Dumbass Alert: Do not pawn the laptop on which you keep child porn

[-Cp]

Do not pawn the laptop on which you keep child porn


MILFORD, Conn. A Milford pawn shop owner is credited with directing police to an alleged child porn suspect.

Police say a 43-year-old New Haven man left 304 images of child pornography on a computer he brought into a pawn shop. Gary Bremer was arrested over the weekend.

Police say Bremer was trying to get cash when he sold his laptop to National Pawn in November of 2003. The store's owner spotted child pornography on the laptop last June.

Milford police were contacted and Bremer was arrested on child pornography charges Saturday, ending a nine-month investigation.

Bremer faces charges of possession of child pornography and importing child pornography.

He was released from police custody on a written promise to appear April 26th in Milford Superior Court.



http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_102072943.html

 

[insein]

Here's my problem with this. What did the guy do wrong? Did he take the pictures of the children themselves? Did he do the acts to the children? No! He looked at the pictures that are so readily availble on the internet and now he is going to jail for it. A 9 month investigation because the guy had pictures? For something he did in the privacy of his own home, he gets tried and convicted. Who knows what goes on in peoples homes? The people and thats all it should be.

Now this guy to me has a screw loose but where do they stop. They arrest you for having child porn on your own private computer today. Whats to say they dont start arresting people for pictures of porn in general? Then whats to say police cant just barge into your house and find a gun in your closet or weed in your drawer or you having sex with your wife in all sorts of freaky positions and decide that your under arrest?

People have to think before they judge. You give the government power over privacy in our homes and they will take it further then you ever contemplated.

This guy was a moron for not formating his harddrive before trading it in, but it is a dangerous slope we're heading down.

 

[-Cp]

Here's my problem with this. What did the guy do wrong? Did he take the pictures of the children themselves? Did he do the acts to the children? No! He looked at the pictures that are so readily availble on the internet and now he is going to jail for it. A 9 month investigation because the guy had pictures? For something he did in the privacy of his own home, he gets tried and convicted. Who knows what goes on in peoples homes? The people and thats all it should be.

Now this guy to me has a screw loose but where do they stop. They arrest you for having child porn on your own private computer today. Whats to say they dont start arresting people for pictures of porn in general? Then whats to say police cant just barge into your house and find a gun in your closet or weed in your drawer or you having sex with your wife in all sorts of freaky positions and decide that your under arrest?

People have to think before they judge. You give the government power over privacy in our homes and they will take it further then you ever contemplated.

This guy was a moron for not formating his harddrive before trading it in, but it is a dangerous slope we're heading down.

Umm.. there's a PROFOUND difference between 'looking at porn' and having child porn - one is between consenting adults, the other is a FEDERAL CRIME - you're free to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, just as long as it's not illegal.. duh..

 

[insein]

Umm.. there's a PROFOUND difference between 'looking at porn' and having child porn - one is between consenting adults, the other is a FEDERAL CRIME - you're free to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, just as long as it's not illegal.. duh..

Thats my point. Who deems things illegal? Politicians that are just as fallable if not more so then the rest of us. 100 years ago, cocaine was legal. 35 years ago marijuana was legal. Overnight those drugs became crimes and the people that used them became criminals. Whose to say that people staring at standard porn wont be considered "illegal" 20 years from now? People are harping on MCDonalds for being harmful to people. What if they start banning McDonalds food. You see where this is going?

The reason you think it unconscienable is because of the nature of this individual's personal problems. He does things that we consider taboo. But whose to say our doings arent taboo to someone else who might want them banned. Thats what worries me. Every law that takes something away over the last 100 years was created because someone thought it wasnt right to do that. Then everyday people became criminals. You cant speak out against it because then you are considered to be an advocate of that behavior and thus treated the same.

People need to be careful about the "Dont do illegal stuff" mantra because one day the everday things you do might be considered illegal and then your a criminal.

 

[dmp]

It is the will of the majority of citizens of the USA that child Porn is illegal.

(shrug).

 

[no1tovote4]

Child porn is not victimless. Those that traffic and keep such pictures have taken advantage of at least one victim, if not more than one for each child pictured. (Sometimes the parents have no idea that their child is being molested in this way, that is why there can be more than one victim for each child pictured).

Therefore trafficking in child porn is a Federal Crime.

If you turn in a laptop with evidence of your drug ring on it to a pawn shop you can expect to be arrested, the same as trafficking such sick crap as child porn.

The investigation likely was to find where the source of this porn so that they could save some children from being molested.

There is no way you will convince me that it is wrong to arrest people that take part in child pornography in any way, even purchasing or downloading you have participated in the victimization of children and families. I am largely Libertarian, but do believe that where there is so clearly a victim law should be made and enforced.

 

[Nienna]

Thats my point. Who deems things illegal? Politicians that are just as fallable if not more so then the rest of us.

See this is the problem of relativism. People cannot identify "right" and "wrong," "truth" and "lie."

The reason you think it unconscienable is because of the nature of this individual's personal problems. He does things that we consider taboo. But whose to say our doings arent taboo to someone else who might want them banned. Thats what worries me. Every law that takes something away over the last 100 years was created because someone thought it wasnt right to do that. Then everyday people became criminals. You cant speak out against it because then you are considered to be an advocate of that behavior and thus treated the same.

Once again, the slippery slope of relativism. Every law that has ever been made was done because "somebody thought it wasn't right to do that." Laws reflect our morality. Where there is no consensus in morality, problems crop up, thick and rank. This country and its law were founded on Christian morality, whether an individual believes in Christ or not. When we step away from that moral code, we find people, who know things like child pornography are wrong actually defending them. They know these things are wrong, but they feel guilty about holding "their" morality over someone else. This is why the founding fathers stated again and again that should we err from our Christian heritage, the country will not stand.

 

[5stringJeff]

Child porn is not victimless. Those that traffic and keep such pictures have taken advantage of at least one victim, if not more than one for each child pictured. (Sometimes the parents have no idea that their child is being molested in this way, that is why there can be more than one victim for each child pictured).

Therefore trafficking in child porn is a Federal Crime.

If you turn in a laptop with evidence of your drug ring on it to a pawn shop you can expect to be arrested, the same as trafficking such sick crap as child porn.

The investigation likely was to find where the source of this porn so that they could save some children from being molested.

There is no way you will convince me that it is wrong to arrest people that take part in child pornography in any way, even purchasing or downloading you have participated in the victimization of children and families. I am largely Libertarian, but do believe that where there is so clearly a victim law should be made and enforced.

Good call, no1. While one can make insein's argument regarding marijuana use or other "victimless" crimes, I find it very hard to apply that argument to child porn.

 

[Nienna]

Child porn is not victimless. Those that traffic and keep such pictures have taken advantage of at least one victim, if not more than one for each child pictured. (Sometimes the parents have no idea that their child is being molested in this way, that is why there can be more than one victim for each child pictured).

Exactly! It is a matter of priority. What deserves protection? The innocence of children or the privacy of sick perverts? That is the moral judgment we are called to make in law.

 

[no1tovote4]

Exactly! It is a matter of priority. What deserves protection? The innocence of children or the privacy of sick perverts? That is the moral judgment we are called to make in law.

I personally believe that people should be able to do any action they want so long as they do not create a victim of another. Consenting adults working in porn are not victims, children cannot consent to such action and by even the fact that they have sexual pictures taken of them it becomes clear that they have been molested. Thus we have a victim, now you have crossed a clear line where government intervention is not only expected but needed in order to enforce the freedom we hold so dear.

So in answer to insein, the line crossed is the victimization of another.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Thats my point. Who deems things illegal? Politicians that are just as fallable if not more so then the rest of us. 100 years ago, cocaine was legal. 35 years ago marijuana was legal. Overnight those drugs became crimes and the people that used them became criminals. Whose to say that people staring at standard porn wont be considered "illegal" 20 years from now? People are harping on MCDonalds for being harmful to people. What if they start banning McDonalds food. You see where this is going?

The reason you think it unconscienable is because of the nature of this individual's personal problems. He does things that we consider taboo. But whose to say our doings arent taboo to someone else who might want them banned. Thats what worries me. Every law that takes something away over the last 100 years was created because someone thought it wasnt right to do that. Then everyday people became criminals. You cant speak out against it because then you are considered to be an advocate of that behavior and thus treated the same.

People need to be careful about the "Dont do illegal stuff" mantra because one day the everday things you do might be considered illegal and then your a criminal.

I had to fix your name.

Concern over what becomes illegal is fine, but child porn is not the place to start.

 

[Nienna]

I personally believe that people should be able to do any action they want so long as they do not create a victim of another. Consenting adults working in porn are not victims, children cannot consent to such action and by even the fact that they have sexual pictures taken of them it becomes clear that they have been molested. Thus we have a victim, now you have crossed a clear line where government intervention is not only expected but needed in order to enforce the freedom we hold so dear.

So in answer to insein, the line crossed is the victimization of another.

I think I understand what you are saying about the government's role in prosecuting people. And I agree that the government shouldn't step in in every situation, that people should be free to make some choices that are immoral as long as they don't affect another's rights.

My point is that our freedom is based on our morality and self governance. If more and more people cross moral lines (refuse to control themselves), government imposes more and more laws to try and control the problem. Our privacy is generally eroded. That is my response to Insein.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Do not pawn the laptop on which you keep child porn

I think the smarter decision would be, not to look at child porn.

 

[5stringJeff]

I think the smarter decision would be, not to look at child porn.

 

[Merlin1047]

Thats my point. Who deems things illegal?

Well that's somewhat of a silly question. Obviously, we the people, through our elected representatives have caused laws to be put into place which deem this kind of activity illegal. We have every right to do that. You, in the meantime, have every right to try to have that changed if you disagree, but until it IS changed, you have a legal obligation to obey the law.

100 years ago, cocaine was legal. 35 years ago marijuana was legal. Overnight those drugs became crimes and the people that used them became criminals. Whose to say that people staring at standard porn wont be considered "illegal" 20 years from now? People are harping on MCDonalds for being harmful to people. What if they start banning McDonalds food. You see where this is going?

Times change, laws change. What's your point? The addictive properties of cocaine were not recognized. Cocaine importing had not yet developed into a major criminal enterprise which threatens the very fabric of society. Laws needed to be adopted to protect society from the cocaine addict and the cocaine supplier.

If McDonald's food is addictive, then laws will be developed to deal with that. But it is not, and McDonalds does not wage turf wars in the form of gang fights and drive-by shootings with Hardees, Burger King or Wendy's. So as far as I see it, your argument is going nowhere.

The reason you think it unconscienable is because of the nature of this individual's personal problems. He does things that we consider taboo. But whose to say our doings arent taboo to someone else who might want them banned. Thats what worries me. Every law that takes something away over the last 100 years was created because someone thought it wasnt right to do that. Then everyday people became criminals. You cant speak out against it because then you are considered to be an advocate of that behavior and thus treated the same.

The "individual's personal problems"? Is that how we characterize those who support the sexual exploitation of children these days? Purchasing child porn is a "personal problem"? You're taking an untenable position here. Those who purchase child porn are equally guilty of abusing those children as the vermin who produce child porn. Same as the drug trade. Those who use drugs are just as guilty as those who sell them. Without the demand, there will be no supply. Your argument takes the user out of the loop in regard to responsibility for the crime and that is why it fails.

During prohibition, there was a huge demand for illegal booze. Al Capone and many others created a huge criminal enterprise out of supplying the millions of minor criminals who flouted the law through consumption. As a result, there was murder and mayhem, innocent people died, judges were bribed, police were bribed or coerced and city officials who could not be bribed or coerced were murdered. Everyone who purchased illegal alcohol was party to this criminal enterprise. Those who disagreed with the law should have worked hard to change it through protest and through electing to office representatives who promised to repeal prohibition. They had no moral or legal right to disobey the law.

Child pornography is both morally reprehensible and socially unacceptable. It has been designated by law as criminal enterprise. Those who support this enterprise by purchasing these illegal items are themselves criminals and deserve to be treated as such.

 

[Avatar4321]

Child porn is not victimless. Those that traffic and keep such pictures have taken advantage of at least one victim, if not more than one for each child pictured. (Sometimes the parents have no idea that their child is being molested in this way, that is why there can be more than one victim for each child pictured).

Regular porn isn't victimless either. Some people just dont understand the extent it can warp your mind.

 

[insein]

I had to fix your name.

Concern over what becomes illegal is fine, but child porn is not the place to start.

Who then defines child porn. According to the law any person udner the age of 18 is a child. How many images on the internet of 17 year old girls do you think are out there that are passed off as 18 year olds? Whose to say then that you could think your looking at a "legal" picture then have it used against you when someone finds it on your computer.

Everyone here is proving my point. Child porn is something so unfathomable and despicable that we instantly real back in disgust and cast judgement on that person with no consideration of the matter at hand. If a teacher is accused of molesting a child, that accusation is more hamrful, than any crime he/she may have committed. If there is no evidence, no substantiation of any crime being committed, the teacher is cleared of their crimes but the defamation remains because it is such a horrible crime in many peoples minds that we dont care whether you are guilty or not. You were accused of it and that makes you guilty.

I just see it happen in so many other areas of life. Take drunk driving. For Many people they can handle themselves in a normal manner after 4 or 5 beers. In most states though, 1.5 beers is all it would take for you to drink to get you a DUI. Yet every year we hear politicians wanting to lower the legal alcohol limit to where if your pulled over after taking cold medicine, you might get a DUI. Why do people go along with it? Because drunk driving is wrong. No one stops to think that maybe ill be in that situation and then its not so wrong. No they say, dont be in that situation. Obey the law no matter how restrictive and ridiculous people make it.

So while child porn was merely the starting point on this, i used it to prove my point that if you try to argue against a law that is ridiculous because you can see where it will lead to, then you are labeled just as offensive as the person that committed the crime. Welcome to totalitarianism where people want to run your life.

 

[dmp]

Who then defines child porn. According to the law any person udner the age of 18 is a child. How many images on the internet of 17 year old girls do you think are out there that are passed off as 18 year olds? Whose to say then that you could think your looking at a "legal" picture then have it used against you when someone finds it on your computer.

If the Pawn Shop owner could tell it was child porn vs adult porn, there's a problem. Common sense dictates.

 

[Nienna]

Insein, I see what you are saying, but there has to be a balance. That is the key. You can't say "Allow drunk driving" bc somewhere down the line, someone might take it too far and arrest someone for taking cough medecine and driving.

Again, if people will not impose limits upon themselves, they give up the right to govern themselves.

 

[insein]

Well that's somewhat of a silly question. Obviously, we the people, through our elected representatives have caused laws to be put into place which deem this kind of activity illegal. We have every right to do that. You, in the meantime, have every right to try to have that changed if you disagree, but until it IS changed, you have a legal obligation to obey the law.

We the people go along with what were told is good for us without thinking of the consequences. as smart as many of us think we are, we can all think of a time we were duped into adopting something that was as advertised.

Times change, laws change. What's your point? The addictive properties of cocaine were not recognized. Cocaine importing had not yet developed into a major criminal enterprise which threatens the very fabric of society. Laws needed to be adopted to protect society from the cocaine addict and the cocaine supplier.

So we need a nanny to tell us that cocaine is bad? We cant have government telling us how to run our lives. People make bad decisions. We cant have the government trying to stop us from making bad decisions because that leads to a nanny state where no one thinks for themselves and the govenrment runs your life.

If McDonald's food is addictive, then laws will be developed to deal with that. But it is not, and McDonalds does not wage turf wars in the form of gang fights and drive-by shootings with Hardees, Burger King or Wendy's. So as far as I see it, your argument is going nowhere.

You obviously missed the point. There is a movement that has started to label fast food as "Bad for you." As i stated above, you cant have the government stopping you from making bad decisions. If enough people complain and they pass a law stating that fattening foods are now illegal, that just made 90% of the population of america a criminal for eating cookies, candy, cake, soda, etc. You can grasp that they would do that but back then they couldnt grasp that cocaine would be illegal or marijuana. So under your theory if that were to occur, we just roll with it and say oh well no more chocolate for me and label those that do eat it criminals? Overnight that makes them bad people because a law said they are? Your turf war argument simply clouds the issue im trying to show you.

The "individual's personal problems"? Is that how we characterize those who support the sexual exploitation of children these days? Purchasing child porn is a "personal problem"? You're taking an untenable position here. Those who purchase child porn are equally guilty of abusing those children as the vermin who produce child porn. Same as the drug trade. Those who use drugs are just as guilty as those who sell them. Without the demand, there will be no supply. Your argument takes the user out of the loop in regard to responsibility for the crime and that is why it fails.

Have you ever used the internet? You dont buy porn. You can get porn for free pretty much anywhere. Child porn conjures an image of little children however it could mean a 17 year old girl posing as an 18 year old. What makes the one illegal and the other legal? A law created by a man. Your train of thought basically ignores the real criminals. The bastards that create these pictures and do these things to these children. If we keep arresting every drug addict on the street or every guy that downloads an image, we ignore the problem. We say we're doing somehting for the good of the people when we are simply trying to set an example to deter others. You dont punish the true criminals.

During prohibition, there was a huge demand for illegal booze. Al Capone and many others created a huge criminal enterprise out of supplying the millions of minor criminals who flouted the law through consumption. As a result, there was murder and mayhem, innocent people died, judges were bribed, police were bribed or coerced and city officials who could not be bribed or coerced were murdered. Everyone who purchased illegal alcohol was party to this criminal enterprise. Those who disagreed with the law should have worked hard to change it through protest and through electing to office representatives who promised to repeal prohibition. They had no moral or legal right to disobey the law.

So the guys that went to bars after work woke up and found that they are now criminals for doing what they did on a daily basis. If they continue to do what they always did they will be arrested and goto jail.

Child pornography is both morally reprehensible and socially unacceptable. It has been designated by law as criminal enterprise. Those who support this enterprise by purchasing these illegal items are themselves criminals and deserve to be treated as such.

You miss the point because of the nature of the crime. Child pron is reprehensible and you cant get your mind past that to see that laws are being created to take individual freedoms away. If eating red meat is declared by the government to be just as wrong as doing drugs, then we all goto jail except for the vegetarians or we all become vegetarians. We are all then criminals for doing what we always did, eating red meat. Are we actually criminals though?