I'm not familiar with him. Thanks in advance.

the one who insisted that Chrissy did not have weapons of mass distraction. But Mr. Roper, a former deputy from Mayberry, invaded their apartment anyway.

Knotts played Ralph Farley - the second landlord. He also played Barney, a former deputy from Mayberry.

Mr. Roper as played by Norman Fell.

Your comment was still funny, though.

that I didn't remember his stage name, I was vagiely thinking that he was Roper's brother, and thus also a Roper.

Also, I think Chrissy was long gone by the time Knotts got there. I figured the joke didn't have to be accurate, and Mayberry needed to be included for the Mayberry Machiavellians.

Just thought you would like to know. He was a well-known actor and passed from a heart problem. Scott Ritter is the former UN weapons inspector caught in an online sex sting (I think he was accused of soliciting minors). Some say his prosecution was political. I haven't followed it that closely, so I do not know.

Sam

He was so right about Iraq, and so wrong about trolling for teen aged girls, repeatedly, on the internet.

He is a very flawed human being who got one big thing right.

That is such utter hogwash. He chose to have online sex with what he thought was a 15 year old girl. He is no victim.

"victim of his own perversions" is basically a way of saying he did this to himself.

I firmly believe that it is not. He gave into his "demons", instead of seeking help and that is to be recognized and is clearly his fault. But, not everyone has their mistakes exploited as he has. It certainly has its share of Greek tragedy aspects...

Sad, indeed.

he deserves our sympathy not our contempt, IMO

He has a history of getting off (to be fair, fantasizing, at least he claims) on the act of masturbating in front of under aged girls.

It's not like he's picking up strange women in bars, or co-eds at Daytona.

What he 'deserves'.. is a 6x8.

by comparing them with such lowlifes.

but I think it is too bad he is going to prison.

But I also don't know how he managed to survive without actually having a job.

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 04:38 AM - Edit history (1)

However, that does not mitigate much less excuse the fact that he's a perv and got caught.

I agree it's a damn shame, but he broke the law.

on the biggest issue of our time. It's sad that he tries to use that, among other things, as a defense of his actions.

I do still think that he was set up - IMO.

My eyebrows notched up while reading the article.

And I don't think he's stupider than "Fool me once....unnnnh, errrrr, duuhhhh...won't git fooled agin!" Dubya!

Comes a time when you just have to accept that a person who does ONE GOOD THING might not be a Knight in Shining Armor in all aspects of his personal life.

This guy is a pervert, a sexual predator, a guy who is unhealthily fixated on teen girls.

please just address the obvious wrong doing, don't gin up some outrage--like that poor "terrorist" who the FBI gave the suicide vest to, then arrested him. Wrong!

No words.

Lots of girls will engage in actual acts of prostitution, risking all manner of venereal diseases, so they can have enough money to pay the rent, or pay for their substance abuse, or pay on some of their indebtedness. And once they have tricked that money, it will flow the way it always does, into the pockets of the 1%.

we should be trying to treat any person that suffers from what is clearly an illness rather then jail them.
In this case I have no doubt the powers that be knew of his weakness and exploited it to get even with him revealing the truth.

or something of that manner.

he's a perv.

try to apply weakness to other predators that you may Not like, see how that fits. Does Sandusky merely have a 'weakness' or is he a sick god damn fuck? It implies that the temptation from young girls is too strong, those succubus young girls, too strong for some men - it's not their fault - it's simply a weakness.

sorry to go on on you, but this just riles me up, as you may have noticed.

it seems that Liberals pacify a lot of things at time as long as it's someone around their side. It's the same problem I have with some of the Dems I've spoken too that have, in a round about way, defended or supported Ron Paul. It's just a mess. Although I'm not keen on the methods the cops used...I'm also not upset about this.

But all this pederast shit only came to light after his actions to try and stop the Iraq war. I saw him speak in July of 2002, had a book written with him by that October, and the first hints of this shit didn't come to light until 2003.

Self-hating liberalism feels good, but you should get your fucking facts straight before bringing out the lash.

P.S., on WMD and the effects of the war, he was 100% right. Where did you stand in 2003?

I don't care if he shits cupcakes. He's a pervert.

