Former U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

[NAME REMOVED]

Scott Ritter: Sex Offender Registry profile.

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Scott Ritter is definitely not well regarded by anyone.

That's obviously not true. For starters, there's the fact that I hold him in high regard when it comes to his articles on various subjects, such as Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine war. It's certainly not just me either- some online news sites I like publish articles from him regularly, such as Consortium News. He's even been praised by Seymour Hersh, who called his downfall after resigning as U.N. Weapons Inspector tragic. In case you haven't heard of the fellow:

**

Seymour Myron Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American investigative journalist and political writer. He gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times, also reporting on the secret U.S. bombing of Cambodia and the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) program of domestic spying.

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Edited November 17, 2024 by phoenyx75

[NAME REMOVED]

1 minute ago, phoenyx75 said:

That's obviously not true. Aside from the obvious fact that I regard hold him in high regard when it comes to his articles on various subjects, such as Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine war.

It's been well known that Scott Ritter has been parroting Russian propaganda for years.

[User]

15 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

You seem to be suggesting that something I've said wasn't factual. Is that the case? And if so, which statement(s) of mine do you think aren't factual?

Yeah, you stated he was convicted for sexting with an undercover officer. 

That is not what he was convicted for... which is why I pointed out that undercover officer was posing as a minor. 

You keep trying to obscure what happened here. 

14 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Your quoted text lacks certain crucial details. For one, the type of chat room Mr. Ritter and undercover officer Venneman were in. Fortunately, Matt Bai from the New York Times clarifies:

What relevance does this detail have to anything?

Again, I am not here to relitigate this case. It is disgusting that you are. I provided that text to point out that at every step of the way the officer presented themselves as a minor. 

Minors are not allowed or supposed to be doing many things, but they still can and still do. That is no excuse for Ritter to try to take advantage of a minor. 

14 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Minors, but as we both know, they were not. Mr. Ritter has testified that he never believed they were minors as well. Had these undercover officers not been pretending to be minors, Mr. Ritter wouldn't have even been charged, let alone convicted.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, that doesn't excuse Mr. Ritter pursuing minors to engage in sexual relations with them. 

You know what most reasonable adults do if they encounter someone claiming they are a child? They don't continue to pursue sexual relationships with them. 

His belief that they were not minors is meaningless. Its his job to confirm that or if he wants to engage in sexual role play with someone pretending to be a minor (which is still a red flag) then it is on him to ensure he is doing so with another consenting adult, not just assume it. 

These are all lame excuses made by pedophiles and sexual deviants looking to rape and exploit minors. You are defending them. 

14 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

That doesn't mean they should entrap men by pretending to be minors themselves though.

It is not entrapment. This is a widely used LEO tactic long held up by the courts. 

 

 

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 11/16/2024 at 10:48 PM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 5:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Actually, there are binders full of chat logs indicating that Mr Ritter, who was 48 years old at the time, was trying to meet up with underage girls for sex.

You've made a few unsubstantiated and erroneous assertions already, I suspect this is just one more. But if you actually have -evidence- for your assertion, by all means present it. 

I do not think you understand the law. Ritter was found guilty in a court of law. Once one is convicted of a crime such as soliciting sex from (what Ritter thought were) underage girls, you cannot claim it was unsubstantiated.

I'm not claiming the claims leading to his conviction didn't have some evidence behind them, but it's important to understand what he was -really- convicted of, which is simply of engaging in a sexual interaction with an adult undercover officer -pretending- to be a minor. What I -am- claiming is that -your- claim that Mr. Ritter was "trying to meet up with underage girls for sex" was unsubstantiated. Here's some things I imagine you didn't know:

1- Undercover cop Venneman's "Emily" profile stated that her age was 24 years of age in his online profile. Furthermore, "Emily" met Mr. Ritter in an -adult- chat room.

2- I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter has ever gone to a chat room that was for people below the age of 18.

Both of these facts strongly suggest that Mr. Ritter was never looking to engage in any sexual way with minors and that, instead, he was lured by Mr. Venneman into breaking the law. Even then, he -still- didn't do anything with a minor, as Mr. Venneman certaily wasn't a minor.

Edited November 21, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

His guilt proves that it was indeed substantiated.

People often confuse terms like being found guilty and actual guilt. I know that Mr. Ritter expressed remorse for what he did, but it also seems that he doesn't believe he should have been sent to prison for it, especially since, as he himself put it, no one was harmed but himself and his family, and I agree with him on that count. Another important point- being found guilty doesn't mean one actually -is- guilty of the alleged offense. There's actually an entire government website dedicated to wrongful convictions:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

You are also ignorant of the fact that this was his second time being arrested for soliciting sex from underage girls.

No, it's you that's ignorant of the fact that there's been no evidence that he was ever arrested for "soliciting sex from underage girls". Here's what he was arrested for the first and second times:

**

Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.^[44] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.^[45][46]  [snip] Ritter was arrested again in November 2009^[47] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.^[5]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Even those reasons for his arrests ring false, as no minor was ever involved.

Edited November 21, 2024 by phoenyx75

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 11/16/2024 at 10:48 PM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 5:00 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Scott Ritter is an unrepentant sexual predator

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion -.-

Yes, because as we know, all persons convicted of crimes by a judge and jury, are 100% innocent of their crimes....*rolls eyes*

Your assertion was that "Scott Ritter is an unrepentant sexual predator", an assertion you have yet to provide any evidence for.

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:29 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 11/16/2024 at 10:53 PM, phoenyx75 said:

That depends on the adult and what they're pretending to be. If the adult is an undercover officer pretending to be a minor, then yes, it is definitely against the law to sext them, at least in the U.S. If it wasn't, Mr. Ritter would never have been charged, let alone convicted.

You seem to be suggesting that something I've said wasn't factual. Is that the case? And if so, which statement(s) of mine do you think aren't factual?

Well you are failing to convince anyone that Scott Ritter is not a sex offender.

If true, that's a real shame, considering the fact there's no evidence that he is one.

On 11/16/2024 at 11:29 PM, DUI_Offender said:

He was arrested in sting operations, with the intentions of having sex with underage girls, both in 2001, and again in 2009.

I agree that he was arrested in sting operations, but as I've pointed out many times, there's no indication that he had "intentions of having sex with underage girls".

On 11/16/2024 at 11:29 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Ritter was CONVICTED and sentenced to 5 1/2 years in JAIL.

Ritter served 2 1/2 years in JAIL for his crimes.

End of story.

You make it sound like no one's ever been wrongfully convicted. As I've pointed out before, the government actually has a website dedicated to reducing the amount of wrongful convictions. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it's here:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:33 PM, DUI_Offender said:

FBI agents search Scott Ritter's upstate New York home

By Spectrum News Staff Albany County

PUBLISHED 6:18 PM ET Aug. 07, 2024

Several Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched the Delmar home of area native and former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter on Wednesday. Several boxes of materials were removed in the raid on the Dover Drive property, which the FBI said was part of an ongoing federal investigation. While Ritter worked as chief weapons inspector in Iraq during the 1990s, he later served time in prison and then became an author and critic.

Ritter served three years in a Pennsylvania prison. He was convicted following an online sex sting for having a sexually explicit conversation with a person who Ritter thought was a 15-year-old girl.

On Wednesday, Ritter emerged from his home and told reporters the FBI executed a search warrant related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The act requires "certain agents of foreign principals who are engaged in political activities or other activities specified under the statute to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal, as well as activities, receipts and disbursements in support of those activities," according to the U.S. Justice Department. 

Ritter said he had not violated the act, and claimed he was being targeted for statements he's made about U.S. policy on Ukraine.  "I’m being targeted because I have made an effort to try and improve relations between the United States and Russia, try to bring about arms control, try to bring about peace," he said.

U.S. officials seized Ritter's passport in June, according to published reports confirmed by Ritter on Wednesday. 

source: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2024/08/07/fbi-agents-search-scott-ritter-s-upstate-new-york-home

-----

Looks like Scott Ritter, is still being a very naughty boy, as of 2024. I wonder if he will go back to the big house soon.

It's sad how little you know of this recent raid on Mr. Ritter's family home. For anyone who's actually interested in why the U.S. Justice Department raided Mr. Ritter's home, I highly recommend the following article from Mr. Ritter himself:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/16/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/

 

Quoting from his article:

**

SCOTT RITTER: A Farewell to Truth

August 16, 2024

 

The F.B.I. agents did more than seize my personal electronics when they searched my home on Aug. 7, the author writes. They stole the truth.

[snip]

As wielded by me, my UNSCOM archive literally fulfilled its duty of helping me “bare the secrets of the government and inform the people” to prevent the government from “deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

By seizing this archive, the F.B.I. literally engaged in an act of censorship.

In seizing my archive, the F.B.I. invoked the notion of “national security.” But, as Justice Black noted, 

Quote

“The word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security.”

There can be no doubt that my UNSCOM archive did more than any other source of documented information to apprise the American people about the lies of their government when it came to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

And now it is gone.

**

Full article:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/08/16/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:37 PM, DUI_Offender said:

Scott Ritter: Sex Offender Registry profile.

 

It's a real shame that the justice who gave Mr. Ritter that designation did that, especially considering the fact that she had no good reason to. Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times, explains:

**

After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. 

**

Full article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

 

[Scott75]

On 11/16/2024 at 11:54 PM, DUI_Offender said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:53 PM, phoenyx75 said:

That's obviously not true. For starters, there's the fact that I hold him in high regard when it comes to his articles on various subjects, such as Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine war.

It's been well known that Scott Ritter has been parroting Russian propaganda for years.

I'd say that it's been well known that Mr. Ritter has resisted parroting western mainstream propaganda for years. You, on the other hand...

[Scott75]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

On 11/16/2024 at 10:53 PM, phoenyx75 said:

You seem to be suggesting that something I've said wasn't factual. Is that the case? And if so, which statement(s) of mine do you think aren't factual?

Yeah, you stated he was convicted for sexting with an undercover officer. 

That's right.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

That is not what he was convicted for...

You're mistaken, that's -exactly- why he was convicted.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

which is why I pointed out that undercover officer was posing as a minor.

That same undercover officer pretending to be a minor named "Emily" stated in his profile that he was 24 years old.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

You keep trying to obscure what happened here. 

No, I keep on pointing out what actually happened. But I know the mainstream media is telling you to believe something else, so if that's what you gotta do, I guess that's what you gotta do.

[NAME REMOVED]

44 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

People often confuse terms like being found guilty and actual guilt. I know that Mr. Ritter expressed remorse for what he did, but it also seems that he doesn't believe he should have been sent to prison for it, especially since, as he himself put it, no one was harmed but himself and his family, and I agree with him on that count. Another important point- being found guilty doesn't mean one actually -is- guilty of the alleged offense. There's actually an entire government website dedicated to wrongful convictions:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

Now you are just resorting to outright lies. Ritter has never shown the slightest bit of remorse. The man ruined his career, since he could not contain his lust for underage vagina.

Deal with it. 

Edited November 21, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[Scott75]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:04 PM, phoenyx75 said:

On 11/16/2024 at 5:37 PM, User said:

Looking for a minor? Its comical how you keep playing these dishonest games.

"On February 7, 2009, Detective Ryan Venneman of the Barrett Township Police Department was conducting undercover operations investigating the crime of internet sexual exploitation of children in a Yahoo Instant Messenger chat room. Detective Venneman was acting as a young female named “Emily” when he was contacted online by Ritter, posing as “delmarm4fun,” a 44-year-old male from Albany, New York. At the onset of the online chat, “Emily” specifically identified herself to Ritter as a 15-year-old female from the Poconos."

https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/2013/975-eda-2012.html

Why are you here defending this crap?

Your quoted text lacks certain crucial details. For one, the type of chat room Mr. Ritter and undercover officer Venneman were in. Fortunately, Matt Bai from the New York Times clarifies:

**

Venneman entered a Yahoo chat room, where the minimum legal age is supposed be 18, and passed himself off as a teenager named Emily.

**

Source:

Scott Ritter’s Other War | The New York Times

Had Mr. Ritter truly been looking to sext a minor, it doesn't make sense that he'd be in an adult chat room where minors aren't supposed to be. Furthermore, Venneman's "Emily" profile stated that she was 24.

What relevance does this detail have to anything?

Well, if a person says they're 24 and then says they're 15, I can understand why Mr. Ritter might believe they're lying about being 15, especially considering the chat room was only supposed to have people who were 18+ in it.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

Again, I am not here to relitigate this case. It is disgusting that you are.

First of all, I'm not relitigating the case. I'm not a lawyer. We're having a debate on what Mr. Ritter did and/or didn't do. If you think that's "disgusting", by all means explain why. 

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

I provided that text to point out that at every step of the way the officer presented themselves as a minor. 

If true, that text clearly left out the rather important detail that that same officer presented themselves as 24 years old on their fake profile. Good that I'm here to point out where you get it wrong or who knows where you'd end up.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

Minors are not allowed or supposed to be doing many things, but they still can and still do.

True.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

That is no excuse for Ritter to try to take advantage of a minor. 

It's a good thing Mr. Ritter didn't take advantage of any minors.

 

[NAME REMOVED]

42 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, it's you that's ignorant of the fact that there's been no evidence that he was ever arrested for "soliciting sex from underage girls". Here's what he was arrested for the first and second times:

**

Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.^[44] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.^[45][46]  [snip] Ritter was arrested again in November 2009^[47] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.^[5]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Even those reasons for his arrests ring false, as no minor was ever involved.

Ritter thought they were underage, and wanted to have sexual relations with them. Police has been doing this for decades. Have you never seen the show "To Catch a Predator?"  To get caught once trying to solicit sex from an underage girl is bad enough, but twice? That is incredible, and Ritter is definitely a danger to society.

If he did not ahve such a high ranking position, he probably would ahve been looking at at least 10 years in prison. The fact that he was unremorseful, makes one wonder why he never served his full sentence. 

[User]

49 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

Well, if a person says they're 24 and then says they're 15, I can understand why Mr. Ritter might believe they're lying about being 15, especially considering the chat room was only supposed to have people who were 18+ in it.

Might believe... it is on him to confirm that, not assume they are lying. You are making excuses for him. His behavior is abhorrent here. 

Children are not supposed to be in bars either, but they can still sneak in, use fake ID, or get in other ways. That is not an excuse to ignore that someone looks like a child, acts like a child, dresses like a child, and tells you they are a child and then proceed to continue to try to solicit sexual acts with them or from them because you are like, well... DURRRRRRR you have to be 21 to get in. 

 

52 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, I'm not relitigating the case. I'm not a lawyer. We're having a debate on what Mr. Ritter did and/or didn't do. If you think that's "disgusting", by all means explain why. 

Yes, you are. He was found guilty. You are here trying to make excuses for him as to why he is not. 

It is disgusting because the average person doesn't encounter LEO several times in their lives for trying to engaged with sexual exploitation of minors like this. He is not a victim of some bad circumstances... he created this, he sought out children and then pursued children.

You are also here trying to claim it was entrapment. You are not only trying to relitigate the case, you are here trying to say the law was broken by LEO trying to get him. 

Its disgusting. 

55 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

If true, that text clearly left out the rather important detail that that same officer presented themselves as 24 years old on their fake profile. Good that I'm here to point out where you get it wrong or who knows where you'd end up.

If true? 

No, it was true. I did not get anything wrong. 

55 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

It's a good thing Mr. Ritter didn't take advantage of any minors.

It is a good thing that it turned out to be a LEO operations. Heaven forbid if it was a kid, like he had no problems trying to exploit. 

[Scott75]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:12 PM, phoenyx75 said:

Minors, but as we both know, they were not. Mr. Ritter has testified that he never believed they were minors as well. Had these undercover officers not been pretending to be minors, Mr. Ritter wouldn't have even been charged, let alone convicted.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, that doesn't excuse Mr. Ritter pursuing minors to engage in sexual relations with them. 

There's no evidence Mr. Ritter ever pursued minors. In the case where he was charged, the undercover officer going as "Emily" actually stated in his online profile that he was 24. Only -after- Mr. Ritter started communicating with him did he suddenly claim that he was 15. Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was a minor and he was right, "Emily" wasn't.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

You know what most reasonable adults do if they encounter someone claiming they are a child? They don't continue to pursue sexual relationships with them.

Let's not forget that "Emily" initially claimed they were 24. That being said, I do acknowledge that "Emily" later claimed they were 15. I also agree that at that point, Mr. Ritter -should- have stopped communicating with "Emily" in a sexual manner. I imagine he'd agree. Unfortunately, Mr. Ritter was not doing so well at the time. As he himself put it in an interview with New York Times reporter Matt Bai:

**

“I always sort of chuckle when people say, ‘What were you thinking?’ ” Ritter told me. “Well, what part of ‘depressed’ don’t you understand? Find me someone who says depressed people engage in coherent thought.”

**

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

 

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

His belief that they were not minors is meaningless.

No, if he truly believed this, it's -not- meaningless. There are many types of role play- pretending to be younger than one's true age is one of them. An argument can certainly be made that simply because "Emily" initially stated she was 24 wasn't enough for Mr. Ritter to be confident that "Emily" wasn't in fact a minor, but it does grant him some defense.

  

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

Its his job to confirm that or if he wants to engage in sexual role play with someone pretending to be a minor (which is still a red flag) then it is on him to ensure he is doing so with another consenting adult, not just assume it. 

I can agree to that. I imagine he would agree to that as well at this point. As you yourself said, hindsight is 20/20.

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

These are all lame excuses made by pedophiles and sexual deviants looking to rape and exploit minors. You are defending them. 

No, I'm defending Mr. Ritter. I've never seen any evidence that he's actually pursued or engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor. 

[Scott75]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:08 PM, User said:

On 11/16/2024 at 11:35 PM, phoenyx75 said:

I certainly agree that using children as bait is wrong, though I have read that LOEs have done this in the past, though I've only heard of this rarely, and generally not in the U.S. That doesn't mean they should entrap men by pretending to be minors themselves though. I know that Florida police have made a money making scheme out of doing it:

To Entrap an Innocent | The Atlantic

It is not entrapment. This is a widely used LEO tactic long held up by the courts. 

First, can we agree that it's certainly a profitable thing for Law Enforcement in Florida? Secondly, the fact that it's a widely used LEO tactic doesn't change the fact that it fits the definition of entrapment quite well. After all, the definition of entrapment is:

**

• noun law Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/entrapment

Which fits what happened to Mr. Ritter and others. From the Atlantic article I linked to earlier:

**

After a year-long investigation, WTSP, a CBS affiliate in Tampa Bay, Florida, has uncovered an alarming pattern of police trying to entrap innocent adults in sex crimes. The stings follow the basic pattern familiar to anyone who has seen To Catch a Predator, except "many of the men whose mugshots have been paraded out by local sheriffs in made-for-TV press conferences were not seeking to meet children online. Instead, they were minding their own business, looking for other adults, when detectives started to groom and convince them to break the law."

**

Source:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/01/to-entrap-an-innocent/384273/

But hey, it's a lucrative business for Law Enforcement, so I can understand, they just want to make some quick cash.

Edited November 22, 2024 by phoenyx75
Added information

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

23 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

People often confuse terms like being found guilty and actual guilt. I know that Mr. Ritter expressed remorse for what he did, but it also seems that he doesn't believe he should have been sent to prison for it, especially since, as he himself put it, no one was harmed but himself and his family, and I agree with him on that count. Another important point- being found guilty doesn't mean one actually -is- guilty of the alleged offense. There's actually an entire government website dedicated to wrongful convictions:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

Now you are just resorting to outright lies.

No, you just don't know the facts and because of this, assume that I'm lying.

22 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Ritter has never shown the slightest bit of remorse.

False. From Matt Bai's New York Times article on Mr. Ritter shortly before he was sentenced in October 2011:

**

This was Ritter’s chance to plea for mercy and demonstrate remorse. “I stand before you about as chastened as an adult man can be,” Ritter told the judge in a commanding voice. “As a husband, as a father, I had no business doing what I was doing.” I heard a woman’s anguished sniffling behind me.

[snip]

“I have paid a horrible price,” Ritter went on. “No one to blame, only myself. I went from being someone who stood tall in my community, who assisted my community, to someone who’s been cast aside.”

**

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

22 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

The man ruined his career, since he could not contain his lust for underage vagina.

As I've pointed out many times, there's no evidence Mr. Ritter was ever looking for "underage vagina". As to his career, it was on a downward trajectory long before undercover officers groomed him to break the law. There's another good passage in Matt Bai's article I think is worth quoting:

**

What really agonizes Ritter is that Americans seem to care about his forays into chat rooms, or about Michael Jackson’s doctor or the Kardashians’ wedding, but not about the moral crisis that Iraq unleashed on the land. They keep talking to Scott Ritter about justice for what he has done, and yet no one is paying for the larger crimes he believes were perpetrated against the society.

“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.”

**

[Scott75]

22 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

23 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, it's you that's ignorant of the fact that there's been no evidence that he was ever arrested for "soliciting sex from underage girls". Here's what he was arrested for the first and second times:

**

Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.^[44] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.^[45][46]  [snip] Ritter was arrested again in November 2009^[47] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.^[5]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Even those reasons for his arrests ring false, as no minor was ever involved.

Ritter thought they were underage

As I've pointed out numerous times, Mr. Ritter has testified that he never believed the undercover officers were underage. He was right, too.

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, User said:

22 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Well, if a person says they're 24 and then says they're 15, I can understand why Mr. Ritter might believe they're lying about being 15, especially considering the chat room was only supposed to have people who were 18+ in it.

Might believe... it is on him to confirm that, not assume they are lying.

As I've mentioned before, I'm pretty sure he'd agree with you at this point. As to why he didn't due his due diligence back then, I'll let him speak for himself:

**

“I always sort of chuckle when people say, ‘What were you thinking?’ ” Ritter told me. “Well, what part of ‘depressed’ don’t you understand? Find me someone who says depressed people engage in coherent thought.”

**

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html

21 hours ago, User said:

You are making excuses for him.

No, I'm not. I acknowledge he made some mistakes, and those mistakes got him sent to jail for 2 years and change. 

21 hours ago, User said:

His behavior is abhorrent here.

I disagree. He made a mistake when he didn't believe "Emily" when she claimed that her age was actually 15 instead of 24. It cost him 2 years in prison. As he himself has stated before his sentencing, “I have paid a horrible price”. But people should be allowed to move on from their mistakes. He's done great work both before and after this incident. I for one think this deserves to be recognized.

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, User said:

Children are not supposed to be in bars either, but they can still sneak in, use fake ID, or get in other ways. That is not an excuse to ignore that someone looks like a child, acts like a child, dresses like a child, and tells you they are a child and then proceed to continue to try to solicit sexual acts with them or from them because you are like, well... DURRRRRRR you have to be 21 to get in. 

Agreed, but people make mistakes, especially if they are already cognitively impaired in some way, whether that be from alcohol, depression, something else, or "all of the above".

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, User said:

22 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, I'm not relitigating the case. I'm not a lawyer. We're having a debate on what Mr. Ritter did and/or didn't do. If you think that's "disgusting", by all means explain why. 

Yes, you are.

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

21 hours ago, User said:

He was found guilty.

Yes, Mr. Ritter was found guilty in a court of law of certain things, way back in October 2011. As I've pointed out previously, being found guilty in a court of law does -not- mean that one is actually guilty of said crimes. As I've also pointed out previously, there's actually a government website that's dedicated to lessening wrongful convictions:

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/justice-system-reform/wrongful-convictions

Mr. Ritter certainly made some mistakes, but I and others believe that he was sentenced far too harshly. 

  

21 hours ago, User said:

You are here trying to make excuses for him as to why he is not.

No, I'm simply pointing out that the punishment doesn't fit what he actually did.

21 hours ago, User said:

It is disgusting because the average person doesn't encounter LEO several times in their lives for trying to engaged with sexual exploitation of minors like this.

As I've mentioned many times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter sexually exploited any minors. As to his multiple encounters with LEOs, here's a question for you- are you sure it's just a coincidence that Mr. Ritter encountered LEOs in online chat rooms several times? For a while, I've suspected that Mr. Ritter may have actually been targetted and groomed by LEOs to break the law. After all, he had made powerful enemies when he broke with the narrative that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and he's been a thorn in the Deep State ever since from what I've read.

22 hours ago, User said:

He is not a victim of some bad circumstances...

Can you prove your assertion?

22 hours ago, User said:

he created this, he sought out children and then pursued children.

As I've said many times in the past, I've seen no evidence of this. I -have- seen evidence that LEOs groomed him to break the law.

22 hours ago, User said:

You are also here trying to claim it was entrapment.

I have indeed claimed that what was done to Mr. Ritter at least twice was entrapment. It fits the definition perfectly:

**

• noun law Action by law enforcement personnel to lead an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime, in order to arrest and prosecute that person for the crime.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/entrapment

 

22 hours ago, User said:

You are not only trying to relitigate the case, you are here trying to say the law was broken by LEO trying to get him.

No, I'm not saying that the law was broken, but that really shouldn't be the most important point. As journalist and author of the Dune series of books once said: "Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?"

The most important thing is whether what the LEOs did to Mr. Ritter was ethical. I don't think it was. 

[User]

53 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

There's no evidence Mr. Ritter ever pursued minors. In the case where he was charged, the undercover officer going as "Emily" actually stated in his online profile that he was 24. Only -after- Mr. Ritter started communicating with him did he suddenly claim that he was 15. Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed that "Emily" was a minor and he was right, "Emily" wasn't.

The evidence is that he was told by the undercover officer posing as a child, that they were a child. He continued to pursue them. That is literally pursuing a minor. 

There was nothing sudden about it, which is why I provided the testimony to the fact that the undercover officer made it explicitly clear repeatedly they were a minor. He continued anyway. 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

Let's not forget that "Emily" initially claimed they were 24. That being said, I do acknowledge that "Emily" later claimed they were 15. I also agree that at that point, Mr. Ritter -should- have stopped communicating with "Emily" in a sexual manner. I imagine he'd agree. Unfortunately, Mr. Ritter was not doing so well at the time. As he himself put it in an interview with New York Times reporter Matt Bai:

Being depressed is not a defense against breaking the law and trying to engage in sexual relations with a minor. 

This just means you agree and he agrees he is in fact guilty, now you are just making excuses for why he is guilty. 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, if he truly believed this, it's -not- meaningless. There are many types of role play- pretending to be younger than one's true age is one of them. An argument can certainly be made that simply because "Emily" initially stated she was 24 wasn't enough for Mr. Ritter to be confident that "Emily" wasn't in fact a minor, but it does grant him some defense.

Yet again, it is on BOTH parties to agree it is roleplay, not the person trying to engage in sexual relationship with a minor to just assume it. 

It doesn't grant him some defense. You are just grasping at straws to defend this sicko. 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

I can agree to that. I imagine he would agree to that as well at this point. As you yourself said, hindsight is 20/20.

Then what is your point here in arguing about any of this?

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

No, I'm defending Mr. Ritter. I've never seen any evidence that he's actually pursued or engaged in inappropriate behaviour with a minor. 

Yes, you are defending a guy who was trying to do those things with a minor. He was told they were a minor, he continued. That is both pursuit and engagement.