Submitted by Early_District_2796 t3_1184cas in rva
Comments
exposechefjohnny t1_j9h1e1u wrote
Hopefully that was part of his plea agreement. It took 4 years to get to sentencing.
PimpOfJoytime t1_j9fj1fc wrote
So long u/chefjohnny I hope your cooking skills come in handy when you’re making commissary ramen.
LostDefectivePearl t1_j9ftnot wrote
Ohhhhh shit
gentleghosts t1_j9fdrij wrote
someone who is not interested in children does not download 5000+ photos and 600+ videos 🤢 I’m not sure how the forensic psychologist came to their conclusion but i’d love to hear more. Plenty of people experience childhood SA unfortunately but they do not take to looking at child pornography in adulthood. Trying to play it like the two are connected in this case is disgusting.
LostDefectivePearl t1_j9fungb wrote
Even if they are connected, it doesn’t matter. If his trauma is so deep he’s tempted to download kiddy porn, GET A THERAPIST INSTEAD
gentleghosts t1_j9fxdp2 wrote
10000% this, that response just seemed like a deflection and way to not take accountability. Using victimhood to justify being a pedo is moreso what I meant by the disgusting factor - not that the two couldn't be connected. Dude definitely needs to deal with his past if this is how it's showing up for him as an adult.
ttd_76 t1_j9h6j6h wrote
The recidivism rates for sexual offenses is pretty low in general. I'm sure this is partly due to under-reporting but that's still what the data says.
The biggest red flag risk factor here is the sexual abuse as a child. But we don't put people in jail for 9 years for that, we give them therapy and it usually helps. We also don't punish people for being poor, or having drug addictions which are correlated risk factors.
If you have no history of prior inappropriate behaviors, no alcohol or drug issues, no mental health/personality problems, and no socioeconomic factors working against you, the evidence points at you not being a big risk.
Basically, most people can and do look at and fantasize about all kinds of weird shit and still never act on it. And they can even stop looking at that weird shit if the future consequences are dire enough or they get treatment for their addiction.
gentleghosts t1_j9haj5k wrote
this is a weird argument. not having a legal history means nothing. I could go out tomorrow and murder someone. by your own argument since I have no history of behavioral issues, drugs, alcohol whatever, I should be viewed as low risk? I know murder is a different crime that can’t be compared to possession of CP so use whatever crime you want. argument still stands. possession of CP is a crime that enables a very serious problem. as long as there is demand, minors will be in danger. someone down below already responded to you about trafficking so i’m not going to repeat what they said again.
these reports from 2018 show that 76.5% of offenders had little or no criminal history. so should that many people be given leniency because they hid this side of themselves from the world and didn’t get caught until they did?
There’s a huge line in the sand if your fantasies include children being used, in any degree. I’m not sure what exactly you’re arguing here. Yes these people need help, yes these people should be punished. those two things are not mutually exclusive.
ttd_76 t1_j9hcsk0 wrote
>There’s a huge line in the sand if your fantasies include children being used, in any degree.
Based on what? We don't punish people for having fantasies.
You wondered how the forensic psychologist could reach the conclusion that he was not sexually attracted to children and was a low risk to reoffend. The answer is that is a not an unreasonable conclusion based on his history and best statistical evidence.
Whether he should get 9 years regardless of potential for recidivism simply because of the shittiness of the crime is different issue.
gentleghosts t1_j9hecge wrote
well he acted on his fantasies when he downloaded thousands of files. in that case, we do punish. that’s the line where fantasy turned harmful to others. i’m still really unsure what your angle is with all of this. you are literally arguing in support of a pedo, why? do you know him? someone like him? like what’s your goal here?
The likelihood of reoffending is irrelevant. it already happened once, he is already a problem. also to the psychologist point, explain to me why someone who is not sexually attracted to children would download that many photos/videos. if you find yourself curious about something, you definitely don’t have that much on hand. the only other reason I can see someone in possession of that many files is because they are the one circulating it.
ttd_76 t1_j9hysm4 wrote
I have no stake in this other than that the sentencing for non-production child porn is stupid.
And since you cited a USSC report to me, please consider that USSC also thinks the sentencing structure is stupid.
The enhancements that USSC talks about in that report as being problematic are the exact ones that were applied here, as they are in most cases. They're not truly "enhancements." They function instead as Draconian minimum sentencing guidelines.
The whole PROTECT Act is part of Bush era policy and attitudes that spawned the "super predator" and things like that. It came about because the USSC guidelines were considered too soft and because the Supreme Court had struck down an earlier child porn bill. So congress basically overrode the USSC and required them to add those "enhancements" because while the alleged purpose was to separate the mythical superpredator types from the oops I didn't realize I had this Traci Lords on VHS, the reality is they didn't care and felt like all pervs are just rapists-in-waiting.
>explain to me why someone who is not sexually attracted to children would download that many photos/videos.
Well one obvious reason would be that they are running a child porn business. And if that's the case, Maher should be put in jail for much longer than 9 years. But he should also be charged for that and not this.
But maybe he is fixated on it in a non-sexual way because of what allegedly happened to him as child. Or maybe he really is sexually attracted to children, but that is not a crime, nor should it be.
I don't know the facts of this case. It could be he is a shitty guy and maybe he has done sketchy stuff that he has not been charged for. He could be a total shitbag. I only know him like most people do, he served me some drinks and we chatted a bit a few times.
But I believe he pled guilty to basically ONE single count of receiving (not distributing) child porn. And I believe the person he "received" it from was himself via putting a file on drop box and then downloading it like how everyone uses drop box (just not for porn).
And that alone pretty much gets him or anyone else 9 years, regardless of any other circumstance. That is what is fucked up.
If he did something horrible enough to warrant 9 years, then he should be charged and have to plead specifically to whatever that was. Charge him 1,000 counts of possessing child pornography. But you shouldn't be able to charge someone with one count of receiving child pornography and put them away for 9 years.
gentleghosts t1_j9i59hz wrote
oh baby, the hill you are choosing to die on tonight is sus.
2012 ussc suggestions to congress would still pin johnny to the mat. the enhancements they suggest in one of the three areas is based on type of content, volume in possession, age of the victims, types of misconduct depicted, and how they’ve organized and maintained the collection over time.
You clearly do not see child pornography possession as an issue in any amount so i’m done engaging with you. Possession is what enables the market to thrive, endangering countless children of all ages. It’s a really fucking weird thing to not be bothered by and I really hope you have no children of your own with viewpoints like these.
ttd_76 t1_j9ig7z7 wrote
>2012 ussc suggestions to congress would still pin johnny to the mat. the enhancements they suggest in one of the three areas is based on type of content, volume in possession, age of the victims, types of misconduct depicted, and how they’ve organized and maintained the collection over time.
What USSC has always suggested is that these enhancements need to be revised because virtually everyone gets hits with them. It means that the 5 year minimum is pointless because no one actually ever gets the minimum.
It's basically technology. In 1985, if you had 15,000 pirated songs in your possession, you were seriously into it in a way that was not just like personal hobby use. By 2005, it was pretty common to have that many songs. You can just hop on a torrent and get thousands of videos or images, legal or illegal. You just download a motherlode of stuff and watch/play/listen to what you want.
There is a minimum 5 year penalty for receiving child porn. There is no minimum for possession. But if you did not produce the porn, but you have it, you must have somehow received it. So everyone starts at 5 years.
And because no one is perusing everything and collecting one item at a time, and just downloading big torrents or whatever, they automatically get stuck with several enhancements. So now the real minimum is not 5 years, it's closer to 10. This is all stupid.
>oh baby, the hill you are choosing to die on tonight is sus.
Maybe. But I guess I will die on this hill along with Ketanji Brown Jackson and the majority of criminal judges in the US.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9josz0 wrote
Once again comparing apples to giraffes here. Downloading pirated music is not equal to downloading photos and videos of children being exploited and abused. And everyone is aware that people who like to exploit other people often put themselves in positions of power, like Catholic priests and IDK maybe CRIMINAL JUDGES?
I wish I knew who you are @ttd, I sure as fuck hope you don't work with children.
ttd_76 t1_j9kbmbr wrote
This came up in the Ketanji Brown Jackson case. Go back and rewatch the hearings or re-read some of the articles that were written at the time.
Most judges don't follow the sentencing guidelines and typically deviate by around 60 months. In the majority of cases where KBJ was accused of being soft on child porn for giving light sentences, she was following the recommendation of the probation officer and the prosecuting attorney.
So just consider which is more likely-- that the majority of judges and attorneys including KBJ are secret kiddie diddlers or that the sentencing guidelines are fucked and Josh Hawley is a flaming asshole?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9i9hog wrote
Ok I'll give you this one thing- being sexually attracted to children (while absolutely abhorrent) should not be/is not illegal. But once you cross over the threshold into obtaining child pornography you are DIRECTLY contributing to the exploitation, trafficking, abuse and rape of children.
lynyrdslingered t1_j9hfpu5 wrote
So Johnny contributing money (I assume these videos aren’t free but I have no idea) to people producing videos of literal infants being assaulted isn’t that bad? This is one of the worst takes ever. Are you the guy that employed this asshole for a few years after he got caught? Or you are just a big advocate for child porn addicts ?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9heh3o wrote
How do you know that chef Johnny doesn't have any of those other factors? Are you close to him?
GaimanitePkat t1_j9fl85z wrote
Charges included possessing images of an infant or toddler.
The excuse was that he did it because he was molested as a "young teen". Even in the fairytale hellworld where he was just trying to rationalize what happened to him, what do infants and toddlers have to do with that?
Lock him up. Don't let him out again.
skulloctopus2023 t1_j9feqzg wrote
9 years is not enough.
thriftyshirt t1_j9fh3xc wrote
The article calls the crime a "...tremendous error in judgement." smdh.
Eastern_Apricot_8447 t1_j9hpwtd wrote
This article is such bullshit. This is much worse than initially reported and RTD is giving him the “poor white man had so much potential this was just a minor lapse in judgement” treatment.
Embarrassing. He was always a POS. Clearly more than we ever knew. He was NO pillar of his community. He was nuisance, and an embarrassment to this city and this article in infuriating!
exposechefjohnny t1_j9hqvwx wrote
Thank you 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
1975hh3 t1_j9i7r7b wrote
100%
Hedgecore138 t1_j9f8fih wrote
Good riddance.
eziam t1_j9ftoz5 wrote
Really puts in perspective how little you know of someone. I remember talking to this person at their bar and have casual conversations, thinking this was a good person...then this drops. You seriously can't trust anyone
exposechefjohnny t1_j9hgi72 wrote
Sadly you can not. Many knew he was not a good person behind the scenes, but none of us thought that he would do something like this.
GMUcovidta t1_j9f879d wrote
Good, wish he got more
andrewsucks t1_j9fak2f wrote
What a downfall. I hope he rots.
eyes_wide_open19 t1_j9h1bjk wrote
Why did the people behind the "Eat It, Virginia!" podcast give this disgusting individual a platform to speak? They KNOW they've heard things about him.
SCGower t1_j9h8i32 wrote
Is this why the rogue gentlemen shut down?
TeaseDiesel t1_j9i47qe wrote
This has apparently been a 4 year process, I'm not sure what the timeline was on everything though.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9ia1pg wrote
I believe Rogue closed down just prior to his arrest, so not related but possible he saw the writing on the wall. The police had obtained the original evidence when Rogue was still in operation.
[deleted] t1_j9ik2p6 wrote
[deleted]
Ok-Tie6106 t1_j9hex2k wrote
I mean he put it in the name, no?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9htoy5 wrote
What do you mean?
Ok-Tie6106 t1_j9j7udc wrote
I looked at the definition of rogue. A dishonest or unprincipled person. A villain. The Rogue Gentleman. In context the name makes me physically ill
Arcangelathanos t1_j9fiocp wrote
Yay for the stupidity of criminals, I guess? Never would have been caught if he hadn't decided to use Dropbox.
Tayl44 t1_j9fpbyi wrote
This is a strange comment. Thank God he was caught.
Arcangelathanos t1_j9fxstk wrote
He never would have been if he hadn't been stupid enough to use Dropbox. In general, I prefer if folks aren't stupid.
birdmanmanbird t1_j9g62dk wrote
I prefer when people are not consuming CP featuring toddlers and infants. Wtf are you on about?
[deleted] t1_j9gzzlg wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j9hcuic wrote
[removed]
ttd_76 t1_j9gbdac wrote
I only care because of the actual children involved in the making of it. If someone has deep fake child porn, or whatever I don't care how much they have or how often they look at it.
Honestly 9 years when there's no evidence that the person has ever had any inappropriate contact with a minor is ridiculous.
Sage_Advice420 t1_j9grldy wrote
>I only care because of the actual children involved in the making of it. If someone has deep fake child porn, or whatever I don't care how much they have or how often they look at it. > >Honestly 9 years when there's no evidence that the person has ever had any inappropriate contact with a minor is ridiculous.
Holy fuck, u/ttd_76, you're actually literally advocating for leniency for a pedophile who has nearly a thousand pictures of toddlers being raped.
You need to take a long hard look at your life, my dude.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9h0yld wrote
Do you not understand that there are REAL children in those photos and videos and by purchasing and selling those images Johnny was contributing to the sexual abuse of these children? The more money child pornographers make from producing and selling imagery of children the more children will be trafficked, raped and abused. Not to mention that it is almost impossible to delete these images from the internet. Imagine being in these photos and knowing that sick humans will be using them for pleasure for the rest of your fucking life.
Open your eyes!
[deleted] t1_j9h3arv wrote
[removed]
MaryDellamorte t1_j9hhujd wrote
Someone needs to check your computer.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9h89yq wrote
Are you fucking crazy?
RVAGuywithNoID t1_j9hd2uq wrote
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Non-production offenses like possession are what drive the production.
ttd_76 t1_j9hq5xf wrote
Would you make the argument that someone who buys some meth should be charged the same as large meth producer because their possession and use of drugs are what drive the production?
exposechefjohnny t1_j9hsy1e wrote
I don't know what kind of straw man argument you are trying to draw here, but I can only conclude by your sympathizer comments that you are either friends/ family to Johnny or that you yourself have a child porn habit.
To compare drug addiction to child pornography is absolutely inappropriate and wrong. Especially since victims of sex crimes are prone to drug and alcohol addiction. Buying and using drugs do not equate to buying photographs and videos of children being raped or abused.
rva-ModTeam t1_j9hq5ol wrote
Your comment has been removed at the discretion of the moderator team.
Please do not re-post this again or post a minimally-revised item similar to this without contacting our moderator team first.
readthistoyourmomma t1_j9gkrwx wrote
Uhhhhhhhh ok dude?
BabyBat07 t1_j9jo1ux wrote
So buying and selling images of toddlers being assaulted is cool as long as it’s fake and they’re not actually doing it themselves? That’s some creepy bullshit logic.
ttd_76 t1_j9k0i61 wrote
The Supreme Court has held that this is protected free speech under Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition and Ferber vs New York.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9k2b6d wrote
Seriously, what do you have in this fight? The images that Johnny had weren't deep fakes. They were real.
ttd_76 t1_j9kd00x wrote
I never said they were. I'm also not the person who created a special username just for this and then complained wrongly I about being banned by an automod.
The sentencing guidelines in child porn are bad. Pick someone other than Maher and I will still say they are bad, under the same username.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9lrq1r wrote
Lol you have to attack me because you're a weak pedo sympathizer. My feelings are so hurt! You really got me there, bud. I also recanted and applauded the mods later because I know when to admit when I'm wrong. Perhaps you should try it.
ttd_76 t1_j9mjot2 wrote
Fuck you. So far you've implied that I am unsafe around children, that I have secret pedophilia tendencies, or that I must be a friend of John Maher.
exposechefjohnny t1_j9n0mz5 wrote
No thanks, I don't fuck pedo sympathizers.
But in all seriousness, the only reason I've been coming after you is because you keep arguing to lessen the repercussions of the heinous offense here without once acknowledging the real victims of this type of crime. It is such a terrible hill to die on.
You keep comparing a crime that exploits, traffics and harms children to things like drug use and music pirating and frankly it's absolutely appalling and asinine.
Myself and others in this thread have brought you many reasonable rebuttals and you just ignore them and keep doubling down. I even threw you a bone by saying that as disgusting as I find it, I don't think that mere attraction to children should be illegal (which it is not.) But as soon as you start downloading and/or distributing imagery of children being sexually assaulted, even if it is just one photo (it wasn't here), you deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
ttd_76 t1_j9n7kdk wrote
These sentences are not doing a single thing to stop sexual abuse of children.
Fuck you.
[deleted] t1_j9k1vmi wrote
[deleted]
kittyTompkins t1_j9ow5j8 wrote
What if one of the toddlers in the photos or videos were your kid? How much time would be appropriate?
ttd_76 t1_j9pr35v wrote
If it were my kid, I would want the death penalty. Which is why victim families shouldn't determine sentences. The amount of time which is appropriate is the amount of time that prevents the most child sexual abuse.
There is research that shows what risk factors lead to higher potential for abuse. The laws and sentencing have almost no relationship with those factors.
Throwing the book at these dudes is easy because they are unsympathetic and it allows people to pat themselves on the back for their self-righteousness. It makes us feel good about ourselves like we did something.
People are stuck on their feels. If I say the punishment for CSAM non-production crimes are too harsh, then I must secretly be a pedophile. But how many times have we also seen it that the people who are most self-righteous and draconian against some behavior end up being the ones who are secretly doing it? Attacking the messenger is stupid.
If I bring up any sort of argument, I get told it's a "fact" that CSAM consumption is different and cannot be compared to anything else. Which is not a fact at all, it's just people refusing to think.
We can study child porn like we study anything else. P2P and Drop Box work the same whether it's CSAM or Game of Thrones. Psychologists can study pedophilia just like they study anything else. There are basic behavioral drives all humans have in common.
There is research on this topic, and experts who study it. The evidence is more and more showing that the way we are dealing with CSAM does nothing to stop child sexual abuse and is more likely making it worse.
WhalerBum t1_j9f93uq wrote
This would be much more worthy of celebration if this case resulted in the capture of a single person that was involved with the production of the child porn.