Weapons of Ass Destruction

[mvscal]

Things Scott Ritter is hoping not to find in prison...

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter gets up to 5½ years in prison



Ritter, 50, of Delmar, N.Y., exchanged explicit messages with a detective posing as a 15-year-old girl, then performed a sex act on himself in front of a webcam. He testified in his own defense at his April trial that he believed the person he met in a Yahoo chat room in 2009 was an adult acting out her own fantasy.

A jury convicted Ritter on six counts, including unlawful contact with a minor.

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /111029802

Poor Moving Fail. Scotty was his hero.

[Dinsdale]

Dude deserves a lot of grief for a lot of things (as does anyone else associated with the UN and their Merry Band of Thieves), but that shit is whack...

Being convicted of "unlawful contact with a minor," when there's been no contact with a minor is fucked up and wrong.

I'm in favor of locking up kiddiediddlers, but they should probably have actually committed a crime first.

Not defending the guy himself, just attacking the methods of the Thought Police... where does that shit end?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

"Maybe he was doing research."

Sincerely,

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Dude deserves a lot of grief for a lot of things (as does anyone else associated with the UN and their Merry Band of Thieves), but that shit is whack...

Being convicted of "unlawful contact with a minor," when there's been no contact with a minor is fucked up and wrong.

I'm in favor of locking up kiddiediddlers, but they should probably have actually committed a crime first.

Not defending the guy himself, just attacking the methods of the Thought Police... where does that shit end?

So you don't have any issues with a man's intent to get freaky with a child?

If you aren't down with the way the law is defined, you could always, like, you know, NOT send crank shots to kids, or people you think are kids. You know, just to be on the safe side. Crazy, I know.

[mvscal]

Being convicted of "unlawful contact with a minor," when there's been no contact with a minor is fucked up and wrong.

I'm in favor of locking up kiddiediddlers, but they should probably have actually committed a crime first.

You might have a point if this was the first time he was ever caught in one of these stings...or even the second time. This was the third time that he's been caught. He got away with a stern lecture the first two times.

I think it's about he faces some real consequences now, don't you?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I think it's about he faces some real consequences now, don't you?

"No! His civil rights are being violated! Down with the fascist police-state!"

Sincerely,

[Goober McTuber]

Dude deserves a lot of grief for a lot of things (as does anyone else associated with the UN and their Merry Band of Thieves), but that shit is whack...

Being convicted of "unlawful contact with a minor," when there's been no contact with a minor is fucked up and wrong.

I think you have a very narrow definition of contact. Like a coming together or touching, as of objects or surfaces. It can also be connection or interaction; communication.

[Python]

where does that shit end?

Hopefully it doesn't. Let's say he knew it was an adult. Anybody who even entertains the thought of acting out some sort of twisted fantasy like this deserves to be locked away. Get them off the streets and away from my 8 year old girl. Good riddance. The fact that you even give one second of thought to this tell me a lot. Thought police? Sounds good to me. If you're thinking about doing anything with a kid, you should rot in jail. I dont' care if you acted on the thought or not. You don't need counseling. You don't need medication. You need to go away for a very, very long time.

[Goober McTuber]

where does that shit end?

Hopefully it doesn't. Let's say he knew it was an adult. Anybody who even entertains the thought of acting out some sort of twisted fantasy like this deserves to be locked away. Get them off the streets and away from my 8 year old girl. Good riddance. The fact that you even give one second of thought to this tell me a lot. Thought police? Sounds good to me. If you're thinking about doing anything with a kid, you should rot in jail. I dont' care if you acted on the thought or not. You don't need counseling. You don't need medication. You need to go away for a very, very long time.

Are you paying attention, Toddowen?

[Smackie Chan]

I'm in favor of locking up kiddiediddlers, but they should probably have actually committed a crime first.

Hmmm...so society & law enforcement should wait until a child is physically victimized - until the kiddie is diddled - rather than prevent the physical contact from happening and protect the child? I don't see any other way of interpreting what you wrote. Is that seriously what you believe?

Using that logic, should there be laws against conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed. So law enforcement (thought police, if you will) should wait until the trigger is pulled or the bomb is detonated before making the arrest? Isn't the job of the cops to protect and to serve? Not sure how the protect part can be accomplished by waiting until there are victims.

[Python]

Who knew weed could make you smart?

[Goober McTuber]

Who knew weed could make you smart?

Then what happened to Dinsdale?

[Python]

I said "could".

[Moving Sale]

After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed.

Close, care to try again?

[Smackie Chan]

After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed.

Close, care to try again?

What I wrote was close enough to the legal definition of conspiracy (an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement) to make my point. Yes, pedophiles typically act alone and therefore don't usually conspire to commit their deeds. My point was aimed at the righteousness of having laws in place to punish those who plan or intend to commit unlawful acts (either alone or in a conspiracy), given sufficient legal evidence to prove such planning or intent, to protect citizens from the acts prior to their commission rather than having to wait until an unlawful act is performed before there is a crime, as Dinsdale seems to favor.

[Cuda]

I think it's about he faces some real consequences now, don't you?

"No! His civil rights are being violated! Down with the fascist police-state!"

Sincerely,

Oh my...

RAAAAAAAACKKKKKKK!

[Dinsdale]

Using that logic, should there be laws against conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed.

Would you like some apples with those oranges?

For one, you speak of harming victims.

In this case, who is the "victim"? This "victim" doesn't even exist.

And another thing... you walked right ito it... Moving Sale pretty much has you. Since it's his reason for living, I'll give him a chance to play his little game before I explain why your "conspiracy" analogy is inaccurate.


And Python -- maybe you should find some third-world country to live in that shares your values. In this country, we used to value justice, privacy, and individualism. Trashing our standards of justice over something you find distasteful is in itself distasteful.

[Python]

And Python -- maybe you should find some third-world country to live in that shares your values. In this country, we used to value justice, privacy, and individualism. Trashing our standards of justice over something you find distasteful is in itself distasteful.

Let me make this simple for you. I don't care. Not one iota. Not the smallest amount. I don't care if you think this invades someone's privacy or if it makes 99% of the country angry. I'll never care. These perverts need to go to jail. If you have the desire to harm a child, I really don't care what happens to you. Jail, death, torture... doesn't matter to me. Never will.

We clear?

[Smackie Chan]

Using that logic, should there be laws against conspiracy to commit murder or terrorism? After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed.

Would you like some apples with those oranges?

For one, you speak of harming victims.

In this case, who is the "victim"? This "victim" doesn't even exist.

And another thing... you walked right ito it... Moving Sale pretty much has you. Since it's his reason for living, I'll give him a chance to play his little game before I explain why your "conspiracy" analogy is inaccurate.

I addressed the differences and similarities between what I posted regarding conspiracies and what you posted regarding pedophilia after MS's post. I'm just trying to understand what your point is concerning victims or a lack thereof, and if you believe punishment should not be meted out until there is a victim, or if the duties of law enforcement include preventing victimization by acting before the victimizing act is committed.

Let's use the case of Rezwan Ferdaus to compare & contrast. He's the dude who was indicted for plotting to fly explosive-laden drones into the Capitol and the Pentagon. If he had carried out his plan and succeeded, there would have been REAL victims. But law enforcement was able to arrest him before he acted, preventing REAL people from becoming victims.

In Ritter's case, there was no REAL potential victim. I get that. That's how sex-crime sting operations work. An operative poses as an underage person doing something she shouldn't be doing - hanging out in an adult chat room - trying to lure creeps into saying or doing things they shouldn't do, with the belief being that if the creep would do it with someone who doesn't really exist (even though the creep doesn't know that), he'd do it with a real potential "victim" as well.

In each of the above cases, the general purpose of law enforcement personnel taking action is preventing something bad from happening to others. I understand there are significant differences between the two examples. But there is enough similarity to try to figure out where you stand on the issue and where you think the line should be drawn. In the Ritter case, are you bent over the fact that he was caught in a sting operation? Or is it because the "victim" was purely fictitious? Or maybe because simply slapping around his junk in front of a webcam when there's an underage person (real or not) shouldn't be a crime? What specifically has you riled up here?

Is there anything that law enforcement personnel did in the Ferdaus case that pissed you off? Similar to the Ritter case, law enforcement officers posed as individuals they were not. Also similarly, the specific victims in that case were not known. No specific individuals were targeted, just places and edifices. Sure, real people would've been victimized, but isn't it safe to assume that if left unchecked, unspecified real people would also have been victimized by Ritter?

The simple questions I have for you are, when law enforcement personnel are trying to do the difficult job of preventing something from happening that could reasonably be expected to result in people becoming victims, what steps, in your mind, are ok, and what are not ok? And to what types of crimes should those actions be limited?

[Dinsdale]

Theproblem with your comparison with terrorism stings, and where you seem unclear (I'm guessing what MS was alluding to)...

Youand I can discuss doinganything we wish. We cantalk about, and even plan blowing up whatever. We're not guilty ofconspiracy until we actually take some sort of actin, at some level, to execute the plan.

It's not surprising the simple-minded don't get my point, but it's pretty simple -- no "victim," no crime. Thevery idea of the Thought Police is quite offensive.

I seem to remember in the Old Days (a few years ago), police would get barely-underaged kids to operate the computer to nab the diddlers. That way, when they start accusing people of illegal contact with a minor, there's actually contact with a minor.

The though of someone being tried for a crime they very clearly, inarguably, did not commit is ludicrous.


Sorry, but the "he was GOING to commit a crime, most likely" doesn't fly in my book. As offensive to me as diddlers are, abondoning some really basic principles is equally offensive.

I'm glad he's locked up. That said, do it the right way next time.

[Python]

That said, do it the right way next time.

Correct. Castrate him and anybody else they catch in their sting.

[Mikey]

WANNA is a sin all by itself.

sin
gc

[Goober McTuber]

I seem to remember in the Old Days (a few years ago), police would get barely-underaged kids to operate the computer to nab the diddlers. That way, when they start accusing people of illegal contact with a minor, there's actually contact with a minor.

But in this case, he thought he was jacking off in front of a 15-year-old girl. You’re suggesting that they really needed to have a 15-year-old-girl in the room watching the monitor for a legitimate arrest? Wow.

[Smackie Chan]

Theproblem with your comparison with terrorism stings, and where you seem unclear (I'm guessing what MS was alluding to)...

Youand I can discuss doinganything we wish. We cantalk about, and even plan blowing up whatever. We're not guilty ofconspiracy until we actually take some sort of actin, at some level, to execute the plan.

I provided the legal definition of conspiracy in the post after MS's, and while I don't know in what specific cases an overt act is required to meet the definition and in what cases it isn't, as written, it appears that in some cases the mere planning and/or discussion of planning is all that is required. Again, the definition is "an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement."

It's not surprising the simple-minded don't get my point, but it's pretty simple -- no "victim," no crime. Thevery idea of the Thought Police is quite offensive.

So the attacks on 9/11 had to happen before the cops were allowed to take action? In your mind, they would've been operating outside our country's guiding principles of justice if the perps had been prevented from carrying out the attacks since there were no victims until something went kaboom? Preventing crimes is not part of law enforcement? I'm no fan of thought police either, but we can't be protected if we first have to become victimized.

Another example would be a contract killing. The person who wants someone killed pays someone who agrees to do the killing. There is an agreement between the two parties to break the law at some point in the future. The transfer of funds is an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, assuming the hired gun wants payment up front. The elements of conspiracy have now been met. But there is no victim until the killing is executed. If either or both parties are apprehended prior to the killing taking place, there is no victim, and hence, no crime, according to what you've stated. Is that your take, according to the "pretty simple" tenet of "no 'victim,' no crime"? If arrests are made before the killing, are those the actions of the Thought Police?

[Python]

I can see the vein in Dinsdale's forehead from here. I hope that's his forehead anyway.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I seem to remember in the Old Days (a few years ago), police would get barely-underaged kids to operate the computer to nab the diddlers. That way, when they start accusing people of illegal contact with a minor, there's actually contact with a minor.

Seriously, what the fuck difference does it make if there's a kid behind the keyboard, or a scruffy middle aged cop with a beer gut? The intent on the part of the diddler is the issue here, which makes him a danger to society.

Of all the things to sympathize over...THIS is what's got you up in arms?

[Dinsdale]

So the attacks on 9/11 had to happen before the cops were allowed to take action?

Not enough :facepalms: for this one.

It's odd (and surprising from Mr. Chan) that a defense of our justice system has the simpleminded trying to paint me in a corner as a diddler-sympathizer, and similar black-and-white reponses.

Did the 9/11 tards discuss plans to harm people?

