Slashdot Mirror
Sex Offender Claims Police Entrapped Him With Animated Emoticons
60-year-old John Jacques has appealed his conviction for engaging in sexually graphic online conversations with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl, saying the police entrapped him using animated emoticons during the chats. From the article: "Jacques claims prosecutors withheld evidence when they failed to use a computer program that would have shown the jury animated emoticons, which he argued was 'clear evidence of enticement.' He doesn't support his argument with a legal basis, the appeals court found. 'We fail to see how viewing the emoticons as animations would have led the jury to conclude that he was the victim of excessive incitement,' the court wrote."
He was sexually attracted to the emoticons, not the girl.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Awesome mustache and his name is John Jacques. This man is clearly a french buccaneer from the 1700-1800's. At that time it was common practice to sleep with 13. Not his fault.
Good luck with that. You should also tell them how the mean and tricksy the police are for saying "Hey, I'm a 13-year-old girl" when they -really weren't-. Gasp. You were suckered right into soliciting sexually graphic conversations, they practically haxxored your Gibson with such coercion like "Hey, I'm a kid" and "I think Spongebob is great."
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
At first I read it and I was like O.o
Then I went :P
And finally I did a :D
That's why I always turn emoticons off in chat—you never know what's on the other end.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Fact is, even if the evidence wouldn't change the jury's mind, the court may have been wrong to suppress it, violating his right to due process.
Stupid prosecutors and judges are how shitbirds like this walk free.
Well if the emotion was big glittery text saying "LET'S FUCK!!" then yeah, maybe. But somehow I doubt it.
60-year-old John Jacques has appealed his conviction for engaging in sexually graphic online conversations with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl
Explicit conversations with people under 18 are illegal? And can get you on the sex offender list?
Am I the only one who sees that as rather ridiculous?
This defense is like saying "She got me horny, then said she was 14. Then after repeatedly asking me to do it, and humping the air, I did it anyway". Nice tale, you still made the decision to have sex with a child. You lose, and you need help. The only defense you get is if you never actually touched a child. This being the case, you should get help. If, however, you did not just talk about these things, the other inmates will take care of you just right.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
I'm Chris hansen What are you doing hear?
Yes, this guy is probably guilty and belongs behind bars. No, it probably wouldn't make a difference to show animated emoticons. But that's not the point. The point is that he was convicted by a jury of his peers when that jury was shown evidence that differed from what was actually the case. In essence, the evidence was tampered with. It shouldn't be up to a judge to decide if that is a material difference, it should be up to the jury to decide. They were deprived of that choice, and all judgements that followed from that point on should be considered null and void.
Yeah, it will cost the taxpayer money to have a retrial. But that money is worth it to ensure the integrity of the justice system. If you care so much, take it out of the salary of the person that fucked up the evidence.
On a side note, I think it's pretty despicable that this was filed under "idle", as if we are supposed to point and laugh at the stupid defence. This goes right to the heart of how we are supposed to enact justice, it's not a laughing matter. I'd rather the guy went free than we jailed him on the basis of faulty evidence. The moment we decide it's okay to skip due process when we're "sure" of guilt, we give up the foundation of modern justice and undo centuries of civilisation.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop. Anyway, your emoticon clearly indicates you want some LSD. I know a guy. Let me know. Again, are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop. You're a cop aren't you?
Mr Clippy always gave me a boner.
Have gnu, will travel.
Haven't sexual predators figured out that "they were asking for it" doesn't work as a defense regardless of how prudish the judge and jury might be?
Are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop.
This is where you go wrong - right there in step 1. Cops are allowed to lie to you.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm guessing (*)(*)
Maybe if he's into zombies or necrophilia: F(X_x)F
... if he didn't get nailed by "a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl" . . . he would probably be hitting on a real 13-year-old girl . . . claiming that he was 14. Sorry, Jacques, "No sympathy (or soup) for you!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I don't know how many times I've heard people talk about how "The cops offered him xxx, it was entrapment!" IANAL, but my understanding is that entrapment requires duress of some kind (cop tells you to go buy drugs or he'll break your legs, and then arrests you for buying drugs) or overt trickery where you lack any intent (cop sells you a toaster filled with drugs even though you genuinely thought you were just buying a toaster). Merely offering something comes nowhere near the legal baseline for entrapment. This guy's "defense" would be like a drug user saying "But the guy told me it was like really, really, really good stuff, and that he loved it himself, so it sounded so good I had to have it too".
(as an aside, even though I used drug laws as an example, I personally don't agree with most of the drug laws that are on the books)
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
"We fail to see how viewing the emoticons as animations would have led anyone to conclude that he was the victim of excessive incitement to engage in sexually graphic online conversations with what he thought was a 13-year-old girl" the court should have wrote.
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
Really now... using "a computer to facilitate a child sex crime"? Let's work back here. Was there a child? Was there any sex? What exactly was facilitated? Oh, but he used a computer! Gotcha.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
There are no women on the internet and every underage girl is an FBI agent.
While these are not always true, it's a good idea to assume they are.
And on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
http://chrisabraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nobodyknowsyoureadogontheinternet.jpg
--
BMO
There's no reason why they can't show animations to the jury. If the reason was that it was printed, then it was a mistake to print it instead of showing it on a screen.
I'm not complaining that they weren't animated because I value animation. I'm complaining that the jury were misled. Everybody understands that photographs don't tell the whole story. Not everybody understands that a printed transcript may not accurately replicate what the guy was reading.
Look at it this way: if he'd sent an animated GIF to somebody he knew was epileptic to intentionally cause a seizure, would you be okay with the jury being shown a print out of the first frame of the GIF showing a smiley face and the jury being told "hey, he just sent a picture of a smiley face"?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
which seeeaaaatt can i taaaake?
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Apparently the cop forgot to use his [imreallyacop] emoticon, I can see why he felt entrapped, those pixels are just irresistible. /sarcasm
______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
The character was trying to sell LSD, over slashdot, based on a single emoticon: there would have been multiple mistakes this ficticious character made before getting to the point of assuming cops couldn't lie about being a cop.
Yes, this guy is probably guilty and belongs behind bars. No, it probably wouldn't make a difference to show animated emoticons. But that's not the point. The point is that he was convicted by a jury of his peers when that jury was shown evidence that differed from what was actually the case. In essence, the evidence was tampered with. It shouldn't be up to a judge to decide if that is a material difference, it should be up to the jury to decide. They were deprived of that choice, and all judgements that followed from that point on should be considered null and void.
Actually, the judge gets to decide what evidence is relevant and admissable to begin with. So also, judges get to decide whether overlooked/suppressed/incorrect evidence could possibly be sufficient to change a verdict. Nothing inherently wrong with that--while I personally think great care should be taken to give the defendant the benefit of any doubt, some mistakes are just obviously too minor to have had any influence on the jury...
Unless the animated emoticon said, "I....AM....REALLY....A....POLICE....OFFICER....AND....I....WANT....TO.....MEET....YOU....FOR....SEX....AND....WATCH....YOUR....PORN", there is nothing in that claim that would have kept him from sending porn to and arranging to have sex with what he thought was a 13 year-old girl.
This was not a miscarriage of justice, and was not taking shortcuts with the law. Even if we accept that this was one I that wasn't dotted, or one T that wasn't crossed, there is no way that it would have changed the outcome. The rest of the evidence was more than enough to compensate for that trivial error.
which seeeaaaatt can i taaaake?
Depends on what day it is.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...if I don't get to see the emoticons?
Was it the wanking banana?
Anyone have a link?
...if there were any animated icons, he put them there himself or picked the theme himself or they were the default theme.
I know of no chat client that sends actual animated graphics over the interbutt. They are all locally stored and used when the chat program successfully greps an ascii smiley and substitutes for it.
They are *his* *own* *emoticons*
--
BMO
...to my own posting. He was found guilty of "felony use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime". That was on top of the previous offences, child pornography and everything else.
Further articles (and further offences) about the same person;-
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_b53c4ad3-7a27-5791-bb48-770cced5037b.html
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_02f1700c-36e5-5f88-b7b2-426ed40d3d22.html
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_25b66060-41a2-5c07-ba82-22a6f1f1c40a.html
I'm surprised he didn't get hit with an even longer sentence for a 'frivolous appeal' - coz that could certainly have happened to him if he'd tried this in the UK.
IANAL but I've always questioned the core illegality of being caught in a sting that isn't *really* illegal. By that I mean, he wasn't really engaging in a conversation with a 13 year old. All he actually did was talk dirty to an adult. Same with drug busts with fake cocaine or whatever. Have I truly committed a crime if I exchange a suitcase full of cash for bags of sugar?
Another problem I have is who these guys are catching. I watched a lot of To Catch a Predator and, while some guys seemed like Predators with a capital 'P', most of them seemed like total losers who figured they'd hit pay dirt for the first time in their lives ("omg a girl wants to have sex with me!"). Most were either really awkward or borderline mental cases. Are those the guys we're concerned about? I'm worried about the manipulators sophisticated enough to groom their victims; not send a JPG of their penis 2 minutes into an online conversation and then think they're going to get laid.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Someday a defense lawyer will be able to prove that almost all the "kids hot for sex" on the Internet are not kids.
At that point he'll be able to credibly claim that his client's goal was to see the look on an adult's face when another adult showed up pretending to be interested in sex with a kid.
Once about 80-90% of "horny kids" online are not kids, judges will have no choice but to admit this into evidence and REQUIRE that the prosecution prove that the defendant is lying and that the defendant really did expect a kid to be there.
This will be especially true in cases where the defendant ONLY chatted up the policeman-pretending-to-be-a-kid and said he was coming over for sex but never showed. In a world where 80-90% of "online horny kids" are adults, NOT showing up is strong evidence that you were in it for the lulz rather than sex.
What I expect to happen a lot sooner:
Some edgy newspaper will, with the approval of their lawyers, go online and hit up "kids" online and then report each and every kid to the local family protective service authority or local cops. The local cops will have to take the time to double-check with the feds and state cops to make sure it's not a sting, chewing up valuable tax dollars in the process. Sooner or later there will be a mis-communication and family protective services or the local cops will "bust" an FBI agent.
I wonder how soon before we cross that 80-90% threshold, if we haven't done so already. I hope someday the "pretend" rate gets to 100%, because that will mean there are 0 horny kids out there chatting up adults for sex in Internet chat rooms.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Well, gee, I hope they get the font right next time. And make sure its the same tone of magenta as he uses on his chat program. And get a monitor calibrated to match the settings of his own. In fact, the whole jury should have to dogpile onto his chair in front of his computer, in his house, just so it matches the evidence precisely.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Is being in trouble for conversing with a fictional character.
I never got how this was supposed to work. It's held against you if you lie to a cop, but they can lie to you with impunity. It seems like a recipe for abuse. The cops are free to trick people into making self-incriminating remarks, even though people supposedly have the right not to self-incriminate. There's really no difference between being manipulated into making a confession (they tricked you), and being cohered into it (they threatened you). This is a loophole in the 5th amendment that has essentially rendered it ineffective.
I always assume that someone who says they're 13 is either a cop or a fat guy in a basement. Real 13 year olds pretend they're older.
[lawyer voice]
But what about reall 11 year olds? What age do they pretend to be?
[dramatic pause while my co-counsel whispers in my ear].
I've just been informed that real 11 year olds aren't allowed to use the Internet. I withdraw the question.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and also due justice.
Just for who? The imaginary little girl?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Millions of real kids are on the internet now. 10, 11, 12 year olds on facebook, and tons of other websites. These kids have clueless parents, and are allowed to do whatever they want. And more and more kids online every day.
Where the men are men.
The women are men.
And the 13 year old girls are cops.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The jury was not misled.
If those icons were animated, it's because he put them there himself. Go ahead, name a chat client that sends and receives actual graphical animated emoticons. I'll wait right here.
Done looking? Didn't find one, did you? That's because they're all stored locally as themes. He either picked the theme, created his own, installed a theme, or it was the default theme. The police did not send him any animated icons.
He's lying.
--
BMO
* Sending, receiving, offering to send or receive, or attempting to send or receive child pornography, including asking for pornographic self-photos from someone you believe is a minor
* Sending, receiving, or offering to send or receive or attempting to send or receive obscene materials
* Sending pornography to someone who you believe is a minor.
* Making plans to meet someone you believe is underage for illegal purposes. Under 16 and more than 4 years apart is pretty much automatically illegal, 16 and 17 vary by circumstances.
Although the state should have to prove "state of mind" the reality is that there is a legal presumption that if a cop consistently claims he is a 13 year old girl then anyone communicating with him believes they are talking to a 13 year old girl. As long as we live in a world where the number of real 13 year old girls in such chat rooms is a majority of people claiming to be 13 year old girls or even a significant minority of them are really 13 year old girls, this legal presumption makes sense and I for one support it. Once the number of real 13 year old girls drops off or the number of cops and other adults pretending to be 13 year old girls goes way up then this legal presumption will fall flat, as it should. After all, if I'm horny for cops pretending to be 13 year old girls and I go to a chat room where I know 9 out of 10 "13 year old girls" are cops, well, I'm a consenting adult and so is the cop, so no law should prevent me from hitting up a cop if that's my intent and I'm doing so in a chat room where I'm much more likely to find a cop than a real 13 year old girl.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Call me crazy, but I'd take due process over due justice any day. I'm not comfortable with there being any balance between the two at all. I'd imagine I'd feel that way all the more strongly if I ever wound up in court. Injustice is always wrong, and it's not something I ever want to see our government involved in. Even if it's in the name of "justice".
That's why you simply don't talk to the police as per your 5th amendment right. They can't use anything you say against you if you say nothing.
Some people are just hilariously naive, like everyone who was quoting the Internet Privacy Act that didn't exist. Hell, even people I talked to that knew it didn't exist seemed to think a cop would read that and go "Oh, I guess I'm not allowed to be here" and disconnect.
Then again, sometimes the law IS that stupid which is why most any big corporation have this huge legal blurb to their outgoing email. Because if you didn't say it's only for the intended recipient, then you might believe it's for the unintended reicipient or uhhh how does that work exactly? But companies have lost cases because the mail didn't say what you could - or rather couldn't - do if you got it in error...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Porn leads to masturbation.
Masturbation leads to blindness.
'nuff said.
Now pardon me for a bit while I update my screen-reader software.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Turn on your screen-reader and HEAR me spell boob: B O B
This is what happens when you post to slashdot after going blind from looking at too much porn :(.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's led to a lot of confessions, though. "Your buddy just admitted to everything. We caught you on tape. You were picked out by an eyewitness. We have DNA evidence." Really makes things easier for the police. Of course, they then follow it up with things like "Just admit you did it. You're going to jail either way, but if you cooperate, maybe you'll get less time/avoid the death penalty/go to a minimum security prison".
The combination of those two leads to a lot of FALSE confessions, or statements which, taken out of context or read the wrong way, can be seen as incriminating. Which is why you never ever talk to the police without a lawyer.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Yes, people are perverts, end of story.
Put a message saying your a horny 13 year old girl who loves big daddies spanking her bottom, and 9 out of 10 guys will answer something nauty without even flinching, until after they hit the send button and realized that the emoticons and the talk and all the rest was null and void as soon as the age appeared at below 18. I am not sure (DIDNT RTA) but I am positive the officer did say he/she was 13, and at that moment is when the cut off should happen, but most skip or skim lines reading and just catch the pop ups of graphics, and go to the next post....I bet i could get that same officer to be on the stand and become the pervert because if i send 20 messages quickly one after another on MSN, you do not get enough time to read them all, and the line which gets skipped quickly might be the one holding that info about the age.....so I can see how entrapment could have been the guys claim, although I think just too much horniness is more the problem here, if you are going to your computer to solve your sex issues (or lack of), then I guess you are playing russian roulette.
this guy is probably guilty and belongs behind bars
This guy is obviously not guilty; he chatted with an adult, there was no 13 year old girl so in any _justice_ system he's as innocent as can be.
However, his moustache leads me to believe that putting him behind bars may be a good idea anyway:P
0x or or snor perron?!
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions. That way you can't say, "Your honor, I did not know that anything I said could be used against me in a court of law."
I'm guessing (*)(*)
Or the far superior version: ( . Y . )
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
There is nowhere in America where a 30- or 60-year-old man can have sex with a 14 year old "young lady" unless they are married.
There are some states with generous "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
Two decades ago several states had ages of consent below 16, including one with an age of consent of 12, but only for girls and only if they weren't virgins before they had sex with you. At least one other state had an age of consent of 14.
Internationally very few countries have an age of consent lower than 14.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Then you get labeled non-cooperative and your silence is used against you.
That's what they want you to believe, at least.
It's one of the tricks they use to get people to talk themselves into confessing, even to things they haven't done. Watch any episode of Law and Order and watch how frustrated the detectives get when their suspects clam up.
The only thing you should say to them is that you will not talk to them without your lawyer.
Watch a law professor tell you why.
Nobody has ever talked themselves out of a crime. Don't talk to the police.
Putting moderation advice in your
If you have a sexually explicit conversation with a consenting adult who is pretending to be a child, that is illegal (because of your intent).
If you have a sexually explicit conversation with a child who is pretending to be an adult, that is also illegal (because of the act).
So basically, any sexually explicit conversations online could ruin your life, because you simply don't know who you are talking to.
That seems wrong to me.
Would you say it was OK and shouldn't be a criminal offense if it was a 60-year old pervert sending your 13-year old daughter pornographic videos and telling her all the things he wanted to do to her?
Depends:
If he believed she was 13 or anywhere close, hell no it's not okay.
If he believed she was a cop posing as a 13 year old and was doing it for lulz then I'd ground my daughter from the computer, get her any counseling she needs, congratulate her on being able to pass herself off as a cop pretending to be 13, and in private probably laugh my ass, er, arse off.
However, if the chat room had more than a very small percentage of real kids I'd insist that he be charged with reckless endangerment of a minor - a less serious charge. Even if he THOUGHT he was dealing with a cop it's reckless to throw porn around in a chat room where you are likely to run into minors.
Oh, in any case I'd insist that the guy pay for my kid's counseling.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ignore this. Apparently MSN proves me wrong.
--
BMO
By default MSN messenger has animated emoticons, the wink ";)" actually winks at you. it is however sending in the background another character, not even ";)"
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The "social" age of adulthood, or manhood in male-dominated societies, is pretty much 18 in the USA and most other Western societies. This is the age when a person is responsible for his own actions and can sign contracts, vote, and do the other things adults can do. I say "pretty much" because the reality is we phase in adulthood over several years. In America it's typically phased in over the 16-21 age range, with 16 being the age where you can do most non-hazardous jobs and get a driver's license and 21 the age where you can buy alcohol and hold most public offices.
1500 years ago the age of adulthood was significantly lower.
Oh, in ancient cultures that valued female virginity, it was generally frowned upon to have sex with a woman or girl not your wife.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
On the other hand, lying is the entire basis of undercover police work. Without lies, it would be impossible. Since undercover work is essential to discover those individuals or organizations who take more than a few minutes to actually plan out a crime instead of acting on the spur of the moment, I doubt that the police will ever be prevented from lying to you in order to throw you in jail.
While I disagree with the current trend of tarring everyone with the same "sex offender" brush and I strongly advocate the point of view that there should be an understanding of different "levels" of heinousness where crime is concerned (I mean, isn't that what we're supposed to be paying justice systems for, instead of pre-determined verdicts based on "case law" and cookie-cutter sentences?) - the guy didn't know it wasn't a 13 year old girl and thus deserves at least part of what is coming to him, lies or no.
Anyway in the US you have the 5th amendment. In most other societies based on common law, you have the right to silence under other names. It's your only right, but it's pretty powerful. All the police can expect from you is your name and address. Period.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Then you get labeled non-cooperative and your silence is used against you.
No, you hire yourself a lawyer who will prevent that label from ever being used against you. You watch too much TV.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You know, as much as I hate kiddie pervs having to actually deal with the cops when running an IRC chat room during the 90s I can say if my experience is typical (and I have no reason to feel it isn't) then entrapment is SOP among the cops when it comes to this crap. My example:
My boss at the time let me run an IRC chat to keep me from being bored between fixes at the shop so I set up A Windows repair chat which was VERY clearly marked as such, had strict rules on the layout of posts (name of OS, brief description of problem, be ready to follow instructions given, etc) when this poster comes on claiming to be a 15 year old girl comes on and start seriously hitting on everyone there. I tell them I"I don't know where you think you are but this a Windows repair site for people that are having serious computer issues, not a sex site. If you're not having PC problems please find another site."
Well after this the "girl" starts targeting me directly, one filthy suggestion after another, offering to send dirty pics of herself and asking for pics of me, etc. Meanwhile I'm dealing with a 28 year old mother of two that is practically in tears because the used PC she picked up for her family is BSODing about every 4 minutes like clockwork (turned out to be a bad graphics driver install) causing her to lose connection and having to have her son hook her back up so I have NO time for this shit and after being interrupted for the dozenth time by the little slut I just said "Look kid, I frankly don't give a shit WHAT you look like, A I have a nice woman I'm quite happy with, B, I don't date women more than 4 years younger than me, and C This is a fucking repair site not a dating site so get lost already!"
So the screen goes silent and I manage to get the freaked out mom fixed and then up pops for the 15 year old "I'm Sgt Maria whatever of the AZ polic dept. I just wanted to say you are the only one who has failed to take my bait and its nice to know there are still guys out there that aren't pervs". Well then I promptly gave the bitch a dressing down about the constitution and entrapment and banned her IP address as well as posted it to every site I could think up, just daring her ass to say anything about it!
