New York 'cannibal cop' walks free from prison

I suppose this is freedom of speech. I wonder where the line is drawn, in the sense of; Can you really make any threat you want and be innocent?

Ill bet if he had been talking about someone important like the president he would have been stomped on very quickly.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Ok if someone had in list of children he would be in jail right? or is there something I'm missing?

a reply to: Fargoth
Yes. You cannot punish people for simply having thoughts.

This guy is seriously sick, and I hate to say this, but I agree with those who said that this isn't the last we'll hear of him. Creepy guy. Makes you wonder just who gets to be LEO these days.

But this:

"As Judge Gardephe has validated, we don't put people in jail for their thoughts," she added.

Well, I kinda have doubts about that. I'm not sure how planing to kill and eat your wife, brag about it on sicko forums, and making a "to do list" about how to do it, and who'll be next after that, doesn't constitute a conspiracy to commit kidnapping (and murder for that matter)?! Article doesn't say, but what was his defense?
Especially this statement by the judge seems strange:

"No one was ever kidnapped, no attempted kidnapping ever took place, and no real world, non-Internet based steps were ever taken to kidnap anyone,"

I mean it's a crime if you bully someone online, how the heck planing someone's murder and having him for dinner afterwards (literally) isn't?

a reply to: Fargoth

You mean if you were writing list of names of children and going into detail of your plans on what you were going to do to them?

That's illegal.

Just simply stating "I am a pedophile and have pedophilic sexual attractions" is not in itself illegal. It is an action involving specific children(or what could be construed as under 18 like in the hentai example) that would be illegal.

a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan
Bullying there is a victim of harassment. Running your mouth about a fetish, on a place for those fetishes is weird, but there is no crime or victim in that case.

a reply to: Fargoth

It should be illegal that's why the ruling is amazing. Must be because he's a cop.

If I was his ex wife I'd be very scared.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan
Bullying there is a victim of harassment. Running your mouth about a fetish, on a place for those fetishes is weird, but there is no crime or victim in that case.

I understand that. But there are number of potential victims here. The guy even made a list of them. I'm not saying to put him on trial for attempted murder, but the judge's explanation that this doesn't constitute a conspiracy to commit kidnapping because "No one was ever kidnapped, no attempted kidnapping ever took place, and no real world, non-Internet based steps were ever taken to kidnap anyone" doesn't compute. Seems like the judge is talking about/confusing two different things. Attempted kidnapping is one thing, and conspiracy to kidnap and murder is another. If he attempted to kidnap someone, than they'd put him on trial for attempted kidnapping, and if he conspired to kidnap and murder his wife (and others) as he did, they try him on those charges. Why confuse the two?

a reply to: OrphanApology

Cops always get away with crap, Im sick of it. Yea to be honest I'm scared for her sake and the sake of innocent people being put at risk.

a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan

Who is the other party to make it a conspiracy?
Takes two to tango

As much as it bothers me to see someone like this walk free.... What actually is the alternative without simply throwing law out the window?

He went through the system for what he actually did do and, perhaps some of us right here should run for our state houses to help change and strengthen those laws, but "Pre-Crime" is a concept of tyranny.

If he's so creepy as to still be a threat to a logical person, then watch him like a hawk, without interfering with the person's life. If there aren't enough people, hire more. No excuses if the guy is so bad, actually throwing our Constitution out the window is on offer to mitigate the threat of the individual.

Ex-Cop or not. Repulsive or not. Evil Incarnate or not. We DON'T incarcerate people on what they may, on reasonable hunch, do...at some future point, in some circumstance no one can guess at. It would START with child molesters and we'd feel good about that. It would never stop there, as powerful methods never do.

What crime worth incarcerating someone couldn't be argued in a case that strong likelihood to commit it isn't as great a threat.....if that bed rock principle of innocent until proven guilty isn't there? (We all make judgments about guilt based on stories .. but this case would be throwing someone BACK after the system spit them out, because the law doesn't cover something)

a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan
Conspiracy to commit a crime is almost impossible to prove, unless you get caught paying an undercover money to do it. Then you have taken solid action, it's not just running your mouth. I prefer it that way.

I wish to know if this kind of ruling applies to other areas of the law...

for example if you communicate online that you wish to blow up so and so place and such and such person...im sure you will be charged and labelled a terrorist and no one is letting you out early!!!.....IMO

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan

Who is the other party to make it a conspiracy?
Takes two to tango

A New York City police officer who discussed a plot to kidnap, kill and eat women with a British pen pal has been released after his conviction was overturned

Conspiracy doesn't necessary mean that the other party has to be an active participant and present during the crime...the Mafia bosses only gave the orders they didn't actually go and kill their targets. These sickos shared the same sickness and talked about it, obviously planned for one of them to do it. But since they've got no proof, I guess the guy walks...
What confused me is the wording that the judge used...as I've said before.
I just hope his wife moves somewhere far away from him....and all the others on his list...

a reply to: TKDRL

Yeah, I agree.
Still think the judge's explanation is strange though.

a reply to: projectbane
IMO it should apply the same in all areas of law. No crime, no victim, no charges. It should not be a crime to desire to take an action. Many times out of anger and resentment I have had the desire to, and voiced my desire to bash the face of someone that I perceived to do me wrong. I don't think that should be a crime.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I suppose this is freedom of speech. I wonder where the line is drawn, in the sense of; Can you really make any threat you want and be innocent?

Yes, pretty much, unless it is against the president or a public official, for some reason. Only then, is it given any 'credibility', and even then, people are usually only questioned to determine whether or not they will act on their thoughts or threats. Of courae, it is a fine line, with 'terroristic threats'. A good attorney can likely get just about anyone off.

I had an abusive ex boyfriend living in another state that I assisted the state in convicting. I discovered that after being sentenced to 20 years for murder, he was released in 3 1/4 on a Writ of Habeus Corpus. When I spoke with the DA for the county, I was told, "All I can say is to not come back here. He has made it clear to his prison psychologist, me, and every prison official that he is going to hunt you down and kill you."

Astonished, I asked how in the world he could be released after making threats like that. I was told nothing could be done until and unless he attempts to act on those threats.

I have managed to hide from him a good many years, and he has been hunting me, this much I know, though I won't say how I know. I will try to not give any clues, as long as possible. This has been over 25 years, but I know he will never give up.

This is one of the reasons I will never have FB, or use various other types of social media. It simply reduces the risks of endangering my life. I also have a huge resentment of people that for various reasons, 'require' folks to have FB, like their page, etc., to be able to participate in contests, etc. It does not take into account likely hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people in my exact position that have a safety factor for NOT being on social media. They are simply blind to the risks they impose on people, and thereby exclude a lot of people without thought.

And, many people have said, "Get a restraining order", yet fail to realize that doing so reveals not only my name (which is different now) as well as my address.

So, TLDR: it is generally not illegal to threaten people, unless it crosses the line of terroristic threats, or is the president or public official. Everyday folks are S.O.L.