http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
:lulz:
This precedent can be used against pretty much any schizophrenic via its deliriums... or a number of PDers too alright :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I mean, alright, what he was doing deserves a restraining order in which you cannot be near that person by X ammount of miles or feet...
calls into question to what degree of planning a crime can be before it should be prosecuted, but it probably should not be the same penalty as actually doing the crime...
Hmmmmm, that's disturbing. Thoughtcrime now an actual crime.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2013, 04:51:51 AM
This precedent can be used against pretty much any schizophrenic via its deliriums... or a number of PDers too alright :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
No it really can't. Schizophrenics are no more likely to kill you than the general population, and their ability to plan it all out is even less likely. It's also not a new precedent, people have been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder based on specific language and behaviors that establish intent well before this case.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2013, 04:51:51 AM
calls into question to what degree of planning a crime can be before it should be prosecuted, but it probably should not be the same penalty as actually doing the crime...
Why? Did you even read the article before you came to a conclusion on this?
Net, do you have a personal grudge?
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2013, 09:58:36 AM
Net, do you have a personal grudge?
That would be easier to deal with than examining the issue at hand, wouldn't it?
It's unfortunate that the guy was a Cop, as that's likely altered the sentence he's been given. It also seems to be the basis for some of the charges.
Two points.
1:
Quote"When I see her Sunday my mouth will be watering," Mr. Valle wrote three days before the brunch, adding that he would be "eyeing her from head to toe" and longed "for the day I cram a chloroform-soaked rag in her face."
How can you type something like this and not expect it to come back and bite you square in the arse? Chat exchanges seem to have been a key deciding factor for the jury. Worth noting.
2:
QuoteAfter the proceeding, Mr. Valle's mother, Elizabeth Valle, said brusquely: "I'm in shock. His wife perjured herself."
Mr. Valle's wife, Kathleen Mangan-Valle, who was not in the courtroom on Tuesday, had testified that she reported her husband's Internet activities to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including her discovery that he had considered her as a potential victim.
Not sure where the perjury thing comes from, I couldn't see a mention in the article?
Either way, it's a big bag of fucked-up.
Quote from: Net on June 25, 2013, 10:28:20 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2013, 09:58:36 AM
Net, do you have a personal grudge?
That would be easier to deal with than examining the issue at hand, wouldn't it?
You brutely misinterpreted half of my post and overall im hearing "asshole" in your tone, so i wont even bother to answer unless someone else has similar doubts about what i said and what i meant.
So what's the problem here? That they didn't wait for him to kidnap and eat someone before they nailed him?
That his chat records show inappropriate thoughts. This was stated to be a key reason for conviction.
QuoteAt the crux of the case was whether prosecutors could prove that Mr. Valle, who is married and has a baby girl, was not simply role playing, as so many of his like-minded Internet peers apparently were, but laying the groundwork for actually kidnapping, torturing and killing the women he had singled out.
What's the difference between him and those others? Or Him and others whose thoughts you dislike?
That's my problem. I've no doubt that this chap isn't a nice guy, but like, say, Assange or others, the case isn't about them it's about the act in question.
But according to the article the guy was also starting to conduct surveillance on his targets.
You asked what the problem is.
Again, the problem is this:
QuoteAt the crux of the case was whether prosecutors could prove that Mr. Valle, who is married and has a baby girl, was not simply role playing, as so many of his like-minded Internet peers apparently were, but laying the groundwork for actually kidnapping, torturing and killing the women he had singled out.
I sure you see no problems though. It's totally just this guy alone that's the issue here.
Starting surveillance of your targets is a step beyond role playing. So obviously the prosecutors did prove that it was more than just role-playing. And thank goodness they did, this creep shouldn't be on the streets, much less an officer of the law.
Sigh.
I'm not defending the guy. There is little in the article to indicate how much survellance he actually carried out.
QuoteAt one point, two jurors read Mr. Valle's chats aloud, with one reading his words and another reading his conspirators' words. His communications with one man, who used the screen identity Moody Blues, were pivotal, a juror recalled. Without those chats, the juror said, there might have been a not-guilty verdict.
The Surveillance thing seems to have been limited at best. I know that courts never make mistakes and every conviction saves a soul as far as you seem to be concerned, but if you can't see why this is may look a little shaky then there's nothing to discuss with you.
How is it any different than nabbing a conspiracy to commit murder through a phone wire-tap? People are caught all the time conspiring to commit murder and other crimes through conversations whether they are over the phone, by mail correspondence, caught in person with an undercover cop wearing a wire..
The internet is just another mode of communication. This isn't new. Your problem seems to be that you think internet discussion is some kind of special form of communication which is not allowed to be used in the thwarting of crimes. That's just nonsense.
No.
My problem is that others can read out your conversations and interpret them as they please. This is the exact justification that people are using regarding Prism/Snowden right now. Nothing to hide = Nothing to fear.
There's also many cases recently of Law enforcement encouraging individuals and assisting their acts. I would say it's not unreasonable to speculate that at least one person in that chat room was involved in the investigation. Neither is it unreasonable to think that they lead the conversation in this way and helped give him enough rope to hang himself.
Private fantasies, no matter how disgusting, are private. As long as there is no actual criminal act, I find it hard to condemn someone based on what you think they are thinking. I'm not privy to all the evidence. If he had a diary with "Kill X on Tuesday" then, yeah, fuck him. I just need a little more than creepy chat logs and vague hints about surveillance. If you don't, then I'd advise trying to arrest 4chan and many more ASAP.
Nice to take the Party line though. Maybe when your conversations are deemed inappropriate by the government you might think about this more.
You are making an assumption that this one article is giving you a comprehensive and thorough overview of the entire case.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 25, 2013, 02:51:20 PM
No.
My problem is that others can read out your conversations and interpret them as they please. This is the exact justification that people are using regarding Prism/Snowden right now. Nothing to hide = Nothing to fear.
There's also many cases recently of Law enforcement encouraging individuals and assisting their acts. I would say it's not unreasonable to speculate that at least one person in that chat room was involved in the investigation. Neither is it unreasonable to think that they lead the conversation in this way and helped give him enough rope to hang himself.
Private fantasies, no matter how disgusting, are private. As long as there is no actual criminal act, I find it hard to condemn someone based on what you think they are thinking. I'm not privy to all the evidence. If he had a diary with "Kill X on Tuesday" then, yeah, fuck him. I just need a little more than creepy chat logs and vague hints about surveillance. If you don't, then I'd advise trying to arrest 4chan and many more ASAP.
Nice to take the Party line though. Maybe when your conversations are deemed inappropriate by the government you might think about this more.
I would hope that there was more to the evidence that led to conviction than was reported in the article.
That hope may be foundless, but still. I would hope.
Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.
But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case. Whom was he conspiring with?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.
But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case. Whom was he conspiring with?
I think the question is very interesting as well. Even keeping in mind that we may just be dealing with a case of poor reporting and the case may make a lot more sense than it appears to based on the article, if he was conspiring, as opposed to merely plotting, who were his conspirators and when will their trial be? And what made him stand out as a conspirator rather than merely a role-player, as the other men in the chatroom seem to have been dismissed as? It's a revolting role-play, to be sure, but the question is really what tipped it from role-play to conspiracy in his case, but not in theirs?
Quote from: My Other Username Is A Pseudonym on June 25, 2013, 02:55:10 PM
You are making an assumption that this one article is giving you a comprehensive and thorough overview of the entire case.
No. I tried, I give up.
QuoteI would hope that there was more to the evidence that led to conviction than was reported in the article.
That hope may be foundless, but still. I would hope.
I would also hope this. I would not be surprised to find out if the vast majority of the evidence was internet based. If he was actually out stalking and equipped I'm fairly sure that would have come up a
lot more.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 25, 2013, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.
But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case. Whom was he conspiring with?
I think the question is very interesting as well. Even keeping in mind that we may just be dealing with a case of poor reporting and the case may make a lot more sense than it appears to based on the article, if he was conspiring, as opposed to merely plotting, who were his conspirators and when will their trial be? And what made him stand out as a conspirator rather than merely a role-player, as the other men in the chatroom seem to have been dismissed as? It's a revolting role-play, to be sure, but the question is really what tipped it from role-play to conspiracy in his case, but not in theirs?
This. This is what I was trying to get at.