So don't take the cops word on these things, as dealing with them myself I can tell you they'll do everything short of sending underage girls to your home trying to score busts. This one was offering tons of pics of "her" including dildo shots which I have NO DOUBT was CP they busted off someone and was using for their little "sting" as bait. It was the most blatant case of entrapment I'd ever seen, and as I said this was a place where the average post was "Sound failed need help!" or "BSOD every time I launch browser, help please!" so they HAD NO REASON to even be there. It was total bullshit and after dealing with them first hand frankly I wouldn't take a cop's word on one of these things if they said it was raining and I was ass deep in water.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Talking is the same thing as waiving your right, as the Miranda warning makes clear (or used to before the court started weakening it). It's not the police's job to protect dumb criminals. More problematic are the lies police tell to encourage someone to break the law in the first place. The standard for claiming entrapment as a defense is way too high.
I think that describes the author's existence from birth until death.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You mean don't talk to people who present themselves as police officers?
IANAL but IMO you are allowed to lie.
Actually, IANAL either, BUT I do know this much - if you give a false statement to the cops (whether a witness report, police report, or otherwise) you could be charged with:
- Giving a false statement to police.
- Filing a false police report.
- Impeding an official investigation.
Of course, if the cops lie about you or lie about what they saw or heard, good luck getting it overturned unless there's video evidence.
Someday a defense lawyer will be able to prove that almost all the "kids hot for sex" on the Internet are not kids.
I don't think you need to go that far. No one can be guilty of a crime that was not committed.
Suppose the police catches someone sitting in a car in front of a bank holding a gun. Can they arrest him for robbing the bank? In this case it wasn't even a true bank, only a building with a sign saying "Bank" but with no money inside.
It's not a crime to feel sexually attracted to a 13-year-old, it's not a crime to chat with an adult that pretends to be a minor.
The correct approach for the police in this case would be to watch the guy. Get a warrant to search his house, computer, and internet activity, monitor his phone and internet connections, follow him, etc. Wait until he tries to contact a true child. Otherwise, he is just someone making fun at a guy who pretends to be a 13-year-old girl. There's no crime in that.
If he has the resources to go all the way, I'm willing to bet the case will be dismissed.
If she was interfering with other customers I would've banned her outright.
If she started PM'ing people with talk like that I would've k-lined or g-lined her if I could.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
No, that's not what I understand or has been explained to me, that it actually sends the .gif. Not ascii, not unicode, the actual picture.
There are unicode emoticons. Be afraid.
--
BMO
I am not talking about the technicalities of law. What I mean is that if a cop lies to you, and you bring that up in court, they will laugh at you. But if you lie to a cop, and he brings that up in court, they will take it very seriously as evidence of your guilt. If doing something can have serious negative repercussions for you down the road, you aren't free to do it. And if a person in authority is free to do something, but you are not, that is a worrying situation.
But the police can legally lie to you and manipulate you into incriminating yourself. If a person believes they need to incriminate themselves to gain a lighter sentence or put aside police suspicion, they will do it. It does not matter if the force of law is behind such a claim on the part of police, as long as people believe it is.
That's exactly why they read you the Miranda warning before asking you any questions
So, this means that, like everything else, being "on the internet" makes it different?
I don't suppose the police told this guy "everything you say can be used against you in a court of law, hello, I'm a 13-year-old girl, do you wanna chat?"
It's a penis 8============D
*Actual size.
El sarcasmo esta mucho alto de te cabesa, caballero.
"the same BS being used here to arrest and jail a person could be used to arrest and jail almost any of us for things we do" No, basically just the stuff that's illegal. You won't usually get arrested for being propositioned to commit a crime; YOU have to take some concrete step in commiting that crime.
You do realize there is no actual requirement to read you 'Miranda warning' before they question you right? CSI and all the other TV shows you watch are not reality.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
There is no emoticon to express my outrage at this story!
Please go back and read my comment again, you obviously didn't do it properly the first time. You seem to be under the impression that I think this is not a trivial, inconsequential error, and you are arguing otherwise. We agree on this point. I do think this is a trivial, inconsequential error. My point is that it's the jury's responsibility to decide that, and the jury's opinion of this that matters in the eyes of justice. Your opinion on whether this is an important difference doesn't matter. Mine doesn't matter. The judge's doesn't matter. It was the jury's responsibility to make that decision and it was taken out of their hands by somebody who tampered with the evidence.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Anyway in the US you have the 5th amendment. In most other societies based on common law, you have the right to silence under other names. It's your only right, but it's pretty powerful. All the police can expect from you is your name and address. Period.
In the US you can be charged with perjury for lying under oath, and for obstruction of justice, impeding a criminal investigation, etc. for lying when interrogated. Common law is a English concept, only a few places other than its former colonies recognize the concept. In France you can be compelled to testify, but you can lie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence This rule is followed in many of its former colonies. In the some parts of the world silence is interpreted as admission.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Right, because doing any of that would change the fact that the guy committed a crime.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
What would happen if someone posed as a pedo to lure dumbass teens to a park to teach them a lesson about having sex with pedos? That would be a much more interesting show.
Well, gee, I hope they get the font right next time. And make sure its the same tone of magenta as he uses on his chat program. And get a monitor calibrated to match the settings of his own.
My point exactly.
In fact, the whole jury should have to dogpile onto his chair in front of his computer, in his house, just so it matches the evidence precisely.
For total accuracy, shouldn't they also have to stroke their wieners and fondle their balls while they watch the emoticons?
Wrong.
In the justice system in which he was tried it is entirely legal to set someone up in a sting operation and mislead the suspect until they break the law (even though technically they he didn't break it, he clearly intended to do so).
Cops can set you up, sell you drugs, even use them with you (at least in this state) and you still go to jail for breaking the law and they don't. When there intent is to catch the bad guys, it doesn't matter that the misled you as long as you knowingly broke the law.
They can't tell you 'I'm a cop and its legal to smoke crack with me' and then put you in jail. They can say 'want to hit the crack pipe and rape this 12 year old? No, I'm not a cop' and if you agree to it, they can put you in jail.
You don't get out of the punishment for a crime just because you got duped into being caught. Sorry, reality is entirely different from your fantasy land. If you don't want to get caught commiting a crime ... DON'T COMMIT THE CRIME.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Sorry, meant to reply to OP, not you.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Well then were's the justice? Oh there's none. So it's obviously not a justice system but a mislead-and-lock-up system.
0x or or snor perron?!
I agree, the most suspicious part of the story is that the "cop" stated who he/she was. A real cop doing this kind of thing wouldn't tell anyone who they were until they were in court. I don't even think they would mention the fact when they set up a time to meet.
On second though, this "cop" might have only wanted to scare a few people, not making any arrests, just giving out a few warnings.
Riiiight, just love the script kiddie "it didn't happen to me so I don't believe it" horsehit. First of all who the hell cares what your warez pushing botnet herding script kiddie ass thinks? Did anyone ask your opinion? Frankly it was scum like you that ruined the nice free net we had going so STFU.
Second of all the whole fucking point of the channel was to be for noobs and average Joes who were needing help with computer problems and could get that help without being charged per minute or dealing with 50 tons of spyware and drivebys like what we were dealing with during IE on Win9x being the top combo.
So we weren't herding botnets, spreading warez, playing BOFH and finding new ways to ban people or other dickish douchebag behavior like you yourself are bragging about. because we were dealing with noobs we had to deal with a lot of clueless who didn't read the fucking rules and didn't know shit, that was the whole point of the channel so why would I go though all that horseshit to cook up banlists? Before the douchebags and spammers like yourself spread like the damned clap circa 2000 we frankly didn't really have that kind of trouble so we didn't bother.
So you don't believe? Fine don't really care what a warez pusher thinks, especially one that brags about infecting the people I was trying to help and running botnets. For the rest of /. that is the way it went down, and later I found out that nearly every site connected to that IRC node ended up having a little visit from the "AZ Lolita" as we called her and those that took the bait did get popped less than a year later under a dragnet run by.....drumroll...the Scotsdale AZ PD!
So if you want to believe the cops are really nice guys that never entrap to score a quota or impress a DA? That is your business. As someone who has traveled most of the USA and had my head cracked more than once for being "A god damned hippie driving with a nigger" I know better.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I call bullshit.
I am a cop and I have had training on the subject and worked with officers whom have run chat room stings (I've not worked one myself).
If the events transpired as you indicate then:
A> The person you were chatting with was not a cop.
B> The person you were chatting with was a cop, but shouldn't be because he's a FUCKING MORON.
Oh, and please read up on just what constitutes entrapment. What you describe is enticement, constitutional (if only just), and legal.
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
There is a requirement to read you your rights before a custodial interrogation. The "custodial" part is important; if you're in handcuffs or in a cell or interrogation room, it's pretty clear, but if you're being asked questions at the supposed scene of the crime, things get muddy.
... It was total bullshit and after dealing with them first hand frankly I wouldn't take a cop's word on one of these things if they said it was raining and I was ass deep in water.
Considering cops are allowed to lie to "suspects" (which if a cop is talking to you, your a suspect. Don't matter if you called him to report something, he/she will treat you like a suspect.) I wouldn't trust one ever. Mainly in a court room.
Being a police person is about being in power. Anyone that applies to be a police, shouldn't be, because they will go on a power trip, since they are seeking out the position. You think i'm wrong? Please, show me a cop without a chip on his shoulder.
Be seeing you...
Are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop.
This is where you go wrong - right there in step 1. Cops are allowed to lie to you.
Which makes it really funny that their word is taken as god's in court.
Be seeing you...
Nobody said that. You are arguing against a straw man, not me.
They really aren't. For instance, some badly-written software, to put smileys into a message, switches to the Wingdings font, which has a smiley face at (if memory serves) the codepoint reserved for the letter P, then puts the letter 'P' into the text and switches back to the original font. End result for people with that font installed = smiley. End result for people without that font installed = the letter P. I've seen flamewars kick off due to this because it totally changed the tone of what somebody was saying.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I hold no opinion either way, but I will say that your tone and choice of phrasing does not at all lend credence to your tale.
Cool story, bro.
Unlike some others, I won't speculate if it's true or not, but it's pretty clear this is not what happened in this case. After all, the defence was that OMG, the blushing emoticons were ANIMATED!!!! I think that were his story yours (and true) the entrapment defence would be successful.
Uhm, yes it is because they're the ones bringing up sexual stuff with a minor. Hence why they always lie on To Catch a Predator and say "The subject initiated a sexual conversation", despite their chat logs clearly showing the officer starting things towards sex.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It's close, though. If the cop spends some time talking you into it, like for example if GP had eventually given in and accepted the pics, that would have been entrapment. The idea was the police's, he was clearly unwilling to commit the crime when first approached, and they persuaded him to do it.
Indeed. The Miranda warning is only about arresting you (ie, taking you into custody) and is intended to protect you from abusive interrogations.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I came here hoping to see some good pervy emoticons. Gravely disappointed. Guess I'll have to stick with good ol'
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
For example, simply peeing in public, in some states, is enough to have you arrested and classified as a sexual predator.
The mod-up to +4, "Insightful" demands, I think, some minimal show of proof that what you say is true.
Below is the public registry for New York state, searchable by name, county or zip code. It is restricted to Level 2 and 3 offenders.
Level 2 registrants remain on the list for 20 years, Level 3 for life.
The rap sheet typically includes the age of the victim, the charges on which the registrant was convicted, aggravating circumstances, and conditions of release.
For example:
Victim, female. 12 yrs old
Force used:
Choked
Threat
Hit with hand/fist/club
Search Public Registry of Sex Offenders
"the same BS being used here to arrest and jail a person could be used to arrest and jail almost any of us for things we do"
No, basically just the stuff that's illegal. You won't usually get arrested for being propositioned to commit a crime; YOU have to take some concrete step in commiting that crime.
Taking a step toward committing a crime isn't the same thing as committing a crime, though. Lots of people walk into banks without robbing them. I agree that "intent" crimes are on pretty shaky ground, morally speaking. We're locking people up for what we believe they were about to do, not for what they did - there is no way to prove that we are right, though. Maybe if the 13 year old girl existed and he met her, he would have gotten cold feet, bought her an ice cream cone, and gone home. The only evidence we have that he was going to have sex with a minor is that he said he would... but many people every day say something like, "I will kill that bastard!" They aren't tried and convicted of murder, and rightfully so. Sometimes people say things they don't really mean, or that they do mean at that moment but don't follow up, or that they entirely mean but find themselves physically or emotionally unable to carry through.
If he had a record of such activity, that would be different; his past actions would be evidence that we had prevented a repeat offense. There is no mention of such a past here.
He didn't molest a little girl. He didn't proposition a little girl. He didn't actually do anything wrong. Yet he's quite possibly going to die in prison.
I'm pretty sure it's the police's job to protect everybody. If it's not, then why have them? Why not just identify who isn't to be protected and use the military to round them up into concentration camps?
We had a similar problem on Direct Connect. Our channel was for sharing music that was only released on vinyl 15-20 years ago. Music where only 100 discs might have been pressed and some were selling for triple figures on eBay. It attracted a couple of hundred users.
Every single flipping day we have to remove users for trying to share kiddy porn. They even went to lengths in order to bypass our banning scripts. Sick bastards were probably cops too.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Where the men are men.
The women are men.
And the 13 year old girls are cops.
Who are alo men...
Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
Nobody has ever talked themselves out of a crime. Don't talk to the police.
You are innocently charged with rape. They arrest you after 5PM. The cops say they have DNA and say "we can clear this all up in a couple of hours if you give us a DNA sample."
As far as you know the police having your DNA won't get you into trouble for anything you've done in the past. You also know that your state legislature passed a law recently allowing destruction of the DNA sample and arrest record when you are cleared.
Do you submit now or spend the night in jail waiting for your lawyer?
If you suspect the cops are crooked or lying about the 2-hour timeframe, you wait.
If you don't, it's a case of which is more annoying:
1) Spending the night in jail, avoiding the DNA test, and still having to get a lawyer to get your arrest record expunged.
2) Taking the DNA test, going home in 2 hours, hoping you are right about your DNA not being at any actual crime scenes, and still having to get a lawyer to get your arrest record AND DNA test expunged.
For a lot of people #2 is less annoying.
Now pretend it's a Friday at 3PM and the cops truthfully say "if we have your DNA before 4PM we can have you out tonight, otherwise we'll have to wait until the lab opens back up at 8AM Monday and you'll spend the weekend in jail." Suddenly the balance-of-annoyance changes.
Oh, there is one more factor:
In some states that allow expungement of arrest and related records for non-pursued charges, either the statute of limitations has to run out, the speedy-trial clock has to run out, or the case against you has to be dismissed with prejudice. If the speedy-trial clock is 90 days and the case isn't pro-actively dismissed, your DNA better not show up on any crime scene during those 90 days.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Without treatment, sex-offender recidivism is well below 50%. I've seen a wide range of OVERALL recidivism including people who have had sex-offender therapy and those who have not and the average over 10+ years seems to be in the 20-30% range with the bulk of that early on after release or discharge.
I've seen many studies that show a significant but not eye-popping benefit for sex-offender therapy - something along the order of reducing recidivism by 1/5 to 1/3 of what it would have been - if a given person was a "30% risk" of committing a new sex crime over the next 10 years w/o treatment, you could expect that with treatment this risk goes drops to low as 20%. If his initial risk was 20%, then it likely drops to about 13%, and so on. Of course, every case is individual and some people's risk will drop from whatever to zero with treatment, others won't change at all.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Personally, I think there is some genetic component to pedophilia, at least in most cases.
There's also a genetic component to anger, some forms of sociopathic behavior, and some mental illnesses that affect judgment and self-control.
We don't "treat" homosexuality try to prevent homosexual sexual behavior because it's not harmful to others outside of a spiritual sense, and a person's spiritual well-being is their own business not society's. We as a society don't "treat" heterosexuality to try to prevent heterosexual sexual behavior among consenting adults either, although we do try to prevent teenagers from having sex and I hope the Roman Catholic Church has a program to help those who have taken vows of celibacy to live by them if they feel sexual attractions to women.
Adults having sex with kids or adults more than a few years older than under-aged teenagers having sex with them is generally harmful emotionally and, for intercourse with someone who isn't physically developed, physically. For this reason society needs to discourage it. In some cases, such as adults having penetrative with prepubescent kids where the adult penetrates whatever is between the legs front or back, this needs to be discouraged with extreme prejudice. Ditto any case that leaves the kid or underage teenager thinking he didn't have the complete freedom to say no whether or not penetration happened.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Um, actually, yes, that is exactly what entrapment is. You're a fucking moron.
Anonymous Coward writes:
New stuff is appearing left and right, the underground networks run much deeper and safer than the scene or any other wannabes...
Please send whatever evidence you have to your local, state/provincial, or national police authorities at once.
Thank you.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You totally misread me.
My argument is that if a guy goes to a place that has 80% cops looking for kids, and that's what he's looking for, anyone charging him with attempted child molestation or other kid-sex crimes has a heavy burden of proof that he was, in fact, looking to prey on kids and not have sex games with cops pretending to be kids.
On the other hand, if the same guy goes into a chat room with 80% kids or even 40% kids the burden of proof is on him that he was, in fact, looking for cops not kids. Unfortunately for him nobody will believe him when he makes such a claim under such circumstances. Besides, even if the prosecutor, grand jury, or jury does believe his story he'll still be guilty of reckless endangerment if he knew or should have known that many kids were around.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Actually, IANAL either, BUT I do know this much - if you give a false statement to the cops (whether a witness report, police report, or otherwise) you could be charged with:
- Giving a false statement to police. - Filing a false police report. - Impeding an official investigation.
Actually, I believe the above is true only if the police officer has identified him/herself as such. So this wouldn't cover chats with an undercover cop.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Thank you. Nice to see someone else had to deal with the crap, even if I wouldn't wish dealing with them for all the tea in China.
We didn't allow the passing or sharing of files since me and the fellow repairmen mods all had our own servers so if someone needed a file for a fix we could point them to the public server and have the files (along with step by step instructions, because in the days of Win9x some of those .VXD drivers could be a bear) waiting for them. At the time my boss had set up an INSANE 600 Gb (this was when the average drive was 40Gb and 80Gb would break you on price) filled with just about every driver from Win3.x to Win2K (this was long before the days of driverpacks) set up in this monster Frankenstein cage made up of two ATX towers spot welded together. It was VERY cool!
But the reason I ended up passing on the channel and walking away was after the "AZ Lolita" we ended up getting crapflodded by "Hi I'm a (insert age) girl, want to see my naked pics?" kind of crap which I have NO doubt was nothing but cops and which quickly made wading through their bullshit to get to the actual people needing help more trouble than it was worth. I heard later the channel closed down soon after because the mods ended up spending more time blocking cops than they did helping people and like me got sick of it.
Pretty sad when you can't even set up a simple site like that or like your trading ancient oldies without it being filled with cops trolling. I wonder how much of our taxpayer's money is blown each year for these "sting" which as I said if were anything like mine were the classic definition of entrapment. I hate kiddie pervs but I bet if the cops spent just 1/6th the time actually going after those that touch kids instead of trolling forums the world would be a better place.
Nice to see that I wasn't alone in dealing with this shit though and I wouldn't doubt the CP pushers on your site were cops as I talked to another of the former mods a year later who told me that the "AZ Lolita" was pushing a crapload of CP that actually had a .BAT script in it (as he ended up cleaning a PC the Lolita infected) that would shotgun the files all over the drive. My guess is it was to make sure they would be able to easily find a copy of the files even if they tried to delete them, since copies would be dumped in weird places like subfolders on Win32. really scummy crap if you ask me.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I’m a retired Texas lawyer. I have won a 5:7 jury deadlock in the first of 87 dope delivery cases to go to trial using an entrapment defense, resulting in all the offers including the one to my first offender, avidly recruited over time with a series of parties featuring steaks and beer, etc., coming down from 40-60 years to probation. Of course, the risky thing about an entrapment defense is that your client has to tell the jury “I did it” right up front but then demonstrate that he would not have engaged in the conduct but for the officials’ persuasive misconduct. Merely offering someone the opportunity to violate the law if he is so inclined is not entrapment, but there is one U. S. Supreme Court case in which the majority of Justices found and held that the government had been so persistent and persuasive in finally getting someone with no known history of interest or viewing to order child porn, by mail, that it crossed the line and created the crime. I, and some other lawyers in the same building, received one similar mailing, which may have been from the same government operation, years ago, but I sent it to the Postal Inspectors, and never received any more, nor did I hear any more about this until I read the Supreme Court opinion later. I have represented a few child molesters, after and as a direct result of having, very unexpectedly, found myself representing and in other privileged and confidential relationships with an awful lot of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, most of which is incest. Some of the abusers, unlike this defendant who looks like Central Casting’s or the average person’s picture of a perp, were socially, economically, and politically prominent and powerful (palmed off on us by both parties) so didn’t get busted. It is entirely legal and proper for the authorities to offer willing would-be criminals the opportunity to commit crimes and then catch and bust them, as long as the government and its agents do not affirmatively persuade them to commit or attempt to commit the crime. If you don’t see a cop so you speed, and get caught by a cop behind a billboard, that’s your problem because you should not have been speeding. If you try to buy child porn, which can’t be made without abusing a child, or to buy or otherwise solicit sex from someone you believe to be a child too young to consent, dope, an illegal firearm or one you are legally ineligible to possess, or hire a hit-man to kill someone, and get caught because you were really dealing with a cop, you are morally and legally guilty. Assuming that it would be reasonably foreseeable that anyone would be persuaded by “animated emoticons” to try to get something he didn’t want and intend to buy anyway, much less sex with a child which anyone knows is illegal, the short answer to this rather ludicrously desperate argument is that the defendant went looking for sex with a child on line, but for which search, and opening the link, he would never have come to the pitch much less these “animated emoticons.” Trying to have sex with an underage girl is crime one element of which, that the government must prove beyond reasonable doubt, is specific intent.