APP - Former U.S. Marine and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

Scott

Verified User
Some may have heard of Scott Ritter in the past. He was a former U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer, a former U.N. Weapons Inspector and is currently a journalist who is quite knowledgeable on certain global conflicts, in particular the war in Ukraine. Some, however, choose to focus solely on the fact that he was the subject of 2 law enforcement sting operations. Wikipedia sums it up:

**
Arrests and conviction for sex offenses

Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.[39] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.[40][41] He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child". The charge was dismissed and the record was sealed after he completed six months of pre-trial probation.[41][8]

Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[42] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5]

The next month, Ritter waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was released on $25,000 unsecured bail. Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in a courtroom in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2011.[5][43]

In October 2011, he received a sentence of one and a half to five and a half years in prison.[3] He was sent to Laurel Highlands state prison in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, in March 2012 and paroled in September 2014.[4][7][8]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Arrests_and_conviction_for_sex_offenses

Now if that's all he had ever done, that'd be one thing, but as mentioned already, he was also a well regarded U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer, U.N. Weapons Inspector, and now, a very respected journalist, at least by people I personally respect, and also has his own substack page where he posts many articles on subjects like the Ukraine war that I think are quite good. Today, he posted an article I've made a thread out of, here, where he writes about an interview he had with a Russian Colonel in regards to the Ukraine war and the West's relationship with Russia:
A View from the Frontlines | justplainpolitics.com

Anyway, I decided to make this thread to try to have a respectful debate with people who have generally been respectful with me, and also as a sort of bookmark to direct anyone who brings up this old canard.
 
In place no weight on the opinions of convicted sex offenders, pedophiles, and child predators.

Ritter was lured into interacting online in a sexual manner with 2 police officers pretending to be teen girls. In the first case, the charge was dismissed outright after he completed six months of pre-trial probation. The second time, Ritter stated at trial that he assumed the undercover officer was only pretending to be 15. If his statement was true, then all he was actually guilty of was not realizing he was talking to an undercover cop instead of a housewife doing a little role play.
 
Ritter was lured into interacting online in a sexual manner with 2 police officers pretending to be teen girls. In the first case, the charge was dismissed outright after he completed six months of pre-trial probation. The second time, Ritter stated at trial that he assumed the undercover officer was only pretending to be 15. If his statement was true, then all he was actually guilty of was not realizing he was talking to an undercover cop instead of a housewife doing a little role play.
Honest men can't be lured, dear. Jus' sayin'. He was arrested twice on separate offenses years apart and did two and a half years in prison for being a pedo.

FYI, girl, a "former Marine" is a dead Marine. An ex-Marine is one who was tossed out of the Marine Corps. This is why I know you are a foreign anti-American who only believes what she wants to believe by cherry-picking the ideas of criminals and not honest Americans.
 
Honest men can't be lured, dear. Jus' sayin'.

No idea where you get that idea. Also, as I've told you numerous times, I'm not a woman. In this forum's previous iteration, I thread banned you from all my threads because you keep on with this nonsense, but now that we have this new forum software, you and others who like annoying posters get to do your thing once more. I've been told that I can request Admins to thread ban you, but I decided to give you one more chance before requesting this here in the hopes that you can learn.

He was arrested twice on separate offenses years apart and did two and a half years in prison for being a pedo.

No, he was arrested twice for falling for 2 separate police stings. His only offense was falling for the stings.

[usual nonsense from Dutch] a "former Marine" is a dead Marine. An ex-Marine is one who was tossed out of the Marine Corps.

I've seen no evidence that RItter was "tossed out" from the Marine Corps. Here's part of Wikipedia's introduction on Ritter:
**
Ritter served as a junior military analyst during Operation Desert Storm.[6] He then served as a member of the UNSCOM overseeing the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, from which he resigned in protest. He later became a critic of the Iraq War and United States foreign policy in the Middle East.
**

Full article:
 
No idea where you get that idea.
Why would an honest, lawful man pursue an illegal activity like sex with minors? If some fifteen-year-old texted me saying "Oh, Dutch, you're so hot. Do you like my pic?" I'd ignore it. Only a pedo would pursue it.

I don't know what country you hail from, but I wasn't saying Ritter was tossed out, I was correcting your use of the term "former Marine".

As for gender, I go by personality, not physicality since there's no way to tell online even with a picture since, as you've seen, there's lots of liars among the haters. LOL Calm, honest people are much more believable. Haters, not so much.

As for thread bans, that's between you and Damo. There's lots of threads on JPP plus I can always cut'n'paste your post and start a new thread which I control. In America, we have a saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat". LOL
 
Why would an honest, lawful man pursue an illegal activity like sex with minors? If some fifteen-year-old texted me saying "Oh, Dutch, you're so hot. Do you like my pic?" I'd ignore it. Only a pedo would pursue it.

First of all, no minors were involved in the 2 times that Ritter was arrested. They were both police stings, so the only people Ritter was being lured by were police officers -pretending- to be minors.

I don't know what country you hail from, but I wasn't saying Ritter was tossed out, I was correcting your use of the term "former Marine".

If you're suggesting there's supposedly some special term for someone who wasn't tossed out of the marines and isn't dead, by all means speak up.

As for gender, I go by personality, not physicality since there's no way to tell online even with a picture since, as you've seen, there's lots of liars among the haters.

