NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

vincentML -> NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 11:51:16 AM)

SOURCE

The prosecution charges that Gilberto Valle conspired to kidnap, rape and murder his wife and several other women and then cook then and eat them. They contend that discussions on an internet message board and in emails constitute a conspiracy to commit the crimes.

The defense argue that it was a harmless fetish fantasy and no crime was committed. The defense raises the issue of freedom of speech and thought. Therefore the state should have no interest.

The additional issue to my mind: are some fantasies beyond the pale? Are they so violent and harmful as to constitute a crime in the contemplation? Is Gilberto a menace to society for expressing his thoughts on a fetish board specifically devoted to the particular fantasy?

Also, always of interest to me is the question of free will in harboring fetishes.

Your thoughts, please.



Moonhead -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 11:53:16 AM)

Obviously it's the Kenyan's fault: he'd never have been busted for this under the chimp, and Captain Magicpants would have been all for eating uppity wives...



Iamsemisweet -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 1:11:08 PM)

God, this case is irritating. The guy obviously had some disturbing thoughts, and some unsavory Internet friends, but who doesn't? I certainly don't blame his wife for deciding he was too weird for her, but conspiracy to kidnap? C'mon. What's next, jailing people for having rape fantasies? The term "thought police" comes to mind



Moonhead -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 1:16:13 PM)

I dunno about that: if his wife was frightened enough to take it to court, then it seems that she wasn't confident that it was going to stay a fantasy.
(Nice jump from something that had enough evidence to stand up in court to bizarre paranoid hyperbole, btw. [;)])



WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 1:17:49 PM)

vincent, hope ya dont object to much to the opinions of a cartoon character lol but i reckon that unless theres concrete evidence that a crime was ta take place with evidence outside of the internet then it shouldnt be followed to trial. of course finding stuff like that may be enough to investigate but if they find valle guilty for just chatting then many fantasists are up shit creek. [&:]



tazzygirl -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 1:31:49 PM)

He said Officer Valle had also been charged with illegally accessing a law enforcement database to gain information about some of the women he was “explicitly targeting.”

That, for me, just might take it from fantasy to reality.



WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 1:34:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
He said Officer Valle had also been charged with illegally accessing a law enforcement database to gain information about some of the women he was “explicitly targeting.”

That, for me, just might take it from fantasy to reality.

yeah agreed about that.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 2:17:17 PM)

If he used a database illegally, he should be prosecuted for that. Simple. Prosecuting him for something he might have done is beyond the pale. While I am not unsympathetic with his wife, who knows what all her motivations were? Sounds like she contacted the other "victims" and got them into a frenzy too. I am interested (although not enough to spend time researching it) how the spousal privilege law plays into all this.



muhly22222 -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 2:54:10 PM)

In order for somebody to be charged with a conspiracy, there must have been planning to commit a crime, plus some overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy. The overt act wouldn't necessarily have to be illegal (for instance, buying rope to be used in tying the women up could be considered an overt act, although it's certainly not illegal to purchase rope).

Assuming that there was planning (more on that in a moment), there appears to have been an overt act, and in this case, that act was also illegal. Assuming that the officer actually did illegally access the police database to look up information about the same women he'd been talking about kidnapping and killing, that is an overt act, and the conspiracy charges could stick.

I would think the real defense (here and on appeal, which is where this case is bound if it's not decided in the defendant's favor at trial) is that no planning actually happened. Fantasizing isn't necessarily planning, although it can be the first step in planning.

quote:

I am interested (although not enough to spend time researching it) how the spousal privilege law plays into all this.


I'll save you some time. There are actually two spousal privileges. One of them, known as the confidential marital communications privilege, is held by the defendant-spouse (the officer here). For that one, there must have been confidential marital communications made between the husband and wife. Since there were no communications on this matter between the two of them, this wouldn't apply, and he can't stop her from testifying.

