Slashdot Mirror
Teenager Tries To Hire Hitman Via Facebook
An anonymous reader writes "Hiring a hitman can cost a pretty penny these days. Why buy an ad in the classifieds section when you can simply use Facebook? Of course, you may end up having to face 11 to 22 years in prison, but that's worth the risk, right? That's what happened to 19-year-old Corey C. Adams of Pennsylvania. Last June, Adams' 20-year-old victim said after she left a party, he jumped into her car and raped her. She went to police. He went to Facebook. Specifically, his status update read: 'I got 500 on a girls head who wants that bread? Hit me up anyway possible.'"
How many "likes" did his Facebook posts get?
Boy meetsgGirl, boy rapes girl, and tries to have her killed... Wait, I don't think I saw that on the Sopranos... What a douchebag!
"Ones and zeros were everywhere. I even think I saw a two!" - Bender
I wonder how much amusement his fellow inmates will have with the phrase "hit me up anyway possible"?
Now I've never used Facebook, so maybe I'm missing something ... but status update? Are there many assassins scouring random Facebook profiles for job statuses, or did this guy hope one of his friends would do this?
Wouldn't Twitter be better for this?
$500 is well below the going rate for killing the key witness in a felony trial. Maybe he would have gotten a more positive response if he hadn't been such a cheapskate.
Because a rapist used Facebook, it's news for computer geeks? I'm actually kind of offended.
The guy sounds a complete douche but I'm not so sure posting a status update could be considered the same thing as "tried to hire a hitman". It sounds more like the usual passive aggressive comments shared between friends without realising that the police will take it completely seriously and charge you with it. The lesson is, as is ever more clear each day, expect your social network trawled for evidence if you're ever in trouble and take heed of privacy settings. I wonder what would have been made of it had his status update been completely locked to friends only?
jaymz
Or Mafia Wars
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
Did anyone notice that the pic of Emil Protalinski (the guy whose ZDNet article was linked in the OP) looks like it could be the mug shot of the criminal in question? Not a good pic...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Are people taking his post seriously because he is accused of raping the girl first? For this to have been legit he'd first need to have hitmen as friends on Facebook, and second he'd have to have pursued it. There are millions of people who say stupid things on Facebook that aren't taken in the same context. I have seen many more explicit posts on Facebook and not one was taken seriously by anyone.
The guy should have reached out to this Facebook group... http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Assassin's_Creed:_Project_Legacy
Only if he didn't set is status to "Off to the shower now...blood is messy :-p".
Loading...
Specifically, his status update read: 'I got 500 on a girls head who wants that bread? Hit me up anyway possible.'"
Big Horny Inmate, in the shower room, with the meat pipe?
now he can get his face on Mug shot
Would have probably been cheaper than a $500 hitman and would have had fewer legal entanglements than sexual assault.
Not if he kills her with the specific intent of preventing her from testifying at his rape trial. Prosecutors really try to discourage that kind of thing.
I imagine there are some out there who would kill the rapist pro bono .
THL phish sticks
A high school friend of mine got busted for drinking beer in his car, parked in a remote parking lot. His father knew a good lawyer. The trial lasted about five minutes. The lawyer presented the judge a copy of the law that my friend was charged with disobeying. The law stated that it was against drinking while driving. So the police officer obviously had made a mistake, and wrote down the wrong law when charging my friend. He told me later, "I got lucky!"
So I would not be surprised if a good lawyer could weasel this dumb-ass out of any charges on some technicality.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If that scenario is true he probably deserves a few years in prison for stupidity alone.
This clearly called for Craigs List not Facebook.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Maybe he just wanted to know if for $500 we would hit it?
Then the charge is just pimping.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Then again ... why did this story get in to Slashdot?
Because people think it is the Geek section of FARK?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Or alternately, it's exactly what she said happened. Her story is perfectly plausible, and her behavior afterwords totally consistent with being raped, and then freaking out because it appeared as though her rapist just threatened her life.
Although women are (rightly) encouraged to seek medical aid after being raped and get a rape kit, it's not at all uncommon for a woman who's just been raped to want to go home, take a shower, and do her best to forget the trauma of what just happened. And she might have gotten over it and not pressed charges, except that this moron then posted something up making it appear that he wanted her dead, at which point she very correctly went to the police.
She should have gone to an ER to get a rape kit right away. She should have gone to the police the next morning rather than 2 days later. But there's nothing in her story that remotely suggests she's lying. And frankly, that you would immediately assume that she's making this up in order to ruin this guy's life is offensive to anyone who has or is a friend or relative of anyone who has been raped.
I am officially gone from
Kids these days, right?
I've got a few friends of friends who like posting pictures of themselves with huge bags of weed, bottles of pills, and on a few occasions, face down over a couple of lines of powder with straws up their noses. The accompanying comments are the real gems though, tagging their dealers, friends, and then the obligatory comment about how fucked up they were.
I want to say that these kids need to wise up and realize that what gets posted on the internet stays on the internet, but after some thought, I wish them the best in their self-incrimination.
Yet another of many good reasons to not have sex with drunken wierdo girls at parties.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you read the article linked in the linked article, it might change your perspective. Philadelphia Inquirer
Also, you have the timeline wrong. She went to him first. He posted the cash bounty. Then, she went to the police. As for keeping this from her real BF or father, there is no reason to believe that either knew or had reason to suspect that sex (consensual or otherwise) had occurred. Also, based on the June dates, presumably 2010, it is safe to assume that she did not go to the press. The article had no quotations from her or statements attributed to her other than the detective's account of his interview with her.
If you are going to speculate, read the article first.
Problem being his posting of a SECOND request to kill her right after the police showed up and asked him to come talk with them. Without that, your version of events might be possibly believable.
RTFA before posting next time.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I sure hope you're not actively encouraging the rape culture, the last thing you want is the Dickwolves after you!
I'm feckless...oh, feck :(
Blank until
She went to him first. Then he posted the bounty. Then she went to the police.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
... When men were men and horses were horses, if a kid raped a girl SHE would hire a hitman to take him out or her family would do it. My Grandpa, bless his cigar-chomping rattlesnake-eating soul, once said to me: "you know, kid, your generation thinks you've got it hard but it just ain't so. Things have always been screwed up because if there's something Man is good at, is screwing things up. Anyway, when I was your age a young man about eighteen (we didn't call anyone over 14 "kid" back then) took his liberties with a town girl. And by "taking his liberties" I mean he fucked her in the ass without her consent. She comes home visibly upset and tells his father that this piece of shit from who knows where just fucked her in the ass without her consent. Now, we're pretty tolerant folks but if there's something we believe in is that nobody fucks a woman in the ass without her consent. That's just plain rude. And that was exactly what her father thought so he called his two sons and made a couple of phone calls and we met in the town square. We held a little meeting and decided that no, this piece of shit couldn't get away with fucking the girl - any girl - in the ass without her consent. And that included Rose the Thorny Bush, who practically went around with a FREE ENTRANCE sign taped to her ass and a pile of signed consent forms in her purse. But I digress. OK, to cut a long story short we get our hands on the piece of shit and after punching the lights out of him, we drag him to the town square where we decide what to do with him. Good old Ezekiel, who has always been two days short of a Sunday if you take my meaning, proposes that since he fucked the girl in the ass without her consent, we should do the same and fuck him in the ass without his consent too. But we're not rude people you know, and we don't go around fucking people in the ass without their consent even if they have fucked other people in the ass without their consent. It's just a no-no. There are limits to what you can do to even the most vile person. So we decided to torture him to death by dismembering him alive. Which wasn't exactly easy in those times, we didn't have those fancy chrome-vanadium chainsaws you guys use to dismember people. Dismembering people back then was serious business. So we gathered saws, hatchets, knives, whatever and cut him to little pieces, and burned most of him but some of us being sentimental people decided to keep a piece. I kept his dick. Had it stuffed and mounted but I grew sick of it and left it in the attic. Wanna see it?" We went up and he showed me the thing. It was covered in dust and cobwebs but armed with a vacuum cleaner I managed to uncover it and lo and behold, there was the dead terrified face of the miserable rapist who so long ago fucked that poor girl in the ass without her consent. "Grandpa," I said "you told me you took his dick." "Well, he WAS a dickhead, don't ya think?" Yeah, bless ol'Grandpa.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Something like 99% of roofies tests come back with nothing but ethanol in the blood.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
...but in the UK there was the guy arrested for threatening to burn down an airport on Twitter.... ok, he obviously was just expressing his frustration and it's a bit more possible that this FaceBook loser (sorry - 'user') was serious, but it shows how these idle comments on social media get taken seriously by the authorities.
Boy gets angry, write on facebook "this bitch!! $500 to whoever kills her!". Which obviously doesn't mean he intend people to kill her.
Nor does it obviously mean it he didn't intend to kill her.
Boy got owned. Twice.
I think that's a big part of the problem. He was a boy not a man. A man wouldn't have done that. Well, that prison time will help him grow up.
Then so does about 80 percent of the world.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Aren't you supposed to use Craig's List for this sort of thing anyway?
It sounds to me like the timeline is OK up to the last part. There is no other-side explanation to this. It sounds to me like this kid is an idiot and completely failed to handle himself appropriately, however that doesn't mean he should be forced into a corner with a plea bargain that will waste 11 years of his life. For all we know, the girl had consensual drunk sex with him. People get promiscuous when they get drunk. She may have completely lied about how many drinks she had, after all, why admit to driving drunk? It sounds to me like this may be a case of the police trying to get one more bust for the sake of patting themselves on the back and justifying their jobs to the public. Its possible this kid over-reacted and/or was saying it in anger and never intended to actually hire a hitman at all. After all, he never met with a "would be assassin" that the police tried to set up as a sting. Read the article twice, once as yourself and once as a devils advocate.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Except that is not the order of events. The correct order is:
Girl gets drunk.
Guy rapes girl.
Guy offers money to have her knocked off of Facebook.
Girl goes to police for rape after finding out about the post from the rapist wanting her killed.
Police visit guy.
Guy reiterates assasination offer.
Police arrest guy.
The guy posted the $500 to kill before the girl went to the police about the rape. He knew he had raped her and was probably going to be arrested, tried and convicted - that's why he posted the offer BEFORE the police knew about the rape.
How the hell did the OP get modded insightful? It's not even valid.
This sentence no verb.
