• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York "cannibal cop" in tears as defense rests after one day

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York City cop on trial for plotting to kidnap, cook and eat women shed tears on Tuesday as his attorneys rested their case after one day.
"Just knowing that we've finally come to the conclusion (of the trial) and that his fate is in the jury's hands" made Officer Gilberto Valle emotional, attorney Robert Baum said after court ended.

Can you go to prison for thought crime? It appears so. Valle never carried out what he said he wanted to do. Add to that the fact that darkfetishnet is a web site dedicated to role play (pretty sick role play at that), and you have to ask yourself the question "Is just talking about doing something without acting on it, as in role play, a crime". But on the other hand, his wife and other women were very much afraid of his posts at that web site. So, IMHO, their rights were violated. With First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities. The old adage about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater comes to mind here. Should Valle be convicted of actually plotting murder and cannibalism? I don't think so, but in light of those he terrorized by his actions, he certainly should be convicted of making the threats which terrorized his victims.

In addition, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a psychatric evaluation either. This man is certainly sick.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

NOTE: The idea of eating someone's face does give a new meaning to "Facebook". LOL.
 
Can you go to prison for thought crime? It appears so. Valle never carried out what he said he wanted to do. Add to that the fact that darkfetishnet is a web site dedicated to role play (pretty sick role play at that), and you have to ask yourself the question "Is just talking about doing something without acting on it, as in role play, a crime". But on the other hand, his wife and other women were very much afraid of his posts at that web site. So, IMHO, their rights were violated. With First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities. The old adage about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater comes to mind here. Should Valle be convicted of actually plotting murder and cannibalism? I don't think so, but in light of those he terrorized by his actions, he certainly should be convicted of making the threats which terrorized his victims.

In addition, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a psychatric evaluation either. This man is certainly sick.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

NOTE: The idea of eating someone's face does give a new meaning to "Facebook". LOL.

You shouldn't be able to be jailed for thinking about something f'd up. Was there a lot of evidence to demonstrate this was beyond thinking and there was a plan in place? I mean if you can prove that, and that would take a lot of actual evidence, maybe. But without evidence, not at all. Being afraid does not necessarily translate into rights violation, not saying that's the case here; but in general.

I don't necessarily have enough info to draw a proper conclusion, but the idea of being able to be arrested for thinking about something doesn't really strike me as ok.
 
You shouldn't be able to be jailed for thinking about something f'd up. Was there a lot of evidence to demonstrate this was beyond thinking and there was a plan in place? I mean if you can prove that, and that would take a lot of actual evidence, maybe. But without evidence, not at all. Being afraid does not necessarily translate into rights violation, not saying that's the case here; but in general.

I don't necessarily have enough info to draw a proper conclusion, but the idea of being able to be arrested for thinking about something doesn't really strike me as ok.

True, your real serial killers don't announce to the world what they are going to do, and when they are going to do it, before they kill. However, let's not forget that specific women were terrorized by what he said on the internet. That counts for something. Not plotting murder, but the act of posting something that did terrorize them. Again, with First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities.
 
That counts for something. Not plotting murder, but the act of posting something that did terrorize them. Again, with First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities.

Does it count for something? Maybe if it were reasonable response, and maybe in this case it would be. But in general? No, someone can freak out irrationally and one cannot be held accountable for the irrational behaviors of others. If I said "The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering" and you freaked out about it, did I "terrorize" you? So obviously there are limits. Again, not knowing all the data I cannot say for this case; but it would have to be demonstrated that what he said constituted a real threat to these women and that their reaction was reasonable.
 
Can you go to prison for thought crime?
Yes. The only difference between manslaughter and murder is thought. Intent is relevant to a whole range of crimes, either rendering them more serious or making them crimes at all. Where the intended crime is as serious as kidnap and murder I think it would be expected that the authorities would step in before the act is actually committed if they have the opportunity.

This article doesn't go in to any kind of detail but I don't see such a case even going to trial if there wasn't good reason to suspect he intended, planned and prepared to carry out the acts described and he shouldn’t be convicted unless that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 
Can you go to prison for thought crime? It appears so. Valle never carried out what he said he wanted to do. Add to that the fact that darkfetishnet is a web site dedicated to role play (pretty sick role play at that), and you have to ask yourself the question "Is just talking about doing something without acting on it, as in role play, a crime". But on the other hand, his wife and other women were very much afraid of his posts at that web site. So, IMHO, their rights were violated. With First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities. The old adage about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater comes to mind here. Should Valle be convicted of actually plotting murder and cannibalism? I don't think so, but in light of those he terrorized by his actions, he certainly should be convicted of making the threats which terrorized his victims.

In addition, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a psychatric evaluation either. This man is certainly sick.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

NOTE: The idea of eating someone's face does give a new meaning to "Facebook". LOL.

I'm pretty sure plotting to carry out something is illegal. Like plots to drive airplanes into buildings etc. I mean obviously these sites on the website that cater to crazy fetishes like this...a lot of times it's probably health since people that have these weird fantasies get it out of their system. Planning on actually kidnapping someone and living out the fantasy is a different ballgame.
 
I am not sure I think planning a crime should be illegal unless it can be show there is an intent to carry out the plan. All sorts of crimes, such as robbing a bank, might actually be fun to plan out as sort of a mind game. But coming up with scenarios as a mental exercise does NOT mean the person would ever carry it out.

I’m not saying that was the case in this particular instance, though.
 
This is his crime. improperly accessed a law enforcement database to get personal information. I hope he gets as couple of years for that.

If fantasizing becomes a crime, I'll have to go into hiding. You should see some of the nonsensical **** I think about.
 
Can you go to prison for thought crime? It appears so. Valle never carried out what he said he wanted to do. Add to that the fact that darkfetishnet is a web site dedicated to role play (pretty sick role play at that), and you have to ask yourself the question "Is just talking about doing something without acting on it, as in role play, a crime". But on the other hand, his wife and other women were very much afraid of his posts at that web site. So, IMHO, their rights were violated. With First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities. The old adage about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater comes to mind here. Should Valle be convicted of actually plotting murder and cannibalism? I don't think so, but in light of those he terrorized by his actions, he certainly should be convicted of making the threats which terrorized his victims.

In addition, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a psychatric evaluation either. This man is certainly sick.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

NOTE: The idea of eating someone's face does give a new meaning to "Facebook". LOL.

From the article
After months of online role play last year, Valle began to act on his fantasies when he met one of his online "targets" for brunch and improperly accessed a law enforcement database to get personal information on another, Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall Jackson has alleged.

I'm not sure about the law, but I bet it says something about taking actions to further a conspiracy
 
Can you go to prison for thought crime? It appears so. Valle never carried out what he said he wanted to do. Add to that the fact that darkfetishnet is a web site dedicated to role play (pretty sick role play at that), and you have to ask yourself the question "Is just talking about doing something without acting on it, as in role play, a crime". But on the other hand, his wife and other women were very much afraid of his posts at that web site. So, IMHO, their rights were violated. With First Amendment rights come First Amendment responsibilities. The old adage about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater comes to mind here. Should Valle be convicted of actually plotting murder and cannibalism? I don't think so, but in light of those he terrorized by his actions, he certainly should be convicted of making the threats which terrorized his victims.

In addition, it wouldn't be a bad idea for a psychatric evaluation either. This man is certainly sick.

What does everyone else think?

Article is here.

NOTE: The idea of eating someone's face does give a new meaning to "Facebook". LOL.

Conspiracy to commit such a heinous act is a crime, whether it's perpetrated or not. It's not so much that he just said stuff, and the mean ole cops kicked his door in. He said some sick **** in a threatening manner about real people convincingly enough that his wife left him in fear for her life. I think that warrants a trial. We aren't talking about some sick douchebag that gets off to horse ****er flicks, or weird bondage and submission fetish fantasies. The dude was talking about kidnapping, murder, and mutilation of a corpse via cannibalism. It's an understatement to say that the guy has issues, and the fact that he's a police officer makes him that much more dangerous.

Maybe he snapped, maybe he's just sick, maybe he was doing some wacked out fetish crap, I don't know. Whether he's found guilty or not, he definitely needs to be put under psychiatric evaluation, and the loss of any law enforcement job in the nation.
 
Back
Top Bottom