CF Member Charged With Child Porn-Aug 6th- 2008

[NCRCrow]

Military officer in N.B. charged with child pornography offences
6 hours ago

FREDERICTON — An officer based at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick has been charged with child pornography offences.

Second Lt. Joel Robert Charlebois has been charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service with three offences under the Criminal Code relating to making available, possessing and accessing child pornography.

A Defence Department release states that although Charlebois is a serving member of the Canadian Forces, the alleged offences were committed when he was off duty and did not involve the use of any military computers.

Capt. Paule Poulin of military public affairs says Charlebois' case will be handled by a civilian court.

The offences are alleged to have occurred between August 2007 and February 2008.

Maj. Brian Frei of the investigation service says military police investigate any allegations of child pornography related to Canadian Forces' members, defence department employees and defence establishments.

 

[PMedMoe]

You really ought to make the thread title a wee bit more descriptive. 

A Defence Department release states that although Charlebois is a serving member of the Canadian Forces, the alleged offences were committed when he was off duty and did not involve the use of any military computers.

So what?  That makes it okay??

 

[Snafu-Bar]

That's called damage control on the part of the CF. Distancing itself from WHERE it happened is all it accompishes.

The fact he's got child porn on his systems at home does nothing to help the military though.

 

[fire_guy686]

Pretty disgusting. That about sums up my thoughts about it all.

 

[GAP]

In the grand scheme of things....there going to be the same percentage of all types of people both in and out of the CF.

Unless it is a really big bust or just local, you seldom hear about most of the civilians charged, but you sure hear about CF members.

 

[Sheerin]

Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.   

 

[MedTechStudent]

Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.   

Don't quite see what that has to do with it at all actually.  The only excusable case of someone looking up pornography of a 15-17 year old person, might be if the suspect was that age as well.  Even then, its not right, and the line is drawn, at an early age in my opinion(ever since I turned 18 and still look at all my 18 year old friends as "kids"), and this man crossed it.  Good, I'm glad to see the proficiency we appear to have in catching these people.

Cheers, Kyle

EDIT:  Sheerin, that first sentence sounds a little antagonistic I apologize.  It is meant to read "I don't think it should make a difference what age the underage kids are"

Cheers!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.   

He broke the law, plain and simple.  Its one of those black and white issues.  NO grey.

 

[Sheerin]

Don't quite see what that has to do with it at all actually.  The only excusable case of someone looking up pornography of a 15-17 year old person, might be if the suspect was that age as well.  Even then, its not right, and the line is drawn, at an early age in my opinion(ever since I turned 18 and still look at all my 18 year old friends as "kids"), and this man crossed it.  Good, I'm glad to see the proficiency we appear to have in catching these people.

Cheers, Kyle

Actually my point was that it is quite easy to come across porn of 17 year olds on the internet, which is where the excusable part comes in.  Now of course if he had something like 5000 images of girls who clearly looked below the age of 18 then yeah that's a different story.  Another would be if he knowly talked to those teenagers and had them take photos of themselves and give it to him.  
But given the fact he was arrested, would tend to indicate that a reasonable person would have assumed the individuals were <18 years old.  

 

[Sheerin]

He broke the law, plain and simple.  Its one of those black and white issues.  NO grey.

I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who has seen internet porn has at one point or another has unknowingly stumbled across images of what could be classified as child porn (ie: models who weren't quite 18), does that make everyone a criminal? 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe thats enough speculation and 'what ifs'.  A commissioned officer was charged with an offence under the CC and is being dealt with accordingly.

No grey area.

 

[MedTechStudent]

Actually my point was that it is quite easy to come across porn of 17 year olds on the internet  

No I don't think so.  Most reputable pornography sites are very professional and advertise in plain sight that all their "models" or "actors" are of age.

Now of course if he had something like 5000 images of girls who clearly looked below the age of 18 then yeah that's a different story.

I don't think the quantity of pictures should matter.  It certainly doesn't to the law.

But given the fact he was arrested, would tend to indicate that a reasonable person would have assumed the individuals were <18 years old.  

Absolutely, more often than not, the people who get caught doing this get caught because they go to great length to find the images, talk to the wrong people, and get busted.  You're average fella who might type in "underage woman" into the Google Images bar is most likely not gonna get docked like this guy.

Cheers


EDIT:  In regards to your comment about accidentally stumbling upon underage girls.  Its actually the opposite thats reality.  Sites or adds that post images of woman who appear to be a lot younger then they are.  Its a marketing tool they use.  So in actuality its a lot more likely to stumble across a picture with the age "17" on it when the woman in question is actually older.  As I said, child pornography is a crime ring just like any other, with a lot of money to be made in it.  You have to look for it to find it in that amounts we see on these suspects computers.  And some of them just get caught, thank god.

