First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
16 year old kid almost got 90 years in prison for watching porn
Posted 7/11/08 , edited 7/11/08

The Bandy family contends that Thomas was on a mission and that his desire to convict was so strong that he ignored important evidence -- like the fact that Matthew passed a lie detector test. The fact that the test indicated that Matt was telling the truth wasn't taken into account.



Loehrs went into the Bandys' computer and what she found could frighten any parent -- more than 200 infected files, so-called backdoors that allowed hackers to access the family computer from remote locations, no where near Matthew's house.

"They could be on your computer and you'd never know it," she said.



They hired two polygraph examiners who confirmed Matthew was telling the truth. Then they ordered two psychiatric evaluations which concluded that Matthew had no perverted tendencies.



I don't think he did it... and people should start reading the article before posting a response because you're making yourselves look like jack asses >.<

Also many prosecutors only care about the verdict the want regardless if the person is innocent or not. Especially if they're using a case as a platform for their career >.>
2738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / somewhere under a...
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
poor guy....i know alot of people who watch porn...and are proud of it
Posted 7/11/08
What? What nonsense. That is bullshit.
17471 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA atm
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
get a life for the prosecutors. and the kid ifplz makesure u do it at a driends house so they blame ur friend not u lol
8992 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / CA, US
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
awful.... who knows what really happened... who knows if that matthew guy telling them the truth... either way, it just too much....
Posted 7/11/08
child porn huh.
but i feel that the sentence is abit harsh?
not that i'm for porn or anything, but still.
he's just a child!
Posted 7/11/08

SeraphAlford wrote:


Raikuga wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/LegalCenter/story?id=2785054

wait .......wut?

they found like 9 PICTURES(NOT VIDEOS) of child porn and stormed his house with guns and threatening 90 years in prison wtf??

i know its bad but god damn its not THAT BAD.

edit: the kid is 16 not to mention minor is anywhere below 18. so it could have just been like 14-17 in which case i dont blame him


Well, that sucks. He said he didn’t know how they got onto his computer. I don’t really buy that part, but a lot of kids get curious. The boy sounds a lot like me: a goodie-goodie looser who probably doesn’t fit in and is really awkward in a social environment.

He never tried drugs, alcohol, or anything illegal. He was even 16 before he started viewing internet pornography. My bet is that he wanted to know what an underage girl was like but couldn’t get one-so, he turned to the internet thinking: “Well, I’m a kid to so it’ll be alright.”

The problem is that the law doesn’t and shouldn’t work that way. (Shouldn’t because then a parent can just get his kid to say, “No, it wasn’t my dad, it was me.”)

Rather or not they were pictures or videos is irrelevant to me. What matters more is the content. Did the pictures show the girls in the midst of intercourse? No, the article says, “suggestive poses.” That doesn’t even necessarily mean nudity, though we’re assuming it was.

This being said I don’t think the boy’s some kind of sick pervert. None the less, when it comes to the law your character isn’t what’s in question. It’s your actions: did he look at child pornography?

Well, the article didn’t have all the evidence so I wont say yes or no. I will say that if you make a choice you better be -certain- you know the consequences. I will say that if he did download 9 pictures of child porn then 90 years in prison should suit him well.

My point is that I think that there should be lighter sentences for lighter pornography. I mean, a man whose got a video of an 8 year old being raped and chained shouldn’t get off as easily as a boy with a picture of his girlfriends nipple ring. At least, not as I see it. Still, the law is the law-and flawed or not, we should and are held to it. We can only work to fix the errors within it, but until then we’re subject to the flaws in our own system.



Maybe I’m biased, but the criminals I dislike the most are those who target children.


Nah, you're not biased. Well, after all, curiosity did kill the cat!

I feel bad for the poor boy, I mean.... he wasn't a sex offender and he's 16?!! Sex offenders should be found, killed and tortured for what they do to poor girls!!! I mean.... if he just suddenly got a curiosity to surf the net and finds pornography, shouldn't this sound more like it was the parents' fault? What about the father... was he doing anything rather inappropriate?

Give the poor guy a chance! To me, he seems completely innocent, I mean sex offenders should be charged for taking a girl's life span [ which is the same as a man of course ]. The officers should've taken a more deeper investigation of the boy's life, his parents [mummy dear and daddy's personalities] and if he should be really put to prison for 60 years!

BESIDES, THERE IS SOMETHING PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PORNO AND AGE VERIFICATION.
When you go to a porno site [never gone to one, my source for this is my male friends], the age verification is completely useless because all you have to do is accept the "terms" and "privacy policy" [as if there is any privacy to the guy or the girl] and there you go... you don't even have to be 18+!!!



Posted 7/11/08

feerof wrote:


S4k33n4 wrote:

OMG seriously??? But dude its just porn??? I mean duh its nasty and its not the best thing to watch but yo it just porn?? What the fuck? I don't get that...


just porn? ... you're 13 what the f*ck do you know? don't look for child pornography. even if you look at porn, seriously child pornography is just wrong...



i totally agree that child pornography is just WRONG!!!!!!! but rape is rape... but this guy didnt deserve it, hes 16!!! MAYBE HE SHOULD KNOW BETTER than to watch child porn -__-

BUT, I think that they should make sex offender go to 90 years in prison NOT a 16 year old guy that happened to surf the net for child porn.
Posted 7/11/08
OMG..
Posted 7/11/08
....... o.o........
88 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / California
Offline
Posted 7/11/08

stevesorc wrote:

lol the funniest part was where it said the police kept the pictures hahahhaa. but i dont think he was lying..... i mean they got lie detectors to say that he was telling the truth and psychologists to say that he was fine mentally. Also his computer was hacked through spy ware and viruses creating back doors to his computers files. its just not his fault.



the article didn't specify on a lot of things. The article said the police found "suggestive photos" o but it didnt specifically mentioned if the photos contained nudity or sexual intercourse. Even if you take 2 or more lie detector test, it would matter because lie detector tests are not very accurate. The 200-infected files with the backdoor virus is a good defense because you could install all the anti-virus and anti-spyware software on you computer but there will always be a virus or two that will infect your computer.

i just a thought.....even if the backdoor virus is a lie, how did they know it was the kid. I'm assuming all his family members had access to their computer. (I'm not defending the kid, make no mistake, I'm just trying to explore all the possibilities of this case)

also i'm doubting the whole article itself. If you actually read the whole article, it says the judge sent them the verdict that the kid wouldn't be labeled as a sex offender via email. I'm not too sure about this kind of stuff but shouldn't a decision like that by a judge be announced in a courtroom or at least where there are witnesses. For all you know the email could be a hoax.
42013 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/11/08 , edited 7/11/08

In the den of the Bandy home sits the family computer, now unplugged from the Internet. The Bandys learned that, for them, the Web is simply too dangerous.

"It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."


It's called A-N-T-I V-I-R-U-S......

Dumbasses.


oh yeah and FIRE WALL... *sigh* some people.
15809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
He passed a few lie detection tests and even interviews with psychiatrists.
Even the computer forensic analyst person said that type of crap can end up on somebody's computer easily.
4660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / MAT$U-LAND ;D
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
LMAO. kinda EXTREME on the police's part.

not when there's like 12868247520485236649 other perverted psychos out there with much worse cases & they were pinning down one little kid ?!

just shows how "SHARP" police are.
1946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Labyrinth of Amala
Offline
Posted 7/11/08
Cool story, bro.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.