quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


And you are clearly missing the point. You know how this whole case came to light? Not because one of his "victims" came crying to the FBI, screaming attempted kidnapping, not because his co-conspirators failed in their attempts... No, his wife found pictures, pictures mind you, on his computer and ran from the house calling the cops. That is how he got caught. Not red handed in the act, no stalking in the back yard of some nubile young female. He got caught with kink, and it exploded from there. So sometimes, you cannot just explain things away. INTENT snowballs. This is human nature, fear begets fear. I guarantee if my local police see a bag of rope and ball-gags, and me a 43 year old black man, they will not smile and say "have a nice day". They will however say "can you please come down to the station for some questions". That is our society, impressions form INTENT. I have lived with it my whole life, and hell if you can convince me that kind of thinking is right, cause it isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Good lord, I have over and over again said I am not arguing the legality of this case. So please stop trying to contradict my statements on such. In fact, I don't really care if they are legal or not, as I don't really agree with them in the first place. Conspiracy is way to easy to prove, hence why it has made such a comeback in recent years. Prosecutors will time and time again go for conspiracy over something harder to prove, such as eye witness accounts, DNA evidence, etc. Why, because the requirements on evidence, allowable statements, witness testimony, etc., are a lot more forgiving. And yes I can say with absolute certainty that even though I wasn't in the jury room they had been influenced by the prosecutor's evidence. Why, because they were shown pictures of bloody gore from cannibal websites and told they were linked to Gilberto. That kind of thing prejudices a person, you can't help it. Only a monster looks at pictures of blood and guts, so Gilberto must be a monster, hence convict. What gets me is that no one, NO ONE is saying they should have at least waited to catch him in the act... When they get prior knowledge of a bank robbery, do they arrest them? No, they stake out the bank, and catch the guys out front as they try. When they hear about a wife trying to hire a hitman to knock off her old man, do they arrest her? No, they send in an under cover cop to play the scumbag and record her paying him to do the dirty deed. Did they do ANYTHING like that in this case, no. But no one is questioning that. Everyone seems fine that they simply went in on the simple word of his wife, raided and tore apart his computer and other personal property, slapped every petty crime they could on to him then convicted him. Of something he may or may not eventually probably would have done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Good lord, I have over and over again said I am not arguing the legality of this case. So please stop trying to contradict my statements on such. In fact, I don't really care if they are legal or not, as I don't really agree with them in the first place. Conspiracy is way to easy to prove, hence why it has made such a comeback in recent years. Prosecutors will time and time again go for conspiracy over something harder to prove, such as eye witness accounts, DNA evidence, etc. Why, because the requirements on evidence, allowable statements, witness testimony, etc., are a lot more forgiving. And yes I can say with absolute certainty that even though I wasn't in the jury room they had been influenced by the prosecutor's evidence. Why, because they were shown pictures of bloody gore from cannibal websites and told they were linked to Gilberto. That kind of thing prejudices a person, you can't help it. Only a monster looks at pictures of blood and guts, so Gilberto must be a monster, hence convict. What gets me is that no one, NO ONE is saying they should have at least waited to catch him in the act... When they get prior knowledge of a bank robbery, do they arrest them? No, they stake out the bank, and catch the guys out front as they try. When they hear about a wife trying to hire a hitman to knock off her old man, do they arrest her? No, they send in an under cover cop to play the scumbag and record her paying him to do the dirty deed. Did they do ANYTHING like that in this case, no. But no one is questioning that. Everyone seems fine that they simply went in on the simple word of his wife, raided and tore apart his computer and other personal property, slapped every petty crime they could on to him then convicted him. Of something he may or may not eventually probably would have done.

I get the feeling that you are so twisted that the guy was busted on a conspiracy charge because the crime that he was plotting to commit was directly related to a kink, and not another type of crime, such as just killing someone. If a person was conspiring to blow up the Empire State building, would you really prefer the authorities wait until the bombs are placed?

It seems to Me that they had the equivalent of recording his own statements with an undercover cop because they had his chat log records. From the article, he was already engaging on the net with another person by the screen name of Moody Blues about his plans and already had potential victims picked out. They didn't have to wait and follow the guy around. They already had enough evidence to get the conviction before the more serious crime was committed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dyfrynt

Had this guy done nothing but chat online about his fantasies, I agree completely he should not be charged with a crime. But he did more than that. He took real actions in the real world in furtherance of fulfilling his fantasies. The actions he did take were illegal ones. All the other chaff you have thrown up is besides the point (like his wife being the whistle blower). He did criminal acts. He should be tried and punished for them.

You lose me where you seem to think that he didn't commit enough criminal acts yet to be convicted. He did.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

the con part of con spire (to breathe together) sorta is a necessary and sufficient condition of its meaningful use.

Now that I think about that, I may be of two minds on this issue...............


LOL.  NO, it requires complicitness (even if involuntary)  That is, I talk to you for agreement and you turn me in, I am conspiring.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


And you are clearly missing the point. You know how this whole case came to light? Not because one of his "victims" came crying to the FBI, screaming attempted kidnapping, not because his co-conspirators failed in their attempts... No, his wife found pictures, pictures mind you, on his computer and ran from the house calling the cops. That is how he got caught. Not red handed in the act, no stalking in the back yard of some nubile young female. He got caught with kink, and it exploded from there. So sometimes, you cannot just explain things away. INTENT snowballs. This is human nature, fear begets fear. I guarantee if my local police see a bag of rope and ball-gags, and me a 43 year old black man, they will not smile and say "have a nice day". They will however say "can you please come down to the station for some questions". That is our society, impressions form INTENT. I have lived with it my whole life, and hell if you can convince me that kind of thinking is right, cause it isn't.

No, his wife not only found his "kink," but that she was on his list of victims.

The bottom line here is that you don't have to agree with the law, and are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, the fact is that the law supports his conviction. He wasn't convicted for thinking, he was convicted for planning. He wasn't convicted for being a pervert, he was convicted for planning a serious crime. He wasn't convicted because of fear, he was convicted because, unlike you, most people would not prefer to wait until their family member was killed before stopping the guy.

Should the shoppers inside the store have called the cops on you? Maybe. Would you prefer they ignore someone acting suspiciously around your "100k car" and let it get stolen before making the call? I don't doubt the cop was not pleasant to you. However, you weren't arrested, were you? You were asked what you were doing. Quite honestly, if you gave the cop the attitude you express here, I don't wonder why he might have been less than polite to you. Personally, in the situation you described, if it were me, when the cop asked me what I was doing, I would tell him I was looking for my keys, and ask if perhaps he could shine his flashlight under the car to help me find them.

quote:

They stepped in well before he could decide whether or not he would go through it as you say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

Haha dude you are all over the map on this subject. First you say that you would rather have someone die before someone is arrested. Then you switch your stance? It's in one of your previous posts.

Also you are baised toward this event because of an incident that happened to you. Something that is on the other end of the spectrum from this.. In where you probably escalated to situation where it shouldn't have gone. Based on your responses I am not surprised. And your yet again bringing your race into a situation where, it might be warrented to your specific event or it might not, its irrelevant towards the over all spectrum of the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
Gilberto was convicted by fear. Fear of what he was thinking and fear of what he "might" have done. If he had acted those fantasies out to their conclusions, yes he would have been guilty. But the truth is he never did. The evidence presented against him at trial so inflamed the jury against him (websites visited, images viewed, etc), that they saw the monster he could have been not the simple kinky freak he was.

You all do know that actions, no matter how far into the real world, as long as they do not harm a person or infringe on their personal rights, are not illegal. The fact that he was an "officer of the law, or used his position to gain information, or engaged in surveillance, etc" while all questionable at best are still no basis to convict for life imprisonment. These acts, while unusual, are by no means criminal. Suspicious, yes. Should he have been kept under surveillance himself, sure. Should they have waited until he did something more criminal, absolutely. Fact is, they convicted this man for the idea of being a deviant, and being caught at it

And my point is, in most other cases officers who used databases for personal uses do not get convicted for LIFE... Hell they don't even get fired. People who just, just mind you, stalk (though this activity in Gilberto's case is highly questionable) would warrant only further surveillance not LIFE... Honestly, do you think Gilberto is the only officer who has checked someone's name for priors before a first date, or typed in their license plate to find out their address? No, but it is just something they get to tack onto his deviant behavior to vilify it. As for all these people planning terrorist acts? you can blame the Patriot Act for this abomination. Fear is the currency of the day in the new America

Everyone seems to be missing the point here... Gilberto got Life imprisonment. Unless I missed something here, class A misdemeanor conviction does not, I repeat not, carry that severe a penalty. Hell, no court in this country would waste court resources to try a police officer on such a trivial matter on its own, which is why it was tacked on to the other offenses. If anyone here can find a simple reason why he warranted LIFE, What he actually did to deserve that level of punishment, then speak it now. Otherwise all he was actually convicted of was the simple fear of what he "could" have done

When did this country become the place where innocent until proven guilty became, crime prevention?? As his defense attorney tried to point out over and over, all that he was guilty of was fantasizing, and yes perhaps pushing the boundaries on that a bit too far. But YES, we should absolutely wait until he actually acts on them. We should never become the society who convicts someone before they actually commits a crime, just because that crime may have serious ramifications. Why, because what happens if the person in question, oh I don't know, at the last minute decided NOT to do that crime. You know, human will, choice, etc. If you put that guy in jail before he committed that act, he did not get the chance to make the choice. You essentially made that for him. This, and this alone, is why watching him and waiting was warranted. Letting him make the choice himself.

He committed at best, misdemeanors. Punishable by what, a few years in jail. No D.A. in the country would have brought those charges to the grand jury, let alone court, lest waste tax payer money one that. Conspiracy to kidnap?? Do you know what that was, he chatted with females over the internet and had planned to meet with them, that's it. Planned to meet at some future date with females he only knew over the internet, that was the conspiracy. The fact that he may or may not have committed crimes are trivial technicalities, which on their own would be laughed out of any court in the land. The only reason he was "convicted" of the crime, and sentenced to life, was the fact that his jury was subjected to the websites he visited. Cannibal websites. They were showed images of graphic, bloody images that he viewed. These, even at the objection of his attorney, so prejudiced them against him, that they convicted him simply on his kink.

I love how easily people are in giving up their civil rights in the name of perceived "greater good" or "justice. Once again, Patriot Act anyone? I say again, where in the testimony does it say he ACTIVELY engaged in surveillance?? What he did was check the database on the women's address and other info. Something perhaps any other cop may do in a similar first date situation. Abuse of power, maybe. Misdemeanor, sure. Life sentence, hell no. And please stop saying potential life sentence, we all know in the air of his case, he will certainly not get the minimum. He will in all likelihood get the maximum. If he could have been given the death sentence, they would have. Everyone here is hell bent on convicting the man on his minor infractions and even those were minimally proven if that. Basically, what he really did was contact a few women, talk to them over IM and emails, arrange to meet them. In the interim, he checked them out using official resources. The info in the emails and IMs were found to be of a kinky and fantasy related nature. It was this, coupled with his choices in websites, that resulted in his conviction. Not his abuse of power, not his conspiracy to kidnap, etc. All that is just fluff to mask the real objective. The truth is, he never, NEVER met any of those women. Never saw any of those women. Hell, he never even talked to any of them on the phone. He never followed then in his car, he never took pictures of them, etc. The above is the extent of the "conspiracy to kidnap" case against him. Everything, period

No, a jury of his peers convicted him of being a pervert

I am in no way defending the man or his actions. My point is they took out his choice in the matter. They stepped in well before he could decide whether or not he would go through it as you say. Up until they arrested him, he had not committed any real acts, they were all still fantasy. Still talked about, still watched in videos, still mused over in photos. Could this have ultimately been enough for him, we will never know now, because he never had that epiphany. He never came to that turning-point in the road. We are supposed to be a society where until you cross that line, until you take that choice to act like a criminal and not just think like one, you are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt. He wasn't

Planning is NOT the same as doing. That is the evidence

Well, it seems that all of you know his mindset more than he did himself. So of course, join in with all the rest of those who vilified him, good lord. You know, it is a sad day when someone can with a straight face can say it is fine to convict a person purely on intent. Who on this planet can say with absolute honesty that they have never walked into a bank and thought, wow if only... Or jokingly said to a friend, I wish Bill was dead. Think back far enough and very few people in the span of their lifetimes can not string together what, capability, opportunity, and intent? Its all in how you present it isn't it. Intent is an easy thing to show because everyone has it at one time or another. And yes, I am of the opinion that you wait for guilt instead of convicting an innocent, even if it were directed at a member of my own family. Maybe because I have been on the receiving end of such accusations beforehand, that I can sympathize with someone who is tried and convicted without even doing said crime. For example, does a shady character, hovering around my 100k car, constitute a crime? No. does a shady character, looking in my said car's windows late at night constitute a crime? Hell no. But those here screaming for poor Gilberto's blood would have the person's head on a pike. Me, I would yes, wait until he actually, I don't know, committed a crime, until I said he was a criminal. Why, because I have been in that situation before, and wow, guess what, I was just looking for a stupid key that fell under the car, but wow, did the cop that came up on me have a pleasant attitude? To him, I was a black man standing next to a sports-car at night, you do the math...

My point is not whether it is legal, but is it right, sheesh. Everyone is more than happy to say conspiracy, intent, etc. But my point is is it right to convict someone purely on intent. And yes my example is just like his. No it was not a bigoted cop. It was just a case of spectators inside the supermarket, who happened to see me near the car in question, mis-judged my INTENT. They believed me to be a car robber, and called the police. The police in turn, came with the notion that I was there to break into the car, and then saw a black man there. They also mis-judged my INTENT. Luckily I present a nice clean cut image, so it cleared up in time, but what if I had my bondage supplies in my car at the time? Rope, ball-gags, crops, etc... What if I had say polaroids of woman I had tied up, strictly with their consent mind you, also in my car at the time? Imagine the shitstorm that would have created with INTENT. I definitely would not be typing this from my house, I can tell you, unless I had gotten a really, really good lawyer. But I seem to be in the minority here, as others seem to be fine with the way things are now

And you are clearly missing the point. You know how this whole case came to light? Not because one of his "victims" came crying to the FBI, screaming attempted kidnapping, not because his co-conspirators failed in their attempts... No, his wife found pictures, pictures mind you, on his computer and ran from the house calling the cops. That is how he got caught. Not red handed in the act, no stalking in the back yard of some nubile young female. He got caught with kink, and it exploded from there. So sometimes, you cannot just explain things away. INTENT snowballs. This is human nature, fear begets fear. I guarantee if my local police see a bag of rope and ball-gags, and me a 43 year old black man, they will not smile and say "have a nice day". They will however say "can you please come down to the station for some questions". That is our society, impressions form INTENT. I have lived with it my whole life, and hell if you can convince me that kind of thinking is right, cause it isn't.

This is definitely a right or wrong scenario. Because did he actually act on his fantasy? No. Did he talk about it, yes. Did he engage in activities with like minded individuals, yes. Did he actually kidnap a female and eat her, no. Did he try to kidnap a female and eat her, no. Example, Mary wants to kill her husband Bill. She IMs a guy Mitch, talking about killing the poor guy. Is that a crime? Sure is, but is that right, no. Why, because she oh I dunno, might never actually go through with it. lets wait... Waiting, Mary plans out the whole thing, telling Mitch when poor Bill will be home, at work, asleep alone, etc. Is that a crime? Hell yes, but is that right? No, again because she might not actually go through with it, again. So gee, lets wait. Now Mary gets into the bank account and pulls 10k, giving it to Mitch. Now that shows she really wants poor Bill dead. Now you can say, she has intent. Lets put this into old Gilberto's situation... If say, he were caught in a beat up buick, with his three internet buddies and a bag full of duct tape, BBQ sauce, and baking tins, I would have no problem with him getting convicted. But that didn't happen. They stopped him long before it did. My point is, the right thing to do was to wait until he did get in that buick with the BBQ sauce, then arrest him, so it was clear as to what his INTENT was, instead of having to guess. Because that is what everyone is doing, guessing, unless we are now mind-readers

Ok, how about this? When said wife went screaming to the police, instead of locking the poor guy up and charging him with conspiracy, why not put him under surveillance?? No who is around to respond, no not enough man-hours. They are already on the guy. 24/7 police coverage of him so that if and when Gilberto and his cronies get in that buick with knives and rope, they can pull him over red handed caught in the act. I mean its not like they didn't know he wasn't suspect, his wife outright accused him (that little tidbit would be a whole new conversation entirely). To me, there is no "what if" situation there, they could have chosen to sit back and watch the situation play out or jump on it at the outset. They chose the latter.

Good lord, I have over and over again said I am not arguing the legality of this case. So please stop trying to contradict my statements on such. In fact, I don't really care if they are legal or not, as I don't really agree with them in the first place. Conspiracy is way to easy to prove, hence why it has made such a comeback in recent years. Prosecutors will time and time again go for conspiracy over something harder to prove, such as eye witness accounts, DNA evidence, etc. Why, because the requirements on evidence, allowable statements, witness testimony, etc., are a lot more forgiving. And yes I can say with absolute certainty that even though I wasn't in the jury room they had been influenced by the prosecutor's evidence. Why, because they were shown pictures of bloody gore from cannibal websites and told they were linked to Gilberto. That kind of thing prejudices a person, you can't help it. Only a monster looks at pictures of blood and guts, so Gilberto must be a monster, hence convict. What gets me is that no one, NO ONE is saying they should have at least waited to catch him in the act... When they get prior knowledge of a bank robbery, do they arrest them? No, they stake out the bank, and catch the guys out front as they try. When they hear about a wife trying to hire a hitman to knock off her old man, do they arrest her? No, they send in an under cover cop to play the scumbag and record her paying him to do the dirty deed. Did they do ANYTHING like that in this case, no. But no one is questioning that. Everyone seems fine that they simply went in on the simple word of his wife, raided and tore apart his computer and other personal property, slapped every petty crime they could on to him then convicted him. Of something he may or may not eventually probably would have done.

Ok, I am not, NOT NOT saying wait until he or anyone commits a horrific crime to arrest him, my god people. Go back and read my post for christ's sake. What I said was in all cases of prior knowledge of a crime, the norm is to surveil the suspects, and catch them in the act, red handed, as the commit. Read that as before the do anything, ok? Does that make things clear? Conspiracy is one of the easiest things to convict someone of. There used to be a joke a few years back, a good lawyer can convict even a toaster of conspiracy but a great one can get it off. Personally, I find it sad that I am the only one who finds it offensive they chose conspiracy in his case because it was easier and faster.

And yes, yes I was taken down to the station, put in a holding cell and fingerprinted. No I was not charged, but did I deserve to be treated that way just because some people saw me from a window, no. Could they have simply came outside and asked me what the problem was, Hell yes. Why didn't they, because of who I am. If I was a white man, or any type of female, they would have never even called the cops. So yes, I would have preferred they just ignored me and minded their goddamned business, until I did something that actually warranted the cops being called

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

No, the norm is not to wait until someone is ready to blow somebody's head off before stepping in. Christ, people have conspired to hire murderers to kill their spouses for at least 50 years. It is not the norm to wait until the murder is happening before you intervene.

Same with the bank robbing sprees in the 30s. They tried to capture Machine Gun Kelly, the Barker Gang, Bonnie and Clyde not in mid-robbery but while in a safer place where no innocents would be put at risk.