Ritter Charged with playing with his Wee Willie Winky

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

his other Wee Willie Winky is oddly silent:

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.

Remind me again why you think the Catholic church, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard or Jim Bakker lacks credibility on moral issues.

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.

Ritter himself claims he's being framed; that's his entire defense.

It shows he lies for self-serving purposes.

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?

Yes, you ****ing pedo-apologist.

And he also arranged dates. He was going to meet "his date" at Burger King. No kids meal for her though, she's a big girl now.

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?

somebody stab this ****er in the face with a chainsaw

Who cares if Ritter has or will get a real child and rape her, so long as the anti-Bush narrative endures. Pedos for piece peace!

I'm not posting anymore, I need this computer too much.

Your ****ing link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4810971

[Duke Nukum]

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.

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.

[franksolich]

Okay, time for this again, from January 2010:

"wherefore art thou, W.R. Pitt?"

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,39228.0/

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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.

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.

And they support the pedophile wife-beater Mohammed.

[diesel driver]

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.   

[JohnnyReb]

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."

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Use that line next time you get busted for solicitation, DUmbass.   

But the undercover detective wanted it. She said she did!

I'm amazed they really wont scan their logic banks any deeper than that.

How many articles have been in the news about some guy wanting to off his nettlesome wife. He asks a friend to do it and the friend goes to the cops and consents to be part of a sting.

What will the DUmbass response be? "No one was killed. Are you gonna prosecute two consenting people just for having a conversation?"

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."

Bill got complex all over her nice new blue dress.

[Ballygrl]

Has the DU? or heck, has the Democratic Party ever condemned NAMBLA?

[Duke Nukum]

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.

[franksolich]

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.

Good memory, sir!

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.

[Texacon]

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.

 
Please excuse my language.

You sorry piece of ****ing shit!  How about this faggot;

I call you up pretending to be the person who can get you that disability claim from the government you've been trying to get for the last 3 years.  You'll be slobbering all over yourself trying to figure out where to meet me so you can sign your name.

When you show up you find out I'm some big ol' redneck son of a bitch who just wants to whup your ass .... and DOES SO with gusto!

You gonna take me to court you ****ing pansy?  If so ... for what?  The ass whuping or the fact that you THOUGHT I was someone else?

This protecting/covering for these pedophiles really, REALLY pisses me off and I would LOVE to meet one of these sorry ****ers in person.

KC

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

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'

[franksolich]

wow

I got nasty at the end of that thread.

Not that that is a bad thing, I'm just sayin'

Well, when reading that, sir, watching the truth evolve out of lies, it struck me your reaction was wholly and utterly and perfectly reasonable.

[delilahmused]

And yet, Mark Foley exchanged email messages with pages he thought were old enough because he met them in a bar and he was excoriated by you guys. Love that consistency. Evidently 15 year old girls (real or imagined) are okay but 18 year old pages are not.

For people that supposedly are experts in nuance you people are dumber than a box of rocks! He THOUGHT he was jacking off in front of a 15 YEAR OLD GIRL. That's below the age of consent in most states. Even IF she knew he was a dirty old man and encouraged him, as an ADULT he was supposed to be the responsible one.

You ****ing hypocritical losers. Just because you can't stand the idea of one of your heroes being a sick, disgusting pervert you'll excuse his behavior. What if it was one of your children?

Cindie

[Chris_]

"Welcome to the reality-based community.  Would you like to have a seat over there?"

[thundley4]

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?

I dunno, but people have been arrested and jailed for threats to other persons, so I guess intent is a crime.

[Ballygrl]

OMG! that's all I can say about those links.

[franksolich]

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.

[Ballygrl]

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.

[franksolich]

frank, I'm stunned at how everything turned around, the eviction was because of 1 reason and turned into another.

Par for the course, when a primitive's involved.

[Duke Nukum]

I found this at FR. Temporary Sockpuppet's favorite group to waist taxpayer money on:

Tapes show hundreds of Planned Parenthood, NAF clinics covering up sex abuse

[Duke Nukum]

Good memory, sir!

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.

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.

[delilahmused]

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.


Cindie

[Chris_]

Well, considering you want harsher penalties for thought crimes I'd say the answer is yes.

Yeah, there's that "reality-based" community again.

Bunch of ****ing perverts.

[NHSparky]

Exactly.  It's called INTENT.  For example, if I buy a bag of oregano from an undercover cop thinking it's pot, or a bag of baking soda thinking it's cocaine and telling people I'm going to sell it, it's called possession with intent to distribute.

If I talk to a cop about murdering some bitch/asshole who done me wrong (or not), it's solicitation of murder.

NOT just a "conversation between two adults."

And frankly, DUmmies, when are you going to learn the rules of the Internet:

--Men are men.
--Women are men.
--Children are cops.

Now as Mr. Hansen says, "Why don't you have a seat right over there?"