Some excerpts from the article that provide clues to the answers to the questions:
Quotehe was also convicted of illegally gaining access to a law enforcement database that prosecutors said he had used to conduct research on potential victims.
That's pretty concrete. That is definitely taking it beyond role-playing and into IRL.
QuoteHis communications with one man, who used the screen identity Moody Blues, were pivotal, a juror recalled. Without those chats, the juror said, there might have been a not-guilty verdict.
I wonder if Moody Blues will also be prosecuted?
Google to the rescue:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679
Yes, clearly the dude was a dangerous asswipe who was going beyond just getting his jollies off onthe internet. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 25, 2013, 03:51:12 PM
Google to the rescue:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679
Well this is a little more reassuring. There were a couple of procedural things that bothered me about the story, but they kind of pale next to that.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 25, 2013, 04:18:06 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 25, 2013, 03:51:12 PM
Google to the rescue:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679
Well this is a little more reassuring. There were a couple of procedural things that bothered me about the story, but they kind of pale next to that.
You can pretty much always safely assume that there is never enough information in a newspaper article for readers to come to an accurate conclusion. About anything. Ever.
How very true. I've been pretty lax lately and shit like this helps to remind me to sharpen up.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.
But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case. Whom was he conspiring with?
Unnecessary for the charge. Larry Layton got done on a conspiracy charge...a conspiracy of one, to listen to the court proceedings.
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2013, 06:26:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 25, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.
But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case. Whom was he conspiring with?
Unnecessary for the charge. Larry Layton got done on a conspiracy charge...a conspiracy of one, to listen to the court proceedings.
I am also a conspiracy of one. For all kinds of shit.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 25, 2013, 02:51:20 PM
No.
My problem is that others can read out your conversations and interpret them as they please. This is the exact justification that people are using regarding Prism/Snowden right now. Nothing to hide = Nothing to fear.
There's also many cases recently of Law enforcement encouraging individuals and assisting their acts. I would say it's not unreasonable to speculate that at least one person in that chat room was involved in the investigation. Neither is it unreasonable to think that they lead the conversation in this way and helped give him enough rope to hang himself.
Private fantasies, no matter how disgusting, are private. As long as there is no actual criminal act, I find it hard to condemn someone based on what you think they are thinking. I'm not privy to all the evidence. If he had a diary with "Kill X on Tuesday" then, yeah, fuck him. I just need a little more than creepy chat logs and vague hints about surveillance. If you don't, then I'd advise trying to arrest 4chan and many more ASAP.
Nice to take the Party line though. Maybe when your conversations are deemed inappropriate by the government you might think about this more.
That's been going on since they legalized entrapment - when? The 80's? - look at all the law enforcement posing as guys who want large quantities of drugs, 12 year old girls, hit men, etc...
That's being going on since before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevno_Azef) there were police.
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2013, 07:05:48 PM
That's being going on since before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevno_Azef) there were police.
I thought police, as they exist today, were invented in London in 1830.
Cain,Stelz , I'd agree with both of you there.
I was just hoping RWHN would have seen something about, oh, Boston Bombings, Fast and Furious, Stephen Laurence.... and that's just the last couple of things I clicked on. This shit happens daily and it just seems like good sense to question the situation a little in that regard.
Yes. I couldn't be bothered to find an earlier example of official provocation however, and for the vast majority of the world in 1900, policing was still a very alien concept.
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2013, 07:11:19 PM
Yes. I couldn't be bothered to find an earlier example of official provocation however, and for the vast majority of the world in 1900, policing was still a very alien concept.
Excellent point. Forgive my pedantry, there.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 25, 2013, 10:41:31 AM
QuoteAfter the proceeding, Mr. Valle's mother, Elizabeth Valle, said brusquely: "I'm in shock. His wife perjured herself."
Mr. Valle's wife, Kathleen Mangan-Valle, who was not in the courtroom on Tuesday, had testified that she reported her husband's Internet activities to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including her discovery that he had considered her as a potential victim.
Not sure where the perjury thing comes from, I couldn't see a mention in the article?
I took that to mean the guy's mother thinks his wife lied on the stand when she said she'd discovered she might be a target.
The article doesn't say what evidence she had that he thought about eating her, though.