Yep - it's called retaliation, it's a felony, and it's the easiest thing in the world to get convicted of. Seriously. If you get into a domestic dispute and come back (after you get out of jail...it's generally 1-3 days for a misdemeanor "assault by threat" [which is what you get arrested for when the cops show up, no one is hurt, and they have to haul someone off by law - it doesn't matter if anyone's really done anything...the humorous part is that I've been arrested for it several times, so have various of my exes, and so has my mother...whoever's the loudest or drunkest person in the house goes]) and there's another call, you're likely to get charged with it. I had a friend who got 10 years for ripping the door off his house. His own fucking house and he got charged, just because his girlfriend had called the police and he left, she made a statement, then he came back and she wouldn't let him in. Yes, he was drunk, yes he was an ex-convict...but he hadn't done anything other than damage his own property (because he was locked out). But he still got arrested, parole violated, and got an extra 10 years to boot. And his girlfriend felt really stupid, since he wasn't around to pay for their son or a roof over their head or anything. Dumb bitch, dumb cops.
Now this fucking creep, if he even mentioned "Gee, I'm going to do [whatever]" and someone reported it, he could be charged the same way. It's a very ambiguous law that's often abused. Not that I care what happens to this shitbag...
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
So if I say "I want to kill my dog!" when he is barking, and then he keeps it up and I say "Shit, I really want to kill my dog now!" does that mean I should be charged with animal cruelty? This kid never hired a hitman, he just said shit in anger. The police set up a sting to get him to meet a "would be assassin" and try to get him to actually agree to a hit. He never showed up. Granted it was stupid to say, but the police and prosecution are just trying to get a bust so they can pat themselves on the back, not for justice. If it were justice, you would hear his side of the story and the prosecutor would totally drop the "solicitation of murder" charges all together. Maybe the girl had drunk sex with him, lied about how much she drank so she would get in trouble for driving drunk, and then she said he raped her because she didn't really remember what happened or maybe felt bad afterward and to cope with it she blamed him for it. That would piss me off if it happened to me, especially when being labeled a rapist is actually a worse thing to be labeled than as a murderer in this society.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
would not get in trouble for driving drunk
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Rape is wrong and all, but the vagina is hardly so precious that entering it unlawfully merits a lifetime sentence. When the punishment is disproportionate to the crime, the victim does end up seeming like the aggressor.
You are 100% correct.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
IANAL, but I did run a Private Investigation firm. A lot of people are in jail because they didn't understand the law about this.
If you exchange anything of value under the pretense of hiring a hitman, then you are guilty of consipiracy to commit murder. For all intents and purposes, the ability or even the intent of the person you "hire" is not relevant, nor is the amount of total value of the exchange. Just like robbing a bank with a gun counts even if the gun was fake/had no bullets/etc.
Merely saying "I wish someone would kill " is a weaker version of "I will give someone $500 to kill " - solicitation. This is where you get into a slipperly slope of how much that resembles an agreement. For instance, if a 9 year says "I will give you a trillion dollars to kill ", that is not very credible. But if a mafia godfather with a track record of hiring killers and rewarding them merely says "Person is annoying me", that might be sufficient.
The real trouble comes when you exchange something of value. I was working a case once where someone was in prison for conspiracy because they asked someone to kill their girlfriend. The "hitman" asked for $1500. The guy told him he was broke. The "hitman" said "yeah, I could do it for free but I would have to leave town." So the person gave him $15 for bus fare. That was enough to show a contract. It turned out his hitman was an undercover cop. Now the guy is serving 15 years.
So in Facebook, if you said "I will be your neighbor in farmville if you kill her", and someone accepts that gift, that would be the same as you paying some stranger $10k.
And if the only problem was the vagina being used without consent, you might have a point.
It's probably a felony in all states.
You don't need anyone to take you up on the offer, although usually a cop responds to it in a sting to make sure the offender can't claim he wasn't serious..
Why does this story have a surveyor's icon on it?
parole violations are serious shit. everyone should know that. but many don't act like it. fair or not, thats how it is.
it's not like parole and it's serious 'fuck your ass' ramifications is anything new.
- I'd prefer not to.
The question is: Why do you trust the girl?
It's like pointing out at a guy and say "HES HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN". And of course, "if you don't plaid guilty you will be jailed for life, else its only going to be 10 years!"
Do you seriously thing the facebook status was a real assassination offer? Of course no you don't. It's just convenient that he wrote something stupid.
If it was up to me, I'd jail people like you instead - at least I am _certain_ not to make an error since you wrote your statements black & white. While the guy could or could not be guilty.
The only good to come from this is that they have the title for the first job in Mafia Wars: Philadelphia.
If they can re-use the "knock off a witness" theme, that is.
IANAL
Because unlike you, I still believe that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Because if you don't respect that principle, it's dead easy to get people's life destroyed and one day your own. But that's too complicated to understand for the vast majority, I'm well aware of that, when it concerns children or rape, better kill the dude and risk being wrong than writing things that might make people claim you're supporting rapists and what-not. (which is utterly ridiculous - but works)
The only argument you (and others) have is: "the girl story sounds true". No fact.
The only reason the guy actually will get jail time is because the facebook writing is a fact, and is used against him. Of course, it's HIGHLY improbable that he wrote what he wrote on facebook as a real incitation to murder - but it's a fact and that works in court.
It's also HIGHLY improbable that he wrote it "because he raped her".
What's HIGHLY probable, is that they got angry at each other and she's been doing something bad to him (lie about rape to destroy him?) and he wrote stupid stuff on facebook.
Then again all this are just probabilities, not facts. And finally it's also HIGHLY improbable that ANY of us will get the real story, let alone reports in the website news, which on slashdot, I hope, we all know are usually vastly inaccurate.
So you could care less ;-)
he probably didn't realize that the police report was serious business. that's dumb. but likely.
hiring a hitman on facebook however.. please. lol.
Don't you mean pro boner?
Bart: Because I like you, I'll even do it pro boner.
Skinner: It's pro bono.
Bart: I know what I said.
I have occasionally wondered what would happen if someone posted a message like that, then when contacted by a "hitman" (which is almost certainly sure to be the police) the person turned around, called the FBI and said "I was joking around online, but somebody contacted me, and I think this guy is serious! He says he has done this before too!"
How much investigation do you think would go on before the local police and FBI realized that they were trying to sting each other?
Not that I would actually recommend anyone doing that but, given how freely some people joke or blow off steam online, I wouldn't be surprised if it has happened without even being intentional.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Without physical evidence, it's just her word against his. Since I don't know either of these people, I'm disinclined to believe one over the other, and am willing to grant someone the benefit of the doubt that they are not a rapist (even if the person in question shows questionable judgment in other areas, like posting inappropriately on Facebook).
Women need to STOP destroying evidence of a rape. If you are raped, you suck up whatever feelings you have and GO TO THE HOSPITAL AND HAVE A RAPE KIT DONE. Yes, it might be more intrusion on a delicate area. Yes, it's emotionally difficult. But you know what? If you don't, THE FUCKER WHO DID IT TO YOU WILL DO IT AGAIN TO SOMEONE ELSE. Making everyone woman, everywhere, who fails to do this complicit in future rapes committed by their attacker.
Victims of crime have a responsibility to help ensure the criminal involved goes to prison. Failure to do so is tacit acceptance of unacceptable behavior.
Oh, and lest I come as more of a jerk than usual, the empowerment one can feel from taking charge of a bad situation like this simply cannot be measured. It's a lot more beneficial in the long run than sitting on the floor of a shower, crying to oneself.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Stop conflating masculinity with morality
I will not stop.
And it isn't their gender I deny, but their adulthood. Someone who does what this boy did, is not an adult and hence, not a man.
>Boy gets angry, write on facebook "this bitch!! $500 to whoever kills her!". Which obviously doesn't mean he intend people to kill her.
How is that "obvious", again?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It means he's a very slow learner who really needs to pay more attention to how his outbursts might be construed by other people.
>That doesn't mean he should be forced into a corner with a plea bargain that will waste 11 years of his life.
Yes it does, if the state fails to get life without parole for solicitation of murder, which would be entirely more appropriate. "His life" is already forfeited, it's not a consideration anymore.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Your dog does not have the ability to have a reasonable apprehension of being in danger, so the analogy isn't relevant.
Maybe he can get a lawyer to successfully explain to a jury that his repeated solicitation of murder was a joke. Maybe
a jury will take pity on him despite him being the kind of person who would joke about such a serious matter. More likely,
a jury will consider him to be exactly the kind of person who should be locked up and not allowed into society.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The thing is, we've all considered the possibility that this happened exactly as the girl said. The GP was playing devils advocate to suggest a plausible alternative. He's not saying either is right. Simply that we need more information to establish which is the correct sequence of events.
Read the article twice, once as yourself and once as a devils advocate.
You know, sometimes people that cry rape are lying. Also, when I say "I want to kill my dog!" or "Will someone please beat the shit out of such-and-such politician!". I don't actually mean it. The only way to get proof he intended to have her killed would be the "assassin" sting the police tried to trap him with, but he didnt show up. I would not be opposed to using his quote as evidence that he is not remorseful and used to adjust the punishment accordingly. However, I am not fully convinced he raped anyone.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
>The question is: Why do you trust the girl?
You don't need to. The only thing to consider is the death threat, and whether the target could have a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out.
Don't you think a competent lawyer can convince a jury that the facebook status was not a real assassination offer? The question won't be whether it was "real" or not, the question will be whether the target (represented by a hypothetical "reasonable person" and little personal information will be disclosed) would have a "reasonable apprehension" that the threat constituted a genuine danger.
So "the girl" is irrelevant, and nobody is being asked to "trust her".
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Interesting.
Children typically get lesser sentences, focussed more on reformation that retribution or deterrence.
So, would you agree that this boy should be given a lesser sentence since as a child, he can't be held completely responsible for his actions?
"80% of the world" didn't post two death threats against an individual bracketing a police interrogation...
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
The problem is you're running your entire diatribe off the assumption that she was not raped. You can't just look at everything separately... all the pieces of this together look very bad for Mr. Facebook here.
The details like "hit me up anyway possible", an inducement for contact, separates that kind of threat from just blowing off steam. Hell, his own lawyer has said that he significantly limited his defense strategies by posting that shit.
Not all women are out to get guys. Some are, but there are also a lot of guys who are just scumballs. You cannot make a judgement without objectively looking at the facts, and all of the facts in this case point the wrong way for the guy.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I played devil's advocate, but it still doesn't hold water. Let's suppose you are mad at someone and say something stupid on facebook like "$500 dollars to whoever takes this girl out". Okay. That's stupid, but it's defensible that maybe you aren't serious. Now, an undercover cop responds to your ad, and wants to arrange a meeting. (Which happened if you read the article) If your ad is not serious, and you don't actually want someone MURDERED in cold blood, and someone is there offering to MURDER someone for you... You're response to the would-be assassin should be nothing less than "Yo, please don't actually kill her, I was only joking", followed by an immediate removal of the facetious ads. He didn't do that. He didn't meet with the undercover cop, but he seemingly didn't give anybody any reason to think he was joking.