The other one is the spousal immunity privilege. In most states, that's now held by the testifying spouse (the wife here). The idea is that it would do a lot of damage to a home life if a spouse were to be forced to testify against his/her loved one. If, on the other hand, a spouse wants to testify, and one of the two sides wants him/her to do so, there's no reason why she shouldn't. If a person is willing to testify against their spouse, there are lots of problems already, in all likelihood. So that one doesn't apply here, either, since she clearly wanted to testify.



thishereboi -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 5:17:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Obviously it's the Kenyan's fault: he'd never have been busted for this under the chimp, and Captain Magicpants would have been all for eating uppity wives...


It's a shame someone couldn't have posted a political thread so you could use "the Kenyan", "the chimp" and "Captain Magicpants" in a post that was actually on topic. But I guess as long as you get your daily fix, it's all good. Maybe someday you will get over your obsession with grade school insults, but I won't hold my breath.



thishereboi -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 5:18:36 PM)

This is a strange case and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. After all, he didn't actually commit any crimes, he just talked about it.



thishereboi -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 5:20:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

He said Officer Valle had also been charged with illegally accessing a law enforcement database to gain information about some of the women he was “explicitly targeting.”

That, for me, just might take it from fantasy to reality.


I missed that part and they can charge him with that, but I am not sure what the sentencing guidelines and how long they can lock him up.



tazzygirl -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 6:24:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

If he used a database illegally, he should be prosecuted for that. Simple. Prosecuting him for something he might have done is beyond the pale. While I am not unsympathetic with his wife, who knows what all her motivations were? Sounds like she contacted the other "victims" and got them into a frenzy too. I am interested (although not enough to spend time researching it) how the spousal privilege law plays into all this.


Seems like he is being prosecuted for that as well.

It doesnt if one initiates a criminal complaint against the other.

We dont know what the investigation has discovered.



tazzygirl -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 6:26:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

He said Officer Valle had also been charged with illegally accessing a law enforcement database to gain information about some of the women he was “explicitly targeting.”

That, for me, just might take it from fantasy to reality.


I missed that part and they can charge him with that, but I am not sure what the sentencing guidelines and how long they can lock him up.


As I said, if I were sitting on a jury, that may be enough to tip me from the fantasy line to the reality line. Enough in itself? Not necessarily. But it could tip the scaled depending on other evidence.



vincentML -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 8:18:10 PM)

quote:

I would think the real defense (here and on appeal, which is where this case is bound if it's not decided in the defendant's favor at trial) is that no planning actually happened. Fantasizing isn't necessarily planning, although it can be the first step in planning.

What is missing in the testimony at this early time (day one) is whether the "conspirators" were in close enough proximity to actually get together and carry out whatever they discussed. I wonder where the co-conspirators lived and if they discussed getting together in emails. Otherwise, I am guessing, they were only indulging fantasy. I think (again guessing) there has to be reasonable means and intent to carry through the plan, don't you think?

Additionally, I suppose a discussion held in a public place where anyone can hear or view it might meet the standard of a conspiracy, but I had the impression that a conspiracy was an agreement made in a dark place out of public view.



Real0ne -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/26/2013 8:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WantsOfTheFlesh

of course finding stuff like that may be enough to investigate but if they find valle guilty for just chatting then many fantasists are up shit creek. [&:]



or the government is



muhly22222 -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/27/2013 6:01:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I would think the real defense (here and on appeal, which is where this case is bound if it's not decided in the defendant's favor at trial) is that no planning actually happened. Fantasizing isn't necessarily planning, although it can be the first step in planning.

What is missing in the testimony at this early time (day one) is whether the "conspirators" were in close enough proximity to actually get together and carry out whatever they discussed. I wonder where the co-conspirators lived and if they discussed getting together in emails. Otherwise, I am guessing, they were only indulging fantasy. I think (again guessing) there has to be reasonable means and intent to carry through the plan, don't you think?

Additionally, I suppose a discussion held in a public place where anyone can hear or view it might meet the standard of a conspiracy, but I had the impression that a conspiracy was an agreement made in a dark place out of public view.


I agree, I have no idea what evidence the prosecution has, or what will be put on. But given how easy it is to travel in this day and age, I'd be surprised if distance was an issue, really. Maybe if his co-conspirators were in California or another country, there might be an issue. Then again, if they were giving him advice and encouragement over the internet, that could be enough for conspiracy. I don't know if that's an issue that New York has decided already or not. The legal system is still playing catch up to rest of the world with how the law treats various technologies (emails, web sites, etc.).

