Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

First "OMG the common sense" post by 3.5+stripes · 2014-07-03 03:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's fairly surprising, and really quite reasonable.

--

He tried to kill me with a forklift!

Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by fermion · 2014-07-03 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is because he was a cop. Recall that people have sent to jail for creating 'terrorist fantasies' because the FBI gave them the means and opportunity to carry out the fantasy. The courts do and have sent people to jail for fantasies. It is called conspiracy. In this case the fantasy targeted specific females, while the cop had means and opportunities to make those fantasies a reality. Remember that he went as far as using the police database to compile a list of real women he fantasized of eating, and was convicted for misuse of that database, so the fact this was moving out of fantasy has been proven. This is not a flight of reason. I am sure if a common person used a database to collect information on the judge or the judge's family and then wrote a detailed plan of how the family was to be murdered, we would not be getting of with a simple misuse of private information. This is clearly another case of no consequences for cops who break the law.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-03 04:04 · Score: 1

Yes, now let's hope that they extend the result of this ruling to apply to all citizens, not just ones in employ of the King (by which I mean the government).

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:18 · Score: 0

Didn't we throw a guy in jail who did the exact same thing (fantasizing and sharing online) about eating kids?
How is this any different? Shouldn't this guy get a mandatory psych evaluation to see just how nuts he is?
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:19 · Score: 0

He wasn't convicted of misuse of a database. He was convicted of conspiracy to kidnap, and murder. Presumably the act of misusing a database occurred before there was even a conspiracy agreement in the first place, therefore arguably the overt act of miusing a database shouldn't be contributed to the conspiracy to kidnap...
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by maz2331 · 2014-07-03 04:22 · Score: 2

The arrests for terrorism only happen when there is an overt act taken in the real world (aka "meatspace") where an actual attempt is made to do damage. The cops just ensure that the damage isn't actually possible, but the target of their investigation doesn't know that.
That said, those cases do need to be very carefully reviewed for entrapment concerns. If the cops are coercing or near-brainwashing someone with a weak personality into doing something that they wouldn't otherwise do then there is a big problem, whereas if they are only playing along with a pre-existing plot or tendency then it is not entrapment.
This is a case where there is plenty of probable cause to have initiated an investigation and termination of employment, and any appropriate punishment for misuse of public records, but until the acts discussed were actually acted upon in some way in the real world it wasn't yet a crime.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by MMC+Monster · 2014-07-03 04:40 · Score: 1

Presumably he'll get some sort of mandatory time in front of a psychiatrist to make sure he's fit for active duty.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by dougisfunny · 2014-07-03 04:45 · Score: 2

I would think the fantasizing, "I am going to have to use the database to find someone who fits these parameters" would be the fantasy, and actually using the database to find someone who meets the target requirements would be the overt act.

--
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by anagama · 2014-07-03 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually he _was_ convicted of misusing the DB (max sentence 12 months). He's been in jail for more than 18 months so at this point, he has served more than enough to satisfy the highest possible sentence.
As a side note, the most disturbing part of this case to me, was Valle's illegal use of the DB to find out information about people for purely personal reasons. I'm sort of shocked that such a crime carries a max 12 month sentence. What that says to me is that law enforcement agencies and the governments that set them up, don't really care how their own misuse government power. Nor does the media for the most part as demonstrated by the thousands of words spent on the prurient charms of this case, but in any article, there is at most a single sentence about the DB issue.
Here's an example:
Tabloid same as NY Times, you'll have to search the page for "database" to find that single sentence.:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I would think the fantasizing, "I am going to have to use the database to find someone who fits these parameters" would be the fantasy, and actually using the database to find someone who meets the target requirements would be the overt act.
Except that's not what happened, at least according to what I've read. He used the database not to FIND victims, but to look up personal information about women he already knew. It's still abuse of police power, and he should be punished for that (and was).
The question is whether he ever appeared to use that information in any way that would further his supposed "conspiracy." And the actual evidence says that not only did he NOT use that information to plan attacks, but he deliberately kept that information to himself. He never shared any information from the databases with his supposed "co-conspirators," and in fact deliberately changed up personal details of the supposed "victims" (including mixing in false things with true) when he posted about his fantasies.
If he were actually trying to use this information to plan an elaborate plot to kill people, why would he intentionally avoid sharing this (illegally-obtained) information with his "conspirators" and why would he feed them false information? On the other hand, if he was a generally law-abiding cop who felt guilty about his inappropriate access to personal data and actually wanted to be sure his "conspirators" never went too far, his behavior makes perfect sense.
Furthermore, in terms of "overt acts," one needs to consider the history of all of these "plots." There were many, many "plots" hatched, dates mentioned, all sorts of details given, but there's no evidence that any of these actors in the "conspiracy" ever actually took actions in the real world to make any of these detailed plots possible. This would suggest that there was no intention to actually carry out most of these "plots," and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that some particular plot was ever actually serious and set in motion... since in context, it's clear the default was that the plots were fantasy.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:18 · Score: 0

I think you're confusing the words "accused" and "convicted."
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:50 · Score: 0

I realize this is really about the privileged elites, their protectors and keeping their plebs in check, but if this man now acts out on his fantasies, everybody who participated of keeping this man's freedom is now guilty of enabling and aiding a planned crime, except for his lawyer.
Of course, the courts will never deliver such justice as presedent and not law rule the land.
Not really sure what is right and wrong here, but I believe the man should get assistance in switching to an occupation better sui.... oh wait, this is perfect of course. Nothing wron ghere. Nothing to see. Move along people!
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by meta-monkey · 2014-07-03 06:01 · Score: 2

Yeah, max 12 months? If it were a civilian misusing a government database (probably via DANGEROUS HAXORING!!) to find out personal information about police officers, they'd probably be charged separately for each officer they looked up, with 10 years per offense under the CFAA.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:08 · Score: 0

Based on your report. I would throw in there, how does one know this is a fantasy? It's possible if one stews on it long enough they could commit the actual act itself! I agree with one comment that because he was a pig, he was allowed to go free, but anyone else would have had no choice but to serve out the full time, and would have seen their appeals rejected. And the only other way to get enough attention to motivate the appeals court would be to have nation wide media outlets reporting about it.
Their are 2, 12 year old girls arrested for plotting and try to kill another 12 year girl, all three are "friends" they used the internet to plan out exactly how they were going to it which was like a satanic ceremony, only they didn't believe in Satan. I would give a citation but the link story is down. They thought it was just a joke or fantasy but one girl allowed it to flourish into a full blown ritual killing, convincing the other to go in on it.
Maybe a little far fetched in this mans case, but their should be some type of mental evaluation if not several to see if this idiot fantasy could become a reality.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by jma05 · 2014-07-03 06:24 · Score: 1

Your sig: "Eat Locals!" somehow does not go well with the case you just argued :-).
> I am sure if a common person used a database to collect information on the judge or the judge's family and then wrote a detailed plan of how the family was to be murdered, we would not be getting of with a simple misuse of private information.
Which is why the law will not allow that judge to take up that case because he will no longer be able to judge objectively. That argument... what if he did it to the judge?... is never a good argument.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Algae_94 · 2014-07-03 07:09 · Score: 1

I'm sort of shocked that such a crime carries a max 12 month sentence. What that says to me is that law enforcement agencies and the governments that set them up, don't really care how their own misuse government power.
Are you saying that a year in prison is not long enough for illegal use of a database? That seems like a suitable punishment to me.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by anagama · 2014-07-03 07:49 · Score: 2

If you aren't a member of the government, the same or less will get you a decade or more. What I meant without being clear enough, was that the special treatment is shocking given the special access government officials have. If the government cared about people's privacy, those in a position of trust who fail to safeguard that privacy would be subject to the same or more punishment as any random person who did the same thing.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by CreatureComfort · 2014-07-03 08:26 · Score: 2

Are you kidding? He wants to kill and eat people!"

Hand him a badge and gun, right now.

--
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-07-03 08:44 · Score: 3, Informative

The courts do and have sent people to jail for fantasies. It is called conspiracy.
NO.

As this judge correctly pointed out, there is a difference between discussing fantasies and conspiracy. One is mere thoughts, or discussion of ideas. The other requires not just an agreement among parties to do something specific, in the Unites States almost always an "overt act" must be carried out to make it actual conspiracy.

For example: two guys discuss for years that they want to rob the rich guy down the street. As long as they are just talking, they haven't broken any laws. They can plan all they want to. They can fantasize about using bombs, shotguns, pitchforks, or whatever the hell they please in order to do the job. But as soon as they meet in a parking lot to go do it, or one of them starts building one of the discussed bombs in his basement, they are guilty of conspiracy.

The point is: in the U.S. you generally have freedom of speech and you can say pretty much whatever you want. But as soon as you ACT to carry out some crime you were discussing with someone, you are guilty of conspiracy. THAT is the difference between "thought crime" and actual crime.

Wikipedia puts it this way:

Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act...
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 08:59 · Score: 0

This is clearly another case of no consequences for cops who break the law.
While I agree that if this guy had not been a cop, there would have been far harsher consequences, I'm not seeing where a law was broken. So it's more like "cop does something not socially accepted that would get a non-cop thrown in jail, but is not technically illegal, so the cop goes free".
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by david_thornley · 2014-07-03 09:17 · Score: 1

In a conspiracy charge, the overt act doesn't have to be harmful or illegal in itself, and AFAICT they are not properly reviewed for entrapment. In this case, the perp did indeed look up information on women he fantasized about, and there have been conspiracy convictions with more innocuous overt acts.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re: First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 09:19 · Score: 0

" if one stews on it long enough "
I see what you did there!
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 09:24 · Score: 0

12 months + loss of job + loss of pension, which does increase the stakes a little - though I agree for what that is worth.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by jthill · 2014-07-03 10:56 · Score: 2

It is because he was a cop
Nope.. This has happened before, it will happen again. There's a substantial cultural skein in this country that thinks feeling threatened should be enough to jail the cause. Judges, fortunately, still know that thoughts are not crimes. Expressing thoughts is not a crime. Desires are not crimes. Expressing desires is not a crime. Somebody claiming they feel threatened by you does not constitute you making a threat. Making a threat is a crime. Somebody saying "if Obama shows up, somebody's going to shoot him" is not a crime. Substituting "if Obama shows up, I hope somebody shoots him" is not a crime. It's asinine, things in that vein are commonly expressed by people so deeply gulled, so utterly out of touch with reality, that I regard them as insane on the subject. But expressing those desires just makes them idiot children, not criminals.

--
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by ed1park · 2014-07-03 17:27 · Score: 1

What if he fantasized this way about the president?
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Lotana · 2014-07-03 19:23 · Score: 1

Who doesn't? I always thought it was the norm to plot the overthrow of your wife/boss/unions/government. Just as long as you don't implement it.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 01:38 · Score: 0

This is clearly another case of no consequences for cops who break the law.
Yeah, there's a conspiracy between federal district judges and local police agencies.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by GuB-42 · 2014-07-04 05:09 · Score: 1

I'm sort of shocked that such a crime carries a max 12 month sentence.
It's actually a serious punishment if it's just the act of using the DB for personal reasons.
If you are using that info to commit another crime, you will probably get a second aggravated sentence.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-07-04 06:22 · Score: 1

Who doesn't? I always thought it was the norm to plot the overthrow of your wife/boss/unions/government. Just as long as you don't implement it.
Some years ago, I was told there was some "law" against saying you were going to kill the President. I don't know if that's actually true, but it doesn't sound in line with other law about this kind of thing.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Reziac · 2014-07-04 06:26 · Score: 1

Lets say the fantasy is about bombing or shooting up an airport. How far do the "making threats in an airport" laws go?

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 16:16 · Score: 0

He should be fired and placed into a mental institution. Even thinking about killing and eating someone is wrong.
Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-05 16:44 · Score: 0

Actually the reason that he was sentenced for thought crime may be that sentencing him harshly for his actual deeds would have send nearly all american cops in a rampage ("WHAT! You DARE tell us that we're not allowed to break the law as it please to us? You terr'ist!")...

and yet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:39 · Score: 0

We throw kids in jail who post fantasies about killing bullies. Maybe this is the first step towards fixing that problem.

Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:44 · Score: 0

The kid can have his free pass when he gets his badge.

Re:Should probably be locked up by ColdWetDog · 2014-07-03 03:40 · Score: 1

Didn't he use a police database to look for women? Didn't he browse the web looking for ways to cook human flesh?
Fuck this guy.

What ever floats your boat, dude.

Seriously, Timothy - just why is this on Slashdot? Are you channeling something? Is this a hint? Are we trying to compete with the New York Daily News?
Does this actually matter?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Could have been ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2014-07-03 03:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

... a novelist or script writer or something. Imagine Hitchcock or Stephen King before they made it big. They must have such dark thoughts, some of them committed to paper. Easy to imagine the "script" as a thinly veiled attempt by a depraved individual to distance himself from his perverted fantasies. Well, they did not have internet then, and they had the sensibility to pitch it as novel or script.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Could have been ... by CaptainLard · 2014-07-03 03:57 · Score: 1

... a novelist or script writer or something. Imagine Hitchcock or Stephen King before they made it big. They must have such dark thoughts, some of them committed to paper.
About their girlfriend? Is there a difference between general deviant thought and deviant thoughts against a specific person you interact with regularly? Just askin...
Re:Could have been ... by CastrTroy · 2014-07-03 04:08 · Score: 1

Also, there's probably a difference between having thoughts, and writing down those thoughts and posting them on an internet forum. Death threats are illegal. Posting online that you are going to kill and eat a real person could probably be considered a death threat.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Could have been ... by sir-gold · 2014-07-03 04:12 · Score: 1

"People think that I must be a very strange person. This is not correct. I have the heart of a small boy. It is in a glass jar on my desk." -Stephen King
Re:Could have been ... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-03 04:15 · Score: 1

Not really.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Could have been ... by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-03 04:16 · Score: 1

Hitchcock should have been hanged.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Could have been ... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:27 · Score: 0

Also, there's probably a difference between having thoughts, and writing down those thoughts and posting them on an internet forum. Death threats are illegal. Posting online that you are going to kill and eat a real person could probably be considered a death threat.
Not unless you actually, well, threatened someone. A "death threat" involves actually contacting the target or posting a message in a place where it will be communicated to the target. Thus, the person is threatened.
Posting a message in some random place that the target is unlikely to read it is NOT a death threat. It may be evidence of intent to commit murder (and hence evidence for a charge of attempted murder), or, if discussed with others, it might be evidence of conspiracy to commit murder (again with sufficient evidence of intent).
But both charges of attempted murder and conspiracy require proof of intent to actually commit the crime. That was lacking in this case, hence the acquittal. But they couldn't charge him with making a death threat, since that would involve his actually communicating the threat to a victim.
Re:Could have been ... by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 04:41 · Score: 1

The trick now is to re-phrase your death threats in the form of a fictional story, poem, or lyric and post it online as a work of art. Recall that movie that involved a plot to assassinate Bush?
Re:Could have been ... by timothy · 2014-07-03 07:20 · Score: 1

That's just what Mr. Humbert said ;)

--
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5

Re:Should probably be locked up by Herder+Of+Code · 2014-07-03 03:44 · Score: 1

Well, he used a computer at some point so it's Slashdot material :)

I take it by present_arms · 2014-07-03 03:46 · Score: 2

I take it he just didn't post "I'd love to eat her out" then. Seriously though it's getting rather dangerous when people are being jailed for thinking something bad, who here at one time or another hasn't had "evil" thoughts at one time or another?

--
http://chimpbox.us

Re:I take it by u38cg · 2014-07-03 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

It appears he had a very strongly developed paraphilia; but the long and short of it is there was no evidence that he ever intended to take practical steps and there was no psychological evidence of risk. This is one that really shouldn't have gone to trial to start with; however, it's easy to understand why the jury convicted.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:I take it by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-03 04:06 · Score: 1

He went victim-shopping on a classified police database, the only charge that actually stuck.
Dude wasn't just fantasizing, he was conspiring.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:I take it by jythie · 2014-07-03 05:00 · Score: 2

One of the core problems is that many people believe that having paraphilia means the person will act on it. Males who deviate from normal are assumed to also be incapable of controlling themselves, thus unlike 'normal' males, these deviates will take what they want no matter what.

Personally, it kinda reminds me of all the heterosexuals I have seen claim that what they were doing was not child abuse because 'they are not gay'.... every time I hear people talking about how people with fetishes will go to non-concentual extremes to satisfy their desires I wonder if they have a nugget of rape in their past they are trying to convince themselves could not have actually been rape since THEY are not a deviant.
Re:I take it by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 05:23 · Score: 1

I have to agree. If someone posts Jihadist fantasies online and is also heavily involved in a pyrotechnic hobby, I think we (law enforcement) step in and do something about it. Kids have been arrested and tried as adults when they had notebooks filled with very detailed Columbine-like plots against their schools. You are free to have creepy thoughts all you want, but if those thoughts appear to a jury to be a murder or terrorist plot, then be prepared to serve some time for those thought.
Re:I take it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 07:56 · Score: 0

it's easy to understand why the jury convicted.
It's because of shit like this that in most of the modern world trial outcomes are decided by trained professionals rather than a group of random people taken off the street who couldn't be smart enough to get out of it.
It's people's lives you're messing with. Trials by jury are essentially a modern version of public stoning.
Re:I take it by HiThere · 2014-07-03 08:19 · Score: 1

Especially given the way that they are presented with carefully doctored evidence, and they way other relevant evidence is excluded. And the way they aren't allowed to ask questions when they are uncertain about what something means.
Well....perhaps the fault isn't strictly that of the jury.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:I take it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 11:28 · Score: 0

Homosexuality is a paraphilia too. Funny how the 'gays' go ballistic whenever you point this out.
Re:I take it by CauseBy · 2014-07-03 13:23 · Score: 1

I thought he looked up actual real women in a database to gather information about them which would assist him in carrying out his fantasies. Isn't that a fact of the case? isn't that "taking practical steps"?
It's a hard question. Do we actually have to wait for a monster to murder and eat a woman, or can we arrest him the day before he does it, at which point he has only established a clear motive, capability, willingness, and preparation? I don't know. I don't think the answer is obviously yes or no.
Re:I take it by u38cg · 2014-07-03 20:41 · Score: 1

Yes, he did, but at the same time none of those actions show any sort of planning process. Essentially the information he found was just fuel for his fantasies. Of course you're right, there is going to be a grey area between enthusiastic fantasy and clear intent to act, but this case doesn't seem to have approached this zone.

