Award winning homosexual teacher busted for Kiddie porn

[Roadrunner]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

I bet he did the Liberace shit AT school.

 

[Godboy]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

I can sort of see your point, but when he rapes a boy, people are going to say "why did he only get 5 years for child porn? If he had been in prison longer this wouldn't have happened."

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

I can sort of see your point, but when he rapes a boy, people are going to say "why did he only get 5 years for child porn? If he had been in prison longer this wouldn't have happened."

Hindsight's 20-20 as they say. But we don't have a future crimes police division yet so kinda moot. Can only charge people for what the state can prove. Alas.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And before coming down the mountain over child porn, remember that every teen who sends nudes of themselves, their exes, etc. is technically guilty of distributing child porn as well.

 

[Marianne]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

1. it's as unethical as a doctor dating his patient. It's wrong. Now if the kid was a graduate and hooked up that's a different story but as long as one is a student and the other a teacher, it's wrong.

2. He's not being charged with rape. Again if the kids sent any pics online that were compromising it's wrong because they thought they were conversing with another teen and not a creepy man.

3. I'm assuming that he's not being charged for taking pics of just feet. There must be some explicit contact in those photo's that makes it a porn charge. Any explicit pics taken of an a person under 18 is considered porn if in the possession of an adult. It also doesn't say if the offending pics are just of those teens or if maybe more was found during the search. I'm just saying, there has to be reason for the charges.

4.You may be right about the contact but I'm sure as this comes to light and the cops dig they are going to find he crossed the line somewhere. I doubt he stopped at online dating and porn.

5. Oh dear, I hope you don't believe that. That's just as silly as saying heterosexual men who look at porn are content with just looking at women. It's a sexual preference and part of their sex drive, they are not pacified by it anymore than anyone else would be.

6. I hope they didn't.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

 

[Marianne]

And before coming down the mountain over child porn, remember that every teen who sends nudes of themselves, their exes, etc. is technically guilty of distributing child porn as well.

Yes although I doubt anyone would be having a fit if a 17 year old sent nudes to his or her 17 year old boy/girl friend. This guy misrepresented himself as a teen to get nudes of teen when he's actually a dirty old man. Some of these boys might not have had anything to do with the perv if they'd known how old he was.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense. The article doesn't say if it's just for the pics he took. I'll bet it isn't.
4.C'mon! He must have made physical contact, I can't believe that he did all this and didn't touch them even once. "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. He's being charged with child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

2 is an excellent point

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

1. it's as unethical as a doctor dating his patient. It's wrong. Now if the kid was a graduate and hooked up that's a different story but as long as one is a student and the other a teacher, it's wrong.

2. He's not being charged with rape. Again if the kids sent any pics online that were compromising it's wrong because they thought they were conversing with another teen and not a creepy man.

3. I'm assuming that he's not being charged for taking pics of just feet. There must be some explicit contact in those photo's that makes it a porn charge. Any explicit pics taken of an a person under 18 is considered porn if in the possession of an adult. It also doesn't say if the offending pics are just of those teens or if maybe more was found during the search. I'm just saying, there has to be reason for the charges.

4.You may be right about the contact but I'm sure as this comes to light and the cops dig they are going to find he crossed the line somewhere. I doubt he stopped at online dating and porn.

5. Oh dear, I hope you don't believe that. That's just as silly as saying heterosexual men who look at porn are content with just looking at women. It's a sexual preference and part of their sex drive, they are not pacified by it anymore than anyone else would be.

6. I hope they didn't.

1. The students didn't know he was a teacher, so his being one is irrelevant.

2. Legally, it doesn't matter. Teen sharing such pics with other teens is still a child porn offense.

3. Nude pics in possession of an adult isn't illegal. Only illegal if 'explicit sexual conduct' or focus on genitals is in the pic. Simply being naked isn't illegal as the plethora of nudist camp type content attests. Just referenced a case about this yesterday where a defendant's possession of naked minor pictures wasn't itself illegal just because the guy got off on them. Making that the standard would have old Sears catalogs declared illegal for pictures of minors in their underwear. Can read it here,
173 F.3d 28

4. if additional evidence comes to light that's that. As it stands looking at just the linked article in the OP though, there was no charges involving actual contact.

5. Can provide links, or you could search the site for past posts and threads about it. One I remember was 'does pornography hurt chidlren who view it' or something like that. Ask NLT, bet he knows.
Legalizing pornography Lower sex crime rates Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily
The effects of Pornography An
(search/find down to "pornography & sex crime data"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

1. it's as unethical as a doctor dating his patient. It's wrong. Now if the kid was a graduate and hooked up that's a different story but as long as one is a student and the other a teacher, it's wrong.

2. He's not being charged with rape. Again if the kids sent any pics online that were compromising it's wrong because they thought they were conversing with another teen and not a creepy man.

3. I'm assuming that he's not being charged for taking pics of just feet. There must be some explicit contact in those photo's that makes it a porn charge. Any explicit pics taken of an a person under 18 is considered porn if in the possession of an adult. It also doesn't say if the offending pics are just of those teens or if maybe more was found during the search. I'm just saying, there has to be reason for the charges.

4.You may be right about the contact but I'm sure as this comes to light and the cops dig they are going to find he crossed the line somewhere. I doubt he stopped at online dating and porn.

5. Oh dear, I hope you don't believe that. That's just as silly as saying heterosexual men who look at porn are content with just looking at women. It's a sexual preference and part of their sex drive, they are not pacified by it anymore than anyone else would be.

6. I hope they didn't.

1. The students didn't know he was a teacher, so his being one is irrelevant.

2. Legally, it doesn't matter. Teen sharing such pics with other teens is still a child porn offense.

3. Nude pics in possession of an adult isn't illegal. Only illegal if 'explicit sexual conduct' or focus on genitals is in the pic. Simply being naked isn't illegal as the plethora of nudist camp type content attests. Just referenced a case about this yesterday where a defendant's possession of naked minor pictures wasn't itself illegal just because the guy got off on them. Making that the standard would have old Sears catalogs declared illegal for pictures of minors in their underwear. Can read it here,
173 F.3d 28

4. if additional evidence comes to light that's that. As it stands looking at just the linked article in the OP though, there was no charges involving actual contact.

5. Can provide links, or you could search the site for past posts and threads about it. One I remember was 'does pornography hurt chidlren who view it' or something like that. Ask NLT, bet he knows.
Legalizing pornography Lower sex crime rates Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily
The effects of Pornography An
(search/find down to "pornography & sex crime data"

The bottom line is this guy is a teacher and an adult, he's messing with kids and he shouldn't be. He certainly has no business being in a position of trust.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

> Sassy',

"He certainly has no business being in a position of trust."

Correct.

(we're gonna have to quit hitting reply or the nested replies are gonna get too big to see what's going on.)

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Up to 70 years if convicted....

...For pretending to be a teen himself. So these guys had consensual, mutually desireable interactions with someone they thought was another teen, but who turned out to be an adult 'catfishing.' And no actual physical interaction.

I can usually get behind prosecution of child sexual abusers, but in this instance the only crime I see is how he misrepresented himself as another teen. Ironicly then, had he actually been another teen this probably wouldn't have gone all the way to law enforcement (NM having a Romeo and Juliet provision.) Only did because he was in fact an adult.

Revoke his teaching credentials for life, put him on whoever's sex offender registry (NY and NM presumedly,) and charge him for manufacturing and possessing child pornography. But no way 70 years. Murderers and actual child rapists don't get that much. If he has no criminal history, 5 years max. Unlike other child pornography charges and crimes, this was wholely consensual. And while obtained under false pretenses, compared to other incidents comparatively minor.

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

1. it's as unethical as a doctor dating his patient. It's wrong. Now if the kid was a graduate and hooked up that's a different story but as long as one is a student and the other a teacher, it's wrong.

2. He's not being charged with rape. Again if the kids sent any pics online that were compromising it's wrong because they thought they were conversing with another teen and not a creepy man.

3. I'm assuming that he's not being charged for taking pics of just feet. There must be some explicit contact in those photo's that makes it a porn charge. Any explicit pics taken of an a person under 18 is considered porn if in the possession of an adult. It also doesn't say if the offending pics are just of those teens or if maybe more was found during the search. I'm just saying, there has to be reason for the charges.

4.You may be right about the contact but I'm sure as this comes to light and the cops dig they are going to find he crossed the line somewhere. I doubt he stopped at online dating and porn.

5. Oh dear, I hope you don't believe that. That's just as silly as saying heterosexual men who look at porn are content with just looking at women. It's a sexual preference and part of their sex drive, they are not pacified by it anymore than anyone else would be.

6. I hope they didn't.

1. The students didn't know he was a teacher, so his being one is irrelevant.

2. Legally, it doesn't matter. Teen sharing such pics with other teens is still a child porn offense.

3. Nude pics in possession of an adult isn't illegal. Only illegal if 'explicit sexual conduct' or focus on genitals is in the pic. Simply being naked isn't illegal as the plethora of nudist camp type content attests. Just referenced a case about this yesterday where a defendant's possession of naked minor pictures wasn't itself illegal just because the guy got off on them. Making that the standard would have old Sears catalogs declared illegal for pictures of minors in their underwear. Can read it here,
173 F.3d 28

4. if additional evidence comes to light that's that. As it stands looking at just the linked article in the OP though, there was no charges involving actual contact.

5. Can provide links, or you could search the site for past posts and threads about it. One I remember was 'does pornography hurt chidlren who view it' or something like that. Ask NLT, bet he knows.
Legalizing pornography Lower sex crime rates Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily
The effects of Pornography An
(search/find down to "pornography & sex crime data"

The bottom line is this guy is a teacher and an adult, he's messing with kids and he shouldn't be. He certainly has no business being in a position of trust.

It won't even be 10 years before this guy's "civil rights" will be defended on the Left.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

1. He's a teacher so this is unethical.
2. The on line consensual part doesn't apply because the teens thought he was another teen and not a creepy adult who should know better.
3.He had child porn which is a serious offense.
4.He did make physical contact "Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint."
5. As for the 70 years, you're losing sight of the actual charge. The boys must have been 16 years old and must have been consensual because he's not being charged for anything involving contact with them. He's being charged with the child porn which did harm the children posing for the porn and yes In my opinion that's worth 70 years. If he is looking at kiddy porn then he's one step away from doing it himself. Society is reading the writing on the wall and saying lock him up before the perv makes the next move.
6. I know PC is all the rage but a teacher dressing as Liberace? And the school system didn't question this? They didn't find this a tad weird?

1. Teachers and students have perfectly positive sexual relationships for thousands of years before our modern rejection of such things. Ancient Greek teacher-student sexual relationships gave the world Plato, Socrates, and democracy.

2. Doesn't matter if you misrepresent yourself online. "Mistake as to age" isn't a valid defense for stat rape charges, so why allow such a defense for the victim? "I didn't know he was an adult, looked udnerage."

3. From at least the article, the child pornography in question was of teenagers. While strictly speaking child porn is anyone udner 18, if just their feet, or them naked but not lewd/erect, may well get thrown out not meeting the legal criteria of child porn.

4. The gifts were presumedly mailed, or the teens woulda known he wasn't the teen they thought he was. Thus no physical contact.

5. Studies and statistical analysis proves people into child pornography are LESS, not more ikely to actually abuse children since they "make due" with the non-offending fantasy instead of seeking the reality.

6. Dunno if the school knew about the Liberace stuff.

1. it's as unethical as a doctor dating his patient. It's wrong. Now if the kid was a graduate and hooked up that's a different story but as long as one is a student and the other a teacher, it's wrong.

2. He's not being charged with rape. Again if the kids sent any pics online that were compromising it's wrong because they thought they were conversing with another teen and not a creepy man.

3. I'm assuming that he's not being charged for taking pics of just feet. There must be some explicit contact in those photo's that makes it a porn charge. Any explicit pics taken of an a person under 18 is considered porn if in the possession of an adult. It also doesn't say if the offending pics are just of those teens or if maybe more was found during the search. I'm just saying, there has to be reason for the charges.

4.You may be right about the contact but I'm sure as this comes to light and the cops dig they are going to find he crossed the line somewhere. I doubt he stopped at online dating and porn.

5. Oh dear, I hope you don't believe that. That's just as silly as saying heterosexual men who look at porn are content with just looking at women. It's a sexual preference and part of their sex drive, they are not pacified by it anymore than anyone else would be.

6. I hope they didn't.

1. The students didn't know he was a teacher, so his being one is irrelevant.

2. Legally, it doesn't matter. Teen sharing such pics with other teens is still a child porn offense.

3. Nude pics in possession of an adult isn't illegal. Only illegal if 'explicit sexual conduct' or focus on genitals is in the pic. Simply being naked isn't illegal as the plethora of nudist camp type content attests. Just referenced a case about this yesterday where a defendant's possession of naked minor pictures wasn't itself illegal just because the guy got off on them. Making that the standard would have old Sears catalogs declared illegal for pictures of minors in their underwear. Can read it here,
173 F.3d 28

4. if additional evidence comes to light that's that. As it stands looking at just the linked article in the OP though, there was no charges involving actual contact.

5. Can provide links, or you could search the site for past posts and threads about it. One I remember was 'does pornography hurt chidlren who view it' or something like that. Ask NLT, bet he knows.
Legalizing pornography Lower sex crime rates Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark -- ScienceDaily
The effects of Pornography An
(search/find down to "pornography & sex crime data"

The bottom line is this guy is a teacher and an adult, he's messing with kids and he shouldn't be. He certainly has no business being in a position of trust.

It won't even be 10 years before this guy's "civil rights" will be defended on the Left.

One of these pervs tries this with one of our kids and there will no civil rights period, I'll take my chance with a jury

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Ammend the Constitution to read, "...inalienable right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and misrepresenting yourself online."

 

[Moonglow]

sick is what sick does

The liberal machine at work

-Geaux
-----------------

An award-winning teacher and debate coach at the prestigious Bronx High School of Science — who likes to dress up like Liberace — paid teenage boys to send him nude and other lurid photos of themselves, the feds charged on Friday.

Jonathan Cruz, 31, spilled his guts after he was busted at his pad at 60 East 9th Street in the East Village about 9:40 a.m., admitting he had showered at least five victims with hundreds of dollars of gift cards in exchange for fetish photos of their feet, crotch shots and also “thumbs-up” selfies, according to a criminal complaint.

Award-winning NYC teacher busted for kiddie porn New York Post

Sounds like a conservative to me...

 

[Moonglow]

Too many times a leading gay activist (Terrance Bean comes to mind, Harvey Milk also) gets caught messing with kids. This is no accident and speaks volumes

Happens with the heterosexuals also hunney....

 

[mdk]

This guy sounds like a real piece of work. If these accusations are true he deserves a lengthy jail sentence.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Or you could just not let your kids own smartphones. If they do, chances are they already have such images on them, or have seen them. Why a minor living at home needs their own phone and computer they can use without parental supervision elludes me.

 

[MarathonMike]

I don't get it, since when is dressing up as a Gay entertainer a crime? Where a Halloween Party? Graduation? During Class?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Or you could just not let your kids own smartphones. If they do, chances are they already have such images on them, or have seen them. Why a minor living at home needs their own phone and computer they can use without parental supervision elludes me.

Our children are always supervised and their phones have apps we use to monitor their activity