Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(News 13 Orlando)   Sex offender lives across the street from an elementary school. No, it's cool. He was convicted before it was illegal to live there   (mynews13.com) divider line 110
    More: Florida, elementary schools, sex offenders  
•       •       •

4681 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2014 at 12:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-01-20 08:08:10 PM  
Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for.


"And we need to have one now, because of the children," Haring added. "Right this minute, because the children walk the street alone."

Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?
 
2014-01-20 08:16:35 PM  

fusillade762: Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for.


"And we need to have one now, because of the children," Haring added. "Right this minute, because the children walk the street alone."

Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?


Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."
 
2014-01-20 08:17:51 PM  
Hmm, reading that post in context makes it seem kinda snarky. Wasn't meant that way.
 
2014-01-20 08:22:57 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: fusillade762: Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for.

"And we need to have one now, because of the children," Haring added. "Right this minute, because the children walk the street alone."

Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."


Oops, my bad. Don't know how I missed that part.
 
2014-01-20 09:00:32 PM  
So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore
 
2014-01-20 09:55:06 PM  

fusillade762: Mitch Taylor's Bro: fusillade762:    what he was convicted for ... distributing child pornography ... I missed that part.


But you made the point anyway that these rules sweep in a lot of people.  This one may be the sort that at one time had the wrong inclination but would not actually approach a child.  The sweet blue-hair in the article expresses horror at the thought of this person monster peering through the blinds at her precious 'flake.
 
2014-01-20 10:26:08 PM  

fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?


That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.
 
2014-01-20 10:54:52 PM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.


I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?
 
2014-01-20 11:11:21 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


fark, I rode my bike in the early 70's 6 miles to the nearest convenience store just because it was something to do.  During the summer my brothers and I would leave the house at 8 and not come back until 6pm and my parents didn't give a shiat.
 
2014-01-21 12:25:17 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


I was listening to a radio morning show last week and they were talking about this, commenting on being outside all day when they were kids in the 70s and 80s, but how they'd never let their kids do that now, because "the world has changed, it's unsafe for children these days."
 
2014-01-21 12:25:25 AM  
This is fairly typical for us in Florida.

You have a lot of northerners whose parents who have retired here, who have their grown children who have committed some crime, move down here and either they get up to their old shenanigans or get outraged when they get outed.
 
2014-01-21 12:25:53 AM  
So he isn't breaking any law... I can see how they can't retroactively apply a law and force him to move.

And does anyone really think having to move would stop a serious child molester?   Which as far as I know this guy isn't.
 
2014-01-21 12:26:54 AM  

fusillade762: Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for.


"And we need to have one now, because of the children," Haring added. "Right this minute, because the children walk the street alone."

Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?


Why are you trying to bring logic into this?
 
2014-01-21 12:28:07 AM  

theflatline: This is fairly typical for us in Florida.

You have a lot of northerners whose parents who have retired here, who have their grown children who have committed some crime, move down here and either they get up to their old shenanigans or get outraged when they get outed.


This. There wouldn't be a Florida tag if not for dumbshiat northerners who moved down here to be with their retired parents.
 
2014-01-21 12:28:25 AM  
Has he done anything since his last arrest?
 
2014-01-21 12:29:31 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


If I recall correctly, there are less incidents of this sort of thing now than there was then, but with 24 hour news cycles and the internet it just seems like more because you hear about it every single time it happens.
 
2014-01-21 12:29:55 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.


Do you check their closets and under their beds for monsters, too?
 
2014-01-21 12:32:14 AM  
I miss walking around alone as a kid.  Those old dudes with the aviator glasses gave one hell of a handjob, AND paid for my ice creams.
 
2014-01-21 12:35:12 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I was listening to a radio morning show last week and they were talking about this, commenting on being outside all day when they were kids in the 70s and 80s, but how they'd never let their kids do that now, because "the world has changed, it's unsafe for children these days."


The world hasn't changed. They've just gulped down the "OMFG! TEH WORLD IS A SCARY PLACE!" Kool-Aid the media has been shoveling out since the 80's. The world is actually safer now than it was in the 70's and 80's. But don't try and tell these idiot helicopter parents that.
 
2014-01-21 12:36:33 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


In the 70's, if a kid was molested two towns over, you'd never hear about it. Now you hear about it on cable news, Facebook, Fark, and Twitter.
 
2014-01-21 12:39:17 AM  
Almost all sexual abuse is someone the kid knows - either a family member or friends of the family. But it's probably easier to make a big deal about a guy living across from an elementary school than confront the real dangers to children, so let's just do that.
 
2014-01-21 12:40:56 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?

In the 70's, if a kid was molested two towns over, you'd never hear about it. Now you hear about it on cable news, Facebook, Fark, and Twitter.


As you should.
 
2014-01-21 12:43:02 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: In the 70's, if a kid was molested two towns over, you'd never hear about it. Now you hear about it on cable news, Facebook, Fark, and Twitter.


Yeah but they never have any good pictures in those articles.
 
2014-01-21 12:45:22 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?

In the 70's, if a kid was molested two towns over, you'd never hear about it. Now you hear about it on cable news, Facebook, Fark, and Twitter.


The Nancy Grace effect. I saw a thing on sixty minutes, or Dateline or something, saying statistically kids are safer than ever. And people know to look for these things now.
 
2014-01-21 12:46:07 AM  

Lsherm: fark, I rode my bike in the early 70's 6 miles to the nearest convenience store just because it was something to do. During the summer my brothers and I would leave the house at 8 and not come back until 6pm and my parents didn't give a shiat.


img.fark.net

Most kids nowadays look like something only their mother would love anyways.

Let your fat kids walk and out of the house.
 
2014-01-21 12:46:12 AM  
So, he broke no laws by living there?  Be kind of shiatty to change the law now.
 
2014-01-21 12:46:15 AM  

Bane of Broone: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?

In the 70's, if a kid was molested two towns over, you'd never hear about it. Now you hear about it on cable news, Facebook, Fark, and Twitter.

As you should.


Derp
 
2014-01-21 12:48:05 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?

I was listening to a radio morning show last week and they were talking about this, commenting on being outside all day when they were kids in the 70s and 80s, but how they'd never let their kids do that now, because "the world has changed, it's unsafe for children these days."


That's the modern paranoia. Boogieman behind every rock. It's really quite sad. But it helps those in power get more power. To protect us all from the boogiemen. We need another law reducing our freedom for safety. For the children.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."


The question is was he actually caught with child porn or did have naked photos of a 17 year old who was doing photo layouts saying she was 18?  The entire 'sex offender' thing has become so broad as to become meaningless without significant details of the conviction.
 
2014-01-21 12:48:43 AM  

fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?


Maybe they shouldnt let sex offenders wander around by themselves either?
 
2014-01-21 12:49:45 AM  
Could society just grow a pair and make this a capital offense?  What is the point of letting these people live if they have to spend the rest of their lives as outcasts?
 
2014-01-21 12:52:12 AM  
Murderers get to live around other people.

Where's the fuss about that?
 
2014-01-21 12:52:27 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: fusillade762: Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for.


"And we need to have one now, because of the children," Haring added. "Right this minute, because the children walk the street alone."

Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."


Well then everything is fine,  he was only distributing it,  he wasn't making any.
Parents today are so overprotective.
 
2014-01-21 12:52:57 AM  
We should just make it illegal for sex offenders to live anywhere. That should solve the problem.
 
2014-01-21 12:53:50 AM  

mikaloyd: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

Maybe they shouldnt let sex offenders wander around by themselves either?


He served his time. And he wasn't arrested for molesting kids.

Besides, the moot likely person to molest a kid is a step-father. Strangers are far down on the list.
 
2014-01-21 12:55:32 AM  
Or you know, actually work with them and try to help them rejoin society.
 
2014-01-21 12:55:44 AM  

That Guy...From That Show!: Murderers get to live around other people.

Where's the fuss about that?


Murderers didn't touch my precious little snowflake!
static3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-21 12:56:17 AM  
Was it "distributing pornography" like he was selling it or trading it? Or was it more like he downloaded a suss video from Kazaa and left his shares on?
 
2014-01-21 12:58:14 AM  
FTFA: "He could look out the window and see the school, where the kids play on the playground, or the P.E. field," said Mike Melnicoff, another upset parent.

The horror!

untaken_name: We should just make it illegal for sex offenders to live anywhere. That should solve the problem.


See: the Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony
See also: Miracle Park
 
2014-01-21 01:04:21 AM  

leadmetal: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."

The question is was he actually caught with child porn or did have naked photos of a 17 year old who was doing photo layouts saying she was 18?  The entire 'sex offender' thing has become so broad as to become meaningless without significant details of the conviction.


No, the implied question was, "Of course there's no mention of what he was convicted for." I answered that. Since I'm not clairvoyant, I can't answer your fantasy question. Continue fapping, though.
 
2014-01-21 01:08:25 AM  
In this Society, you can get labeled a Registered Sex Offender just for pissing on a wall.
 
2014-01-21 01:09:08 AM  

ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore


I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.
 
2014-01-21 01:11:17 AM  

foo monkey: ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore

I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.


What part of "he served his time" don't you get?
 
2014-01-21 01:15:50 AM  
Idk about every school district, but where my kids went to school, the buses didn't pick kids up any closer than 3 miles from the school. Now, my oldest daughter had half a brain, and I never needed to worry, the younger one tho...

and as far as dropping off and picking up, when school gets out at 3 or so, it's hard when you don't get off work till 5.
 
2014-01-21 01:17:51 AM  
If it's such a problem then simply move the school.
 
2014-01-21 01:19:00 AM  
"He could look out the window and see the school, where the kids play on the playground, or the P.E. field," said Mike Melnicoff, another upset parent."

Farking hell, HE CAN SEE THE SCHOOL FROM HIS HOUSE!!! So drape the school in a tarp. Sort of like this:

pixel.nymag.com
 
2014-01-21 01:23:27 AM  
Eventually one of these sex offenders is going to feel he has no chance of ever having value in society again and do something tragic, either out of desperation or just to go out in a blaze of glory.

The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing left to lose.
 
2014-01-21 01:27:03 AM  

foo monkey: ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore

I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.


Actually kiddy porn is very vague. There is not much of a legal definition to porn other than 'I'll know it when I see it.' There was at least one creep who got busted for having movies of fully clothed girls doing things that they probably shouldn't have. And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.
 
2014-01-21 01:27:17 AM  

leadmetal: Mitch Taylor's Bro: Maybe the article was updated since you read it: "He was convicted in New York in 2004 for distributing child pornography, and is listed on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's online sex offender database."

The question is was he actually caught with child porn or did have naked photos of a 17 year old who was doing photo layouts saying she was 18?  The entire 'sex offender' thing has become so broad as to become meaningless without significant details of the conviction.


She wouldn't need to even lie about her age. There was a case several years back where a guy was arrested at an airport for having child porn in his suitcase. Turns out the actress in the video was Lupe Fuentes, a very petite (She's 4'9" and weighs about 80 lbs.) Colombian actress. Had she not shown up at the guys trial to testify about her age he very well might have been convicted. Link
 
2014-01-21 01:28:26 AM  
Lindsey Graham has really let herself go

mynews13.com
 
2014-01-21 01:33:26 AM  
In other news, that creepy "Uncle Albert" episode of family ties was on tonight. Never did understand why the moms first reaction was to drag her daughter right back to the creepy uncle to "talk" with him.
 
2014-01-21 01:34:59 AM  

Twitch Boy: Eventually one of these sex offenders is going to feel he has no chance of ever having value in society again and do something tragic, either out of desperation or just to go out in a blaze of glory.

The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing left to lose.


I've actually brought this point up and got responded to with an argument that basically went 'welp, nothing we can do about that, MOAR PUNISHMENT'. I don't think there's any thought anymore as to whether any of these restrictions are actually working as advertised, just so long as it feels like something's getting done.

It's like... if you're that scared of them, why the fark did you let them out of prison in the first place? It seems so much simpler than brainstorming a million and a half Jack Bauer revenge fantasies.
 
2014-01-21 01:39:33 AM  

GodComplex: And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.


David Hamilton's work is legal in the US. You can even buy it on Amazon.
 
2014-01-21 01:44:35 AM  

GodComplex: foo monkey: ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore

I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.

Actually kiddy porn is very vague. There is not much of a legal definition to porn other than 'I'll know it when I see it.' There was at least one creep who got busted for having movies of fully clothed girls doing things that they probably shouldn't have. And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.


I had a coworker who brought his laptop in to CompUSA for repair and his wallpaper was a pic, from behind, of his 1 year old son standing at the bathtub.  Bare ass naked.  Dude at CompUSA tried to intimidate him by saying "Sir, this is child pornography but I'll let this one go."  My coworker isn't the type to get intimidated by much of anyone and he farking popped.  REALLY?  THAT'S MY SON AND IT'S A CUTE PICTURE.  IF YOU THINK THAT'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FARKING COPS.  MATTER OF FACT, HERE'S MY PHONE.  I JUST PRESSED 911 AND ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS PUSH SEND.  GO AHEAD I FARKING DARE YOU TO DO IT.

It was a wonderful sight to behold.  He's not a typically angry guy but the dick at CompUSA farked with entirely the wrong person.
 
2014-01-21 01:49:35 AM  

KidneyStone: GodComplex: foo monkey: ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore

I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.

Actually kiddy porn is very vague. There is not much of a legal definition to porn other than 'I'll know it when I see it.' There was at least one creep who got busted for having movies of fully clothed girls doing things that they probably shouldn't have. And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.

I had a coworker who brought his laptop in to CompUSA for repair and his wallpaper was a pic, from behind, of his 1 year old son standing at the bathtub.  Bare ass naked.  Dude at CompUSA tried to intimidate him by saying "Sir, this is child pornography but I'll let this one go."  My coworker isn't the type to get intimidated by much of anyone and he farking popped.  REALLY?  THAT'S MY SON AND IT'S A CUTE PICTURE.  IF YOU THINK THAT'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FARKING COPS.  MATTER OF FACT, HERE'S MY PHONE.  I JUST PRESSED 911 AND ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS PUSH SEND.  GO AHEAD I FARKING DARE YOU TO DO IT.

It was a wonderful sight to behold.  He's not a typically angry guy but the dick at CompUSA farked with entirely the wrong person.



Yeah, umm...that's kinda weird. Taking the picture is one thing, but desktop background? Creepy vibe.

//Wouldn't call the cops or anything, just saying.
 
2014-01-21 01:53:24 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


nope. Actually safer than ever. But nation wide media has gotten better at telling us about every tiny little thing, meaning the world looks scarier without actually being any worse.
 
2014-01-21 01:58:53 AM  

italie: Yeah, umm...that's kinda weird. Taking the picture is one thing, but desktop background? Creepy vibe.

//Wouldn't call the cops or anything, just saying.


What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it.

What's even worse is looking at such a picture and basically saying "this is child porn but I'll look the other way."
 
2014-01-21 02:01:03 AM  

Ed Grubermann: GodComplex: And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.

David Hamilton's work is legal in the US. You can even buy it on Amazon.


Indeed it is. It's just an example of nekkid kids not being porn. The line between art and porn is often disputed.


KidneyStone: GodComplex: foo monkey: ArkAngel: So wonderful that so many people think ex post facto should not apply anymore

I really want to agree with you.  I understand it's a slippery slope.  The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn.  "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague.  I watch all kinds of porn.  None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.

Actually kiddy porn is very vague. There is not much of a legal definition to porn other than 'I'll know it when I see it.' There was at least one creep who got busted for having movies of fully clothed girls doing things that they probably shouldn't have. And then again, there is David Hamilton. Don't search that name at work.

I had a coworker who brought his laptop in to CompUSA for repair and his wallpaper was a pic, from behind, of his 1 year old son standing at the bathtub.  Bare ass naked.  Dude at CompUSA tried to intimidate him by saying "Sir, this is child pornography but I'll let this one go."  My coworker isn't the type to get intimidated by much of anyone and he farking popped.  REALLY?  THAT'S MY SON AND IT'S A CUTE PICTURE.  IF YOU THINK THAT'S CHILD PORNOGRAPHY YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FARKING COPS.  MATTER OF FACT, HERE'S MY PHONE.  I JUST PRESSED 911 AND ALL YOU GOTTA DO IS PUSH SEND.  GO AHEAD I FARKING DARE YOU TO DO IT.

It was a wonderful sight to behold.  He's not a typically angry guy but the dick at CompUSA farked with entirely the wrong person.


Took an HR class where the prof regaled us with a tale from her business law days, talking about an encounter with a women who came to her complaining about a co-worker having nudie pics of men on her desk. Said picture was of her son ass up on a bear skin rug. The prof went back to the original complainer and stated, 'if you think that's pornographic, we may need to have a talk.' I thought it funny.
 
2014-01-21 02:18:36 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Almost all sexual abuse is someone the kid knows - either a family member or friends of the family. But it's probably easier to make a big deal about a guy living across from an elementary school than confront the real dangers to children, so let's just do that.


[CSB]

I attended an HOA meeting several years ago where the subject of prohibiting all registered sex offenders from moving into the neighborhood was brought up.  One lady in particular was pushing for it.  So I bring up the figure about how 90% of all molestations are done by somebody the child knows.  I then inquired if this lady's husband was at home alone with her children.

You could have heard a pin drop.  Some of the best "oh snap, he went there" looks I've seen in my life.  After a couple of seconds, I start things back up again by pointing out that a potential lawsuit would be very expensive, and asked the board if we had the funds to defend a lawsuit.

That lady didn't say another thing during the meeting.  But I bet that she was eying daggers at me the whole time.

[/CSB]
 
2014-01-21 02:27:42 AM  
FTA: "I want him permanently gone," said Christine Haring, whose grandchild goes to Sugar Mills Elementary.

Classic case of security through obscurity.  You think that by pushing sex offenders outside of society that your children are safer.  Except that there are always more offenders out there that the police haven't caught.  And just because they live far away doesn't mean that they can't farking drive to your neighborhood.

If you want to keep kids safe, teach them how to.  Travel in groups, be suspicious of strangers and get a trusted adult involved when in doubt.  Then drill them on what you taught them.
 
2014-01-21 02:32:24 AM  

Fafai: italie: Yeah, umm...that's kinda weird. Taking the picture is one thing, but desktop background? Creepy vibe.

//Wouldn't call the cops or anything, just saying.

What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it.

What's even worse is looking at such a picture and basically saying "this is child porn but I'll look the other way."


Yeah, those two lines of thought are bad...but putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird. Not changing said pictures when strangers will be looking at your PC blows weird out of the water, and replaces it with brain-dead.
 
2014-01-21 02:33:50 AM  

Dinjiin: If you want to keep kids safe, teach them how to.


This is called victim-blaming and if your kid is female I'm told this is bad. Instead, try to stop raping so much.

Dinjiin: I attended an HOA meeting several years ago where the subject of prohibiting all registered sex offenders from moving into the neighborhood was brought up. One lady in particular was pushing for it. So I bring up the figure about how 90% of all molestations are done by somebody the child knows. I then inquired if this lady's husband was at home alone with her children.


That was a bit much. By making it personal you detracted from your valid point. You also insinuated that someone might be a child molester without any evidence at all to support such an accusation, so it was a pretty dick move.
 
2014-01-21 02:40:26 AM  

italie: putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird.


Why? I really wish we could get past this nonsense. Maybe it was just a good picture or a fond memory. The kid was 1 year old, and from the sounds of it, about to have a bath. Babies prefer to be naked. It's hard to keep clothes on a 1 year old. Why does everyone go into panic mode at a naked baby?
 
2014-01-21 02:42:36 AM  

Dinjiin: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Almost all sexual abuse is someone the kid knows - either a family member or friends of the family. But it's probably easier to make a big deal about a guy living across from an elementary school than confront the real dangers to children, so let's just do that.

[CSB]

I attended an HOA meeting several years ago where the subject of prohibiting all registered sex offenders from moving into the neighborhood was brought up.  One lady in particular was pushing for it.  So I bring up the figure about how 90% of all molestations are done by somebody the child knows.  I then inquired if this lady's husband was at home alone with her children.

You could have heard a pin drop.  Some of the best "oh snap, he went there" looks I've seen in my life.  After a couple of seconds, I start things back up again by pointing out that a potential lawsuit would be very expensive, and asked the board if we had the funds to defend a lawsuit.

That lady didn't say another thing during the meeting.  But I bet that she was eying daggers at me the whole time.

[/CSB]


Fafai: Dinjiin: If you want to keep kids safe, teach them how to.

This is called victim-blaming and if your kid is female I'm told this is bad. Instead, try to stop raping so much.

Dinjiin: I attended an HOA meeting several years ago where the subject of prohibiting all registered sex offenders from moving into the neighborhood was brought up. One lady in particular was pushing for it. So I bring up the figure about how 90% of all molestations are done by somebody the child knows. I then inquired if this lady's husband was at home alone with her children.

That was a bit much. By making it personal you detracted from your valid point. You also insinuated that someone might be a child molester without any evidence at all to support such an accusation, so it was a pretty dick move.


Dick move or not, I thought that story was pretty funny.  Sometimes a little dick is called for.  Just ask your mom.

// oh snap
 
2014-01-21 02:47:19 AM  

Fafai: Why does everyone go into panic mode at a naked baby?


CSB: My boy had some diaper rash while visiting the inlaws one day and apparently it was like this big controversial thing with by parents in law when I let him roam around naked in order to air out his rash. "Little boys shouldn't be naked." Ok then so you'd rather him be uncomfortable and in pain because a naked baby icks you out for some reason? I really don't get it.
 
2014-01-21 02:59:35 AM  
If there is no cure for these people and the laws make it to where they can't find a job or a place to live (Florida has a "bridge city" where a bunch of them live) then why not just keep them locked up for life?  Isn't that better than letting them loose on society to sexually offend again?  Not to mention them turning to other criminal activities like robbing to stay alive.  Kick the pot smokers out of the prisons and load them up with these folks.

/Born that way?
 
2014-01-21 03:20:32 AM  

Fafai: By making it personal you detracted from your valid point ... so it was a pretty dick move.


Maybe.  Had the lady made a calm and reasoned argument, I wouldn't have said anything.  But she was crossing into hysterics and was starting to bully her argument.  The management company rep should have stepped in, but he tended to avoid all confrontation.  So to counter her escalation of the situation, I escalated it even more.  I was either expecting that she would have slapped me or just walked out.  Sitting quietly in the corner fuming worked for me, though.

But on the larger issue, it is these sorts of emotional outbursts that are driving policy decisions across the country.  More level heads don't want to get involved because dealing with such people isn't pretty and nobody wants to demonize the soccer mom.  It reminds me a lot of scientists-vs-creationists debate.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:54 AM  

Dinjiin: nobody wants to demonize the soccer mom


I think it's more that nobody wants to be seen as a pedo sympathizer/apologist.
 
2014-01-21 03:33:22 AM  
Fafai: ...What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it...

This. Why has our society gotten so wigged out about nudity? We only see nakedness as a bad thing because (in this society) we're raised being told that's it's a bad, shameful thing.
 
2014-01-21 03:44:26 AM  

Biner: Fafai: ...What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it...

This. Why has our society gotten so wigged out about nudity? We only see nakedness as a bad thing because (in this society) we're raised being told that's it's a bad, shameful thing.


Well the first colonies were populated by people with the belief that the Church of England wasn't repressive enough. That and the hippies grew up with a great deal of remorse for their actions and imposed those beliefs on their kids. The idea that our society has come so far as we have yet still freak out over sex is kinda absurd.
 
2014-01-21 04:03:51 AM  
s24.postimg.org
 
2014-01-21 04:24:09 AM  

Ed Grubermann: Besides, the moot likely person to molest a kid is a step-father.


I spent more than three years as a child protective services investigator.  Every child molestation case I had where something actually happened was a parent's new boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife.  Quite a bit of the physical abuse, too.  I'd guess about a third.

It's amazing how poorly people select the people they are going to let be around their children in their own homes.
 
2014-01-21 05:17:19 AM  

Twitch Boy: Eventually one of these sex offenders is going to feel he has no chance of ever having value in society again and do something tragic, either out of desperation or just to go out in a blaze of glory.

The most dangerous man is the one who has nothing left to lose.


Yes. Won't someone think of the kiddy diddlers? When I see an elementary school full of children, I think "Boy, I hope there are no child touchers having their rights violated right now". To most people on this website, children are just whiny, precious snowflakes that need to toughen up while the criminals are the sweet innocent souls that need nurturing.
 
