quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus

I had not been aware of this, but apparently the wife saw his web chats and fled to police:
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=9016510

I'm curious what web site it was?

All it says is that "Sergey Merenkov" was the owner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

Why wait until the greater crime is committed, Darkfeather? If the man already had sufficient evidence against him for a conspiracy charge, why wait for additional ones? Why should the tax payers put additional law enforcement hours into "seeing if he'll change his mind" when crimes are already being committed? That's kind of the point of conspiracy to commit felonies is being against the law in the first place.

You're trying to make this into a 'thoughtcrime' situation, rather than this person's actions. Had the guy just typed up fantasies in a journal somewhere, without the chats, the unauthorized surveillance, and the other evidence, this would be a completely difference case.

If the IM's were concerning an affair, it wouldn't have been a criminal case. Those same IM's most certainly can be used in civil/divorce court. It's already been done in several states.


ETA - I'm kind of surprised at your view about this being a conviction because it's kink related. In My view, one of the big differences between kink and criminal activity against others is consent. I didn't see anywhere in the news article that any of his intended victims had given any form of consent. If they had, any defense attorney worth a damn would have tried to use that in the trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

Paragraph 11 sentence 8. Can't quote the specific sentence cause I am on my phone. That pretty much means your willing to risk someone in your families life to not arrest a dangerous individual, until they are in the act of committing a murder. And with your affair reference. It's no longer illegal. It's grounds for divorce but you can no longer be tried for adultery. Unless your in the military. So that point is is sort of invalid. And yes wasn't accused because of what she saw. He was accused of that actions he took towards the act itself.

quote:

Ok, just stop, stop. I HAVE NOT NOR EVER SAID TO LET THE CRIME PROCEED TO IT'S LOGICAL CONCLUSION.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather
This is the crux of my argument. Why wait, because what if he would have changed his mind? What if simply by waiting, we would have spent NO tax payer dollars because he would have not committed any crime. That is the difference between conspiracy and actually committing said crime. And why conspiracy is sooo damn easy to be convicted of. As for his "victims", there are none! Why, because he NEVER had the chance to commit the crime, only the conspiracy. What if they had waited, and surprise, it was as he said, all a big wank fantasy? Did he go a bit far to fuel his fantasy, sure. But if you surf the internet for any length of time, you can find people who go to FAR extreme lengths to indulge their fantasies. Are their indulgences illegal? In some countries, probably (I won't give out any websites for the weak of constitution). But they haven't been hauled into court under conspiracy to commit

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

Mandarin Chinese please. But logically yes you are...... Let's put it in this perspective, since I am willing to beat a dead horse... There is one cop for every, I don't know..... 5000 people let's say, give or take a few thousand. Out of those 5000 people, how many of those have the potential to commit a murder? All of them.... Including kids. Then add in how many of them have their mindset already on a specific act daily....... Probably 1000. Logically or saying that one person should look after 1000 people...... daily. And daily those people change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cordeliasub

So....if we don't arrest before the violent act, and we don't arrest after the violent act....when exactly do we arrest again? Maybe I missed it.......

quote:

That's why the criminal conviction is conspiracy and not attempted XXX.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

I am reading and re reading. Which is why I gave you my example of why conspiracy is in place in the first place. And wether you believe it or not the vitcims, are still victims, doesn't matter if that act happened or not, they were targets. And that goes back to my previous post 1 person cannot look at 1000 people all day everyday. Waiting and what if's lead to people being dead.
And that turns into the constitutional issue of everyone has a right to life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Correct. He had potential victims. What he didn't have is LACKof a criminal act. As soon as he was bringing others into his plans, actually attempting to have another person join him in the execution, that's when the crime was committed. That's why the criminal conviction is conspiracy and not attempted XXX.

The argument of 'other people on the internet are doing it' is rather weak. Each person is responsible for their own actions, and yes, attempting to convince others to be a part of his plan is, beyond doubt, an action. Same thing goes with abuse of power to use his position of a police officer to dig for information on his potential victims. Are we going to say that everybody on the force is doing it, so when we actually CATCH somebody doing it, there shouldn't be any consequences?

What if waiting to see him follow through on the plans took ten years? Should we keep waiting or after a period of time, allow ourselves to think. 'well, he changed his mind, we can stop watching now'? If at ten year and one day he followed through, guess who's responsibility that is when the authorities KNEW he had been brought to their attention, but they see fit to charge him with conspiracy because the greater crime (kidnapping, sexual assault, murder, etc) was determined a wait and see policy?

There really is a reason that conspiracy to commit a felony is on the books. You and I will have to agree to disagree with it's value.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus

quote:

That's why the criminal conviction is conspiracy and not attempted XXX.

