Moron of the year award

[Ed O]

Harm isn't relevant to any part of a conviction or sentence. As I said, it's irrelevant to this guy's present reality.

I suppose you could be asking philosophical questions. If that's the case, I see the basis for our disconnect.

Did you read the thread?

In reality, if Little Johnny is put on the witness stand and tells how traumatized he is over this whole mess, it doesn't really matter what the philosophy or concept of "harm" is to the alleged criminal.

How is the child traumatized? That's a huge stretch to me.

You called the child not seeing the video an "excuse", and I'm confused how you think that is not an important part of this.

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

I don't believe in the concept of "evil" speech. Freedom of Speech means exactly that to me, including the often cited "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater".

Only cowards and tyrants attempt to censor verbal or written communication.

If there's a violation here, it's along the lines of fraud (assuming he meant to profit from the video).

He openly admits being a liar, which throws him into the LOSER column for me.

A dishonest man is no man at all.

 

[PapaG]

Did you read the thread?



How is the child traumatized? That's a huge stretch to me.
You called the child not seeing the video an "excuse", and I'm confused how you think that is not an important part of this.

Ed O.

He's being teased. He feels violated. He is untrusting of adults after this. He's making it up. Maybe somebody in their class shared the video.

It doesn't matter what your interpretation is, or your feelings on whether or not a kid was harmed; it is what the D.A. can put on the stand to help build, and ultimately prove, his case.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

[video=youtube;82DjpPX60xU]

 

[MARIS61]

The guy admitted he entered the school under false pretenses, he shot video of kids without parental permission, and he used images of them in a video containing sexually explicit content.

Dumb, dumb, and dumb, and quite possibly a felony, depending on the jury.

Being the party legally responsible for the childrens welfare during school hours, and the ones who gave permission fro him to shoot video of the kids, I think the parents have a solid case against the school but a very weak one against the dumbass.

 

[PapaG]

Whether I agree with you that it was dumb or not, it appears that the alleged criminal DOES agree with you.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/02/evan_emory_speaks_i_feel_like.html

Ed O.

I have a lot of empathy for the guy. I truly believe that he had no sexual intentions in making that video.

I hope he comes out of it OK.

 

[PapaG]

Being the party legally responsible for the childrens welfare during school hours, and the ones who gave permission fro him to shoot video of the kids, I think the parents have a solid case against the school but a very weak one against the dumbass.

The parents aren't suing the dumbass, though. The D.A. filed a criminal charge. It's his/her case to win or lose.

 

[bodyman5001]

I skimmed this thread and it seems that nobody really knows what to make of it without seeing the video. However, there are times on Tosh.0 that they use children in what might be considered to be an offensive way. Dave Chappelle had a skit on his old show where he had kids talking to stuffed animals fashioned after STDs. Jail for them both?

 

[Denny Crane]

It's a civil matter, and quite clearly so.

PapaG is right that the kids will "forever be associated with the video" and the recourse is to sue the guy for all he's got, assuming they can prove actual damages.

I'm not seeing that anyone is a victim of any crime in this case.