Either the Bush admin had a time machine, or Ritter is a pervert. I suspect the latter.

are the words you need to work with. It could have happened 100 times before for all we knew. It came to light in 2003.

I guess you can argue about treatment versus incarceration but you seem to imply that he should not even be blamed for this.

"it seems that Liberals pacify a lot of things at time as long as it's someone around their side."

was what I was replying to. It implied that we knew about this shit and still backed him, when in fact it came to light after we worked with him. Yes, he should go to jail. No, we didn't know beforehand.

Jesus. 2+2=a;elvrlkgnmbv3lkmb around here. Read.

I assume you mean the authorities knew. Because if you knew and didn't tell anyone...

When the person on the board, who can arguably be said knows him better than any other poster says... It could have happened 100 times before for all we knew. .. it kinda reinforces my opinion of him as a pedo.

Think back to the election of 2000. News "came to light" of George W's DUI arrest a short time before the election. Does any one doubt that the information was released for political reasons, especially in light of the timing? Hardly, it was a political move, yet it still doesn't change the facts... 1976, DUI charge. Now one could argue the 2003 revelations were political.... but, again, it doesn't change the fact of the incidents that happened before he was on any political radar.

The first sentence of the linked article...
On a February afternoon in 2009, Ryan Venneman, one of only five full-time police officers in tiny Barrett Township, Pa., decided to spend some time hunting for sexual predators online.

February... 2009??? Bush was gone. Who's the evil mastermind trying to set up critics of the war in Iraq? Maybe Barrett Township is so far removed from the power of DC that the shadow operatives, er, operative (cites one officer), hadn't got the memo that there was an administration change, and all members of the BFC, or BFEE, or what ever.. were to disengage and regroup at Crawford.

If he wasn't who he is.. what he is would garner a lot more condemnation. But hell, any one who was here during the whole Polanski cluster thump knows that.

hubris.

His actions above are abhorrent, yet there are some people here who came across as defending the guy in a round about way in regards to the situation. He's a dirty dealer here and end of story. Nothing he did in the past would atone for his actions here and enough evidence here proves he's no innocent at all. I read the article so I know what I'm talking about.

But I'm in agreement with a poster who posted before my reply. I noticed the replies he mentioned.

Why do you post here?

I bash points of view I don't agree with and find ridiculous. I don't care about your political backing all in all. I don't think the Liberal status as a clear and definite rule as to what deems a Liberal. While there are people who defend the actions of Manning, I find his actions criminal. While there are people here you bash Obama in the guise of holding his feet to the fire---and never post on any positive things he's done---I actually have held his feet to the fire at the same time praised many of the things he's done in the positive.

And as I have said in the past...many a liberal on this site has pacified or even defended Ron Paul on occasion. To me one issue doesn't make me think the man is worth the time of day. But that's just me---especially when I find that issue to be because he's just an isolationist and anti-immigrants. But that's just me.

As to the reason I post here...at one time it was a place I could speak to other like minded people and a good number of them are still here. You are not one, so need to worry yourself over it.

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 05:49 PM - Edit history (1)

"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."

Your comment is just the kind of kneejerk rhetoric that allows for unquestioned character smears. Just imply that someone is engaging in sexual activity with a minor and, whether they are or not, they become guilty in the court of public opinion. How convenient. A great way to dispose of political enemies.

Me neither.

Accuse a person of pederasty or child pornography and the court of public opinion is against them without question, without 'innocent until proven guilty', so it's the perfect thing to use against political enemies.

And seriously, some undercover cop trolling chat boards pretending to be an underage kid on a board for 18 or older, talking sexy and leading someone on to get them to masturbate on camera? Creepy all around.

I'm assuming you can say the same. Why did it work for Ritter?

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I wonder if she looked at her daughters and thought if she should remove them from the presence of a man who likes girls that age.

You'd think that after 4 such incidents, she might stop to wonder.

Hell. Dorothy Sandusky still wants her grandkids to visit......

After starting an illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war in Iraq using lies, rumors, and innuendo to whip up the fearmongering in this country that was so prevalent after 9/11.

And while Bush is still walking around as a free man in this country, a former Marine is sent to prison under suspicious circumstances.
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps officer who worked with UNESCO as a weapons inspector and one who tried to stop the Iraq War by going public with what he knew about the absence of WMDs in Iraq.

Ritter appeared on Phil Donahue's cable program in February of 2003 and told Donahue - and the entire world - that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The UN inspectors hadn't found any evidence of large quantities of WMDs in the entire time he was there searching for them. The former UNESCO chief inspector was on Donahue's program with Ritter and he agreed that the many sanctioned UN searches for WMDs had failed to turn up any WMDs.

Semper Fi, Scott Ritter.

and airc, he had documents with him. The other guy, was it Butler?, made some feeble attempts to contradict him, but Ritter spoke with such clarity and knowledge that he was almost impossible to refute. At the time that was devastating to the Bush crowd, they could not dismiss him as a 'tree-hugging, Saddam-hugging, Lieberal'. He was a Republican as Veteran and a former inspector. He was definitely a threat to their cause.

I believe, although I might be wrong, it was shortly after that the Donahue was cancelled. And with that, they had control of the media.

I hope he appeals this decision, and gets counseling and continues to serve his country as he always has, with honor and truth.

That's the sad part.

I think most of us agree he deserves jail time. He obviously has a very real problem.

I don't the basis for all the charges nor why Ritter was judged as a sexually violent predator.

from the link:

"History will record, though, that Ritter was right, while those who showed him nothing but contempt were flat wrong. While he wasn’t the only one saying that the war’s pretense was false or that its aftermath could be calamitous, Ritter was almost certainly the most determined dissenter and the one with the most on-the-ground intelligence. And if his views on Hussein’s regime careened from one extreme to the other, at least he demonstrated a capacity to evolve in his thinking — something few policy makers or commentators showed themselves able to do at the time. No doubt his very existence continues to discomfit those who insisted on Hussein’s lethality, and whose explanation for why they were wrong — that the intelligence was fabricated, essentially — has always been undercut by the fact that Ritter was never taken in. "

The way I heard it is "One Awww Shit wipes away a thousand Attaboys".

I don't give a fuck what he did before he stroked his cock in front of his webcam. He had no proof that the person on the other side WASN'T 15 years old and was given every chance to back away from what he wanted to do...

He took the chance. He played his nickel. He fucked up.

A guy who's as smart and brave as the posters on this thread maintain KNOWS WHEN HE'S DOING SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG.

"I'm a 15 year old girl"

"Watch me stroke my big cock... WACKA WACKA WACKA Ohhhhh"

Feel sorry for him? Send him Soap on a Rope.

What do you think the chances are that the very first time he does this, he gets caught?

Highest recidivism rate among law breakers I believe.

Democrat, Republican, Marine, or Rodeo Clown... I'm not sorry to see him going inside.

Bye Scott.

... based around underage girls:

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-22/us/ritter.arrest_1_case-weapons-inspector-scott-ritter?_s=PM:US

The man has problems -

I don't know the case, and there seems to be intent, but is it illegal to masturbate in front of a cop?

Criminal use of a Communications Facility
Corruption of Minors
Indecent Exposure
Possessing Instruments of a Crime
Criminal Attempt
Criminal Solicitation

Prosecutors were very diligent.

this minority report-style pre-cog shit is creepy as hell; it's certainly *way* creepier than masturbating/fantasizing in privacy of one's own home.


what the fuck ever. i just *know* that this is wrong; and no amount of (pre?-) police-state propaganda will convince me otherwise.

He's denying that anyone was harmed, thereby conveniently overlooking the fact that he broke laws that are meant to protect minors from pedophiles.

Big difference.

His was a victimless crime, of which there are many.

He broke laws that are meant to protect minors from sexual predators.

That's why he's in jail. If you want to start a protest group for victimless crimes, go for it. If you want to masturbate in front of someone you believe to be a minor, go for it.

But Ritter is in jail because he broke laws, not because he was right about WMD.

If it's all just a conspiracy to you or whatever, why isn't his co-author in jail right now?

"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. "

Entrapment:

"In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.[1] In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."

Given the details provided, IMO he was entrapped. He wasn't actively seeking minors - he "would have been unlikely to commit" this offense otherwise. But when pedophilia is involved our Puritan righteousness takes over and there's an unstoppable rush to judgement.

I don't believe he's a pedo and I feel sorry for him.

The undercover cop said she was 15 and Ritter THEN set up the webcam.

