New York 'cannibal cop' walks free from prison

originally posted by: TKDRL
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.

I think you are very right indeed. I often say and have the same desires when certain people irritate me or do someone wrong. Whenever I read of a rape in a paper I want to kill the guy who has done it...should I be convicted of that? NO i should not.....only when I have actually played out the wish should an actual crime of been committed.

a reply to: Libertygal

Yeah I think if that were me I'd just take my chances with jail and shoot that bastard.

Sorry for what's happened to you. That's ridiculous you've had to live in fear that long. Law is useless.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: Libertygal

Yeah I think if that were me I'd just take my chances with jail and shoot that bastard.

Sorry for what's happened to you. That's ridiculous you've had to live in fear that long. Law is useless.

I agree, and I would probably secretly be thanked by many, many people as he is a plague upon society, however, I pray nearly daily for his safety, as I would likely be the first person they come to see if something ever happens to him.

For many years, he was in and out of the prison/jail system, has a long history of drug abuse and spousal abuse, but seems more determined now, than ever. He was the poster child for those meth before and after pics, but seems to have cleaned up his act. In doing so, he has not only stayed out of jail for the most part, but gotten dangerously close to my location. I have actually seen him several times.

I can only hope and pray that I have changed in appearance enough that he does not recognize me but by first name alone, but if he does find me, I have a gun loaded and waiting. There will be no discussion. Seeing him on my property, especially in my house, will be considered an imminent danger to my life. I was warned, and took that warning to heart.

And no, I never went back.

a reply to: Libertygal


Reminds me of that movie Julie Roberts called Sleeping with the enemy. No I don't like her movies normally but that one seemed Okay. Then again I was teen when I watched it and hadn't honed my movie critic skills yet.

You should consider buying motion sensors and also don't leave any pictures or indicators in your house that it's yours. Maybe even put up picture of a fake family. Sounds dumb but those are just ideas someone I knew had.

a reply to: IamTheManWithThePlan

I happen to agree, and see your point. There are two sides of a coin here, and it is hard to say where that fine line is, aside from actually taking the specific action. However, you have to look at it from another point of view.

How many times have people muttered a phrase such as, "I wish that S.O.B. was dead", or something along those lines? Where, if we had thought police, where would you draw the new lines? Think about that carefully. Children that are angry are wont to say, "I hate you, I wish you were dead!" You now have a basis for conviction, because a child is having a tantrum, or, made a proclomation during the heat of an emotional moment. This is why thought police are so dangerous. We all say things in that moment we don't mean, and certainly would never do.

I do believe that conspiracy convictions usually happen after a crime has been committed, or, in the lead-up to a crime, such as stings, where undercover officers are in the process of gathering evidence, but halt the crime before it actually takes place.

Evidence, such as they now have against this person, sadly will only serve as evidence of conspiracy and premeditation, after that fact. This type of problem is actually what prompted a remake and fresh look at stalking laws. The hands of the police were literally tied from doing anything if, and until, something happened.

At least stalking laws went some way towards doing something, and is usually good enough to get a writ of protection in cases like this.

In taking into consideration both sides of the coin, and putting yourself in the position of possible prosecution of a thought crime which you have zero intent of actually carrying out, it lends better understanding of how and why the laws are how they are.

Obviously, not all laws fit all circumstances, and some cases do fall between the cracks, but in this particular case, he has been outted, his secrets are known, and it is highly doubtful he will actually act on his thoughts. In the event he may try, one can only hope that the person he goes after is armed and capable of defending themselves.

In the meantime, the rest of us are free from the thought police, at least a little while longer.

a reply to: OrphanApology
I have a great alarm system, and there is only art on my walls, no family pictures anywhere to be found. I have also hidden photo albums, and most of my photos now are digital and remain online, hidden.

Like I said, I have managed to stay hidden a long, long time. I just hope he doesn't recognize me if he sees me out and about. Depending upon the circumstances, though, I would drive to a PD, and know where all of them are. I am also acutely aware of who is behind me when I come home. Any doubts, and I pass home and do not collect 200.00, just to be sure.

I have taken as many steps as possible, without actually having to live in a cave or prison, to protect myself and my family from this dangerous predator. Thankfully, recent and updated photos are constantly available online, due to his being a constant visitor of the county or state.

originally posted by: projectbane


Dont know what to say here....how does someone walk free with all the evidence and conviction by a jury? And so quickly too?!!

There was not enough evidence to support the charge according to the federal ruling. Incarceration based on a lack of evidence to support the charge is one of those pesky due process violations. Im not sure what your background is in so my apologies if you know this already.

A criminal statute / law will generally contain the words "and" as well as "or".

A criminal law using the term "and" means an individual must meet all of the elements of a law.
A criminal law using the term "or" means an individual must meet at least one of the elements of that law.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Fargoth
Yes. You cannot punish people for simply having thoughts.

He didn't simply have thoughts. He was talking to someone else about it and he downloaded files.

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

An FBI agent testified to finding hundreds of downloaded pages on Valle's computer about rape, torture and cannibalism.
He was arrested in late 2012 and convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and a second count of illegally using a police database to compile a list of potential victims.

One person simply talking or writing about something is one thing. There was someone else in Britain who was involved though, so this makes it a conspiracy. Do I really have to link the definition of that word? Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. This is no different than two people talking about blowing up a building. They are conspiring to commit a crime and this does land people in jail.

Browsing the internet is one thing, but downloading files can be realistically, and legally, construed as taking action. When a person downloads child porn they will be put in jail if they're caught. It happens a lot. They are downloading images of something that is illegal to do to another person. It doesn't matter if they ever physically did anything to a child.

Downloading information concerning murder and cannibalism, both of which are also illegal acts, should have the same consequences. The jury got it right in my opinion and the judge is misinformed about how this aspect of the law works.

In the meantime, two words.........Street Justice.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple
So you are big on thought crimes then, you have a right to that opinion. I however am not, and no talking to someone else about someone is obviously not a crime, it was overturned.

Downloading info should be illegal? HAHAHAHA, sorry, I think that is hilarious. I hope you were joking, because that is a joke. You gonna arrest people for watching movies with murder in it too while you are at it? Arrest people that watch footage of a real crime on the news? Everyone better check their Tivo and Ipods for incriminating info

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

He didn't simply have thoughts. He was talking to someone else about it and he downloaded files.

Neither of which on their own is against the law.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
One person simply talking or writing about something is one thing. There was someone else in Britain who was involved though, so this makes it a conspiracy. Do I really have to link the definition of that word? Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. This is no different than two people talking about blowing up a building. They are conspiring to commit a crime and this does land people in jail.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is valid when two people actually engage in the offense. Its not against the law to hold a conversation with someone else discussing an action that is illegal. If we were to accept that broad of a definition then just about every person on the planet could be arrested and charged. While conspiracy requires more than one person involved, you cross into the criminal realm with intent. Depending on how the conversation between the wingnut cop and the lady in the UK went could answer that question (IE did the person on the other end of the phone seriously think this person would commit a crime).

We can discuss the mental health profession and the requirements in place for Psyche doctors and what is said during sessions if you want. The individuals mindset / psyche condition is also taken into consideration to the extent did the person know his actions were wrong / illegal. Psyche condition is considered in almost all major crime investigations to ensure the suspect is capable of understanding his actions are illegal. Personally speaking it reinforces the concept that intent is required to break the law, and intent is not conversation in all cases.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
Browsing the internet is one thing, but downloading files can be realistically, and legally, construed as taking action. When a person downloads child porn they will be put in jail if they're caught. It happens a lot. They are downloading images of something that is illegal to do to another person. It doesn't matter if they ever physically did anything to a child.

And in all cases a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden is on the government to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That would include determining how the child porn got onto the computer in the first place. Just because child porn is located on a computer does not mean the owner of the computer put it there. The investigation would have to link the suspect to the photos. They would need to investigate and make sure the computer in question is not being used as a "zombie" / infected with a virus to have photos pass through the computer without the owners knowledge.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
Downloading information concerning murder and cannibalism, both of which are also illegal acts, should have the same consequences. The jury got it right in my opinion and the judge is misinformed about how this aspect of the law works.

Due to the area I live in I spend time researching sovereign citizen, motorcycle clubs, Aryan brotherhood / skinhead groups. Does that action make me a criminal? I have commented that Russia would be better off if Putin were gone. Can I be arrested and charge should someone else read my post and decide to act on my comment?

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
In the meantime, two words.........Street Justice.

Here is 2 more - Due Process

Innocent until proven guilty, no matter how repugnant we think an individual / group of people / their actions are. That is how the system works. Is the cop guilty of a crime? Most likely but what we "think" should have happened and what "actually" happened are not the same thing. The legal system is designed to protect the accused, not to make the job of prosecution easier.

The burden is on the prosecutor to prove their case, not the accused to prove their innocence.

Food for thought -
Going after people for what the think / talk about / views is a slippery slope. All it takes is one incident / one person who does not like you to place you in the crosshairs of a criminal investigation and possible prosecution.

Just because what you think today is ok does not mean a person in a position of authority who does not agree with what you think wont come after you tomorrow.

Prosecution of what people think should never occur. A thought and an action are not the same thing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And in all cases a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden is on the government to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tell that to all the people in Gitmo.

a reply to: TKDRL
Hmmm, rereading that today, I think that came across more antagonistic than I intended. But yeah, the point is, I don't think you should ever be arrested for having information.

Where do you draw the line? Where the line crosses you of course, what you like is fine, what you do should be legal. That seems to be the mentality of some people. Really though, where do you draw the line? Should I be arrested because my library includes books on boobytraps, chemistry(yep can make all kinds of scary things with chemistry), biology(biological knowledge can be used for nefarious things), guerrilla warefare tactics, I could go on and on. I am sure there are many scardy people that would have me locked up for having all that in my library lol.

Same goes for drawings, cartoons, CGI etc etc. There is no victim, should be 100% legal. It's not real, and even if it was real, you can go on liveleak and see all kinds of real footage of murder, perfectly legal. Why should an artist representation of crimes in their work be illegal, when real footage is not?

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Xcathdra

And in all cases a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The burden is on the government to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Tell that to all the people in Gitmo.

No need to since they fall under the UCMJ and not domestic law. As for the being held without charges crusade by some they should remember that these people have been captured during the war on terror. During WWII nations did not file amicus briefs because another nation was holding members of their military who were captured. They were released once the war was over.

In case you missed it one of the accused in Gitmo requested CIA files on info recovered during torture / enhanced interrogation techniques (pick which over term you fall into). The judge in the case has issued an order for the CIA to turn over the documents, which they are refusing. If the info in those files is what was used to prosecute the individual then the suspect will most likely walk free.

Also, and regardless of what we think personally, Bowe Bergdahl was "captured" and held for five years by the Taliban group.

Individuals captured during war are routinely held without charge. I am not sure why people seem to ignore those facts.

As much as I hate cops I hate legislation against victimless thought-crime and pre-crime more.

As sick as his fantasies may be they're just fantasies until he acts on them or causes harm to a person or a persons property.

I only wish this same courtesy was extended to all the others rotting in cells because of victimless pre-crime and thought-crime legislation.

So I won't scream "lock him up!" and rationalize it because others are locked up for pre-crime and thought-crime.
I'll just keep on screaming "set them free!" for everyone convicted of pre-crime or thought-crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok basically they found a way around it but the fact is they are not innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok basically they found a way around it but the fact is they are not innocent until proven guilty.

If you think that then please explain why they have had trials at Gitmo for some of the detainees. If they were guilty, as you suggest, then there would be no reason to have the courts involved. Since they are holding trials the due process argument is moot.

Secondly you have to take into account these detainees are not operating as a nation state military. The terror groups are not signatories to the Geneva Convention / Rules of war. Because of that the term POW does not apply. In compliance with our treaty obligations the term enemy combatant was used.

I recommend reading the Geneva Conventions / protocols as it may shed some light the flaw in your argument. The UCMJ actually incorporated some of those conventions / protocols.

United Nations - Geneva Conventions (Wiki)
ICRC - Geneva Conventions

As with the wing nut cop and those at Gitmo - They both are afforded due process.

Wow can't believe his mother posed for a photo op with that POS. I couldn't stand by his side much less house him. I'd like to hear what the neighbors think.

Wonder where they would've put him if mom refused sanctuary? From the source it's reported his mother was eager to welcome her son home. Obviously she couldn't raise a decent man, might not be a good idea trusting her too much where he's concerned.

My mom has a violent, twisted man-child, with every accusation/conviction she clings to him tighter. I really don't understand that level of dysfunction/denial but it happens more than you think. Mom's a red flag for me imo she needs to be closely monitored/mentally evaluated too.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If you think that then please explain why they have had trials at Gitmo for some of the detainees. If they were guilty, as you suggest, then there would be no reason to have the courts involved.

I think the amount of people who have gone to trial from Gitmo is less than 1%. The actual number isnt even in double figures, more people have died at Gitmo than have ever gone to trial.

originally posted by: PhoenixOD

I think the amount of people who have gone to trial from Gitmo is less than 1%. The actual number isnt even in double figures, more people have died at Gitmo than have ever gone to trial.

As I pointed out earlier, not all captured individuals are going to get a court hearing. Those captured during the conflict who have no direct involvement in the attacks on the US are not going to be charged because they cant. They are captured enemy combatants and can be held until the war is over with or an exchange of captured individuals occurs. Since we have Bergdahl back in the US I don't think there is anyone else missing from the US side.

Those individuals who had direct involvement / secondary involvement (planning / moving people into place / intelligence / getaway / etc / etc) in terror attacks can be charged, and we are seeing that in Gitmo.

What I find sad and concerning are the arguments people are making about those detained at Gitmo and how evil the US is for housing them there while completely ignoring anything and everything else from other nations or groups. Another example are those who complain about the US invading Iraq in 2003 and the number of casualties. Why is it those who lost there lives in Iraq during the US invasion are more important than the lives lost while Hussein was still in power?

Why is it people like to point out the US is the only nation to use a nuclear weapon while ignoring the fact that chemical and biological weapons are also WMD's and were used prior to the US involvement starting back in WWI.

The same applies here. The cop was charged, arrested, tried, found guilty, appealed and had his conviction overturned due to lack of evidence / elements of the crime he was accused of. Our legal system is based on the adversarial setup - opposing sides making their argument for and against. It was also designed to error on the side of the accused. It means our judicial system was designed to the extent it favors letting an individual walk rather than run the risk of an innocent person being placed behind bars.

This cop, the war on terror are both completely different situations with completely different goals. However, at the end of the day, people falling under either category have been given access to the legal system to challenge their status. They have been assigned public defenders. They have been able to challenge the government when it comes to evidence used against the accused while refusing to turn that evidence over to the accused.

In the end, the US Supreme Court is the final stop for both scenarios above. Due process is present - in both scenarios. I can reasonably be certain that if you are charged with a crime you would want every ability to defend your self while expecting the courts to throw evidence out that is improperly collected / used by the government.

This incident with the cop is no different. It does not matter what we think, it only matters what can be proven.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As I pointed out earlier, not all captured individuals are going to get a court hearing. Those captured during the conflict who have no direct involvement in the attacks on the US are not going to be charged because they cant. They are captured enemy combatants and can be held until the war is over with or an exchange of captured individuals occurs.

I think there have been 7 out of almost 800 that have been brought to trial. It no good being the world police and preaching democracy and right to free trail without torture and then changing the law to do the exact opposite.

People being detained should be charged and brought to trail if there is evidence against them. If not they should be let go. That's what a civilized society does. Its a path a slippery slope to do otherwise.

Sure there are super evil people out there who need to be dealt with in some way but publicly breaking the fundamental laws that democracy is founded on through clever legal wordplay to deal with them is sinking to an unacceptable level.