Bishop Withheld Childporn from Cops

[Damen]

Behold, everyone, a clergy member's been charged.

KC bishop charged for not bringing porn to police

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — Kansas City's Catholic bishop has become the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children after he and his diocese waited five months to tell police about hundreds of images of child pornography discovered on a priest's computer, officials said Friday.

Bishop Robert Finn, the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman, and the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese have pleaded not guilty on one count each of failing to report suspected child abuse.

Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said Finn and the diocese were required under state law to report the discovery to police because the images gave them reason to believe a child had been abused.

"Now that the grand jury investigation has resulted in this indictment, my office will pursue this case vigorously," Baker said. "I want to ensure there are no future failures to report resulting in other unsuspecting victims."

How many of us have been wanted to see the clergy get tried in a court of law for shielding pedos?

[Thejebusfire]

And of course Yahoo has to throw in their stupidity:

If the priest's supervisors noticed the activity, took disciplinary action, and the activity stopped, then there is no duty of them to involve the police. People are not obliged to be snitches to the police. Now, it is a different story if they did not act, or if police got tipped off and nothing got changed. The 'failing to report child abuse' if over the top. Obviously, if children were objectified for such material it is disgusting and illegal, but that does not make it a US criminal child abuse matter. For example, the pictures could all have been taken in a different country. In that case watching them or storing them is still illegal, but no actual abuse of the children would have taken place within U.S. territory, and under that complaint is not within the authority of U.S. law enforcement. Sorry, but the charges against the bishop should be dropped and are nothing but the work of an overactive prosecutor frustrated because of the law's restrictions. If he can't live with that, he should not e a prosecutor. It's wasting tax payer's money, since any competent court would throw out this charge anyhow.

[erictheblue]

If the priest's supervisors noticed the activity, took disciplinary action, and the activity stopped, then there is no duty of them to involve the police. People are not obliged to be snitches to the police. Now, it is a different story if they did not act, or if police got tipped off and nothing got changed. The 'failing to report child abuse' if over the top. Obviously, if children were objectified for such material it is disgusting and illegal, but that does not make it a US criminal child abuse matter. For example, the pictures could all have been taken in a different country. In that case watching them or storing them is still illegal, but no actual abuse of the children would have taken place within U.S. territory, and under that complaint is not within the authority of U.S. law enforcement. Sorry, but the charges against the bishop should be dropped and are nothing but the work of an overactive prosecutor frustrated because of the law's restrictions. If he can't live with that, he should not e a prosecutor. It's wasting tax payer's money, since any competent court would throw out this charge anyhow.

Does this idiot not know what being indicted by a grand jury means? It does not mean the prosecutor brought charges on his/her own. It means other citizens decided there was enough evidence to bring charges. The prosecutor can impanel a GJ, but the GJ can say "no."

As an aside, just having child porn IS a federal crime. In fact, the fact it came from outside the country is what made it a federal crime. 18 USC 2252(2)(A)

[Iosa the Invincible]

Oct 14, 2011 20:35:30 GMT -5 erictheblue said:

If the priest's supervisors noticed the activity, took disciplinary action, and the activity stopped, then there is no duty of them to involve the police. People are not obliged to be snitches to the police. Now, it is a different story if they did not act, or if police got tipped off and nothing got changed. The 'failing to report child abuse' if over the top. Obviously, if children were objectified for such material it is disgusting and illegal, but that does not make it a US criminal child abuse matter. For example, the pictures could all have been taken in a different country. In that case watching them or storing them is still illegal, but no actual abuse of the children would have taken place within U.S. territory, and under that complaint is not within the authority of U.S. law enforcement. Sorry, but the charges against the bishop should be dropped and are nothing but the work of an overactive prosecutor frustrated because of the law's restrictions. If he can't live with that, he should not e a prosecutor. It's wasting tax payer's money, since any competent court would throw out this charge anyhow.

Does this idiot not know what being indicted by a grand jury means? It does not mean the prosecutor brought charges on his/her own. It means other citizens decided there was enough evidence to bring charges. The prosecutor can impanel a GJ, but the GJ can say "no."

As an aside, just having child porn IS a federal crime. In fact, the fact it came from outside the country is what made it a federal crime. 18 USC 2252(2)(A)

How much you wanna bet that if this or any other crime happened in the Muslim community, these Catholics would scoff at the idea that "the Muslim community took care of it" and would be demanding the government work faster on throwing them in prison?

Also, I read KC Bishop as KFC Bishop. I'm hungry now.

[priestling]

Oct 14, 2011 20:46:54 GMT -5 Iosa the Invincible said:

Also, I read KC Bishop as KFC Bishop. I'm hungry now.

Oh good, it wasn't just me.

[Rat Of Steel]

Oct 14, 2011 22:36:58 GMT -5 priestling said:

Oct 14, 2011 20:46:54 GMT -5 Iosa the Invincible said:

Also, I read KC Bishop as KFC Bishop. I'm hungry now.

Oh good, it wasn't just me.

Nor was it just me. So....would you like Original Recipie or Extra Crispy?

[Damen]

[brendanrizzo]

They're not even trying to hold the moral high ground anymore, are they.

[ironbite]

Still trying to wrap my head around how child pron is not a federal crime.

Ironbite-cause you know...that makes sense.

[anon87311]

fuck it. throw the guy in jail and let the population know it was for CP. I won't feel bad.

or do what they used to do, give him a gun with a bullet in, walk out of the room. see if he does the honorable thing.

[Old Viking]

He was busy with important spiritual-type things.

[Vypernight]

I prefer the Bishop and his peers extra crispy.

[Meshakhad]

Oct 16, 2011 13:37:08 GMT -5 Vypernight said:

I prefer the Bishop and his peers extra crispy.

Burn them at the stake in St. Peter's Square!

[shykid]

Gawd, that Yahoo! commenter made me angrier than the article.

If the priest's supervisors noticed the activity, took disciplinary action, and the activity stopped, then there is no duty of them to involve the police.

Don't even tell me you would let a bank robber off the hook if he slapped himself on the wrist and promised not to do it again.

People are not obliged to be snitches to the police.

"Not obliged" only if they want to be charged as conspirators or accessories.

Now, it is a different story if they did not act, or if police got tipped off and nothing got changed.

HE DIDN'T ACT, YOU FUCKWIT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. WAITING FIVE MONTHS IS NOT "ACTING." IT'S SITTING ON YOUR ASS FOR FIVE MONTHS AND DOING NOTHING, THEN DECIDING YOU MIGHT WANT TO TELL SOMEBODY BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO GET IN TROUBLE. IT'S NOT REPORTING IT BECAUSE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

FUCKING A, MAN, CAN YOU REALLY BE THIS OBTUSE WITHOUT DOING IT ON PURPOSE??

The 'failing to report child abuse' if over the top. For example, the pictures could all have been taken in a different country. In that case watching them or storing them is still illegal, but no actual abuse of the children would have taken place within U.S. territory, and under that complaint is not within the authority of U.S. law enforcement.

Calling child porn "child abuse" the opposite of "over the top." If anything, it's a understatement. Try "child molestation" or "child rape." And consuming child pornography only encourages the people who make it to continue raping children. It doesn't fucking matter whose soil it occurred on; it's wrong no matter what. That's why it's illegal to traffic child porn across borders, you dumbass.

Obviously, if children were objectified for such material it is disgusting and illegal, but that does not make it a US criminal child abuse matter.

"lol, guys, guys, listen, it's illegal but it's not a criminal matter"

HOLY FUCK YOU ARE A DUMBFUCK

Sorry, but the charges against the bishop should be dropped and are nothing but the work of an overactive prosecutor frustrated because of the law's restrictions.

HE WAS INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY. DID YOU EVEN READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE?? DO YOU HAVE THE READING-COMPREHENSION SKILLS OF A GOLDFISH ON CRACK?!??

If he can't live with that, he should not e a prosecutor. It's wasting tax payer's money, since any competent court would throw out this charge anyhow.

I'm sorry, but locking away people who willfully choose to enable the rape and molestation of children is not "wasting taxpayers' money."

Ok, sorry guys, I'm done raging now.

[Wykked Wytch]

That's not fair! How could you expect the bishop to just hand over the child porn to the police without single-handedly exorcising all the demons out of it first? He's just looking out for their safety!