Skip to comments.
Police Can't Confirm Ritter's Arrest (New Detail and Mug Photo)
WNYT-TV, Albany, NY ^
| January 20, 2003
| WNYT Staff
Posted on 01/20/2003 11:41:33 AM PST by Shermy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-296 next last
To: Nephi
101
posted on
01/20/2003 12:47:09 PM PST
by
Catspaw
To: Shermy
New Scott Ritter kids meal at Burger King: includes junior burger with extra special sauce, a drink, and a sex toy. Get it now for only $1.99 while supplies last.
If the guy is having a mid-life crisis, why doesn't he do what most guys do --- go buy a very fast red sportscar. You might get a ticket for speeding but you won't end up with a mug shot shown around the world.
102
posted on
01/20/2003 12:47:13 PM PST
by
doug from upland
(May the Clintons live their remaining days in orange jumpsuits)
To: Catspaw
Lets see Ritter on an interview show now. "Scott, what about your arrest on kiddie sex chat charges?"
103
posted on
01/20/2003 12:48:08 PM PST
by
finnman69
(Bush Cheney 2004)
To: Nephi
Not if it were aired on a news broadcast. They crop the little cards the photos come on.
This isn't his "official" mugshot - its the record the station kept from that newsday. It was a photo of the arrested William Ritter provided by police to the station.
Since the record is sealed, Smoking Gun can't get the whole schmoo.
104
posted on
01/20/2003 12:49:54 PM PST
by
SarahW
To: Catspaw
Is asking about the lack of ID in the alleged "mug shot" frowned upon here? Because if is, may I say that if I knew, I would not do that.
105
posted on
01/20/2003 12:50:53 PM PST
by
Nephi
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: Shermy
That's a mugshot?
So is this story real?
Let me show you how the UN does a close body inspection, little girl, LOL!
To: vbmoneyspender
ROFL!
107
posted on
01/20/2003 12:53:35 PM PST
by
Guillermo
(Sic Em')
Comment #108 Removed by Moderator
To: doug from upland
109
posted on
01/20/2003 12:54:54 PM PST
by
Timesink
(Poodle: The Other White Meat)
To: Grampa Dave
Ritter was caught on tape saying "Do you want to see pictures of my weapon of Mass, little girl!" Joke?
110
posted on
01/20/2003 12:55:16 PM PST
by
Guillermo
(Sic Em')
To: Victoria Delsoul
ping
To: The Great Satan
Many people have been brought down for arranging meetings with "underage" kids/cops. But I thought they usually wait until he shows up for the meeting to sting the guy. Maybe Ritter did and was arrested at the burger king. Because of the emphasis on protecting minors from pedophiles, I'm not sure this one gets expunged as a first time offense. But it is true that states have laws permitting the expungement of many first time offenses, if there is no second offense during a probationary period. I don't consider this gharge to be minor. A 41 year old man wanting to meet a 16 year old for sex is serious. My only question was why don't they make the girl 14 or 15, so as to be more clearly below the age of consent.
To: Nephi; doug from upland
This may be an insignifigant detail and I don't mean to dampen the celebration of the demise of Scott Ritter, but shouldn't the "mug shot" show some kind of ID? Police department, case number, etc? Well I said "alleged", but I suppose it's a small P.D. I'd bet they will be making some changes with this notoriety. And I was suspicious before, due to the anonymity and I suppose my prejudice that he didn't seem like such a guy. Baying at the moon, yes. But this was a surprise. Since this article in writing, and in the video, vouches for the mug shot, I posted it.
Doug, you say the TV is now reporting...right now? With the "mug shot" and such?
I feel sorry for him too in a way. I noticed in threads, before this weekend, many posters tending to think mental illness or similar strife was in play with Scott.
113
posted on
01/20/2003 12:57:09 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: Timesink
Thanks for the link.
114
posted on
01/20/2003 12:57:57 PM PST
by
doug from upland
(May the Clintons live their remaining days in orange jumpsuits)
To: doug from upland
In all of this, it is a shame what this might do to his family. There are real questions about government stings. As a society, we have a duty to protect children. They cannot make the same kinds of informed decisions as adults. Did Ritter hurt anyone? Well, if this was his first time and he was really talking to a police officer, he didn't hurt any individual. Would he have done harm if not caught in this sting? Perhaps.It is a shame what this might do to his family. And Ritter is responsible for that. His children didn't have a choice of father and the one they got seems to have a predilication for performing a sex act in front of a teenager, or at least asking to do so over the internet. Did he think the affect on his children when he decided to ask a 16 year old to watch him have sex with himself? Did he think what affect this would have on his wife (and did he think that by performing a sex act with himself, he would be faithful to her--it's most Clintonesque, wouldn't you say?)? And why does he get a pass if he's a first-time offender? Just because he said that he wasn't going to penetrate her? It wasn't for Clinton and it isn't for Ritter. Would he, at some point, graduated from just masturbating in front of a teenager to having actual penetration, with or without consent, with younger and younger children? We don't know. But one thing is for sure: Scott Ritter is responsible for his own behavior. And that behavior includes inticing a 16 year old to watch him masturbate.
115
posted on
01/20/2003 12:59:08 PM PST
by
Catspaw
To: BOBTHENAILER
Re the 50% of the UNers who are probably perverts, this news will have two impacts on them and the non perverts in the UN:
1. If they are a pervert, this will chill their anti American rhetoric.
2. If they aren't perverts and are part of the inspection team, they will now start to do their inspections with some real due diligence!
116
posted on
01/20/2003 1:00:13 PM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(Free Republic, the site supported by those who don't believe in free lunches! Are you a donor?)
To: seamole
Friday: Ritter, though, said he knows nothing about the arrest. "Sorry, you must have the wrong person," he said Friday when reached at his home in Delmar. Today: "Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirmed that he was arrested in the town of Colonie in June 2001."
Well, I was on several of the Ritter threads yesterday. Suffice to say I am not surprised that the Ritter line about "you must have the wrong person" turnd out to not be the truth.
Not surprised at all.
To: Williams
How did this 'case' get sealed? Color me skeptical still. Maybe entrapment?
To: swarthyguy
So is this story real? I had my doubts until this story. Or that the story was different than insinuated. But I'll keep an open mind. SarahW above suggests it is not the "mug shot" but a photo handed out by the police.
119
posted on
01/20/2003 1:02:10 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: Nephi
Our local TV stations do not show the police ID--or anything else--when they show a mug shot on TV. It's called "cropping." If you want the mug shot of Ritter with the police ID on it, call the Colonie Police Department, pay a small fee, receive the photo from them, scan it, then post it on Free Republic. Then you'll have your proof.
Of course, having his own lawyer acknowledge he was arrested in June, 2001, may aid you with confirmation that it was indeed William Scott Ritter who was arrested.
120
posted on
01/20/2003 1:02:27 PM PST
by
Catspaw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-296 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson