School Resource Officer Mauro Edwards Caught Viewing Child Porn, Keeps Job

The information below was shared anonymously via CopBlock.org/Submit by someone appalled by the double standards afforded to a man because he wears a badge with “Marshall County Sheriff’s Department.”

Date of Incident: 09/04/2014
Individual Responsible: Mauro Edwards
Outfit: Marshall County (TN) Sheriff’s Department
Website: http://www.mctnsheriff.com
Phone: (931)-359-6122

Mauro Edwards, the school resource officer at Cornersville High School was caught viewing child porn on the school’s computer. Apparently he received a three-day suspension and was then transferred to another part of the sheriff’s department.

On September 8th Edwards’ colleagues at the Marshall County Sheriff’s Outfit announced that he would not face any charges.

Earlier this year, when Mauro met with the school board, upon being assigned to Cornersville High School, principal Bob Edens was quoted as saying:

“He gets along great with the kids … He’s a big help to me, and a true friend. We’re blessed to have him.”

I wonder if he’d still stand by that statement…

On their website, the Marshall County Sheriff’s Outfit notes that the job of the school resource officer”are responsible to provide security” within the schools – do students, parents, teachers, and others in the community think having someone of Edwards character helps to provide security?

mauro-ediwards-marshall-county-sheriff-tennessee-copblock

Known Tennessee-Based Police Accountability Groups

  • Cop Block East Tennesee – Facebook
  • Cop Block Nashville – Facebook
  • Clarskville MSA Cop Block – Facebook / clarksvilletnkycopblock@gmail.com
  • Elizabethon Cop Block – Facebook
  • Knox Copblock – Facebook
  • Tennessee Peace Officer Accountability – Facebook
  • Tricities CopBlock – Facebook / TNCopBlock@gmail.com

 

EPN

CopBlock

When you see “CopBlock” as the author it means it was submitted via our submission tab – you can share your story too. If you enjoy this content and/or believe “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” get yourself some CopBlock Gear from our store or donate just $1/month to the CopBlock Network.

  • Erika Domnick

    As appalling as this is…and it’s downright disgusting…is it so different than letting; sexual sadists, bullies, steroid abusers, drug addicts, thieves, rapists, stalkers, and murderers work in the capacity of law enforcement, prison guards, parole officers, and priests? To me- it’s just another example of what our government thinks of it’s citizens, and the future of America. The kids in this school should shame this man right out the door!

  • rejectrepublicanlies

    Just wait until he molests one of the kids. What do you think that judgement will cost taxpayers?

  • Chris Whitley

    How the hell does he keep his job?

  • Tyler Tron

    Found this on that sick fucks profile. Apparently, he’s a soldier and war is his profession…not protecting and serving the public.

  • bellatrixferox

    Right. Because anyone who has ever used steroids is the same as a child molester or a murderer.

  • t

    Whitley:
    That’s acctually a really good question.
    I have no idea. Likely it wasn’t the “child porn” as alledged by the author.

    Now, setting that aside….
    The clueless author questions the officers job performance…..why? How does one necessarily have anything to do with the other?

  • Toby Nixon
  • David L Grabill

    I believe the whole damn dept should be firedhat means double for the sherrif for conspiracy child porn

  • Guest

    I did a little research on google and found this article but the actual violation listed has been removed (nothing listed for 5/20/09). Guess they removed it fro, the record. Also this was 2009 and not 2014 as the article says on Copblock!
    News Releases 2009 – Department of Justice
    http://www.justice.gov › Home › News Room
    Cached
    Similar
    United States Department of Justice
    Loading…
    The Eastern District of Texas does not issue News Releases for all court filings and … Texas man has been arrested for child pornography violations in the Eastern …… 5/20/09, ROBERT EDWARD MAURO

  • JC

    What constitutes child pornography? I know the laws regarding child pornography are very on the line and are enforced. I believe there is much more to this story then what was told.

  • DerkDigler

    I think it would be helpful to have this verified by somewhere.

  • Common Sense

    Seens it wasn’t pornography, but “website showing racy and explicit images of high school girls” that was created by a high schooler.

    Unprofessional yes, criminal no.

  • keepitreal

    If they’re a cop breaking the law using steroids while trying to bust others for breaking laws, then yes, they’re a slimy shit-pile, on a par with a child molester.

  • keepitreal

    His entire facebook page is violence and obscene humor. Yep, this sick fuck should really be a cop.

  • keepitreal

    Wait, are you really asking what viewing child pornography would have to do with his job performance? As a school resource officer? LOLOLOL. You’re as sick a fuck as this pedo is.

  • keepitreal

    Slappy the douchebag, fake PO at large. Missed you in Atlanta, slaps. I heard somebody displaying fake credentials tried to get into one of the secure DHS conferences. Was that you, slaps?

  • Ghost

    You are a sick mother fucker Paul. This comment of yours should be shown to every mother you work with. Perhaps it will. Your comment makes me think of your YouTube video with that boys head held between your legs while you’re instructing your class. You didn’t have to hold his head there so long. I hope your ass was clean. Poor kids and parents have no idea what they’re dealing with when it comes to you. Sick mother fucker.

    The above poster, or poser, is Paul Wayne Bowman formally from Keene NH. His current residence is 4417 Strathmore Dr. Lake Wales, FL 33859 where he runs an outfit called No Excuses Ladies Boot Camp in Winter Haven FL. He has been a troll over 15 years going by the names JC, Jason Free123, Slappy, runningwolfkenpo and Jake C to name a few. Fucking moron.

    Web addresses associated with Bowman:

    This first link gives you an up close and personal view of a professional troll and scumbag. Hear the voice and see the face behind slappy, JC, jasonfree123, etc.
    http://m.youtube.com/#/channel

    http://winterhavenchamber.com/

    https://plus.google.com/app/ba

    http://smallbusinesssynergy.co

    http://m.youtube.com/?#/user/r

    https://m.facebook.com/WinterH

    http://bootcampwinterhaven.com

    Addresses associated with Bowman:

    Paul Bowman Personal Training & Boot Camp Instructor
    4417 Strathmore Dr.
    Lake Wales, FL 33859 CURRENT

    MartialArts Principles, Inc.
    233 Marlboro St., Keene, NH 03431 DEFUNCT

    Emails associated with Bowman:

    Paul@MartialArtsPrinciples.com

    Phone numbers associated with Bowman:

    (863) 651-3385

    (863) 978-8941

    603-352-2299

  • RaymondbyEllis

    He’s not a pedophile, please don’t blur the distinction. He likes teenage girls, not pre-pubescent little girls, which is a damn good reason why he shouldn’t be an SRO at a high school. That’s what t. missed.

  • JC

    Another insane rant by Graham Colson. You seem to know a lot about little boys sitting in laps. I guess that is why you cant’ see your child. Keep you BS lies coming.

  • JC

    I haven’t been to Atlanta before chuckle puss. It would seem your multiple lies and childish antics at the age of 35 are keeping the women away from you. Especially since you have a criminal record and a significant history of mental illness. How was life in Fayetteville NC. I understand that was where you grew up. I am looking at your old drivers license right now. OF course you will deny it but you know I am.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    If the photographs were explicit, and to me that means exposed breasts, buttocks, and/or pudenda, then the SRO knew he was looking at child pornography. Especially if it aroused him. Mens rea?

    Do understand, I have a real problem with child pornography laws (which are about adults exploiting children for sexual gratification, and that has all sorts of layers) and teenagers doing stupid with other teenagers. I have no problem whacking a grown man, an authority figure, who gets gratification looking at explicit pictures of underage teenage girls. He was probably doing research for an investigation that he would finally wrap up around 2040.

    Edit: Note that the 15 year-old is going to be prosecuted. For what? Invasion of privacy? He’s not the one that should be prosecuted.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Actually, it would be statutory rape (touching of particular areas, penetration, etc.) or sexual assault on a “child” in Texas.

    He’s interested in incipient women because he likely can’t handle full-grown women. Just being snarky because I can.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Actually, t., the news report from the link uses the phrase “a website showing racy and explicit images of high school girls.” Now I don’t think explicit means “bikinis at the beach”, do you?

    As for job performance? The clueless author doesn’t raise job performance, he raises the question of whether this officer should be in charge of teenage girls. If the officer seeks out explicit images of teenage girls, especially if those images are of girls at the HS he serves, he’s a crime waiting to happen. Do you think the badge innoculates?

    This guy looks for explicit images of underage teen age girls and he should be an SRO at a high school? In the same way if an SRO at a middle school is caught looking at (which implies looking for) explicit images of middle school girls? His job performance may be impeccable, it’s the possible other performance that raises issue.

    So the adult looking at the photos gets off, but the 15 year old that put them up gets prosecuted. America, what a country! It makes me so proud.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Try the links embedded in the post. If you want more, do what Common Sense does and search heartily.

  • keepitreal

    Then all you have to do is post my drivers license number, slaps. Then everybody will know that you’re telling the truth. It’s easily verified, it’s either my license number or it’s not. See, unlike your horseshit about where I live, how old I am, criminal record, etc, this can easily be proven. By anybody. And I hereby release you from any and all liability incurred by posting my drivers license number, as you have my full and complete permission to do so. So come on, slaps, post away. You’d hate to be proven a slimy fucking liar again, right? Fucking douchebag fake ass moron.

  • Common Sense

    But that’s just it, you don’t know what the images were. No were does anyone report that the images were “sexually” explicit.

    Once again, terms and their definitions matter.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yep, just because the reports left out the word “sex” in all it’s permutations “racy and explicit images of high school girls” becomes something other than sexual. Was that “explicit” about how these high school girls love astronomy? Or physics? The racy must have been about horses.

    So the 15 year old kid is being prosecuted over what? Not sexually explicit images? Girls in bikinis caressing a telescope? You need to contact that prosecutor now if only to save a child falsely accused. Granted, I think charging the kid is bullshit. It’s the adult that needs to be charged over telescopes.

    Yeah, terms and definitions matter. Just because an adjective was left out doesn’t change “explicit” regarding photos of teenage girls. You really want to argue that “explicit” means something innocuous? Got images on your hd of girls caressing telescopes do you?

    Not your best argument.

  • Common Sense

    The jury in the Detroit SWAT killing of a 7 year old last year hung on the word “reckless” leading to a mistrial.

    There is a big difference between “careless” and “reckless.” Many comments here shout “it was murder” when in fact its not because murder statutorily requires “intent.”

    Look at the TN statute, it clearly reads “sexual activity” and under that definitions of “what is sexual activity” in relation to the statute, only (F) comes remotely close to fitting the situation and that, without knowing what was viewed, is a long shot.

    If some actually took the 5 minutes to read what statutes require, then review the specific definitions for each element, they might understand things better. People can not like it all they want, but when in a court room, words matter.

  • JC

    I will post your name in due time. You are a 35 y/o male who lives in College Park LV in an apartment. You used to live in Fayetteville NC. You have several blogs on the internet about gaming and college basketball. Your so called “entertainment business” is you want to be a DJ. You go to many clubs in Las Vegas. You have posted many “reviews” about music, gaming, and basketball. You have posted on Sugar daddies looking for a woman. You claim to make over 100-200 dollars per year. No one has answered your add. You do have a criminal record and you do have a history of mental illness. I will post more as I see fit. Not when you wanted posted. I have control of it. Not you. That drives you crazy. So continue on with your rants and raves and you will get the same answers until I decide to say differently.

  • keepitreal

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Yep, you can post all this info except for something which could actually be proven. How stupid do you think the people on this site are, douchebag?

  • watersisland

    Anyone who would support and employ active pedophiles….has no moral authority, and is in all likelihood a pedophile themselves. Is this a department of pedo enthusiasts?

  • t

    Ray:
    I did t make it any further than the first paragraph. I’m sure there was more stupidity after that….but I stopped

    “Racy and explicit pictures of high schools girls”. A 2 second search on the Internet will show you hundreds of sites. It may be nudes girls….it may not. That’s a LONG LONG LONG LONG way from “child porn” as alleged in the headline and body of the article.