2014-01-21 05:17:21 AM  

italie: Fafai: italie: Yeah, umm...that's kinda weird. Taking the picture is one thing, but desktop background? Creepy vibe.

//Wouldn't call the cops or anything, just saying.

What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it.

What's even worse is looking at such a picture and basically saying "this is child porn but I'll look the other way."

Yeah, those two lines of thought are bad...but putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird. Not changing said pictures when strangers will be looking at your PC blows weird out of the water, and replaces it with brain-dead.


Beyond weird?

Like the Coppertone ad with the dog pulling down a swimsuit?
Like loads of classic art which depict a naked baby being held by the mother?

If you want beyond weird, you may want to look in the mirror.  Fact is, children, especially babies, can be beautiful as any sunset, to a vast number of people.  No different than having a clothed picture of them hanging on the wall.

If you can't distinguish between normal and weird, you may want to get your head checked.

4tehsnowflakes: fusillade762: Mitch Taylor's Bro: fusillade762:    what he was convicted for ... distributing child pornography ... I missed that part.

But you made the point anyway that these rules sweep in a lot of people.  This one may be the sort that at one time had the wrong inclination but would not actually approach a child.  The sweet blue-hair in the article expresses horror at the thought of this person monster peering through the blinds at her precious 'flake.


This.  The guy in the article might be "bad", but the laws are so vague as to be useless in other cases, enough to make a victim out of innocent people.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Wanted for questioning.
 
2014-01-21 05:21:02 AM  

DingleberryMoose: It's amazing how poorly people select the people they are going to let be around their children in their own homes.


Considering they're mom's 'new' boyfriend, dad's 'new' girlfriend, etc. etc., it really isn't all that amazing since they've demonstrated a poor sense of judgement when it comes to their past of getting knocked up and/or getting custody of their children.

Not saying that every single parent has a poor sense of judgement when it comes to potential mates, but I'm willing to bet that many have a habit of falling for the wrong people (both for them and their children).
 
2014-01-21 05:27:27 AM  

DubyaHater: To most people on this website, children are just whiny, precious snowflakes that need to toughen up while the criminals are the sweet innocent souls that need nurturing.


Is it too much to ask for both?

Children need to toughen up, sure. The world sucks.

Criminals are human, though. As much as people on Fark would like to pretend they're Frank Castle and that the world is distinctly black-and-white when it comes to saints and sinners, the sad truth is numerous people were not 'born' criminals, they were 'made' criminals by society and the environment they grew up in. Their actions are their own to take, and for that they are punished accordingly (sometimes not enough, and sometimes the innocent get hit instead, but nobody ever said the system was perfect) -- but as a society we're partially responsible for creating and maintaining environments to reduce the likelihood of criminals to exist to begin with.

And part of that responsibility is knowing the difference between justice and revenge. Revenge is a great motive for fictional storytelling, but in the real world it ends up continuing a cycle of violence.
 
2014-01-21 05:32:37 AM  
As horrible as some of them are. People classified as Sex Offenders receive cruel and unusual punishment.


If they are deemed unfit for society they belong in jail. Not this limbo where the rules of how they live are dictated by peoples reactionary emotions.
 
2014-01-21 05:54:38 AM  

Dinjiin: FTA: "I want him permanently gone," said Christine Haring, whose grandchild goes to Sugar Mills Elementary.

Classic case of security through obscurity.  You think that by pushing sex offenders outside of society that your children are safer.  Except that there are always more offenders out there that the police haven't caught.  And just because they live far away doesn't mean that they can't farking drive to your neighborhood.

If you want to keep kids safe, teach them how to.  Travel in groups, be suspicious of strangers and get a trusted adult involved when in doubt.  Then drill them on what you taught them.


It's much easier and gratifying to gather a group of people to harass a lone individual.
 
2014-01-21 06:20:28 AM  
Perhaps we could give the children handguns?
 
2014-01-21 06:23:27 AM  
I never will understand why our society does not consider posessors and distributors of legal porn to be potential rapists while at the same time, posessors and distributors of child porn are considered to be potential molesters.
 
2014-01-21 06:33:20 AM  
This is all the fault of parents when you get right down to it. Quit producing sexy sexy sexy little kids.Wait, did I say that out loud?
 
2014-01-21 06:39:08 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I never will understand why our society does not consider posessors and distributors of legal porn to be potential rapists while at the same time, posessors and distributors of child porn are considered to be potential molesters.


That's because it's just understood that all men are rapists.
 
2014-01-21 06:42:57 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I never will understand why our society does not consider posessors and distributors of legal porn to be potential rapists while at the same time, posessors and distributors of child porn are considered to be potential molesters.


Because porn is to sex with adults (legal) as child porn is to sex with minors, which is, by definition, rape. If it's a causation thing, someone who likes porn might want to recreate those acts with a partner in a totally legal way. But those other types? Recreating what they see would be rape 100% even if they convince themselves they have a 'willing' partner.
 
2014-01-21 06:43:06 AM  
Laws requiring sex offenders to state where they live are in place for only one reason, to ensure society ostractices a person and vigilantes can scare them out of the city. Unfortunately people who have served time in jail and are no trying to be productive members of society do NOT benefit from being ostracized and prevented from leading a normal life. In past centuries this is known as punishing by humiliation and is dependent on society to make the offender regret what they did. This invites vigalantism and inevitably leads to criminal behavior especially in cases where the offender is highly stigmatized.

filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-21 06:55:35 AM  
FTFA: Florida's state law concerning where sex offenders can live, passed in October 2004, says anyone convicted of a sexual offense cannot live within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or park.

I hope that isn't an accurate description of the statute.  "A sexual offense" can mean you picked up a hooker, or worked as one, or adultery or "crimes against nature" if the Theocrat Party gets its way.
 
2014-01-21 06:57:10 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I was listening to a radio morning show last week and they were talking about this, commenting on being outside all day when they were kids in the 70s and 80s, but how they'd never let their kids do that now, because "the world has changed, it's unsafe for children these days."


Stupid thing is, that just makes the kids more likely to be molested.  90%+ of molestations are by family members.  Kids are SAFER outside.
 
2014-01-21 07:09:14 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I never will understand why our society does not consider posessors and distributors of legal porn to be potential rapists while at the same time, posessors and distributors of child porn are considered to be potential molesters.