It's possible that it was drunken consensual sex, and the aftermath got out of hand. But in my mind, even if that's the case... He's still guilty of trying to hire someone to kill her. He made his own bed.
Well, I'm matchless . . . this is /., right?
You must have never had a dog. They have perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger. If I raise my fist, they will back away, if I yell at them, they will back away. Dogs can sense aggression, anger, and dominance, and they get scared and hide if they sense somethings about to happen to them. Point is, they don't have enough evidence to support the rape claim because 1) The girl already said she was sick from alcohol at a party which means she was probably intoxicated 2) When people are intoxicated, they get promiscuous 3) She apparently allowed the man into her car as nowhere did is say he force entry and 4) She has an incentive to hide the fact she slept with this guy to protect her reputation. 5) They are going off of ONLY her word and probably the fact that her vagina has signs of sexual activity. DUH. Of course vaginas look like they have had sexual activity after sex. Drunk sex can be rougher than sober sex. Its easier to cry "RAPE!" than accept responsibility for your actions. This dude was obviously mad enough to joke (or maybe not) about having her killed. He obviously thought better of it by NOT SHOWING UP TO THE POLICE STING that tried to actually get him to actually agree to the hit. I would be absolutely irate if someone lied about me raping them. As I said before, being labeled a rapist is actually a worse than being labeled a murderer in this society. What they did in this case, is use his ramblings online to bootstrap themselves into a plea bargain. Plea bargains are quick and easy, and look good to the public "because justice has been done". It was a career building move.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Point is, they don't have enough evidence to support the rape claim because 1) The girl already said she was sick from alcohol at a party which means she was probably intoxicated 2) When people are intoxicated, they get promiscuous 3) She apparently allowed the man into her car as nowhere did is say he force entry and 4) She has an incentive to hide the fact she slept with this guy to protect her reputation. 5) They are going off of ONLY her word and probably the fact that her vagina has signs of sexual activity. DUH. Of course vaginas look like they have had sexual activity after sex. Drunk sex can be rougher than sober sex. Its easier to cry "RAPE!" than accept responsibility for your actions. This dude was obviously mad enough to joke (or maybe not) about having her killed. He obviously thought better of it by NOT SHOWING UP TO THE POLICE STING that tried to actually get him to actually agree to the hit. I would be absolutely irate if someone lied about me raping them. As I said before, being labeled a rapist is actually a worse than being labeled a murderer in this society.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
but he seemingly didn't give anybody any reason to think he was joking.
However that still doesn't mean he wasnt joking. Its way too easy for women to cry rape and be accepted only at their word and signs of sexual activity. Even consensual rougher sex can look like rape. Whatever though, Im more for being absolutely sure someone committed a crime rather than forcing them into a corner with a plea bargain as a career building move.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
mmmm....funny, but I wonder how many friends disassociated themselves by blocking him as soon as they heard, even worse ...how many didn't
Men are typically much larger and stronger than women. There is a reason there are weight classes in boxing and MMA. Besides, this was in a car, so Judo and TKD are sure out. Even grapplers can be overpowered if they are outweighed 2-1. Only an elite-level female jiu-jitsu practitioner is going to take out some 225-lbs guy in a car, and how many women have time to spend 5 days a week for 5 years in a dojo? And I'm sorry, but a petite 110lb woman is never going to take out an Ahnold-sized attacker. You've just been watching too many movies, brotha.
It would be much more effective for women to carry guns, the true equalizer. Stabbing weapons are good as well. And, of course, for them not to get so drunk they are out of control.
Oh, and death penalty for rapists would be nice, too.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The first thing that came to mind is the character "Kuni" in the movie UHF. He shouts "Sooooooo Stupid!" many times in the movie.
He knows the police are checking his Facebook postings. The guy is a moron The second post is the clincher:
From the Philadelphia Inquirer snip in the referenced article:
The victim told police that she left a party June 29 on South High Street in West Chester after consuming three drinks and feeling nauseous. She said Adams jumped into her car and later raped her. The woman called West Chester police July 1 and said she had accused Adams of raping her. She also told police she saw a posting on his Facebook page offering $500 for “a girls head,” and feared for her safety. At the preliminary hearing, West Chester Police Det. Stan Billie testified that he went to Adams’ home and that Adams agreed to meet with him at the police station. Less than 10 minutes later, Adams posted a second Facebook message that said he “needed this girl knocked off right now.
So, would you agree that this boy should be given a lesser sentence since as a child, he can't be held completely responsible for his actions?
It's a good question, but we need to remember that while this guy was capable of being an adult, he chose not to be. As a result, he can be and probably will be held responsible for his actions even though those actions were as of a child.
"Just where the fuck do you live that it's acceptable that someone can't leave a party alone?"
Nobody said that, nice strawman. There a lot of unacceptable realities in the world. One of them is that there are sick, violent farks in the world who need a needle full of cyanide. Unfortunately, they must first commit their horrors before they get said needle. Is it "acceptable" that I have to lock my front door? Is it "acceptable" that so many people get murdered, that every large city must have dedicated homicide investigators? Sometimes reality is hard to accept.
"All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist. Actually, all more likely to be used against an innocent man than against a rapist - women are remarkably unlikely to get raped, while men are comparatively likely to get assaulted."
There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support this nonsense, which is endlessly repeated by the anti-gunners. Justice Dept stats show resisting violent crime leads to better outcomes for victims, and Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State has done numerous studies that show millions of self defense uses of firearms per year, and only a tiny fraction of gun users ever have their guns "taken away." You think you could pull a pistol out of my hand? Good luck with that.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The thing is, we've all considered the possibility that this happened exactly as the girl said. The GP was playing devils advocate to suggest a plausible alternative. He's not saying either is right. Simply that we need more information to establish which is the correct sequence of events.
I don't deny that. But it was extremely childish and foolish to threaten her life publicly and brazenly even in jest. It doesn't matter even if you were wrongly accused of rape. Threatening someone's life is wrong and irresponsible behavior. Further, it resulted in a conviction that he might have avoided (even if it was rape) simply by not getting mad and stupid in the first place.
I'm not going to assist in the shoehorning of this story into the original poster's mythology. Remember the "Boy got owned. Twice." line? The only problem with the narrative is that it was an own goal. He didn't get a fair trial because he acted in a way as to preclude a fair trial.
AIDS. It can be used as a weapon!
Life is not for the lazy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And frankly, that you would immediately assume that she's making this up in order to ruin this guy's life is offensive to anyone who has or is a friend or relative of anyone who has been raped.
Really? The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" offends anyone who has ever been the victim of a crime? Really?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is legal-related matter, and should be on YRO section rather than idle.
New Economic Perspectives
The author's face at the top or bottom of TFA could easily be mistaken for the mugshot of the assailant.
From TFA:
The only smart thing Adams did was sign a plea agreement last week for both the rape and solicitation to commit murder charges. If he hadn’t pleaded guilty, he could have faced 35 to 70 years in jail.
Why would he face LESS time when pleading guilty? How does this make any kind of sense?
(In my country that would almost always result in a harsher sentence)
What police sting? I see nothing referring to that anywhere in any article about a sting. Asking the guy to come down to the station for an interview is not a "sting". You don't set up stings at the cop shop. After the cop talked to him and he agreed to go in for an interview he posted again on facebook that he needed the "girl knocked off right now". That doesn't sound like the behavior of someone who is going to meet someone in a "sting".
Yes, false rape allegations can ruin lives. It is not something to be taken lightly. But, and this is a GIGANTIC but, that does NOT mean that all rape claims are inherently false. Rape can still happen, and more often than not it is male on female violence. Your #2 "step" is complete and utter bullshit, as well as everything after that. Some people get drunk and horny, but that doesn't mean this girl did, or even did in this case. Believe it or not, you can get drunk and still not want to have sex with someone. You cannot convict someone of lying about rape just because they had alcohol. Otherwise you're saying all drunk people are fair game. Can't wait until some big, violent homosexual sees you drunk. Can't be rape, you were drunk, right? You must have been ok with it.
Every single fact in this story that has been released, as well as the fact that the guy admitted to all of it points to you being wrong. If it was a false allegation of rape he could have fought it. If there was a CHANCE he could have been interpreted wrong, he could have fought it. But what he said and did is quite clear, and you defending him really sounds pathetic.
Frankly, you sound like a fratboy who is the type to say "I know when you say no you really mean yes".
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You should tell that to a rape victim. Man, what crybabies they are. It's just their vagina. Surely the damage done by a rape doesn't extend beyond the physical discomfort inflicted upon their genitals.
You are critically out of order and missing some steps in your little diabolical plan. If you were to do it, you would want to make sure that you've covered yourself properly. The first step is to get an audio recorder and record everything, even if you're in a two party consent state for recording. The _second_ step is to find the girl and explain everything and promise her half the $500. _Then_ you contact him and agree to carry out the contract. Then you fudge the murder, bring back the ripped shirt, etc.
The reasons to do it in this order should be obvious. If it were to be done the way you propose, you'd not only be putting yourself at risk of serving a very long time in jail for murder for hire and attempted murder (when you go after the girl to try to talk to her after agreeing to kill her, it's going to look pretty bad if you fail to explain yourself), but you'd be risking the girl's chance at justice. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that the prosecuting authorities have offered a sweet plea deal to the person hiring a hit man in exchange for testimony against the juicier target. You'd probably go to jail for life, while he'd get a lesser sentence for both the rape and solicitation of murder than he would have gotten for just the rape if he hadn't tried to put out a hit.
In any case, either way you do it, you'd be breaking a number of laws. Aside from plain old fraud and conspiracy charges, there are probably specific laws you'd be breaking regarding offering hoax murder for hire services. Plus you'd be bringing the girl into a conspiracy to commit fraud, which would probably be admissible in a rape trial and seriously hurt her case.
Plus, doing it in my suggested order still doesn't protect you from attempted murder and murder for hire and conspiracy to commit murder charges. The conspiracy to commit murder charges might stick even if you can prove you never intended to commit the murder simply because you conspired to do it. Even if you contacted the girl first and recorded everything, you still might not be able to prove that your plan wasn't to lull her into a false sense of security and safety while providing yourself a cover story right up until the point you killed her. If you were arrested part way through, before you'd split the money and passed up some clear opportunity to kill her, the evidence against you could still be damning in the right hands.
