Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Autistic (Asperger) Student had 900 child porn collection

Page 3 of 13 [ 198 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Flipmode
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 174
Location: Houston, Texas

20 Jul 2008, 11:59 pm

Did he collect the child porn? Yes
Was Autism/AS a factor? Completely Irrelevant :x
Yes, he needs to be punished and locked up


_________________
Iz Disneyland a part of the U.N?
-Ali G


n4mwd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: Palm Beach, FL

21 Jul 2008, 6:22 am

Flipmode wrote:
Did he collect the child porn? Yes
Was Autism/AS a factor? Completely Irrelevant :x
Yes, he needs to be punished and locked up


Maybe so, but I think a more important question is whether or not he would have done all of that if he wasn't autistic.

Don't get me wrong, there is no direct link to autism, but autism can be very lonely and make one more susceptible to porn in general. Most kiddie porn lovers didn't start out that way. They started with much more milder forms of porn and then kept graduating to the next level.



Argon
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 52

22 Jul 2008, 3:48 am

Flipmode wrote:
Did he collect the child porn? Yes
Was Autism/AS a factor? Completely Irrelevant :x
Yes, he needs to be punished and locked up


There was no excuse, AS does not mean you have no idea of what is legal and acceptable.Does being a sociopath mean its ok to kill, because you will not feel guilt?

He should've been locked up in an institution. He is a menace to society. Typically in AS your obssessions are just that, hence he was obssessed with child porn. Therefore he will continue with his obssession.
His diagonosis of AS should've been used as proof he will continue to behave in this manner and needs to be locked up to protect children. Children are more important to protect than a pervert.

AS does not mean you have no intelligence to understand what you are doing is illegal.



jrknothead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423

22 Jul 2008, 4:14 am

Some of you are missing an imporant point here... this guy had 900 images of child pornogaphy... that's 900 seperate instances of children being sexually abused, raped, possibly even murdered, most of them probably unsolved.

The people who make child porn, do it for the collectors. Collectors of child porn drive the industry. If all of these collectors suddenly stopped collecting, trade in child porn images would evaporate overnight.

Maybe he never touched a child in his life. Maybe he only collected the images because he likes pictures of hotel rooms. The fact of the matter is, those images were made on his behalf, and on the behalf of every other collector of child porn. 900 children had their lives ruined so he could have his collection. This is why having even one of these images is a felony.

I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who comes across even one of these images, and doesn't immediately notify the authorities that they have evidence of a child being sexually abused. This guy had 900 images, each of them possibly holding a vital clue that could help authorities identify and aprehend the assailants, and he didn't report a single one.

I say he's just as bad as the rapists, possibly worse. Whatever punishment they give him, I'm sure he deserves worse.

Autism is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the suffering of a child.



Argon
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 52

22 Jul 2008, 6:11 am

jrknothead wrote:
Some of you are missing an imporant point here... this guy had 900 images of child pornogaphy... that's 900 seperate instances of children being sexually abused, raped, possibly even murdered, most of them probably unsolved.

The people who make child porn, do it for the collectors. Collectors of child porn drive the industry. If all of these collectors suddenly stopped collecting, trade in child porn images would evaporate overnight.

Maybe he never touched a child in his life. Maybe he only collected the images because he likes pictures of hotel rooms. The fact of the matter is, those images were made on his behalf, and on the behalf of every other collector of child porn. 900 children had their lives ruined so he could have his collection. This is why having even one of these images is a felony.

I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who comes across even one of these images, and doesn't immediately notify the authorities that they have evidence of a child being sexually abused. This guy had 900 images, each of them possibly holding a vital clue that could help authorities identify and aprehend the assailants, and he didn't report a single one.

I say he's just as bad as the rapists, possibly worse. Whatever punishment they give him, I'm sure he deserves worse.

Autism is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the suffering of a child.


Pretty much my thoughts but more aptly put.

1st priority.....PROTECT CHILDREN



n4mwd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: Palm Beach, FL

22 Jul 2008, 7:19 am

jrknothead wrote:
Autism is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the suffering of a child.


I have said many times that autism/aspergers explains certain behaviors, but it does excuse them.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jul 2008, 7:25 am

Number_11 wrote:
So this basically says that with the "autism" excuse, one can get away with just about anything.


Disgusting, isn't it? Makes my blood boil ... :x



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jul 2008, 7:29 am

roguetech wrote:
catspurr wrote:
Oh gee, has it occured to you yet that we're not talking about 17 year olds? :roll:
As stated above, "indecent images of children" means any photos or images that appears to be a photo (i.e. a tracing, drawing, or computer generated graphic) of a subject younger than 18 in an "erotic pose".