Wait until 8 years of President Santorum, all porn will be outlawed.
 
2014-01-21 07:51:55 AM  

omeganuepsilon: italie: Fafai: italie: Yeah, umm...that's kinda weird. Taking the picture is one thing, but desktop background? Creepy vibe.

//Wouldn't call the cops or anything, just saying.

What's creepy is looking at an innocent photo of a child and automatically thinking there's something sexual or pornographic about it.

What's even worse is looking at such a picture and basically saying "this is child porn but I'll look the other way."

Yeah, those two lines of thought are bad...but putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird. Not changing said pictures when strangers will be looking at your PC blows weird out of the water, and replaces it with brain-dead.

Beyond weird?

Like the Coppertone ad with the dog pulling down a swimsuit?
Like loads of classic art which depict a naked baby being held by the mother?

If you want beyond weird, you may want to look in the mirror.  Fact is, children, especially babies, can be beautiful as any sunset, to a vast number of people.  No different than having a clothed picture of them hanging on the wall.

If you can't distinguish between normal and weird, you may want to get your head checked.



Normal is  not actively touting nudes of your children to people who really shouldn't be seeing it.

Like I've already said, do what you will in your own space. Once he brought his kids' nude photo into the public domain, things become complicated. In the right situation something like that, even if innocent, could fall within mandated reporter laws. Right or wrong, that is a stupid thing to do to yourself.
 
2014-01-21 07:58:20 AM  

leadmetal: The question is was he actually caught with child porn or did have naked photos of a 17 year old who was doing photo layouts saying she was 18?  The entire 'sex offender' thing has become so broad as to become meaningless without significant details of the conviction.


I believe we really need some different categories of "sex offender."  It's fine and dandy to heavily prosecute sex offenses, but when you lump guys who pee on the side of a building near to a playground with the sort of monsters who actually drive windowless vans with "free candy" spray painted on the side, you make it really difficult to determine the threat level posed by any given offender.  The result is that there's a certain tendency (as we're seeing in this thread) to give.....not the benefit of the doubt, but some amount of skepticism to the sex offender.  "Is this guy REALLY that horrible," we ask, because we've seen way too many stories about guys who are on the registry for life because they had a young GF in high school, or because they got some porn that was mislabeled off a file-sharing service.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that there ought to be maybe 5 levels of sex offense, and that would both determine the severity of the sentence (any ideally, time spent on the registry, assuming that there are no further offenses) as well as inform the public of the offender's basic threat level.  A category 1 offense could be like that public urination example, which comes with limited jail time and no placement on the sex offender registry for first-time offenders.  A category 5 offense would come with VERY long prison terms and a permanent place on the sex offender registry.

It just seems like we could handle this smarter than just treated all sex offenders with the same blanket method.
 
2014-01-21 08:03:02 AM  

italie: Like I've already said, do what you will in your own space. Once he brought his kids' nude photo into the public domain, things become complicated. In the right situation something like that, even if innocent, could fall within mandated reporter laws. Right or wrong, that is a stupid thing to do to yourself.


So it's stupid because it could open up needless legal issues? Seems more ignorant or naive than 'beyond weird.'
 
2014-01-21 08:03:45 AM  

Fafai: CSB: My boy had some diaper rash while visiting the inlaws one day and apparently it was like this big controversial thing with by parents in law when I let him roam around naked in order to air out his rash. "Little boys shouldn't be naked." Ok then so you'd rather him be uncomfortable and in pain because a naked baby icks you out for some reason? I really don't get it.


Kids around potty-training age are exhibitionists anyway, so the old folks just have to deal. If you've got company over, that's the time the little ones will go streaking through the living room. My son when he was 3 would announce it in advance by yelling "IT'S MY NAKED TIME" and if we weren't fast enough he'd be out the door and peeing in the storm drain. He wanted the whole neighborhood to know he had mad potty skillz. (/csb)
 
2014-01-21 08:11:22 AM  

Gulper Eel: Fafai: CSB: My boy had some diaper rash while visiting the inlaws one day and apparently it was like this big controversial thing with by parents in law when I let him roam around naked in order to air out his rash. "Little boys shouldn't be naked." Ok then so you'd rather him be uncomfortable and in pain because a naked baby icks you out for some reason? I really don't get it.

Kids around potty-training age are exhibitionists anyway, so the old folks just have to deal. If you've got company over, that's the time the little ones will go streaking through the living room. My son when he was 3 would announce it in advance by yelling "IT'S MY NAKED TIME" and if we weren't fast enough he'd be out the door and peeing in the storm drain. He wanted the whole neighborhood to know he had mad potty skillz. (/csb)


It's sad that something as funny and cute as that could get people on the defensive. Or worse, potentially get people into trouble.
 
2014-01-21 08:25:17 AM  

Gulper Eel: My son when he was 3 would announce it in advance by yelling "IT'S MY NAKED TIME" and if we weren't fast enough he'd be out the door and peeing in the storm drain


I made the mistake of having my two year old son take a whizz in the woods one day while on a hike shortly after he had otherwise become potty trained. For nearly six months, he would suddenly proclaim the need to pee anytime we walked past a tree. If he was left unsupervised in the yard or park for more than a minute, he would immediately head for the tree line. My parents advised me that I used to do the same thing. I think it must just be a little boy thing.
 
2014-01-21 08:33:26 AM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: antidisestablishmentarianism: fusillade762: Maybe you shouldn't be letting your kids wander around by themselves?

That's what I thought. I drop my kid off and pick him up from school every day.

I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


No, they haven't.   In fact, all crime, including violent crime, is down to record low levels since then.

What has happened is that greater access to media has caused "moral panics" that just didn't happen back then.  When you had literally half an hour of local news, and half an hour of national news on the TV, this sort of thing wasn't really that much of an issue.

But with the rise of the 24 hour news channel in the 1980s, with its incessant demand for news (they invented "missing white girl syndrome", for example) and the subsequent rise of online news (and rumor-mongering!), these things have gotten more attention.   This resulted in moral panics and laws being passed that really skirt and sometimes go over what a reasonable person would consider to be, well, reasonable.

For example, in New York State, if you are convicted of a sex crime and you completely finish your sentence, they can, instead of letting you go as you would expect, send you straight to a mental institution based upon a hearing where the standard of evidence is much lower than in a criminal trial (and it's about *FUTURE* behavior, something notoriously difficult to predict).

