Best Buy's Geek Squad - Getting More (Or Less) Than You Bargained For

[Inmar]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Ukrainian pig, you must to answer, otherwise we you will force in the real life

 

[martybegan]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

 

[toobfreak]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

 

[martybegan]

it wasn't criminal according to one judge.

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

 

[toobfreak]

Then it wasn't criminal until another judge says it was. What judge overruled the first? You don't get to just make up laws in this country to suit you!

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

 

[martybegan]

Killing someone and getting away with it is still criminal, it's just not convicted of it.

Again, is OJ a murderer or not?

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

 

[toobfreak]

Look at this fool trying to totally change the topic again. Go soak your head. The doctor isn't OJ, he just had some dirty pictures. Best Buy and the FBI went way beyond the line to try to entrap him because they couldn't get him WITHIN THE LAW and a judge saw it and STOPPED THEM. Case closed. If you don't like it, petition your Congress to CHANGE THE LAW.

The problem here isn't a doctor or one more person trapped by all the filth spread freely about the internet, it is a nation ready to go around its own laws to railroad those they happen not to like.

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

 

[martybegan]

Your inability to answer the question, and your childish peckish response is noted.

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

The 2nd time, yes. The first time it's 99% he got away with murder(s).

it becomes a moot legal point, but it still doesn't change the fact the guy had actual child porn in his possession.

 

[toobfreak]

Don't flatter yourself. I was talking about a case where a man's privacy was invaded in an illegal and surreptitious witch hunt for child porn by a commercial retailer clandestinely used as a proxy by the FBI that the court agreed wasn't there, making the point that if they can do THAT for porn with one guy, they can justify it for any other reason with you, me or anyone, and not only do you DEFEND it, after being proven wrong like THIRTY times, you then go off on some tangent about an old football player who killed his girlfriend like 9,000 years ago that was in the courts for years, and I'm supposed to give you a cogent response to your nonsense and my "inability" and your labeling of my replies in order to give you satisfactory closure on an issue that you had lost in something like post 2? You're a fucking idiot! And I hope someday your rights are violated by the government out the wazoo and everyone you turn to for justice tells you to go get S-T-U-F-F-E-D.

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

The 2nd time, yes. The first time it's 99% he got away with murder(s).

it becomes a moot legal point, but it still doesn't change the fact the guy had actual child porn in his possession.

But it was either LEGAL porn or it was OBTAINED illegally. In a republic based on the Rule of Law, that kinda matters, because as soon as the government can throw ONE law out, then they can throw out another . . . . and another.

 

[martybegan]

Actually we were discussing this specific case, the specifics you gloss over every time they are pointed out to you.

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

The 2nd time, yes. The first time it's 99% he got away with murder(s).

it becomes a moot legal point, but it still doesn't change the fact the guy had actual child porn in his possession.

But it was either LEGAL porn or it was OBTAINED illegally. In a republic based on the Rule of Law, that kinda matters, because as soon as the government can throw ONE law out, then they can throw out another . . . . and another.

No, it could be illegal porn discovered illegally by the authorities based on the warrant that was found to be incomplete.

 

[toobfreak]

Right, right, right. We were discussing this specific case which is why you tried to change it to OJ Simpson, then I was the one glossing over the details by giving such lengthy lists of so many specifics and details that refuted your arcane conclusions that you kept bitching about their length.

Your bullshit grows longer and longer by every day, but the one thing you are consistently silent on it to show me ONE WORD of criticism against Best Buy who went far beyond their mandate to work as a proxy to the FBI, the FBI who went so far as to lie to a judge and break the law and are now defendants in a lawsuit trying to make a federal case out of a situation against an individual where they had no case at all, but you are all over some guy who liked porn, LEGAL porn, as freely and widely provided by our culture in vast quantities to anything connected to the internet to a degree that you need filters to help keep the crap out of your face. THAT you are OK with.

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

The 2nd time, yes. The first time it's 99% he got away with murder(s).

it becomes a moot legal point, but it still doesn't change the fact the guy had actual child porn in his possession.

But it was either LEGAL porn or it was OBTAINED illegally. In a republic based on the Rule of Law, that kinda matters, because as soon as the government can throw ONE law out, then they can throw out another . . . . and another.

No, it could be illegal porn discovered illegally by the authorities based on the warrant that was found to be incomplete.

BUT IT WASN'T! Damn are you a blockhead. I don't give a flying fuck what COULD be. The warrant was thrown out because the FBI lied and withheld information, so what the hell were they doing in that guy's house? Another crime by the FBI, the agency that brought us Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Lisa Page and Peter Srozok.

 

[martybegan]

That was an example of someone being probably guilty of the crime in question, but not convicted of it.

The rest of the porn found in his house,the search declared illegal, was not legal porn.

And I'm sorry, but a naked pre-teen with a dog collar on is not legal porn either.

