Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/5/2004 9:53:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 9:54:45 AM EST by rn45]
www.theindychannel.com/news/3783275/detail.html

A huge cache of child pornography was found in this guys house after it was damaged by a tornado. Workers came to repair the house and found it. They told the cops.

Talk about divine intervention...

Man Arrested After Tornado Reveals Cache Of Child Porn
Maryland Home Was Damaged After Hurricane Ivan

POSTED: 12:18 am EDT October 5, 2004
UPDATED: 6:39 am EDT October 5, 2004

FREDERICK, Md. -- A man whose house was damaged by a tornado was in jail Monday after repair workers found a large amount of child pornography and called police.

Robert L. Medvee, 52, of Frederick, was charged Friday with 48 counts of creating computer images of child pornography and 48 counts of possession of child pornography, Deputy Jennifer Bailey said.

Medvee, a hospital admissions clerk, remained behind bars in lieu of $96,000 bail after a bail review hearing Monday in Frederick County District Court.

The seized material -- computer discs, videotapes and photographs -- filled 20 to 24 boxes, Frederick County State's Attorney Scott Rolle said.

"It was the largest seizure of child pornography I've ever seen," Rolle said. "We had to bring in a pickup truck to get all of it out of there."

He said more charges are likely after investigators finish reviewing the material, which could take weeks.

The workers found the pornography while doing repairs to the house, which was damaged Sept. 17 by the remnants of Hurricane Ivan, authorities said. Medvee, who lives alone, was staying with friends at the time, police said.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:00:04 AM EST
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 10:06:31 AM EST
those wacky east coast liberals...I'm sure he felt he had done nothing wrong.

Pervert
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:16:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:24:58 AM EST
Has anyone heard from Sgtar15 lately??
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:28:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.



That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

What drives the CP industry? Patronage. If nobody patronized that sick shit there wouldn't be a demand to create it.

Damn.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:30:56 AM EST
I have to agree with the previous post. Child rapists do not scar children because they got a few bucks in their pocket. The internet just allows them to 'network' as never before. but there always has been child molesters, always will. Weather they take a picture of it then post it or not is irrelevent. And I say this, instead of busting guys for pure 'possession' of pictures they should 'flip him' into an informant. I'd rather have 1 real baby rapist in jail than 10 guys who just down loaded crap. Ask him, hey where did you get this stuff?? Who do you know ? cooperate and you walk. Without an incentive to become an informant he'll just clam up.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:36:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 11:37:57 AM EST by legalese77]

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.



That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

What drives the CP industry? Patronage. If nobody patronized that sick shit there wouldn't be a demand to create it.

Damn.




Try reading it again...the post is about economics, not child porn but since you insist on making the post what it isn't...

Last I checked you can't just buy this stuff on ebay or at the local dollar store...people don't create child porn to make a buck..there are a hell of a lot more profitable criminal enterprises to involve oneself in... Of course, some people do make a buck at it but you don't think that's an afterthought? You think people get involved in such a lifestyle simply for the money? eh? come again? The problem is not the big business of child porn, it's the sick fucks that propagate such behavior who realize they can make money on the side peddling to other sick fucks. The point of my post is that this is not the kind of problem that can be solved by cutting marketing and distribution channels. Therfore, even lacking a "market" there will always be sick fucks producing child porn, if only for their own sick and twisted uses...does that help a little?

I think the suggestion that nobody will be interested in making child porn or molesting children as soon as all the buyers are gone is what doesn't make any sense.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:38:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:

He said more charges are likely after investigators finish reviewing the material, which could take weeks.



Am I the only one who noticed the humor and irony of this statement?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:43:15 AM EST
Am I the only person who is reminded of the movie "Donnie Darko" when I read that?

Stainless
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:44:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Palo_Duro:

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.



That makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

What drives the CP industry? Patronage. If nobody patronized that sick shit there wouldn't be a demand to create it.

Damn.




Try reading it again...the post is about economics, not child porn but since you insist on making the post what it isn't...

Last I checked you can't just buy this stuff on ebay or at the local dollar store...people don't create child porn to make a buck..there are a hell of a lot more profitable criminal enterprises to involve oneself in... Of course, some people do make a buck at it but you don't think that's an afterthought? You think people get involved in such a lifestyle simply for the money? eh? come again? The problem is not the big business of child porn, it's the sick fucks that propagate such behavior who realize they can make money on the side peddling to other sick fucks. The point of my post is that this is not the kind of problem that can be solved by cutting marketing and distribution channels. Therfore, even lacking a "market" there will always be sick fucks producing child porn, if only for their own sick and twisted uses...does that help a little?

I think the suggestion that nobody will be interested in making child porn or molesting children as soon as all the buyers are gone is what doesn't make any sense.



Try telling that to Julie Posey.

I'll cede to the fact that it doesn't matter if there is a market for CP in order for pervs to continue their habit. But the hard facts of economics remain. Supply and demand.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:55:06 AM EST
I don't know who Julie Posey is. I explicitly condemn child pornography and those who are purveyors of it. I do think that "mere" possession ought to be prosecuted swiftly and harshly. I simply don't think the fact that someone is willing to buy it amounts to a substantial cause of child porn/abuse... I think severe deficiencies of various kinds in people cause them to commit these evil acts and that, absent these sick people, there would be no such material and no such market. I am, of course, familiar with the basic concept of supply and demand but I think that most economies involve more complexities than that, this one included.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:57:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:10:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:12:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Stainless:
Am I the only person who is reminded of the movie "Donnie Darko" when I read that?

Stainless



No, no you aren't.

"Oh, yeah, I heard about that, some sort of kiddy porn dungeon or something."