    Look at you guy. You’re like a
    champion for truth. It feels good shining the light of truth doesn’t it?
    I know that wasn’t your intent…but you still did it

  • RaymondbyEllis

    CS, try 39-17-1002 Part Definitions (G), that’s the one that would apply. ” Lascivious exhibition of the female breast or the genitals, buttocks, anus or pubic or rectal area of any person” That is also sexual activity. All it takes is seeing it as lascivious (lewd, prurient, etc.), otherwise a full on of a nine year-old girl with legs splayed wouldn’t qualify as a sexually exploitive image of a minor. (F) only applies to execretory functions, which is pretty clear in the wording.

    If you can find a statute that doesn’t have some version of (G) regarding minors (which Tennessee defines as under 18 for the purpose of these statutes), I’ll know which state has stupider legislators than Arizona. Your help would be appreciated.

    BTW, I don’t disagree with your opening venting. And there is lay careless/reckless and legal careless/reckless.

    And, no, we don’t know what the images portrayed, we’ll never see them, all we know is that the 15 year-old that put them up was arrested, and the adult that viewed them wasn’t. And that the news report used “explicit”.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Of course you stopped. If you read further you’d have to think, formulate a real argument in response, and live with the argument you made. Much better to start with “your stupid” and then make facile arguments.

    So in your second paragraph you show, trying to make an argument that any adult would shake their head at, that by numbers elsewhere you can argue it wasn’t “child porn” here. So why was the 15 year-old kid arrested? I deplore that he was arrested, a 15 year-old shouldn’t be arrested for explicit pictures of teenagers because he isn’t an adult.

    Hate to tell you but this is just stupid: ” It may be nudes girls….it may not.” Explicit means nude, it doesn’t mean bathing suits even if thongs or panties and bra (what’s the difference except a lingerie fetish), it means nude. Nude. Maybe just the breasts, maybe a little more, maybe a lot more.

    And, thank you Common Sense, if it’s lascivious it’s sexual exploitation of a minor (the images of anyone under 18, what we call child porn) and anyone that seeks them out and views them participates. So why was the 15 year-old arrested? Invasion of privacy?

    Oh and , CS, don’t give what he was finally charged with but what he was initially arrested for. We all know the difference. If was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor…

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Well, pardner, in Tennessee it’s governed by 39-17-1002 Part Definitions (G) at the least, and 39-17-1003. They don’t use “child pornography” they just write about sexual exploitation of anyone under 18 years through images. It’s that duck thing. Quack.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Damn I missed the reference to Boogie Nights. Loved the roller skates.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    CS, this: do you really in your heart want to argue that the news report used “explicit” to mean something other than sexual? What would explicit mean in that context? “Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.”?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Yep, civilian police should make war on other US civilians. Fuck, we have better trained organizations to do that, all 5 branches of the US military. It would make his civilian organization superfluous.

    This must really suck for his wife and children. I can only imagine him telling them how they are the enemy because they aren’t police. This is the midnset you get when you combine authority with ill-educated.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Except he isn’t a pedophile. Teenage girls in HS aren’t fodder for pedophiles. Don’t make arguments from blurring the distinctions.

    A 17 year old girl or boy isn’t a child like a 10 year-old. They are closer to a 19 year-old.

  • watersisland

    The story says he was viewing “CHILD PORN”. Any grown adult that gets sexually excited from watching naked children is a pedophile. Why are you trying to minimalize?

  • bellatrixferox

    Its certainly hypocritical and typical of the above the law behavior….but the same as a child molester? I don’t think so. But my original point was that the inherent use of any kind of drugs, or using anything that’s only illegal due to prohibition, isn’t the same as a crime against nature….ie rape, murder, child molesting, etc.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    I’m not, I’m trying to get people not to conflate things that shouldn’t be. These pictures were of High School age not of pre-pubescent children. A pedophile goes for pre-pubescent children, period. The use of the term for any situation other than that is a misuse of the term, a blurring of distinctions, and sexually equates a 16 year-old to a 10 year-old with is just obnoxious.

    I’m still wondering why the 15 year-old was arrested…

    Child porn is a term best not applied to teenagers after 14.

  • Mike TheVet

    LoL I’m going to repost this over at the Daily Paul.

    Come join us, JC or “Paul” or whoever you are.

    Along with the “i watched you while you slept” comment.