Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 12:50 PM
Original message
Sex-sting trial beings for ex-UN weapons inspector
Source: Associated Press
A detective posing as an underage girl in an online chat room told a former U.N. weapons inspector he was exchanging sexually graphic messages with a 15-year-old, according to testimony Tuesday in the second online sex-sting case involving the former Marine captain.
Barrett Township police Detective Ryan Venneman testified that Iraq war critic Scott Ritter initiated a sexually explicit conversation with him in a Yahoo chat room in February 2009.
Venneman told the court that Ritter gave him his cellphone number and began masturbating on a video chat. Ritter briefly ended the chat after the detective said he was 15, but soon restarted the video chat and masturbated to completion, the detective testified.
In his opening statement, defense attorney Gary Coleman told the jury that Ritter is a "decorated military hero" who didn't believe he was chatting with an underage girl.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/04/12/2795006/sex-sting-...
harmonicon (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thought crimes are adorable...
no... wait... they're creepy. I don't think jerking off for some detective's sadistic pleasure should be a crime.
Judi Lynn (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Oh, I see. This proves his statements about the great lie being told about Iraq are not credible....
Brilliant, as usual, rightwingers.
If you can impugn the man, you automatically prove right-wing P.O.S.s are right to lie this country into destroying human beings in the most barbaric, heartless, amoral, unconscionable, disprespectful way possible, completely leveling their country, tearing up their water, food, electricity, shelter, hospitals, homes, making their world unliveable after you've slaughtered as many of them as you can.
Yeah, it's really worth it if you can somehow get the goods on the guy who blew the whistle on you earlier.
In right-wing thinking, you win the "moral" war. Oh, yeah. That's rich. Congratulations.
While you're thumbing your flabby chests over it, let us replay all your dirty little claims about "turning Iraq into a sheet of glass", and "letting God sort them out".
Wingers get so courageous whiling away their lives hoping for more destruction of the human beings around them.
karynnj (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-13-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
23. Of course it doesn't - it is entirely possible that he was both honest on Iraq and
solicits children. People aren't angels or devils. People are more complex.
I have just as much trouble will people saying he is innocent and framed - because he told the truth on Iraq in 2002. (ignoring that he said almost the opposite late 1990s after Clinton asked the inspectors to leave before he bombed Iraq.)
This needs to go to trial and if he is guilty of soliciting kids, he is a pervert - even if he is a pervert, who tried to prevent a war.
Cronus Protagonist (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. 7 years in prison for a chat?
Wow.
99th_Monkey (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. A "chat" with a fictitious non-existing person at that. ~nt
Cronus Protagonist (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yeah, and in reality, it WAS an adult he was chatting with....
So where was the crime? Is it a crime to have intent?
hack89 (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. If he was convinced it was a 15 year old girl watching him perform
graphic sex acts on the internet, then yes it is a crime.
DisgustipatedinCA (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. but why is this a crime?
There's no victim, just two consenting adults: one liar, and one apparent idiot who thinks he's talking to an underage girl. But since he's not, where's the crime? I'm not asking on Ritter's behalf--this seems to happen in stings all over the place, and I struggle to understand why this is a prosecutable offense.
Cronus Protagonist (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-13-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. He should demand to have his accuser in court
And vigorously cross-examine him as to why he was pretending to be a little girl online, and explore the clues he must have given that would cause someone to think that he was merely masquerading as a horny little girl.
And since there was no horny little girl involved, only adults, there is no wronged party.
Or are we going to ban the Catholic Schoolgirl outfits that sell at porn stores, the porn with women of precisely 18 years of age who perform sex acts with their pubic areas shaved so as to tittilate by posing as minors? Are we going to prosecute the husbands whose wives pose as little schoolgirls in the bedroom?
Here in WI, the disgusting leftist hippies tried to tie Justice Prosser to a pedophile priest because, as a DA, he didn't think he could get a conviction. They tried to destroy him and get an unqualified person on the state's highest court.And they support the pedophile wife-beater Mohammed.
Here, Ritter knew he was online with a 15 year old continued and he is still a hero to the DUmp.
Of course, they support Planned Parenthood and it's aiding and abetting of statutory rapists and child traffickers.
DisgustipatedinCA (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. but why is this a crime?
There's no victim, just two consenting adults...
Use that line next time you get busted for solicitation, DUmbass. :rotf: :rotf:
7 years for that...Hell, female school teachers get a lot less time and a lot of times no time for having actual sex with multiple underage boys.
DUmmie said...."23. Of course it doesn't - it is entirely possible that he was both honest on Iraq and solicits children. People aren't angels or devils. People are more complex."....I can hear it now, "I wasn't cheating...I was just being complex."
Has the DU? or heck, has the Democratic Party ever condemned NAMBLA?Years ago, at our old home, there was a post from a DUmmie blaming parents because its "partner," a convicted sexual predator, couldn't go certain places in public where children where likely to be.
Years ago, at our old home, there was a post from a DUmmie blaming parents because its "partner," a convicted sexual predator, couldn't go certain places in public where children where likely to be.
DisgustipatedinCA (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. but why is this a crime?
