Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumbleFormer substitute teacher sentenced for child porn
Monday, Nov. 16, 2009 | 11:42 a.m.
Aaron Ringewold
Sun Archives
A former substitute teacher was sentenced today to up to five years in prison for possession of child pornography.
Aaron Ringewold, 26, pleaded guilty in August to two counts of possession of child pornography. District Court Judge Stefany Miley today sentenced him to a minimum of two years and a maximum of five years on the two counts, to run concurrently.
Upon his release he will be required to register as a sex offender.
Ringewold was on summer break from his long-term employment as a substitute science teacher at Mike O’Callaghan Middle School, 1450 Radwick Drive, when an investigation by Henderson Police led to his arrest in June.
“I realize fully that what I did was not right. It was a terrible mistake. I’m sorry for my actions,” Ringewold said before his sentence was handed down. “I’m hoping for a second chance.”
A pre-sentencing investigation determined Ringewold was at a low risk for reoffending and that he had no prior record. His attorney, Mark Anderson, asked the judge for probation, not prison time.
“Aaron would like a chance to turn his life around,” Anderson said.
Ringewold initially faced 17 counts of possession. According to an arrest report, Ringewold told investigators he had an interest in child pornography for about 14 years but recently made the decision to stop viewing and downloading it.
Police said there's no evidence that any of Ringewold’s students are among the children in the seized pornography.
Ringewold told police that about two months before his arrest he had deleted all images and videos containing child pornography from one of his two laptops. He rarely used the second laptop, he said.
In the course of their investigation, detectives found explicit computer files of very young children, according to the report.
Ringewold told authorities he never had physical contact with juveniles and he didn’t communicate with students outside his duties as a teacher. He told police he would never harm a child, according to the report, but admitted to being attracted to young girls.
At the time, he told police that with help of counseling and his new girlfriend, he felt he was able to move past what he told investigators was “a problem with looking at child pornography.”
He told the court today before sentencing that he had a support network of family members, friends and religious leaders willing to help him if he were released on probation. He said he had plans to return to college and that he wanted to become a good citizen again.
He has remained jailed since his arrest.
Discussion: comments so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- Dining Guide: 2012 Valentine’s Day options in Las Vegas
- Color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- Four people injured in car accident
- Blog: Justin Hawkins’ steal seals UNLV’s thrilling 65-63 victory against San Diego State
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
- A wife’s wisdom shows birth control issue needn’t be divisive
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
People with BAD background checks ARE THE PEOPLE MOST DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN.
rejco100 --> if you have a perfect background, you should be in jail and are dangerous to children.
"Ringewold told authorities he never had physical contact with juveniles and he didn't communicate with students outside his duties as a teacher. He told police he would never harm a child, according to the report, but admitted to being attracted to young girls."
rejco100 -- exactly what did this guy DO for you to label him as a "predator" and to be "THE PEOPLE MOST DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN"?
This is proof of this police state's move into "crimethink" / "thoughtcrime." And that puts every one of us under suspicion.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
It appears the only crimes committed here were by the State.
: (
I've got no problem with this guy being locked up. No way in hell a guy with a 14 year obsession (with very young girls) is all the sudden going to "pray" the pedophile away.
okra -- as Harley said, the only real criminal shown here is the state.
Can you say "crimethink"? You should consider how the state's reach into Ringewold's most private life, where he did NOTHING outside it toward anyone else, what can the state do when it violates the 4th Amendment against you, too?
...I know this is unpopular, but the man is in prison for something he 'thought'...seems to me that it is a little more power than we should grant the State...as I said, it is unpopular, but we need to guard against letting politicians criminalize 'thought'...Sir William Blackstone ~ "Better that nine guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted"
Yeah, but if he REALLY deleted the pictures two months before his arrest, then how did he have 17 counts of possession? Sounds like someone is lying.
In any case, if (according to the state) he never imposed himself on an actual child, the guy should have at the most gotten probation. I don't see the point of paying $25,000+ a year in taxpayer dollars a year to lock up a guy that never harmed an "actual" person, nor apparently had any intention of doing so when even the probation department is saying he's a low risk.
Common sense dictates that he probably shouldn't be a school teacher though.
I feel safer already that this guy isn't out there in his home *gasp!* looking at pervy pictures.
The article doesn't say how he got caught. As long as the PD had a good reason for the warrant, I don't see a problem. Part of me also believes that a guy like him will act on his obsession sooner or later, if he hasn't already. After what he admitted to, I'm not willing to just take his word for it.
...okra...I shall petition the State tomorrow to make it unlawful to have a nickname taken from a large garden vegetable...there is little doubt in my mind that you will eventually take the nicknames of other vegetables, larger plants, and perhaps, eventually, even a flowering tree...I think it is weird that you would choose this dangerous path...and, since I can easily convince a politician to think it is weird, I will insist the penalty be imprisonment for your obsession with flora...there is little doubt of what you are capable...I, like many of my fellow citizens, am frightened by vegetables and your potential to do harm to society...lock Mr. Okra up and throw away the key...
Purgatory: Nobody has the right to exploit children!
Do you think child pornography is harmless and should therefore be legal? If so, you should get a petition going for this poor guy instead of me. They've probably got a good template over at MANBLA.
Kid porn is civil rights issue--No Fu&*ing Way.
killer8...thinks that possession of child porn is a Constitutional right.
I am sure that he will quote Jefferson or something.
I am sure if Jefferson was alive that he would give killer8 a good smack in the head.
I am not defending him but he didn't harm anyone at all. He didn't molested any kids at all. he didn't touch any students at his school where he employed. He HAD to register as sex offender. Megan's Law is OUT of control and needs to be fixed. Here are a couple of examples. If you pee in public, you are required to register as sex offender. How dumb is that? If a woman flash her breasts, she'd have to register as sex offender. How dumb is that? There is something wrong with the Megan's law system.
"Part of me also believes that a guy like him will act on his obsession sooner or later, if he hasn't already -- blah-blah-blah. . ."
okra -- give it a rest. Nothing in the article shows he acted on anything. Regardless of stupid and blatantly unconstitutional laws, no children were exploited, no crime was ever committed. You're so ignorant you can't even get NAMBLA's acronym right.
SgtRock/jfnance32 -- imaginative as ever, ignorant as usual, irrelevant still.
killer8 is one of the biggest nuts on the planet.
His understanding of the law is about as accurate as blind man taking an eye test.
killer8 somehow thinks that Constitution gives rights to people to possess child porn and for adults to have sex with children (his agrument on a different thread).
Yet, somehow NOT ONE SINGLE court has EVER RULED to state such things.
Yet, somehow NOT ONE SINGLE Congressman or Senator or President has ever made such statements.
He is part of a fringe of a fringe who believe in such bablings.
He is nut.
He has zero understanding of the law.
His explanation of the law is comical.
Only an idiot would say that photos of children being rape and passed around is not further exploitation of the child. His is head so far up his ... that he does not know that child porn is a big business and revenue from porn encourages more rapes of children to gain profit from that activity.
I have serious doubts that he has children.
Would he want photos of his child being rape to be passed around for the enjoyment of crud like this? Would he want some teacher or some coach to manipulate his 13 or 14 child into having sex?
This bona fide idiot would say "yes" to both questions.
What is so funny that he is unaware that he is violating major principles in his own goofy understanding of the law.
Mr. Okra...no, I do not think child pornography is harmless nor do I think it should be legal...what I do think is you should think...think about thought...think about allowing Politicians and the State to criminalize all forms of behavior that are bad for society...yes, child pornography is bad for society...yes, abuse of drugs is bad for society...yes, not getting a good public education is bad for society...yes, not wearing a seat belt when you drive is bad for society...yes, leaving your pet in a locked car is bad for society...yes, not eating healthy foods is bad for society...yes, not wearing warm clothes when it is cold is bad for society...now, Mr. Okra, how far into the future do you truly believe it will be before one or more of the above that is currently not a criminal offense becomes one?...think please...guard your freedoms...now...
Davy:
If the guy purchased, possessed, or made images of children involved in sexual acts with adults he's guilty of a criminal act far more disgusting than just peeing in public or flashing boobs. The children in such images are most definitely being exploited. That's why it's a crime. I'm stunned I even have to explain this, but perhaps that's also why the guy said, "I realize fully that what I did was NOT RIGHT."
Nothing in the article suggests his fourth amendment rights were violated, nor is it merely a "thought" crime. The cops didn't search his brain, they searched his computer. The judge saw the evidence and determined that it was sufficiently heinous to lock up this creep and put him on the offender list.
Good. If that makes me ignorant, so be it.
Purgatory: Conflating child porn with leaving a dog in the car is preposterous.
Unbelievable.
Okra,
Let me translate it correctly. You believe if someone pee in public h/she should register as a sex offender. IF that's the case, then you're clueless. How would you feel if I catch you peeing in public,I call the police. You get a ticket AND register for a sex offender. How would you feel?
Rhooster --> Eschew means avoid. Obfuscation means Confusion. Nice try.
You a kid porn defender too Rhooster? Look it up roo-roo, it means you can't put the two ideas together as if they belong in the same category. Is that too hard to understand?
Okra,
Obviously, you have not answer my question.
Davy,
Just peeing in public should not put someone on the offfeneder list. I hear you.
But I guess I'll have to say it the simplest terms possible, that way every nitwit out there can understand. Child porn is NOT the same thing as peeing in public.
Okra,
What about adult porn? If you're caught, are you supposed to register as a sex offender?
OK ENOUGH IS ENOUGH YOU ALL SITTING IN YOUR HOMES AND TRASH AARON HOW ABOUT THE REAL PROBELM THE ONES THAT VIDEO TAPE THESES CHILDREN OR THE ONES THAT POST THESES VIDEOS FOR OTHERS TO DOWNLOAD ..WHY ISNT ANYONE LOOKING FOR THEM AND WHY DO HUNDREDS OF THESES VIDEOS APPEAR WHY ARE THEY STILL GETTING POSTED AND SEEN ISNT THIS THE REAL PROBELM ????? WHATS BEENING DONE TO STOP THE VIDEOS FROM GETTING ON THE NET ?? SEEMS ALL WE HEAR IS ABOUT THOSE THAT BEEN BUSTED BUT NOT OF THE ONES THAT ARE MAKING THEM OR POSTING THEM YOU THINK THEY BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM ISNT THIS A BIGGER PROBELM THEN WATCHING THEM ..YES I AM PISSED BUT I HAVE A HEAD ON MY SHOULDERS TOO SO BEFORE THE BLAME GETS POINTED MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE WHOLE STORY AND GO AFTER THOSE THAT MAKE THE VIDEOS AND ENDANGERING THESES CHILD AND THOSE THAT POST THE VIDEOS ON THE NET AND NOT ATTACK THOSE THAT GOT BUSTED SO MUCH WHAT HE DID WAS WRONG AND TIME CANT CHANGE THAT NOW SO LETS GROW UP AND MOVE ON AND START LOOKING FOR THE REAL ONES TO BE BLAMED
Stupidity aint a virus, but it sure is spreadin' like one.
--Sandy Squirrel
"I realize fully that what I did was not right. It was a terrible mistake. I'm sorry for my actions," Ringewold said before his sentence was handed down. "I'm hoping for a second chance."
not gonna happen.
mer -- other than your caplock key stuck, nice to see some reason behind your post.
The answer -- since few images, etc., one downloads have anything to trace, it's just easier to catch and prosecute end users like Ringewold. The door you opened here was how he got them -- not a mention of prosecuting the entire internet conduit from his computer back to the source.
Another problem at work here is the morality of the herd. Antagonists like okra are quite loud about how "wrong" child porn is without any offer of why exactly it's wrong.
The biggest problem is overreaching by the cops and prosecutors. Like the grandmother who was prosecuted for child porn because she had a picture of her young granddaughter taking a bath. The Fourth Amendment protects each of us from unreasonable search of our persons, homes and "papers" -- it's no stretch at all to include the man's personal database in that penumbra. It's a barrier government can't cross with any legitimacy. When you add the fact Ringewold did not act on anything within his private world, there was no crime except Orwell's thoughtcrime. Crime must include both intent ("mens rea") AND some kind of act which injures another ("corpus delecti"). This discussion seems to be an endorsement by some of eliminating the second element from the process all accused are due.
School's out, for now.
i never stated he didnt do a crime trust me looking is as bad as doing but yet theres a diffrents between the two .. which in my eyes are wrong ..but you cant tell me the police are unable to go to theses sites and follow the isp trail to those that are uploading theses videos i guess the point i am trying to make is if the police busted a few of the uploaders of theses videos then maybe the market for them would stop any crime against a child should be handled i will be the first to say that but i understand that without reason they cant search but they can do something about it ...its like anything elses you keep knocking off the little man the probelm dont go away it just moves to the next one ... where does it end ? you lock up thoses that view videos theres sad as it seems will be another 5 to take the ones place ...you know children and adults dont report it because our wonderful law system makes them feel like its their faults which means those that take the videos and upload them are free to do as they wish face it ..its a ugly sick circle that needs to be broke ..so as i stated Aaron did the crime time to do the time and lets move on and start looking for thoses that are making money on children and those that are up loading the videos ..
