http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/press_secretary_arrested A deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was charged with using a computer to seduce a child after authorities said he struck up sexual conversations with an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl. Brian J. Doyle, 55, the fourth-ranking official in the department's public affairs office, was expected to appear in court Wednesday afternoon in Maryland and also to be placed on administrative leave. "He said last night that he was going to waive extradition. If he does that, we may have him back by the end of the week," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said Wednesday. "He could get to court today and some lawyer may say 'no, you don't want to do that.' The bottom line is we don't know when he's coming back." Authorities arrested Doyle on Tuesday at his Silver Spring, Md., home as he was online with the "girl." The undercover detective had called Doyle at work and said she got a Web camera, as he had asked her to do, and wanted to test it out, said Carrie Rodgers, Polk County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman. "He said he would get on the computer when he got home from work so we knew he would be on," Rodgers said. "When (police) went to his door, he was on the computer in the middle of a conversation with the girl." White House press secretary Scott McClellan called it "a very serious matter." "I know that the Department of Homeland Security have said they will cooperate fully in the investigation," McClellan said aboard Air Force One as the president was en route to Connecticut for a health care speech. "The individual who was arrested is someone who is a civil servant, and my understanding is that the Department of Homeland Security has placed that individual on administrative leave. These are very serious allegations." Homeland Security press secretary Russ Knocke in Washington said he could not comment on the details of the investigation. "We take these allegations very seriously, and we will cooperate fully with this ongoing investigation," Knocke said. Doyle found the teenager's profile online and began having sexually explicit conversations with her on the Internet on March 14, the sheriff's office said in a statement. He sent her pornographic movie clips, as well as non-sexual photos of himself, officials said. One of the photos, released by the sheriff's office, shows Doyle in what appears to be DHS headquarters. He is wearing a Homeland Security pin on his lapel and a lanyard that says "TSA." The Transportation Security Administration is part of the Homeland Security Department. During online conversations, Doyle revealed his name, who he worked for and offered his office and government-issued cell phone numbers, the sheriff's office said. On several occasions, Doyle instructed her to perform a sexual act while thinking of him and described explicit activities he wanted to have with her, investigators said. He was booked into the Montgomery County Detention Center. Doyle also faces a charge of transmission of harmful material to a minor. There was no immediate response to messages left on Doyle's government-issued cell phone and his e-mail, and he could not be reached by phone at the jail for comment.
I just hope they catch that awful man who was pretending to be a 14 year old girl. Even pedophiles are no longer safe, what a terrible world we live in... :roll: I'm just wondering, of all the freaks out there pretending to be teenagers to trick real teenagers into meeting them as we are told they do in all those warning ads, how many of them are actually chatting up other grown ups pretending to be kids ?
[quote:d5f651bee6="Katcal"]I'm just wondering, of all the freaks out there pretending to be teenagers to trick real teenagers into meeting them as we are told they do in all those warning ads, how many of them are actually chatting up other grown ups pretending to be kids ?[/quote:d5f651bee6] 50%, even more. There's plenty of nasty people for everyone.
[quote:dda27e4ed8="Roman_K"][quote:dda27e4ed8="Katcal"]I'm just wondering, of all the freaks out there pretending to be teenagers to trick real teenagers into meeting them as we are told they do in all those warning ads, how many of them are actually chatting up other grown ups pretending to be kids ?[/quote:dda27e4ed8] 50%, even more. There's plenty of nasty people for everyone.[/quote:dda27e4ed8] Yeah, but if you look on the bright side, that's that many kids that are safe while the freaks are chatting each other up by mistake...
[quote:e9eb4105f1="Katcal"][quote:e9eb4105f1="Roman_K"][quote:e9eb4105f1="Katcal"]I'm just wondering, of all the freaks out there pretending to be teenagers to trick real teenagers into meeting them as we are told they do in all those warning ads, how many of them are actually chatting up other grown ups pretending to be kids ?[/quote:e9eb4105f1] 50%, even more. There's plenty of nasty people for everyone.[/quote:e9eb4105f1] Yeah, but if you look on the bright side, that's that many kids that are safe while the freaks are chatting each other up by mistake...[/quote:e9eb4105f1] I see advantages in this, yes. On the other hand, there's so many of them that it's not all that felt.
