to be considered in the same group as sexual predators and serial killers. He had pictures of something that we (and the general population) find extremely disagreeable on his computer. Before you burn him at the stake, at least be honest about what he did. He didn't kill anyone, and he didn't rape anyone, nor is there any indication that he had done so in the past. I think it's just as sick as you do, but I don't pretend for a minute that this guy raped or killed anyone, and you shouldn't either, or you're just part of the problem.

If they made it illegal to look at other types of pornography on the internet because they felt that some of the subjects were being abused, then you could be just as guilty as him. We each have our own sexual tastes and there are thousands of types of pornography on the internet.

I just don't think the punishment befits the crime. If he was the guy who made the video, he should be strung up by his balls and stoned in a public crowd, sure. But ruining the life of someone who has no criminal record and has never indicated tendency towards molestation, rape, or murder -- just because he has material that the vast majority finds offensive... It just doesn't seem very American. I always understood that in America you were free to pursue happiness so long as it wasn't at the expense of the freedom and rights of others. I fail to understand how someone looking at pictures or video that they downloaded from the internet (even if we all think that what he was looking at is sick) is at all a crime worse enough to merit a jail sentence beyond 5 years -- much less 700+.

Go find the sicko who made the video and actually protect the children, how about that?


I never advocated violence against him. Reread my post. What I said is that my natural instinct as a human is that someone who does view things like this should DIAFS, not that I really would do such a thing. I realize he did not produce the pictures and or videos they found. I do not equate him with a serial killer, but I do think that he is sick, and from what I have read, quite often someone views or downloads child pornography prior to committing actual predatory crimes... So it is possible the two are linked (meaning the sickness to want to view such images and fantasize about children in a sexual manner is a precursor to actually abusing children sexually). I do not know enough about psychology to say that this is the case, but it does seem logical considering there are parallels in other types of crimes (serial killers usually start off abusing and killing small animals prior to committing murder for the first time as well as reading the most extreme reading material in the subject of murder and even study anatomy in some cases as research for future plans). I personally would not execute anyone, but I would lock them away forever. This particular person, I would not give such an extreme sentence... however, If I were a judge in this case, and he was found guilty, then my sentence would be something like: 1yr jail for each year of pictures (ie; he has been downloading for two years based on forensics, so 2yrs in jail) with court mandated counseling. After release, he is required to continue counseling till a court appointed psychologist feels he is rehabilitated (yes, no time limit). After which he will remain in parole for another period equal to his original sentence... now for producers of this filth, as I stated previously, they would be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole or release EVER.
 
2011-09-05 12:13:41 PM
sick farks dude...sick farks...

I'd be happy if our current prison population still existed, but it was all these got-damn pedos locked up instead of a bunch of stoners.
 
2011-09-05 12:14:28 PM

NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....


The argument is that if there weren't an audience for it, it wouldn't be produced. Therefore, just watching it makes you an accessory to the crime of child rape/exploitation/etc.

The problems come in when the age of the subject is unknown, but authorities are saying the person "looks young" and is therefore illegal. In this situation you get guys being busted for totally legal porn featuring participants who are 18 years old or older, such as with Lupe Fuentes, who looked like this:

i3.photobucket.com

When she was 19 years old and working in porn.

The other "slippery slope" argument which I find a little troubling is the one that says that drawings, cartoons, and otherwise non-human, non-real depictions of underage sex are equally as incriminating as a video/picture that features a real underage victim. Who's to say what the age of a cartoon character is? Do we consider Lisa Simpson ten years old for purposes of CP arrests, or can we argue that she was created in 1987 as a ten-year-old, and is thus 34 years old right now? Is a character that barely even looks human, like Lisa Simpson or some anthropomorphic animal, even the right "species" to be CP, or should we also book the guy with pictures of Minnie Mouse farking Buster Bunny with bestiality, too?

Clearly, we have to protect children. I just don't see how it protects real, human children when we go after guys who collect hentai or enjoy watching the Scooby Doo gang having orgies. At what point does it become a thought-crime?

Stranger still is the fact that you can have naked pictures of a child, and as long as they're not sexual in nature, they may actually be acceptable. The pic of the baby in his first bath, or the toddler running around the house or beach without her baby bikini top are generally (but not always) allowed to exist without any concern for danger to the children. Pics of kids on nude beaches are generally deemed "natural" and not pornographic.

But then, you can't and shouldn't look at kids that way, and it seems that the definition of CP lies in the intention of the viewer, not the kid or photographer or artist (if it's a drawing).

So to answer your question, he may have had pictures of children, but the fact that he may have derived sexual pleasure from said pictures is what makes him a criminal. On the other hand, if the pics were explicit and definitely showed children being victimized, then even possessing them could indicate, at the very least, a willingness to allow a crime to be committed without reporting it.

My advice? If they don't look old enough to be doing what they're doing, then don't look, don't download, don't save it, don't even think about it... And if you "can't help" thinking about it, then you need professional help.

Simple nudity can be artistic, certainly, and has been viewed as such throughout the ages, but sexual activity with young children steps beyond that barrier and makes something a crime (and just downright heinous). There is no doubt of that. Society has agreed that children are innocent and should be protected from those who would exploit them.

"Just looking" is providing an audience for a criminal act. One could argue that it's not illegal to just look at pictures of people being brutally murdered, and that murder is definitely an illegal act with a victim who suffer the ultimate loss. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for that argument. In our society, sexual violation is often treated as worse than murder, and that's just the way it is.

However, in the previous example, I'd have to say that the person taking the pictures of the brutal murder of a human being would be a criminal. We at least go that far, as a society, and call out those who don't step in to protect someone else when they can, or at least report it when they get the opportunity.

It's all messy human psychology, really. We, like many species, have a strong drive to protect our young, and therefore we prioritize them above all else. Perhaps that's as it should be.
 
2011-09-05 12:14:44 PM

Gonz: ShannonKW: (NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn?

4chan.


voice of experience?
 
2011-09-05 12:17:53 PM

Warlordtrooper: d3bug: NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....

I believe the reasoning has to do with supporting the child pornography industry by downloading and viewing the pictures. Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).

Yep, which is why hand draw and animate pictures are still considered free speech like regular porn, since there is noone being harmed in the making of it.

/is not into that sort of stuff just pointing out why it's illegal.


Drawings are illegal. It's called lolicon (I literally just read about this yesterday), and you can go to jail for a pretty long time.

"In October 2010, a 33 year old Idaho man, Steven Kutzner, entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show, The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts.[55][56] In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison."
Link (new window)
 
2011-09-05 12:20:06 PM

Gonz: ShannonKW: (NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn?

4chan.


Not entirely true. People post links, and I'll never click them (because I'm not a pedophile and because those links contain viruses) but that is pretty much it, just directing people to the websites and not hosting it on 4chan.
 
2011-09-05 12:21:44 PM

deevo: He told the cops he has thousands of videos, but when he finds child pornography, he deletes it. On the other hand, police say he told them he knows it's illegal to have child porn, and identified what kind of kiddie porn he had on his computer -- which he reportedly told police included boys and girls.

Don't talk to police download videos of child sexual abuse.


FTFY

AbbeySomeone:
Vindal could face a maximum sentence of 765 years in prison

Kiddie porn people are scum, but wtf do they think 765 years in lock up will accomplish?


It's okay. With time off for good behavior, he'll only serve 330 or so.
 
2011-09-05 12:21:45 PM

skantea: Warlordtrooper: d3bug: NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....

I believe the reasoning has to do with supporting the child pornography industry by downloading and viewing the pictures. Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).

Yep, which is why hand draw and animate pictures are still considered free speech like regular porn, since there is noone being harmed in the making of it.

/is not into that sort of stuff just pointing out why it's illegal.

Drawings are illegal. It's called lolicon (I literally just read about this yesterday), and you can go to jail for a pretty long time.

"In October 2010, a 33 year old Idaho man, Steven Kutzner, entered into a plea agreement concerning images of child characters from the American animated television show, The Simpsons engaged in sexual acts.[55][56] In January 2011, Kutzner was sentenced to serve 15 months in federal prison."
Link (new window)


so this must also be illegal as well... NSFW (new window)
(Disney characters poster I am sure everyone has seen at least once)
 
2011-09-05 12:22:50 PM
The idea behind the harsh punishments for simply possessing child porn is that we can legislate demand away. Just like the war on drugs.
 
2011-09-05 12:22:57 PM

d3bug: NeoBad: Did the guy do anything to kids, or just look at kids? I'm a little confused what the problem is....sure it is nasty gross and disgusting, and I would not imagine getting any pleasure from it, but still....

