Are you calling me stupid and/or ignorant?You really have a lot to learn:
Wrongful Convictions | Equal Justice Initiative
EJI challenges wrongful convictions and exposes official indifference to innocence.eji.org
APP - Former U.S. Marine and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
He had two convictions. What did the judge say in the other case?What the court, or more specifically, the judge rendering the verdict, Jennifer Harlacher Sibum, was a travesty. Even the New York Times made this clear to some extent:
**
After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
**
Source:
Scott Ritter’s Other War (Published 2012)
The former United Nations weapons inspector and fierce critic of the Iraq invasion is still fighting, but now against only himself.www.nytimes.com
I found no compelling evidence in the New York Times article that Ritter knew that the people he was chatting to in an adult chat room were actually minors, and everyone knows at this point that they weren't.
I think of the following line from Matt Bai's New York Times article that says a lot:
**
But Ritter has forcefully insisted all along that he did nothing wrong, beyond betraying Marina’s trust. “Why would I plead guilty to something I didn’t do?” he asked me, when I raised the issue of a plea arrangement. I suggested he might have done it to avoid going to jail.
**
And there you have it- Mr. Bai apparently thought he should have taken the please to avoid jail time, the truth be damned. [snip]
He didn't have 2 convictions. Here's what happened the first time he was arrested, back in 2001:
**
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]
**
Source:
Scott Ritter - Wikipedia
It pains me to have to explain this to you, but there are conventions as to how people are addressed. When it comes to strangers online, generally speaking, we address people by their name and the gender that they claim to be. You certainly aren't my "commander" and I don't call anyone "sir".
Are you calling me stupid and/or ignorant?You really have a lot to learn:
Wrongful Convictions | Equal Justice Initiative
EJI challenges wrongful convictions and exposes official indifference to innocence.
Neither, I'm simply trying to explain to you that being convicted of something doesn't necessarily mean the person so convicted lied or committed the act that they were convicted for.
Once I could understand but twice? Sorry, but it’s clear to me Scott Ritter is a pedophile…even if it’s only a wannabe pedophile like Trump is a wannabe dictator. That said, I have no doubt those were the only two times Scott tried to fuck a female minor. Those were just the two times he was caught.
My name is Commander. Please use it, Phoenyx. TIA.
I hate to have t explain this to you, but accepting a plea deal of “six-months pre-trial probation” to have one’s charges dismissed and the records sealed looks like a guilty plea to me.He didn't have 2 convictions. Here's what happened the first time he was arrested, back in 2001:
**
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]
**
Source:
Scott Ritter - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
If he came sniffing around my grandkids, I’d put a cap in his ass.
Your hero is a sick man who pursues children for sexual gratification.What the court, or more specifically, the judge rendering the verdict, Jennifer Harlacher Sibum, was a travesty. Even the New York Times made this clear to some extent:
**
After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
**
Source:
Scott Ritter’s Other War (Published 2012)
The former United Nations weapons inspector and fierce critic of the Iraq invasion is still fighting, but now against only himself.
I found no compelling evidence in the New York Times article that Ritter knew that the people he was chatting to in an adult chat room were actually minors, and everyone knows at this point that they weren't.
I think of the following line from Matt Bai's New York Times article that says a lot:
**
But Ritter has forcefully insisted all along that he did nothing wrong, beyond betraying Marina’s trust. “Why would I plead guilty to something I didn’t do?” he asked me, when I raised the issue of a plea arrangement. I suggested he might have done it to avoid going to jail.
**
And there you have it- Mr. Bai apparently thought he should have taken the please to avoid jail time, the truth be damned. I'll let Ritter have the last word, again from Mat Bai's article:
**
“I’ll tell you why it doesn’t matter,” Ritter was saying. [snip] I had asked him whether he thought he deserved some public acknowledgment that his warnings about Iraq and its supposed W.M.D.’s were correct. “Because today everybody knows I was right. I was right about one of the most significant issues in modern American history. I was the only one who was right about one of the most significant issues in modern American history.
“And yet,” Ritter went on, “the common reaction seems to be: ‘Well, that was then, this is now. Yeah, he was right back then, but how does that impact us today, 10 years later?’ ” He shook his head in disbelief. Ritter is an uncommonly articulate man, and when he gets going, the indignation flows in fully formed paragraphs. “What is the relevance of being right 10 years ago? I don’t know — talk about all the dead Americans. It’s relevant to their families, I would think. Talk about the tens of thousands of wounded Americans and the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis.”
**
"Scott Ritter, 49, exchanged sexual messages with a detective posing as an underage girl and masturbated even after the undercover officer stressed during the chat that she was a minor, prosecutors said."
Former UN weapons inspector found guilty in online sex case
Scott Ritter, chief inspector in Iraq in 1990s, masturbated in online chat with detective posing as underage girl
www.theguardian.com
Sometimes, it astounds me how people can be so confident about things they have no evidence for. I've seen -no- evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter wanted to have sex with -anyone- other than his wife. I'm guessing that you don't have a New York Times subscription and so couldn't read the full article from Mat Bai on him, but there's plenty of evidence from the article that Mr. Ritter is an exhibitionist. One passage in Mat Bai's article is particularly telling: "Ritter was caught using the unsubtle screen name OnExhibit." There's no evidence that he ever wanted to touch anyone that he met in the adult chat room.
