Jared from Subway got what he deserved (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple.

 

[Zow]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple. And he managed to get a light punishment to boot.

He didn't plead guilty to child molestation. I can't state it more clearly than that.

ETA: also, I believe "pedarast" is an older male attracted to a younger male. My understanding is that Fogle isn't a homosexual.

 

[Chaka]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple. And he managed to get a light punishment to boot.

He didn't plead guilty to child molestation. I can't state it more clearly than that.

ETA: also, I believe "pedarast" is an older male attracted to a younger male. My understanding is that Fogle isn't a homosexual.

I know he didn't and I know you can't.

He's a pedoPHILE (since you seem to be on such a literalist bent in this thread) what he admitted to and what he is can be two different things.

 

[James Daulton]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

 

[dutch]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

until they need one

 

[James Daulton]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

until they need one

Ringing endorsement there. And I bet many of those who need lawyers still don't like them.

 

[dutch]

Me, I love lawyers, they're alright in my book. Politicians, reporters, blind umps and refs, doctors who overbook, these are the professionals I despise. Lawyers however are a-okay by me.

 

[Zow]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple. And he managed to get a light punishment to boot.

He didn't plead guilty to child molestation. I can't state it more clearly than that.

ETA: also, I believe "pedarast" is an older male attracted to a younger male. My understanding is that Fogle isn't a homosexual.

I know he didn't and I know you can't.

He's a pedoPHILE (since you seem to be on such a literalist bent in this thread) what he admitted to and what he is can be two different things.

Actually, he's likely not a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent girls. The evidence suggests that, while he was into girls under 18, that they were post-pubescent. That makes him more aligned with a hebephile.

 

[Zow]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

Imagine being a mathematician and someone in conversations states that 2+2 = 5. You politely try to explain that 2+2=4. They then argue with you about it. You politely correct them again. They still fight with you about it.

Or, in Chaka's case, imagine he overhears somebody making an incorrect statement about dieting. You think he'll keep quiet about it, especially if somebody challenges him on it?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Been wondering how long they've known about this.

Only four years, apparently.

I think that's a better record than the catholic church?

I'm not sure anyone wants to build his house on the foundation of "better on the issue of child molestation than the Catholic church."

Bingo.

 

[James Daulton]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

Imagine being a mathematician and someone in conversations states that 2+2 = 5. You politely try to explain that 2+2=4. They then argue with you about it. You politely correct them again. They still fight with you about it.

Or, in Chaka's case, imagine he overhears somebody making an incorrect statement about dieting. You think he'll keep quiet about it, especially if somebody challenges him on it?

solid point.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's amusing that people hate lawyers more than child molesters.

 

[Chaka]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple. And he managed to get a light punishment to boot.

He didn't plead guilty to child molestation. I can't state it more clearly than that.

ETA: also, I believe "pedarast" is an older male attracted to a younger male. My understanding is that Fogle isn't a homosexual.

I know he didn't and I know you can't.

He's a pedoPHILE (since you seem to be on such a literalist bent in this thread) what he admitted to and what he is can be two different things.

Actually, he's likely not a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent girls. The evidence suggests that, while he was into girls under 18, that they were post-pubescent. That makes him more aligned with a hebephile.

Where is the evidence to support that?

He's a pederastohebophile. Innocent people don't cop deals. People who are guilty and caught dead to rights and know they face far worse if they fight cop deals. #### him.

 

[Chaka]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

Imagine being a mathematician and someone in conversations states that 2+2 = 5. You politely try to explain that 2+2=4. They then argue with you about it. You politely correct them again. They still fight with you about it.

Or, in Chaka's case, imagine he overhears somebody making an incorrect statement about dieting. You think he'll keep quiet about it, especially if somebody challenges him on it?

Depends on how deeply they are entrenched. For many I will accept the challenge but for others I let them blissfully enjoy their ignorance. (no worries if you take that tack with me in here, you have my blessing to defend the pederastohebophile's rights to blah-blah-blah to your heart's content).

 

[Zow]

You're confusing the "without a fight" part (which isn't even true of itself, he took a plea where his sentencing calculation will be done more favorably than if he had lost at trial) with the factual basis for his pleas (which were not to child molestation).

I don't think so. It's something innocent people don't do. I fully admit to viewing this through my own personal lens and do not claim impartiality or lack of bias. IMO the only reason to take that plea is because you know they can, and likely will, nail you for something much worse. So you may choose to stand behind the letter of the plea, which is fine because in the justice system it's really all that matters, but the fact that he copped to the plea deal speaks volumes far beyond the content of the plea itself.

Dude is a pederast plain and simple. And he managed to get a light punishment to boot.

He didn't plead guilty to child molestation. I can't state it more clearly than that.

ETA: also, I believe "pedarast" is an older male attracted to a younger male. My understanding is that Fogle isn't a homosexual.

I know he didn't and I know you can't.

He's a pedoPHILE (since you seem to be on such a literalist bent in this thread) what he admitted to and what he is can be two different things.

Actually, he's likely not a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent girls. The evidence suggests that, while he was into girls under 18, that they were post-pubescent. That makes him more aligned with a hebephile.

Where is the evidence to support that?

He's a pederastohebophile. Innocent people don't cop deals. People who are guilty and caught dead to rights and know they face far worse if they fight cop deals. #### him.

1. The evidence is the factual basis of the charges he pled to, as well as the reports said about him. My understanding is that he traveled to NY for sex with a 17 year old and wanted them younger. Since girls hit puberty around 12, the context of his statements and his actions suggests that he's most attracted to post-pubescent females - which is most narrowly defined as hebephilia.

2. Regarding the bold, while it's unsettling to think about, "innocent" people have taken plea agreements in order to avoid incredibly harsh mandatory sentences if they lost at trial. Additionally, rare is the case where somebody is purely "innocent". In most cases, a person has probably engaged in some not so innocent behavior but may not have engaged in all the types of behavior that they are being charged with or may have had an excuse in engaging in such behavior. As such, rare is the case where somebody is so obviously guilty of everything horrible being said of him. Here, Jared is very likely not innocent of possessing child porn or traveling across state lines to solicit a 17 year old girl for sex, but he could very well be "innocent" of child molestation or of being a pedophile because those two things are very different from what he was found guilty of.

ETA: If not obvious, I'm NOT saying this is some wrongly prosecuted, innocent man. He's committed some pretty terrible crimes. But, as is common in these situations, the public perception and reaction often swings far beyond reason and leaps to assumptions that are not supported by fact or law. My goal is to merely temper that.

 

[Hang 10]

Zow going full lawyer up in here. No wonder no one likes lawyers.

More like a lawyer going full Zow up in here.

 

[flapgreen]

. GO AWAY!!!1111!!!!!1!!!!! TIA

You got your wish.

In a way I never expected.

 

[Joe Summer]

Actually, he's likely not a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent girls. The evidence suggests that, while he was into girls under 18, that they were post-pubescent. That makes him more aligned with a hebephile.

He was into middle school girls. Most middle school girls are not post-pubescent.

 

[Zow]

Okay, I give up, he's guilty of anything and everything. He should be given the death penalty twice! Screw that chomo!

 

[xulf]

I don't know #### about the law but I have to believe 99% in what woz is saying.

 

[xulf]

I don't know #### about the law but I have to believe 99% in what woz is saying.

Hell, I would even defend it in conversations with others. You guys are literally arguing the law with a guy who deals with these weirdos everyday.

 

[kutta]

Okay, I give up, he's guilty of anything and everything. He should be given the death penalty twice! Screw that chomo!

Is anyone saying he is guilty of anything besides sex with potentially under aged girls and looking at child porn? I think people have a bigger problem with the child porn thing than the sex with 17 year olds.

 

[Sand]

I don't know #### about the law but I have to believe 99% in what woz is saying.

Why, is he your lawyer?

 

[culdeus]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

 

[pricklypete]

Yes, we have the hard drives, texts, witness testimony, but that denial was quite passionate. You may go free.

 

[Chaka]

Okay, I give up, he's guilty of anything and everything. He should be given the death penalty twice! Screw that chomo!

Finally!

 

[Chaka]

Okay, I give up, he's guilty of anything and everything. He should be given the death penalty twice! Screw that chomo!

Is anyone saying he is guilty of anything besides sex with potentially under aged girls and looking at child porn? I think people have a bigger problem with the child porn thing than the sex with 17 year olds.

Agree. Wasn't there something about being in possession of video from his "friend's" house? Or possibly having child porn on a server? I don't think he pleas so quickly if this is just about having sex with a 17 year old.

Exactly. But the 17 year old girl thing bothers me as well. Not because she is 17 but because she is very likely a victim of sex trafficking and ######## who participate in that can go to a special place in hell.

#### them!

 

[Hang 10]

This isn't a court of law in here, is it? The guy possessed kiddie porn AND paid money to sleep with underage girls. I don't think it's an unreasonable leap in logic to say that he's probably a pedofile.

 

[Chaka]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

"Free" on $1 million bail, having to surrender his passport and wearing an ankle monitor while waiting for his trial.

 

[Chaka]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

 

[culdeus]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

"Free" on $1 million bail, having to surrender his passport and wearing an ankle monitor while waiting for his trial.

:whoosh:

 

[Chaka]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

"Free" on $1 million bail, having to surrender his passport and wearing an ankle monitor while waiting for his trial.

:whoosh:

There is no way he would be free. At best he would be out on bail.

 

[culdeus]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

"Free" on $1 million bail, having to surrender his passport and wearing an ankle monitor while waiting for his trial.

:whoosh:

There is no way he would be free. At best he would be out on bail.

Maybe you didn't read the start of the thread. There ware people trying to make the point that he should have come out with a public statement ASAP, and the implications of doing so. It was a call back to that.

 

[cstu]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his 16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

 

[Chaka]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

 

[Zow]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

I'm not painting anything how I want to. I'm using things like facts and logic and applying them to this particular situation and the correct definitions of things.

 

[cstu]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

 

[Chaka]

I still think if he came out day one with a passionate denial he'd be a free man right now.

"Free" on $1 million bail, having to surrender his passport and wearing an ankle monitor while waiting for his trial.

:whoosh:

There is no way he would be free. At best he would be out on bail.

Maybe you didn't read the start of the thread. There ware people trying to make the point that he should have come out with a public statement ASAP, and the implications of doing so. It was a call back to that.

Oh yeah. Forgot about that, but weren't they suggesting that based on the presumption that he was innocent?

 

[Chaka]

Paint it how you want. He's a dirty pederastohebopedophile.

I'm not painting anything how I want to. I'm using things like facts and logic and applying them to this particular situation and the correct definitions of things.

While definitely factual I am not sure how logical it is to base the entirety of his deviant classification upon what he was willing to admit to.

 

[Joe Summer]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

He allegedly said, "The younger the better". But in Woz's world, that apparently means "The younger the better as long as they've gone through puberty".

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

 

[Zow]

Wait, never mind, I forgot I said that I quit being constrained by logic, reason, and research. It's so much more fun to just assume the worst with reckless abandon.

SCREW THIS CHOMO! I BET HE HAS SEX WITH GOATS, TOO!

 

[Hang 10]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

 

[cstu]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Girls hit puberty at 11 - have you done research on that?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

 

[Hang 10]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

Didn't he watch and ask to watch kids under the age of 11 on video from people's houses?I'm not sure why you feel obligated to defend this guy. He's not your client. You're not forced to take his side, although you're never forced to take on any client either.

Probably because he knows he has stacks of barely legals in his basement.

Are you now insinuating that I'm defending this guy because I have some sort of proclivity for young girls?

 

[Zow]

BTW Woz, I do completely understand the points you are making and recognize their validity I just don't give a ####.

Finally!

By law you're correct, but he was choosing his

16 year olds from a list that had 8 year olds on it.

And he chose the 16 year olds even when 8 year olds were apparently an option. Further supporting the argument he's not a pedophile.

A guy who chooses 16 year olds from a list containing 8 year olds could easily start thinking "Let me try a 15 yo, hmm, that was great, let me try a 14 yo, and so on."

Totally makes sense. I know the more women I slept with I always started thinking, "I've been with so many women, let me try a man..."

If my sarcasm isn't obvious, the research I've done on the psychology of attraction suggests that there is a significant difference between being attracted to post-pubescent girls and pre-pubescent girls and offenders in those categories will commonly stick to those categories when exploring sexual partners.

Girls hit puberty at 11 - have you done research on that?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. My understanding is that, generally, a person has a proclivity for a particular subset of people. The experts I've spoken with on the subject have identified, and I think with reasonable logic, that a defining characteristic which divides the subset of underage girls is whether said girls have reached puberty or not. I think we can all harken back to when we were young and girls started developing breasts and we thought that was pretty cool. Most of us then progress in our attractions as we age and will continue to prefer females in or very near our own age range. Others, which are identified as hebephiles, may reach that initial attraction level where they like developed girls but don't ever progress beyond that. Others, on the other hand, and for reasons for which I cannot fathom or understand, are just simply into pre-pubescent children. These people are called pedophiles. So, theoretically, age isn't necessary the distinction: a hebephile may be attracted to an 11 year old girl who has hit puberty but not into a 12 year old girl who hasn't. Vice versa for pedophiles.

Now, legally speaking, both are bad and it's much easier to create a black and white rule based on age. That said, for policy reasons, statutes are written to punish those where the victims are younger (and in line with puberty) more harshly. Think of the group as "bad" and "worst".