Slashdot Mirror
"Accidental" Download Sending 22-Year-Old Man To Prison
An anonymous reader writes "Two years ago, Matthew White searched Limewire for porn. He was looking for 'College Girls Gone Wild,' but ended up downloading some images of child pornography. This was accidental, according to White, and he quickly deleted the images. A year later, the FBI showed up on his family's doorstep and asked to search the computer. After thorough sleuthing, the FBI found some images 'deep within the hard drive.' According to White, the investigators agreed that he himself could not have accessed the files anymore. Matthew now faces 20 years in jail for possession of child pornography. On advice from his lawyer, he intends to plead guilty so that he will 'hopefully' end up with 3.5 years in jail, 10 years probation and a registration as a sex offender. 'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative.'"
Compare Finnish demographics and culture to US demographics and subcultures. As the US became less demographically "European" the crime rate skyrocketed.
The US has many toxic people we should never let out of prison, has a vast thug culture, and has vast numbers of immigrants who are here for the money be it legal or illegal.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Why risk angering the bagmen of the lobbyists when you can
go after meek harmless nerds and still get enough face time
to get that promotion.
The system is broken, and we have pirates in DC and Wall Street.
We have corporations that laugh at the concept of "do no harm".
BPA is a endocrine disruptor and it is in most canned items.
Sodium Fluoride is a poison and it even says it is on the box
your toothpaste comes in, and it is the primary ingredient
in most types of rat poison.
It is not placed in 98% of the water in Europe, yet here its in the water.
This is not accidental, this is insidious, and so is what they
are doing to this 22 year old kid and even the FBI knows it.
The hand of evil has taken over our government
thru marionette strings to puppet politicians.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Europe has low crime? Where in the world are you pulling that from?
Britan is widely held to be the highest crime rate in the western world, and the rest of Europe isnt that much better.
You'd think they'd be busy with real crime.
The actual job description of any government employee is "create more unnecessary work for government employees". At anyone's expense. Once you understand this, a lot of other things start to make sense.
The last line in his post says it all.
No, you aren't "basically evil", but that doesn't mean that _I_ benefit from having _poor_ Latin Americans in MY country. I'd be fine with selling citizenships for a million dollars each, but barrios full of thugs do me no good.
I and many others don't need you and my country doesn't belong to you, so I advocate that you stay outside the US.
The lifeboat is full, and it makes very good sense for those who are in the lifeboat to resist those whose grasp at the rail will help sink it.
Your inability to make countries to the south of the US work has coerced Latin Americans to leave for the US. That isn't a favor, it's flight from failure. Your countries have not accomplished that which the US has, so demonstrate why I should want to be invaded by people who compete for vanishing resources. I want my country to serve me, as is my birthright.
I'm culturist BTW, not racist. Cultures are belief sets, and backward cultures don't improve modern countries. The US is sufficiently infested with backward religionists, and we don't need any more Latin American Catholics (or any other believers in religion of any sort.)
Fix your own countries or fuck off.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
That's not the way it works in the US, where guns are available.
Citation please. In the US crime has been shown to decrease in areas where gun laws permit carrying a weapon.
And that's just wrong. And the implication that she'd be safer with a gun is wrong too.
Studies in the US have shown that guns were (at the time of the study) used (fired or brandished) 2.5 million times a year, and people brandishing a gun were harmed 5% of the time. Of course, gun control advocates dispute these numbers, but even if the 2.5 million defensive uses are off a whole order of magnitude, (which the lowest number that even strident gun-control advocates admit) that would still mean that conservatively speaking, guns are used about 10,000 times per week to keep someone safe. Of course, we never hear about those stories on the news - just the sensational stories when someone does something wrong with a gun.
I think it has changed after the gang boom in the 70s, but before that, a cop was more likely to be killed by his own gun than all the other guns in the world combined.
The 70s, you say? Maybe? You think? Anything from the last 10 or 15 years?
FWIW, this is easily explained by the following factors: a) when a cop is dealing with a suspect, often the closest gun is the officer's gun, ergo why they would be the suspect's weapon of choice if he can grab it, and b) most guns aren't a threat to law enforcement because they are owned by law-abiding people. If anything, your vague statistic bolsters the view that private gun ownership is generally very safe.
Before you go around telling cops they would be better off without their guns, do some research. I have a cousin who is a cop, and is alive today because he had a gun and was able to defend himself while being attacked. Most cops are damn glad to have a sidearm.
The gun nuts say [...]
Okay, your ad hominem attack indicates you're obviously not approaching this in a balanced, free-thinking, open-minded manner.
As for your wife, she could easily defeat an attacker.
And you say this because you know my wife, and what she is capable of?
A screaming woman will actually stop most attackers,
Have you seen many assaults? From what I've seen, screaming just gives the attacker incentive to shut her up.
when pointing a gun at someone who has a gun is more likely to get them shot.