This is interesting, if I understand it correctly.

He thought about it; he conspired with his friends on the net at darkfetishnet.com; he then acted on some of the preliminaries - hence - he was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

Had he thought about it, and acted on the preliminaries, but not conspired with anyone, he would just have been guilty of attempted murder.

Do I understand correctly yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

I am reading and re reading. Which is why I gave you my example of why conspiracy is in place in the first place. And wether you believe it or not the vitcims, are still victims, doesn't matter if that act happened or not, they were targets. And that goes back to my previous post 1 person cannot look at 1000 people all day everyday. Waiting and what if's lead to people being dead.
And that turns into the constitutional issue of everyone has a right to life.

And you did not read my statements. Because if you did, you would have seen where I said, they already knew it was Gilberto, not some faceless 1000s. All they would have had to do was watch Gilberto, what part of that do you not understand? Sit and watch him, and if he were to get in a car with a gun and a knife, and park outside a woman's house, said cops would get out of their cars, and THEN arrest him. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH??? That is not waiting until he kills someone, that is not waiting until weeks after, when he is in Mexico drinking coronas. That is catching him in the act, not just conspiracy. Why is it so hard to get across the concept that catching someone in the commission of a crime is infinitely better then convicting them of conspiracy? Because conspiracy is easy, it's a cop-out. Conspiracy is what you charge a person with when you CAN'T get them on something more concrete. And no, they are
not victims. They were not hurt, emotionally or physically. They weren't even inconvenienced by him. To say they are victims is an insult to people who actually have suffered at the hands of real crimes

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

I am reading and re reading. Which is why I gave you my example of why conspiracy is in place in the first place. And wether you believe it or not the vitcims, are still victims, doesn't matter if that act happened or not, they were targets. And that goes back to my previous post 1 person cannot look at 1000 people all day everyday. Waiting and what if's lead to people being dead.
And that turns into the constitutional issue of everyone has a right to life.

And you did not read my statements. Because if you did, you would have seen where I said, they already knew it was Gilberto, not some faceless 1000s. All they would have had to do was watch Gilberto, what part of that do you not understand? Sit and watch him, and if he were to get in a car with a gun and a knife, and park outside a woman's house, said cops would get out of their cars, and THEN arrest him. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH??? That is not waiting until he kills someone, that is not waiting until weeks after, when he is in Mexico drinking coronas. That is catching him in the act, not just conspiracy. Why is it so hard to get across the concept that catching someone in the commission of a crime is infinitely better then convicting them of conspiracy? Because conspiracy is easy, it's a cop-out. Conspiracy is what you charge a person with when you CAN'T get them on something more concrete. And no, they are
not victims. They were not hurt, emotionally or physically. They weren't even inconvenienced by him. To say they are victims is an insult to people who actually have suffered at the hands of real crimes

And what your not understanding is while that one person is sitting in their car watching this suspect other crime is happening that the police officer might have to be responsible for...The police officer leaves to deal with a murder that just happened. Then that leaves the person to commit the crime without having anyone there to stop him. Therefore conspiracy us not a cop-out it is a way to get people off the streets that could potential do harm to others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus

I've had slave auction fantasies since I was a kid; I have ball gags, blindfolds, and fur-lined leather cuffs; and, I've just now discussed this with all my friends on the net (you).

EDIT: I've even gone so far as to pick out the very women (see below).


Am I guilty yet?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: JustDragonflies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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.

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...

I think you might have a fundamental philosophical problem with conspiracy being against the law, since it doesn't require the action to have been conducted, intentionally or not. But the bottom line is that, as was explained to you and the thread readers by the helpful lawyer on page 1, to do the things he did, whether he would have actually gone through with it in the end IS in fact a crime.

Also, I'd like to point out that legally, a joke (about wishing someone dead) is not "intent". Thinking to one's self "Hmm. I'd like to be rich and have all the money in this bank. I wonder how hard it would be to rob it?" doesn't mean intent, and it certainly doesn't meet the requirement which was pointed out to the readers a few times, again on page 1, I believe, about taking action to further the intent. So even intent alone doesn't appear to be enough, you have to take action.

So. If I said jokingly that I wish that Bill was dead. That'd be one thing. If I said it seriously, that's another. It becomes more illegal the more actions I take to make Bill dead. When I have figured out the steps I'd need to take for Bill to die, it's getting perverse. But when I go out and stalk Bill's address, meet Bill to assess his potential for being killed and then talk about killing Bill with my partner.... I believe that I'd be meeting the legal requirements to be charged with conspiring to kill Bill, because I obviously am doing that. I may never actually kill him, but in this scenario, I've conspired to do so. And that's illegal, whether you agree with it or not. And if I get caught doing it... I'll be charged just like this guy.

And none of that has anything to do with racial profiling, I might add. If the car scenario occurred, regardless of race, if a clean cut looking off duty cop was found, say... with a bag to put stolen items in, a tool to break in and had internet searches on their computer about how to break into cars: then again, they're meeting those criteria of having furthered their ideas along to conspire to commit the crime, again... whether they commit the break-in, in the end is different crime entirely. If they're caught standing there with all that evidence, they'd have broken some laws already for just taking those actions alone.


To answer the OP's question, I think the point that someone is starting to take action toward their fantasy, if it's illegal, is when it becomes criminal. I read some of the testimony that indicated that he told others that it was all just a joke and he'd never actually go through with such deeds. But when you start to look people up and target individuals, whether they're ignorant of it or not, you're beginning to break some laws,and if you're caught may be punished for it. And probably that's the way it ought to be. It might have taken him 10 days or years to work up to taking further action, or he might never have done so. But, to me, it's important for people to understand that planning, and taking action to harm others isn't appropriate conduct in our society and may be punishable. Be that as it may, I believe that the punishment should fit the actual crime that did take place and if I had any authority over sentencing him it wouldn't be life imprisonment. It would be more like a couple years of house arrest, a decade of counseling and a lifetime of monitoring (because I doubt even a decade of counseling could prevent someone from wanting to kill and eat people if that's something that they're already deeply sexually attached to).

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

I get your point but again as stated previously, when that happens whos around to respond? The police that is tailing him? There is not enough man power for the police to be able to tail everyone who they think is going to do wrong, so they put this sort of thing in place to prevent it from happening at the root of the problem. Your absolutely right, fear begets fear. But his wife Feared for her own safety which led to people going further into what he was doing. People fear for their lives which leads them to a not guilty verdict when it comes to killing in self defense.

We can "What if" a situation until we are blue in the face, but that doesn't change to real problem, he took acts toward committing the crime. Even if it wasn't discovered until after his wife went screaming out of the house.

And i cant dis wade you from your opinion of a certain situation. I am stating what I think based on my back round. Changing your opinion of something is like trying to make the pope an atheist, not going to happen, because you have dealt with similar situations like that all your life. Especially when I might be just a kid in your eyes, see what i am saying? Your also right in saying that your local police might have a problem with a ball gag and rope, I forgot to factor in separate state legality issues, yes big oversight on my part. But that also depends on the person and what he has been subjected to.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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...

You are projecting your own crap on this situation, and it is two different things. The cop in your case wrongly projected that because you were black and around an expensive car, you are guilty, the same way that piece of shit in florida killed a black kid simply because he was black. And I am sure you are projecting in this case because the perp was hispanic, so of course it is racism at work..


The difference is your case was a cop making a stupid decision unilaterally. To go after valle, they had to go through the DA's office, who will decide if there is enough evidence, there are people who investigated this, tracked down leads, all the thing the cop didn't do with you, this investigation probably involved a good number of people. They had to get his im's, his phone records, they had to get supoenas and warrants to get the information, and all along the way there were all kinds of checks and balances. It had to go to a grand jury to see if they had cause.......they are very different things and quite frankly, it is illogical, you could make a good case in your example, but this went far beyond that.

What you keep avoiding is he didn't just have intent, as you point out, we all think of doing harm to people, and that is fine. Saying to a friend "I could kill the sob' in of itself isn't a crime; but if they start seeing me start to put a plan in action, if they find out I am putting the guy under surveillance, or that I have gone out and bought a gun, that is actions, that is actually carrying out steps to actually be able to carry out a crime, and that isn't thought.

Put it this way, let's use your situation. Suppose you werent the owner of the car, were casing it, the cop spotted it, rousted you, and found a slap hammer on you or a jimmy to open the door or a gizmo to bypass the ignition anti theft system, are you saying that unless the cop didn't actually catch you attempting to open the door, you should go free? If they can show intent and that you had the means to commit a crime, it is a criminal offense, always has been. This guy went over the line, whether or not he would have gone through with it is irrelevant. If I hire a hit man to kill my boss, and then at the last minute call him off, and the cops find out I hired him, I will go to jail. Valle was planning horible crimes, a kinkster would not be checking addresses, he wouldn't be attempting to hire someone to help kidnap someone, if he wasn't planning it, he was going to do it. The fact that he got his jollies off on the idea of doing this is irrelevent, whether he was doing it because he thought women were the spawn of satan, or because he thought they were nutritious, or because it made him hard, is irrelevant, the fact is he took action to further the action beyond his mind, and that is a crime.