"PLEASE! Don't call it that!"
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:52:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 2:58:07 PM EST by legalese77]
I didn't, my initial post, admittedly, was somewhat off topic... I noted it in that post and the following post..it was not a comparison of kiddie porn distributors to tobacco retailers, wholesalers or manufacturers. Any attempt to read it as such won't make sense because it was not intended that way. I tried to clarify this in the post that followed but clearly I have failed miserably. I Guess I had better break out the English books and brush up again since I'm not coming through too clear.

edit: just so I'm clear here...those of you that disagree with me... you think possession of kiddie porn should be illegal because it finances the people that produce it.... do I have that right? So, if a person didn't pay for said kiddie porn or sell it himself, no big deal, right? I guess I just don't understand
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:01:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:
I didn't, my initial post, admittedly, was somewhat off topic... I noted it in that post and the following post..it was not a comparison of kiddie porn distributors to tobacco retailers, wholesalers or manufacturers. Any attempt to read it as such won't make sense because it was not intended that way. I tried to clarify this in the post that followed but clearly I have failed miserably. I Guess I had better break out the English books and brush up again since I'm not coming through too clear.

edit: just so I'm clear here...those of you that disagree with me... you think possession of kiddie porn should be illegal because it finances the people that produce it.... do I have that right? So, if a person didn't pay for said kiddie porn or sell it himself, no big deal, right? I guess I just don't understand



And yet, your SN is "legalese77" - how inviting!



Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:25:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
The real problem is the sick fuck will probably like jail.

Tj



I bet not. From what I have heard, most people in jail/prison are very intolerant of this kind of criminal and have their "own" way of dealing with these sick fucktards.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:00:46 AM EST
My question is, did the construction workers call the police before or after cashing the check?

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:22:51 AM EST
In reference to "people" like this, I think someone once said something about hanging a millstone around their necks and drowning them in the depths of the sea.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:24:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dracster:

Originally Posted By rn45:

He said more charges are likely after investigators finish reviewing the material, which could take weeks.



Am I the only one who noticed the humor and irony of this statement?



Unfortunately the investigators have to view the evidence and prove that the kids in the pictures are indeed kids and that the images were not digitally edited. Looking at this crap will be a difficult and sickening job. 20 to 24 boxes of it means someone has to wade through a lot of trash. I don't envy them.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:29:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By MagKnightX:

Originally Posted By Stainless:
Am I the only person who is reminded of the movie "Donnie Darko" when I read that?

Stainless



No, no you aren't.

"Oh, yeah, I heard about that, some sort of kiddy porn dungeon or something."

"PLEASE! Don't call it that!"



cool. as long as i wasn't the only one.

S
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 6:38:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 6:39:51 AM EST by gutshot]
God loves little children.
Maybe he couldn't wait to punish the guy and just sped up the process.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:28:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.



Bullshit. There is a huge difference between putting money indirectly into the pockets of some criminal who is invested in something and paying said scumbag directly for child-porn.

If you are talking about not supporting French companies or companies with political positions different from your own, then your argument is valid. But when talking about something like child porn, or porn in general, the choice is simpler. If you buy porn or child porn, you are financing an industry that is rife with criminality and the debasement of human beings (even if they are willing participants). My personal morality doesn't care if a person willingly chose to be screwed by fifty guys in a row on film or not, it is entirely possible to be a willing participant in your own debasement and dehumanization and it's still wrong. Rationalize it all you want, but you do have a choice.





Link Posted: 10/6/2004 9:11:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 9:14:59 AM EST by legalese77]

Originally Posted By icemanat95:

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:
I've heard people argue that it shouldn't be a crime to look at something. Granted... but if there wasn't anybody paying $$$ for a product, there wouldn't be a need to create it.

Those who buy / watch that crap financially support child abuse.



Definitely not advocating child porn here but I just can't swallow the "financial support" argument... I mean jeez, in the modern economy you can't buy anything that doesn't put money in the pockets of despicable people somewhere.. I don't just mean child porn, in fact, the things that I immediately think of when I hear this argument are sneakers, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, gasoline, etc.



Bullshit. There is a huge difference between putting money indirectly into the pockets of some criminal who is invested in something and paying said scumbag directly for child-porn.

If you are talking about not supporting French companies or companies with political positions different from your own, then your argument is valid. But when talking about something like child porn, or porn in general, the choice is simpler. If you buy porn or child porn, you are financing an industry that is rife with criminality and the debasement of human beings (even if they are willing participants). My personal morality doesn't care if a person willingly chose to be screwed by fifty guys in a row on film or not, it is entirely possible to be a willing participant in your own debasement and dehumanization and it's still wrong. Rationalize it all you want, but you do have a choice.




Rationalize what? You sound like you agree with my initial position..." is entirely possible to be a willing participant in your own debasement and dehumanization and it's still wrong" My point is that I think it's goofy to suggest that child porn should be illegal only because it provides financial support to producers of child porn thereby encouraging more. I'm having a tough time telling what your position is but Palo, The Hun and Sin Bin apparently all agree that child porn is ok, so long as no producers are making money. I disagree....regardless of whether anyone is making money "it's still wrong."

Feel free to disagree but my opinion is my opinion so I'd ask you nicely to keep your "bullshit" remarks to yourself. I don't bother with folks that can't be civil. I mean, how many minds have you changed with "bullshit"? Apart from being about as articulate a statement as a meth addict can make, it is totally devoid of substance. I'd advise dropping it if you plan on convincing anyone that you have anything worthwhile to say.

eta: for what, the fourth time now I wasn't making a comparison, simply emphasizing that indirect financial support (which there is no evidence of anywhere in this entire thread) is too tenuous of a reason to justify making mere possession of an object illegal. In this case, however, plenty of justification exists for making possession illegal regardless of the support of this apparently huge and widespread child porn distributorship that is allegedly the only reason that child porn exists
Top Top