ADVERTISEMENT

Subway Jared to plead guilty to child porn charges

All those cult member Subway fans packing that restaurant during lunch makes me sick! Bunch of creepy weirdos!
 
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.
You got my question, Cincy. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
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?
Understand, ChitownLion. But thinking about it, that same line of thinking could be applied to probably many other areas, albeit not nearly so diabolical, and also considered to be transgressions. As Cincy noted, my inquiry related more to understanding the law around all of this. Both of your replies were good ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
Understand, ChitownLion. But thinking about it, that same line of thinking could be applied to probably many other areas, albeit not nearly so diabolical, and also considered to be transgressions. As Cincy noted, my inquiry related more to understanding the law around all of this. Both of your replies were good ones.
The mere POSSESSION of child porn is a crime as is the mere POSSESSION of illegal drugs. I am fairly sure they do not even have to prove you viewed it, just like they do not have to prove you ate the drugs for you to go to jail.
 
The mere POSSESSION of child porn is a crime as is the mere POSSESSION of illegal drugs. I am fairly sure they do not even have to prove you viewed it, just like they do not have to prove you ate the drugs for you to go to jail.
Got ya. Another example I thought of is the communication with ISIS or other terrorists over the internet with the perceived intent of committing an act of terrorism. Don't get me wrong, the guy should go to jail. But, I question whether he will.
 
The mere POSSESSION of child porn is a crime as is the mere POSSESSION of illegal drugs. I am fairly sure they do not even have to prove you viewed it, just like they do not have to prove you ate the drugs for you to go to jail.

At least in OH, there is a "knowingly" element to the crime, but as you said, doesn't even matter if you viewed it as long you knowingly possessed it.
 
Got ya. Another example I thought of is the communication with ISIS or other terrorists over the internet with the perceived intent of committing an act of terrorism. Don't get me wrong, the guy should go to jail. But, I question whether he will.
Oh I have my own doubts about his jail time, but this is not mere possession, it is statutory rape as well. I would be shocked if he just simply walks.
 
Oh I have my own doubts about his jail time, but this is not mere possession, it is statutory rape as well. I would be shocked if he just simply walks.
Dem, I read somewhere that the age of consent in Indiana is 16 and the girl was 16. I must be missing something?
 
Last edited:
Oh I have my own doubts about his jail time, but this is not mere possession, it is statutory rape as well. I would be shocked if he just simply walks.
He'll do time alright. Update from the article I linked:

"Prosecutors have agreed to seek a sentence of no greater than 12 and a half years in prison. Fogle agreed not to seek a sentence of less than five years. In federal cases, prisoners must serve at least 85 percent of sentences."
 
  • Like
Reactions: nits74
Yes, and it seems as if mainstream age-of-consent porn isn't victimless either.

Dem, I read somewhere that the age of consent in Indiana is 16 and the girl was 16. I must be missing something?
There were others in New York, not Indiana. "The plea agreement says Fogle traveled to New York and paid for sex with at least two minors between about 2010 and 2013 at the Plaza Hotel and the Ritz Carlton Hotel. The victims were 16 and 17 years old."
 
It would be totally inappropriate to mention that he'll get plenty of foot longs in prison so I won't do it.
How do you know that there are "plenty" of foot longs in prison? What's your experience?
medium-smiley-124.gif
 
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.
Individuals observing and commenting on the potentially obvious is one thing. News headlines dragging someone's name through the mud publicly before anyone is even accused of wrongdoing is something else entirely. While some might argue we shouldn't even spread rumors at the individual level, the latter is still unacceptable IMO, regardless of the fact that in this example the end may have justified the means.
 
Here's a freak they obviously found porn on the computer, yet there was a lack of any on JS computer?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...that hogwash excuse pedos don't keep porn on computers just went down the commode with the rest of JJ's turds.
So are all the victims lying in this case as well? Just wondering.
 
Emmert weighing in.....
All Subway sites going back to when J was hired as spokesman do not exist
Subway can only hire 50% of the employees of other competing brands
Subway cannot compete in any eating challenges
Subway must give Emmert free subs for life
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
Subway really lucked out on this. Since about 2012 he was being used less and less, I don't ever remember him seeing on advertisements in the store as they were using more Athletes.

Forbes has a good article on this.
 
In yet another example of their obsession with us, one of the Pitt sites currently has a thread that looks to tie Subway, Jared, JS, and PSU into a huge pedophile chain that seemingly leaves nobody in the U.S. unsullied, except perhaps for Pitt grads, even though most of them work at Subway.

I know I shouldn't go over there, but they are like a terrible car wreck right outside your house. It's impossible not to look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lefty Hill
Emmert weighing in.....
All Subway sites going back to when J was hired as spokesman do not exist

If we are using Emmert logic, we'd have to go back before his Subway days... back to his weird college behavior.

In yet another example of their obsession with us, the Lair currently has a thread that looks to tie Subway, Jared, JS, and PSU into a huge pedophile chain that seemingly leaves nobody in the U.S. unsullied, except perhaps for Pitt grads, even though most of them work at Subway.

I know I shouldn't go over there, but they are like a terrible car wreck right outside your house. It's impossible not to look.

Pittsburgh has dozens of Subways. There are 3 Subways in Oakland alone... coincidence? Granted, Pitt grads need a place to work too... but why do they all gravitate towards Subway?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownLion
ADVERTISEMENT