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

Scott75 · February 6

17 minutes ago, User said:

22 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

48 minutes ago, User said:

On 2/5/2025 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Nothing you posted or said was an actual argument for how it is relevant.

Congratulations on at least quoting a full sentence again. At 3 words long, I guess it's not that hard. I await your response to what I said -after- those 3 words. You know, this part:

**

According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts:

**

Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".^[51]

**

Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.^[4]^[52]"

Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again:

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

Whenever you're ready.

User · February 6

Just now, Scott75 said:

Congratulations on at least quoting a full sentence again. At 3 words long, I guess it's not that hard. I await your response to what I said -after- those 3 words. You know, this part:

Yet again, not interested in your spam from Wikipedia.

Scott75 · February 6

36 minutes ago, User said:

41 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Let me know if you atleast read the quoted material this time around?

Nope.

Well that says it all. For the audience, here's the massive block of text that User never responded to, with the lone exception of a little snipe about not liking Wikipedia:

**

According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts:

**

Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".^[51]

**

Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.^[4]^[52]"

Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again:

**

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

Clearly, if User refuses to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my arguments, this debate can't go on.

User · February 6

15 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Clearly, if User refuses to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my arguments, this debate can't go on.

Oh no!

Scott75 · February 6

1 hour ago, User said:

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

1 hour ago, User said:

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted.

Godd luck with that. You should go stand on a street corner and yell this to the world.

Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all.

Yes, exactly. Why on Earth are you on this forum so focused on arguing that Ritter is innocent? LOL

I definitely have a thing for defending the reputations of good people who have been unfairly maligned, especially when those good people are writing good articles on subjects that I like to talk about.

1 hour ago, User said:

The only person responsible for Ritters bad name is Ritter.

That's just patently false.

1 hour ago, User said:

He was found guilty.

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. An article on that:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/unfair-trial-leads-to-fairer-criminal-procedures

1 hour ago, User said:

No one made him go into a chat room and not care that he was engaged with minors to perform sex acts with them.

As I've told you numerous times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged with a minor in a chat room, full stop, let alone that he acted inappropriately with one. If you have any evidence that suggests that he did either of these things, by all means, present it.

User · February 6

9 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I definitely have a thing for defending the reputations of good people who have been unfairly maligned, especially when those good people are writing good articles on subjects that I like to talk about.

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do.

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

That's just patently false.

100% accurate. No one made Ritter disregard someone telling him they were a minor and then engage in sex acts with them.

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. An article on that:

That was not this trial. Not interested in your irrelevant spam.

11 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

As I've told you numerous times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged with a minor in a chat room, full stop, let alone that he acted inappropriately with one. If you have any evidence that suggests that he did either of these things, by all means, present it.

Again, irrelevant.

Scott75 · February 7

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

16 hours ago, User said:

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

16 hours ago, User said:

On 2/5/2025 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Nothing you posted or said was an actual argument for how it is relevant.

Congratulations on at least quoting a full sentence again. At 3 words long, I guess it's not that hard. I await your response to what I said -after- those 3 words. You know, this part:

Yet again, not interested in your spam from Wikipedia.

It's not "spam from Wikipedia", it's the truth you don't want to look at. For anyone who'd like to see this truth, it's all there in post #101.

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Clearly, if User refuses to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my arguments, this debate can't go on.

Oh no!

That comment made me smile :-p. User, your heart isn't in this debate anymore. Why not just go find some greener pastures?

Scott75 · February 7

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I definitely have a thing for defending the reputations of good people who have been unfairly maligned, especially when those good people are writing good articles on subjects that I like to talk about.

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to?

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

15 hours ago, User said:

The only person responsible for Ritters bad name is Ritter.

That's just patently false.

100% accurate. No one made Ritter disregard someone telling him they were a minor and then engage in sex acts with them.

A lot of people engage in roleplay. As I've told you before, "Emily", who was not a woman, but rather an adult undercover male officer, said they were 24 in their online profile. This is a point that Mr. Ritter's lawyer actually stated in court. As I've mentioned to you before, in a more recent case similar to Mr. Ritter's, the defendant was found not guilty, in large part because he said that while the undercover officer had told him that she was a minor, there was evidence that pointed to the contrary and like Mr. Ritter, he testified that he never believed the undercover officer was actually a minor.

Scott75 · February 7

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

16 hours ago, User said:

[Mr. Ritter] was found guilty.

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved.

That was not this trial.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? For the audience, I also presented User with evidence bolstering my case that there are indeed a fair amount of unfair trials, which I get to in the next bit of our conversation...

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

An article [providing evidence that there are many cases of unfair trials]:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/unfair-trial-leads-to-fairer-criminal-procedures

Not interested in your irrelevant spam.

Only it's not "irrelevant spam", it's an article detailing the fact that there are many cases of unfair trials.

Scott75 · February 7

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've told you numerous times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged with a minor in a chat room, full stop, let alone that he acted inappropriately with one. If you have any evidence that suggests that he did either of these things, by all means, present it.

Again, irrelevant.

As I told you in post #89:

**

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

**

Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this:

**

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that.

**

I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting:

**

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

Edited February 7 by Scott75

User · February 7

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

I am still waiting for your argument. Stop spamming.

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Only it's not "irrelevant spam", it's an article detailing the fact that there are many cases of unfair trials.

We are not talking about many cases of unfair trials.

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

It is your argument this was not fair. You prove it.

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

A lot of people engage in roleplay.

Yeah, you have already tried this lame argument, I have already refuted it. At no time did he ever confirm or enter into any agreement that this was roleplay.

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to?

No. My point was made.

User · February 7

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

That comment made me smile :-p. User, your heart isn't in this debate anymore. Why not just go find some greener pastures?

You were the one saying the debate could not go on...

Scott75 · February 7

2 hours ago, User said:

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

23 hours ago, User said:

23 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've told you numerous times in the past, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever engaged with a minor in a chat room, full stop, let alone that he acted inappropriately with one. If you have any evidence that suggests that he did either of these things, by all means, present it.

Again, irrelevant.

As I told you in post #89:

**

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

**

Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this:

**

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that.

**

I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting:

**

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

I am still waiting for your argument. Stop spamming.

I don't know what "argument" you're waiting for, but I'll do a play by play for you and the audience to see how we got to this point where I write article size posts and you respond with 1 liners. Way back in post #83, I stated the following:

**

I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

**

Your response in post #84 was that this was irrelevant. From there, we can proceed to the very post you're responding to, post #110. Quoting:

**

As I told you in post #89:

**

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

**

Do you remember your response? Just in case you've forgotten, it was this:

**

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that.

**

I do as you ask, quoting extensively from the linked article in post #93 to make my argument that Mr. Ritter's trial was a travesty of justice. Quoting:

**

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

**

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

**

The only thing you quoted in that entire article of a post was the last 2 sentences above, which I've bolded. Your only response was some cryptic 1 liner about waiting for my "argument" and to "Stop spamming." I'd argue that what you're calling spam is in fact all the information that bolsters the arguments I've been making.

Edited February 7 by Scott75
Added information

User · February 7

28 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

Irrelevant.

30 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

As with Mr. Ritter

Yes, this is where I keep asking you to make the argument as to how Ritter's case has anything to do with the one you keep spamming when there are clear and obvious differences here.

31 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

You never responded to that post. Why was that?

I don't respond to spam.

Scott75 · February 7

3 hours ago, User said:

9 hours ago, Scott75 said:

23 hours ago, User said:

On 2/6/2025 at 10:56 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/6/2025 at 9:16 AM, User said:

He was found guilty.

Yes, and so were a lot of other people who experienced travesties of justice. Fortunately, unfair trials tend to get a spotlight on the injustices involved. An article on that:

https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/unfair-trial-leads-to-fairer-criminal-procedures

That was not this trial. Not interested in your irrelevant spam.

Only it's not "irrelevant spam", it's an article detailing the fact that there are many cases of unfair trials.

We are not talking about many cases of unfair trials.

As you know, the focus of this thread is on Scott Ritter. As you pointed out, Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various charges in a trial that concluded back in 2011. I simply pointed out that -many- people have had unfair trials wherein the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Scott75 · February 7

3 hours ago, User said:

9 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

It is your argument this was not fair. You prove it.

In U.S. courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not asking you to prove Mr. Ritter's innocence. I -am- asking you if you have any solid evidence that his trial wasn't a miscarriage of justice.

