Orange.
Pocket presents 🍊
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2021
- Messages
- 24,034
- Likes
- 147,073
Five felony counts of child pornography reduced to pleading no contest to two misdemeanor counts of breach of the peace is in no way an earnest or ordinary plea deal. This is grotesque and manifest "fixing." I cannot imagine that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which reported Kitna, is not raising absolute hell over this. Unless perhaps they have been receiving massive "donations" as a pay off. I think action should immediately be intiated to strip them of their non-profit status pending a full investigation of the group as an accessory, including forensic accounting of the organization and its chief officers. It's a shame Florida seems to have no state bureau of investigation and the national Department of "Justice" appears as usual to be an active criminal enterprise. It is inexplicable that the police officers accepted this, barring foul play. In addition to how overblown the reductions were, I have never seen a plea deal where the defendant was not required to plea guilty to anything at all. He merely didn't contest the charge. Then walked away with probation, reducible from a year to 6 months. I read in media reports that one of the images involved a grown man having sex with a prepubescent child. Apparently the Gainesville Sun reported only what Kitna and his attorney said as their "journalistic" treatment of the "deal." I did a search and this has disappeared from the news. His dad is reportedly a former NFL quarterback. The alleged perpetrator should by all means have his day in court. Many people are unjustly accused or intentionally over charged for the purpose of striking a plea deal, when the overly aggessive charge makes it too risky for the not guilty to risk trial. Happens too often and it is a major problem. But this appears to be a massive "fixing." If the police found the images on his phone, as the news reports said, how is that "disturbing the peace" if he didn't disseminate the images? And how do the people at the "protect the children" fundraising office explain reporting the guy as having posted images? Have they and the police confessed that they were in error?
Last edited: