When Specialist Billy Miller an Illinois National Guardsman in Afghanistan complained about being homesick his mother, Terri Miller, sent him a picture of a little girl that he helped raise in a wading pool. One picture showed a buttocks exposed and Miller was promptly arrested for possession of child pornography.
When I first saw this story in the Post, I doubted its authenticity. While we have seem similar stories of utter stupidity in the states, I assumed that no military prosecutor would throw a soldier in the brig in Afghanistan on such a charge without a modicum of judgment or investigation. As is usually the case with such assumptions, I was wrong.
It turns that Miller helped take care of the girl when she was diagnosed with cancer when her real father was going through boot camp.
His mother is tearing herself apart over the charges: “I blame myself every day, every day, if I wouldn’t have sent the pictures he would be home.” No, Mrs. Miller, there is a lot of room for blame in this story, but none of it falls on you or your son. This story is a national disgrace.
He is now looking at ten years in jail.
Obama could pardon him, right now.
“I guess you are within the 95%”
I’m a repeat offender.
@Rich and Canadian Eh:
The defendant told his parents the charges came from photos of his niece in a bikini. That is the sole source for that claim. But defendants lie to their parents all the time, too.
Until we see the evidence or until either the military or the defense attorney makes a statement, I’m not prepared to give too much weight to what the defendant told his parents.
I guess you are within the 95%
Here’s a good one for you AY.
Missouri Law
573.037. 1. A person commits the crime of possession of child pornography if such person knowingly or recklessly possesses any child pornography of a minor under the age of eighteen or obscene material portraying what appears to be a minor under the age of eighteen.
Who gets to decide “what appears to be a minor under the age of 18”? Is it just me, or should that statute be considered unconstitutionally ambiguous, and a violation of due process? What if the image is that of a 22 year old who appears to be under the age of 18? What about the image of someone who appears to be over 18, but is really under 18?
I think the laws need to focus more on those creating the images than those possessing them. As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same goes with sexual arrousal. As a teen, the Sears-Roebuck and J.C. Penney catalogues were my porn.
Canadian Eh!,
If you were brave enough to post pics of yourself sprawled on a bear skin rug that would be legal porn because you are over 18! As for the Coppertone kid, she is a cartoon character!
****************************
I disagree based upon how the statute is written. Possession is enough.
The fictional cartoon character, unfortunately I disagree as it would tend to give some sick assed bastard some jollys therefore it is considered child porn in my mind, or whats left of it.
ECookie,
My pictures predate walmart by at least 5 decades. That was funny.
The SOL on Child Porn I do not believe has one. Simple possession is enough. It used to be in a number of states that possession of Porn, period was a felony. I think the Sct said that if you get it home you were safe. However on the books in Texas is you cannot have more than 5 Dildos or they consider you trafficking in Porn related devices.
You see you can run afoul of the law and not know it.
In Texas, criminals are still required to give their victims at least 24 hours oral or written notice giving details of the crime they are about to commit.
-In Texas, the compete Encyclopedia Britannica is banned because it contains a formula for making beer at home.
We are not against all forms of education, just most.
In Florida it is illegal to have sex with a porcupine. You don’t say!!!!!
In Alberta a released convict is entitled to a gun and a horse to ride out of town on.
Now talking about really stupid laws.
– In Alabama, it is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while driving a vehicle.
I can see the need for this….
oops…I stand corrected. I initially read the post that Alan made above rather than the actual article by mistake. In reading the actual article it seems that the pics were of his niece in a bathing suit. Although, I didn’t believe sending pics of a realtive wading on the buff to be porn, I thought that the aricle was suggesting that there were child porn pics found on the computer in addition to the family pics. If, in fact, this man is being charged with pocession of Child Porn based souly on pictures of a young niece frolicking in a wading pool the charges are ridiculous!
Apparently I need coffee prior to reading the articles on here!