okra its not well you pee on the sidewalk and a child views this then its the same thing even if you thought you was alone and a child appears when are they going to remake theses guild lines more clear ??????????? and does it make you a better person to call him a creep now ..thoses with out sin cast the first stone well i dont plan on ducking because we all make mistakes and if we state we are sorry for our actions then who are those have stones in your hands you best duck no ones perfect and admitting we make mistakes is the first steps
MysterMr. to answer your question even if pictures are deleted from a computer they remain on the hard drive his only mistake was not removing the hard drive and throwing it away
i looked at the history of the garden veggie she has nothing better to do then attack others lol i guess the price of orka must be down and shes just bored lonely house wife that has nothing better to do the stir the pot to get people to talk to her we all need to feel sorry for her not
" Antagonists like okra are quite loud about how "wrong" child porn is without any offer of why exactly it's wrong."
Love how you put "wrong" in quotes, as if child porn may in fact be something that's not wrong, you know, something that reasonable people should question. And as far as why, exactly, it's wrong, see some of the posts above. Hint: it's the unrepairable harm to children.
The only "thought" crime going on here is reading your disgusting rationalizations. Wish I could somehow un-read them, because they are truly, in order, sick sicker and sickest.
"it's the unrepairable harm to children."
okra -- that's no explanation at all. You're depending on the herd to back you up on this, like everyone gets it but me. Having once been a full-fledged member who thought like you, I found liberation in learning to think for myself. You know, like an adult.
Until you back up how one guy in private, never acing in any way on what you may call his evil intent, the only "crimes against children" were in absolute privacy. So enlighten me -- if he did absolutely nothing to any actual child, how exactly does that do "unrepairable harm to children"?
"... how little does the common herd know of the nature of right and truth." - Socrates in Plato's "Euthyphro" (399 B.C.E.?)
....I still hear the A.C.L.U calling your name, KillerB, I also still believe you would be a smash hit over there with their doctrine and agendas...Hey, they would probably even let you invent some new ones,...commmeon......
Don't flatter yourself Humbert, er, i mean Killer. We're not alike and we never have been. BTW, the old "part of the heard" routine, as if only mavericky deep thinkers like you are capable of correct thinking is getting old.
Wisdom from the heard: Don't get caught trafficking in kiddie porn. The state of Nevada will put you in jail. It's one of those pesky heard rules.
oops, "heard" should be spelled h-e-r-d in the above post.
okra -- doesn't matter how you spell it. Any more Discussion here involving you is pointless.
Too bad you're so misunderstood by us yokels, Killer.
Sigh... just like Socrates.
Okra...I apologize for being unclear...here...child pornography is wrong...it is hurtful to many...it should be illegal...it is illegal...my point: let's all be careful what we allow politicians to criminalize...our prison population is already the largest per capita in the world...most are not dangerous, but are merely common rule breakers...
Purgatory, You stated.."it is hurtful to many.." You should have stated.."It is hurtful TOO many.." I have noticed alot of people are confused with "to" and "too". And you're one of them.
sf bay area talk host Bernie Warp got 7 years...
Rhooster -- just in case you didn't actually read this article, Ringewold touched no kids, did nothing at all with any kids whatsoever.
Rhooster, I bet you have seen porn in your life. Everyone have seen porn. So what's the big deal? Should you be registered as a sex offender ?
Why should a person go to jail IF h/she never touch kids? And why should a person register for a sex offender when h/she never touch kids?
Rhooster -- you just described Orwell's thoughtcrime.
I no longer allow "experts" do my thinking -- that's just herd behavior, always waiting for some higher "authority" to tell them what to do, what to think.
It doesn't matter what one thinks, only what one actually does, and for an act to be a REAL crime the accused must have actually injured someone else.
Davy -- of course all this requires certain threshold questions to be answered, like what is porn? what's the difference between criminal and noncriminal porn and art and erotica? how do the Constitutional protections of privacy and pursuing happiness fit into this? what exactly is the state's compelling interest in a case like this? how exactly does an accusation like this rise to meet the due process requirements of a crime? The list goes on and on.
Davy,KillerB
The man committed a crime , and do you REALLY think a pedophile is going to be HONEST about touching children?
GET REAL , he wasnt arrested tried and convicted of of a "thought" crime.He ws convicted of a CRIME of posessing Child pornography, the exploitation and abuse of children for sexual gratification IS illegal as it should be
You sit here and defend this scum as if hes done nothing wrong , unless of course youre of the pedophilia mindest yourself then that would explain why you defend such scum
elenaj -- all I see from you is ignorance translated as "moooooooooooo"
elenaj....do not pay attention to Killer8.
He lives in his own universe and has his own Constitution and his own set of laws where he is only person that understands it.
For instance, in killer8 world he decides what is harmful to others. One would think that a child's privacy is harmed when someone has unauthorizated possesion of pictures of that child getting rape.
Nope...that does not register in killer8 world.
Nor does his pea size brain can comprehend the concept that billions of dollars are made off the re-selling of child porn and that there are operations that obtain children, rape them and sell the pictures.
Laws against child porn help suspress that market and hopefully reduce the future incidents of child rape.
Nor does his pea size brain understand basic US law and Constitution princples. Otherwise he would not make statements like what is a "real" crime and a person has to injury to it to be a "real" crime.
Every court in the US (except in killer8 fanasty world) understands that some laws are to protect society's and public interest as a whole.
For instance, in killer8's world one could run red lights as long as you do not harm others.
Just a FYI, killer8 also believes that adults can have sex with children and should not be charged with any crime.
Thank God that killer8's "understanding" of law and the Constituion is a part of a fringe that is part of fringe.
Excatly, Killer8.
What is your definition of porn? What is the difference between criminal porn and noncriminal porn?? Hello????elenaj?????
Baahahahaha
Do you guys know that they can infect your computer with child porn or anything else these days. In my opinion there is no excuse for having child porn in any shape or form. At the same time you can't condemn the families that take pictures of their children in the bath tub for GOD'S sake! Unless I'm mistaken, The difference is age and consent,WTF is so hard to understand!
To mess with a child or to have images of any being violated means only one thing, Sick! I would love to take some of these people to target practice!
spock -- your first post makes some good points. For perspective check out the one about the grandmother I referred to above @ http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/04/grandm...
Then there's the incredibly stupid prosecutions and convictions of teenagers sexting -- they get to be their own victims. @ http://reason.com/blog/2009/01/14/the-ed...
As some of us are able to see, this whole child porn issue is hardly the simple knee-jerk issue most here shout about.
Sounds like killer8 is back tracking on his defense of this guy possessing pictures of children getting raped.
Good for him.....he is finally growing up.
SgtRock/jfnance32 -- the only thing I'm backtracking on here is your irrelevance. You continue to prove that -- you completely fabricated the kind if pictures Ringewold "possessed," showing you to be a liar of the worst kind. You've also shown you are completely clueless on either the concept of liberty this country was founded on and what it means to be a citizen. In the end you just bleat louder than most.
From this post don't make the mistake of acting like you are actually relevant anywhere, or that I have broken my vow to snub you for the purpose of convincing you, or saving face. I don't waste even a second's time concerning myself with what opinion of me anyone here may hold. And the least of all is yours.
Good Job KillerB
Davy -- just messin' with the herd. It's what I do.
Let's make a bet.
Let's go to the mall and ask the 1st 100 people.
Killer8 says that possessing child porn and adults having sex with children are both protected under the Constitution.
I wonder how many of those 100 would agree with the following:
Killer8 is a total idiot.
killer8 has absolutely no understanding of the law and the Constitution.
killer8 should go get a brain.
killer8 is part of fringe that is part of fringe.
He is a nut.
He has a crazy and totally nutty view of the law and Constitution.
To all re: SgtRock -- I rest my case.
Now I'm REALLY finished with him.
"There are two kinds of people who stand out in the United States today: sheep and wolves. Sheep stay in their herd and follow their shepherd without questioning where he is leading them. Sheep trust that the shepherd looks out for their safety" Wolves, on the other hand, do not aimlessly follow a shepherd" Wolves question the shepherd and act in a way that forces the shepherd also to question his decisions. Wolves challenge government regulations, reject government assistance, and demand that the government recognize and protect their natural rights." Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, "A Nation of Sheep," page 10
SgtRock, Are you a police office? an attorney?
Corrrection: Are you a police officer?
killer8....believes that the possession of child porn is protected under the Constitution.
Do have to make any other point that killer8 is a nut?
When this guy goes inside he'll think a freight train hit him.
SgtRock,
You're not answering my question....Are you being scared?
Killer8 is NOT a nut..
you know its a sad day when Mr Ringewold gets 2 to 5 years in prison and another in the same court on the same charges with pictures still on his computer gets slapped on the wrist and yet Mr Ringewold gets send to prison for the same crime GOT TO LOVE OUR COURTS