Comments on: Girls sue DA in sexting ‘porn’ case

By: Passerby

Passerby — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:56:52 +0000

Betcha Skumanick is doing this for Jesus!

By: Gr8oldies

Gr8oldies — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:16:40 +0000

Quote:FUCKING YANKS ARE ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD MATE !!!

Oh please you can’t judge all us “yanks” by the actions of one narrow-minded jerk off, how would you feel if we did that to you?

By: Gym_

Gym_ — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:01:58 +0000

Im a Aussie and I have been offerd a free house ( 3 bed room ) .. a good job .. nice car, nice freands and a new life in the US ..
And my reponce …. FUCK OFF !! FUCKING YANKS ARE ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD MATE !!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:37:59 +0000

Let raid the Skumanick house!

He must be a pederast collecting child pornography himself to think of such thing!

In my experience when somebody accuse you of something you would not have think off, mean that he is doing it himself!

Let go an arest this sexual pervert to protect our kids!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:32:11 +0000

“Skumanick still insists the images are child porn under the state law, which makes it a felony to possess or distribute images”

This piece of crap of Skumanick must get it’s stuff straight: since he possess the the images of what he call pronography he must be a felon!

I have a message for this scumbag of Skumanick:

LEAVE OR KID ALONE!

We deal with this. THIS IS OUR JOB! NOT YOUR!

Go and hide before something hapen to you you moron!

By: NO1UNO

NO1UNO — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:03:33 +0000

So, when did we vote in a reg that says they can look at our kids cell phones??
I think that a charge of invasion of privacy needs to be tacked on here somewhere!!
And yes, that DA needs to be pulled, have a psyc eval done, and assigned to a rubber room somewhere!!

By: Comeoncomcast

Comeoncomcast — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:35:53 +0000

What a Schmuck lol

Chasing kids Murderers No more fun to prosecute?

By: Just my two cents

Just my two cents — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:16:09 +0000

As a parent of a six grade girl, this whole paranoia surrounding child porn is getting WAY out of hand.

As in the case of the group of old ladies that went around painting “clothes” on works of art, and wrapping a cloth around the bodies of statues or even spray painting “clothes” onto statues- because they showed breasts and pubic ares, the present society has fallen back into an unhealthy view of sexuality- i.e. the natural body can only be viewed as an arousing and offensive part of the body.

Threatening legal action on kids who took pictures of them selves or friends in skimpy clothing, or close to no clothing at all, with child pornography, is outright stupid, and to say that pictures of minors in their underwear is child pornography, only shows how sick a mind that the DA is the most perverted one of them all.

Just my two cents

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:35:51 +0000

i think the whole US has gone bonkers.
everyone is being sued by someone

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:40:26 +0000

I’ll bet this guy has a shitload of similar “porn” in his possession he wouldn’t want to talk about.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:38:58 +0000

And, what business did the school have with examining the contents of the students’ phones?!!

That’s certainly another point of contention with me.
The way they did it was a violation of basic constitutional law.

By: Qix

Qix — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:58:16 +0000

All right for more government interference in people’s lives. Whats next, charging a failed suicide attempt with “Attempted Homicide?”

By: Jakykong

Jakykong — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:06:42 +0000

Hypocrite to say the least, apparently.

It seems to me that the photos will need to be shown in court. No evidence, no case. If he can’t show the photos, the assumption should be that he doesn’t have them until proven otherwise (by showing them).

In any event… it’s the girls themselves. Why would showing the girls a picture of *themselves* be illegal?

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:57:04 +0000

“Skumanick still insists the images are child porn under the state law, which makes it a felony to possess or distribute images depicting a minor…”

But, the old pervert feels its okay for himself to POSSESS said “child porn” images and tell the girls’ own parents how “disgusting” these pictures are!

This guy needs to be removed from office immediately and placed in a psychiatric facility.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:52:20 +0000

“Girls sue DA in sexting âpornâ case”

Whaddya talkin’ about?!
I’m not being sued by anybody!
: )