In essence, any conviction on sex crimes is a potentially open-ended life sentence.

If you wanted to do that sort of thing, then the *PROPER* way to do it would have been to increase the criminal penalties for those convicted.
 
2014-01-21 08:49:20 AM  
I don't have any love for sex offenders (provided they're genuine and not just some horseshiat "offense") but I really don't care for your children either. So, popcorn?
 
2014-01-21 08:55:22 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: ... there's a certain tendency (as we're seeing in this thread) to give.....not the benefit of the doubt, but some amount of skepticism to the sex offender. "Is this guy REALLY that horrible," we ask, because we've seen way too many stories about guys who are on the registry for life because they had a young GF in high school, or because they got some porn that was mislabeled off a file-sharing service.


Is the guy horrible enough to have people constantly nagging and harping? Trying to run him out of town? All this after he's already done time in jail? Is he bad enough to justify neighbors working themselves into a tizzy because he can SEE their kids? No.

RSOs don't need classification, they need to have that stigma reserved for the serious offenses that also affect people around them.
 
2014-01-21 09:41:45 AM  
The sex offender registry is the most abused law, ever.  In NC they are making teenage kids who send selfies register and if you are 18 do not date anyone 16 or 17, who has a revenge minded parent.  A very stupid law in how it is applied.
 
2014-01-21 09:42:10 AM  
So you're saying he was...

dun dun duuunnn

...Grandfathered In?
 
2014-01-21 10:01:14 AM  
"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." US Constitution, Article I, Section 10.

Amend the Constitution or STFU. Even the 10th-Amendment ueber alles cultists can't argue this Constitutional point.
 
2014-01-21 11:03:39 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: But you made the point anyway that these rules sweep in a lot of people. This one may be the sort that at one time had the wrong inclination but would not actually approach a child. The sweet blue-hair in the article expresses horror at the thought of this person monster peering through the blinds at her precious 'flake.


Yeah.  The number willing to deal with child porn images is far greater than the number willing to actually abuse a child.

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I grew up in the 1970's and once I got to around 9 or 10 -- still elementary school age -- my folks let me ride my bike to school (about 3 miles each way) and lots of other stuff all by myself. I seriously doubt my folks were naive about this sort of thing. Have things really gotten that bad or what?


Reporters have gotten that bad.  The actual risk is lower now than then.

foo monkey: I really want to agree with you. I understand it's a slippery slope. The guy was convicted of distributing kiddy porn. "Distributing" is incredibly vague. "Kiddy porn" isn't vague. I watch all kinds of porn. None of it is kiddy and I distribute none of it.


Kiddy porn can be vague--too often pictures that are simply non-sexual nudes get called kiddie porn.

Some years ago I was half a second from snapping a shot that probably would class as kiddie porn in the US--without being aware of it.  My objective was to take a picture of my wife on a bridge in a park--as the camera focused I noticed in the background that I was looking straight up the ass of a girl of about 3 who was peeing.  (To get the composition right I had stepped way back and was using my zoom lens.  That's why I didn't see it other than through the viewfinder.)
 
2014-01-21 11:43:11 AM  

DingleberryMoose: Ed Grubermann: Besides, the moot likely person to molest a kid is a step-father.

I spent more than three years as a child protective services investigator.  Every child molestation case I had where something actually happened was a parent's new boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, or wife.  Quite a bit of the physical abuse, too.  I'd guess about a third.

It's amazing how poorly people select the people they are going to let be around their children in their own homes.


It's not poor choices. There's a bizarre psychology at work with step-parents. This need to "own" everything in the new relationship. Including the children. It causes some people who have no history of sexual attraction to kids, or the desire to molest kids, to, well, molest (or otherwise abuse) kids. It's not that all those step-parents are kiddy-diddlers. It's much worse than that. It's that most of them are normal and something wrong in many of our heads just kicks in in these situations.
 
2014-01-21 12:16:03 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: theflatline: This is fairly typical for us in Florida.

You have a lot of northerners whose parents who have retired here, who have their grown children who have committed some crime, move down here and either they get up to their old shenanigans or get outraged when they get outed.

This. There wouldn't be a Florida tag if not for dumbshiat northerners who moved down here to be with their retired parents.


THIS THIS THIS!!!!
 
2014-01-21 02:17:21 PM  
I live in a town where one of the battered women's shelters decided to renovate and move into a building that was right across the street from an apartment house full of sex offenders! I asked one of the board members why they chose that particular building and weren't they worried about potential problems? She said no! Go figure?
 
2014-01-21 06:52:49 PM  

italie: Normal is  not actively touting nudes of your children to people who really shouldn't be seeing it.


Duh.

But you didn't say that, you said on the desktop at all, and don't change it when  you have company.

So, like, if my sister comes over and there's junior in the tub with a suds mohawk, I'm the debil, or something.

Or one of my wife's friends, they'd all be, "awwwwww"

Really, if you have anyone visiting your house that "shouldn't be seeing" such a picture, maybe you need new friends.
 
2014-01-21 10:05:06 PM  

omeganuepsilon: italie: Normal is  not actively touting nudes of your children to people who really shouldn't be seeing it.

Duh.

But you didn't say that, you said on the desktop at all, and don't change it when  you have company.

So, like, if my sister comes over and there's junior in the tub with a suds mohawk, I'm the debil, or something.

Or one of my wife's friends, they'd all be, "awwwwww"

Really, if you have anyone visiting your house that "shouldn't be seeing" such a picture, maybe you need new friends.


A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...

Oh, right, but your so cool all the people there are probably your friends anyway.
 
2014-01-21 10:46:58 PM  

italie: A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...


It can also sit there on a desk forever to be used basically as a regular non-mobile PC and never move until it needs fixing. Like mine.

From the original story the guy wasn't going into coffee shops and showing everyone the screen anyway. He brought it in to a repair shop. Presumably because it was broken. You know like when it won't do anything you ask? Like changing desktop images for example.

In your perfect world should he not have put that picture of his kid up on his laptop at all? Just in case it froze and then some repair guy would have to see a *gasp* baby about to take a bath? The horror.
 
2014-01-21 11:02:56 PM  

Fafai: italie: A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...

It can also sit there on a desk forever to be used basically as a regular non-mobile PC and never move until it needs fixing. Like mine.

From the original story the guy wasn't going into coffee shops and showing everyone the screen anyway. He brought it in to a repair shop. Presumably because it was broken. You know like when it won't do anything you ask? Like changing desktop images for example.

In your perfect world should he not have put that picture of his kid up on his laptop at all? Just in case it froze and then some repair guy would have to see a *gasp* baby about to take a bath? The horror.


Hey, if Beiber would have locked up the purple drank 'n weed, the feds might not have seen it when they randomly searched his house for egg cartons. But, ya know, it was his house and all so it was probably an OK move to leave it out, and have his weed in a cookie jar.

//I don't disagree with having weed either
///I do disagree with a lack of common sense and awareness of societal norms.
 
2014-01-21 11:22:15 PM  

italie: Fafai: italie: A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...

It can also sit there on a desk forever to be used basically as a regular non-mobile PC and never move until it needs fixing. Like mine.

From the original story the guy wasn't going into coffee shops and showing everyone the screen anyway. He brought it in to a repair shop. Presumably because it was broken. You know like when it won't do anything you ask? Like changing desktop images for example.

In your perfect world should he not have put that picture of his kid up on his laptop at all? Just in case it froze and then some repair guy would have to see a *gasp* baby about to take a bath? The horror.

Hey, if Beiber would have locked up the purple drank 'n weed, the feds might not have seen it when they randomly searched his house for egg cartons. But, ya know, it was his house and all so it was probably an OK move to leave it out, and have his weed in a cookie jar.

//I don't disagree with having weed either
///I do disagree with a lack of common sense and awareness of societal norms.


The problem with this is that "pornography" isn't really definable by any set standard. The definition I hear most often is that is must exist solely to tittilate the viewer. That is it's sole purpose. So when dude's boss puts an image of his kid in the bath up on the screen, it's not porn. But when Mr. This Is Making Me Feel Funny In The Pants Repair Guy looks at it, it magically becomes porn? Or obscene? By this logic I should never show anyone a picture of my kid even fully clothed, just in case they're a sicko. I should probably just never take him outside where there are strangers at all.

Because the line isn't clear, we've put "naked" as one of the determining lines on what's acceptable and what's not, even though nudity itself is not inherently sexual. You're doing the same thing. You don't disagree with simply having narcotics around in one's own home, but you do seem to agree that photos of your kids in the bath are along the same lines as illegal narcotics and should be treated as such. And this is how we get to "put some clothes on that baby for god's sake that's just wrong," which to me is a lot more creepy and has a lot of negative implications for society and personal freedom in general. Nudity, breastfeeding, etc, should not be a crime. You'd make it--or at least fall in line with the idea--that the human body itself is bad and shameful?

I believe getting over our hangups about sex and nudity is a must if we're going to truly reach an enlightened age.
 
2014-01-22 04:27:40 AM  

Fafai: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I never will understand why our society does not consider posessors and distributors of legal porn to be potential rapists while at the same time, posessors and distributors of child porn are considered to be potential molesters.

Because porn is to sex with adults (legal) as child porn is to sex with minors, which is, by definition, rape. If it's a causation thing, someone who likes porn might want to recreate those acts with a partner in a totally legal way. But those other types? Recreating what they see would be rape 100% even if they convince themselves they have a 'willing' partner.


Good point, thank you!
 
2014-01-22 05:10:05 AM  

italie: omeganuepsilon: italie: Normal is  not actively touting nudes of your children to people who really shouldn't be seeing it.

Duh.

But you didn't say that, you said on the desktop at all, and don't change it when  you have company.

So, like, if my sister comes over and there's junior in the tub with a suds mohawk, I'm the debil, or something.

Or one of my wife's friends, they'd all be, "awwwwww"

Really, if you have anyone visiting your house that "shouldn't be seeing" such a picture, maybe you need new friends.

A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...

Oh, right, but your so cool all the people there are probably your friends anyway.


Nice attempt at backpedalling, but what you said was:

"Yeah, those two lines of thought are bad...but putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird. Not changing said pictures when strangers will be looking at your PC blows weird out of the water, and replaces it with brain-dead."

You see, that is what is called an absolute.  You imply anyone who does so is "beyond weird".  Nothing of laptops or traveling.  What I posted was in contrast to your absolute.

Go be a dipshiat elsewhere.
 
2014-01-22 08:32:51 AM  

omeganuepsilon: italie: omeganuepsilon: italie: Normal is  not actively touting nudes of your children to people who really shouldn't be seeing it.

Duh.

But you didn't say that, you said on the desktop at all, and don't change it when  you have company.

So, like, if my sister comes over and there's junior in the tub with a suds mohawk, I'm the debil, or something.

Or one of my wife's friends, they'd all be, "awwwwww"

Really, if you have anyone visiting your house that "shouldn't be seeing" such a picture, maybe you need new friends.

A laptop can do cool stuff, like move location. You could even put it on the 'top' of your 'lap'. Say in a coffee shop, or a park bench, etc...

Oh, right, but your so cool all the people there are probably your friends anyway.

Nice attempt at backpedalling, but what you said was:

"Yeah, those two lines of thought are bad...but putting up naked (albeit innocent) pictures of your kids as a desktop background is way beyond weird. Not changing said pictures when strangers will be looking at your PC blows weird out of the water, and replaces it with brain-dead."

You see, that is what is called an absolute.  You imply anyone who does so is "beyond weird".  Nothing of laptops or traveling.  What I posted was in contrast to your absolute.

Go be a dipshiat elsewhere.


I've handled a LOT of peoples personal and work computers in the past, mostly at times they weren't expecting it. Naked pictures of children is is definitely out of the norm.

CSB:
I've seen one, ONE, person in my lifetime with a rear-shot nude of one of his kids as the desktop. Both on his personal laptop, and his work PC. It was something as innocuous as an Ann-Geddis style shot. It still caught some people off guard so we asked him to remove the work one. (I didn't care, for the record)

Turns out about 6 months later that person got locked up for beating his wife, and molesting his 16 year old daughter.

So, at least in my world, the nude-kid desktop score is:

Creepy pedophile wife beater -1
Everyone else - 0

//If you'll excuse me, I have some dipshiattery to attend to.
 
Displayed 110 of 110 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report