WTF? WTF?

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/nyregion/gilberto-valle-is-found-guilty-in-cannibal-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[The Johnny]

This precedent can be used against pretty much any schizophrenic via its deliriums... or a number of PDers too alright 

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...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hmmmmm, that's disturbing. Thoughtcrime now an actual crime.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This precedent can be used against pretty much any schizophrenic via its deliriums... or a number of PDers too alright 

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.

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?

[The Johnny]

Net, do you have a personal grudge?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Net, do you have a personal grudge?

That would be easier to deal with than examining the issue at hand, wouldn't it?

[Junkenstein]

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:

"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:

After 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.

[The Johnny]

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.

[AFK]

So what's the problem here?  That they didn't wait for him to kidnap and eat someone before they nailed him? 

[Junkenstein]

That his chat records show inappropriate thoughts. This was stated to be a key reason for conviction.

At 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.

[AFK]

But according to the article the guy was also starting to conduct surveillance on his targets. 

[Junkenstein]

You asked what the problem is.

Again, the problem is this:

At 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.

[AFK]

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.

[Junkenstein]

Sigh.

I'm not defending the guy. There is little in the article to indicate how much survellance he actually carried out.

At 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.

[AFK]

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.