There are certainly -some- liars, but I see no reason not to trust what gender people say they are online. Even if they're lying on that, it makes little difference in a forum such as this one, as it's unlikely we'll ever know each other offline. Consistently insisting on addressing someone by a gender they've told you they're not as probably done only to annoy the person or people in question. I've seen you use various tactics to annoy people, so I think it's a safe bet that this is your primary motivation.

As for thread bans, that's between you and Damo. There's lots of threads on JPP plus I can always cut'n'paste your post and start a new thread which I control.

Yes, I was fine with you making your own threads and saying whatever you want in them. I just want my own threads to be free of people whose primary purpose in them seems to be to insult or otherwise annoy me and those I respect.
 
First of all, no minors were involved in the 2 times that Ritter was arrested. They were both police stings, so the only people Ritter was being lured by were police officers -pretending- to be minors.
Are you saying Ritter knew he was conversing with an adult female? The court didn't think so and US courts are geared to protect the Defendant, not the victim. What convicted Ritter was his intent to have a sexual relationship with a minor. The fact you don't understand this point is interesting and makes me question your intent in posting on JPP.

I'm not writing about gender, I'm writing about personality. Specifically, your personality on the feminine-masculine scale, but it applies to all I meet online. This is one example:

1561015330.jpg


I'm curious about people. When a person claims to be one gender, but their personality clearly does not match, it piques my curiosity. Again, haters lie so that also piques my curiosity on why they are lying.
 
@Phoenyx
I've told you numerous times, I'm not a woman.
Take this test. It's 36 easy questions on a 5 scale range; middle with two agree and two disagree. If it helps, please know that we all start out as female. :)

Your choice to reveal the results or not. Here are mine:

6Z7Laix.png
 
First of all, no minors were involved in the 2 times that Ritter was arrested. They were both police stings, so the only people Ritter was being lured by were police officers -pretending- to be minors.
So Scott Ritter was pursuing sex with children, regardless if police officers were only posing as children.

Anyone who pursues sex with children is a person of low integrity, low trustworthiness, low character. Their opinions and values should always be considered suspect.
 
As for thread bans, that's between you and Damo. There's lots of threads on JPP plus I can always cut'n'paste your post and start a new thread which I control. In America, we have a saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat". LOL
Bingo. And the conversation would naturally move over to your thread too.
 
So Scott Ritter was pursuing sex with children, regardless if police officers were only posing as children.

Anyone who pursues sex with children is a person of low integrity, low trustworthiness, low character. Their opinions and values should always be considered suspect.
A point she fails to understand.....or admit.

Agreed. They are perverted in mind and spirit. Anyone who hurts children needs to be dealt with in the most severe manner.
 
Oops @Damocles I just realized this is an APP thread. My apologies for violating any rules. Please edit me, ban me, do whatever you think best. My mistake. Sorry.
 
First of all, no minors were involved in the 2 times that Ritter was arrested. They were both police stings, so the only people Ritter was being lured by were police officers -pretending- to be minors.
Are you saying Ritter knew he was conversing with an adult female? The court didn't think so and US courts are geared to protect the Defendant, not the victim.

I think we can agree that he didn't -know- they were adult females, primarily because they weren't. However, he stated for the record that he believed they were and that does count for something. I was just re reading a New York Times article about his life that includes the police stings. Here's the relevant quote:
**
At trial, Ritter told the jury that he assumed Venneman was a housewife pretending to be 15, and that he had never for a moment believed he was talking to a minor, despite the fact that “Emily” repeatedly stated her age. When prosecutors were successful in moving to unseal his New York files and presented evidence from those arrests too, Ritter steadfastly maintained that he was aware, in both instances, that he was talking to undercover cops. He knew his online activities needed to be stopped, Ritter said, so he arranged to meet the officers involved, playing along with the notion that they were teenage girls, so that he could get himself arrested and be forced to face his demons. This would have been a more persuasive defense, perhaps, had one of the arresting detectives not testified that Ritter, upon seeing the police lying in wait for him, tried to evade capture by slamming down the gas pedal and jumping a curb, T.J. Hooker-style.
**
Full article:

What New York Times author Matt Bai never thought of is that Scott Ritter may have simply been thinking he'd meet an adult female. Clearly, police officers was -not- what he had been expecting. Now, the following quote from the text above clearly deserves scrutiny:
"He knew his online activities needed to be stopped, Ritter said, so he arranged to meet the officers involved, playing along with the notion that they were teenage girls, so that he could get himself arrested and be forced to face his demons."

If Ritter did in fact say that he -knew- that those he contacted online were undercover officers, then his action of trying to escape once he went to the site doesn't make sense. Which is why I'd like to see what he actually said instead of what Matt Bai interpreted him as saying.
 
@Phoenyx

Take this test. It's 36 easy questions on a 5 scale range; middle with two agree and two disagree. If it helps, please know that we all start out as female. :)

Your choice to reveal the results or not. Here are mine:

6Z7Laix.png

I'm not interested in taking such a test. I am biologically male. Used to be, that mattered, but now some people apparently want others to take tests like the one above, perhaps to continue to annoy them.
 
First of all, no minors were involved in the 2 times that Ritter was arrested. They were both police stings, so the only people Ritter was being lured by were police officers -pretending- to be minors.
So Scott Ritter was pursuing sex with children, regardless if police officers were only posing as children.

Ritter has maintained that he thought the people he was talking to online were adult females, as I pointed out in post #17.
 
Back
Top