Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture

Glenn the Great wrote:I noticed that no one has addressed the fact that this person wasn't actually going to dunk any kids. The kids didn't exist. The man was TRICKED by the same people who are now going to sentence him.

It's unlikely this crime would have ever occurred, as I find it highly unlikely that one would happen across a mother who would willingly sell her children to be drowned. Only an undercover agent dealing with imaginary children would do such a thing.

Nowadays, it's like INTENT is just as bad as the actual ACTION. It reminds me of Minority Report, where you don't have to do anything to be prosecuted, you just have to be "going to do something".

This man wasn't going to drown any kids. Don't any of you dare tell me that he was. There were no kids to drown, so he wasn't going to. This was a fantasy situation, and shouldn't be carried over to real life.

Undercover agents should be ashamed. They just troll chatrooms trying to trick people so they can jail them. It's so malicious.

It's nothing like Minority Report. In that movies pre-cogs were able to see a murder before it happened. That was the only thing they could see too.

You did, however, get one thing right. It was a fantasy situation, right up until he attempted to solicit the sale of underage children for sex. That right there is his crime. If he would have keep it to himself, nothing would have happened to him. Instead this guy friggin flew to Florida in order to purchase these two girls. He set up a transaction with someone he thought was a mother to the effect that he'd pay her $550 to let him dunk her two girls. He wasn't tricked by law enforcement, he was caught.

Trevelyan_06 wrote:He wasn't tricked by law enforcement, he was caught.

The law against solicitation is a load of bullshit.

The responsibility should lie on the solicitee to ignore the solicitor.

I like how you pointed out that...

If he would have keep it to himself, nothing would have happened to him.

So, if he kept this to himself, nothing happens to him. If he didn't keep it to himself (which is what happened), and law enforcement didn't dick around like this, nothing would have happened to anyone.

And the police wonder why people are so distrusting of the authorities.

This is nothing but a malicious and unethical act by the police.

I think if anything, the undercover agent should be tried as an accomplice to this "crime".

So what you're saying is, let's say that this was real and the authorities somehow found out about the transaction (fairly plausible - there's a pretty damn big underground slave market, I'm sure he could buy a couple of children if he knew where to look - thank God he didn't). Should the authorities then wait until the children are already harmed to intervene? According to you, there's nothing wrong with soliciting, but I would think you would want to step in before anything bad actually happens.

Glenn you need to stick to trolling and kind of stay away from debate because you only seem to excel in one.

Proven intent to perform an illegal action is, in general, as sinister as actually performing the action. I'm sure you can contrive a situation where intent is innocent but I'm going to share an analogous maxim concerning whether a sexual desire is something you should be ashamed of or not:

Fact: If you have to spend hours in photoshop creating porn for your fetish because none exists, you have something wrong with you.

Now, I forsee the counterpoint being something along the lines of a slippery slope fallacy: "Oh, so I should go to jail for murder if I tell you I want to strangle you?" This is, in fact, not really a fallacy because I haven't defined the specific scope of the phrase "intent" in my argument.

Among rational individuals, certain threats carry no teeth. When I do something that causes someone trouble and they say they wish they could strangle me, most people are able to understand this is a usage of hyperbole to express the concept "I am very frustrated with you right now!". When I say "proven intent to commit a crime" I do not speak of this situation at all. I mean to imply a situation where the person has made preparations and taken actions indicative of a meaningful desire to follow through with a criminal act.

When police set up a sting operation to catch drug offenders, intent is proven. The suspect initiates the transaction and it is clarified that their intent is to exchange money for drugs. At this point, the suspect has the capability to say "Ha ha just kidding" and walk away, and the police have no right to arrest him. It is only after the suspect agrees he wishes to exhange money for drugs then produces money that he is placed under arrest. There is a miniscule chance that he was still playing around at this point, but most people would understand it's not a good idea to walk up to a known drug dealer, offer money for drugs, then produce said money and take it away at the last minute.