--
[FUCK BETA]
Re:I take it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-05 16:46 · Score: 0

He definitely should have be tried and sentenced; but for that he actually did, not for thought crimes.
Re:I take it by CauseBy · 2014-07-05 17:28 · Score: 1

Interesting. What do you think would be clear evidence of planning which could not be explained as fuel for fantasies?
Re: I take it by DEN_GUY · 2014-07-06 15:47 · Score: 1

Unless you count count compiling a victims list "practical steps". Maybe we shoukd wait until he arrives at one of the victim's homes?

Is this true? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:47 · Score: 0

We don't put people in jail for their thoughts.

I'm not convinced this is true.

Re:Is this true? by praxis · 2014-07-03 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

We don't put people in jail for their thoughts.
I'm not convinced this is true.
Neither was the judge, I take it. I believe that was a statement to remind us how we intend to live not how we do live.
Re:Is this true? by nitehawk214 · 2014-07-03 05:41 · Score: 1

We don't put people in jail for their thoughts.
I'm not convinced this is true.
You should have said "I don't think this is true." And then immediately been incarcerated.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

Would be different by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2014-07-03 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.

However, I agree with the judgement. It's a very slippery slop once that line is crossed and you have to take the good with the bad when you want ANY freedom.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Re:Would be different by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 03:50 · Score: 2

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.
Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:00 · Score: 0

It's a very slippery slop
And with the cannibal cop, the slop would be especially slippery. Uh oh, probably shouldn't be thinking about such jokes. Good thing the ruling went the way it did....
Re:Would be different by gnasher719 · 2014-07-03 04:01 · Score: 4, Funny

Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.
Because it was mostly politicians being killed. And because Harrison Ford survived.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:04 · Score: 0

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.
Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.
When politicians came out and said NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OF USING PLANES AS MISSLES!"...I thought...don't any of them read Clancy?
Re:Would be different by Nidi62 · 2014-07-03 04:05 · Score: 1

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.
Tom Clancy penned a novel in 1994 that ended with a 767 being flown into the United States Capitol. Seven years before 9/11. Nobody put him in jail, before or after.
I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Would be different by sir-gold · 2014-07-03 04:09 · Score: 1

That's because he wrote it in English. If he had written the book in Arabic, it would have been classified as a terrorist training manual.
Re:Would be different by fustakrakich · 2014-07-03 04:13 · Score: 1

He was already famous. Anyone writing a similar essay while in high school would be investigated, if not suspended or expelled. Even hand gestures are grounds for punishment. And lord help you if you write anything about sex!

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Would be different by byeley · 2014-07-03 04:25 · Score: 1

Lots of people have been sentenced for similar material depicting minors under the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
The enforcement is pretty arbitrary though.
Re:Would be different by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 04:28 · Score: 1

I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.
After 9/11 we actually got pretty good at keeping terrorists from getting to the United States, so I don't think attacks like these are a particularly likely occurrence. First you've got to get enough committed people here to carry out the attacks, which means you have to find people that aren't already on the radar of American intelligence, then get them through the Visa process. Once they're here you've got to obtain all the weaponry you'll need, because you're sure as hell not bringing it here in your checked baggage, so now you've got to deal with the American criminal element (not exactly the most trustworthy lot) to get your hands on a cache of firearms and explosives, all while remaining off the radar of law enforcement. It's really not as easy as it sounds when you open those technothrillers....
Even if you pulled it off, I doubt you could duplicate what we saw in Kenya or Mumbai. American law enforcement isn't likely to shrink from the confrontation like some of the Mumbai police did. They're well armed and well trained for these sorts of things. You've also got a non-zero chance of running into armed civilians and private security, depending on your choice of targets. I doubt the average civilian concealed carrier or rent-a-cop could stop a committed assault, but they've got a decent chance at taking one or more bad guys out with them, so that's yet another thing that could go wrong from the perspective of the would be attackers.
I suppose you could worry about domestic terrorists doing the same, because they're already here and would have an easier time arming themselves. Of course, shooting up a shopping mall doesn't seem like their style, and the Government is fairly adept at infiltrating these types of organizations before they can pull off anything serious.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Would be different by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-03 04:29 · Score: 2, Informative

The conservative talk radio stuff was yammering about that when it happened. G. Gordon Liddy was praising one of the victims, a man who had predicted hijacked airplanes hitting the World Trade center and insisted on either leaving or training for evacuation without the aid of useless first-responders. This is a man who got all of his people out of Tower 2, then went back in to find anyone else that might be in there. The damn thing collapsed with him in it.
Then, conservative politicians pop up talking about how nobody ever thought of that shit.
So, conservative talk show host praises conservative office manager for predicting 9/11 as the most likely form of terrorist attack in 1995. Conservative politicians scream that nobody ever thought of that form of terrorist attack before. Face palms all around.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:32 · Score: 0

Nobody goes to the mall anymore; we all shop online.
Re:Would be different by Nidi62 · 2014-07-03 04:33 · Score: 0

I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.
After 9/11 we actually got pretty good at keeping terrorists from getting to the United States, so I don't think attacks like these are a particularly likely occurrence. First you've got to get enough committed people here to carry out the attacks, which means you have to find people that aren't already on the radar of American intelligence, then get them through the Visa process. Once they're here you've got to obtain all the weaponry you'll need, because you're sure as hell not bringing it here in your checked baggage, so now you've got to deal with the American criminal element (not exactly the most trustworthy lot) to get your hands on a cache of firearms and explosives, all while remaining off the radar of law enforcement. It's really not as easy as it sounds when you open those technothrillers....
Remember how they got over in the book: our southern border is very porous. And once inside the country guns are very easy to get, and even semi-automatic rifles purchased legally can be dangerous in the wrong hands. All you need is one convert or supporter here to buy the guns at a gun show, gun stores, or even privately over the internet.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Would be different by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 04:36 · Score: 1

Tom Clancy was actually interviewed by CNN on 9/11. I remember listening to it on the local radio station, which decided to cut their normal feed and broadcast CNN Radio for the duration of the day. We got all of our news from the radio that day, along with the extra edition of the local paper, because we were at work with no television and the internet was too bogged down to be useful. None of us actually saw what had happened until we got home from work, which made it really surreal.
For some reason the Clancy interview is one of the things that sticks out in my mind when I think of that day. Maybe because I had already read Debt of Honor.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Would be different by nabsltd · 2014-07-03 04:37 · Score: 1

I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.
The scenarios from Larry Bond's The Enemy Within are also pretty scary. If they came to pass, it's likely the entire US highway system would be completely TSA'd.
Re:Would be different by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's FUD. Yes the Southern Border is porous. Find me one example of a terrorist that has entered the country via that route. Just one. I'm not aware of it having happened. The United States shares intelligence with Mexico and Canada, so you're still dealing with the same fundamental problem of getting into the Western Hemisphere without being detected. Effectively you've given the security forces two bites at your apple, because you're going to have to sneak past Canadian/Mexican customs and American customs (legal route) or the Border Patrol (illegal route). If it was as easy as you make it sound it would have happened already. Heck, they've actually tried it from the Northern Border, and been caught while doing so.
The gun stuff is FUD too. It's "very easy" to get your hands on a cache of firearms large enough to conduct a Mumbai style attack? Where exactly is it "easy" to do that? You can't go the legal route as a non-citizen. That leaves you with the choice of obtaining them from private sellers and/or the black market. Option #1 doesn't scale and Option #2 runs the risk of detection by law enforcement. The only way I can see pulling it off would be to have a sleeper agent in the United States months before your planned attack, who slowly assembled the required weapons cache, but the longer you're here the more likely it is that you get caught. Murphy's Law applies even to terrorists.....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Would be different by PPH · 2014-07-03 04:57 · Score: 1

After 9/11 we actually got pretty good at keeping terrorists from getting to the United States,
Actually, no. Some noteworthy cases involve people in our military. That is getting pretty deep into our society, IMO. What we are good at doing is keeping a lid on the extremism that allows such people to organize and plan something more destructive than a crazed lone gunman.
Most of the Muslims in this country are much less extreme than their brethern in the Middle East. I guess they look around and figure that they have things pretty damned good here compared to back home.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Would be different by swb · 2014-07-03 05:14 · Score: 1

I think the fact that those kinds of attacks haven't happened is a very good argument that terrorism is highly overstated.
Despite all our collective disgust with cameras, eavesdropping, and so on, America remains a very easy society to move about freely and there is very little security over the kinds of targets terrorists would have a field day with, like shopping malls, power substations, oil refineries, and so on.
What effect on the economy would a series of coordinated attacks on malls have on the day after Thanksgiving? Even if you could get people to go out and shop, sales would be off disastrously. What kind of economic impact would even a half-intelligent and coordinated attack on electric transmission of a given region?
None of it seems very hard to pull off, especially if you consider the impact of the involvement of a state actor who could provide funding and basic training in tactics.
Re:Would be different by RyoShin · 2014-07-03 05:19 · Score: 1

he wrote about child pornography
Glad you're already +5, because my mod points expired yesterday. The judge wouldn't have given him a second look if it was pedophilic(?) fiction, despite falling under the same kind of fantasy. (Of course, as others have mentioned, him being a cop probably landed him on the good side of the judge and a common citizen wouldn't have been freed.)
Disgusting though it is, disgust should not be used as the main criteria for laws.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:19 · Score: 0