Probably guilty of a crime? I hope Simpson did jail time for a reason.

So the rest of the porn found at the house was found illegal, through illegal means, from an illegal search of his first computer and because the FBI couldn't stay within the law? Then it becomes inadmissible evidence and a moot point, but still, I'm sure the guy's life was ruined.

And I agree, I would have thought such a photo would qualify as illegal, BUT THE LAW SAYS NO. It is merely distasteful. You don't get to make up your own arbitrary legal standards.

The 2nd time, yes. The first time it's 99% he got away with murder(s).

it becomes a moot legal point, but it still doesn't change the fact the guy had actual child porn in his possession.

But it was either LEGAL porn or it was OBTAINED illegally. In a republic based on the Rule of Law, that kinda matters, because as soon as the government can throw ONE law out, then they can throw out another . . . . and another.

No, it could be illegal porn discovered illegally by the authorities based on the warrant that was found to be incomplete.

BUT IT WASN'T! Damn are you a blockhead. I don't give a flying fuck what COULD be. The warrant was thrown out because the FBI lied and withheld information, so what the hell were they doing in that guy's house? Another crime by the FBI, the agency that brought us Andrew McCabe, James Comey, Lisa Page and Peter Srozok.

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

 

[toobfreak]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

 

[toobfreak]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?

But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.

 

[toobfreak]

[Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

Let me know when that happens. Practice makes perfect.

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?

But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.

Possessing it is a crime as well, and isn't something challenged by most people.

Most sane people that is.

 

[toobfreak]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?

But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.

Possessing it is a crime as well, and isn't something challenged by most people.

Then this guy didn't posses any, or it isn't a crime, because this guy is not charged, arrested nor convicted. But what IS a crime is what the FBI did with Best Buy and how the FBI botched the case that apparently could have easily put a child porn viewer behind bars, where no crimes are ever committed at all.

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't change the fact the guy is probably a kid toucher and had illegal kiddie porn in his possession.

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.

Legally he can't be touched for the items recovered. However I would hope the authorities will monitor him.

Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?

But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.

Possessing it is a crime as well, and isn't something challenged by most people.

Then this guy didn't posses any, or it isn't a crime, because this guy is not charged, arrested nor convicted. But what IS a crime is what the FBI did with Best Buy and how the FBI botched the case that apparently could have easily put a child porn viewer behind bars, where no crimes are ever committed at all.

He had stuff in his possession that was tossed out due to a bad warrant. It only means legally the material does not exist. In reality he possessed illegal materials.

 

[toobfreak]

PROBABLY a kid toucher? You have any proof of that accusation? More and more it comes out what a bigot you really are. So in other words, anyone who looks at teen porn or less MUST BE predisposed to act on those images, but people who look at the dozens of other kinds of crazy porn are not. I guess it never occurred to you that to 99% of the people out there, porn is nothing more than images of unrealized FANTASIES that they never plan to act on, because the are FANTASIES.


Maybe tap his internet connection? Listen on his phone? Perhaps look in his windows, search his car and follow him around on the street? You know, all the things the KGB would do to a person they don't like but have no actual legal mandate upon which to base their actions. Meantime they ignored 30 calls and warnings of an actual violent and disturbed kid who went on to shoot up an entire school.

To create child porn a crime has to be committed. Most of the other porn types, while weird are creepy, are usually legal, with the exception of actual snuff films and some beastiality things.

Now you have crossed over from defending constitutional principles, into defending possessing this illegal shit....

Whatever they do, they will probably get the warrants right this time.

What illegal shit? You keep blurring the legal with the illegal. The only thing that has been found illegal here are the FBI. And when will you START defending constitutional principles?

But absolutely, CREATING child porn is a crime. THAT is what ought to be sought out and persecuted. Unless you know something I don't, this guy was only about looking at porn, and wasn't making the pictures with actual children, nor was he, I assume, buying it from a producer of it, either of which contributes to the harming of kids. THAT is what we ought to be concerned with.

Possessing it is a crime as well, and isn't something challenged by most people.

Then this guy didn't posses any, or it isn't a crime, because this guy is not charged, arrested nor convicted. But what IS a crime is what the FBI did with Best Buy and how the FBI botched the case that apparently could have easily put a child porn viewer behind bars, where no crimes are ever committed at all.

He had stuff in his possession that was tossed out due to a bad warrant. It only means legally the material does not exist. In reality he possessed illegal materials.

But they only got even THAT far by breaking the law in the first place! Again, if they want people THAT bad, they should focus on the people MAKING the stuff. They don't even have time to investigate numerous warnings of a crazy kid turned shooter in Florida, they haven't the resources to worry about every little creep that likes just looking at kids. We have a legal system so backed up with low level crap that it takes months and years now to process a case. If we just focused on and stopped the makers and distributors of porn, there'd be a lot less need to worry about viewers.