All in all, it's a cute plan. The drawbacks are just a bit too much for the whole $250 you'd earn from it. I would strongly suggest to everyone to never involve yourselves in a murder for hire scheme, even if only as a hoax.
Nothing I wrote involves trusting the girl.
I trust the guys actions based on the order events unfolded as listed in the article.
If he didn't rape her, why did he post the assassination offer, even if it wasn't serious, BEFORE the girl went to the police?
If he didn't rape her, why would he accept a plea bargain for nearly the full prison term for rape in Pennsylvania? (Life sentence for rape in PA is only for specific cases like those involving kids under 12.)
And why the hell would you want to put people like me in jail for pointing this out?
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
This sentence no verb.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm
The Kleck study wan't very good.
For the record, I don't care which is right or wrong, only that we have a good conclusion based on good data... for anything, really.
what we do know for certain is that we need more studies, and you need to stop cherry picking data to support your belief.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Theres a time and place for everything.
will be proving that he typed the comments. Though as dumb as he sounds, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he has already readily and unwittingly confessed to doing so.
There was a police sting. Read http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20110211_Facebook_search_for_hit_man_gets_teen_22_years.html . Im not suggesting anything you are accusing me of, I am merely calling bullshit on the way they convicted him. He signed a plea bargain because he was forced to because it looked really bad what he said on Facebook when its still not even clear if he actually intended for her to be killed or not. He didn't get convicted because he actually was tried in a court of law. If someone accused me of raping them and I did not and I faced having my entire life ruined because of them, it would cross my mind that I would want to hurt them. Im smarter than that however, but not everyone is. Furthermore, being drunk damages her credibility. Same shit happens with automobile accidents. If I get hit at a stop sign, even though it was my turn to go, if I have sufficient alcohol in my system I am considered at fault because my judgment is impaired. The case was not even heard, they just forced him into a corner without absolute proof of anything because he made some stupid remarks on Facebook.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
I re-read my analogy. Its not entirely correct and sounded sort of bad. Here : Suppose I hit someone at an intersection. If I am not drunk at all, then there is a good chance an insurance adjuster will offload some of the blame on the other person. If am drunk 100 percent of the blame is on me. Why? Impaired judgment. For all you know the girl had consensual sex with him and the case wasn't even heard in court because the court skewered this kid with the Facebook comments which could have been an over-reaction on his part. They backed him into such a corner that he HAD to sign a plea bargain because he probably had no chance of winning and would face possibly the rest of his life in prison. Anyone can over-react, and then later do the right thing. For example, my aunt was raped by one of her cousins. My grandmother actually hired someone to go beat the shit out of him, but later called it off because she knew it was wrong. There are two sides to every story and this guys side is completely unheard.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
"And frankly, that you would immediately assume that she's making this up in order to ruin this guy's life is offensive to anyone who has or is a friend or relative of anyone who has been raped."
Up to that point, everything you say is true, and valuable.
That sentence is ignorant and full of emotion.
Yes, sometime when claim they where raped when they where not. It happens. You assume she is NOT making this up, but you also have no evidences.
We should not live in a society where someones life can be completely ruin just because they were accused of something. There needs to be evidences, and if she washed away all evidence, then the case should end their. It's sad for the victims, but what else should we do? Just through people in jail on the say so of someone?
This is why educating people(men get raped to) to go to the police. This is why going to the police needs to be comfortable, and the police need to be trained how to respond as kindly as possible.
The attitude that a women would not make up a story is a bad one to have.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
but the vagina is hardly so precious that entering it unlawfully merits a lifetime sentence.
In some US jurisdictions, it's permissible to use lethal force to prevent a rape. I think that many people believe it does merit a lifetime sentence, in effect. The owner of the vagina would like to discourage it by any means necessary, and most of us who know people with vaginas tend to (instinctively) react similarly to the idea of someone raping them.
What a nice black and white world you live in.
Here is one.
to 17 year olds are dating and have sex. One of them turns 18 and the have sex, the father of one of the teens wants charges.
Is the 18 year old suppose to die?
And that example is from my life. well, the sex part not the father and charges part. But under your rules I would be killed for Rape and Sex with am minor.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yeah, because there's absolutely zero social stigma or consequences for being a victim of rape, and having your rape known by your entire community. It's all just a wash compared to your dad finding out you had sex. After all, she's a woman, we all know they're just bitches and ho's, and most of them are asking for it and just play the victim after.
And people wonder why the term "rape culture" exists...
Yet you're assuming she's guilty of fraudulently filing a police report. Did you even consider that? It's far more likely that she's telling the truth, both statistically and reasonably.
What's HIGHLY probable, is that they got angry at each other and she's been doing something bad to him (lie about rape to destroy him?) and he wrote stupid stuff on facebook.
You're entire argument fails with the final paragraph of TFA - He plead guilty. Thanks for playing.
