Military Officer charged with child pornography

[kincanucks]

March the guilty b*stard in!

You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.

If I were a mod on this board, I'd look very carefully - very carefully   - at posts presuming the guilt of a defendant before conviction, if only as a CYA issue. Among other things, the officers who will end up trying this wretch in June are drawn from the pool of potential readers of this board.

There are a couple of issues here that nobody here wants to get entangled with (or if they do, I'll stand back and watch) - one is defamation, the other is the potential contamination of a jury pool.

CP's story is carefully worded for a reason.

I do think you should get an re-education (just read somewhere you were once in the military, for shame) in the military justice system before you go off spouting potential contamination of the jury pool.   We don't use juries in the military.

 

[Kunu]

Just curious as to what, legally, constitutes Child Porn?

Admittedly, this isn't concrete, but from reading descriptions of child porn in the news whenever a pedophile is arrested/convicted/etc., I'm pretty sure that in order for something to be considered child porn, it must involve some rather disgusting sexual exploitation of children.   For this reason, pictures of babies splashing around in the bathtub aren't considered child porn.   Although, if someone besides the baby's parents owns them, then things might be different.  

 

[Big Foot]

March the guilty b*stard in!
You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.

pcain, look at yourself before looking at others. Thanks for singling me out of a group of people who are sharing a similar view. If you look now, I edited my post to clarify my stance on this issue so before you go calling me a fascist looking to have no pressumption of innocence, try to look at the context of the issue. Would you as a parent want your children being exploited by child pornographers? Didn't think so. I'm certain you would want swift justice. I am neither a parent, nor do I have any experience with issues like this, however don't start spouting crap about how impartial I am. Look at your own bit about defamation. By saying what you did, how do you know you haven't impacted my career because a large number of my peers are members on this site? Officers are held to a higher standard, and even an accusation in a matter like this tarnishes officers on a whole.

 

[pcain]

We don't use juries in the military.

You're playing with semantics: the point, as I said,  is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board. As a private citizen, I'd prefer that the people who are making a decision about guilt v. innocence aren't exposed to morbid speculation about what the penalty should be after conviction in the period before the trial actually begins.

Big Foot: full points to you for standing up and admitting and correcting a mistake, which is far more important AFAIC than making it in the first place: I'm sure you'll make an excellent officer. As for the rest of it, I think you need to come back and take a careful look at your post - you come close to arguing that some crimes are so serious that we shouldn't be disciplined in the effort to figure out whether people accused of them actually committed them. This is how Guy-Paul Morin got nailed: 'Look at that awful crime - and that evil b*stard!'

 

[kincanucks]

is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board.

BS and give it a rest.

 

[camochick]

You're playing with semantics: the point, as I said,   is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board. As a private citizen, I'd prefer that the people who are making a decision about guilt v. innocence aren't exposed to morbid speculation about what the penalty should be after conviction in the period before the trial actually begins.

Big Foot: full points to you for standing up and admitting and correcting a mistake, which is far more important AFAIC than making it in the first place: I'm sure you'll make an excellent officer. As for the rest of it, I think you need to come back and take a careful look at your post - you come close to arguing that some crimes are so serious that we shouldn't be disciplined in the effort to figure out whether people accused of them actually committed them. This is how Guy-Paul Morin got nailed: 'Look at that awful crime - and that evil b*stard!'

I doubt very much that anyone working on this case, or who will be involved in the trial is going to listen to the rantings of a few posters on a msg board. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty but people also have the right to express an opinion. I dont see how this site is going to affect this persons trial in any way.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Have to agree with you Camochick.

If being "exposed to morbid comments on army.ca" is going to derail the case and fill the juries heads with horrible things thus ruining the trial, well come on. Are these people adults or children. If they are so brainwashed as to let these kinda comments influence them, well they shouldn't be allowed in a court room.

 

[TCBF]

"people also have the right to express an opinion. I dont see how this site is going to affect this persons trial in any way."

Unless, of course, we start stocking courts-martial from the Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps. ;D

After the last one in Wainwright, we might as well be.

Tom