Folsom Swim Coach Arrested On Child Porn Charges
#1
Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:22 AM
Folsom swim coach arrested on child porn charges
FOLSOM, CA - A coach for the Folsom Sea Otters swim team was arrested this week by federal agents on attempted child molestation charges and possession of child porn.
According to a federal complaint, Eric Johnston, 21, was arrested Monday at a Sacramento hotel where he arranged to meet two minors for sex.
The meeting had been arranged through a series of emails; but Johnston didn't know he was actually communicating with a sex crimes investigator who arranged the bogus meeting.
// see the video and the rest of the article below //
http://www.news10.ne...ld-porn-charges
#2
Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:27 AM
#3
Posted 21 June 2012 - 06:50 AM
There is no evidence he has molested or hurt any actual children. We don't know what the government emails said-- maybe he thought he was meeting 17 year-olds -- which, while still unlawful, is not the same as molesting young children. Let's try to reserve judgment until all the facts come out.
The one thing we can say is, it seems like he is a very confused young man. I hope he gets the help he needs.
#4
Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:40 AM
I hope he gets the help he needs.
Yep, Like a double-tap to the head.
If he is in fact guilty, ofcoarse.
"Johnston also admitted to trading child porn images via email, months earlier."
#5
Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:13 AM
This is tragic if it is true. I see that this young man is highly thought of, yet, we all know, that no one is perfect, and all have the potential to fall.
In due time, the truth will be revealed.
#6
Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:23 AM
Just wondering how this first report is any different than any other similar type of accusation.
This is tragic if it is true. I see that this young man is highly thought of, yet, we all know, that no one is perfect, and all have the potential to fall.
In due time, the truth will be revealed.
The truth of what? He admitted he likes looking at pictures of little people.
Little people who only could have those pictures online if their innocence was stolen.
Now lets be a little honest about the practices of the people who actually take these pictures. Do yo really believe that they can verify that these children were never touched inappropriately, spoken to inapropriately while these photos were taken?
How can anyone think it ok to propagate this type of behavior in the face of knowing what these children went through?
And so not only does this guy stare at little people who are being abused; but then he sits by the pool all day long and stares at your children in a swim suit while they are laughing and playing.
You're not sickened yet?
Just imagine what is going through his mind at the pool the morning after he gets a fresh batch of kiddie porn sent to him via email.
Oh, yeah--double tap. FAST.
Just on the grounds of what he has admitted to; he has no business ever seeing the light of day while in the presence of our society, ever again. PERIOD.
#7
Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:40 AM
Where does the article say "little people". I saw the word "minor", which could mean 16 or 17 in terms of the law. Frankly, I think the strict 18 cutoff our legal system uses is a bit too restrictive. There should be some delta between the two ages, as well. A 21 year old and a 17 year old isn't nearly the same thing as a 31 year old and a 17 year old. A Freshman dating a Senior would have roughly the same age spread. That is nowhere near the same thing as someone that is into 12 year old girls.The truth of what? He admitted he likes looking at pictures of little people.
Little people who only could have those pictures online if their innocence was stolen.
Now lets be a little honest about the practices of the people who actually take these pictures. Do yo really believe that they can verify that these children were never touched inappropriately, spoken to inapropriately while these photos were taken?
How can anyone think it ok to propagate this type of behavior in the face of knowing what these children went through?
And so not only does this stare at little people who are being abused; but then he sits by the pool all day long and stares at your children in a swim suit and laughing and playing.
You're not sickened yet.
Just imagine what is going through his mind at the pool the morning after he gets a fresh batch of kiddie porn sent to him via email.
Oh, yeah--double tap. FAST.
Just on the grounds of what he has admitted to; he has no business ever seeing the light of day while in the presence of our society, ever again. PERIOD.
Now, if it involves kids under 16, then I'm with you and will fight you for the first shot.
#8
Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:42 AM
Pretty disturbing, and hope he gets what is coming to him.
RFK
#9
Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:36 AM
The details will come out and they are never easy to hear. I pray for all involved. The parents of the children who have to talk to their kids about what happened, the kids who are losing a well-liked coach, the parents of the man charged who must be devastated by this and even the man charged who if proven guilty of child pornography - must have deep dark demons he is dealing with and who will never live life the same because he will (rightfully so) be held responsible for his actions.
#10
Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:53 AM
I've known Eric (not well) for a few years. He also coached the FHS swim team with my sister, and spent time around my niece and nephew.
Pretty disturbing, and hope he gets what is coming to him.
so are the FHS swim students and their parents being notified as well?
#11
Posted 21 June 2012 - 09:58 AM
Where does the article say "little people". I saw the word "minor", which could mean 16 or 17 in terms of the law. Frankly, I think the strict 18 cutoff our legal system uses is a bit too restrictive. There should be some delta between the two ages, as well. A 21 year old and a 17 year old isn't nearly the same thing as a 31 year old and a 17 year old. A Freshman dating a Senior would have roughly the same age spread. That is nowhere near the same thing as someone that is into 12 year old girls.
Now, if it involves kids under 16, then I'm with you and will fight you for the first shot.
The law is the law. And it was placed there to protect parental rights in guiding their children toward a promising future, as well as to give those children equal footing amongst their peers without fear of exploitation by teachers, siblings of peers, and/or co workers at job sites teens often work at that have high turn over rates and poor accountability in hiring practices.
And you are pretty sick or deluded if you cannot see the threat of a 17 year old dating a 21 year old.
#12 (The Dude)
Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:05 AM
Please explain how a 17 yo dating a 21 yo is a threat and sick and deluded. It seems most couples these days have a 4-5 year age difference. A 17 yo is not a child.
#13
Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:22 AM
In the south some get married at age 14. In the Hispanic community many have had kids by age 14-16. Are those all considered rape cases ?
Please explain how a 17 yo dating a 21 yo is a threat and sick and deluded. It seems most couples these days have a 4-5 year age difference. A 17 yo is not a child.
Maybe you remember this:
James Hooker (41) moves in with his girl friend the day she turns 18. A quote"oh, gross. He started dating her when she was 14"
James Hooker go to trial on a separate charge stemming from sexual assault and oral copulation with a minor 14 years ago. The news reports she was not his student.
GEE---do you think maybe these guys get caught first time out at bat/ or maybe not? Can you really not see how damaging these relationships are? Even if they really are consensual?
Here is something for you to consider. Most people do not burglarize business establishments if they know if is wrong. Many others do not burglarize business establishments because it is against the law. Those who do, are punished for it.
Same concept. Stay away. It's against the law.
#14
Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:32 AM
I certainly am not saying that there should be no consequences, and as noted, we don't yet know all the facts.
But I do think it's possible that what this young man needs is therapy and restitution, and maybe he can be set back on the right path. I don't agree with those posters who are ready to lock him up forever based on the vague facts we have now....
#15
Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:33 AM
so are the FHS swim students and their parents being notified as well?
Do not know. I would think so if FPD looked at his past employment history to see where he may have come into contact with any minors.
RFK
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users