Locals charged with child porn

[Swoop]

...omisimaw - let's maybe try and put things in a perspective that will clarify where a lot of the posters here are viewing this, and another very similar matter from...I don't know if you have kids, but if you do/did, and they were in the company of this, or any other individual for any length of time, and you found out after that this person was up on charges related to child pronography - upon learning that the RCMP, Crown, and various other related agencies were aware of this situation all along - would you not in the least bit feel that you would have wished you'd have known that prior to your child being placed in an environment shared with this person?...if you can honestly say that you wouldn't in the least bit be concerned, or more importantly have the prior knowledge of the charges this person was facing and still be perfectly comfortable with that - all the while giving them 100% benefit of the doubt - if you truly could see that with no slant to your judgement, then you should be nominated for sainthood - as you are truly above each and every one of the people on these forums, and the public in general...otherwise, you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing...

[MAPearce]

I agree .... An "in your face " post at it's best !!

G1 Swoop !

[LANDM]

...omisimaw - let's maybe try and put things in a perspective that will clarify where a lot of the posters here are viewing this, and another very similar matter from...I don't know if you have kids, but if you do/did, and they were in the company of this, or any other individual for any length of time, and you found out after that this person was up on charges related to child pronography - upon learning that the RCMP, Crown, and various other related agencies were aware of this situation all along - would you not in the least bit feel that you would have wished you'd have known that prior to your child being placed in an environment shared with this person?...if you can honestly say that you wouldn't in the least bit be concerned, or more importantly have the prior knowledge of the charges this person was facing and still be perfectly comfortable with that - all the while giving them 100% benefit of the doubt - if you truly could see that with no slant to your judgement, then you should be nominated for sainthood - as you are truly above each and every one of the people on these forums, and the public in general...otherwise, you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing...

Or, rather than sainthood, that person would be considered a damn fool and shouldn't be a parent, given the situation you describe.

[Baba O'Riley]

Truly great post, Swoop!

should we not be able to know this until after the court case and conviction - until then any alleged criminal, be it pedophile, murderer, rapist etc is allowed to carry on with immunity?..

Naming charged individuals pre-trial may also give other victims the courage to come forward and add further evidence to strengthen the case... Especially when it involves a well known or respected member of the community.

[omisimaw]

...sorry, but in the court of public opinion, things don't work that way -

Castanet forum? court of public opinion.... is that what you think it is


Besides the court of public opinion is no court at all... just a bunch of fools running off at the mouth

[omisimaw]

Yes I have children, yes I would let them in the accused company if they were used to being in his company...

Until I know more, he is innocent

IF I knew him and IF I had children he would already be involved in their lives.

Who am I to think he is not a person to be trusted?


Oh right .... there are "charges" and "equipment" seized.....

No details, no evidence produce to make me concerned ...


and I do have trust in the authorities and they know the man the accused has a life in the community and if THEY thought there were a concern

there would not just be equipment seized but he would be as well

AND'

YOU would be warned to take appropriate action around your children


IN THIS CASE


THAT is not what has happened.......

SO the authorities are not concerned about public safety.....


AT THIS STAGE


Still want to call the man guilty?????? Still want to put him down??? Still want to paint him with the untouchable brush???

and so I ask who is sicker

[WeatherWoman]

The fact that he was caught in a police sting and you would let your children hang out with said person makes me worry for your children's safety.

Do you know the impact sexual abuse makes on a child? I do and IMO it's not worth the risk. Even if the person was my best friend my children's safety comes first.

[Bejvas]

The fact that he was caught in a police sting and you would let your children hang out with said person makes me worry for your children's safety.

Do you know the impact sexual abuse makes on a child? I do and IMO it's not worth the risk. Even if the person was my best friend my children's safety comes first.

I agree, the children' safety is very concerning, and should come first. I can't imagine letting children around him even before a court decision, the evidence found of child porn is enough for me to think that the risk is too big, and if the children have been in contact with him previous to the charges, I would take them to be evaluated by a professional counselor. Even if nothing happen, the impact of what other children might tell them on school if knowing they had contact or friendship with an individual that has been all over the media on the implication of child porn making and distributing, would be devastating for these children.

[Bejvas]

Truly great post, Swoop!


Naming charged individuals pre-trial may also give other victims the courage to come forward and add further evidence to strengthen the case... Especially when it involves a well known or respected member of the community.

Very good point, hopefully if there were other witnesses, they will come forward in time.

[Swoop]

Swoop wrote:

...sorry, but in the court of public opinion, things don't work that way -

Castanet forum? court of public opinion.... is that what you think it is


Besides the court of public opinion is no court at all... just a bunch of fools running off at the mouth

...really - name calling is your best reply to legitimate questions?... *removed*

[Swoop]

Yes I have children, yes I would let them in the accused company if they were used to being in his company...

Until I know more, he is innocent

IF I knew him and IF I had children he would already be involved in their lives.

Who am I to think he is not a person to be trusted?


Oh right .... there are "charges" and "equipment" seized.....

No details, no evidence produce to make me concerned ...


and I do have trust in the authorities and they know the man the accused has a life in the community and if THEY thought there were a concern

there would not just be equipment seized but he would be as well

AND'

YOU would be warned to take appropriate action around your children


IN THIS CASE


THAT is not what has happened.......

SO the authorities are not concerned about public safety.....


AT THIS STAGE


Still want to call the man guilty?????? Still want to put him down??? Still want to paint him with the untouchable brush???

and so I ask who is sicker

...so, just to clarify - you believe someone being charged with child pornography, and having equipment seized relating to these charges, that resulted from a sting operation from a police investigation, would not cause you any concerns that would result in your children continuing to be exposed to this person...and then you ask "who's sicker"??...I take it that would be a most rhetorical question...btw, I withdraw the "nominated for sainthood" remark...clearly not applicable...

[LANDM]

Yes I have children, yes I would let them in the accused company if they were used to being in his company...

Until I know more, he is innocent

IF I knew him and IF I had children he would already be involved in their lives.

Who am I to think he is not a person to be trusted?


Oh right .... there are "charges" and "equipment" seized.....

No details, no evidence produce to make me concerned ...


and I do have trust in the authorities and they know the man the accused has a life in the community and if THEY thought there were a concern

there would not just be equipment seized but he would be as well

AND'

YOU would be warned to take appropriate action around your children


IN THIS CASE


THAT is not what has happened.......

SO the authorities are not concerned about public safety.....


AT THIS STAGE


Still want to call the man guilty?????? Still want to put him down??? Still want to paint him with the untouchable brush???

and so I ask who is sicker

This has nothing to do with legal guilt and presumption of innocence by a judge. The FACT that You would put YOUR kids in the company of Someone as You described is Beyond ODD.
IEHO
I assume if I use your use of capitalization, it may mean more to you.

[kompili]

I guess the courts will find him innocent or guilty

[grammafreddy]

^^ oh, good grief ^^

[LANDM]

A related question to Omisaw. What are your thoughts on people who have "paid their debt to society"?
Do you believe that, once a person who has been found guilty and convicted of a crime and done their time in prison, they are then back to a point that they would have been prior to the finding of guilt?

Since you would have no problem with having your children around someone charged with child-sex related crimes prior to them being found guilty in a court of law, would you have the same absence of concern once someone was released from prison after fulfilling their sentenced time?