If you want a good laugh, try and find some cases from 10-15 years ago dealing with the internet. The judges were absolutely clueless about what was going on.

quote:

discussed



DaddySatyr -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/27/2013 6:33:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The additional issue to my mind: are some fantasies beyond the pale? Are they so violent and harmful as to constitute a crime in the contemplation? Is Gilberto a menace to society for expressing his thoughts on a fetish board specifically devoted to the particular fantasy?

Also, always of interest to me is the question of free will in harboring fetishes.

Your thoughts, please.



This is one that is very interesting, indeed.

To the first three questions:

I am really torn by all of this but, personally, I think we need to be very careful about making thoughts/fantasies illegal. However, there are instances where we can see that someone's fantasies have turned into reality to a large detriment to society.

as Muhly22222 pointed out, an overt act is required to show a thought becoming a conspiracy and conspiracy is one of the easiest crimes to convict. Some of the conspirators don't even necessarily need to know what's going on (the left hand doesn't need to know what the right hand is doing, necessarily, for a criminal conspiracy to exist).

But, there's another long-standing legal precedent to consider when we're trying to split hairs between fantasies and conspiracies. Someone already mentioned spousal "privilege" which doesn't apply here but, I'm going to go in a different direction (sort of):

We are all aware (or we should be) of Doctor/Patient confidentiality and Lawyer/client and Priest/penetent. However, if one of these professionals has reasonable belief that you are going to commit a crime, they are obligated to report you. So, there's a rather ambiguous "line" between fantasy and conspiracy. I hate to prove "interwebs rules" correct but there's one that says if a subject goes on long enough, someone will bring the nazis into it. I just did.

Were Hitler's "fantasies" a problem? I'd say they became a problem. Timothy McVeigh? Jeffrey Dahmer? Osama Bin Laden? I would say that at some point, all of these people just had "fantasies".

Being a libertarian, I have to come down on the choice of freedom. I didn't read the article. I am only answering the OP's questions. I think we need to err on the side of personal freedoms. If a person doesn't put their "fantasies" into practice, we need to leave them be.

This is also my argument against hate crime laws. Murder is murder. I don't care why you killed someone (other than as a way of presenting evidence at trial for one of the three elements of a crime). The fact that you killed someone is bad enough.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/27/2013 6:45:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
What is missing in the testimony at this early time (day one) is whether the "conspirators" were in close enough proximity to actually get together and carry out whatever they discussed. I wonder where the co-conspirators lived and if they discussed getting together in emails. Otherwise, I am guessing, they were only indulging fantasy. I think (again guessing) there has to be reasonable means and intent to carry through the plan, don't you think?



I don't think proximity really matters here. They could live on different continents and still conspire. "You kidnap your girl, I'll kidnap mine, and we'll exchange pictures. Or we'll tell each other all about it. Or we'll exchange 'meat'." This is how they bust pedo rings on conspiracy. They might not live anywhere near each other, and not actively participate in the abuse of any one individual child, but they conspire to have it happen and exchange pictures and so forth.



samboct -> RE: NYC Cop Cannibal Conspiracy Trial (2/27/2013 7:15:21 AM)

I think she's got grounds for divorce- but not much else.

Let's try a somewhat different case- one that's a bit more prosaic shall we? Let's say I'm thinking about robbing a bank. I'm parked in my car across the street from the bank- I've written the hold up note, got duct tape, a bag to carry the money in, black spray paint and I'm wearing a ski mask and gloves. No gun though- why kill somebody over pieces of paper? Have I committed a crime? What happens if I look at myself in the mirror and decide there's got to be a better way to make a living and I don't want to risk jail- drive home, and throw all the stuff away?

Should I be prosecuted for thinking about robbing a bank? Conspiring to rob a bank if I enlisted a getaway driver? Or was no crime committed at all?

There's a really good movie that deals with the thin line between criminal and hero- Taxi Driver with DeNiro and Jodie Foster.

Sam



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875