Pedophile teacher busted
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
From the article.... "The cache of 400 photos being reviewed by authorities includes head shots or pictures of smiling children and other more disturbing images of children gagged or blindfolded or both, according to sources who have seen them."
In the article, the police have already stated that the pictures taken at the school never show any students in distress, and only students blindfolded. The fact is that outside of his classroom situation, he sought out those other pictures, of children. So, if you're busy thinking that he was using kids only opportunistically, then why are his other pics, of kids?
You are making assumptions. The article does not state that the photos were of different children than those that attended his class.
Is it really that difficult to wait for the facts of the case before you pass judgement on what this guy is or isn't?
I know you haven't the ability to grasp things, unless someone actually spells it out for you...
Children in bondage, is considered child porn by the courts. Hence why it's illegal.
Back to your original claims though...
Evidence was insufficient to charge teacher in '94, D.A. says - latimes.com
Oh oh, fondled a girl.
Mark Berndt - L.A. NOW - latimes.com
Two others? You don't say!
For someone who claims to be so concerned with facts, you sure don't like them.
Not one thing about my assumption is outside of the assumptions made by law. Not one thing about my assumption has been directed at stripping him of any rights. So no, I don't think, given the facts, that it's a) the wrong assumption, or b) a harmful assumption in any form.
While people have decided to attribute things to my assumption, like vigilanteism, a dislike for the mentally ill, a desire to bypass the court system and summarily sentence the guy, those are assumptions as well, and in no way applied by the fact that I've called someone who committed pretty clear pedophilic acts, a pedophile.
It's about time somebody posted some facts.
That's only because you don't understand what pedophilia is.
I read all that before I made my first post. All the links were in the article in the OP.
You mean you didn't do any research before you started to comment? That was a rhetorical question, since you already edited out the part where you admitted to not seeing the part about the cache of child porn.
Apparently she does. Since the teacher in the article is a pedophile, as the mounting evidence seems to show.
Poor cannuck, PWND again.
I understand perfectly well the clinical bubble you're trying to apply to pedophilia. The problem is, clinical definitions don't apply to real world life a good portion of the time. Especially when it comes to human behaviour and sexual issues.
I read the links. They still don't prove the guy is a pedophile. They prove he is most likely a child molester.
The "mounting evidence" may show it but the article in the OP certainly doesn't.
Hence the fact that you missed the cache of child porn.
No wonder your so easily PWND, your reading skills are obviously below a grade 9 level.
First you admitted to Karrie, that you didn't see it (Before you dishonestly edited that out), then you claimed children in bondage, wasn't child porn.
I'm glad you now admit that children in bondage is child porn.
So we have a teacher, feeding semen to kids, with a cache of child porn, several allegations of sexual assault. It doesn't take the deductive reasoning of the fictitious Sherlock Holmes to come to the reasoned conclusion, he has a predilection for children (The cache of child porn) and acted on the opportunity provided by his position.
Oh, by the way. You just got PWND again.
I have no doubt he will now deny ever having admitted he missed that part of the article.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think is faster? The edit function or the quote function? I've always wondered that.
No, all it takes is the fictitious reasoning skills of one CB.
Do you find this picture to be pornographic?
"(CNN) -- A 21-year-old man in Chicago is charged with battery after allegedly binding his toddler's wrists, ankles and mouth with tape and posting a photo online.
Above the photo of the girl, which Andre Curry allegedly put on his Facebook page, were the words, "This is wut happens wen my baby hits me back.
"The Facebook page appears to have been taken down. But the image was picked up by other websites. The Cook County State's Attorney's Office also told CNN that the caption was with the photo on Curry's Facebook page.
Andy Conklin, a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, said the girl is 22 months old.
A public defender for Curry did not immediately return a call from CNN on Wednesday.
Curry is charged with aggravated domestic battery, Chicago police said. He appeared in court Wednesday, where bond was set at $100,000, the state's attorney's office said.
Conklin said the next court date will be December 27.
The photo at issue shows the girl with painter's tape over her mouth and binding her wrists and ankles."
You've made the claim that pictures of gagged children is child porn. You are wrong (as usual). Pictures of gagged kids may be pornographic and the may not be. This teacher may be a pedophile and he may not be. Why do you wish to make that judgement before you have all the facts
Pedophile does in fact have two shades of meaning, the Greek literal translation which means loving children, and the legal generally accepted definition in Canada which means performing sexual acts on children, the first is honourable, the second is depraved, nefarious and disgusting!
And you agreed they were. So what's your beef?
Funny, you ask me, Why do you wish to make that judgement before you have all the facts. After you state unequivocally that I'm wrong. Right before you state that children in bondage may be pornographic. The irony in your, the sites self proclaimed champion of logical consistency, post is palpable.
When I bring up intent and context next, I guess that will just give you more ammo to ignore being called out for admitting you missed the portion of the OP describing the cache of, as you have already admitted, child porn.
This dance you do, when you are to fragile to admit your errors, is most entertaining.