+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: OMG THIS DUDE WAS MY FLUTE TEACHER (/showthread.php?tid=12510)
OMG THIS DUDE WAS MY FLUTE TEACHER - Bloody Anus - 01-10-2007
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5578812">http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5578812</a><!-- m -->
Yeah, not really. I know someone who met him once that got his business card, but that’s about it.
Anyway, the guy’s a fucking moron and deserves what he gets for being stupid enough to download that shit at work. If you’re going to have unorthodox sexual fetishes/fantasies, the least you can do is keep it to yourself and in your home.
But a 150 year sentence for looking at some naked underage girls? That seems a bit harsh. In fact, the whole legal issue of downloading/viewing objectionable material such as child porn is a bit odd to me. The implication is that there is a causal relationship between downloading pictures of naked 10-year olds and sexually abusing a 10-year old, and I just don’t see that as always being the case. In the case of this guy, he’s been collecting images since 2002 and (from all known reports) has never acted out his fantasy. Bestiality is illegal in most states, but you never hear of anyone getting arrested for amassing a huge collection of horsecock pictures or pigfucking videos.
I’m not advocating child porn as a victimless, innocuous crime. Whoever is responsible for photographing the kids and providing the material should be punished accordingly. But I don’t think you can unequivocally say that everybody that gets turned on by nude preteens is a dangerous depraved child molester in the waiting. Some people are completely capable of separating fantasy from reality. I think most people would agree that people who enjoy watching stuff like Faces of Death are not going to automatically go out and kill people afterwards. Why, then, do we just assume that anyone that enjoys looking at naked kids will also enjoy raping naked kids? You can just as easily masturbate to a 10-year old without a visual aid to assist you. It doesn’t make you any more or less dangerous than guys like this flutist.
A guy sitting in the privacy of his own home masturbating to pictures of 10-year olds is considerably less dangerous than the guy that doesn’t own a computer, sitting in his car outside an elementary school with candy in one hand and his erection in the other.
- funsnapsdyno - 01-10-2007
If he's looked at 10 yr old girls on the internet, chances are he looks at 10 yr old girls off the internet.. he deserves the sentence.
- The Sleeper - 01-10-2007
I doubt he will actually get 150 years but nevertheless, I agree that most people who look at child porn are probably not predators.
funsnapswhatever, do you have any data to back up your claim? and what does "looking at 10 yr old girls off the internet" even mean? everyone looks at people in public
- GonzoStyle - 01-10-2007
so everyone who looks at murder on TV & The internet should go to jail too?
- Goatweed - 01-10-2007
I've never seen pig porn, is it any good? I'd imagine it would be pretty sloppy.
- Goatweed - 01-10-2007
and by the way, in this day & age you have to be pretty fucking stupid to keep ANY kind of media like that on a computer - work or personal. Save that shit to a thumb drive & clean the browser caches out. Yeah, I know once its on your PC, putting it in the recycle bin doesnt really delete it but if some regular person looks on your PC & doesnt see kiddy porn, the odds of them thinking they should do a deep drivescan drop sharply.
- funsnapsdyno - 01-10-2007
This is different than someone watching a documentary on killings. If someone was downloading ONLY murders and death, then there might be a problem but watching movies or a documentary isn’t the same. It’s not an obsession. This guy must have had a lot of downloaded material on children to get that kind of sentence. And maybe what he really needs is therapy of some kind. I don’t think he’ll get the full sentence. Aren’t those people who actually have been in jail for molesting children out on parole after a couple years?
Any crimes to do with children or animals is disgusting because they are defenseless. It takes a real creep to take advantage of their weaknesses. And he supposedly didn’t actually commit the crime so yes I see your point! Okay, but he’s still a creep. Unless he's like Pete Towshend of the Who where he's researching for a book that is..
- Galt - 01-10-2007
The fact that each count only carries a 6-year maximum sentence shows that no one really thinks this is that bad of a crime.
- BirdyP - 01-10-2007
Bloody Anus TOTALLY stole the title and the idea behind the title from our very own Charles Manson. I for one am a little upset by this. For reals yo
- faceman802 - 01-10-2007
he had over 26,000 images on his computer but there are only 25 count of child pornography being charged....So what actually is the ratio of counts to images nowadays?
- The Sleeper - 01-10-2007
it's obviously 1 count for every 1040 images
- HedCold - 01-10-2007
faceman802 Wrote:he had over 26,000 images on his computer but there are only 25 count of child pornography being charged....So what actually is the ratio of counts to images nowadays?
thats why newsgroups always freaked me out. you think you're downloading "normal" porn pictures then BAM, something that just doesn't seem/look right
edit - oh i just read the article and he did actually have 26,000 kiddie porn pictures. weirdo
- faceman802 - 01-10-2007
so is 1040 the steadfast rule? is my point
- The Sleeper - 01-10-2007
it's probably dependent on picture resolution and how many images were jpg's vs. gif's
- faceman802 - 01-10-2007
the law's a funny thing
- Galt - 01-10-2007
The Sleeper Wrote:it's probably dependent on picture resolution and how many images were jpg's vs. gif's
I think it's more based on acreage of pictures.
- Bloody Anus - 01-10-2007
Quote:thats why newsgroups always freaked me out. you think you're downloading "normal" porn pictures then BAM, something that just doesn't seem/look rightI made this mistake several years ago. There were about 10 pics (or .01 counts of child porn) of some rather small looking chicks. I was alarmed yet intrigued at the same time. I deleted them after a few hours, and woke up a day or 2 later with an inexplicable raging hemorrhoid, out of absolutely nowhere.
I don't believe in god, but ever since then I do believe, to an extent, in karma.
- Hoon - 01-10-2007
i opened the link and what i found more disturbing than the story was the picture of Cheif Deputy Attorney General, Conrad Hafen.
like, YUCK-O!
![[Image: 5578812_BG2.jpg]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/ShannonHoon/5578812_BG2.jpg)
- Keyser Soze - 01-11-2007
that guy is most definitely a self loathing kid toucher
- Bloody Anus - 01-11-2007
I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that. Your observation skills are almost as keen as Birdyp's.