: Burgular finds kiddy porn and calls cops



Rolex
11-27-06, 08:30 PM
BURGLAR FINDS KIDDY PORN, CALLS COPS

Monday, November 27, 2006 - FreeMarketNews.com

An Alberta man is now in jail allegedly for child pornography, thanks to the burglar who was robbing his home, according to a Canadian Press story reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. Among other things, the thief stole a video camera containing "child pornography images," which he left outside a local church and then called an anonymous tip into the police.

Upon retrieving the camera, police discovered the burglar had videotaped his victim's computer monitor, which displayed "images of child pornography," with the camera. A note with the camera listed the address, and police raided the house and seized computer equipment containing a reported 13,315 pornographic images.

The arrested man, one William Mitchell of Red Deer, Alberta, is now in jail until his sentencing on Dec. 1. The burglary remains unsolved. - ST

Staff Reports - Free-Market News Network


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/rolex/nelson_ha_ha.jpg

Chester got robbed and busted. :D

AlBundy
11-27-06, 08:35 PM
I guess some thieves do have morals. "I''ll steal your TV but I won't allow you to touch or harm any child".:tisk:

JRau
11-27-06, 08:46 PM
Funny story. Nice ending. Kiddy porn is simply unimaginable--why do people sink to that level...

JRau in central Iowa

OffThaHorseCEO
11-27-06, 09:06 PM
yea, thieves have morals too. so do drug dealers killers for hire.

i mean just cause im tryin to get some free stuff, or make millions moving illegal product doesnt mean im sick enough to let someone get away with child porn i mean cmon

CadillacSTS42005
11-27-06, 09:37 PM
rofl
thats a new one............

JimHare
11-27-06, 10:48 PM
That's an interesting situation. The 'evidence' was certainly not gathered legally, I'd think - although I'm totally clueless about Canada's search and seizure laws.

While not defending child porn and it's aficianados, I have heard also of overzealous FotoMat-type employees turning images of naked babies in the bathtub over to the police, causing much harm and embarrassment to the parents.

Something about this kind of situation just bothers me.

davesdeville
11-27-06, 11:13 PM
Something about this kind of situation just bothers me.

+1..

I~LUV~Caddys8792
11-27-06, 11:17 PM
This is a lose/lose situation, awkward on all counts.

And to quote Roger Waters:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/Chadillac8705/HAHACHARADEYOUARE.jpg

Jesda
11-28-06, 01:18 AM
^^^ ROFL.


So I guess since child molestors and kiddie porn fiends are the lowest scum, the burglar will buttrape the child porn collector when they both go to prison.

Krashed989
11-28-06, 03:29 AM
Serves the guy right... If I were the police I wouldn't even investigate the burglary after that. :thumbsup:

dp102288
11-28-06, 08:46 AM
Its weird to me. The burgular exposed the kiddie porn freak who wouldn't have otherwise been caught, but it was an invasion of privacy. Shit, I am glad he was caught, but exposed by a burgular. Damn!

Elvis
11-28-06, 08:47 AM
I'll bet it wasn't a random burglary. Probably wasn't a burglar after all, just someone who knew what was going on in there.

I'm for protecting civil liberties, but there are some crimes that should be exempt from the search and siezure laws.

railven
11-28-06, 10:59 AM
Wow, interesting world we live in.

Next time I get mugged I'll make sure to take the baby pictures of my newphews out of my wallet before the thug gets away, I wouldn't want that to bite me in the ass after the credit fraud does.

Haha.

LittleB
11-28-06, 11:55 AM
Wow that is CRAZY! I am glad he found it though, and did the right thing.

Elvis
11-28-06, 03:11 PM
There are nude pictures of me out there somewhere. I looked a little cross-eyed and bald, too.

But I'm not worried, anybody who gets off on a 3-day-old getting diapered on a bedspread probably isn't a threat.

JimHare
11-28-06, 08:29 PM
I'm for protecting civil liberties, but there are some crimes that should be exempt from the search and siezure laws.


The problem with this line of thought is that once the door is opened, the authorities will find it necessary to subject more and more "crimes" to the loophole, just like they always do with every other "exception" law. E.g.,

- The Income Tax - Originally set in place to help pay for WWI, was supposed to be withdrawn after 1919.
-Selective Service Act - though not in effect now, it was instituted to supply cannon fodder for the Civil War...took 122 years to die off)
- The Sales Tax in states that have them
- The Patriot Act

Kinda like bein' a "little pregnant" - civil liberties are either there, or they're not. No in-between.

Stoneage_Caddy
11-28-06, 08:38 PM
criminals do have some morals ....i read someplace that freqently the child molesters and child porno suspects get put off in there own section to keep the general population from maiming or killing them ....some states tho do not segreate these off , and the perp goes from being a perp to a victim of his own devices ....which i dont mind one bit ....they should get a taste of there own medicine ...maybe then theyll be "rehabilitated".....

people that prey on children are by far the most useless in sosciety if you ask me ...

Elvis
11-28-06, 10:02 PM
The problem with this line of thought is that once the door is opened, the authorities will find it necessary to subject more and more "crimes" to the loophole...

And yes, that's what the Patriot act is all about, and although we're getting political I think it's safe to say that we're in agreement here.

But dammit, what Stoney said is right. Child molesters shouldn't be entitled to the same protections. It's not just a crime, it's a pathological obsession with entirely different motivations than murder, theft, or even terrorism.

When you're talking about protecting society from the mentally ill, a different set of rules needs to come into play.

IBTL!!! ;)

illumina
11-29-06, 01:04 AM
That's an interesting situation. The 'evidence' was certainly not gathered legally, I'd think - although I'm totally clueless about Canada's search and seizure laws.

While not defending child porn and it's aficianados, I have heard also of overzealous FotoMat-type employees turning images of naked babies in the bathtub over to the police, causing much harm and embarrassment to the parents.

Something about this kind of situation just bothers me.

It's the rise of the thought police that bothers you. Me too.

davesdeville
11-29-06, 01:44 AM
It's the rise of the thought police that bothers you. Me too.

But it's all for your own good... submit....

dp102288
11-29-06, 09:31 AM
The problem with this line of thought is that once the door is opened, the authorities will find it necessary to subject more and more "crimes" to the loophole


Agree 100% Where, when, and who decides what is subject to proper procedure. yeah we can certainly agree that kiddie porn shouldn't need a warrant, but I think its hard to draw clear lines. And when things are subjective, the public loses power.

Elvis
11-29-06, 10:49 AM
Wow, no bloodshed or flames and we all found a way to agree on something.

davesdeville
11-29-06, 10:25 PM
Well not quite Elvis... Kiddie porn should require a warrant. Just like everything else. I don't want to be harassed by the 5-0, then have them pull out an excuse like "well we were looking for child pornography, and that doesn't need a warrant."

JimHare
11-30-06, 08:29 AM
"Child Pornography" has become one of those hot-button terms that usually engenders extreme reactions from people. Someone tarred with the brush of child porn can never be completely washed, even after innocence has been found. The Supreme Court has ruled that even artistic depictions (e.g., drawings or artwork) of minors engaging in sexual activity is child porn, regardless of any artistic or intrinsic value. Thus, a drawing of two children engaged in sex is the same as a photograph of the same, in the eyes of the law.

So far as I know, this is the only situation in which IMAGINARY representation is judged the same as reality. If you draw a picture of yourself robbing a bank, you won't be charged with bank robbery. If you draw a picture of yourself stabbing a person to death, you won't be charged with murder. But if you draw a picture of two 15 year olds having sex, you can be charged with generation of, and possession of child pornography.

It is this extreme reaction to the subject that bothers me when talking about judicial conduct in relation to civil rights. In virtually no other situation is the mere mention of a connection enough to prejudice the community. The stigma of this crime is so great that no amount of proven innocence will ever completely remove the stain - far more than any other 'crime'.

Think about this - if it were YOU, would you rather have a news article on your daily newspaper say "Local Cadillac owner charged with possession of child pornography", or "Local Cadillac owner charged with manslaughter", especially if you were innocent?

This is my concern - the force of that label is so pervasive that I hesitate to support its use with less of the standard constitutional protections than other accused criminals have.

dp102288
11-30-06, 11:54 AM
^^ damn good post. Very valid about the labeling we do. Hell, I would think the same thing.

Elvis
11-30-06, 01:34 PM
Well-reasoned post, Jim.

Stoneage_Caddy
11-30-06, 04:53 PM
well , someone painting a picture of 2 children engaged in sexual acts isnt ok ....neither is the person ....its child porn and thats that .....shouldnt be doing that ....its sick !!!
if there acting out there thoughts on paper and get away with it , where will it end ? your child ?

sorry but , i agree with what is going on with the laws ....if someone is picked up for child porn and declared innocent ...what were they doing in the first place to get accused of it ....

JimHare
12-01-06, 08:06 AM
.if someone is picked up for child porn and declared innocent ...what were they doing in the first place to get accused of it ....

That's just my point - in several dozen well documented cases across the country, they were photographing their kids in the tub playing with rubber duckys and Mr. Bubble. There are cases where, in a bitter custody battle, one parent has produced such innocent photographs and accused the other of 'child pornography', in an attempt to regain control of the child.

The mere accusation is enough to cause traumatic damage to the person's social standing, employment situation, and emotional well-being.



well , someone painting a picture of 2 children engaged in sexual acts isnt ok ....neither is the person ....its child porn and thats that .....shouldnt be doing that ....its sick !!!

You might have a hard time convincing Michaelangelo and DaVinci of that, not to mention scores of other painters and sculptors throughout history.

See, the problem is, under current definition, they don't have to be engaged in sexual acts - they just have to be suggestively posed, "coy" (to use the Supreme Court's own wording) or 'acting in a manner to suggest enticing activity' . And the S/C's definition covers EVERYONE under 18, which is some cases, is three years OVER the age of consent.

Snap a pic on your cell phone in the gym showers to goof on your buddies in high school? GUILTY!

Show a hint of white panties on that picture of your 17-year old girlfriend? GUILTY!

The odd thing about it, is that you can be charged with possession even if the picture is of YOURSELF!

dp102288
12-01-06, 08:14 AM
And the S/C's definition covers EVERYONE under 18, which is some cases, is three years OVER the age of consent.

Snap a pic on your cell phone in the gym showers to goof on your buddies in high school? GUILTY!

Show a hint of white panties on that picture of your 17-year old girlfriend? GUILTY!

The odd thing about it, is that you can be charged with possession even if the picture is of YOURSELF!


I can def see a problem in these examples, especially the last one. Man, I have pics of lots of past gfs when we were both under 18...shit!