Man reports CP in music download and is banned from seeing his own daughter alone - Polidicks

The law system is broken. Utterly broken. Zeriga's post only depresses me further about the matter. I'm baffled, confused, and upset at this whole damn situation.

Yeah it's the same with corpses you call the police and you're the number one suspect.

That's like if I witnessed a murder, reported it to the police, and instead of doing what they should've done in the first place such as arresting the murderer, arresting me for witnessing it, for trying to help the community by preventing any future damage from being done.

I personally think we are getting WAY to twitchy on even the possible threat of Pedophillia.

stop right there criminal SCUM you've upheld the law don't do it again >:|

[QUOTE=Zoran;35048159]That's like if I witnessed a murder, reported it to the police, and instead of doing what they should've done in the first place such as arresting the murderer, arresting me for witnessing it, for trying to help the community by preventing any future damage from being done.[/QUOTE] Funny or not, that can happen and I am sure has already. You can get detained and be put on suspect list if you report a crime.

[QUOTE=Zoran;35048159]That's like if I witnessed a murder, reported it to the police, and instead of doing what they should've done in the first place such as arresting the murderer, arresting me for witnessing it, for trying to help the community by preventing any future damage from being done.[/QUOTE] Well actually it makes a little sense. If you witnessed a murder, that means you at least were present, and thus they have to at least consider the possibility. Thus you are a suspect, but surely nothing should come out of that once they start investigating in detail. In this case, a crime was actually technically comitted. It is illegal to possess child pornography, so he comitted a crime by possessing it. Of course, it was allegedly accidental, and that should definitely mean [I]something[/I], right? But on the other hand, people don't go completely free for other crimes, just because they did it accidentally, right? So either the law that says you can't possess that stuff is wrong, or people who accidentaly possess it should be punished as well. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that some people are free to commit the crime, just because they didn't actually intend to do it. That'd be giving special treatment to some people, while punishing others for the same thing. Hm? [editline]8th March 2012[/editline] I also like how apperantly not even the police gives a shit that he was downloading music. If he found child pornography where he expected to find music, I doubt he was downloading said music in any legal manner...

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;35050239]Well actually it makes a little sense. If you witnessed a murder, that means you at least were present, and thus they have to at least consider the possibility. Thus you are a suspect, but surely nothing should come out of that once they start investigating in detail. In this case, a crime was actually technically comitted. It is illegal to possess child pornography, so he comitted a crime by possessing it. Of course, it was allegedly accidental, and that should definitely mean [I]something[/I], right? But on the other hand, people don't go completely free for other crimes, just because they did it accidentally, right? So either the law that says you can't possess that stuff is wrong, or people who accidentaly possess it should be punished as well. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that some people are free to commit the crime, just because they didn't actually intend to do it. That'd be giving special treatment to some people, while punishing others for the same thing. Hm? [editline]8th March 2012[/editline] I also like how apperantly not even the police gives a shit that he was downloading music. If he found child pornography where he expected to find music, I doubt he was downloading said music in any legal manner...[/QUOTE] Umm, there's a difference between accidently downloading it and being a pervert downloading it to use it. You're saying they'd be giving special treatment to some people, why punishing others for the same thing? IT'S NOT THE FUCKING SAME THING WHEN YOU ACCIDENTLY DOWNLOAD IT AND BEING A PERVERT DOWNLOADING IT.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;35050239] I also like how apperantly not even the police gives a shit that he was downloading music. If he found child pornography where he expected to find music, I doubt he was downloading said music in any legal manner...[/QUOTE]Because music piracy is a joke and police won't bother unless they are ordered by higher ups who are pressured by record companies.

[QUOTE=:v:;35050336]Umm, there's a difference between accidently downloading it and being a pervert downloading it to use it. You're saying they'd be giving special treatment to some people, why punishing others for the same thing? IT'S NOT THE FUCKING SAME THING WHEN YOU ACCIDENTLY DOWNLOAD IT AND BEING A PERVERT DOWNLOADING IT.[/QUOTE] Well yeah it is in any practical sense. Either someone downloading CP does harm or it doesn't, and whether or not the person downloading is actually a pedophile isn't going to change that.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;35050239] So either the law that says you can't possess that stuff is wrong, or people who accidentaly possess it should be punished as well. Otherwise, you'd be arguing that some people are free to commit the crime, just because they didn't actually intend to do it. That'd be giving special treatment to some people, while punishing others for the same thing. Hm?[/QUOTE] Do you even think before you post? Going by this logic anyone who accidentally kills someone should be given the same sentence as a murderer. Imagine if someone accidentally sent you meth in the mail and the police found out. I hope you like being sent to prison for shit you had no part in.

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35051651]Do you even think before you post? Going by this logic anyone who accidentally kills someone should be given the same sentence as a murderer.[/QUOTE] I think what I thought I was saying, was what ThisGuy0 just said. Indeed, I realize that there's a difference between accidentally comitting a crime and doing it intentionally. I did include that in my other post, and I never said they should have the [I]same sentence.[/I] Either way, yeah, what I said about accidentally comitting crimes was wrong. What I actually thought is that, there's no difference in the [I]consequences[/I] whether you do it intentionally or not. That means this guy must have caused the same amount of 'damage' that a pedophile would have. I contend that neither of those actually cause any damage, and thus there shouldn't be a punishment for either of them. It seems like a bad time and place to start arguing this, but it is related because having those laws that tells you what kind of images you can view in the first place is what opens the way for these kinds of silly situations. People get arrested for pictures of themselves, innocent pictures, pictures where nobody can really tell whether it is illegal or not, in some cases drawn pictures, and then cases like these, where someone that has nothing to do with any of it gets hurt by the laws. Imagine if it had been footage of a murder. He would be able to report the video [I](especially if he recognized something)[/I], give it to the police and that would help them find out who did it. He could do this without even getting close to comitting a crime, because viewing videos of people getting murdered is not illegal, so there's no way he could possibly be punished no matter what his intentions were when he optained the video. The same can't be said for child pornography; you would have an incentive to keep your mouth shut, even if you recognized people in it. Also this blog: [url]http://cpexplosion.wordpress.com/[/url] [quote=A Tale of Two Images]What would you feel if I told you I was going to show you an image of a naked, crying, terrified, 9-year-old girl, who’d just had something horrible done to her? What would you feel if I told you I was going to show you an image of a naked, healthy, 9-year-old boy, who appears to be masturbating? The first image I can show you. It’s at [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Th%E1%BB%8B_Kim_Ph%C3%BAc]Wikipedia[/URL], it won a Pulitzer Prize, it was the World Press Photo of the Year in 1972.[/QUOTE] My point is that laws against this are not only hypocritical, but cases like these show us that they are also detrimental.

I bet alot of parents have their kids naked in baths and at beach in their photos, it's called naturalism. Even my dad, has a photo of me pantless at the beach, doesn't mean he's a pedo, better call the police just in case. :tinfoil: Only pedo if touched creepily.

Further evidence to make people believe calling the police is a bad idea. Not only will they be spectacularly unhelpful, but they'll take the first excuse to haul YOUR ass to jail instead.