Re: [PLUG] VoiceNet Rumors?

["Jon Nelson" <quincy@linuxnotes.net>]

Gabriel,

First I would like to say that I respect your opinion and think you are
very insightful and levelheaded.

gabriel rosenkoetter said:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:05:51PM -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> We _WANT_ to be punishing the people who abuse the children in the first
>> place!  I wish it were that easy.  Due to the inherent and global nature
>> of the Internet it makes finding the abusers very difficult indeed.
>
> I believe that it is inappropriately assumptive on your part to
> place the label "abusers" on defendants in child pornography cases,
> even those that have been decided by appeal. (I'm fine with your
> labeling as abusers those who have been convicted by a jury.)
>
> It isn't your place, as a law enforcement officer or as a citizen,
> to decide what is and isn't offensive on an international scale.
> Please try to be cognizant of that.

I was in no way trying to imply that.  By the use of global I was trying
to get across how difficult to find people who prey on children.

Now I know that the law says under 18 and there are provisions for
individuals who are 16 and over to consent to sex (in PA).  I think I have
been pretty consistent in referring to these victims as children.  I have
seen children as young as infants being sexually abused.  They certainly
cannot give consent.  I have seen a lot children (under 12) in sexually
violent and outrageous acts things they should have never been exposed to
until they were adults.

The older the children get the more arguments as to whether they can
consent or not come into play.

As a private citizen I believe that the adults doing these things to
children are "abusers".  As a law enforcement officer I know and believe
that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but it is
my job to accuse whom I have probable cause to arrest.

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:06:09PM -0500, Jon Nelson wrote:
>> I find the above statement very offensive and the analogy incredulous.
>> It
>> is more offensive to the child victims.
>
> For whose definition of "offensive" and whose definition of
> "victim"?

My definition of offensive since I said it offended me.  The children's
definition of "victim" whom feel they have been exploited by these acts.

>
> (I think you and I mostly agree about what offends us personally. I
> refuse to contend that my personal opinion is Right, though, and it
> bothers me to see you doing so.)
>
>> The sale of alcohol under prohibition was a "victimless" crime.
>
> I don't think that's true either. If you go looking for victims

"Victimless" (notice the quotes) in that, unlike child pornography, when
alcohol was sold under prohibition there wasn't an immediately apparent
victim.

>
>> Child pornography involves the sexual exploitation of children who
>> aren't
>> doing anything voluntarily.
>
> I don't understand how you can make that statement. Who are you to
> say that individuals under the age of eighteen are incapable of
> mature decisions? US law *does* say this, and obligates you, as a PA
> state trooper, to enfoce it. Please don't confuse US law with
> Truth, not as an individual and especially not in your role as a law
> enforcement officer. They aren't the same thing. Some times they're
> close enough (as they probably are in the case of child pornography),
> some times they're wildly separate.

Please see my above comments in regards to children and mature decisions.

I always seek the Truth, both professionally and personally.


Jon

--
Trooper Jon S. Nelson, Linux Certified Admin., CCNA
Pa. State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigation
Computer Crimes Unit
Work: 610.344.4471 Cell/Page: 866.284.1603
jonelson@state.pa.us
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug