GirlChat #728255

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

And they call ME insane...

Posted by Gimwinkle on Saturday, February 09 2019 at 11:47:23PM

Police in London, Ontario say the arrest of a man in relation to the historical sexual assault of his six-month-old daughter illustrates the link between viewing child pornography and child sexual abuse.

So, "... illustrates the link..." means just looking at a car equals actually driving it? Well... satirically speaking... bull snot. (I didn't really want to offend anyone by saying "bullshit".) The problem with this is with most of the people in the Western World who conclude just that. If you even look at it, it means you did it. And thus, justice is blind? Perhaps. Just like "blind" equals "stupid".

Authorities say they were contacted by Toronto police about a man whose daughter had allegedly been sexually assaulted as a baby.

There is the very important but normally overlooked word in that sentence. "Allegedly" means "someone thinks this" yet most of the people in the Western World skip this word. Therefore they read, is guilty as hell.

"Nooo...." they say. "Yesss...", I say. They say, "He will get a fair..." I say, "Nooo..." Consider, if this guy were to stand on the street corner today, before he even GETS a trial, do you think people will walk up to him and wish him well? Just remember: legally right now, he is innocent. Just as innocent at the next door neighbor who did nothing. I mean, for all we know... I said, "KNOW"... it could have been the next door neighbor. But you didn't think that, did you?

Officers searched a London home and seized a tablet with multiple images of suspected child pornography.

They found multiple images. Okay. But they only "suspect" pornography? Didn't they look? I mean, it either is or it isn't. How can you suspect something if you didn't look. And, if you didn't look, how can you allege it? On the other hand, if you did look and see pornography, how can you simply suspect it? Would it not be safe to say, "Look! I see IT. Therefore, it IS!" Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say, "seized a tablet with multiple images they are guessing might be child pornography." (And remember, suspecting (guessing) that you have snot on your fingers is proof enough that you do have snot there. Please don't pick your nose.)

A 38-year-old man faces numerous charges, including sexual assault, sexual exploitation and sexual interference, along with possessing, accessing and importing or selling child porn.

There is so much wrong with that sentence.

First, is the single act of "doing the crime" just one time therefore eligible for multiple legal charges? For example, does being guilty of eating an apple also include peeling it, slicing it, crunching it in your mouth, and totally destroying it? Eating, peeling, slicing, crunching and finally destroying it is a total of 5 charges for just one (hypothetical) crime of eating an apple.

Second, "possessing" something illegal is understandable. But is it also illegal to just look at it? In this day and age, how many of us clicked on a link to a car sales website only to be flashed a website advertising car tire sales? Oops, just looking at car tires are just as bad as buying a car. I mean, for crying out loud, there is one movie download website I frequent that, as soon as I click on a movie I want to consider downloading, I am immediately looking at not one, but two different (unwanted) websites advertising naked women grabbing 2 foot long penises. So I have a quick key macro that, just as instantly, closes two windows. All I see are two quick flickers to my screen then the movie website. Yet, according to my web browser's history, I visited both of those websites. That means that, without my consent, I "accessed" something on the internet... twice. My macro handles it, but the "law" does not.

The man has not been identified to protect the identity of the victim.

As it should be. But, what if the man had committed burglary instead of a sex crime. Would they have published the man's name? Of course. Therefore, he is guilty and it is okay to blast his name all across the news media. "John Doe charged with tax evasion!" Yup; guilty as hell. Oh, wait... he has a tax exempt number? Uh... never mind.

You have to be very careful about what you are being told. What are you being told? Why are you being told? Just because you are being told something, does that mean that it is true? Is there a difference between a (factual) parking lot fender bender and a violent traffic smash? If I kiss a little girl's lips, does my lips impact against hers? Is it better to live at 123 Golden Oaks Crescent or at 123 Thirty-fifth Street?

The main difference between a battery charge and an assault charge is the actual presence of harm and the threat of harm. Someone can only be charged with battery if they have caused real physical harm to someone, while a person can be charged with assault if the mere threat of harm is present. If I kiss a little girl, how can this be aggravated sexual battery or aggravated sexual assault? The key word here is "harm".

Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?