On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Henry Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it's a slippery slope assumption that kiddie porn addict == > child molester / kidnapper, and assuming such a crime is likely to exist > based solely on the evidence that the person looks at dirty pictures. It > goes back to the "guilty until proven guilty" argument.
If you read it carefully, no one assumed that the *kiddie porn addict* was the molester/kidnapper--only that it's likely that the kiddie porn *producer* may be. While the producer may not be a kidnapper, by definition he's abusive. The fact of the matter is that the producer and the consumer are both already guilty. The hard part is proving who they are since the resources involved may be shared and/or compromised. And that leads us back to the need for innocent until proven guilty--prove that the suspect is in fact the very same person that knowingly caused the images to be present on the machine with intent to distribute and/or view them. At any rate, unless they're after the producer, I really don't see where SWAT involvement is justified. There is one other factor to consider regarding SWAT, however. It is conceivable that a SWAT team may choose to engage in such a scenario simply for the experience, and do so knowing that it is not a hostile engagement. They could at least practice their approach, entry, and room clearing. Overkill for sure, but I could see that happening, especially where some SWAT teams exist in areas that don't get much action. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
