quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

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.

You watch too much Law and Order, you think that Fin and Munch are gonna sit in a car, cracking jokes, eating crappy food until the guy actually commits a crime...it doesn't work like that in real life. If they have proof he actually is putting forward steps to commit a crime, they will act to prevent it and charge the person with conspiracy. The idea that you should only be allowed to bust someone if you catch them actually attempting to commit the crime is absolutely idiotic, not only that, but it leaves out the primary reason why they can bust someone for conspiracy, it is because if you can stop a crime before it happens, the odds of someone getting serious hurt is diminished. Do you know how many women have been killed by estranged spouses and boyfriends because the cops basically tell them there is no proof he is going to do anything, and the next day the fucking cop is sitting their scratching his fat ass and saying "gee, I'm sorry" while they are carting off the women in a body bag? In almost anything, the best way to prevent crime is to catch it in the planning stages or when it is likely, once the crime is in motion, the odds of preventing harm diminishes greatly.
In your fantasy world they could have sat and waited until he actually attempted something, but the real problem here is he, especially as a cop, could wait them out, for weeks, months, until they can't afford to tie up manpower on surveillance, and then someone would very likely die. You are living in dreamland.....

And before you go off on your big high horse about knowing what it is like to be harassed and whatnot, so do I, big time, I have been accused of bein a prostitute for being trans coming out of a support group meeting in the west village, I had been assaulted and had the cops laugh at me when I wanted to file a complaint, I have had cops pull me over in a car simply because I was presenting as a woman.......and want to know something? They were wrong, but that has zero to do with this case, each case is unique. In this case, they had real evidence a crime was about to be committed, and they put together a chain of evidence (not a bunch of people seeing you near a car, evidence, real evidence) he had gone beyond thought to planning, and that is not intent (though intent is proven by thst), it is actually acting on it.

BTW, if you had bondage gear in your car, and photos of girls tied up, you might get taken in for questioning, depending on where you are. But it is very unlikely it would ever go anywhere, any lawyer with half a brain would get you released in no time in many places. Unfortunately, there are places where the law makes consensual bd/sm a crime, I wouldn't want to get caught with that stuff down in the hookworm belt, in NYC they would be n deep, deep shit if they ever tried to arrest someone for having bondage stuff for consensual activity, they would face big lawsuits among other things.

The law is not perfect, but the idea that you can only arrest someone caught in the act of doing a crime, or afterwords, is ludicrous, it is the recipe for what you have in many high crime areas, where people basically look the other way, refuse to talk to the cops when a crime has been committed, and then sit and bellyache because they are forced to live with the consequences.

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: njlauren

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.

You watch too much Law and Order, you think that Fin and Munch are gonna sit in a car, cracking jokes, eating crappy food until the guy actually commits a crime...it doesn't work like that in real life. If they have proof he actually is putting forward steps to commit a crime, they will act to prevent it and charge the person with conspiracy. The idea that you should only be allowed to bust someone if you catch them actually attempting to commit the crime is absolutely idiotic, not only that, but it leaves out the primary reason why they can bust someone for conspiracy, it is because if you can stop a crime before it happens, the odds of someone getting serious hurt is diminished. Do you know how many women have been killed by estranged spouses and boyfriends because the cops basically tell them there is no proof he is going to do anything, and the next day the fucking cop is sitting their scratching his fat ass and saying "gee, I'm sorry" while they are carting off the women in a body bag? In almost anything, the best way to prevent crime is to catch it in the planning stages or when it is likely, once the crime is in motion, the odds of preventing harm diminishes greatly.
In your fantasy world they could have sat and waited until he actually attempted something, but the real problem here is he, especially as a cop, could wait them out, for weeks, months, until they can't afford to tie up manpower on surveillance, and then someone would very likely die. You are living in dreamland.....

And before you go off on your big high horse about knowing what it is like to be harassed and whatnot, so do I, big time, I have been accused of bein a prostitute for being trans coming out of a support group meeting in the west village, I had been assaulted and had the cops laugh at me when I wanted to file a complaint, I have had cops pull me over in a car simply because I was presenting as a woman.......and want to know something? They were wrong, but that has zero to do with this case, each case is unique. In this case, they had real evidence a crime was about to be committed, and they put together a chain of evidence (not a bunch of people seeing you near a car, evidence, real evidence) he had gone beyond thought to planning, and that is not intent (though intent is proven by thst), it is actually acting on it.

