Judge Gives Pedo 5 Days
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
From the link:
I feel very remorseful. It's something that will never happen again.
Well gee he said it, therefore it must be true. :mad:
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
"The man also had "sexual" chats with underage girls online" Which would have led to actual child abuse. OK, give him 5 days, but cut his bollocks off. And his dick. Then he wont be able to fantasise about anything.
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
The man ... told NBC News he stumbled on child pornography while consuming legal, adult pornography online. "I just got caught up in it," he said. "It's not like I woke up and said, 'Listen, let me look at this stuff.' It kept popping up every time I was downloading."
I've been known to look at pornography very occasionally (very occasionally, I'm not one of those pervs who look at it all the time :sigh: ) and I can honestly say none of the sites I have used (the fairly well known ones) advertise or carry anything like child porn. If he has been visiting sites that are a gateway to this stuff I dare say the sites he is using are probably quite questionable already, with questionable content. Now if you don't mind I have to run....there is a sexy single 3.1 miles from my current location who is DTF...
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
I think it's time the feds had a good hard look at the judges PC... :~
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
"The man also had "sexual" chats with underage girls online" Which would have led to actual child abuse. OK, give him 5 days, but cut his bollocks off. And his dick. Then he wont be able to fantasise about anything.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
chats with underage girls online"
Probably fat old guys (or cops) pretending to be young girls.
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
-
The man ... told NBC News he stumbled on child pornography while consuming legal, adult pornography online. "I just got caught up in it," he said. "It's not like I woke up and said, 'Listen, let me look at this stuff.' It kept popping up every time I was downloading."
I've been known to look at pornography very occasionally (very occasionally, I'm not one of those pervs who look at it all the time :sigh: ) and I can honestly say none of the sites I have used (the fairly well known ones) advertise or carry anything like child porn. If he has been visiting sites that are a gateway to this stuff I dare say the sites he is using are probably quite questionable already, with questionable content. Now if you don't mind I have to run....there is a sexy single 3.1 miles from my current location who is DTF...
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Now if you don't mind I have to run....there is a sexy single 3.1 miles from my current location who is DTF...
:laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Kevin Marois wrote:
LOVING FATHER
Are you judging him and claiming he is not a loving father? :-\ So, now fathers cannot love their children if they make mistakes? Geez, Kevin, you're so judgemental. You don't even know why he did it. ;P
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Unbelievable[^] "Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..." U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision 98 PAGES!!??? Removing R.V. from his family will not further the interests of justice," Weinstein wrote, using the defendant's initials... It will cause serious harm to his young children by depriving them of a loving father and role model and will strip R.V. of the opportunity to heal through continued sustained treatment and the support of his close family LOVING FATHER AND ROLE MODE???????? WOW. Just wow.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Kevin Marois wrote:
"Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..."
Errr....and "seven years of court supervision and a fine"
Kevin Marois wrote:
U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision
To explain why it wasn't more severe. Would one paragraph had been better?
Kevin Marois wrote:
WOW. Just wow.
However the converse argument is neither just nor fair. "Those who favor tougher sentences point out that while many consumers of child pornography may not never lay a hand on a child, some do." Same argument for that would be that if you steal a stick of gum when 17 you might rob a bank when you are 25 so you should be put in jail for 20 years. Real statistics reflect that the vast majority of sex offenders of any sort never re-offend. The recidivism rate is far lower than other sorts of crimes.
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
"Brooklyn man who faced 10 years for downloading child pornography was sentenced to five days by a federal judge..."
Errr....and "seven years of court supervision and a fine"
Kevin Marois wrote:
U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein wrote a 98-page decision
To explain why it wasn't more severe. Would one paragraph had been better?
Kevin Marois wrote:
WOW. Just wow.
However the converse argument is neither just nor fair. "Those who favor tougher sentences point out that while many consumers of child pornography may not never lay a hand on a child, some do." Same argument for that would be that if you steal a stick of gum when 17 you might rob a bank when you are 25 so you should be put in jail for 20 years. Real statistics reflect that the vast majority of sex offenders of any sort never re-offend. The recidivism rate is far lower than other sorts of crimes.
jschell wrote:
may not never lay a hand
I think you meant either "not ever" or "never". The double-negative totally changes the meaning of that sentence. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
LOVING FATHER
Are you judging him and claiming he is not a loving father? :-\ So, now fathers cannot love their children if they make mistakes? Geez, Kevin, you're so judgemental. You don't even know why he did it. ;P
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
My sentiments exactly. Bravo for sense and reason in what is undeniably a tough topic. :thumbsup:
enhzflep wrote:
Bravo for sense and reason in what is undeniably a tough topic.
True. But it was actually an inside jab at Kevin for a discussion elsewhere. :-O
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
enhzflep wrote:
Bravo for sense and reason in what is undeniably a tough topic.
True. But it was actually an inside jab at Kevin for a discussion elsewhere. :-O
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
may not never lay a hand
I think you meant either "not ever" or "never". The double-negative totally changes the meaning of that sentence. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I think you meant either "not ever" or "never". The double-negative totally changes the meaning of that sentence
My presumption is the same as yours based on the person that said it - which was not me. Thus why it is quoted and in italics.