You'd really defend this stuff, wouldn't you?

I'd say you've picked the wrong side.



n4mwd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: Palm Beach, FL

22 Jul 2008, 8:03 am

slowmutant wrote:
roguetech wrote:
catspurr wrote:
Oh gee, has it occured to you yet that we're not talking about 17 year olds? :roll:
As stated above, "indecent images of children" means any photos or images that appears to be a photo (i.e. a tracing, drawing, or computer generated graphic) of a subject younger than 18 in an "erotic pose".


You'd really defend this stuff, wouldn't you?

I'd say you've picked the wrong side.


Nobody endorses true child pornography, but different people seem to have different definitions of what it actually is.

Here in FL, they have a sexual predator and sexual offender list. Its actually two different lists. The purpose of the list is to put sexual predators and perverts on a list and then restrict their freedoms as to where they are allowed to live or work. For example, they aren't allowed to live within so many miles of a school or day care facility and they aren't allowed to go to church because there are children there.

On the surface, it sounds like a good thing, but in reality, its getting so washed down with people who shouldn't really be on the list that its meaningless anymore. For example, one guy was on it because he had consensual sex with a 17 year old girl 15 years ago. Another was a guy who pinched a 12 year old girl's butt.

When the list was started, it was after some guy kidnapped a little boy. raped him, killed him, dismembered him and stuffed the remains in a barrel. Does anyone here think that pinching a girl's butt is in the same category as what that guy did?

Yet when someone gets on the sexual predator/offender list, its for life. The list most definitely needs purging and revamping.



roguetech
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

22 Jul 2008, 8:06 am

n4mwd wrote:
Just curious, but do the UK laws require nudity in order to be an "erotic pose"? The US does not.
No. "Indecent" is not defined, however a court panel defined it as at least as "erotic posing".

jrknothead wrote:
Maybe he never touched a child in his life. Maybe he only collected the images because he likes pictures of hotel rooms. The fact of the matter is, those images were made on his behalf, and on the behalf of every other collector of child porn. 900 children had their lives ruined so he could have his collection. This is why having even one of these images is a felony.
First, much of what is illegal in Britain, is legal in many other "Western" or Westernized nations (see below). Second, if people claiming it is a compulsion are correct, then the photos would be made irregardless of a commercial market for them. Third, the photos, for all we know, may not be photos of minors at all (see below). Forth, the suposition of a direct relationship is a stretch at best. Fifth, a direct relationship does not confer direct responsibility (otherwise we're all responsible for sweat shops, slave labor, dictatorships, torture, etc., etc., and that's just from purchasing clothing).

British law defines child porn as a photo of anyone seventeen or under "depicting erotic posing". It also includes any "psuedo-photographs", which are any drawings, tracings, copies, computer generated graphics, or photos altered to appear to include minors. They do not have to be of actual minors.

Everyone saying that he took photos or possessed photos of pre-pubescent children is merely projecting your desires for what you wanted him to do onto him, since there is no information stating that was the case.



Last edited by roguetech on 22 Jul 2008, 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jul 2008, 8:09 am

Roguetech, did you helop take the pictures?

You disgust me.



roguetech
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

22 Jul 2008, 8:22 am

slowmutant wrote:
Roguetech, did you helop take the pictures?

You disgust me.
lol. If I had helped, what's to say it was illegal where I live?? So far as I know, there is no law what-so-ever with "making" photos in the United States. And, indeed, he was not charged with "taking" photos at all, so get your facts straight.

Fanatics disgust me. Therefore you disgust me.



Last edited by roguetech on 22 Jul 2008, 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jul 2008, 8:24 am

Get my facts straight? I'd rather not believe you have a naked child in the other room.



roguetech
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 359
Location: Climax

22 Jul 2008, 8:25 am

slowmutant wrote:
Get my facts straight? I'd rather not believe you have a naked child in the other room.
Once again, and read verrrry verrry slowly this time.... British law includes COMPUTER GENERATED GRAPHICS. Naked children optional.

[woot. 300 posts :)]



Last edited by roguetech on 22 Jul 2008, 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.

n4mwd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2008
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 871
Location: Palm Beach, FL

22 Jul 2008, 8:30 am

slowmutant wrote:
Get my facts straight? I'd rather not believe you have a naked child in the other room.


In the US, real photos of real naked children are perfectly legal as long as they aren't child porn which requires a sexual context.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jul 2008, 8:33 am

Quote:
In the US, real photos of real naked children are perfectly legal as long as they aren't child porn which requires a sexual context.


:?: :?: :?: