King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Jan 1, 2014 15:40:38 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 15:41:59 GMT -5
Oh Uncle Paul
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Jan 1, 2014 15:43:21 GMT -5
That Court must hate children to think that a creepy man taking pics of kids isn't inappropriate. Either that or they don't care
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2014 15:55:32 GMT -5
That Court must hate children to think that a creepy man taking pics of kids isn't inappropriate. Either that or they don't care It's less an issue of appropriateness than legality. Even if you suspect someone is up to something, you can't legally arrest them if they haven't done anything illegal, and taking pictures of someone in public, even a kid, isn't illegal. They sort of had no real choice if they wanted to adhere to the law.
|
|
|
Post by Bootista on Jan 1, 2014 16:07:02 GMT -5
That Court must hate children to think that a creepy man taking pics of kids isn't inappropriate. Either that or they don't care It's less an issue of appropriateness than legality. Even if you suspect someone is up to something, you can't legally arrest them if they haven't done anything illegal, and taking pictures of someone in public, even a kid, isn't illegal. They sort of had no real choice if they wanted to adhere to the law. Even so I'd feel creeped out if some strange man was taking pics of my kid. I'd tell him to f*** off.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2014 16:24:31 GMT -5
It's less an issue of appropriateness than legality. Even if you suspect someone is up to something, you can't legally arrest them if they haven't done anything illegal, and taking pictures of someone in public, even a kid, isn't illegal. They sort of had no real choice if they wanted to adhere to the law. Even so I'd feel creeped out if some strange man was taking pics of my kid. I'd tell him to f*** off. By all means, be creeped out, be vigilant, that's just being a good parent. I'm just staying that, under the law, the police didn't have proper justification to arrest or search his property. If they're following the law, the courts had little choice but to throw out the evidence.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Jan 1, 2014 16:38:46 GMT -5
I am confused. It does not actually say what evidence was collected after the warrant was improperly appropriated. Did he have child porn on his computer and was only caught because he was acting extremely creepy in a still-legal manner?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 1, 2014 16:42:09 GMT -5
I am confused. It does not actually say what evidence was collected after the warrant was improperly appropriated. Did he have child porn on his computer and was only caught because he was acting extremely creepy in a still-legal manner? That's how I took it, from the sound of it. He was illegally arrested, found to have illegal material that he was convicted on, and this threw it out. It should really be on the police for not following proper procedures more than the courts.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,710
|
Post by Legion on Jan 1, 2014 18:25:11 GMT -5
Yeah, this story needs more.
If he had kiddy porn on his computer, then telling us his life was destroyed by the 'unwarranted tragedy' is a moot point.
However if he was just a guy who took pictures, then yeah, bit of a weird thing to do, but unless you've proof the guy is anything more than a photographer (after all, there could be reasons why he's taking pictures, he could have lost a kid, he could be some sort of artist and need images to draw from etc.), then yeah, I feel more sorry for him.
Where is the rest of the story?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 18:38:27 GMT -5
Watch, he's just a photographer that snapped kiddie poos to capture the essence of life or something totally non pedo.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jan 1, 2014 18:41:52 GMT -5
Yeah, this story needs more. If he had kiddy porn on his computer, then telling us his life was destroyed by the 'unwarranted tragedy' is a moot point. However if he was just a guy who took pictures, then yeah, bit of a weird thing to do, but unless you've proof the guy is anything more than a photographer (after all, there could be reasons why he's taking pictures, he could have lost a kid, he could be some sort of artist and need images to draw from etc.), then yeah, I feel more sorry for him. Where is the rest of the story? I know what you mean, and the story does need to be written a little better, but it does see, pretty clear. The aforementioned data probably wasn't bootleg movies. The lawyer saying that it was an "unwarranted tragedy" seems to just be the classic "My client is the real victim here" lawyer talk.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,710
|
Post by Legion on Jan 1, 2014 18:53:13 GMT -5
What did they find and what did they charge him with?
It needs details.
What data? More pictures? Text? Videos? Chat logs? Some more candid kid images?
|
|
BigJerichool222
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
THE BIG DOG!
#NotInMySalad
Posts: 17,424
|
Post by BigJerichool222 on Jan 1, 2014 19:18:10 GMT -5
I've been to Canobie Lake Park like a hundred times
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 19:18:41 GMT -5
It's New Hampshire so this will be the biggest story of the decade for them
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jan 2, 2014 4:26:12 GMT -5
What did they find and what did they charge him with? It needs details. What data? More pictures? Text? Videos? Chat logs? Some more candid kid images? This What did they actually find?
|
|
BigBadZ
Grimlock
The Rumors Are All True
Posts: 13,923
|
Post by BigBadZ on Jan 2, 2014 4:50:12 GMT -5
Does this take him off the sex offender registry too?
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jan 2, 2014 5:00:23 GMT -5
The title is VERY misleading considering according to the article, he had to register as a sex offender AFTER he was arrested for not committing a sex crime. Yeah, this story needs more. If he had kiddy porn on his computer, then telling us his life was destroyed by the 'unwarranted tragedy' is a moot point. However if he was just a guy who took pictures, then yeah, bit of a weird thing to do, but unless you've proof the guy is anything more than a photographer (after all, there could be reasons why he's taking pictures, he could have lost a kid, he could be some sort of artist and need images to draw from etc.), then yeah, I feel more sorry for him. Where is the rest of the story? I know what you mean, and the story does need to be written a little better, but it does see, pretty clear. The aforementioned data probably wasn't bootleg movies. The lawyer saying that it was an "unwarranted tragedy" seems to just be the classic "My client is the real victim here" lawyer talk. "based on data found on his computer" is a very vague term and still suggests that it was the cops' interpretation. I highly doubt he would have been downright acquitted had child pornography actually been found on it.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jan 2, 2014 10:38:52 GMT -5
The title is VERY misleading considering according to the article, he had to register as a sex offender AFTER he was arrested for not committing a sex crime. I know what you mean, and the story does need to be written a little better, but it does see, pretty clear. The aforementioned data probably wasn't bootleg movies. The lawyer saying that it was an "unwarranted tragedy" seems to just be the classic "My client is the real victim here" lawyer talk. "based on data found on his computer" is a very vague term and still suggests that it was the cops' interpretation. I highly doubt he would have been downright acquitted had child pornography actually been found on it. If I was convicted of first degree murder because of evidence found in my house, I would be fully acquitted regardless of actual guilt if my due process was violated in some fashion during the proceedings. The guy was originally convicted of this crime before he was acquitted by the state Supreme Court. That means the evidence had to be damning enough to warrant a conviction originally. The fact it was overruled has nothing to do with the evidence not being substantial--it has to do with his due process being violated by an unjust search of his home and belongings. Essentially, he's getting off on e legal technicality, from my reading of this. A vitally important legal technicality, but a legal technicality all the same. That being said, the guy could certainly be completely innocent and a victim of circumstances and misunderstandings. It just doesn't read like that to me. He didn't get off because the evidence against him wasn't legitimate, he got off because it wasn't legitimately obtained.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Jan 2, 2014 12:21:01 GMT -5
An obviously guilty person gets off? In America? NOOOOOO!
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 2, 2014 12:23:23 GMT -5
"based on data found on his computer" is a very vague term and still suggests that it was the cops' interpretation. I highly doubt he would have been downright acquitted had child pornography actually been found on it. I don't think it was an acquittal, I think the case was dismissed. The article wasn't clear, but it fits dismissal more than acquittal. The difference between them is that being acquitted means the court (or jury) ruled that he was not guilty and criminal charges could not be brought up against him again (the US has laws preventing double jeopardy). Dismissal means that, technically, his guilt was never determined (or the ruling on it is rendered null) and the case was thrown out for one reason or another. For example, his constitutional rights were violated, as in this case. The evidence they obtained wasn't legally obtained, so it could not be used under the law. In the future, if police take him in legally and legally have cause to search his home and find the evidence (say the water park files a restraining order against him and he violates it or he is arrested on drug trafficking charges), they can refile it if it was dismissed. An obviously guilty person gets off? In America? NOOOOOO! Violating someone's Constitutional rights is a serious issue, even if they are guilty. The police should have followed proper procedure, and that's all there really is to it. You can't arrest someone who isn't doing something illegal then use that to search their home, that constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. No one should feel sorry for this guy, but the police acted illegally.
|
|