Call it what you will...that example quite clearly is not either rape (where does rape even enter into your example? It's consensual sex, correct?) or abuse of a child (since the ages are so close - see my caveat about "serious, life-altering"), so it wouldn't fall underneath either of those headings (nor is it gross stupidity). No one is hurt by consensual sex between two people of those ages. Nor am I sure that it's even against the current laws in most states. It certainly is not against the law in Texas (or wasn't when I was that age, and I did check it again when I was about 21 or so because I met a very interesting chick who was a mature 17, but I didn't want to risk an irate parent). The last time I checked, the law (at least in Texas) is that if someone is over the age of 13, it's consensual, and there isn't more than a 2 year age difference, it's not considered statutory rape or any other crime. Even if there is more than a 2 year difference, parents can't press charges w/out the "child"'s testimony (I did have this happen to a friend a long while back...he was 18 or 19, his gf was 17, and she just denied having sex with him and there was nothing the police could do). Also, the parents of the younger one in the relationship can sign a consent form. Another pair of friends of mine (about 15 years ago - the girl was 16 and the guy was 20; the girl I met through a friend and I ended up becoming friends w/ the couple) did this. The girl's parents went down to the court house and filled out some sort of form saying that they approved of the relationship (which rather surprised me that this could be done - and that they were willing to, essentially, fill out paperwork authorizing the fucking of their daughter; interestingly, the relationship stayed serious and the last I heard of them they had both graduated college and were engaged).
The way I phrased things it's pretty clear that some sort of harm must be done before it's breaking the law. I think I might have been in the same situation as yourself, sort-of. I can recall being 16 and briefly dating a girl who was 13. I didn't even know she was 13 initially, since she drove her own car, worked full-time, and attended college (yes, she was very intelligent and had gotten her GED and then enrolled in college when she was 13). She was also legally considered an adult since her mother was dead (IIRC her father had murdered her mother - it's been a long time, we only dated for a few months, and she didn't like to talk about it), she lived with her grandmother, and her grandmother wasn't able to take care of her (once again, IIRC her grandmother was partially disabled and also the only living relative besides her father, who was in prison - she actually paid the rent at her grandmother's place), so they had filed in court to have her "emancipated" - I'm not sure about all the details, but it essentially allows you to be treated as if you were 18 in most regards...I don't think she was allowed to buy cigarettes, enroll in military service, or do a lot of other things you have to be 18 for, but everything that was required for her to attend college and work she was treated as an adult. I also lived the same way (I just didn't bother w/ the emancipation, since I could already legally drive and no one carded me for smokes or beer due to all my tattoos), since I got my GED, started college as soon as I was 16, and supported myself by working at a tattoo shop until I got tired of that, had some college and significant experience w/ computers (I've always tinkered and worked with them, but that's different than having to turn in large programming and/or design projects), and then went to work in IT. Back to the main point - she wouldn't have testified even if anyone had made an issue of it, so I was protected by her (come to think of it, she's probably one of the most intelligent and responsible women I've ever dated, and she was only 13 at the time). So you're completely off-base w/ saying that I'm automatically making it out be a stark, black-and-white scenar
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Is 19 really allowed to be called a teenager. I mean yeah, he's in his teens technically but... Ooooh, a squirrel!
Wait. You mean those Mafia Wars recruitment messages don't intend for me to *actually* kill the guy??? Oh, crap.
What a moron... An ad like this obviously belongs on Craigslist.
Typical emotional lib response. How about you cite some facts that show how citizens carrying legally is some danger to themselves and others? You don't because you can't, and you completely ignored the link I provided to Professor Kleck's research. BTW, he's a card-carrying ACLU lib, not some NRA guy.
/. And get a gun.
The fact is that states which have passed "shall issue" CCW laws have seen their crime rates drop, and there has been no evidence of people misusing the guns. The permit revocations are so small it's a rounding error, and usually related to something other than the gun itself (being convicted of an unrelated crime.).
So go ahead, and CITE some reality or STFU. "Googling" is not research. Of course the media plays up the relatively small amount of gun accidents - they are anti-gun, and involve a "shooting" bias (99% of self-defense uses of firearms do not involve an actual shooting, so of course they don't show up in Google).
Again, go read Professor Kleck's research and learn about the millions of self-defense uses of firearms a year that never involve an actual shooting, and therefore do not get any media attention.
And if you want to be left alone, don't post dumb things on
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
So many on Slashdot claim to be science brains, yet just talk out of their asses instead of citing research.
Professor Gary Kleck's findings on defensive gun uses.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Well, speaking personally, the people I associate with don't get fucked in the ass in prison - they tend to be a good deal more capable of taking care of themselves than that. Prison is bad, but as long as you stand up for yourself (that means fight), keep your wits about you, and stick with your own race you'll be fine. Sure, it's not as much fun as being in the free world, but you have to take the good parts of life with the bad.
The point I was making was simply about the laws about retaliation. I gave an example in which it was misused, but also made the point that any any attempt to retaliate against a witness or a 'victim' of a crime is treated extremely harshly. As for being on parole, it doesn't mean that you should live your life scared to do anything that might violate parole. If a parolee lived by all the dictates of parole and the law in general, such a person would not be able to defend their selves or their loved ones, not be able to enjoy life at all, or do any of the things that make life meaningful for most people. In essence, they would have to become monastic in all manners of life. That's unreasonable and even most parole officers recognize that - it's far more common for any minor (non-felony) parole violation to be punished with a short term in county jail or state jail, rather than a return to prison to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
The situation I described could have happened to anyone. Get in an argument with your girlfriend, leave the house, she calls the police and exaggerates the event. You return, find yourself locked out of the house, and force your way in. It's your house, you pay the bills, and technically no one should be able to forbid you entrance. Of course you're mad about everything that's gone on. He didn't beat her up - to the best of my knowledge he didn't even touch her. But because of the sequence of events, he placed himself in a position whereby the cops and the DA could impose unreasonable penalties on him. It's part of what's wrong with our "justice" system.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.