Charles Floate charged with hacking and possession of child sex images

[stharthjw6j]

I could not stay all day, stayed till lunchtime. Was still in the preliminary stages when I left.

Charles' legal guy (not team) is trying to get a lot of evidence excluded from the trial such as past arrests, internet history to discredit character and youtube videos of him bragging about hacks.

Possibly even more, like I said I stayed until lunch time then it was over.

What was that I was saying about lawyers manipulating evidence, ending in unreliable verdicts? If this comes off, then what will you say?

If it doesn't come off, but the prosecution manage to pass off their own manipulations, will you nod in eager agreement as it goes well for you? Probably.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what you'll see the next few weeks. A whole fog of lies and factual spin which the court will call "evidence" at the end of the verdict. I suggest you hold a solemn vigil at the courtroom for the possibly hundreds of thousands of victims over the decades up and down the country.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

The prosecution doesn't need to manipulate anything, he was found with all that content and did make a video admitting to hacking.

 

[redrubies]

What was that I was saying about lawyers manipulating evidence, ending in unreliable verdicts? If this comes off, then what will you say?

If it doesn't come off, but the prosecution manage to pass off their own manipulations, will you nod in eager agreement as it goes well for you? Probably.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what you'll see the next few weeks. A whole fog of lies and factual spin which the court will call "evidence" at the end of the verdict. I suggest you hold a solemn vigil at the courtroom for the possibly hundreds of thousands of victims over the decades up and down the country.

You're trying to use big words to sound intelligent, but the meaning of the words you're using don't go with your sentences. The attorney is not "manipulating" evidence. If he was, he would be tampering with evidence, and that is illegal. Asking that some evidence not be admissible is not manipulating evidence. Also, court is not a "franchise." Subway is a franchise. Using the word franchise in a governmental context, an example would be a franchise to provide a service for the government, such as operating public transportation.

 

[stharthjw6j]

You're trying to use big words to sound intelligent, but the meaning of the words you're using don't go with your sentences. The attorney is not "manipulating" evidence. If he was, he would be tampering with evidence, and that is illegal. Asking that some evidence not be admissible is not manipulating evidence. Also, court is not a "franchise." Subway is a franchise. Using the word franchise in a governmental context, an example would be a franchise to provide a service for the government, such as operating public transportation.

That's very semantic, much like the lawyers I've been talking about in fact. In all the ways that matter, it most definitely is manipulating the evidence, manipulating the judge's thought processes, manipulating what's admitted, manipulating the direction of the hearing, manipulating the outcome, the judge's post-case report etc, etc. Please don't pull out your dictionary to make a point over this, you know exactly what I'm talking about and haven't addressed the problem with it. That kind of Clintonesque answer may be acceptable in court, but be more honest about what's being raised here, don't deflect the point. Of course it isn't illegal because the court allows it to go on, the lawyers do what they can get away with; just because the law doesn't call it evidence manipulation, doesn't mean it's not. Changing the fingerprints on a laptop isn't the only kind of manipulation of evidence there can be. See you're allowing the law to decide what is and what isn't such and such a definition. You have a mind of your own, use it, agree with the courts if you must, but to tell me it's not manipulation because the law says it's not manipulation, is pretty drone-like, just the kind of people the law prefers, of course.

This issue is far too important so please refrain from measuring my intelligence remotely, I'm not interested in a mental dick-measuring contest with you. Neither of us are that smart, no human is, get some context. End of discussion.

Similarly, don't become a pedant of language, because I will choose my words and style of language myself, not you on my behalf. Don't like the courts called a franchise? That's your irrelevant petulance. It won't change a thing.

If you have anything more to say then please, please, stick to the issue of the courts and how this hearing is going, I won't go down your rabbit hole.

 

[redrubies]

I'm not interested in a mental dick-measuring contest with you.

If you are going to debate with people, you're going to have to understand the definitions of the words that you're using. It's not that hard. I have lady parts by the way.

 

[stharthjw6j]

If you are going to debate with people, you're going to have to understand the definitions of the words that you're using. It's not that hard. I have lady parts by the way.

Glossing over everything I told you and replying with more pedantic drivel?

Go ahead... tell me how you now win the argument because I won't listen to your pedantic crap anymore. That's the usual response I get.

To the rest of you, I see I'm getting nowhere, not that I expected to "get anywhere" per se, this was more my own test-check on the issue of the courts, and it seems to have passed quite frankly. Unless you all have anything else to say, I'll leave the thread now (I gave it a shot last time, honestly!). I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that and will probably get 30 or 40 thanks now.

 

[tngs01]

Lool this is hilarious and weird at the same time..

 

[ORM]

Glossing over everything I told you and replying with more pedantic drivel?

Go ahead... tell me how you now win the argument because I won't listen to your pedantic crap anymore. That's the usual response I get.

To the rest of you, I see I'm getting nowhere, not that I expected to "get anywhere" per se, this was more my own test-check on the issue of the courts, and it seems to have passed quite frankly. Unless you all have anything else to say, I'll leave the thread now (I gave it a shot last time, honestly!). I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that and will probably get 30 or 40 thanks now.

what the **** are smoking?

 

[redrubies]

Go ahead... tell me how you now win the argument because I won't listen to your pedantic crap anymore. That's the usual response I get..

What argument? You and I never debated. lol I simply told you to learn the definitions of the words you were using. I'm not debating Charles Floate with you or anyone else when I can't even type out the words "mother/son porn" without feeling the urge to vomit.

 

[Money Over Morals]

TIL stupid people are stupid

 

[rovad]

I actually agree with most of what you said. I've never personally been to a court nor I have any systematic knowledge about any country's legal system, including my own (mistake probably?). But, during my long procrastrination phases I happened to watch some long and boring vids of trials, hearings, pleas, laywers "in action" and stuff like that. I'm not talking about 45 minute per episode TV shows here, I'm talking the real world stuff.
With my own eyes and ears I could clearly see and hear facts being used and abused at will, to suit either the defense's or prosecution's case. Lawyers frequently bending the implications of undeniable evidence, again, to suit either the defense's or prosecution's case. Appealing to jury's or judges feelings, evoking emotional responses, framing any number of facts into the "real truth" kind of picture, or "the real issue at stake here" or something else...Stuff like that. Manipulation, as you said it.

As far as I can see, the issue you're trying to address is not whether Charles Floate is guilty or not, and for that you might be going just a bit off-topic (but it's still relevant to the main topic discussion though), but the fact that justice is usually the last and least to be served by the courts, legal system, laws etc...

In other words, laws/legal system/courts do not equate to getting justice all the time. Probably most of the time.

Problem is, the alternative is no better either - without all of that, we'd be stuck in the dark ages where people took justice in their own hands, and we all know how that one goes usually - murders, tortures, genocides, wars, segregation, oppresion... I mean, these issues are still present today, but at least they're somewhat under control.

Glossing over everything I told you and replying with more pedantic drivel?

Go ahead... tell me how you now win the argument because I won't listen to your pedantic crap anymore. That's the usual response I get.

To the rest of you, I see I'm getting nowhere, not that I expected to "get anywhere" per se, this was more my own test-check on the issue of the courts, and it seems to have passed quite frankly. Unless you all have anything else to say, I'll leave the thread now (I gave it a shot last time, honestly!). I'm sure you'll all be pleased to hear that and will probably get 30 or 40 thanks now.

 

[stharthjw6j]

I actually agree with most of what you said. I've never personally been to a court nor I have any systematic knowledge about any country's legal system, including my own (mistake probably?). But, during my long procrastrination phases I happened to watch some long and boring vids of trials, hearings, pleas, laywers "in action" and stuff like that. I'm not talking about 45 minute per episode TV shows here, I'm talking the real world stuff.
With my own eyes and ears I could clearly see and hear facts being used and abused at will, to suit either the defense's or prosecution's case. Lawyers frequently bending the implications of undeniable evidence, again, to suit either the defense's or prosecution's case. Appealing to jury's or judges feelings, evoking emotional responses, framing any number of facts into the "real truth" kind of picture, or "the real issue at stake here" or something else...Stuff like that. Manipulation, as you said it.

As far as I can see, the issue you're trying to address is not whether Charles Floate is guilty or not, and for that you might be going just a bit off-topic (but it's still relevant to the main topic discussion though), but the fact that justice is usually the last and least to be served by the courts, legal system, laws etc...

In other words, laws/legal system/courts do not equate to getting justice all the time. Probably most of the time.

Problem is, the alternative is no better either - without all of that, we'd be stuck in the dark ages where people took justice in their own hands, and we all know how that one goes usually - murders, tortures, genocides, wars, segregation, oppresion... I mean, these issues are still present today, but at least they're somewhat under control.

Thanks for that. Yeah I wouldn't suggest no judiciary, of course not, I think the goal of the "imperfect system" is one we can definitely achieve. I know that sounds weird, why imperfect right? Lol. I mean that insofar as we can never get a perfect system, we sure can bring us out of an institutionally corrupt system like today's dark ages version. It's really to the rest of the world's discredit that no country has bothered to create their system away from the centuries old British format. There is huge scope for modernized and futuristic thinking. That being, everything from addressing the way cross-examinations are carried out, right through to minutia like removing those silly costumes. I've given a lot of thought to how to do this. This thread was more about me highlighting the corruption more than a renovation that isn't even on society's radars right now, because it makes for a difficult situation when somebody who might be guilty is sent down by a court system that is also guilty. My little knowledge of this Charles guy seems like his situation is pretty slam-dunk, but I can't watch someone get sent down without feeling very solemn about it, one evil is validated by the punishing of another. The victims of false court verdicts who may have had their quality of life suffer as a result would feel very discombobulated by this validation of the courts.

 

[Money Over Morals]

You are defending a child porn addict who is into incest porn as well.

You need to stop

 

[rovad]

You are defending a child porn addict who is into incest porn as well.

You need to stop

If you're reffering to me, I'm not fucking defending anybody, I don't give a shit, regardless of the outcome of his case...

All government bodies are strict and rigid when it comes to classification and categorization. There's not much room, if any, for subtle differences. For example, I'm 24 years old and in most cases, they don't ask how many months I have until 25. Because I'm 24 and I'm in that "bracket" and that's it - no going up or down.

I can understand why there's so much flaming going towards this Charles dude, I never heard of him before, but I checked around and you all have your reasons to feel that way.

I just happen to be in a position to remain level-headed and look at things from a neutral perspective. That's all.

Question for you @Money Over Morals:
Did you happen to get the details during your time spent in courtroom? Like, you said in your tweets his history included "incest" "son on mom" "shemale prostitutes" etc... but was it like mainstream faked porn or real life recordgins? I mean, even real-life stuff like that can be found relatively easily afaik, just go to efukt, theync.com or even worse sites than that, I'm sure you'll find a ton of sick shit like that over there... Yeah, if you've never visited such sites before, I guess I'm a sick twisted person then. Well, no turning back now

P.S. I was always curious, how the fuck do you even get in contact with somebody that has illegal porn like kids and stuff. If I had it, I would never tell anybody for sure. In fact I would probably keep it locked somewhere deep in the ground or something just to be sure nobody ever finds it...But then again, a lot of people are stupid as fuck, so yeah...

 

[BreaknBrix]

If I had it, I would never tell anybody for sure. In fact I would probably keep it locked somewhere deep in the ground or something just to be sure nobody ever finds it...

Why not just put it in the freezer behind all the kiddy kats and loli-pops?

LOL.

But seriously. That's what I did with my pot when I quit smoking weed. It was too much high grade weed to flush down the toilet. So I put it in tubberware, wrapped it in a blackbag, hopped on my bike, rode 2 miles to the end of the beach and buried it right on the top of the dunes in the middle of a bunch of trees.

It's right outside a construction zone where they're rebuilding dunes after Hurricane Sandy. And I told myself "if they ever rebuild that dune then it wasn't meant to be". As in I wasn't meant to relapse.

Problem is, I was so burnt out at the time I never marked where it was buried. So there's about $500 of high grade buds buried in a dune noones ever gonna find.

 

[redrubies]

If you're reffering to me, I'm not fucking defending anybody, I don't give a shit, regardless of the outcome of his case...

I care about the outcome of the case because I care about children. Twisted people like Charles Floate go on to hurt children. And that is tragic.

 

[mickyfu]

Glossing over everything I told you and replying with more pedantic drivel?


Go ahead... tell me how you now win the argument because I won't listen to your pedantic crap anymore. That's the usual response I get.

Do you know the meaning of the word "pedantic", or have you just thrown it in to sound clever. The thing is you don't sound clever, because, at no point has RedRubies shown any signs of being pedantic.

 

[rovad]

I care about the outcome of the case because I care about children. Twisted people like Charles Floate go on to hurt children. And that is tragic.

There's whole lot of wrong going on right this moment in the world - slavery, trafficking, stealing, rapes, killings, robbing... You caring for it or not doesn't change most/any of it. The world is a fucked up place, and the only thing you CAN do is protect your loved ones to the best of your ability.
It's normal to feel empathy, but fact is, for individuals like you and me it's mostly a useless feeling.

When channeled for a greater good in an organized way, then it can be useful, but only as a core motivation to take action. Otherwise, it's a waste of time/energy.

 

[stharthjw6j]

Do you know the meaning of the word "pedantic", or have you just thrown it in to sound clever. The thing is you don't sound clever, because, at no point has RedRubies shown any signs of being pedantic.

Sure she hasn't! Just like Bill did not have sexual relations!

I'm much more concerned about the subject at hand though, which is why I've ignored her ramblings since.

If you have nothing more to say about the topic either, I've not much to say back really.

 

[mickyfu]

Ah typical response from someone who is wrong, hope you are still not losing sleep over Charlie the paedo.