There's no victim, just two consenting adults: one liar, and one apparent idiot who thinks he's talking to an underage girl. But since he's not, where's the crime? I'm not asking on Ritter's behalf--this seems to happen in stings all over the place, and I struggle to understand why this is a prosecutable offense.
Good memory, sir!
I went and found it.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,11839.0.html
...
People here are awesome.
wow
I got nasty at the end of that thread.
Not that that is a bad thing, I'm just sayin'
Cronus Protagonist (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yeah, and in reality, it WAS an adult he was chatting with....
So where was the crime? Is it a crime to have intent?
OMG! that's all I can say about those links.
Uh huh.
I always thought this was a great example of decent and civilized people cutting through the crap of the primitives to get the real story.
frank, I'm stunned at how everything turned around, the eviction was because of 1 reason and turned into another.
Good memory, sir!Hi Frank
I went and found it.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,11839.0.html
It's actually from August 2008, and from here.
It's a very long thread, and starts off one way, and as decent and civilized people read between the lines and discern the truth, the thread evolves to its logical conclusion.
The comment to which you referred, is on page 4 of that thread.
It's a good "study" thread for those interested in seeing how members here finally arrive at the truth of something a primitive alleges.
People here are awesome.
Cronus Protagonist (1000+ posts) Tue Apr-12-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Yeah, and in reality, it WAS an adult he was chatting with....
So where was the crime? Is it a crime to have intent?
Well, considering you want harsher penalties for thought crimes I'd say the answer is yes.Yeah, there's that "reality-based" community again.
Hi Frank
I don't think I've seen this post before but I am wondering if it is the same couple. The post I am thinking of was from about the time I first joined (at about the height of the scamdle) our old home and I am sure it is long lost from there due to a server crash.
The tone of that post was much more angry and the poster referred to his partner as his partner rather than roommate. In spite of that, it seems like this could well be the same couple with the posting partner attempting to sound more sympathetic. "kgfnally" seems like it could have been from the old, old post I am thinking of. I remember reading the original post I was confused about whether the poster was a male or female, and I couldn't tell by the name.
I still don't understand DUmmy kfgnally's problem. If his boyfriend can't live at the new place because he's a child molester, why not just go to the nearest interstate rest stop and get another boyfriend? One homo is pretty much the same as the next.
Even if you took what those idiots said to the limit, it would still be an attempt under any analysis, and while attempts generally get less severe punishment than a fully-consummated crime, he can still get years and years to think about it at the iron bar inn for trying one.
OMG! that's all I can say about those links.We've watched you become part of our forum and one of the best sniffer-outters of liberal lunacy. You have truly graced our humble home with your contributions but speaking in strictly factual terms you arrived a little late to the dance.
We've watched you become part of our forum and one of the best sniffer-outters of liberal lunacy. You have truly graced our humble home with your contributions but speaking in strictly factual terms you arrived a little late to the dance.
As much incredulity as you have shown over the last few months by what you have discovered I have always watched your posts and thought, "Heh, she hasn't seen _________ yet."
You missed truly epic squalls such as Bush's re-election, the San Fran lib talk show host busted for kiddie porn and the "Save Tookie" moments. You also missed the schism that drove any news about Israel or gays into a separate dungeon. NOTE: when CC creates a child board it's to accentuate the topic and draw more attention to it. When Skinner creates separate forums for guns, LGBTWTFBBQ or Israel it is to compartmentalize the inevitable animosity among his tenants. Their depravity knows no depths.
DU is like happening upon a trainwreck full of naked clowns. The terror, the calamity, the head-scratching "how did this even happen in the first place?" compels one to look at the tangle of metal, flesh and hilarity. You came upon the wreckage after the fact. Would that you could have been standing beside us as as we watched the trains in mid-impact. Thunderous collision. Smoke. Debris. The tortured groaning of metal. Brightly colored, mishapen, naked bodies flying and tumbling every where.
It has been a glorious spectacle to behold.
That, SGT Bunny, was epic.
Bitchslap for being ponderous.
"DU is ****ed in the head."
There. Is that better? :-)
Bitchslap for being ponderous.
So.....you're the one who gives franksolich all his bitch-slaps.It was him! I seen him do it!
So.....you're the one who gives franksolich all his bitch-slaps.
Seventy-one, so far.
It's good to see that you're in a good mood, though, sir.
So.....you're the one who gives franksolich all his bitch-slaps.
So.....you're the one who gives franksolich all his bitch-slaps.
Not sure, but you probably picked up a few with that $35 electric bill.
Which reminds me. It seems to me that a year or two ago, franksolich was devastated that he was being ignored by three members. I just glanced at his profile, and he's now being ignored by only two. What's up with that? Was there a public relations campaign that I missed?
From being well on the way to TNO-type stats, there now seems to be an iggy list comeback underway.
Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter has been found guilty of unlawful contact with a minor and all but one lesser charge after a three-day trial in Monroe County Court on charges stemming from an online sex sting. He was acquitted on a criminal attempt charge.
I'm not... but it is better to try to be positive than dwell in the negitive. (in this case, being negative makes me feel positive. Not sure about the physics of it all, but hey, who give a *********** **** ********?)