Man sentenced to 20 years for pictures on phone and inappropriately touching child

He hurt kids on tens of thousands of occasions. If you ask me, his sentence was light.

Since he helped cause rapes of kids, I'll agree, except I think it was light in view of his victims.

 

Nope. I'd want them dead. That is my desire for vengeance talking there. Another reason we have laws, so we don't get vigilantism.

 

He sexually assaulted one little girl and was part of the cause for other little girls' and boys' rapes. He's part of the market.

 

I think you are resorting to an overgeneralization and insinuated equivalency fallacy.

That was not so simply or exactly what happened.

I don't think we have any specific evidence that is true.

Even if he did pay money (which there does not seem to be evidence for), he might only have been responsible for what amounted to a small part in causing what was in those videos.

 

Provided they knew it was shared without her permission, yes.

 

Yes, yes it was. He groped her. she asked him to stop. He removed the stairs so she couldn't get away. Unwanted physical contact is assault. When that contact is of a sexual nature, it's sexual assault. That simple.

He owned the pictures and videos. It's safe to guess he got them somewhere. he either made, bought or traded for them. Up to him to prove he got them free. Other illegal acts don't come free where I live. None of the hookers or dope fiends around here seem to give free samples.

A little bit guilty of raping little girls and boys is the same as100% guilty of raping them. This guy owned pictures he knew were illegal. He knew the penalties were harsh. He knew he was contributing to the harm caused to those kids. He is both legally and morally guilty. To me, he is as guilty as the videographers and photographers that made them.

 

Yes but he was holding her up in the air when she asked him to stop, and it didn't last very long. The way the story sounds, it seems like he only held her up long enough to throw her into the pool.
If he had just set her down immediately after being told to stop, instead of throwing her in the pool, I think his hand would only have been there for a few more seconds.
So I am not sure that him being told to stop is really a significant factor, at least not from the inappropriate touching standpoint.

 

I have difficulty believing you actually seriously believe that.

Well, then by that logic someone who rapes two people is no more guilty than someone who rapes one. I find that type of logic a little bit absurd.

Look, here's a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. If 10 different people pay for one child to be abused, shouldn't it be logical that each one is a tenth as guilty as one single person in another situation who pays for a child to be abused?

Apparently whether they pay 5 dollars or 50,000 dollars for one of these videos, that is all the same to you?
Or even if they paid nothing, you think it is perfectly fair and just to assume they probably did?

 

Even ifitis only “a small part” it is still unforgivable

 

You know what, to me this is sort of like if I made an agreement with a hit man and told him I would give him a few dollars for every picture he gave me of someone he has killed. I wouldn't be paying him to kill anyone specifically.
We all know he's not going to kill anyone just so he can get a few dollars by taking a picture.

Could you argue maybe this is further incentivizing him to continue in his job in some small way? Maybe.

But I would not describe that as equivalent to murder.

 

Believe it

 

But why should he have to prove he did not do something that contributed to harm?
Isn't the normally accepted concept of justice that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty?

It's interesting that you believe we should make an exception to that general rule here.

 

Obviously she was able to breathe when she asked him to stop. I hope I did not give the impression he was trying to kill her.

It appears to me, based on the idea that he removed the pool ladder, that he did it at least twice after she asked him to stop. The first she would have accepted as play- a one-time thing. the second became offensive and scary, so she asked him to stop. At this time, he removed the ladder and did it again at least once. she might not have waited, until the second try to call a halt to the whole thing and he might have been interrupted before the last attempt was complete, I'll concede. Still, the attempt seems clear, both in its own context and especially in light of later events.
.

Jesus Christ! are you seriously trying to say that no sometimes means yes? I am an unregenerate baby boomer, and I understood that lesson the first time I heard it. I'm not gonna check your profile to check your age, but it seems to me you somehow missed the memo.

But let me acquaint you with a couple facts:
1) Touching someone after they've told you not to or in a blatantly offensive manner (e.g. punching) is assault. regardless of harm caused. Here's a link for you:
https:/thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/water-pistolero-popped.924308
Thought you might appreciate a little humor. If not, O well.
2) Doing so in a sexual manner is sexual assault.

 

Using myself as a source, I assure you I do. Just ask me.

No, by my logic, someone who rapes two is twice ass guilty as someone who rapes one. 100% X 2 = 2
Where did you learn math? This perv had 20k+ pictures and 2k+ vids. Even if he was only 'a little bit guilty' each time, At one day per pic and one day per vid, it adds up to sixty plus years. His sexual assault on a ten year old is just the cherry on top.

No. each is guilty of the whole thing. This is the basis for, for example, felony homicide.

Yes. It is an absolute, like being pregnant. One either is or is not. But even by your standard, if the pedophile got a day for each pic and vid his sentence would be 60 years.

I think it is reasonable to assume they did not get illegal material for free absent proof they did. We assume people in possession of drugs over a certain amount are distributing them. Why do you think hurting kids should be different?

 

He should have to prove it because he is already in violation of the law. Factors in mitigation are up to him to prove.

 

If you assume that abortion is illegal, you're right. Guilt either exists or does not.
there is no 'half-guilty'.

EDIT: spelling

 

That is an artificial legal construct. If we are talking about morality (what we believe should be) then partial guilt does exist.

I think there's even an old thread discussion about this topic: Why does it have to be ALL guilty or not guilty?

 

Gee, no sexism there folks ! (sarcasm alert) ( and history alert, someone has 19th century ideas on women)

But from the defender of a pedophile , no surprise...

 

No. It is not an artificial construct. And I don't care about other people's opinions on the matter. If 100 people lynch a guy, they are all 100% guilty of his murder, not 1% apiece.

 

This is not his first rodeo

 

But that's not really exactly what happened.
I think you are totally misunderstanding what happened in the story and being unrealistic, or you are being intentionally disingenuous.

He was holding her up in the air. To immediately, instantaneously "stop touching her", he would have had to drop her on the cement and she would have suffered injury.

It sounds like he only continued to carry her for a few more seconds after being told to stop.

You also seem to be misunderstanding the context of the situation. Being told to "stop" was probably as much or more about not throwing her into the pool, not specifically only how he was holding her. So when he did not "stop", that means he did not set her down and not through her into the pool water, rather than what you seem to be imagining, that he just continued to "fondle" her.

That is why this type of argument that people like you seem to be trying to make, that "he did not stop when told to do that just further proves he is a pervert", is a weak one.

 

Yes it is. He groped her. She told him to stop. He didn't, instead he took steps to make sure she couldn't escape.

They were in a pool. Dropping her would have put her in the water.

Did you read the story? She made several requests for him to stop. He removed the pool ladder so she couldn't escape. I direct your attention to paragraph 16.

It is not 'He did not stop when told to do that just further proves he is a pervert,' (your words). It is one more crime he committed.

At this point I have to say he was looking at 91 years (paragraph 9). He got 20. I'd say he got off easy.

 

It's illegal because it's wrong. There are many things that are both legal and wrong, but every illegal thing is either wrong, unsafe or both.

Edit: spelling

 

Bottom line: you would be paying him to kill someone. And yes, in most states you would be guilty of murder for hire. That carries the death penalty in those states that have such.

 

Where does your morality come from? A bad act is a bad act. Period. If you contribute to a bad act, you are as guilty as if you had done it yourself.

If you see something wrong and you have the ability to change it for the better, you are obligated to do so.