Obviously.

Did they then take actions to further their plot?

Obviously.

Ergo, they're guilty of conspiracy. They could have been nabbed then and there.

Another example would be a contract killing. The person who wants someone killed pays someone who agrees to do the killing. There is an agreement between the two parties to break the law at some point in the future. The transfer of funds is an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, assuming the hired gun wants payment up front. The elements of conspiracy have now been met.

Not only that, the legal definition of a contract has been met -- Offer, Acceptance, Consideration/Exchange (sup 88).

And the rest of what you wrote is just silly. A real, tangible "victim" has clearly been conspired against.

Apples and oranges. Where is the victim in the sting scenario?

Imaginary victim = Imaginary crime.

But again, it would appear that since I'm against police overreach, it logically follows (to simpole minds) that I'm in favor of kiddiediddlers, and don't believe in conspiracy laws, which obviously means I think they're unenforceable and should be repealed.

Freaking listen to yourselves.


Some of y'all's should probably take a long look, and try to determine at which point your ability to engage in logic went so terribly astray.

[Bizzarofelice]

So you don't have any issues with a man's intent to get freaky with a child?

would you call a 15 year old a "child". 15 chicks been bleedin' for three years. God made a 15 year old girl able to conceive a child. Is God's work an abomination?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

would you call a 15 year old a "child".

I would call sexting a 15 year old fucked up. Better?

[Dinsdale]

Yeah, we kind of have these "law" thingies. Through representatives, the People of respective states get to pass laws that reflect their collective decision on what's "legal" and not as regards to banging people of a certain age. When those laws are violated, or identifiable actions taken to engage in acts in violation of those laws are engaged in, then a crime has been commited.

Ain't fucking rocket surgery (although I see ya' working, Bace).

[Smackie Chan]

It's odd (and surprising from Mr. Chan) that a defense of our justice system has the simpleminded trying to paint me in a corner as a diddler-sympathizer, and similar black-and-white reponses.

I'm not trying to characterize you as a "diddler-sympathizer" or a terrorist sympathizer, but I am trying to get you painted into a corner.

I'm responding to your "black-and-white" and "very simple" explanation of what constitutes a criminal offense - the presence of a victim. Remember, your words were "no victim, no crime." You've made a pretty big deal of making sure the words being used against what you're saying are clearly defined and not being misused to mischaracterize your position, and I'm just doing the same. I could go all dictionary.com and c&p the multiple definitions of victim here to show that how you're using it is incorrect, but I'll allow you to do that on your own to find a definition that makes target synonymous with victim.

Did the 9/11 tards discuss plans to harm people?

Obviously.

Did they then take actions to further their plot?

Obviously.

Ergo, they're guilty of conspiracy. They could have been nabbed then and there.

If they had been nabbed then & there, who at that point were the victims? ("No victim, no crime") Were they the people on the planes and in the buildings who might have been killed had the conspiratorial plan been executed? They could be considered targets, which you seem to equate to being victims, but no one then was any worse off as a result of the scheming than they were before. They had not been victimized. They were not victims of any conspiracy because, by definition, they had not suffered from a destructive or injurious action. They were blissfully unaware that they were being targeted.

Another example would be a contract killing. The person who wants someone killed pays someone who agrees to do the killing. There is an agreement between the two parties to break the law at some point in the future. The transfer of funds is an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, assuming the hired gun wants payment up front. The elements of conspiracy have now been met.

Not only that, the legal definition of a contract has been met -- Offer, Acceptance, Consideration/Exchange (sup 88).

And the rest of what you wrote is just silly. A real, tangible "victim" has clearly been conspired against.

Nope. There is no victim, only a target. Are you going to continue to insist the two are the same? You may minimize the distinction, but it's a critical one in trying to get you to clearly state how far you believe law enforcement is allowed to go before they cross into the forbidden territory of becoming thought police. And again, let's be clear that I am indeed trying to paint you, or to be more accurate, to get you to paint yourself, into a corner. You pretty much already have, but let's just make sure we add those last few finishing touches.

Where is the victim in the sting scenario?

Imaginary victim = Imaginary crime.

Which is the case in every sting scenario if you correctly substitute "target" or "conspirator" for "victim." The target, whether of a conspiracy or a lone perpetrator, can become the victim once the act has been executed, but not before. And this gets us close to where you're gonna have to shit or get off the pot.

In a "classic" sting operation, law enforcement typically poses as a conspirator - someone with whom the suspect will discuss plans to commit an unlawful act at some time in the future. In this case, the operative is an "imaginary" conspirator, since there is no intent to actually participate in the victimizing act. The operative, in essence, is behaving as a member of the "thought police," trying to gather evidence based on discussions, thoughts, intents, and perhaps actions in furtherance of an "imaginary" agreement sufficient to warrant an arrest and prosecution. The arrest, however, will be made before anyone is made a victim - that's how law enforcement acts to protect citizens from being victimized, by stepping in before the act is actually committed.

Since pedophiles tend to act alone and not conspire with others, a slightly different approach has to be used to get inside their heads and find out what their thoughts and intents are. Law enforcement officers must pretend to be targets (not victims) rather than conspirators. They pose as "imaginary" targets rather than "imaginary" conspirators. Other than that, the approach is fairly similar to the "classic" sting. Discussions (by phone or, more commonly, online) are held and recorded in hopes of getting the suspect to divulge enough information to warrant an arrest and prosecution. Law enforcement is acting as "thought police."

But again, it would appear that since I'm against police overreach, it logically follows (to simpole minds) that I'm in favor of kiddiediddlers, and don't believe in conspiracy laws, which obviously means I think they're unenforceable and should be repealed.

As I said, I've not tried to paint you as a pedo-sympathizer. I'm just trying to see where the fine line is you're drawing between what law enforcement should be allowed to do catch pedophiles before they act while at the same time staying on this side of the "thought police" line. Seems to me you're ok with the thought police as long as they're trying to catch those involved in conspiracies and are posing as conspirators, but you're not ok when they pose as targets trying to catch pedophiles, unless they employ minors to act as minors, since it's so unfair and unjust to have an adult pose as a minor. Is that where you're drawing the line constituting police overreach?!? Just tell us where your line is drawn, and I'll cease & desist.

And "no victim, no crime" is a buncha shit.

Freaking listen to yourselves.


Some of y'all's should probably take a long look, and try to determine at which point your ability to engage in logic went so terribly astray.

Try a mirror.

[Python]

Racketh Smacketh.

[mvscal]

We're not guilty of conspiracy until we actually take some sort of actin, at some level, to execute the plan.

Such as...oh, let's see. Pulling out your cock out and jerking off in front of what you believe to be a little girl?

[Tom In VA]

Riiter says he believed the other party was an adult - acting out a fantasy - presumably of being a 15 year old girl ?

How is that different than porn with h.s. themes, cheerleaders, etc.. ?

Then you have these baby fetish people They had one on some show and some Senator went off on the dude.


Anyway, sucks to be Ritter. Keep your nasty trash legal.

[mvscal]

Riiter says he believed the other party was an adult - acting out a fantasy - presumably of being a 15 year old girl ?

We call that "a lie," Tom. It's what many people resort to when they are apprehended engaging in illegal activity.

I hope this helped.

[Tom In VA]

Riiter says he believed the other party was an adult - acting out a fantasy - presumably of being a 15 year old girl ?

We call that "a lie," Tom. It's what many people resort to when they are apprehended engaging in illegal activity.

I hope this helped.

I didn't read the link.

I have now.

In 2001, Ritter twice arranged to meet people who claimed online to be underage girls but who turned out to be undercover police in Colonie, N.Y. The charges were eventually dismissed and the case was sealed, but Pennsylvania prosecutors obtained the records and used them to try to show Ritter has a predilection for underage girls.

I reckon that's what sunked 'im and leads one to conclude he was probably lying.

[Van]

Riiter says he believed the other party was an adult - acting out a fantasy - presumably of being a 15 year old girl ?

We call that "a lie," Tom. It's what many people resort to when they are apprehended engaging in illegal activity.

I hope this helped.

Such a giver, our mvscal.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I reckon that's what sunked 'im and leads one to conclude he was probably lying.

Who cares? This poor man has rights! Justice must be upheld!

BTW, anybody seen the keys to my van?



-Dinsdale

[H4ever]

I think Dinsdale might have just jumped the shark on his one. Oh my.

[Mace]

Getting caught three times makes you a sex offender and a sick piece of shit, not a victim.