[SarahW]

The way the charges were handled support the obvious, he attempted to set up meetings for secual activity with what he thought were underaged girls (first time 14, second time 16.)

A finding on guilt was withheld in return for him meeting certain terms. He had to attend sex-offender coundeling with a psychiatrist, and he had to stay out of trouble for a period of time (~six months to a year).


That, and the TV footage showing his arrest at the burger king, show that he was serious about trying to set up meetings for sex with underaged girls, a crime.


If he complied with the court orders, in return the charges would be dropped and the court records sealed.

All sorts of misdemeanors are handled this way, including shoplifting and minor assaults, etc.

If you are under the impression that conviction, instead of remediation, was the goal of the court, and that no crime ocurred because the records were sealed, you are mistaken.
In fact, it probalby means he admitted the charges were true in exchange for lenient treatment and the chance for remediation.

[duckln]

A lot of 'ifs' on your part. How do you explain firing the assistant DA? I find it perposterous that it was because she didn't report to the DA.

By the way, if what you say, is the 'law' of the land, why won't you let it apply to Ritter , even if the 'demonizing' of Ritter is true, which I doubt?