Scott75 · February 7

3 hours ago, User said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

A lot of people engage in roleplay.

Yeah, you have already tried this lame argument, I have already refuted it. At no time did he ever confirm or enter into any agreement that this was roleplay.

Mr. Ritter was in an adult chat room, chatting with another adult who had said they were 24 in their online profile. Mr. Ritter testified that he never believed "Emily" was a minor and he was right. As I've pointed out in the past, there was a similar case wherein another undercover officer lied about their age to a man and then charged the man. Like Mr. Ritter, he also testified that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor. Unlike Mr. Ritter, he was found not guilty. I've gone over all of this with you before, but you keep on snipping it out. I suspect the main reason is that it doesn't fit with your narrative that Mr. Ritter's was actually a fair one.

Edited February 7 by Scott75

Scott75 · February 7

3 hours ago, User said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/6/2025 at 11:07 AM, User said:

Good people do not go to chat rooms wanting to engage in sex acts with them and then completely disregard their being minors when they do.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "them"? And what minors are you referring to?

No. My point was made.

Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Scott75 · February 7

3 hours ago, User said:

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 2/6/2025 at 9:53 AM, User said:

On 2/6/2025 at 9:37 AM, Scott75 said:

Clearly, if User refuses to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my arguments, this debate can't go on.

Oh no!

That comment made me smile :-p. User, your heart isn't in this debate anymore. Why not just go find some greener pastures?

You were the one saying the debate could not go on...

If you refuse to even read, let alone respond to the material I have for my argument, yes, I don't think the debate can move forward. Do you think a debate can continue if one of the debaters refuses to engage with the other debater's arguments?

User · February 7

18 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Your point seems to be assuming that Mr. Ritter wanted to engage in sex acts with minors. If this is the case, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Your point seems to be to obfuscate to defend Ritter.

You played this same stupid game in another thread, where you get so far from the original comment made that you do this stupid crap instead of just responding to what I said.

Go back, quote that comment, then explain how you came up with this BS.

25 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Like Mr. Ritter, he also testified that he never believed the undercover officer was a minor.

Unlike Ritter though, what did he do differently? Unlike Ritter, what was he doing and where?

There are plenty of differences here. You are ignoring them.

34 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

In U.S. courts, one is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not asking you to prove Mr. Ritter's innocence. I -am- asking you if you have any solid evidence that his trial wasn't a miscarriage of justice.

He was found guilty already.

Where is your proof this was a miscarriage of justice.

46 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I simply pointed out that -many- people have had unfair trials wherein the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

Which has nothing to do with this.

User · February 7

4 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Do you think a debate can continue if one of the debaters refuses to engage with the other debater's arguments?

You spamming the thread is not an argument.

Scott75 · February 7

1 hour ago, User said:

On 2/3/2025 at 9:50 AM, Scott75 said:

I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

Irrelevant.

No, this point is at the very heart of this debate. Note the date of what you're responding to. We've been going around and around on this point for 4 days now. To date, I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter engaged in anything other than a little sexual role play with some consenting adults. Let me know if you ever find any evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Ritter actually engaged in any innapropriate behaviour with a minor.

User · February 7

Just now, Scott75 said:

No, this point is at the very heart of this debate.

No, it is not.

Scott75 · February 7

1 hour ago, User said:

On 2/6/2025 at 9:18 AM, Scott75 said:

As with Mr. Ritter

Yes, this is where I keep asking you to make the argument as to how Ritter's case has anything to do with the one you keep spamming when there are clear and obvious differences here.

There are some differences, but I'd say there is only one that really mattered. Both Mr. Ritter and Mr. Kim testified that they never believed that the undercover officers that they interacted with were minors. In both cases, the undercover officers were indeed not minors. The clear difference is that Mr. Ritter was found guilty of various inane charges, such as "unlawful contact with a minor", despite no evidence ever being presented that he did, in fact, have any such contact with a minor. So, why was Mr. Ritter found guilty, while Mr. Kim was found to be innocent? I think the crucial thing here may well be the time of the verdicts. Mr. Ritter's case was decided in 2011, while Mr. Kim's case was decided in 2018. What a difference 7 years can make sometimes. The story is here if you're interested:

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/defendant-wins-in-federal-internet-sting-prosecution/