Cannibal cop cleared of all charges.

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I have a problem with that. Making it illegal to think certain thoughts makes it easy to arrest even honest citizens "on suspicion". Once that person is in custody, coercing a false confession from him or her is only a matter of time and torture. Once the "confession" is on the record, that person can kiss his or her freedom and humanity goodbye.

Don't like a rival? Want a piece of land but the owner won't sell? Feel a grudge against someone for what was said thirty years ago? Did the teacher give you an 'F' on your art project? Turn them in for being disharmonious and unmutual, and they're out of your way for a very long time.

Yes, I got the 1984 reference.

My question pertains to Valle's intrusion into women's privacy. As I said before, I understand that having sick fantasies is not a crime. However, Valle looked up actual women on the police database and women who were friends of his or his former wife's, including facebook friends. The prosecution argued that Valle crossed the line between fantasy and criminal intent when he shared photographs and personal information (including contact info) of these women -- including his wife's -- with creeps he met on the fetish website.


It's one thing to discuss your disturbing fantasies anonymously with other equally anonymous characters online. HOWEVER, Valle shared personally identifiable information of REAL women with these creatures aka his "e-friends". How does Valle vouch for these online personas' intents ? How does he know that some of them were not mentally unhinged enough to actually track these women, using the contact information Valle provided to them, to victimize the women ? No crime occurred, and no woman was actually victimized -- either by Valle or by his online pals -- but I think that was sheer chance.

Had this been done with medical records, Valle would probably not have walked free, because of HIPAA. Oh, well. He's free now and back on another dating website, looking for a new, "non-judgmental" wife. As I suspected, Kathleen has since divorced him, moved back to Nevada and has full custody of their daughter.

^

Yes. If thats all true then he was violating privacy, and committing reckless endangerment. Sounds to me like two criminal acts already even if he hasnt actually acted out his fantasies. And they aren't even "thought crimes".

HIPAA violations result in incarceration? Where and when has this happened?

Do privacy violations usually result in jail time in any context? Reckless endangerment is an action likely to result in serious bodily harm, or death, to another individual. Can you prove that these horrible men were likely to act on the crap they posted? If not, then I don't think you would get far trying to push first degree reckless endangerment, unless my minimal reading on this is wrong (which would not be a surprise.)

I agree with everything you say about how awful this man's actions were, but still see the judge's point about limiting the state's power to prosecute people for things they might be thinking about. The problems with that approach to law enforcement are well covered in Fnord's post. History suggests that states that are given such powers always abuse them.

I am certain that if I were one of the women on this man's list I would be applying for a concealed carry permit and taking lots of courses at the range. Also investing in security cameras and motion detectors--and if local gun control laws limited my ability to use my second amendment rights to mitigate the risks of this situation, I would move to a place I could feel secure and be in cover while having a clear field of fire on the doors.

Hmm ... what would this website be like if members could get banned for just thinking about breaking the rules?

I could say something like, "HerDad is thinking about using abusive language and posting porn-spam in the children's section", and note the sudden lack of HerDad's posts.

Witch-hunt, anyone?

Well, thinking of a criminal act does not constitute a crime but, carrying out the act itself that is crime.. However, if one is going by Christian religious dogma the mere act of thinking impure or dark thoughts is considered a crime..

Fantasize all you want in your own mind. But when you take the first tentative steps towards possible action, yes, you need to be watched.

And since you come across as having little to no empathy for anyone but your own family, let me give you an example. Suppose one of your neighbours, unbeknownst to you, were to take photographs of your wife, and share them on a fetish website, along with her name, her phone number, her address, her daily routine and even her car license plate numbers. Suppose further a document titled "The ravishment of the delectable Mrs. Fnord" was found on his computer hard drive and he was telling all his e-friends on the website to look up the lady and to drop by to say "Hello" when they "visit Disneyland"... what then ?

Remember that accessing and sharing confidential and personally identifiable information - per you - are not crimes. Bet you will be singing a different tune if one of those women Valle had "fetished about" had been your wife. Or your daughter-in-law. Or your sister. Or your niece.

So, if Mrs. Fnord, your daughter-in-law, your sister and your niece are "off limits" to these guys - but other women are not - then you are a hypocrite. If they are not off limits for perverts to fetish about and "joke about", then you are an undiluted jerk.

You pick.

Heh, I remember seeing Tony Hopkins on Leno or something years ago practically pleading with the public to stop sending him bottles of Chianti when they saw him out at restaurants, it was awkward and he didn't care for Chianti. IIRC, it was a different, and better, wine in the book.