 

[Sheerin]

No I don't think so.  Most reputable pornography sites are very professional and advertise in plain site that all their "models" or "actors" are of age.

While they may advertise that, doesn't mean that all porn on the internet came from professional "Studios", just look at a place like xtube, I've never posted anything on there so I can't say for certain, but I highly doubt the owners of that site go to your home and make sure they have a look at all birth certificates and IDs to make sure all the "models" are of age. 

I don't think the quantity of pictures should matter.  It certainly doesn't to the law.

While you have a point there, it wasn't exactly what I was going for.  there may in fact be a difference when it comes to quantity.  If he had 5000+ photos of girls who all looked under age then yes, it's a clear cut case.  now if he had say 1 then it could be aruged it was downloaded by accident.  Particularly if he had multiple thousands of images/movies of people who were of age.

Absolutely, more often than not, the people who get caught doing this get caught because they go to great length to find the images, talk to the wrong people, and get busted.  You're average fella who might type in "underage woman" into the Google Images bar is most likely not gonna get docked like this guy.

A lot of people get caught that way, also a lot of people get caught when they send their computer off for servicing and someone just happens to find the file that is most likely titled "misc". 

EDIT
:  In regards to your comment about accidentally stumbling upon underage girls.  Its actually the opposite thats reality.  Sites or adds that post images of woman who appear to be a lot younger then they are.  Its a marketing tool they use.  So in actuality its a lot more likely to stumble across a picture with the age "17" on it when the woman in question is actually older.  As I said, child pornography is a crime ring just like any other, with a lot of money to be made in it.  You have to look for it to find it in that amounts we see on these suspects computers.  And some of them just get caught, thank god.

Again you're thinking of professional websites, but there are a huge number of amateur websites that feature models who take photos of themselves, or whatever. 

 

[MedTechStudent]

I mean you do have some good points, I'm just trying to stress that in my opinion the people who get caught are most always guilty.  They have usually been tracked for quite a while, and then they slip up and get busted.  And also, most of these cases are linked to "child porn" and I mean like really vulgar age 6-10 stuff.  Its a good thing he can't plead ignorance and say that she "looked 18."  Either way I'm just glad its one more off the web.

Cheers

 

[Sheerin]

I mean you do have some good points, I'm just trying to stress that in my opinion the people who get caught are most always guilty.  They have usually been tracked for quite a while, and then they slip up and get busted.  And also, most of these cases are linked to "child porn" and I mean like really vulgar age 6-10 stuff.  Its a good thing he can't plead ignorance and say that she "looked 18."  Either way I'm just glad its one more off the web.

Cheers

You're most likely right, and it will come down to whether or not a reasonable person would say the models are of age.  And chances are he was looking at kids, but we don't know.  If it was little kids then good riddence. 

 

[MedTechStudent]

You're most likely right, and it will come down to whether or not a reasonable person would say the models are of age.  And chances are he was looking at kids, but we don't know.  If it was little kids then good riddence. 

+1

Good thing we have a legal system that will get to the bottom of it. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

FFS  :

NOTHING was mentioned about him looking at models.  BUT you two have now 'suggested' that enough that it is becoming part of this thread to the point people will forget only YOU two (MedTechStudent and Sheerin) have debated it even though it has no relevance and isn't even mentioned in the article!  At MacDonalds, its called "suggestive selling" and while it may work to move more Apple Pies per month, this thread isn't the place for it IMO.

Arguing/debating the age, context, etc as you are is USELESS and IRRELEVANT to the FACTS; he was investigated for breaking a law, is being charged, and it relates to child pornography.

Period.  Thats it.  Full stop.

Enough of the blind, drunk and dizzy "pin the tail on the donkey" speculation please.

 

[MedTechStudent]

EDIT: Fine, toodles

 

[Sheerin]

FFS  :

NOTHING was mentioned about him looking at models.  BUT you two have now 'suggested' that enough that it is becoming part of this thread to the point people will forget only YOU two (MedTechStudent and Sheerin) have debated it even though it has no relevance and isn't even mentioned in the article!  At MacDonalds, its called "suggestive selling" and while it may work to move more Apple Pies per month, this thread isn't the place for it IMO.

Arguing/debating the age, context, etc as you are is USELESS and IRRELEVANT to the FACTS; he was investigated for breaking a law, is being charged, and it relates to child pornography.

Period.  Thats it.  Full stop.

Enough of the blind, drunk and dizzy "pin the tail on the donkey" speculation please.

Well we don't know all the facts now do we?  and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little discussion, in my personal opinion.

I've also taken the liberty of highlighting the most important portion of your rant...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Its not discussion its speculation and to the point where you've thrown the term 'models' into the issue and made it appear to be part of the equation.

I disagree with your highlighted word and would suggest the word FACTS is the key word in my post, something none of your posts were centered around.

What it is is what it is.