How will Subway pitchman Jared Fogle weather FBI investigation?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
CZroe

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
Phoenix86 said:
So when I said this doesn't look good since there was enough evidence to issue a warrant (still think that doesn't mean shit?) and to let due process happen and it led to a conviction I might have been right?

How about those "government is going too far" claims? Think they were going too far when they had some credible evidence that led to a guilty plea?
Click to expand...
Yes. No one claimed that the government was going too far. YOU were going too far. They had not even made an accusations at the time and as far as we knew his friend was the only one being investigated, yet you presented it a bombastically as possible and out-right lied to do it. They never even claimed to be investigating Jared back then. Stop re-writing history. So what if he was ultimately discovered to be guilty of having sex with minors? That's a completely different charge and it doesn't change the fact that you were DEAD WRONG to assume it based on what we knew at the time. It's entirely possible that they had NO suspicions of him at the time and were only carting out the computers as part of investigating the friend that they caught (did you forget that he worked there and used those computers too?).

We all knew that the chances of Jared being involved were higher than the average person off the street just due to his association with a known pedophile, but we responsibly refused to condemn him until we had reason to suspect him. You jumped the gun. Don't toot your own horn just because you got lucky and he was also guilty. You are still the kind of person who ignores reality and jumps to conclusions and fans the ignorant flames that lead to misguided things like the Ferguson riots.

WaTaGuMp said:
Hey Subway, Josh Duggar might want to be your next spokesperson.
Click to expand...
Huh? He was a perv who touched girls when he himself was under-aged but there is no indication that he became or is a pedophile, which is what your joke seems to suggest. Did you get your wires crossed?

madoka said:
Careful what you say around here. I got banned by the PC thought police on this forum for merely SUGGESTING that Jared was into child porn. Mod considered that to be "trolling" regardless of the fact that the feds raided his house, seized his computers, and said that he was the focus of their investigation. Apparently, until you're convicted, it's not PC for people to think anything different. I wonder how many people got banned for thinking that OJ is a murderer or that Cosby is a rapist.
Click to expand...
"Suggesting?" You presented it as known, established, FACT that he was "into kiddie porn" in the title of this thread before anyone knew that he was incriminated or linked in any way OTHER than his association with his friend who they were investigating. You got banned for being "merely" a belligerent idiot about justifiable mod action to a misleading and unsubstantiated thread title. It also turned out to be wrong. While he is a perv, nothing has indicated that he's produced, distributed, or watched kiddie porn even though you specifically said that he "is" into kiddie porn. Being "into" young girls is bad and is very similar to what his friend was doing and what you accuse him of, but it's not the same thing. That means that even in light of what we now know, your OP title was STILL wrong and that the mods took justifiable action. Your continued arguing is STILL flaunting the mods. Expect to be banned AGAIN.

The article about them saying that he was the focus came AFTER the raid and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the thread title or any of the information your OP linked to. You even balked when asked to provide a link shortly after you first defended yourself with it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Phoenix86

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
CZroe said:
Yes. No one claimed that the government was going too far. YOU were going too far. They had not even made an accusations at the time and as far as we knew his friend was the only one being investigated, yet you presented it a bombastically as possible and out-right lied to do it. They never even claimed to be investigating Jared back then. Stop re-writing history. So what if he was ultimately discovered to be guilty of having sex with minors? That's a completely different charge and it doesn't change the fact that you were DEAD WRONG to assume it based on what we knew at the time. It's entirely possible that they had NO suspicions of him at the time and were only carting out the computers as part of investigating the friend that they caught (did you forget that he worked there and used those computers too?).

We all knew that the chances of Jared being involved were higher than the average person off the street just due to his association with a known pedophile, but we responsibly refused to condemn him until we had reason to suspect him. You jumped the gun. Don't toot your own horn just because you got lucky and he was also guilty. You are still the kind of person who ignores reality and jumps to conclusions and fans the ignorant flames that lead to misguided things like the Ferguson riots.
Click to expand...

Here's my first post in the thread.

Phoenix86 said:
Jared is involved, he's being investigated. His computers were seized.

That doesn't mean he was involved in any crime, but he's certainly involved in the investigation. They don't just seize computers from everyone who knew someone arrested for child porn.

There was enough evidence to justify a warrant for computer in his house. That's not good, at all. Nor is it damning, maybe the accused is just grasping at straws and making shit up. We don't know.
Click to expand...

That's basically the definition of not going too far. Several posts I said due process needs to happen.

Phoenix86 said:
I wondered about that myself. It would immediately turn into "Jared denies involvement with child porn" when he hasn't (and might never be) charged.

I think it's safe to assume the "we're 100% cooperating" type statement means just that. His employee got caught doing something illegal and he isn't involved. It's just his company wasn't large enough to warrant a data center/office so he housed everything in his house. Cops want the computers, here they are officers! I'm complying because I'm innocent.

The other possibility is he knows he's fucked and has capitulated, and communicated that to his lawyer.
Click to expand...

Here's another post of mine early on. Guess what? Totally allowing that he wasn't involved in the crime, while admitting it's possible he was involved.

Sounds like a moderate response, eh?

Here's when we learned he was a suspect, about 26 hours after the OP, where I was still saying to allow for due process.

Don Vito Corleone said:
It's been announced that he is a suspect. I would expect the lawyer to state that he did nothing wrong (unless he knows that not to be the case).
Click to expand...

I don't need to revise anything because I didn't call for his head, I only allowed for the possibility while also allowing for the possibility that he was completely innocent.
 
mmntech

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
Things are getting tense in this thread. Time for a break.

9VTQXMf.jpg
 
z1ggy

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
Just saw an article (that I can't get into here at work) that says his sentence was lighter than expected. Maybe the judge has a soft spot for guys who like to bang under age kids??
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
edro

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
If there is any silver lining to this cloud, it would be that he was interested in underaged hookers (willing participants), not random 10yos.
Of course, with the sex slave trade, the underaged girls were probably forced into the situation by parents or pimps.

And just because they were willing, doesn't make it right.
It's still disgusting and I can't imagine the life led by an underaged hooker.
Hopefully these girls will get some help and attention.
More than likely, they will sue him in civil court and win a large chunk.
 
runzwithsizorz

runzwithsizorz

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2002
3,497
14
76
Aharami

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
What a piece of shit! And it looks like Subway was informed about him a while ago, but they chose to do nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom