Unbelievable...

camily

camily

Peace
http://www.somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5300.shtml
They act as though they did such a great thing by finally busting this guy for child porn. Look at his record.
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquirySearch.jis
The first three times he got away with only probabtion.

"An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings."

I think it's already been proven. He's a sicko. Should have been dealt with correctly the first time around.
 
camily

camily

Peace
camily said:
http://www.somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5300.shtml
They act as though they did such a great thing by finally busting this guy for child porn. Look at his record.
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquirySearch.jis
The first three times he got away with only probabtion.

"An indictment is not a finding of guilt. An individual charged by indictment is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty at some later criminal proceedings."

I think it's already been proven. He's a sicko. Should have been dealt with correctly the first time around.
Click to expand...
You'll have to search his name. Apparently you can't copy and paste "his" page.
 
MargeInCharge

MargeInCharge

New Member
I'm almost certain this was the same guy who was a 5th grade teacher at White Marsh Elementary who suddenly "left" during the middle of the school year, sometime about 8-9 years ago. If I'm not mistaken, he was caught looking at child porn on a school library computer....? It's been so long my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I know this dude was my nephew's teacher at the time :barf: THAT is sickening to think about.
 
princess73

princess73

just one of those days...
I just don't get what is wrong with these people. I hope he rots in jail and never gets anywhere near a kid again.
 
S

smsd

DA BEARS!!!
If you look at the St. Mary's case. He was sentenced to 1 year but it was suspended which is what they are doing with all these cases. It's ridiculous! Please punish these people.
 
Coventry17

Coventry17

New Member
The first case, he was given a year suspended sentence and probation. On top of that, he lost his teaching license. In my estimation, that's a stiff enough penalty for a first time misdemeanor offense and a clean record. Even good people make mistakes and I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The second case was a "nolle prosequi", meaning the case was essentially dropped. The third case, he was taken to Circuit Court and given a pretty stiff sentence. I personally don't have any problem with how the guy was handled. He was given a chance to get himself back on track and he didn't take it. I don't propose shooting people in the face for misdemeanors. In a system of laws, you have to let the legal system take its course.
 
camily

camily

Peace
Coventry17 said:
The first case, he was given a year suspended sentence and probation. On top of that, he lost his teaching license. In my estimation, that's a stiff enough penalty for a first time misdemeanor offense and a clean record. Even good people make mistakes and I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The second case was a "nolle prosequi", meaning the case was essentially dropped. The third case, he was taken to Circuit Court and given a pretty stiff sentence. I personally don't have any problem with how the guy was handled. He was given a chance to get himself back on track and he didn't take it. I don't propose shooting people in the face for misdemeanors. In a system of laws, you have to let the legal system take its course.
Click to expand...
You think three months is pretty stiff?
 
Coventry17

Coventry17

New Member
He wasn't given 3 months, he was sentenced to 3 years with all but 3 months suspended along with 5 years of probation and registering as a sex offender. Any violation of his probation would have caused the suspended sentence to be reassessed. Yes, I consider that a pretty stiff sentence.
 
camily

camily

Peace
Coventry17 said:
He wasn't given 3 months, he was sentenced to 3 years with all but 3 months suspended along with 5 years of probation and registering as a sex offender. Any violation of his probation would have caused the suspended sentence to be reassessed. Yes, I consider that a pretty stiff sentence.
Click to expand...
I see. We have different views of what a stiff penalty for obtaining child pornography is. Do you have children? I think you would feel different if the pics were of your son or daughter being molested.
 
Coventry17

Coventry17

New Member
I am a father, yes. I'm not defending the man's actions, by any means. He's not being accused of producing any of the material, nor is he being accused of abusing any children. Possession is a misdemeanor, no worse legally than getting caught with some wacky weed. Until Maryland makes it laws stiffer, that's just the way it is. When they caught him sending it to someone else, it became a felony because he was distributing it.
 
camily

camily

Peace
Coventry17 said:
I am a father, yes. I'm not defending the man's actions, by any means. He's not being accused of producing any of the material, nor is he being accused of abusing any children. Possession is a misdemeanor, no worse legally than getting caught with some wacky weed. Until Maryland makes it laws stiffer, that's just the way it is. When they caught him sending it to someone else, it became a felony because he was distributing it.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the plea bargaining he got. I'm sure it's not too far of a stretch to think he has probably acted on this obsession before, just hasn't gotten caught.
 
AndyMarquisLIVE

AndyMarquisLIVE

New Member
<TABLE border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Address Change Date:</TD><TD>01/24/2007</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>New Address: The Big House. Address Change Date: 02/02/2007 :yay:
 
D

daisy

New Member
Coventry17 said:
I am a father, yes. I'm not defending the man's actions, by any means. He's not being accused of producing any of the material, nor is he being accused of abusing any children. Possession is a misdemeanor, no worse legally than getting caught with some wacky weed. Until Maryland makes it laws stiffer, that's just the way it is. When they caught him sending it to someone else, it became a felony because he was distributing it.
Click to expand...


No, he's not being accused of abusing any children, but someone abused children, and he liked it and supported it and made it a viable industry. If it weren't for SICKOS like that wanting to watch, maybe there would be less children exploited. How can you compare it to possesing weed. The man was in possession of images of CHILDREN being Abused. No comparison. None.
 
camily

camily

Peace
daisy said:
No, he's not being accused of abusing any children, but someone abused children, and he liked it and supported it and made it a viable industry. If it weren't for SICKOS like that wanting to watch, maybe there would be less children exploited. How can you compare it to possesing weed. The man was in possession of images of CHILDREN being Abused. No comparison. None.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
MargeInCharge

MargeInCharge

New Member
camily said:
I'm sure it's not too far of a stretch to think he has probably acted on this obsession before, just hasn't gotten caught.
Click to expand...

I found out tonight that this guy has his own kids, too, plus he was a teacher of elementary school kids....it makes you wonder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top