DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Serial Pedophile With 300 Year Sentence Freed on Technicality, Won't Have to Register as Sex Offender

Trending: In Pictures: From Berlin to New York, 20 Cities Millennials Love

Don't miss: Yellowstone Hot Springs Host a Shape-Shifting Virus That Could Be Used for Medicine

Most popular: Cryptocurrency Crackdown: SEC Probe Heaps Regulatory Pressure on Multi-Billion-Dollar Market

I guess we can only hope he gets real justice. Should save taxpayers millions...

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook is under fire for asking users whether pedophiles should be able to proposition underage girls for sexually explicit photographs on the giant social network.

The survey is the latest in a series of missteps by the Silicon Valley company, which has been criticized for allowing content that exploits children.

From violence on its Live streaming service to hate speech to divisive messages sent by Russian operatives trying to to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, toxic content flowing through its platform has heightened scrutiny of Facebook.

Facebook scrapped the survey that posed questions about teens being groomed by older men after it was spotted by media outlets in the United Kingdom. It now says the survey could have been better "designed."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018...ures/395535002/

WTF?

District Attorney Rubinstein sent the following statement to 11 News on Thursday before McFadden was arrested in Colorado Springs:


"While there has been some news coverage on the travesty of justice that occurred with the release of Michael McFadden, I think it is important for the community to know what occurred so that they can take action at the next election of court of appeals judges Jones, Graham and Welling. The court of appeals blames both the trial judge and the legislature, but in my opinion, the court of appeals got this one wrong. I have already been in touch with Sen. Ray Scott, Rep. Dan Thurlow, and Rep. Yeulin Willett to change the statute, even though I still believe that they could have affirmed the conviction without the change.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting 6 children and being a habitual sex offender against children. The trials of all of these victims were consolidated. On two previous occasions, the defense asked for a continuance and waived his right to a speedy trial in order to secure the continuance. Prior to the third trial date, there was a jury questionnaire which was drafted by the defense which referenced Mr. McFadden's prior offense, which both parties were comfortable with, given the court's ruling that the facts of the prior offense were going to be admissible.

After the questionnaire had been passed out to the jury, the judge noticed the reference to the prior offense, admitted he had not read the questionnaire and a discussion ensued about whether the defendant could receive a fair trial with the reference. Ultimately the court found that the defense was, in part, at fault for the jury hearing this information, and said that the court of appeals would find it to be plain error to move forward with this jury pool. The judge granted a continuance of the trial, over the objection of the defense, finding that the defense's role in this situation waives his statutory right to his case being tried within 6 months, and reset the case for trial.

Due to the great work of the DA on the case, at the next trial date, Mr. McFadden was convicted of nineteen counts as well as being adjudged a habitual sex offender, and was sentenced to more than 300 years in prison.

The court of appeals found that the trial court erred in determining that a continuance was required, disagreed that the delay was chargeable to the defense and therefore violated the defendant's speedy trial rights. This was found despite the trial court continuing the case to protect the defendant's Constitutional rights to a fair trial. The court of appeals vacated the convictions. Here, because the trial court felt this was necessary, it got delayed. However, because the court of appeals thinks the trial court was wrong, even though the defendant had waived his speedy trial rights in the past, found this statutory violation results in a dismissal. They acknowledged in the opinion that prior precedent exists to override statutory violations to protect constitutional rights. Despite that, they chose not to extend that precedent here, and blamed the legislature for the rigid rule.

I disagree with the ruling by the court of appeals. The Attorney General's Office, who handles criminal appeals in Colorado on our behalf, petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Supreme Court, as I believe that the court's precedent in People v. Jefferson, 981 P.2d 613 (Colo. App. 1998) which found that "under certain circumstances, the six month speedy trial time frame will be extended where reasonable delay is necessary to protect other fundamental constitutional rights of the defendant," gave the court the ability to find that here, his statutory speedy trial right gives way to the court's desire to protect his right to a fair trial. Unfortunately the Colorado Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the decision by the court of appeals as the final decision.

I am appalled that our justice system, in which a jury of the defendant's peers which the defendant helped choose, unanimously found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexually offending against 6 innocent victims, yet the court of appeals vacated the convictions after finding that the trial courts efforts to protect the defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial violate an arbitrary statutory right that the defendant had waived on two prior occasions."

Ridiculous if true. WTH is FB thinking?

I'll admit to there being quite a chasm at this point, but it just might be a little "testing of the waters" so to speak. Testing of what? A move to make pedophilia more acceptable, and possibly accepted as a sexual preference like being straight/gay/etc. Sounds outlandish I know, but about a year or so ago Salon.com had a writer publish 2 pieces about his own experiences as a pedophile and presented in a format trying to gain sympathy for him.

Well this thread just took a nose dive into bizarro land.

SAN FRANCISCO — Facebook is under fire for asking users whether pedophiles should be able to proposition underage girls for sexually explicit photographs on the giant social network.

The survey is the latest in a series of missteps by the Silicon Valley company, which has been criticized for allowing content that exploits children.

From violence on its Live streaming service to hate speech to divisive messages sent by Russian operatives trying to to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, toxic content flowing through its platform has heightened scrutiny of Facebook.

Facebook scrapped the survey that posed questions about teens being groomed by older men after it was spotted by media outlets in the United Kingdom. It now says the survey could have been better "designed."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018...ures/395535002/

WTF?

Two days ago, 40 said he sees "Fight" in this man's eyes.



Is that material fresh enough?