Whoa there, you're saying that screaming will stop an an attacker armed with a gun, but wielding a gun defensively won't? Please see the defensive gun figures I mentioned above. Also, it is no clear if the attacker in the 'screamer" scenario was armed, vs. the second scenario. Please be consistent in your hypothetical scenarios. For the sake of clarity, with 1 assailant and 1 victim, we have 4 possible combinations:
A) Unarmed attacker, unarmed victim
B) Armed attacker, unarmed victim
C) Unarmed attacker, armed victim
D) Armed attacker, armed victim
Please specify which you had in mind in the above statements.
So, which do you recommend?
I recommend vigorous self-defense. That doesn't mean killing someone. Greater situational awareness can help avoid danger. Verbal skills and body language can diffuse some situations. Unarmed self defense can be quite effective, depending on the situation and the people involved. Brandishing or firing a weapon is a last resort.
The one that most likely results in a dead person, rather than two uninjured people.
What? How many uninjured people? 2? We are talking about assault here, right? Usually that results in at least 1 injured person out of 2. If injury or death is going to result from an assault, I'd prefer it was
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
[pedantic_joke]
Fire arms would be effective for giving him a burning bear hug. Firearms, on the other hand, would allow a ranged defense.
[/pedantic_joke]
Yes, a knife would be quite effective, but it requires close combat, in which she takes the chance that her attacker could disarm her and use it against her. Guns are effective at a distance, so are useful in not just defending oneself, but also in escaping, since they allow you to create, maintain, and increase distance between you and your attacker.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Arming all the criminals won't make the women safer, no matter how much gun-nut kool-aid you drink.
is awful. You have deliberately twisted what I wrote and put words in my mouth. I never said to arm the criminals, did I? Of course not. My entire point was that law-abiding people benefit from owning guns. The criminals who want guns already have ways of getting them. Prohibition is not very effective, but it does ensure the involvement of criminal elements in whatever you try to restrict.
You can use all the invective you like to describe those whose views are different than your own, but you still haven't presented a cogent argument why the right of self-defense should not include owning a gun, and why law-abiding people shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
We're talking about drunken husbands beating on their wives, and now you want to argue about whether it would be better if they had FIREARMS? Is this really what our society has come to?
[sarcasm] So just to clarify, you support keeping women defenseless? [/sarcasm]
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
I don't understand either. I imagine some can't get over their emotional attachment, or have self esteem issues which keep them in abusive relationships. Others may fear they can't hold their family together if they leave, or fear more violent reprisals if they leave or attempt to leave. Thankfully, those are things I can't speak about from experience.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
No hypocrisy intended; I was writing a long post late at night with constant interruptions. It was left out by mistake, not ignorance.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp
Above is a good place to start. They make reference to a number of other resources that make for further reading, ranging from detailed statistical analyses, to historical references and news articles.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
If you would prefer being snarky over maybe looking at things from more than one point of view, that is your choice. It never hurts to learn more about something.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Great, a propaganda piece
I suppose that if you reject anything you disagree with as propaganda, you'll never feel compelled to reconsider your position.
From the reference above:
“Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year.
Surely you don't think Clinton was pro-gun, do you? Yet even his numbers document the vast number of defensive gun uses made by law-abiding people every year, and these numbers agree with what the gun rights supporters are saying.
According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.
Original source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n1_86/ai_n28663294/ This is a well-written paper published in a well-known and respected law enforcement publication. Unfortunately, I believe this copy omits the graphical data, but I'm sure that is simply a google search away.
No one is saying guns are responsible for behavior. I'm saying they are responsible for the results.
That is self-contradictory. Behavior dictates results.
However, a criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a criminal without. And that is the one point that it seems no gun-nut will ever say "yes, I agree with that" to.
Actually, every gun advocate I know agrees with that statement. However, they also go on to say that an armed target is less likely to become a victim, which is a demonstrated and documented truth. You seem to have a hard time accepting that.
Sorry, no respect for someone that makes up things in order to bash.
Right back at you. Oh, and I haven't made up a single thing ... unlike you.
Criminologist [sic] John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.
John Lott, a PhD in Economics, (nitpick: I'm not aware whether he is a criminologist, as the article indicates) wrote a few excellent books on guns and crime. Before you engage further in a gun control discussion, you should read them. IIRC, he essentially set out to see what economic impact guns had, approached it from a purely statistical point of view, and came up with some rather dramatic findings. Gun rights opponents don't like his findings, of course, but a majority of his academic peers support his work. Additionally, his critics have to admit that the very least, his work does prove that more permissive gun laws do not increase crime
"We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared."
(Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis", 55 Stanford Law Review 101 (2003))
FWIW, Ayres and Donohue are a couple of Lott's more vocal adversaries.
(yes, people walked around downtown Dallas carrying rifles and shotguns in organized posses about the time CCW was passed, but all the nutters ignore any effe
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.