Furthermore, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter was looking for minors at all. The only 2 times we know of that he communicated with alleged minors in this adult chat room were the 2 undercover officers who were posing as minors.
I'll end this with one more passage from Matt Bai's article:
**
In the years after, Ritter sought other outlets for his energies. He and Marina [Ritter's wife] joined Delmar’s volunteer Fire Department (he as a firefighter and she as an E.M.T.), and Ritter became one of its most active members, eventually selected as an assistant chief. In the hours left to himself, though, Ritter struggled. In the hours left to himself, though, Ritter struggled. According to court testimony, by 2004, when he stopped attending therapy, Ritter had made an almost daily habit of trying to meet adult women from the chat rooms, in cars or out-of-the-way places, so they could watch him masturbate. (Ritter maintains that he never engaged with an actual minor online, and there’s no evidence to suggest he did, beyond his interactions with undercover police officers in chat rooms for over-18-year-olds.) In 2007, he started using the webcam instead. He admits he couldn’t stop.
“I always sort of chuckle when people say, ‘What were you thinking?’ ” Ritter told me. “Well, what part of ‘depressed’ don’t you understand? Find me someone who says depressed people engage in coherent thought.”
**
It's in this setting that the second undercover officer found him.
Your name here has changed at least a couple of times, but for some reason, you always end it with Dutch. I have no problem calling you Dutch, but calling anyone "Commander" when one isn't in the military addressing someone with that title is a tad much. As for me, you can call me Scott if you like. It's easier to type than Phoenyx and it's the name I go by when I'm not online and in at least one forum too.
I hate to have t explain this to you, but accepting a plea deal of “six-months pre-trial probation” to have one’s charges dismissed and the records sealed looks like a guilty plea to me.He didn't have 2 convictions. Here's what happened the first time he was arrested, back in 2001:
**
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]
**
Source:
Scott Ritter - Wikipedia
Sure, but let's be clear as to what he was guilty -of-. The only thing he was guilty of was trying to set up a meeting with an undercover officer posing as a 16 year old. That's it. Talk about a victimless crime. Furthermore, there's no evidence he was even looking to meet a minor. If he had been, I think it would make more sense that he would have gone to a teen chat room, rather than an adult one. Instead, undercover police officers -posing- as minors went to the adult chat room, with the goal of entrapping people. The second time he was charged, he hadn't even attempted to meet the undercover officer- he simply exposed himself online to them and that's what got him the 2 year sentence.
Your hero is a sick man who pursues children for sexual gratification.What the court, or more specifically, the judge rendering the verdict, Jennifer Harlacher Sibum, was a travesty. Even the New York Times made this clear to some extent:
**
After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
**
Source:
Scott Ritter’s Other War (Published 2012)
The former United Nations weapons inspector and fierce critic of the Iraq invasion is still fighting, but now against only himself.
I found no compelling evidence in the New York Times article that Ritter knew that the people he was chatting to in an adult chat room were actually minors, and everyone knows at this point that they weren't.
I think of the following line from Matt Bai's New York Times article that says a lot:
**
But Ritter has forcefully insisted all along that he did nothing wrong, beyond betraying Marina’s trust. “Why would I plead guilty to something I didn’t do?” he asked me, when I raised the issue of a plea arrangement. I suggested he might have done it to avoid going to jail.
**
And there you have it- Mr. Bai apparently thought he should have taken the please to avoid jail time, the truth be damned.
No, as I explained to Dutch in post #49, Mr Ritter is an exhibitionist, who went to an adult chat room to try to find adult females to exhibit himself to (one of his online names was literally "OnExhibit") and was entrapped twice by undercover officers posing as minors. Ritter has stated that he never believed the undercover officers were minors (he thought they were adult females) and he was certainly right that they weren't minors. As Matt Bai, the author of the New York Times article pointed out, there's no evidence that Ritter ever went looking for minors.
As if being a weenie wagger in front of children makes it okay? WTF, Scott?
I'm a retired Navy Commander. The abbreviation is CDR. You're free to insult me as much as you like, but I'll stick to the APP rules and catch up to you on the other forums, "Scott".
As I've mentioned previously, there's no evidence Mr. Ritter ever looked to do this or actually did this with a minor. Instead, 2 undercover officers entrapped him into trying to meet with one of them and exposing himself to the other.
Interesting.
You're free to ignore the evidence. Entrapment is illegal in the US. What is it in your country?
I enjoyed my service of 21 years and still abide by my oath to the Constitution of the United States:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
Both my father and brother are retired Army. It's a family tradition to serve our country and support and defend the Constitution.
Alright, let's take a look at the definition of entrapment:
**
noun law Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime.
**
Source:
Had law enforcement not lead Scott Ritter to try to meet with a law enforcement officer posing as a minor in the first instance and to expose himself to another law enforcement officer in the second, they wouldn't have been able to arrest and prosecute him. Sounds like entrapment to me, but as renowned sci fi author once put it:
"Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"
Last edited:
I suspect I know why you mention all that, but regardless, I had a brother in law who was a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. My sister and the rest of the family had a falling out with him and he's since passed on, but I definitely think he was an interesting character. Both a good and a bad side to him.