BTW, if you had bondage gear in your car, and photos of girls tied up, you might get taken in for questioning, depending on where you are. But it is very unlikely it would ever go anywhere, any lawyer with half a brain would get you released in no time in many places. Unfortunately, there are places where the law makes consensual bd/sm a crime, I wouldn't want to get caught with that stuff down in the hookworm belt, in NYC they would be n deep, deep shit if they ever tried to arrest someone for having bondage stuff for consensual activity, they would face big lawsuits among other things.

The law is not perfect, but the idea that you can only arrest someone caught in the act of doing a crime, or afterwords, is ludicrous, it is the recipe for what you have in many high crime areas, where people basically look the other way, refuse to talk to the cops when a crime has been committed, and then sit and bellyache because they are forced to live with the consequences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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.

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: njlauren

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.

You again have watched too many movie and tv shows, have you ever actually talked to investigators and DA's? I have several ex da's in my family, a good friend of mine worked as an investigator in the da's office in NYC (oddly, he looked a lot like Jerry Orbach, go figure), so I am talking from speaking to them. If they know a wife has hired a hit man, they will arrest her and the hitman for criminal conspiracy; if they have real evidence a group is planning to hit a bank, they will bring them in and arrest them, they will generally not wait for the crime to happen (it depends on the case). When they get evidence of terrorists planning to blow up a synagogue, whether through wiretaps or informants, they don't wait for them to try and blow up the synagogue, they bust them for planning a terrorist attack. As I said in another post, they don't have the resources to tail everyone who is planning a crime, and someone like valle, who very well might have been tipped off it was going on, could wait them out and then act when they gave up in frustration. The reason criminal conspiracy laws, especially with crimes like murder and rape and such, exist, is to protect the potential victims, because waiting for the suspect to act has proven out time and again to be the recipe where they will be prosecuting all right, after the victim is dead.

I don't think law enforcement is perfect, far from it, they fuck up royally all over the place, a grad student was convicted and sent to prison for sexual assault and kidnapping, for a weekend of consensual BD/SM play, where the woman who was his sub later on freaked out, and the DA basically railroaded the guy into jail (among other things, the DA moved to exclude e-mails that showed it was consensual, and argued, and found some stupid putz of a judge to agree, that no one could consent to doing that stuff, so the e-mails were irrelevent that showed she consented; fortunately, it was overturned on appeal, the judge was way out of line, and the guy was either i believe acquitted or they dropped the case entirely, and the DA was put out to pasture, some feminist has been *ick)..so I know how it can be abused. But when lives are at stake, when the guy has shown he is serious (using a federal database, that can get him kicked off the force and sent to jail? You think people will risk that for a fantasy?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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.

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

No tax payer dollars? You have been talking about putting him under surveillance, tailing him, and catching him in the act..do you know how much that costs the taxpayers? I suggest you stop watching law and order and Kojak reruns, it doesn't work like you think.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

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.

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

No tax payer dollars? You have been talking about putting him under surveillance, tailing him, and catching him in the act..do you know how much that costs the taxpayers? I suggest you stop watching law and order and Kojak reruns, it doesn't work like you think.

Kojack returns???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather


Ok, I am done dealing with your silly logic. One cop sitting watching Gilberto would lead to an escalation in crime because he could not be out there dealing with others?? You do know that there are other cops on any given police force, and that I think even my local police, who have a whopping 10 officers, could afford to spare one on a surveillance schedule if it meant catching a criminal. But seeing as I can't even fathom the reasoning you seem to be basing your statements from, I will leave you at your word... God forbid "evil" runs rampant while we worry about actual crime. Lets get those "potential criminals" off the streets. At least until the definition of potential starts to include what, jay walkers, spitting on the street, whistling. Hell, a good prosecutor could convict a spitter of conspiracy. But hey, in your would it would never happen right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

And my point is, we sacrifice for convenience. Today it's we don't have the resources to go for commission, so lets go for the lesser conspiracy. How long before it snowballs to jay-walking or tax evasion. There is a reason it is supposed to be hard for the prosecutors to convict someone. Its so innocent people don't get sent to prison. There is supposed to be "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". But We have consistently been making it easier and easier to convict. So soon, anyone can go to jail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus
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:

What if simply by waiting, we would have spent NO tax payer dollars because he would have not committed any crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pyramus
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?

I'm going to do My best with this one.

At the stage where I believe this individual to be, no, they couldn't have gotten him for attempted murder. If I recall correctly, there is something about being within physical proximity (or proxy) for the ability for the action to be carried out. There's this concept called 'lethal force'. In other words, the accused has to be within range of ending life considering the tools at that person's disposal and in the midst of engaging in that act.

It goes something like this:

Same room, weapon, knife, and movement or threat of bodily harm toward the other party..... Attempted murder.

Rooftop across the street, knife, no direct attempt.

Gun with decent site across the street, clear shot, direct attempt because potential direct intent applies.

Outside force (another person with direct intent to kill) also qualifies, if the instructions are being given by another.

The problem with the charge of attempted murder is that it has to meet various criteria. One is that death will be the concluded result. Not a 'most likely' result, but a logical conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
Yep, Kojak reruns, 1970's crime show, where they staked out the bad guy until he was caught ("Crocker!". It is very easy to talk about staking people out, about waiting until they commit a crime, but what you are talking about is more fictional and real. NYC has 8 million people living there, there are 14 million in NYC on a given day, and the cops have at any time on the streets maybe 7000 cops.....even though probably 99% of the people in the city are going about their business, there aren't enough resources to tail someone like Valle until they decide to commit the crime...as Lady P put brilliantly, are they going to tail him for days, weeks, months,24/7? And if they do, he doesn't do anything , they drop it, and then he goes and does it? You are playing a highly theoretical game where the cops have nothing better to do but sit on top of someone, I don't know where you live, but I hate to tell you, there is a lot going on at any given time, including the fact that the NYPD has one of the most difficult terrorism situation to deal with, on top of 15 million people. You might live in Mayberry RFD, and Barney Fife can spend time watching, but in a city like NYC, you have to be kidding me.

quote:

Public opinion is that he is guilty,

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Public opinion is that he is guilty,

Not public opinion... but a jury of his peers found him guilty in a court of law following guideline instructions from the judge. None of us was there...none of us has seen all the evidence...He will be able to appeal and will have due process.


So Yes..."the evil murderin, flesh eating basterd " deserves exactly what he is getting.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

According to popular belief, he what, was minutes away from stalking and eating a whole list of innocent young women.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KrazyJester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

According to popular belief, he what, was minutes away from stalking and eating a whole list of innocent young women.

Stop taking things other people say out of context to suit what you are trying to say. That's not popular belief because if he was minutes away from " eating a whole list of innocent young women" that would fit your whole waiting for commision arguement and you aswell would be in that " popular belief". Most people aren't vilifying the man as a " evil murdering" person they are trying to break the point of why it happened to him.

Oh also he already stalked his victims..... By looking up their address on the federal database.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

So obviously I am in the minority here in, you know, wanting commission. So lets go with it then, call Gilberto what he is, the evil murderin, flesh eating basterd that he is. Then why not cut out the middle man? Why not do like they did in the old west, and drag him out of the jail and lynch him? Public opinion is that he is guilty, certainly everyone here feels he is. So why isn't everyone screaming for the head of the "Cannibal Cop". According to popular belief, he what, was minutes away from stalking and eating a whole list of innocent young women. Hell all of the tri-state area was not safe, and he even slept with a lobster bib at night. Why would anyone believing a person this evil, settle for conspiracy, and a MAX of life in prison? Me, if someone commits a capital crime, they deserve death. No coddling in prison for life, no mental hospital (and if you believe he did this, he definitely was not insane). No, if he is the monster portrayed, then why is no one screaming for lethal injection, gas chamber, firing squad, hell even rusty nail?