BTW AY,
If you were brave enough to post pics of yourself sprawled on a bear skin rug that would be legal porn because you are over 18! As for the Coppertone kid, she is a cartoon character!
“Should my family be arrested and charged with pictures of me on a bear skinned rug?”
Yes definitely. The photo technician at WalMart is still trying to recover from that sight and it has been almost three weeks. Is it really necessary to recreate that pose every Christmas?
Seriously, all of our parents are child pornographers and should be locked up. What’s the statute of limitations anyway?
Maybe you need to read the articles again, Canadian Ed. Nothing I found in any of the four linked from this article say anything about anyone wading in their birthday suit….which would mean the child had no clothes on.
Specifically, the articles say “the pictures show the girl in a SWIMMING SUIT and were taken during her birthday party last summer…..”
Additionally, “The pictures show the girl in a SWIMSUIT playing in a pool and sitting on Billy Miller’s pickup truck, according to the family. A small portion of one of the girl’s buttocks is visible in one, Rodney Miller said.”
@Alan–not very convincing. The military is good at saying nothing with a lot of words and vice versa. If they really had strong evidence, it would have been better telegraphed. Instead, it sounds like they are covering their own bare ass.
I sure hope the Army has some evidence of “real” child porn. The pictures described in the story do not amount to anything but family pictures beind shared among family members. I agree with Professor Turley that this would be a national disgrace if the charges were brought due to the family pictures.
Luckily I do not possess any pictures of myself or any other family members on a bear skin run so I guess I am safe!
I still have bare assed pictures of both me and my brother on the ubiquitous bear skin rugs. I suppose I should destroy them or else some busybody will say I’m into child porn.
Should my family be arrested and charged with pictures of me on a bear skinned rug? Should the producers of Coppertone be prosecuted for the billboards showing the dog pulling at her bottom?
I think I need more info before I accuse someone of possession of child porn. Now if done for sexual gratification and the guy get off doing it thats a different story.
He is from IL or OH. But he is definitely not from Arkansas or Hillsboro, MI so its not acceptable.
Whaaaa? The niece was wading in her birthday suit???? That could change everything.
He wasn’t simply in pocession of porn, it’s child porn that was found on his computer. With the exception of pictures of his niece wading in her birthday suit, if child porn is indeed what was found this man should be procesuted to the fullest extent. The incidence of child pornography available continues to rise at the expense of the most innocent of victims and needds to be stopped!
I seem to remember a picture of our past president George W. Bush on a rug with his butt showing. Should the news agencies that displayed that picture be prosecuted? Would I be in trouble if my TiVO recorded it? REASON PEOPLE REASON!
I couldn’t say it any better that AY…WTF?
The soldiers can’t have porn, but killing people is fine? We are screwed.
WTF.
From the info in the linked articles, it’s quite possible the charges do not stem from the photos of his niece, but from other photos he had on his laptop. The defendant told his parents the charges came from the photo of his neice, but that might not be true. The Army is refusing to provide any info. See quotes below:
—–
The U.S. Army has charged Spec. Billy Miller of Galesburg, Ill., with possession of child pornography and a related charge of failure to obey an order that troops in Afghanistan not possess pornography.
Army spokesman Lt. Mary J. Pekas declined to discuss details of the case or evidence against Miller….
Miller’s father, Rodney, said the Army won’t discuss the case with the family. But he said his son has told him the charges stem from a handful of photos of the girl that the soldier’s mother e-mailed to ease his homesickness.
—-
The pictures were on Billy’s laptop, which the Army has confiscated. …
Rodney said the family had attempted numerous times to get information on Billy’s status and why he was being held but had been given the cold shoulder by military authorities. The family has contacted Congressman Phil Hare, D-Rock Island, but he also found it difficult to get information about Billy.
A military spokesman in Afghanistan said charges were made against Billy on Jan. 5, stemming from an investigation that began last August. …
The Millers believe that one of Billy’s friends in Afghanistan, whom he had fallen out with, had reported seeing inappropriate pictures on Billy’s laptop.