For another example let's consider a successful sting I saw on a special about contract killers. The man was a pharmacist and had contacted an undercover policeman expressing interest in the murder of his wife. At this point he was a suspect and the police had no charges they could bring against him. A meeting was arranged, and he showed up to discuss details of the hit and provide payment. At this point, the police had excellent grounds for reasonable suspicious but still had no charges they could bring against him. The men discussed the details, and it was agreed that the pharmacist would provide a large amount of prescription narcotics in return for the crime. Even at this point, the police had no grounds for charges and the man could have walked out of the room innocent (but still creepy). Finally, the man produced a small bottle of narcotics for the down payment and handed it to the undercover policeman. They shook hands and said their parting words, in which the policeman included his code word for "come make the arrest". The man was completely innocent until he actually provided payment for the crime, at which point there is no possible way to refute the claim that he provided payment for a contract on another's life.

In the end, I believe the problem is actually that you are confusing "intent to commit a crime" with "going well out of your way to perform all of the actions characteristic of committing a crime, including agreeing upon payment and providing said payment". I am too lazy to go edit my post to reflect this conclusion, but perhaps this will prove a good test of reading comprehension for several of AGN's more developmentally challenged readers.

I highly doubt they arrested him as he boarded the plane to leave for Miami. He wasn't arrested after he left the plane. He wasn't arrested as soon as he reached the appointed place. Here, the article is scant on details, but it is clear he discussed fully his intent to submerge the children until they lost consciousness. My belief is that after payment was agreed upon and money changed hands, he found his face pressed against the table and handcuffs on his hands.

You cannot convince me you believe anyone in their right mind would initiate a conversation for such a thing, then book a flight, then describe in great detail his intents and produce money all as an elaborate prank. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea needs to spend some time reevaluating their sense of humor anyway.

*edit* That aside I do agree he deserves a fair trial as much as anyone else; even in the presence of abundant evidence the trial should never be forgone.

rock_nog wrote:So what you're saying is, let's say that this was real and the authorities somehow found out about the transaction (fairly plausible - there's a pretty damn big underground slave market, I'm sure he could buy a couple of children if he knew where to look - thank God he didn't). Should the authorities then wait until the children are already harmed to intervene? According to you, there's nothing wrong with soliciting, but I would think you would want to step in before anything bad actually happens.

The police didn't need to step in here because nothing bad was going to happen.

If this man had made a contract with a real, legitimate dealer of children, then yes, it would have been very heroic for the police to step in before the transfer of the children took place.

I think that you guys don't appreciate the fact that during the interaction of the suspect and the undercover police officer, it isn't as simple as the suspect pushing toward committing the offence. There is this dynamic of being pulled into the crime coming from the police officer's end.

You've seen this sort of thing where the undercover officer talks to the suspect like everything is cool, putting the suspect at ease, making him comfortable, getting him in the mood to commit a crime.

Transactions of any kind are never one-way. There is always a back and forth interaction between the supplier and the consumer.

Alright... let me ask you this:

Let's say that right this moment, I agreed to sell you some dope. I don't have any in real life, but I tell you I do, and we make an agreement, and you come to get my drugs.

Could I be prosecuted for drug dealing, considering that I had neither actual nor constructive possession?

Yes.

The precedent has been that Crime of sale is independent from the seller actually possessing the good to be sold in any manner.

The undercover officer has committed an Offence of Sale. He didn't possess the children, he didn't intend to possess them, nor was he in the process of obtaining them. He wasn't even acting as an intermediary in the sale of children. But none of this matters according to precedent.

The undercover officer has committed a crime, and should be tried for it, just like any other citizen.

What we have here is a case of an undercover officer being above the law. I'm not creating a new controversy here. It is commonplace and controversial for undercover cops to be allowed to commit crimes in their line of work. It causes there to be inequity in the law, and that is why I am having a problem with this.

I have to say Glenn has a good point here. The crime he's being punished for was never committed, and the man was lured into a falsified situation as a trap prior to commiting any crime.

Now, given his actions (as Trev pointed, he flew to Florida and such), it certainly does look like he had intent to go ahead with it. Does that guarantee he would've really gone through with it? No. Does that mean he's just as guilty as if he had already committed the full act? Hell no. Does it mean he's guilty of something? Yes; intent to commit a hostile act. Instead of punishing him as though he committed the whole crime and sending him to kangaroo court to be convicted with no hope of any reasonable treatment, he should be watched, guarded, possibly given a fair, real sort of reeducation program treatment to help him change- not sent to prison after a bullshit trial/executed/whatever.

America's view of "justice" is... disturbing. A word that comes to mind is sociopathic.

Yes, I do understand this guy is dangerous. No, I don't support his actions, and yes, I think response is necessary and, while I don't much like the methodology, I do think it's good that he was caught in advance in case he did do something. But what they're doing/going to do with that information disgusts me.

How is this any different than police going into online chat rooms and posing as 13-16 year old girls? They hook a guy who thinks it's a girl and he goes to meet said girl only to be arrested. That's legit and the guy trying to have sex with a minor needs to be put in jail.

Also. Glenn shut up.

Glenn the Great wrote:If this man had made a contract with a real, legitimate dealer of children, then yes, it would have been very heroic for the police to step in before the transfer of the children took place.

Or even worse, what if he encounters a black-market dealer of children who has no records at all and doesn't use sanctioned kidnappers to obtain his wares?

I think that you guys don't appreciate the fact that during the interaction of the suspect and the undercover police officer, it isn't as simple as the suspect pushing toward committing the offence. There is this dynamic of being pulled into the crime coming from the police officer's end.

You've seen this sort of thing where the undercover officer talks to the suspect like everything is cool, putting the suspect at ease, making him comfortable, getting him in the mood to commit a crime.

Transactions of any kind are never one-way. There is always a back and forth interaction between the supplier and the consumer.

Alright... let me ask you this:

Let's say that right this moment, I agreed to sell you some dope. I don't have any in real life, but I tell you I do, and we make an agreement, and you come to get my drugs.

Could I be prosecuted for drug dealing, considering that I had neither actual nor constructive possession?

Yes.

The precedent has been that Crime of sale is independent from the seller actually possessing the good to be sold in any manner.

The undercover officer has committed an Offence of Sale. He didn't possess the children, he didn't intend to possess them, nor was he in the process of obtaining them. He wasn't even acting as an intermediary in the sale of children. But none of this matters according to precedent.

The undercover officer has committed a crime, and should be tried for it, just like any other citizen.

What we have here is a case of an undercover officer being above the law. I'm not creating a new controversy here. It is commonplace and controversial for undercover cops to be allowed to commit crimes in their line of work. It causes there to be inequity in the law, and that is why I am having a problem with this.

Second, let's discuss an undercover officer's responsibilities and powers a scenario-based perspective. I shall use 3 actors:

Bob is a man who wishes to purchase some Crystal Methamphetamine with full knowledge of the laws that render acquisition and usage illegal.

Alice is an undercover police officer who wishes to encounter people who wish to obtain controlled substances and arrest them.

Mike is a man who wants to eat hamburgers and browse the internet without the interference of pants.

Alice drops cards at a party that contains information that describes a process to contact a dealer of Crystal Meth. Both Bob and Mike find a card and take it home.

Bob follows the instructions and arranges a meeting with Alice via a middleman. During the establishment of the meeting, he clearly expresses his intent to purchase illegal drugs. At this point there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in drug transactions, and law enforcement's powers over him are increased. He arrives at the designated location and Alice verifies the quantity he wishes to purchase and the amount of payment expected. Bob produces the money and oh dear, Alice breaks the contract by arresting him!

Mike gets home and remembers he has the card. He's pretty certain this must be a joke so he calls the numbers for kicks. When the call is answered and it's not someone's grandmother or a pizza parlor, he is somewhat creeped out and hangs up after mumbling something about a wrong number. Mike has done nothing more sinister than calling a phone number, and law enforcement has no additional powers over him.

I see no issues with the situation described above. The point you make is valid; Alice is performing an act that would result in the arrest of a civilian, but she is only allowed to perform the action under the direct supervision of law enforcement to individuals that have already established reasonable suspicion.

There is a thing called "due process" and so long as it is followed I refuse to believe undercover operations are wrong.

I feel this is very separate from the "only criminals should be afraid of law enforcement monitoring them" argument, because in this case we are actually arguing whether the maxim "People should be free to enter illegal transactions without fear of law enforcement; only after the transaction is completed should they fear." is correct and I think the point argues itself.

Brandishing a weapon is a crime in all states as far as I know. The idea is when you have taken verbal threats and threat of physical harm to the point at which you feel it necessary to hold a weapon and make threats with that, you have overstepped the bounds of rational behavior and should be punished. I fail to see why any individual who will enter a transaction with full knowledge of its illegality should be considered rational and above investigation.

AtmaWeapon wrote: Alice is an undercover police officer who wishes to encounter people who wish to obtain controlled substances and arrest them.

So, she's trying to arrest people who have a wish.

Sounds like a thought crime to me.

Before Bob attempted to buy Meth, he wasn't a criminal. At the time Alice dropped her cards, she had no idea who Bob was. He was just an ordinary citizen, just like anyone else.

Bob was a potential criminal, just like we all are. Alice was scheming to arrest a potential criminal, or in other words, she laid a trap hoping to catch not just Bob, but also you, me, and every other person.

Alice and the Police just wanted to snatch an ordinary citizen, and criminalize him or her.

I don't take well to the thought of the police, who are supposed to be there to protect me, actively trying to lay traps to ensnare me. I wouldn't think you'd like that either.

The right course of action is for the police to focus on suppliers. Only so many people have the goods and can supply. Everyone could be a consumer.

Let's look at what this story might look like if the police followed this method...

A woman is trying to sell her kids on the Internet. The undercover agent agrees to buy the kids, and arranges a meeting place. The undercover agent meets her, hands her the money, and receives the children. At this point, the woman is put under arrest, and the children are told that everything will be fine, and then are put in a good home.

That sounds like a heroic story to me. Not this dishonorable trash we are discussing.

Bob is not a potential criminal, he is a person that called a person advertised as a drug dealer expressing interest in a transaction involving illegal drugs. There is no potential here, there is action.

It is entrapment and illegal if, while I'm sipping lemonade on the porch, an undercover police officer approaches me and offers to sell me drugs. In this case, the law reckons that the absurdity of the situation could have made me uncomfortable enough to perform the transaction unwillingly in an attempt to avoid a threatening situation.

When the situation is reversed, the police officer is passive. I make the action by initiating the transaction. In the law's eyes, this places me in the dominant position and is reasonable enough proof for conviction.

"Thoughtcrime" is arresting people for having the intent to commit a crime before they obtain the means to commit it. A good example of thoughtcrime arrests today are foreign citizens arrested under suspicion of terrorism due to paranoid racist neighbors rather than evidence. The horse is of a different color if, say, the police are notified by a farm supply company that the family has placed a large order for ammonium nitrate fertilizer though they barely own an acre of land. This could lead the police to investigate the purchases the family has made and could turn up enough evidence to lead to surveillance.

In all of my examples I have taken care to show that I fully support the arrest of someone who has made an illegal action. While I haven't specified it I believe the initiator of action is the party responsible; in entrapment cases the police initiate action and therefore it is not allowable.

What are these traps and snares the police lay out for you? Sometimes cops set up radar traps on the road; these traps only lead to my prosecution if I speed (breaking the law). Undercover police accepting offers for assassination contracts are arresting people who have exchanged some form of payment in return for the murder of another person (breaking the law). Undercover police that set up drug stings are arresting persons who have paid money for illegal substances (breaking the law). This case concerns a man who traveled halfway across the country to "purchase" children so he could halfway drown them for his own sexual gratification (breaking the law).

In all of these instances, the only people caught by the snare are people who express an intent to break the law then follow through with their expression. If you were to approach an undercover officer and ask if they had any weed, then act shocked and walk away when they name a price, you'd never hear any more of it because until you make a payment and accept the drugs you can build a reasonable defense implying that you were just joking around and somehow accidentally stumbled upon the wrong person. (Of course, this case gets shakier if you had to contact a middleman and set up an appointment; remember you aren't convincing the judge but a jury of your peers and if they think you are too stupid to forgive you are going to get busted.)

