Subway Jared to plead guilty to child porn charges
- Thread starter dwiz
- Start date
It's mindboggling how people will put their entire lives at risk. I'm not even going to ask how they can take such destructive advantage of people and still live with themselves.
I'm really just an ordinary Joe Blow off the street, but one thing I can say is that I've done very little harm in my life. For whatever reason, I think this is something to be proud of.
I'm really just an ordinary Joe Blow off the street, but one thing I can say is that I've done very little harm in my life. For whatever reason, I think this is something to be proud of.
Yes, it is Jim, and anyone that acts similarly has my respect and admiration.
I'd put Subway's response somewhere in between the responses of Penn State and Michigan's respective leadership.
The #PSUBoT attached a scarlet letter to the chests of every Penn Stater for creating a sports-obsessed culture of hero worship that valued football victories above basic human decency. We were all complicit in the crimes of FORMER employee Jerry Sandusky.
Meanwhile, Michigan covered-up for and fast-tracked pedophile Stephen Jenson for an advanced pediatric degree AND made the Mott Children's Hospital a primary sponsor of Michigan football... and @DesmondHoward said nothing after campaigning for Penn State to get the death penalty.
Last edited:
Looks like Subway tore a page out of The Second Mile's "Damage Control Manual".
Subway should have done more
Subway should have done more
Nice house. Gonna look nice on every Megan's Law pushpin map in the country, assuming he pleads, as the story indicated. Hard to believe anything printed until it actually happens. Dude must have had some serious caysh.
assuming there's a divorce, fines, lawyers fees, civil suits (if any), and the lack of an income, I think it's safe to say he will no longer be able to afford that house.
He can always go back to his previous line of work - renting out bootleg copies of porn movies to college freshmen at a buck a pop. He seems to have a natural talent for that sort of thing.
BTW - looks like 'ol J has been snarfing down the Whoopie Pies. He's carrying around quite the spare tire these days.
I always thought the dude was freaky for some reason. And I never liked Subway. Maybe I was on to something.
No mention of anything on the Indiana Rivals or Scout boards... but there is a thread that says they should have beat us in 2013.
what the hell are you talking about? as an iu alumnus you can both bite my ass.
Sixteen year old prostitutes? Horses? What a freak show. Fogle is an idiot. He became famous and relatively wealthy all because he was a fat guy who lost weight. That sure beats working for a living. All he had to do was live a normal life and he would've had it made. Hell, he could have ballooned up again if he wanted to. Subway may have cut him loose but so what? He had a full bank account. Proof money doesn't equal intelligence.
The point is that the jared situation is reflective of the iu culture, meaning the entire university community. Everyone at iu played a role in creating a culture where a sub celebrity was put above all else, including the children. Everyone knew.
I. AM. OUTRAGED.
As much as the vile and unfair treatment of us angered me, and as much as this situation once again brings all of that to light.....I basically can't bring myself to think about anything more than how much I detest and hate pedophiles and pedophilia: Sandusky, Fogle, and every single other one of them.
That's just how I feel: I hate pedophiles above and beyond anything else. Sorry.
That's just how I feel: I hate pedophiles above and beyond anything else. Sorry.
But I thought this was just a penn state problem. There aren't any other pedo's that reside in any other communities than state College. Nobody could be fooled besides the football obsessed town of state College.
Hey now. I'm an IUP (M' 90) grad and damn proud of it.
Yeah, some of us tried saying the FBI doesn't "raid" homes without a warrant. And the warrant doesn't come without probable cause. But others here are now so worried about rushes to judgment that they think it's a crime to connect any two dots. I agree there shouldn't be a rush, but we also shouldn't be forbidden from observing the obvious.
It would be totally inappropriate to mention that he'll get plenty of foot longs in prison so I won't do it.
Me too. I consider myself a good person...probably boring by today's standards...but I'm ok with that.
It's something to be proud of LionJim.
I'm certain many pedos do, but I'm also certain many do not. So while child porn on a computer is pretty conclusive of a pedophile, the lack thereof is not conclusive that someone is not.
I'm a raging heterosexual, but you'll find no trace of porn on my computer. Does that disprove that I am? (More likely means I'm just more computer savvy than Hillary Clinton's people).
What about the argument some use that child pornography on a computer does not prove an individual is acting on it? Not real familiar with the Subway guy's situation, but is there any proof he has acted out? In any event the subject still nauseates me, so I read or know very little about these type of individuals.
"Raging heterosexual." Like that characterization.
What about the argument some use that child pornography on a computer does not prove an individual is acting on it? Not real familiar with the Subway guy's situation, but is there any proof he has acted out? In any event the subject still nauseates me, so I read or know very little about these type of individuals.
"Raging heterosexual." Like that characterization.
If the linked DailyMail article is correct, he paid $100 to have sex with a 16 year old, which apparently is the age of consent in Indiana.
Make of that what you will.
Hard to believe that LE wouldn't want to make a highly visible arrest prior to accepting a plea bargain.
Heck. Hard to believe they'd accept a plea bargain at all without a full, very public, account being given. (Especially given the very public "raid.")
I don't see how we mitigate CSA by giving bargains to alleged perps.
Something odd going on here.
Last edited:
nits74, the law takes action against collectors of child pornography because it is not a victimless crime. Every click/hit/viewing/etc essentially results in a partial funding of continued child sexual abuse and human trafficking. I can see why some might question the merits of punishing the so-called uninvolved observer, but present-day law recognizes these people as sponsors of crimes against humanity. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate response for someone who types the subject line into a google search for purposes of research and unwittingly winds up with a hard drive contaminated by images of child abuse... but, this seems to be a subject that requires a little more awareness. For example, think of the med school student at Michigan who had 100+ images of children engaged in horrific sex acts with adults... how would you feel if you found out your kids' pediatrician was none other than Stephen Jenson?
You knew what Jared was doing, stop enabling.
I don't want to put words in nits74's mouth, but I don't think he was insinuating it's victimless, but rather was engaging in the discussion of whether child porn on the comp conclusively says you're a pedophile who acts out on it. To which I would say, I don't think it's any kind of guarantee someone acts out on it, but that person is still a pedo as one doesn't have to act out on it in order to be one. If you're into watching that sort of sick crap, you're a pedo whether you act on it or not.
Here's the difference. Viewing adult porn on your computer is not a crime. However, with child porn, the mere act of viewing or possession is a crime. It matters not whether you act on it.What about the argument some use that child pornography on a computer does not prove an individual is acting on it? Not real familiar with the Subway guy's situation, but is there any proof he has acted out? In any event the subject still nauseates me, so I read or know very little about these type of individuals.
"Raging heterosexual." Like that characterization.
The reasoning, in simplest terms, is that by viewing or possessing child porn, you are creating a market for such material, and the creation of such material is not a victimless crime. Children can't give consent, they are harmed in the making of it, and you as the viewer or possessor of said material were essentially an accomplice by creating the market for such material.
It does raise issues for researchers and possibly even the press. Not sure if, and in what way, they are exempt. But if they are, I would think you'd suddenly have a lot of "researchers" out there, or attempts to use it as a defense.
