Posted on 05/11/2011 3:28:01 PM PDT by South40
The former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has been convicted of unlawful contact with a minor for exchanging explicit messages in an online chat room with someone he believed to be a 15-year-old girl.
Ritter, 49, exchanged messages with a detective posing as an underage girl and masturbated, even after the undercover officer stressed during the chat that he was a minor, Pennsylvania prosecutors said.
A jury found Ritter guilty of a total of six counts including indecent exposure and criminal attempt to corrupt a minor.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Yeah, I’ve got photos of his earthly consequences. I don’t even want to know about his current consequences.
Luke 17:2
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Mark 9:42
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.”
Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven”
Matthew 18:6
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Was this weapons inspector chatting about the sex pistols or the celibate rifles?
“to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl”....He is guilty of a thought crime. I detest when the charge is for what you are thinking only. This being said, he should never see the light of day again for trying to lure a 16 year old for perverted sex. Also the police ,the courts, parole boards and fathers should do their jobs and make life exceedingly difficult for predators.
Murtha is where he belongs, hopefully Ritter will soon be where he belongs and James Carville has been given the life sentence of being James Carville.
Come around my 14 year-old daughter with that attitude, and you’ll probably not like the consequences.
Attempt
Conspiracy
Solicitation
Criminal attempt is the act of trying to commit a crime.
Ritter was found guilty of 'criminal attempt to corrupt a minor' and that was far more than just a thought.
lol!
Its about time, they knew that when he was with the UN looking for WMD in Iraq. He didn’t find any weapons, but found something else that he could be blackmailed on...OOOpsy no weapons according to Ritter...
Sure did, it came out and then fell into the MSM’s black hole of democrat preverts...
“It’s not about ‘thought’ it’s about intent. His intentions were to break the law. If you don’t think we should prosecute someone for criminal intent then to be consistent you don’t think we should prosecute terrorists who intend to kill simply because they were caught before they did.”
I don’t think that what we are talking about here is “intent” to commit a crime but they have actually criminalized talking sexually explicitly with a 15 year old. Granted he has tried to “hook up” with them, and probably has but the times that he was caught were all in stings designed to catch guys that like teenaged girls. So like I said, I don’t think that chatting sexually explicitly on line with a teenager should be illegal.
It’s also interesting that as our society morally declines more and more we seem to be criminalizing immoral behavior more and more. Really kind of weird that things that were legal in the 1950’s are now illegal but people in the 1950’s were much more moral than they are now. I’m sure someone can come up with a reason for that but it makes no sense to me. We live in an anything goes sexually environment but make laws that make that kind of thing more and more illegal. Good example, in the 1950’s there was no such thing as spousal rape, now there is and it can cause all sorts of problems if your wife gets mad at you and decides to make an example of you. How do you prove it wasn’t consensual when it’s (or at least was) considered normal to have sex with your wife? Also the ages for statutory rape were much lower in the 1950’s than they are now (most states it’s anything under 18).
Too bad he isn’t a rock star like Steven Tyler, then he’d be fete’d as some sort of hero.
“Come around my 14 year-old daughter with that attitude, and you’ll probably not like the consequences.”
Sorry but I’m not interested, most women are nothing but trouble but teenagers even more so. That said, growing up and having been a teenager once myself I can tell you that most 14 year old daughters (especially today) are far less pure than the old man thinks they are. And more times than not it seems that it’s the daughter that’s all hot to bed the high status hunk/thug at school or in the neighborhood.
I remember at my high school (this was in the 1970’s) I knew a 16 year old girl that was doing a 32 year old guy and it was her that started it up. So like I said, these girls know what they are doing when they do stuff like this and are just as active a participant as the older guy/gal.
Now if we had lived in times past when something like this happened there was a shotgun and a minister involved after the fact which makes sense to me. Why pay to put some guy in jail when you can make the punishment fit the crime and give him a lifetime of misery while still having him be a productive member of society.
“Ritter was found guilty of ‘criminal attempt to corrupt a minor’ and that was far more than just a thought.”
I can understand something like attempted murder where the guy shot you or shot at you but didn’t quite finish you off. Even then most prosecutors don’t go after someone with those charges because it is almost impossible to prove what someone was thinking. Conspiracy and solicitation are again criminalizing the attempt or thought of doing a crime and not any actual crime. Also most of the people charged with this were caught in stings where really no actual crime would have been committed since it was a cop and not someone who would have actually done anything with the guy/gal.
So Ritter talked dirty to a cop on line, big deal and even if it had been a 15 year old I would say that if she was doing this on line that she was already pretty much corrupted before Ritter got to her so again no harm no foul.
If the CIA were to uncover a plot to blow up a bridge and did so by pretending to be a fellow terrorist, would those involved not be guilty simply because they didn't actually blow up the bridge? Using your logic, they would not.
Criminal attempt is a crime whether you agree with such laws or not and it most certainly should be.
After reading your pitiful comments, I simply had to log on (only the 3rd or 4th time I have done so) to reply to your idiocy. Let me spell it out for you, I have teenage daughters, and have witnessed a dear friend’s teenage daughter get pulled into the web of deceit by a freak such as Ritter. Yea, jail is gonna serve him well - and thank God he was caught.
As I am not an attorney, I couldn’t care less about trying to define the laws to meet your very odd criteria, ie. 13 is the cut off age, but as a parent, I damn straight can call bs on your mindless rantings of attempting to dodge the facts of what the dirtball Ritter has done. btw, do YOU know if he has ‘chatted’ with other under age girls, and not been caught? Do you honestly believe that some dude just chatting with an UNDERAGE girl is going to stop at just ‘chatting’?
You are so off base it’s almost funny. Thanks for letting me know by your own choice of words, just to who to steer clear of on this website.
“Criminal attempt is a crime whether you agree with such laws or not and it most certainly should be.”
Certainly true, unless I’m on the jury, then jury nullification comes into play. I won’t come out and say I’m not convicting him because I don’t agree with the law (as that would get me bounced off the jury) but will simply say, “I have a reasonable doubt”. Funny thing this is already a problem, I was on a jury pool that was selecting a jury for a prostitution solicitation case and the judge was very interested in quizzing the juror pool about who felt that prostitution should be legal and bouncing them off the jury, that tells me that this is happening more and more as people finally realize that half the laws on the books are total BS and unconstitutional.
It has become quite a problem in largely black areas as they are even less likely to convict a “brother” of actual, legitimate crimes now as they feel that the system is stacked against blacks. Especially if the victim is white/Asian (just look what happened in the Reginald Denny case, the white truck driver almost beaten to death during the LA riots, the preps walked because an all black jury wouldn’t convict even with overwhelming evidence).
I think that there is a breaking point in any society where there gets to be too many laws making too many everyday things against the law. People eventually will recognize that they are being scammed by the ruling elite and rebel against it in both passive (jury nullification), passive-aggressive (black market, shoot/shovel/shutup, looking the other way) and active (killing cops and authority figures). We are seeing all forms of that today as more and more people feel that the system is not fair and that they have nothing to lose. The rebellion is far more advanced in the black community but it will eventually spread to the other communities. I would rather see a return to some kind of sanity in our laws rather than this slow meltdown in civil order and disrespect for the law but I don’t see a lot of restraint in state/federal legislatures so I expect things to be worse.
Unless you believe that burning flags is "speech", or looting stores is "protesting", then exposing himself and masturbating for "her" via his webcam was not just "talking explicitly" with "her".
“Do you honestly believe that some dude just chatting with an UNDERAGE girl is going to stop at just ‘chatting’?”
He has gone further if you read the thread, he’s been caught a few times in stings where he thinks that he’s going to hooking up with some 14/15/16 year old. A 14/15/16 year old is not some small child but a teenager who knows full well that what they are doing is wrong (or maybe not depending on what kind of morals that they were raised on). And would be active participants in this activity.
It’s interesting that the age of consent from the middle-ages to around the mid-18th century was around 12 years old in most of Europe and America. It has only been in the 20th century that the laws were changed so that anyone under 18 years was incapable of giving consent (there are still a few states that have the age of consent at 15-16 and some countries in Europe that have it even lower).
Your friends daughter has other issues (possibly as a result if improper upbringing or corruption by our anything goes society) that cause her to desire to go into that kind of relationship. It’s not like she was kidnapped late at night by some stranger and raped, nope she went willingly with this guy so she is as responsible for what happened as the guy (or gal as there are plenty of older women trolling for young male/female lovers as well now days). But like I said, there really was no need for these kind of laws 50 years ago as young women had some semblance of restraint, now like your friends daughter, they seem to have none and putting people in prison for doing what everybody else is doing isn’t going to stop it.
I'm more for rule of law type myself. But that's just me.
You had better hope if someone victimizes you or your family someone who thinks like you do doesn't make it on the perp's jury. Imagine a hung jury or a not guilty verdict robbing you of justice due. You would have to accept it, of course, as you've taken the position that jury nullification is ok as long as those on the jury don't like the law.
Cheers.
“Unless you believe that burning flags is “speech”, or looting stores is “protesting”, then exposing himself and masturbating for “her” via his webcam was not just “talking explicitly” with “her”.”
Burning flags is speech (the supreme’s have said it is so it must be true, right?) however, it is stupid beyond belief to burn the flag of your own country and I would probably not convict anyone that beat the @#$%% out of him/her. Looting is NOT a thought crime, you’re stealing and should go to jail for that.
Filming yourself jerking off is offensive, degrading and immoral and in a normal society you would be a social outcast for life. We no longer live in a normal society so shame is no longer an effective tool in keeping people from doing this. But middle aged perverts are not the only ones doing this, I can’t count the number of news stories I’ve seen of kids “sexting” their naked body parts to boyfriends and other friends. These are those oh so innocent 14/15/16 year olds that you seem to think need protection. Unfortunately they are active participants in this not some innocent bystander (I would support jailing some guy that did this on the street in front of unwilling participants, minors or adults by the way).
What happened was consensual, Ritter chatted up what he thought was some teenager and “she” participated and lead him on. He didn’t just use malware or a virus to suddenly pop up a window showing him doing this (which was quite common until anti-virus programs got better). So is this really worth 7 years in the pokey? Why when both parties were willing participants?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.