Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Frees "Cannibal Cop" Who Shared His Fantasies Online

Posted by timothy on from the not-my-first-choice-for-babysitter dept.

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) writes 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. In this case, the man in question, NYC police officer Gilberto Valle, didn't act on his fantasies — he just shared them in a like-minded internet forum. Yesterday, Valle was released from jail after a judge overturned his conviction on appeal. 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." The judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence, since "this is a conspiracy that existed solely in cyberspace" and "no reasonable juror could have found that Valle actually intended to kidnap a woman... the point of the chats was mutual fantasizing about committing acts of sexual violence on certain women." (A New York magazine article covered the details of the case and the implications of the original conviction earlier this year.)

34 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. First "OMG the common sense" post by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's fairly surprising, and really quite reasonable.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by fermion · · 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
    2. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by maz2331 · · 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.

    3. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by dougisfunny · · 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.
    4. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by anagama · · 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
    5. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by meta-monkey · · 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.
    7. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by anagama · · 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
    8. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by CreatureComfort · · 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
    9. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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...

    10. Re:First "OMG the common sense" post by jthill · · 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.
  2. Could have been ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · 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
  3. I take it by present_arms · · 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
    1. Re:I take it by u38cg · · 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]
    2. Re:I take it by jythie · · 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.

  4. Would be different by Capt+James+McCarthy · · 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.
    1. Re:Would be different by Shakrai · · 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.
    2. Re:Would be different by gnasher719 · · 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.

    3. Re:Would be different by bluefoxlucid · · 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.
    4. Re:Would be different by Shakrai · · 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.
    5. Re:Would be different by Shakrai · · 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.
  5. Government Approved Fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    All other fantasies will be regarded as anti-social

  6. Re:Should probably be locked up by Shakrai · · 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.
  7. Re:Is this true? by praxis · · 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.

  8. Re:Should probably be locked up by Shakrai · · 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.
  9. Re:Should probably be locked up by AvitarX · · 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
  10. Re:Though crime is here! by CanHasDIY · · 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
  11. Conspiracy != fantasy by dwheeler · · 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)
  12. I'm not so sure... by s.petry · · 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.

    1. Re:I'm not so sure... by tibit · · 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.
    2. Re:I'm not so sure... by arth1 · · 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.

    3. Re:I'm not so sure... by DarthVain · · 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...

    4. Re:I'm not so sure... by s.petry · · 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.

  13. We don't? by davydagger · · 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.