I believe the reasoning has to do with supporting the child pornography industry by downloading and viewing the pictures. Most of those sites are likely pay sites, so you are therefore giving money to the producers of the pictures (child molesters).


p2p is NOT pay 2 play. Also most sites offering CP, do not produce cp, but mearly recycle what is already on the net. The far majority of produced CP is traded/handed out simply because the person has no means of collecting money anonymously. Usually they will try to trade access to other large and elusive stashes or with other producers. I also suspect CP is leaked either via compromised computer devices, or by police access AFTER the fact, although I have no data on this.
 
2011-09-05 12:23:22 PM
That story made me angry. The last part made me feel slightly better

If convicted on all counts, Vindal could face a maximum sentence of 765 years in prison.
 
2011-09-05 12:23:42 PM

d3bug: Gonz: ShannonKW: (NOTE: I am NOT even hinting at asking for links or websites!)

That said, where are these people getting their enormous, damning collections of kiddie porn?

4chan.

voice of experience?


I can verify this is true...back in my 4chan days I would occasionally notice late-night threads requesting "cheese pizza" which was a thinly-veiled code for child porn. These could stay active for like 45 min until a moderator would happen to step in (probably after downloading it all himself). I never went into the threads 'cause ugh but I could sometimes see the thumbnails on the thread preview and there was definitely real, horrible stuff. Just pics and gifs bc you can't post a video on 4chan, but I'm sure these guys had their 'secret' places to trade.

Of course there was always the theory that it was just some FBI guy posting every time, waiting to snare others who would post. What a job THAT would be.
 
2011-09-05 12:24:19 PM
If you didnt read the comments beneath the article, you should.
 
2011-09-05 12:25:11 PM

Mugato: FirstNationalBastard: That guy looks like an adult version of the fat kid from Modern Family.

I don't watch the show so I had to look it up but holy shiat, you're right he does.


Vindal could face a maximum sentence of 765 years in prison

For just possessing pictures and video? Damn. He's probably kicking himself for not just raping the kids himself, he would have gotten the same thing. But you know, hindsight's 20/20.


That's the silliness with computer-related crimes -- the computer can really rack up a lot of crimes quite efficiently. It's like when the RIAA goes to sue people downloading movies or music -- suddenly 200 MP3s you downloaded as one compressed file in less than an hour suddenly by law means they can sue for several million dollars.

Yes, this guy should be locked up probably for life, but whatever the sentence is for child porn should only be issued once. I.e. the guy should be charged with one instance of possessing child porn, not 300 instances. You either possess some or you don't.
 
2011-09-05 12:28:20 PM
You said kiddie porn twice, submitter
 
2011-09-05 12:28:47 PM

tankjr: For intentionally witnessing a criminal act?


For intentionally and continually witnessing criminal acts? (FTFY)
Yes.

For encouraging the creation of more such videos and images.
Yes.
Did he call the guy up and say "Please make another one, but make it a blond kid". No. But more downloads = more new material.
If there were far less demand, there would be far less creation.
 
2011-09-05 12:28:57 PM
According to the RIAA his torrenting just cost the child pornographers a quarter of a billion dollars.

I'm so confused....
 
2011-09-05 12:29:40 PM
Too bad he didn't run someone over with his car while texting. He'd be free now.
 
2011-09-05 12:30:25 PM

skinink: And hopefully the cops did read him his rights so that all his comments are admissible.


If the cops neglected to ask the pedo to have a seat over there, the whole case could be thrown out of court.
 
2011-09-05 12:30:31 PM
Just playing devil's advocate, but should you be locked up for life if you look at a picture of a murder scene? I mean there are people who trade gruesome pictures of murders, rapes, etc. These are all horrible crimes too. Should the people who get a sick thrill out of looking at photos of those crimes be considered murderers and rapists also and be locked away as such? It's kind of disturbing if you really think about it because what it comes down to is being arrested for thought crimes.
 
2011-09-05 12:30:35 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: If you didnt read the comments beneath the article, you should.


Yes, what is up with that whole David Cody thing? Who is that?
 
2011-09-05 12:31:13 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: But more downloads = more new material.


Download music = artists lose millions of dollars and will never make music again.
Download prons = pronists make millions and strive to make as much new prons as possible.

Got it.
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report