Police: Fla. Man Had 1,200 Sex Images Of Children Or Young Girls

[Fridays Child]

snip

Investigators said they found more than 1,000 pornographic photos on Taboada's personal computer. Taboada's roommate told authorities about the photos after she logged on to the man's computer and found them.

"We took the computer and did a forensic search and found numerous pictures of child pornography," said Lt. Mike Gwynes of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.

According to investigators, 1,275 images of children or young girls engaged in sexual activity with adults or each other were found on the computer, WJXT-TV reported. They said one of the children pictured on Taboada's computer appeared to be 3 or 4 years old.

Police said they questioned Taboada about the photos and he replied that he found them "interesting."

snip

http://www.local6.com/news/9739282/detail.html

Interesting? He found them interesting??? What a sick puke.

[villager]

1. What's amazing is that the guy isn't the county GOP chair...

n/t

[Fridays Child]

4. Sure wouldn't surprise me, if it turns out that he's a GOP operative...

...supporter, or functionary of some sort.

[villager]

13. surprised? It's a de rigeur part of the psychological profile

if all the recent headlines are to be believed...

[ThomWV]

2. Why are 1200 any worse than 1?

Doesn't seem to me to make any difference what so ever, if it is illegal to own photographs of anything, anything at all, then what is the difference how big the pile of photos?

Is anyone claiming he took the photos? If not what law has he broken?

[rsr1771]

3. What law?

Well most states make it a crime to possess pictures of children engaged in sexual behavior. Regardless of who took the pics, its illegal to own child porn.

[ThomWV]

5. How Is That Different Than Banning Books?

Each conveys a message. Would a book - fiction or non fiction - discussing child pornography be illegal as well? Both enter the mind through the eyes, each might be found disgusting or titilating or somewhere inbetween. Please, explain to me how one is different from the other.

[The Straight Story]

7. It should be pretty obvious how they are different

One requires a human model to originate it, the other only the human mind.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Well, let's see.

With the child pornography you've got rape and exploitation.

So raping a kid and then giving people the pornography is not totally unlike breaking into somebody's house, killing the resident, and then giving said resident's possessions to somebody else.

Taking those possession is still very much a crime.

[WinkyDink]

17. Well, if you don't know the difference between a real child's being abused

and a fictional one's being written about---i.e., the difference between photographs and words---there is no point in trying to explain, is there?

[Dorian Gray]

24. In child porn,

you actually use real live children to perform sex acts. That is why it is differnt. (Though literature describing child porn may be illegal, as well.)

[Fridays Child]

6. The mere possession of such photos is illegal in every state, I think.

And 1,200 pieces of child pornography indicate that the guy harbors something more than a mild curiosity about the subject, which seems to be the position he's attempting to take in saying that the pictures are "interesting."

[ThomWV]

8. So What?

I don't care what the guy is curios about, I don't even care if the guy is plumb nuts. What I care about is photographs being against the law, no matter what they are of.

For instance, do you think a law would be constitutonal if it were to make photos of our dead troops illegal? How are they any more or less obscene than any others?

[ima_sinnic]

10. um, children had to be engaged in those acts for the photos to be

taken, therefore, he possesses evidence of 1275 separate crimes--is one way to look at it.
sheesh.

on edit: if the pictures were legal, it would imply official condoning of those crimes and they would be easier/cheaper to get. gee, then the govt could get into regulating kiddie porn! just as possession of drugs is illegal (which I don't agree with, btw), supposedly as a way to affect demand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Good question.

Taking photos of dead (enemy) troops and then using those for propaganda purposes is considered a war crime.

[beyurslf]

12. One is photos of soldiers who willingly fought in a war and had the

mental capacity to join service voluntarily--regardless of personal opinion about the war. The others are photos of children in sexual poses and even if they consented, they did not have the capacity to give such consent.

[Fridays Child]

15. Those who possess child pornography are criminal accessories.

[hyphenate]

16. You're not talking about photos

that were taken of willing participants. You're talking about photos of children, under the age of consent, in poses and situations of an adult nature.

THAT is what is illegal. If you are arguing simply for the art of argument, it's one thing--to condone pictures of underaged children in sexual circumstances is nothing short of disgusting.

[WinkyDink]

18. You ARE joking, right? Would you equate snuff films with photos of an

accident victim?

Yes, the viewer in both cases might be a voyeur, but the SUBJECT in only one would be the victim of a CRIME PERPETRATED SOLELY FOR THE PHOTO. The film's raison d'tre.

[lgn19087]

19. I gotta agree with you

its a slippery slope...if we don't defend the first amendment at every turn then sooner or later there's no amendment left to defend.

It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;". It doesn't care whether it offends us or not. It's sick, its gross, but it should be constitutionally protected.

[hyphenate]

20. Not when the act is of a criminal nature

We're talking CHILD pornography here. A CRIME in the United States. If it were a cache of adult photos, of adults in sexual situations, it could be explained as consensual circumstances. We're NOT talking about adults. We are talking about CHILDREN, under the age of consent, under the age of legality who have not consented or who don't have the mental facilities to consent to such behavior.

There IS no slippery slope in this case. It is ILLEGAL, and collecting such materials makes this guy a partner in the dissemination of smut and illegal materials. He should be sentenced to the highest penalty imposed by law, and anyone else who participates in such illegal activity should also be held accountable for their role in child pornography as well.

[lgn19087]

25. and if the neocons pass a law tomorrow

saying that all anti-administration material is illegal, your same excuse could be applied to that too

[hyphenate]

30. Strawman argument

And changing the subject aren't applicable. We're talking specifically about child pornography, about a specific case and a disgusting one too.

I've heard pedophiles try to defend their perversity and it's always about themselves, never about their victims. For some reason, they think they're doing something tolerable. And in every single case, it's the children who suffer. I might not believe in capital punishment (as in death penalty) but I would certainly be all for chemical castration of any and all who abuse children in such a manner as child molesters. If it's a social cycle that needs to be broken, so be it. If it's a deeply rooted psychological or pathological disorder, it's time to find out exactly what it is made of and tackled at its deepest level. No child should EVER have to deal with such horror in their lives.

[Fridays Child]

31. Even setting aside, for the moment, that we're talking about photos of...

...the most detestable crimes against the most vulnerable members of society, to be in possession of the product of a criminal act is to be an accessory to that crime. There's no "slippery slope" here. The First Amendment does NOT usurp the right of any citizen--adult or child--to not be raped, molested, assaulted, or sexually coerced.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

32. Child pornography is ILLEGAL.

It is a heinous crime against children. Photographs of child pornography are evidence of criminal sexual activity against a child by a pedophile. There's no free speech issue here and no it shouldn't be consitutionally protected.

I will defend pornography featuring consensual adults vehemently, but it takes a truly fucked up individual to call upon "free speech" when it comes to child molestation and rape.

[Dorian Gray]

26. You absolutely can not be serious, can you?

You want to make child pornography legal? Wow! Disgusting.

[rug]

14. Encouraging this behavior is more offensive:

From the link:

Investigators told WJXT-TV that they were able to catch Taboada because his roommate found the photos and not only called police, but also copied the images to a disk and gave it to them.

"Individual citizens need to report it to us when they know it's out there," Gwynes said.

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Sounds like the cops were used

as tools for someone's revenge.

[madmusic]

28. That's what was just thinking.

Mighty convenient. If some of these were downloaded while the suspect was at work or something, oops.

[skids]

23. I'm surprised they didn't arrest the roommate too n/t

[madmusic]

29. Why, my roommate probably doesn't know I visit DU.

Or if he does, he has no idea what I post or how often. And I keep my door open. Someone is guilty of something, we don't know who yet.

[Porcupine]

22. I would bet there are actual children living in crack houses

in that city. I would bet that these places have been reported to the police in that city and the police have done nothing; because they "don't have the time."

The reason that I would bet this is that there are kids living in filth in my city and I can't get the police or children's services to respond. I can't get police to respond to drug sales with kids in the house. Not pot but meth or crack. I can't get them to respond to drug houses in multi-unit buildings where there are kids living. I can't get them to respond to to drug houses near schools. I live in a really nice city and I manage rental properties.

Child porn is pretty disgusting stuff. I don't think it's worthy of life in prison or the death penalty but a good legal swat on the head is OK by me. What child porn laws are about is looking concerned about the welfare of children while doing nothing to actually take care of kids.

There are millions of kids in the world with no clean drinking water; we could provide clean drinking water to every kid in the world for about the cost of a weeks war. I think that is WAY more disgusting than porn.

There are kids in Lebanon that were blown up with US made cluster bombs. The makers and sellers and users of those bombs are free today. I think THAT is way more disgusting than kiddy porn.

If you are going to take care of kids; TAKE CARE OF THE DAMN KIDS. Don't just outlaw pictures of kids in bad situations and ignore that there are kids in bad situations down the block.:rant:

[Poll_Blind]

33. Agreed. What a great post. Thank you. n/t

PB

[rug]

34. Very pointed post.

It strikes me as similar to antiabortion activists who do nothing for babies after they're born.

[madmusic]

27. I always wondered why pictures of those kids...

rather than runaways or children "kidnapped" by their parent's weren't on milk cartons, mail fliers and stuff, until the FBI mentioned they don't like doing that because it could risk the children's lives since they may be the only "witness." That made sense. So why doesn't "Jessica's Law" pose the same risk? Ever since hearing the FBI say that, I've been against Jessica's Law. I don't want sickos like John Couey burying little kids alive. I'll never, ever believe little Jessie is better off dead.

EDIT: wonderED.