Just-a-Guy
Verified Expert
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 418
- Reaction score
- 0
Possessing child *advertiser censored* and distributing child *advertiser censored* would be two separate charges, am I right?
Absolutely.
Possessing child *advertiser censored* and distributing child *advertiser censored* would be two separate charges, am I right?
Pervert could be sued by victims of his pictures, civil suits
Not just that - what about his neighbors?
It said there are pictures focused on kids in his neighbors yards, taken from the vantage point of his bedroom. The pictures focus on butts and chests.
:yow:
These were apparently among the people who were yelling things at Josh when he was doing an interview a few weeks ago. Now they find out this?
When you post bond, Steve, I would probably find somewhere else to sleep at night.
So, would there be any chance of the Coxes seeing the boys while they're in custody, do you think?
Yes. But what are they going to recover for their efforts?
Doesn't. He have money and real estate?
Anyone else feel like Josh might off himself at any moment? Sorry for the crude thought.
I hope they are keeping an eye on him.
Does anyone know when SP bought the house he is in now? I know it hasn't been all that many years. It might be neighbors at a former house. This happened in 2006-2007.
There are pictures of him leaving the courthouse today on the custody hearing at the link below. He looks pretty bad,IMO.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...f-Susan-Powell-also-files-for-custody-of.html
I don't think he will off himself (too narcissistic), but I'm wondering how far he will go to get his boys back. I honestly believe Susan is dead because he knew she had information that could cause him to have limited visitation with "his boys". I further believe that SP convinced him that he had to do everything in his power to make sure that didn't happen and that "working on the marriage" and showing Susan that he was making an effort to be a good husband was all part of a fascade to make her an unsuspecting victim. JMO
<vomit and eye/brain bleach alert>
Forgive me for stating what may already be obvious to many of you, but ...
As far as i know, fellas generally don't take pictures of their, er, junk, or pics/video of themselves, er, paying attention to their special friend for posterity. They send these pics/videos to people. Who did he send these pics to? If he has internet friends, what did they send in exchange?
BBM:
I don't think he will either. Dad's not available to tell him how to do it...
Honestly, I think father and son may just both try to throw each other under the bus.
Prisoner's dilemma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about game theory. For the 1988 novel, see Prisoner's Dilemma (novel). For the Doctor Who audiobook, see The Prisoner's Dilemma. For the 2001 play, see The Prisoner's Dilemma (play).
The Prisoners Dilemma, is an aspect of game theory that shows why two individuals might not agree, even if appears that it is best to do so. A classic example of the prisoner's dilemma (PD) is presented as follows: It was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "prisoner's dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).
Two men are arrested, but the police do not possess enough information for an arrest. Following the separation of the two men, the police offer both a similar deal- if one testifies against his partner (defects), and the other stays quiet (cooperates), the betrayer goes free and the cooperator receives the full one-year sentence. If both remain silent, both are sentenced to only one month in jail for a minor charge. If each 'rats out' the other, each receives a three-month sentence. Each prisoner must choose to either betray or remain silent; the decision of each is kept quiet. What should they do?
If it is supposed here that each player is only concerned with lessening his time in jail, the game becomes a non-zero sum game where the two players may either assist or betray the other. In the game, the sole worry of the prisoners seems to be increasing his own reward. The interesting symmetry of this problem is that the logical decision leads both to betray the other, even though their individual prize would be greater if they cooperated.
In the regular version of this game, collaboration is dominated by betraying, and as a result, the only possible medium in the game is for both prisoners to betray the other. Regardless of what the other prisoner chooses, one will always gain a greater payoff by betraying the other. Because in almost all solutions, betraying is more beneficial than not talking at all, all objective prisoners would seemingly betray the other.
In the elongated game, the game is played over and over, and consequently, both prisoners continuously have an opportunity to penalize the other for the previous decision. If the number of times the game will be played is known, the economical aspect of the game lends evidence to the assumption that the two prisoners would betray the other over and over, regardless how many times they play.
In casual usage, the label "prisoner's dilemma" may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria of the classic or iterative games, for instance, those in which two entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve cooperation.
Whoa! I'm shocked again.
Child *advertiser censored* does not have to be what you think of as adult *advertiser censored*. Any picture of a child that is focused specifically on the child's private area can be considered child *advertiser censored*.
A picture of a child on the toilet, in the shower, in the bathtub which is focused on the private area would be considered child *advertiser censored* in a heartbeat.
This may very well go federal.
If each count is 5 years he may not get more than 5 years... but he COULD. It just all depends...
Ummm having spent a period of time 'chatting' I know that there are men out there who are facinated with their own junk. And they seem to believe that everyone else should be facinated too.
So they send them out as kind of a sexual come-on. If he sends her a pic and she doesn't talk to him anymore, he moves on. If she continues talking to them, then they try to engage her into sex exchanges. Sometimes it is done for the shock value, send out the pic and hope that she replys outraged.
It is actually pretty funny. I mean they spend hours doing this. LOL when I would get one I used to have fun with it. (One time guy tried to engage me in sex talk and I asked him for his credit card number. He was shocked. Also had a guy ask me to describe my feet to him.
And no I am not and never was interested in sex talk with strangers (so don't be texting me lol) I just found them extremely funny.