I do agree with your final point. The users form the bottom of the pyramid and are numerous enough that it is difficult to arrest enough of them to have an effect on the suppliers. The problem with attacking the suppliers is there are multiple tiers of operation. The lower tiers comprise the majority of street dealers and are the easiest to arrest, but their numbers make individual arrests have little effect. Sometimes they can lead to arrests of people higher up the tree, but the people at the upper levels of the organization are wealthy men in foreign countries; it is very difficult to arrest them.

The same goes with any other black market that has been around for a significant amount of time; it's a big pyramid scheme where the effect of an arrest increases significantly with the difficulty of the arrest; unfortunately difficulty increases quite quickly.

It's not really worth arguing further; I think you have an incorrect interpretation but it's in line with a lot of other political policies you believe that I believe are wrong as well. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that a man who said he wanted to abuse children, flew halfway across the country to meet a woman who agreed to supply the children, explained in detail the abuse he wanted to perform and why he wanted to do it, then produced the money and expected the children in return has any chance of being innocent or is a victim of a snare that could have caught any normal, law-abiding citizen. Apparently you feel differently and that's cool, perhaps in your state transactions involving children as currency are more common than in mine. :shrug:

Glenn the Great wrote:I don't take well to the thought of the police, who are supposed to be there to protect me, actively trying to lay traps to ensnare me. I wouldn't think you'd like that either.

Well, as Atma said, as long as you're not intending to commit the crime, then you shouldn't have a problem...

Glenn the Great wrote:The right course of action is for the police to focus on suppliers. Only so many people have the goods and can supply. Everyone could be a consumer.

Very good point. However...busting the head guy arranging for all the supplying is usually..."untouchable". IE, they have very good friends in powerful positions, and are able to evade any attempts to bust them.

Now, If these people WEREN'T untouchable...then it would be perfect.

See, but the only way to make them not "untouchable" on a consistent basis would be to make the police accountable to no one, so that the perps friends can't help him. But that opens up a whole new can of worms...

Aegix Drakan wrote:Well, as Atma said, as long as you're not intending to commit the crime, then you shouldn't have a problem...

Wow, what a cliche statement.

It's used so many times when the prospect of spying and invasion of privacy are brought up.

Everytime a government wants to spy on it's people, the people don't want their privacy invaded.

Then the government responds by saying, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

I think there's a little bit of a difference between being spied on and the government catching you attempting to commit a crime. I mean, in this case, if you weren't attempting to commit a crime, the government would never even know anything about you.

rock_nog wrote:I think there's a little bit of a difference between being spied on and the government catching you attempting to commit a crime. I mean, in this case, if you weren't attempting to commit a crime, the government would never even know anything about you.

We all have the desire and intent to commit crimes. I know I do, and if you are honest with yourself, you do too.

The government is actively trying to physically manifest that which is only in our minds.

Analogy and metaphor time!!!

There is a lake with fish in it.

What is underneath of the lake is what is only in our minds.

What is in our minds is private.

What is under the lake is private.

The fish represent our desire to commit crimes.

Our desires are private.

The undercover officer is a fisherman.

He baits a hook and puts it in the pond.

The fish willingly takes the bait, but is unwillingly pulled out of the water.

Our private desire is forcefully pulled out of the water and into the air, where it suffocates in jail.

If it weren't for the fisherman, the fish would be safe underwater.

------------------------------------------------

If the undercover officer in the original poster's article did not do what he did, this is what would be happening right now:

The suspect would be having no problems with the law, he would be going about his business with his private thoughts, and perhaps would not be acting on them.

He may have been able to keep his thoughts from moving out into the real world a little longer, and perhaps no child would be abused.

Now we are in danger of paying more tax money to have another individual in jail, who never caused any harm to the society.

When I grow up I want to be,
One of the harvesters of the sea.
I think before my days are done,
I want to be a fisherman.

Wait, so you're saying that the fact that he was willing to take the bait doesn't prove he's a danger to society? Look, I agree that thoughts are private, and that we should have a right to our thoughts, but when it comes to the point where you become willing to turn those thoughts into actions, that's when thoughts get dangerous. The police didn't make him willing to turn his thoughts into actions, he did that on his own.

If the police had simply gotten him to admit "The hypothetical concept of torturing and molesting children appeals to me," and then arrested him, I could see your point. Having those feelings isn't a crime. However, that's not what happened. He made it clear that not only did he have those feelings, but that he also had every intention of satisfying those feelings. There is a huge difference between committing a thoughtcrime and committing conspiracy.

There is a huge difference between committing a thoughtcrime and committing conspiracy.

Glenn the Great wrote:
If the undercover officer in the original poster's article did not do what he did, this is what would be happening right now:

The suspect would be having no problems with the law, he would be going about his business with his private thoughts, and perhaps would not be acting on them.

He may have been able to keep his thoughts from moving out into the real world a little longer, and perhaps no child would be abused.

Now we are in danger of paying more tax money to have another individual in jail, who never caused any harm to the society.

Or, if the guy had never gotten in contact with the undercover agent, he would have gotten in contact with a person who was really selling two children. Then he would have flown to wherever those children were, proceeded to dunk and half drown them, gotten off and then flown home. He would have been safe from those damned police that were trying to entrap him and hey, the two kids wouldn't be dead, just messed up for the rest of their life.

Glenn I really hope that you are just playing the devil's advocate and you don't really believe that this man was innocent.

Even after reading all the posts between my initial one until this one... I *STILL* stand by the fact that this guy is a menace to society, maybe he *does* deserve a fair trial... BUT... once found guilty he needs to be put away from society for the rest of his life.

He literally ACTED on his thoughts. That's guilt enough for me.

rock_nog wrote:If the police had simply gotten him to admit "The hypothetical concept of torturing and molesting children appeals to me," and then arrested him, I could see your point. Having those feelings isn't a crime.

At least admit it's a little creepy...

Most good crime and violence prevention measures involve the reduction of the opportunity for crime.

The police deliberately and methodically create more opportunity for crime.

They are instigating, plain and simple. They should not get away scot-free with a pat on the back after successfully luring someone into a sting.

Glenn the Great wrote:Most good crime and violence prevention measures involve the reduction of the opportunity for crime.

The police deliberately and methodically create more opportunity for crime.

They are instigating, plain and simple. They should not get away scot-free with a pat on the back after successfully luring someone into a sting.

Then maybe the people being lured into the sting shouldn't be such idiots like you.

If a drug dealer walks into the sting then it's his own stupidity and he deserves to go down.

AtmaWeapon wrote:haha what

At least admit it's a little creepy...

And Glenn, you act as though these people have no free will. I'm sorry, but we're talking about offers to molest young children here. There is no reason in the world that man should say yes, no matter who's behind it. Maybe it's a trap, but it's a pretty damn easy trap to avoid. There's really no excuse whatsoever, and the risks are far too great. What, we don't try to catch these guys and just wait for a real child peddler to come along?

rock_nog wrote:And Glenn, you act as though these people have no free will.

Well of course they don't!

Biggiy wrote:Then maybe the people being lured into the sting shouldn't be such idiots like you.

Biggiy, please cease the flames. I'm getting fed up with it, and I'm getting close to going to War Lord. Act your job, alright?

Glenn the Great wrote:Biggiy, please cease the flames. I'm getting fed up with it, and I'm getting close to going to War Lord. Act your job, alright?

lol. What part of "no-flame rule doesn't apply to you" don't you understand?

Actually, scratch that. Go ahead and talk to War Lord.....let me give you his phone number.....

Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?

Kamaria wrote:Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?

Kamaria wrote:Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?

Don't get him started, this thread will get way too sidetracked. If you seriously want to know ask him in another thread in think tank or something.

How do you catch someone who is buying drugs? Sting operation. No one contests that. How do you catch someone who wants to buy kids? Sting operation. Why should that be contested?