> Nobody put him in jail
Considering he's been in solitary confinement since October and was put there by a group of hard-core Republicans, you're not right. His kind is disgusting. They always call for violence and hate people because of the color of their skin, and only vary rarely do they get punished. In this case, Clancy went to far for even the diehard murderous Republicans. He was the architect of 9/11.
Re:Would be different by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 05:28 · Score: 1

If the plot from Invasion USA starts to be implemented, I am holding Chuck Norris personally responsible to get out there and kill ALL the terrorists. With his fists. While drinking hot tea.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:44 · Score: 0

Or the circa 1995 Bojinka plot...some of us were paying attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oplan_Bojinka_plot
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:44 · Score: 0

Wow, assuming the Wikipedia page isn't exaggerated why wasn't that guy front page news? He probably single handily saved over 1,000 lives (possibly up to 2,600) apparently in direct contradiction to official instructions to stay in the building. And after that marched right back into Tower 2 and was unfortunately killed.
Re:Would be different by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 05:50 · Score: 2

Uhh, he was a natural born American citizen, so how exactly do you propose we keep him out of the United States? I was referring to foreign terrorists, in fact I believe I even made a comment about would-be domestic terrorists having an easier go of it.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:52 · Score: 0

Perhaps you should watch the TV series 'Homeland' from 2011. it's about a US Marine terrorist, planning to blow up the VP, and entire US Military and Security cabinets. I guess if it's on a network though, that's allowed.
** SPOILER ALERT **
- he gets the oppurtunity to do it, finger on the IED trigger!
Re:Would be different by MobyDisk · 2014-07-03 05:53 · Score: 1

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.
Is it? If so, why?
Re:Would be different by russotto · 2014-07-03 06:27 · Score: 1

What effect on the economy would a series of coordinated attacks on malls have on the day after Thanksgiving?
Perhaps an end to the insanity that is Black Friday and the Christmas season in general? Shopping being better-distributed throughout the year rather than packed into a month? Should be a long-term win. Hell, if I were a cop I'd fantasize about doing it for just those reasons.
Re:Would be different by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2014-07-03 06:43 · Score: 1

I bet you if he wrote about child pornography or terrorism it would be a different story.
Is it? If so, why?
Yes. Public (or press projected) perception, sensativity, and/or fear.
Although a terrorism writing may have more latitude since shows like 24 are all the rage.
Reading the article is seemed like it was pulled straight from an episode of Criminal Minds IMO.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Re:Would be different by bluefoxlucid · 2014-07-03 06:50 · Score: 1

I could imagine that. Clancey: "Didn't I tell you this was gonna happen? What are you retarded? Is your head full of rice instead of brains?"

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Would be different by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 07:35 · Score: 0

After 9/11 we actually got pretty good at keeping terrorists from getting to the United States
You know, they don't come with chest labels: "Smile! I am a terrorist!" or a warning label "Do not dry clean, may explode in contact with some cleaning chemicals."
So where did the assertion come from? Neither of us could make a claim like that. It's secret information anyway. We are not privy. We know this. You are not privy. What we get in the news is created for the "local market". You know this. As a simple proof, I offer the following, before disappearing back to the AC aether:
Just use abc.net.au/news and rt.com to investigate and compare the following.
In Australian news today, Russia and Ukraine are reported as observing a ceasefire.
On Russian news there are photos of yesterday's air and ground-mortar attacks by Kiev against civilians in the East, and reports of the Kiev soldiers attacking border posts with Russia trying to provoke. And interviews with women and children taking up arms to protect their homes.
That's just today. In an area of personal concern. How much BS did I accept as fact through my ignorance of the subject at hand?
Stay skeptical :)
Re:Would be different by grouchomarxist · 2014-07-03 14:33 · Score: 1

When politicians came out and said NOBODY EVER THOUGHT OF USING PLANES AS MISSLES!"...I thought...don't any of them read Clancy?
They don't read. Period.
Re:Would be different by grouchomarxist · 2014-07-03 14:35 · Score: 1

You mean Debt of Honor, right? It was apparently a 747.
Re:Would be different by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-07-03 20:13 · Score: 1

Sneaking from Canada into US is hardly a feat. In many places, the border is basically an otherwise unremarkable place with a sign that says "here be Canada" (and "here be US" on the other side of it). There is no border zone, so...
Re:Would be different by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-07-03 20:15 · Score: 1

It's "very easy" to get your hands on a cache of firearms large enough to conduct a Mumbai style attack? Where exactly is it "easy" to do that? You can't go the legal route as a non-citizen.
What do you mean by "can't go the legal route"? I'm not a citizen - not even a green card holder, in fact - yet I possess over a dozen firearms, four of which are "assault weapons", all legally obtained and owned. It's actually pretty easy. This despite the fact that my state has extra licensing requirements for aliens above and beyond what the feds mandate.

Undercover Sting Op by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:47 · Score: 0

The Prosecution and how could fuck up a bloody stink operation...

Government Approved Fantasies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Include:
-Working hard
-Buying things
-Having a family

All other fantasies will be regarded as anti-social

Re:Should probably be locked up by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 03:52 · Score: 2

From TFA: "Gilberto Valle was 25 years old and still living with his father in Queens when, in 2009, he met Kathleen Mangan on OKCupid."

OKC strikes again! Someone met a creeper on OKC who still lived with their parents? Imagine that....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

thought crime by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:54 · Score: 0

This is the right outcome but this guy was pretty lucky to get it. Maybe now, the next person to get busted for thought crime can reference this case in their defense?

Re:Should probably be locked up by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 03:57 · Score: 2

What's wrong with that? Lots of amusing things come up when you Google that. Hell, Google auto completed the search for me, suggesting "recipes" after I had typed in "human meat".

Incidentally, I'm not much of a whiz in the kitchen, but I suspect human flesh would work pretty well in a red sauce or curry. The bigger problem of course would be the cost of obtaining it, followed by the difficulty of obtaining lean cuts, particularly if you reside in the first world....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

remind me by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 03:58 · Score: 0

remind me how many people are in jail or got visits from the SS for joking about killing the president online

Re:Should probably be locked up by AvitarX · 2014-07-03 03:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

Because a lot of us are freedom nerds, and this ruling is interesting in that it was allowed to go to trial, but the judge issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict that preserves free thought.

As to GP post, yes, they should have tried him for any crimes he committed using the police database, and I obviously assume he's no longer Popo, but this was not an actual conspiracy to commit a crime, locking people up because they are gross under the guise of conspiracy is not the solution to anything.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

What kind of violence? by TechyImmigrant · 2014-07-03 04:00 · Score: 1

>mutual fantasizing about committing acts of sexual violence

Umm, it sounded like acts of culinary violence to me.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

Re:What kind of violence? by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 05:56 · Score: 1

No, that would be Denny's.

Mmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:02 · Score: 0

She sounds delicious!

Though crime is here! by guruevi · 2014-07-03 04:02 · Score: 0

I don't even know how they could arrest the guy. He had done nothing at that point, he had made no plans to do anything, no tools, according to his ex who installed spyware on his computer, he was supposedly writing on anonymous fetish sites.

And they were able to hold him for several months on this and he needed a psychiatrist to clear him? Ridiculous.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

Re:Though crime is here! by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-03 04:09 · Score: 2

I don't even know how they could arrest the guy. He had done nothing at that point, he had made no plans to do anything, no tools, according to his ex who installed spyware on his computer, he was supposedly writing on anonymous fetish sites.
I presume you're basing this assumption on the contents of TFS.
I read some other articles about this case yesterday - he bought the tools, and used a classified police database to shop for victims. To me, that's a bit past "fantasy" and more into "planning to do this shit."

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Though crime is here! by Nanoda · 2014-07-03 04:11 · Score: 1

He had done nothing at that point, he had made no plans to do anything[...]
It might not be in the particular article linked above, but this guy was using police databases to research a bunch of women. I'm certainly not happy leaving people like that to their own devices.
Re:Though crime is here! by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 05:01 · Score: 1

Unless you can prove he actually was planning to do so, it doesn't matter. He could've been looking for people to fantasize about, rather than planning on actually doing it.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Though crime is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:30 · Score: 0

Definitely man. And he posted actual pictures of all his family on the forum, where all his fetish buddies talked about doing the same shit he was on about. I don't know about 7 months in custody but I think he should definitely been subject to psychiatric help/treatment.
Re:Though crime is here! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:02 · Score: 0

I read some other articles about this case yesterday - he bought the tools, and used a classified police database to shop for victims.
Well, those articles misrepresented the facts then. He didn't use the police database to find victims -- he used it to look up personal information about women he was interested in. This is obviously a serious crime, and he was convicted of it and served the maximum sentence in jail for it already (12 months). I'm sure lots of police look up personal details of people inappropriate, and they should be prosecuted for it. But you'd have to prove that he made some use of this information in furthering his "plots" against these women in this case -- and prosecutors couldn't find any. In fact, he never divulged any information from these databases to his supposed "conspirators" (and instead often made up lies or false information in his fantasy posts about the women).
Also, he didn't really "buy tools" -- he did a few internet searches. But he also claimed to have plenty of equipment in his "fantasy posts" which he didn't actually have: a cleaver to chop them up, a large oven to cook the victims, a cabin outside the city to commit crimes, etc. From the second article mentioned in TFS:

But there was no physical evidence from Valleâ(TM)s home suggesting he was getting ready to kidnap or cook anyoneâ"no oven large enough for a human, no cleaver, no homemade chloroform. Prosecutors had no proof he had a place in the mountains. They had no proof that Valle knew the identities of the three people he was chatting with. Valle never divulged the last names of any of the people whose photos he passed along (not even his wifeâ(TM)s) and never gave out any of their addresses, even after Moody Blues Âspecifically requested one, and he haphazardly switched up details about their life stories and college educations.
In other words, he was making a lot of stuff up. And when it came to actual details about his victims and the supposed "plots" against them, he passed along false information to his supposed "co-conspirators." That doesn't sound like something actually intending to work with other people to kidnap someone.

To me, that's a bit past "fantasy" and more into "planning to do this shit."
There may be very good reasons to monitor this guy, to make him seek compulsory mental health treatment, etc. But despite "planning" elaborate plots online to kidnap women, the men supposedly involved in these conspiracies never got off their couches to do anything on the supposed dates they agreed on.
Thus, the onus is on you (and prosecutors) to prove that he was ever actually serious about any one of them, since there's no real-world evidence that he took steps to complete any of his supposed plots, and in fact plenty of evidence that he never bothered to do anything to further them... which strongly leans in the direction of fantasy.
Re:Though crime is here! by Megol · 2014-07-03 06:16 · Score: 1

And the dude that bragged to his friends how he'll break into some rich family's home, torture, rape and kill everyone there? When he buys a gun and starts googling for good targets he should be locked up!
Re:Though crime is here! by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 06:32 · Score: 1

Only if you can prove he really was about to do something.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Though crime is here! by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-03 06:43 · Score: 1

Only if you can prove he really was about to do something.
Let's be realistic here - if he wasn't a government agent, he'd already be in jail.
Like these people.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Though crime is here! by meta-monkey · 2014-07-03 06:56 · Score: 1

I don't think he actually bought the tools. He was googling around for some of them, and for a recipe for chloroform, but I just read the New Yorker article and it didn't say he bought any of the tools. He talked about having an oven he could fit a woman in, but didn't actually own such an oven. He also talked about having a cabin in the woods they could take a victim, but he didn't own such a cabin.
If he had bought the tools, yeah I'd say a conspiracy to commit murder charge might be appropriate, but he didn't. So it was still in the realm of fantasy.
As for using the police database for this, yeah, that's illegal, and that's what he correctly served his time for.
Regardless, the whole thing is creepy as fuck. Ordinarily, I wouldn't give a crap what somebody's fantasy or fetish is. Their business. Even this guy's. But once he started naming names and making plans, that pushes it over the edge. That is a hard, hard thing to say "live and let live" about.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Though crime is here! by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-03 08:42 · Score: 1

I don't think he actually bought the tools. He was googling around for some of them, and for a recipe for chloroform, but I just read the New Yorker article and it didn't say he bought any of the tools. He talked about having an oven he could fit a woman in, but didn't actually own such an oven. He also talked about having a cabin in the woods they could take a victim, but he didn't own such a cabin.
If he had bought the tools, yeah I'd say a conspiracy to commit murder charge might be appropriate, but he didn't. So it was still in the realm of fantasy.
What, you mean a mainstream media outlet gave me bad info? Inconceivable!

Regardless, the whole thing is creepy as fuck. Ordinarily, I wouldn't give a crap what somebody's fantasy or fetish is. Their business. Even this guy's. But once he started naming names and making plans, that pushes it over the edge. That is a hard, hard thing to say "live and let live" about.
Agreed; add in the fact that non-government-agent types who have done pretty much the same thing were not let off so lightly.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Though crime is here! by cbhacking · 2014-07-03 10:55 · Score: 1

Wow! You are *multiple* kinds of moron! Very impressive. Please don't breed.
1) You can't prove anybody is "about" to do something of their own volition. By your (idiotic) reasoning, I should be permitted to walk down the street with a loaded pistol in each hand, pointing one at anybody who gets within twenty feet of me or makes eye contact. After all, you can't prove I'm going to shoot anybody who doesn't attack me first!
2) Even if you can establish a reasonable proof that somebody *intended* to do something criminal, that doesn't actually constitute proof E "really was about to do something." For example, suppose my buddy and I have a fantasy about raping a woman, then cutting her up an eating her. He starts dating this lady. I start buying chains and knives and cutting utensils. My buddy and I exchange emails wherein we discuss our plan: he'll bring her over for a barbecue at my place, we'll slip something into her drink, then we'll chain her down and so on. We set a date and get her agreement to come along; I buy the drugs. At the agreed-upon time, he shows up at my place with the discussed victim. Assuming I have ground beef and bus in the fridge, can you *prove* I'm not just going to change my mind and just grill up some really good burgers instead?
3) Establishing proof is the responsibility of the court system. You arrest people on a reasonable suspicion. Now, I'm of the opinion that the justice system needs to compensate those it arrests when they're innocent (in the sense of making sure they get their stuff back and covering the value of anything lose due to the arrest), and that arrests made *without* reasonable suspicion should result in the officer(s) in question being arrested or at least strongly disciplined themselves, but that doesn't seem to be the way the government wants to run things.
4) Even regarding things in the past, there's generally no such thing as proof of who committed a crime. If I watch a guy shoot somebody, make a citizen's arrest until the cops get there, and they take him away... can I truly confirm that the person sitting handcuffed across the courtroom from me two weeks later is the same person I watched kill another person? I mean, he looks about the same as he did at the time, and he may have the same fingerprints as the guy the cops booked back then and as were found on the murder weapon... However, I don't know he doesn't have a twin or other person who just looks very similar, I don't know that the cops actually fingerprinted the right guy, I don't know whether he was using a silicone layer or something to give false fingerprints, even if I could compare the fingerprints myself I don't have the training to tell how much is typical variation between multiple readings of the same person and therefore have to take somebody else's word for it being the same even though I don't know if that person has been bribed or otherwise has an incentive to lie or is even competent to make that call themselves... True proof is impossible. That's why laws have defined terms like "a preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" and so on when discussing what it takes to convict people.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Re:Though crime is here! by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 16:32 · Score: 1

Wow! You are *multiple* kinds of moron! Very impressive. Please don't breed.
Funny, I think the same about you. Your post doesn't convince me of anything.

1) You can't prove anybody is "about" to do something of their own volition. By your (idiotic) reasoning, I should be permitted to walk down the street with a loaded pistol in each hand, pointing one at anybody who gets within twenty feet of me or makes eye contact. After all, you can't prove I'm going to shoot anybody who doesn't attack me first!
No, by my logic, there's no proof or reason to think that it was anything beyond fantasy. I know you hate it, but you have to prove things beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to convict someone. I do not think that happened here, and neither does this judge, apparently.
But you seem more focused on arguing semantics than you do about the issue at hand. Begone, insect.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Though crime is here! by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 16:37 · Score: 1

Then it would probably a good idea to make sure *no one* goes to jail for such things.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Though crime is here! by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 16:43 · Score: 1

can you *prove* I'm not just going to change my mind and just grill up some really good burgers instead?
I suppose not. You're off the hook, hopefully.

4) Even regarding things in the past, there's generally no such thing as proof of who committed a crime. If I watch a guy shoot somebody, make a citizen's arrest until the cops get there, and they take him away... can I truly confirm that the person sitting handcuffed across the courtroom from me two weeks later is the same person I watched kill another person?
It always baffles me when I use a word like "proof" and people like you feel the need to be 'smart' and go off ranting about how you can't truly prove much of anything, as if I'm not already aware of that. Substitute the lone word "proof" for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or something. Was that so hard?

True proof is impossible.
While we're fucking around, can you prove that?

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Though crime is here! by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-07 02:16 · Score: 1

Can't disagree. I care more about equal treatment under law than I do for punishing some pervert for having a sick fantasy (that they never actually act on).

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Should probably be locked up by TechyImmigrant · 2014-07-03 04:04 · Score: 1

A western liver of a commited cereal eater should be like a good fois gras.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

Re:Should probably be locked up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:04 · Score: 1

Incidentally, I'm not much of a whiz in the kitchen, but I suspect human flesh would work pretty well in a red sauce or curry.

... with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Conspiracy to commit... by sir-gold · 2014-07-03 04:07 · Score: 1

What is the difference between "talking about murder fantasies" and "conspiracy to commit murder"?

"Honestly, I wasn't trying to get my wife killed, I was just really upset and venting steam, it's not my fault a professional hit-man decided to help me out"

Re:Conspiracy to commit... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:53 · Score: 0

IMHO, this cop is guilty of conspiracy. He didn't just concoct his own version of Silence of the Lambs. He actually used a database to select victims--a prerequisite for committing the actual crime.
Me, not guilty: Let's kill the president.
Me, guilty: I've staked out a spot with a good line-of-sight outside the metal detectors. POTUS should be in that zone for at least 10 seconds.
Re:Conspiracy to commit... by Derekloffin · 2014-07-03 05:27 · Score: 1

Usually conspiracy requires that you actually have an agreement with at least one other party to commit the offense. Note that said other party however need not be truly intending to do so, nor that said other party's involvement needs to be a big part of the plan, just something deemed legally significant. However, it seems that has become rather nebulous over the years any communication of the intent with some act that could be seen to forward that intent significantly seems to often be the bar now.

No "thought police"? What about "hate crimes"? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:10 · Score: 0

Assault someone with a bat and go to jail for 5 years. Say, "I hate black people!" while doing it and go to jail for 15 years.

So yeah, we DO put people in jail for thoughts.

Not always, though. Be a "minority" who shouts "I hate WHITEY!" while punching her in the face to knock her out and watch the excuse mongers crawl out of the sewers.

Re:No "thought police"? What about "hate crimes"? by almitydave · 2014-07-03 05:31 · Score: 1

Assault someone with a bat and go to jail for 5 years. Say, "I hate black people!" while doing it and go to jail for 15 years.
So yeah, we DO put people in jail for thoughts.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Hate crime legislation DOES punish thoughts: we've decided that what you were thinking at the time of a crime somehow makes your crime worse than that of someone who wasn't thinking "hateful thoughts". If we hold to the principle that "the punishment must fit the crime," then hate crime laws seem to directly criminalize certain thoughts, which in the USA seems to come dangerously close to treading on the freedom of thought and expression protected by the first amendment, if not stomping all over it.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:No "thought police"? What about "hate crimes"? by Qzukk · 2014-07-03 05:57 · Score: 1

Except that the crime is assault. I think it shouldn't be a charge of its own, but I see no problem with a zeroth degree murder charge or assault with a racist insult.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:No "thought police"? What about "hate crimes"? by meta-monkey · 2014-07-03 07:06 · Score: 1

We've always had different standards of punishments for different thoughts. State of mind is the difference between manslaughter, murder in the 2nd degree and murder in the 1st degree.
Hate crime consideration in sentencing is appropriate, because of the intent to terrorize a population in addition to the act committed.
If your neighbor is murdered by a business partner to collect insurance money, that's murder in the first degree. Terrible thing. Premeditated. You might be creeped out for awhile, but you feel no threat against you because the murderer had a specific target, for a specific reason, which has nothing to do with you.
Now let's say you're a black guy, and your neighbor's a black guy, and a bunch of dudes in white sheets string up your neighbor and light a lower-case letter t on fire in his lawn. That's murder in the first degree. Premeditated. However, in this case, in addition to killing that one black guy, the klansmen are clearly intending to intimidate and threaten the victim's neighbors and community. That additional damage done to a community, beyond the one act of murder, should be punished more harshly, as the perpetrators did more harm.
It's basically an added charge for "terrorism."

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:No "thought police"? What about "hate crimes"? by david_thornley · 2014-07-03 09:38 · Score: 1

If you've bothered to notice, sentences depend on a lot of things, including the intention of the criminal. There are things that are crimes depending on the person's thoughts: many laws have words like "knowingly" in them.
As far as I've found in the US, "hate crime" isn't a concerned unless there's a crime already involved. It only comes into play in determining the sentence.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

No actus reus, no overt act, no substantive step. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:13 · Score: 0

However he was charged with the crime of conspiracy. Unfortunately for him SCOTUS believes that no overt act is needed. Simply that there was an agreement to do an unlawful act. (United States v. Shabani). Note that Shabani was interpreting a fed. drug enforcement statute.

Conspiracy != fantasy by dwheeler · 2014-07-03 04:18 · Score: 2

The difference is that in a conspiracy someone plans to DO something unlawful, or cause someone else to do it... and not just talk about it. A "conspiracy" is "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful". A fantasy is just the "activity of imagining things".

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Re:Conspiracy != fantasy by david_thornley · 2014-07-03 09:32 · Score: 1

A conspiracy becomes criminal itself when there's an overt act. In some previous cases, the act itself has been pretty innocuous. In this case, he apparently googled for information and did illegal searches on a database to get information on women he apparently fantasized about.
I'm not real comfortable with either possible verdict, but I'm positive that, if I were to do this, I'd be behind bars for a long, long time.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Should have written a book by WillAffleckUW · 2014-07-03 04:27 · Score: 1

The problem is using a forum.

Steven King got rich writing stuff like this, but he did it as an "author".

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

I'm not so sure... by s.petry · 2014-07-03 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

If this was just a guy posting trash on Facebook I'd probably side with you. If you read the details of the case, you will find that this is not just someone ranting. This appears to be someone conspiring to commit rape, murder, and kidnapping.

Whether the primary web site has a disclaimer or not, does not change the fact that this goes beyond the simple act of writing about a sick fantasy. He offered to kidnap someone for 5,000.00. He went and found a recipe for chloroform, then built a pulley system to string up one of the people he was talking about kidnapping and murdering. He used a Police database illegally for the purpose of gathering personal information about the people he appeared to be conspiring against (it was more than 1). This goes well beyond simply discussing "unconventional thoughts".

Lets change the scenario a bit. If I was to claim I want to kill someone on Facebook, I'd be a person of interest but not doing anything illegal. When I go out and search for recipes for poisons, I'm still not illegal but I should be under watch, especially if the poison is generic household items which I may have on hand. Once I start illegally gathering personal information about the targets I claimed I want to kill, would I not be conspiring to commit murder? What if I owned a gun, would that be enough? (Remember that this person was a Cop and had a Gun, as well as a position of authority to abuse, and could have been legally stalking victims without anyone's knowledge on "patrols")

If you believe it's reasonable, would you want the guy as a neighbor? Invite them over over for dinner? If so, good for you. I'd prefer to see a person like this under watch and psychological monitoring at a minimum.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:I'm not so sure... by tibit · 2014-07-03 05:03 · Score: 2

Under watch is OK, but that's not the same as in jail.

--
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Re:I'm not so sure... by s.petry · 2014-07-03 05:13 · Score: 1

Which to me means that it was not reasonable to throw out the charges. Change them to something that allows watching.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:I'm not so sure... by arth1 · 2014-07-03 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Where's the line between "fantasy" and "conspiring"?
Surely you must have one defined to be able to make your judgement call?
And what's up with restricting people we find creepy for what they might do? I honestly think you are creepy and that you have the potential to commit some heinous acts. Should we put you under constant watch and psych monitoring too?
Due process. It's not a difficult concept.
Re:I'm not so sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:47 · Score: 0

Which to me means that it was not reasonable to throw out the charges. Change them to something that allows watching.
Umm, that's exactly what the judge did.

Valle was ordered to undergo a mental health evaluation, and to surrender travel documents and weapons. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Gardephe also ordered GPS home monitoring for the defendant.
Re:I'm not so sure... by CaptainLard · 2014-07-03 06:41 · Score: 1

All these zero tolerance/black and white /. posts are funny. You binary guys should dust off that old analog design 101 book.

Where's the line between "fantasy" and "conspiring"?
GP laid that out pretty well. General information searches on methods to kill = watch list/fantasy. Specific information on a target, gathering materials = crime/conspiring. (the latter is apparently what the cannibal cop was doing)

And what's up with restricting people we find creepy for what they might do?
Because peoples rights go beyond just not getting killed. If some psychopath is continuously harassing and threatening to do something terrible, they are a detriment to society and should be removed from it.

Should we put you under constant watch and psych monitoring too?
No because in this case you're the one with the fantasy. GP hasn't made any threats or taken any actions against anyone.

It kinda sounds like you borrowed your line of reasoning from a pro-lifer..."Life ends at Death". Everything else is just assault. Oh and there is no harassment either.
Re:I'm not so sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 07:13 · Score: 0

Didn't you hear the gavel? The decision is final.
Re:I'm not so sure... by DarthVain · 2014-07-03 07:38 · Score: 2

Pretty sure the differences between "fantasy" and "conspiring" are what ACTIONS you actually take to plot or do something.
Writing about how to make a bomb, or talking about it, could just be fantasy. Buying the components, constructing things, etc... point to a more real intent.
Likely it is a judgement call, but likely based on what evidence. Context is likely a big thing. Talking on a forum is one thing, then again directed cooperation, and planning might be something else.
In this case, the act of using a police DB to select victims was probably seen not only as an illegal act in itself, but also an ACTION towards perpetrating a conspiracy. Logically the police officer knew what he was doing was illegal, would put his job in jeopardy, is it likely that this was only done to satisfy a fantasy, or in preparation for committing a crime?
One Judge clearly thought that it was, the other has read more 1984, but should maybe read it again... As it was about people in authority abusing power for their own ends in the future... Either way it isn't really a clear case, and the guy did serve max sentence for the DB access crime...
That said I just finished watching Hannibal so this is probably all part of his master plan...
Re:I'm not so sure... by nblender · 2014-07-03 09:01 · Score: 1

Correction. He posted a message saying that he was in the middle of building a pulley system. That's not the same as having actually built it. It's consistant with him building a fantasy scenario on that site..
Re:I'm not so sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 10:34 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. It's called 'self preservation'. Everybody has the right to freedom of NON-association. That means (I obviously have to explain this to an idiot like you), the simple right to NOT have to associate with ANYBODY you don't want to. That means that most people (probably 99%) would want this sick pervert nowhere near them - EVER. So he should go and live with his other sick friends and produce his own food, his own clean water and electricity, find a doctor (good luck with that, since no sane doctor would want to deal with a nutcase like this), etc.etc.
But unfortunately, because of idiots like YOU, we ALL have to live with criminal scum like this, every day of our lives, in OUR towns and cities, ruining OUR lives by their very presence, because of the threat they represent to us all.
"And what's up with restricting people we find creepy for what they might do? I honestly think you are creepy and that you have the potential to commit some heinous acts. Should we put you under constant watch and psych monitoring too?"
Did you even read the second link above? WTF? The guy is sick, like ALL 'fetish' perverts.
Re:I'm not so sure... by s.petry · 2014-07-03 10:45 · Score: 2

The line is obviously when a person takes actions that would lead to their talk becoming action, as was the facts in this case. (Read TFA's links)
For example, I disagree with the US putting the teenager in jail for claiming on Facebook that if he could he would shoot the President. That is was only talk, and not illegal in my opinion. The FBI may have ran some checks on the teen to make sure he was not plotting after making the statement, but the statement alone was not enough to jail him.
Now, if the teenager had went and purchased a gun and started performing illegal activities to track the location of the President, then we have conspiracy and the teen should have been put in jail.
If you don't see the line, you are intentionally not looking. The line exists, and it's pretty well drawn.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re: I'm not so sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 17:52 · Score: 0

Yeah but if you write bomb making instructions and upload it to a jihad website you're going down for providing material support. So fantasy is limited in some circumstances.
Re:I'm not so sure... by quantaman · 2014-07-05 06:24 · Score: 1

If this was just a guy posting trash on Facebook I'd probably side with you. If you read the details of the case, you will find that this is not just someone ranting. This appears to be someone conspiring to commit rape, murder, and kidnapping.

I did read the details of the case and I have to disagree. He's not ranting, he's fantasizing, but there's no evidence that he ever planned to go further.

Whether the primary web site has a disclaimer or not, does not change the fact that this goes beyond the simple act of writing about a sick fantasy. He offered to kidnap someone for 5,000.00. He went and found a recipe for chloroform, then built a pulley system to string up one of the people he was talking about kidnapping and murdering.
He offered to kidnap someone, he never did kidnap them, nor did he or anyone else complain when these plans didn't happen. He said he built a pulley in the emails but he didn't actually build it, nor did he make any chloroform. Surely if you're making a criminal conspiracy involving chloroform, a human sized oven, and a pulley system then actually obtain chloroform, a human sized oven, and a pulley system.

He used a Police database illegally for the purpose of gathering personal information about the people he appeared to be conspiring against (it was more than 1). This goes well beyond simply discussing "unconventional thoughts".
Lets change the scenario a bit. If I was to claim I want to kill someone on Facebook, I'd be a person of interest but not doing anything illegal. When I go out and search for recipes for poisons, I'm still not illegal but I should be under watch, especially if the poison is generic household items which I may have on hand. Once I start illegally gathering personal information about the targets I claimed I want to kill, would I not be conspiring to commit murder? What if I owned a gun, would that be enough? (Remember that this person was a Cop and had a Gun, as well as a position of authority to abuse, and could have been legally stalking victims without anyone's knowledge on "patrols")
Ok, here's another scenario.
You really hate John and claim you want to kill him on FB. You look around for information on poisons because you're curious, or you're fantasizing about how you could kill him. And because the guy really pisses you off you become mildly obsessed and gather information using a work database (even though doing so for this purpose is unauthorized and illegal).
Yet under no scenario could you actually imagine yourself doing so much as punching John.

If you believe it's reasonable, would you want the guy as a neighbor? Invite them over over for dinner? If so, good for you. I'd prefer to see a person like this under watch and psychological monitoring at a minimum.
I wouldn't, not because he's a criminal, but just because he'd creep the hell out of me.
This is a guy who might commit a serious crime in the future, perhaps even wants to. But he has never done so, nor has he specifically planned to do so. All of his previous plans were merely elaborate fantasies that he never took a concrete step towards implementing.
Personally I'd recommend a mandatory psychological evaluation. IF that suggested he could take the step towards moving those crimes into reality then I might consider watch and mandatory counselling. Otherwise he's innocent of everything except the misuse of the database.

--
I stole this Sig

Re:Should probably be locked up by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 04:35 · Score: 1

It's hard to find deer meat at the local grocery store, but yet all my friends have tons deer sausage overflowing out of their freezer. The key is to simply change your mindset and harvest the "wildlife" you see coming out of a vegan restaurant. Myself, I like corn-feed meat, so I would probably set up my hunting blind in a Golden Corral parking lot. I've been told it tastes like veal.

Re:Should probably be locked up by Sentrion · 2014-07-03 04:37 · Score: 0

Well, he used a computer at some point so it's Slashdot material :)

Which, incidentally, also makes it patentable and a criminal offense. Back to jail he goes.

Judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:37 · Score: 0

"guilty of nothing more than very unconventional thoughts"

Unconventional? Is that really the phrase that this Judge used? Because it is damn right disgusting and sickening. No reason he should be in jail, yet, but the Judge seems to have an equally warped mind.

Sarcasm-fu by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:39 · Score: 0, Funny

Hey everyone, mod up the parent post because of its cooler-than-you post that drips so much juicy sarcasm you can fill a bucket with it. It's all patently true!
Government (which one?) is sentient - it has fantasies! Having a family and working hard are not values we should hold as a society! These things are obviously filthy and will only lead to the degradation of society! And buying things? That's for losers! The government should just provide us with everything, or you should steal it because it makes society better!

Seriously - next time, think twice about committing your idiotic comments to the discussion.

Re:Sarcasm-fu by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:34 · Score: 0

Hard work isn't a value in itself. It is what hard work can produce that is valued. You could dig out a foundation with a spoon and it would be very hard work, but also very stupid.
Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children. There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.
When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.
At any rate, your post says nothing that demonstrates that the AC you responded to is idiotic (other than calling his comment idiotic). I recommend you take your own parting advice.
Re:Sarcasm-fu by CauseBy · 2014-07-03 13:29 · Score: 1

Hard work isn't a value in itself.
Of course it is. You just don't have that value.
Family is only valuable if you are going to put in the effort to raise capable children.
Wrong again. Family has value even if you don't do that.
There are plenty of half-assed families out there raising mouth-breathing dullards, which does nothing to improve society.
Maybe (and maybe not) but it's irrelevant to the value of family.
When people refer to "buying things" as a bad thing, they're usually referring to impulse buying. It may enrich advertizes and manufacturers of useless baubles, but it is generally a waste of resources and loaded with opportunity costs.
Everything in the world has, by definition, exactly the value paid for it. It's a circular argument but it goes right to the definition of "value".

Playing thought police by MikeRT · 2014-07-03 04:44 · Score: 1

If we were to lock him up for ideas that if acted upon would be dangerous, the moderate left, center and right would be justified in openly exterminating the entire registered member list of every Socialist, Fascist and Communist movement in the US. Ideas do have consequences, one of which is that if you are going to declare that a hypothetical cannibal is a threat to his neighbors because he might snap and eat them (despite showing no signs of willingness to act on his depravity), then society would be justified in wiping out those political movements known to have a historic predisposition to slaughter their opponents.

Re:Should probably be locked up by jythie · 2014-07-03 04:55 · Score: 1

It matters quite a bit. While this is an extreme case, it is closely related to the debate (and arrests) involving things like trash talking in video games or, well, the core player base of EvE Online.

Re:Should probably be locked up by Shakrai · 2014-07-03 04:56 · Score: 1

so I would probably set up my hunting blind in a Golden Corral parking lot

Hunting blind? Why would you need one of those? Your prey is too busy looking at its cell phone to notice you sneaking up on it.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Re:Should probably be locked up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:57 · Score: 0

I think any game taken from a Golden Corral would taste like foie gras and be way too greasy. But anything from the vegan restaurant would be gamey with a patchouli aftertaste.

Reading comprehension? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 04:59 · Score: 0

This::

U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe wrote that Valle was "guilty of nothing more than very unconventional thoughts... We don't put people in jail for their thoughts. We are not the thought police and the court system is not the deputy of the thought police." .. is wrong. His lawyer said that, not the judge. Seriously.

Exploding moon missing? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-07-03 05:03 · Score: 1

The story is classic: Boy meets Girl. Boy likes Girl. Boy goes on the internet and writes about his fantasies that involve killing and eating Girl. Boy goes to jail.

If the story is truly a classic, where's the silvery moon which then explodes for no adequately explored reason!?

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 05:04 · Score: 0

>We don't put people in jail for their thoughts. We are not the thought police and the court system is not the deputy of the thought police.

Unless you're the UK, of course.

Re:Should probably be locked up by butchersong · 2014-07-03 05:08 · Score: 1

He was definatley working himself up to live his fantasies and he definately should have been convicted for misuse of the law enforcement database and anything else that could have stuck. Conspiracy to kidnap and murder.. they almost had enough for that but even given that he talked about his intent and purchased implements for a kill that probably shouldn't be enough to convict. Misleading slashdot headline though. This guy was almost certainly preparing for a kill and actively hunting he just hadn't settled on a target yet.

News for nerds by nospam007 · 2014-07-03 05:40 · Score: 1

Stuff that's delicious.

Dilbert Goes Bizzerk by Tablizer · 2014-07-03 05:49 · Score: 1

The line between detailed fantasies and "planning murder" is still fuzzy. I've had detailed visions involving paper clips, rubber-bands, and staplers of things I wanted to do to torture egotistical conniving moronic co-workers. (It was just torture, not death.) It's a great catharsis, therapeutic even.

Oh oh, I hear footsteps... [NO CARRIER]

--
Table-ized A.I.

Goodbye judge by argStyopa · 2014-07-03 06:06 · Score: 1

"We don't put people in jail for their thoughts. We are not the thought police and the court system is not the deputy of the thought police."

Clearly, he doesn't understand the intent of modern American government.

--
-Styopa

Re:Should probably be locked up by Megol · 2014-07-03 06:07 · Score: 1

Trying to paint this as against free thought is patently ridiculous given that he not only thought something, sharing it with other freaks and then taking logical, detailed steps in order to make what he was thinking reality. This is someone that should be locked up, preferably in a psychiatric institution. Other people have rightfully been locked up for good for less!

judge should get an award... by Mr_Nitro · 2014-07-03 06:08 · Score: 1

no one should ever get punished in any form for his/her thoughts nor writings nor drawings, under no circumstances. Thought is the very last freedom bastion and should be held highest among everything...

Re:judge should get an award... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:32 · Score: 0

Agreed. Yet we have 'hate crimes' statutes, which carry harsher punishments than for similar crimes 'without hate'. "It is ok, officer, I beat her because I love her."
Re:judge should get an award... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-07 14:11 · Score: 0

which carry harsher punishments than for similar crimes 'without hate'
I agree! Next time I hunt down tie up and kill someone, I should get an involuntary manslaughter charge instead of first degree murder because "why" I commit a crime shouldn't make me subject to harsher punishment.

Who was phone? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:16 · Score: 0

U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe wrote that Valle was "guilty of nothing more than very unconventional thoughts... We don't put people in jail for their thoughts. We are not the thought police and the court system is not the deputy of the thought police."

This seems to imply there is a though police, but these folks aren't it. It also implies that the thought police (which exists but isn't these people) does put people in jail, these folks don''t but that's only because they aren't the deputy of the thought police.

Kiddie Porn? by JimSadler · 2014-07-03 06:25 · Score: 1

And yet we have people in prison for viewing anime because the line drawings bring to mind children in American minds but not in the Japanese artists who draw these cartoons. Talk about thought police and people being put in prison for no reason at all!

Bought tools to fantasize? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 06:33 · Score: 0

That's a bit of a stretch. The names could have been "just to fantasize". The tools ... much more unlikely

Re:Bought tools to fantasize? by jeIlomizer · 2014-07-03 16:40 · Score: 1

I don't think so. Again, prove he was about to take action and you're good. I don't care if you think something is unlikely.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

This is not correct. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 07:26 · Score: 0

Hate crime laws punish motivation not thought. The motivation behind a hate crime is to target a member of a particular group. The verbalization of hateful thoughts during the commission of the crime betrays the motive of the perpetrator.

If your racist shouted “You stupid ugly f*ck” rather than “You stupid f**king n***er” he would not betray his motive and absent other evidence would not face the hate crime charge in addition to the assault charge. He would also defeat his purpose however because without the message to the victim being clearly made the attack cannot fulfill it's purpose: to terrorize a particular member of a group and by association terrorize the entire group.

This is why hate crimes carry an added penalty: because they are not -just- an individualized act but because they are meant to terrorize an entire group's community. As you'll note, hate speech almost always accompanies the hate motivated assault because of the overriding importance of the target knowing why they were targeted.

You're free to think and speak hate filled thoughts. You're even free to wear you Klan outfit and parade down Main Street (permit in hand, of course). But you are not free to terrorize whole groups or communities based on your hate for members of those groups and communities.

All cops deserve some jail time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 08:21 · Score: 0

All cops/law-enforcement-agents (99%) are scumbags and deserve to get their asses reamed brutally for their corruption, extortion, espionage, unlawful search/seizure, and power tripping....

If this person had any other occupation, i would say this whole trial is unlawful...
Ppl shouldnt be charged for thinking about a crime, or even planning it....
Unless he was in possession of something illegal, like an explosive, or he actually did something illegal.... this is just a case of unconstitutional prosecution.
If the prosecution had a time machine, then my position might change.

Re:Should probably be locked up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 08:22 · Score: 0

You're a dumbass.

You're demanding a proactive response to something from the law. The law was not, is not, and will not ever be proactive without becoming overbearing and tyrannical. The law, by its nature, must be reactive. Until a crime is committed, the law has nothing to say about one's actions.

For as long as this creepy bastard is simply posting words on the internet, he's not guilty of the crimes he's describing. When he commits a crime, whether it's one he has described in his fantasies or something else, then he can be dealt with according to the law. (Arrested, charged, tried, convicted... in that order. That's what due process is.)

All of this proactive, overprotective bullshit has nothing to do with the actual law and welfare of the people and everything to do with thoughtcrime.

You can't go to jail for saying you want... by Karmashock · 2014-07-03 08:42 · Score: 1

... to eat people on line.

That said, maybe this guy shouldn't be a cop.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.

Re:Should probably be locked up by misexistentialist · 2014-07-03 09:16 · Score: 1

Most loony bins were closed, all those people are on the streets terrorizing the general population into demanding that the government be given more money and power

We don't? by davydagger · 2014-07-03 09:17 · Score: 2

I could swear a few stories up is this:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/07/03/1846215/nsa-considers-linux-journal-readers-tor-and-linux-users-extremists

we don't put people in jail for unconventional thoughts eh?

Oh wait, only if they are STEM graduates.

Re:Should probably be locked up by AvitarX · 2014-07-03 09:56 · Score: 1

This guy was clearly doing bad, and for his abuse of authority (use of police DB) should be punished, but was it really a conspiracy? that takes two people planning something, how serious was the guy he was fantasizing with? The judge said there was no evidence of intent, I haven't read all the transcripts, so I don't want to say definitively where it fell.

This is a person that needs help, and to not have the authoratiy of legitimate use of force, but to to be committed seems a little extreme.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg

Pff by Greyfox · 2014-07-03 10:18 · Score: 1

What's eating you?

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Freedom of NON-association... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 10:27 · Score: 0

... is THE most basic human right, yet it's the one that's hardly ever talked about, and the one none of us have. Now, who would CHOOSE to associate with this individual? i.e. who would CHOOSE to live within a hundred miles of a sick nutcase like this? Yet he gets to FORCE himself into the living space of thousands of people who would rather not live anywhere near him, every day.

I call BS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 13:58 · Score: 1

We don't put people in jail for their thoughts.

This statement alone should disqualify this judge from service. The US imprisons people for their thoughts all the time. People say stuff publicly, most of the time these are just pissed off folks shooting their mouth off, they have no intention of actually doing anything. But modern times are here and the FBI enjoys arresting these people because it is easy, 99.99% of them are harmless.

The problem in this case is it was starting to go outside of the realms of fantasy. This guy was starting to buy torture devices off the internet, building restraining devices, using police databases in order to track the movements of his intended victims, and even hired himself out as a hit man to a third party. This guy is clearly getting off simply because he is a police officer. If I was under suspicion with the same evidence, I would probably be looking at ten years minimum.

Re:I call BS by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-07-03 20:19 · Score: 1

The problem in this case is it was starting to go outside of the realms of fantasy. This guy was starting to buy torture devices off the internet, building restraining devices, using police databases in order to track the movements of his intended victims, and even hired himself out as a hit man to a third party.
But therein lies the rub - he claimed to have build all those devices, but none were actually found (definitely not where he said he built them). He claimed to have gotten a recipe for chloroform and used it to prepare some, but again, none was found and no signs of preparing it, either. He claimed to have a secluded place to torture his victims in, but it doesn't seem to exist. He hired himself out to kill one of the targets to another guy... except that nothing happened on the supposedly scheduled day of the first hit. Nor the second hit. Nor the third one - they have already moved on to another "target" by then.
So, really, it all does seem like an elaborate fantasy, albeit one fueled by his contact with real world people. The information that he gathered - which was really the only part where he acted on all this - seems to have been for the purpose of fueling the fantasy further; he didn't share any of it with his "accomplices", nor worked it into the "plans" that he made and posted.

Slashdot Mirror

Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

185 comments