That's against the law. Go ahead and change the law if you want. But that's enough for most people to say, 'Lock him up.'

Although my personal preference would be for treatment instead.

hitman wasn't real????

That's not how the law works.

who have no inkling what the difference is between child rape and jerking off to the words of someone on a computer screen who says they're fifteen, but really isn't, and not caring whether they're fifteen or 21 or whatever.

Not really

belongs in prison and mandatory psychological therapy.

Only when it's committed by people with bad politics.

Or Julian Assange ones....

Well, it's important to me anyway, since we're sending him to prison.

I don't get who solicited who, or where the minor is...

being watched by a 15 year old is what's disgusting, thank you very much.

I suspect the hypocrisy would be stunning.

with internet chat rooms and mutual consent. Whatever the age.

Go for it.

**age of consent laws apply.


So what if the cop wasn't a 15 year old???? What happens when people hire undercover cops they think are hitmen? You think they walk free because the hitman is really a cop????

or is your thinking unable to escape legal definitions?

How limited.

You'll need to provide a link to back that up.

And, um, since this is about the legality of what Ritter did, well, yeah, 'legal definitions' play into the discussion.

Duh.

Are you just bound and determined to come off as objectionable or are you completely unable to recognize that you were wrong?

Those little boys were willing participants, after all.

that posits that people not old enough to drive are old enough to consent to having sex with adults.

I always wonder at people who deplore limitations on their sexual pursuits with minors.

Meanwhile Bush and Cheney walk free

If it was Father Scott Ritter would you feel the same?

He was also right about Iraq.

really rather awful.

He's was a heroic, but that doesn't change what he did.

at least read this.

“Everybody who lied about the war got rewarded,” Ritter said. “Because they played the game. Tell the truth about the war, you don’t get rewarded.” He paused. “And then, you know, let’s be frank — you compound it with me shooting myself in the foot on personal, behavioral issues.” An awkward moment passed between us. “I’ll just ask the fundamental question,” Ritter said, looking at me squarely across the table. “My personal missteps — how many Americans have died as a result of that? None. Other than my family, how many victims were there? None. And yet, in refusing to engage in a responsible debate about Iraq, how many Americans died? Thousands. And America seems to have no problem with that.”

If you still think he deserves not an ounce of compassion, you suck. IMHO, of course.

So being a pedophile that doesn't result in deaths is okay in your opinion?

That's just wrong.

Some people can't hold more than one thing in their heads at the same time. Ritter was right about Iraq. And he is a pervert. Why can't you see the facts when they are right in front of you?

Sending 4,000 Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis) to their deaths without case is okay in your opinion?

Let's get some perspective here.

Our system of jurisprudence, thankfully, helps avoid defenses like the one you are advancing, however implicit.

I didn't suggest he was innocent, now did I?

Look over there!

Everyone here agrees that people should have gone to jail for Iraq.

And pretty much everyone agrees that Ritter belongs in jail, or at least in a treatment facility.

There is no need of a different perspective on these two matters.

That's what I mean by perspective.

Ritter should be kept away from the public. Period. That's what is being debated here. You and one or two others want to keep bringing up Iraq, which has nothing to do with Ritter's crimes.

I'm not seeing how one can point to the totally unrelated crimes of another to defend the accused.

Someone already said this, but I will repeat it: Bush lied, kids died. No one disputes that. How does that
exonerate or even mitigate Ritter?

they did before the pervdom discovery? )

shouldn't go to jail?

Enjoy your lynching.

Explain how that is a lynching.

In which case he's a sicker fuck than most garden variety pedos.

(and I'm fine with you providing him that ounce of compassion)

what if he was talking to a 17-year-old girl the day before her 18th birthday?

He's a sick fuck, right? Garden variety pedo? Send that perv to jail.

The clock strikes midnight, and poof! He's a healthy sexual male enjoying online sex in the privacy of his home.

Funny how that works.

...you're just 'hoping' that he wasn't a 'garden variety pedo'. Whatever the hell that is.

You don't know shit about why he was convicted. Actually, neither do I. But he sounds pretty sick to me so why try to second guess the outcome?

In the US (in theory, anyway) we're innocent until proven guilty.

Yet you're all too ready to second-guess his guilt.