Skip to comments.IPD charges assistant scoutmaster with possessing child pornography
Posted on 01/24/2009 9:25:48 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Irondequoit, N.Y. Irondequoit police have charged an assistant Boy Scout leader of a troop in town with possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child, a felony.
Robert Casanzio, 19, of Irondequoit, was taken into custody Jan. 15 and also charged with attempted endangering the welfare of a child.
According to Sgt. Barry VanNostrand, supervisor of the IPDs criminal investigations unit, Casanzios charges follow an approximately two-month long joint investigation by that unit and the Monroe County Sheriffs Department.
Police allege that in October 2008, Casanzio placed a posting on Craigs List Web site looking for young teen naturists and young boys between the ages of 14 and 17 who would allow him to take nude pictures of them.
As a result of this investigation, VanNostrand said, Casanzio traveled to an undisclosed location for the purpose of meeting a 15 year old female to take nude photographs of her. When Casanzio arrived to meet the female to pick her up, he was met by investigators who took him into custody.
A subsequent search of Casanzios computer found more than 50 images of child pornography.
Nothing has been discovered so far in the investigation to indicate any of the images are of local children, VanNostrand said. He did say that Casanzio was an Assistant Scoutmaster of an Irondequoit troop of the Boy Scouts of America at the time he was charged.
A high percentage of homosexuals were molested as children. Gay men want to be cub scout leaders so they can molest little boys and recruit them into their sodomite perversion. Fags aren’t born that way, they’re made that way.
“Gay men want to be cub scout leaders so they can molest little boys and recruit them into their sodomite perversion.”
No, pedophiles want to be cub scout leaders so they can molest little boys. I doubt they care one way or another what the child turns out to be when he grows up. If they did they wouldn’t be molesting them in the first place. in any case, plenty of kids in scouts get molested by men with families of their own, so apparently this effort to keep homosexuals out isn’t the sole answer.
“If you think that allowing homosexuals (who are open about their homosexuality and therefore acknowledging that their sexual orientation is of greater importance than being a scout leader) is a good idea and that parents should feel safe leaving their children in their trust, then you are the one who needs to take the blinders off.”
Please go back and read my posts and find one place where I said letting homosexuals be scout leaders is a good idea. If you can find it I will contribute 100 dollars to FR. I think the scouts have their own specific moral code and it doesn’t include homosexuality. Therefore they have every right to exclude homosexuals. I have found nowhere in literature about this issue where the Scouts have ever claimed they keep homosexuals out because they fear molestation. They have ALWAYS said it was about their moral views.
My point has been, and is, that a gay man may make a great scout master. But as soon as that man reveals he is gay, then he announces that his orientation, and having others accept his orientation, are his top priorities.
If I were homosexual and really wanted to serve in the military, I wouldn't announce my homosexuality. When I do, what I'm saying is that I want to be a “gay soldier,” that is, I hyphenated my priorities.
A man who announces his homosexuality and then tries to become a scout leader, will almost definitely try to indoctrinate the troops, either explicitly or implicitly. The strategy of planting funny, lovable gay men as background characters in sitcoms since the 80’s was done so with the effect of stealthily winning support and acceptance of homosexuals. I don't think we can deny how militant they've become since then.
All I was saying was that the scouts have a right and duty to be employ close scrutiny in selecting scout leaders, and that those who announce their hyphenated loyalties should do so at the risk of being denied.
So, I didn't mean to imply “you” as in yazoo, but as in the general public who put the scouts down for being selective.
“All I was saying was that the scouts have a right and duty to be employ close scrutiny in selecting scout leaders, and that those who announce their hyphenated loyalties should do so at the risk of being denied.”
And I agree with your entire post. I believe that is why the scouts have a right (as any other groups does) to decide what are the qualifications to be involved. No one has the right to ask a member if he is homosexual if no evidence exists he is. Should a person openly claim he is homosexual then I also believe there is an agenda and the scouts have a perfect right to claim it is contrary to their ethics, codes, whatever.