Sometimes I think that it is an amazing thing that people fall for this type of thing..then I look around this board and wonder if people on here (this board) would fall for it...chances are they would. It's good to have a bit of a wake up call. Thanks Garner. It also always amazes me the people you see exploiting things like the internet. People who, if confronted in daily life, claim to despise such a thing. The fact is this is a guy who will be aware of what he has done wrong...and yet still that doesn't seem to be enough to stop him...
I wonder if they give the undercover detectives a course in modern netspeak to help them in their trying to be a 14 year old girl. "Okay now, if you find something mildly amusing you type "LOLZ!!!11!!" "
[quote:45b4bcc66a="Bradthewonderllama"]I wonder if they give the undercover detectives a course in modern netspeak to help them in their trying to be a 14 year old girl. "Okay now, if you find something mildly amusing you type "LOLZ!!!11!!" "[/quote:45b4bcc66a] They should get special bonus pay for having to type like that... Unless they're naturally gifted, of course, some adults are.
How to talk like a 14-year-old girl 101 1. Include the word 'like' as mush as possible, like yeah, it was like totally like not cool like 2. The question mark is to be used as indiscriminately as possible? Preferably on statements? while completely missing on questions 3. Create random acronyms, abreviations and psuedonyms, if someone asks what the hell your talking about, belittle them and make them feel like and idiot for not knowing, YBD f n da UK Follow these three simple rules and any overweight, bald 50 year old can instantly be passed as a teenage girl. I think even FBI agents can rap their head around this.
[quote:838e167167="Garner"] During online conversations, Doyle revealed his name, who he worked for and offered his office and government-issued cell phone numbers, the sheriff's office said. .[/quote:838e167167] I wonder how jaded I am if my first thought is "How is someone that Almighty STUPID in an important security agency?"
[quote:1b4380976e="roisindubh211"][quote:1b4380976e="Garner"] During online conversations, Doyle revealed his name, who he worked for and offered his office and government-issued cell phone numbers, the sheriff's office said. .[/quote:1b4380976e] I wonder how jaded I am if my first thought is "How is someone that Almighty STUPID in an important security agency?"[/quote:1b4380976e] Rule one of high-ranking goverment positions: Skills and intellect aren't even in the criteria list.
What I am more worried of is that he might have hoped to use his position to indirectly intimidate his "victim". Maybe he hoped in case a teenager would accuse a high security agent of some sort, no one would believe them; or [i:3f7b2a39be]rather [/i:3f7b2a39be]he might have hoped that would be the teenager's train of thought. Like: "No one would have believed me if I had accused a policeman/ priest/ civil servant" or whatever.
[quote:4c929b98b3="Hsing"]What I am more worried of is that he might have hoped to use his position to indirectly intimidate his "victim". Maybe he hoped in case a teenager would accuse a high security agent of some sort, no one would believe them; or [i:4c929b98b3]rather [/i:4c929b98b3]he might have hoped that would be the teenager's train of thought. Like: "No one would have believed me if I had accused a policeman/ priest/ civil servant" or whatever.[/quote:4c929b98b3] Hoped? I think that's exactly what he did. He placed himself in a position of authority on the "teen" in an attempt to influence her to both draw her to him and to prevent the chance of her reporting it. It's a horribly tried and tested method.
Hmm, I personally want to know how this paedophiles are so successful in getting what they want. 'Hello, my name is Sandra and I like Barbie. What are you wearing?' People definitely need to be more aware.
Well, those are kids. We tend to forget how gullible, or easy to intimidate, we used to be at the age of 11 or twelve, I guess.
One thing which isn't clear from the information available is whether the "girl" concerned was originally genuine and then the situation was reported to the police and the detective took over, or was "she" a complete fake from the beginning, set up to catch paedophiles? If the latter, my worry is that with a good (i.e. clever, not moral) lawyer, he might be able to get found innocent on the technicality of entrapment.
I had a similar thought - is it juristically possible to sue someone for molesting a girl that never existed? I don't know about US law, and I suppose they had reasons enough -the stuff on his computer hard disk for example- to set up this trap to start with. But what about this special case?
[quote:d49aabc3ef="Hsing"]I had a similar thought - is it juristically possible to sue someone for molesting a girl that never existed? I don't know about US law, and I suppose they had reasons enough -the stuff on his computer hard disk for example- to set up this trap to start with. But what about this special case?[/quote:d49aabc3ef]Well, the [i:d49aabc3ef]intent[/i:d49aabc3ef] is there, so I don't see why not.
But could they prove the presence of anything on his hard disk until they raided him to catch him in the act? There are laws being brought in under many jurisdictions to cover the practice of "grooming" of youngsters on the internet, but in this case I suspect that old laws/precedents about entrapment might get new evidence disallowed - despite any obvious intent - sometimes the law can be used to protect the guilty.
The article says that he "found the teenager's profile online". Mayhaps the girl does exist, but had turned her screenname over to the detectives once the conversation became sexual?
[quote:583640b87d="drunkymonkey"][quote:583640b87d="Hsing"]I had a similar thought - is it juristically possible to sue someone for molesting a girl that never existed? I don't know about US law, and I suppose they had reasons enough -the stuff on his computer hard disk for example- to set up this trap to start with. But what about this special case?[/quote:583640b87d]Well, the [i:583640b87d]intent[/i:583640b87d] is there, so I don't see why not.[/quote:583640b87d] No, you can't base a civil court case on intent. There have to be damages that can be given a monetary value. edit: America and England have the same legal system (except for Louisiana, which uses the French system).
i'm not aware of any law enforcement agents doing it, but i know cyber vigalantes had great success rates with impersonating teens and getting pedopredators to give them their names and addresses. i posted a link to a site about it on the old boards some time ago.
[quote:f3eba3e9cc="Marcia"][quote:f3eba3e9cc="drunkymonkey"][quote:f3eba3e9cc="Hsing"]I had a similar thought - is it juristically possible to sue someone for molesting a girl that never existed? I don't know about US law, and I suppose they had reasons enough -the stuff on his computer hard disk for example- to set up this trap to start with. But what about this special case?[/quote:f3eba3e9cc]Well, the [i:f3eba3e9cc]intent[/i:f3eba3e9cc] is there, so I don't see why not.[/quote:f3eba3e9cc] No, you can't base a civil court case on intent. There have to be damages that can be given a monetary value. edit: America and England have the same legal system (except for Louisiana, which uses the French system).[/quote:f3eba3e9cc] I don't see why not really. It's going to stop him committing the real crime. I of course don't want some kind of Minority Report dystopia, but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?
[quote:361b61e62c="drunkymonkey"]but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:361b61e62c] That all depends on what the crime is... :cooler:
[quote:6d4a40e4c4="drunkymonkey"]but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:6d4a40e4c4] I can't remember which book it's in, but this was discussed in Discworld. You can arrest someone before they do a crime on a suspicion, but that would hardly hold up in court, "We caught him before he did it." "Did what?" "Well, he hasn't done it yet..."
That only works with Doors. You can blame him even if he hasn't done it yet, because it IS his fault.
Yes Garner, sorry Garner, will probably do it again but not on purpose and will be sorry again Garner.
[quote:3a9ae94fda="Electric_Man"][quote:3a9ae94fda="drunkymonkey"]but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:3a9ae94fda] I can't remember which book it's in, but this was discussed in Discworld. You can arrest someone before they do a crime on a suspicion, but that would hardly hold up in court, "We caught him before he did it." "Did what?" "Well, he hasn't done it yet..."[/quote:3a9ae94fda]How about arresting someone when they decide to meet up with a child without parent's consent?
OK, how do you prove that the person on the other end who's planned to meet them is, in fact, an adult, unless they arrange a meeting and they turn up? At that stage, the intent has turned into them commiting a crime. You can't convict on a suspicion, you can use your suspicion to be ready to catch someone in the early stages of a crime and prevent them going further, but you can't convict on a suspicion. I could joke and say, "I'd really like to steal all of the Queen's money." Somebody quite literal may take that seriously and suspect me of plotting to steal her money, they couldn't convict me of that though.
[quote="drunkymonkey[quote:5e46a6214e] I don't see why not really. It's going to stop him committing the real crime. I of course don't want some kind of Minority Report dystopia, but it's better to get someone before they commit a crime rather than after, surely?[/quote:5e46a6214e] First of all, you were talking about suing, which has to do with civil laws - not crime, but damages. That is, whatever you did to me caused me to lose money, or the potential to earn money, so I want you to pay me for it. If you're talking about criminal law, then how can you prove that someone intended to commit a crime? Are you going to arrest everyone who ever gets angry with someone else and thinks about beating the crap out of the them, even if they never do it? What if they say it out loud? How do you prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* someone's intentions? There's almost always going to be some doubt about what another person is thinking. What if someone prepares to commit a crime, and then at the last minute changes their mind and decides not to do it? How do they prove that? And then, what's the point of punishment as a deterrent if they're going to get punished anyway? If someone is threatening someone else, has illegal weapons, or tries to hurt someone but is unsuccessful, then those are crimes themselves. The court can arrange for someone's safety, for example, by placing an order of protection. You can refuse to sell weapons to people. You can be arresed view child porn. But you can only be arrested for what you do, not what you are thinking of possibly doing.
Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery. Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.
[quote:d7b9a0aca9="Electric_Man"]OK, how do you prove that the person on the other end who's planned to meet them is, in fact, an adult, unless they arrange a meeting and they turn up? At that stage, the intent has turned into them commiting a crime. You can't convict on a suspicion, you can use your suspicion to be ready to catch someone in the early stages of a crime and prevent them going further, but you can't convict on a suspicion. I could joke and say, "I'd really like to steal all of the Queen's money." Somebody quite literal may take that seriously and suspect me of plotting to steal her money, they couldn't convict me of that though.[/quote:d7b9a0aca9] Well, I suppose a meeting would be the best way to find out, but there's always the case of IP addresses that link back to someone's house, and then the police can see who lives there. As Roman says, conspiracy to commit a crime is also an offence. Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.
[quote:69d8a5ab45="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:69d8a5ab45] That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th) [quote:69d8a5ab45]In seeking a death sentence, prosecutors must prove that he “intentionally participated in an act…and the victim died as a direct result of the act.” (This was proven when he admitted he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them.)[/quote:69d8a5ab45] In my hypothetical situation, no crime had been commited. In this case, a crime has been commited and he is being charged with relation to the planning (or conspiracy) of that. [quote:69d8a5ab45="Roman_K"]Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery. Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.[/quote:69d8a5ab45] The pertinent part of your quote, Roman is: [i:69d8a5ab45]If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven...[/i:69d8a5ab45] But what would constitute proof? A napkin with a drawing of the bank's layout wouldn't be. [quote:69d8a5ab45="drunkmonkey"]Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.[/quote:69d8a5ab45] Possibly, if you caught someone with an full schematic of the bank, all the tools they would need to actually penetrate the bank, proof of meetings with other people about this, proof that someone has invested a lot of money in this operation, proof that they had been monitoring the bank to gather information. If a detective had all that, then they may be able to get a conviction. Maybe, if they're lucky. But they couldn't be certain. The only way the detective could be sure it was a crime and be able to prove it, is if he waited (with a squad of men) for the conspirators to start commiting the crime, then arrest them as soon as they have done so. It would be the only way to get cast-iron proof that could stand up in court. The proof is in the pudding. Especially if they planned to use explosive tiramisu to open the vault.
[quote:4ae96ceee9="Electric_Man"][quote:4ae96ceee9="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:4ae96ceee9] That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th)[/quote:4ae96ceee9] The 6 charges against him are all of conspiracy, but yes, I see that as the crime was still committed but not by him it's not a perfect example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy Maybe this Wikipedia entry will help shed further light on the matter. edit: Blast. Attempts to fix the link weren't successful. I changed it to Conspiracy, so just go to Conspiracy(Crime) from there.
[quote:c55bd3d740="Electric_Man"][quote:c55bd3d740="Katcal"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui There's an example of someone being tried for conspiracy to commit a crime without having taken part in the final act. There's a death penalty at stake in this case. Please note that I'm not defending the man at all, it's just the first example that sprang to mind.[/quote:c55bd3d740] That's not exactly the same as what I was describing. In this case it seems that the charge is more one of aiding/abetting the crime that did happen (i.e. september 11th) [quote:c55bd3d740]In seeking a death sentence, prosecutors must prove that he “intentionally participated in an act…and the victim died as a direct result of the act.” (This was proven when he admitted he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them.)[/quote:c55bd3d740] In my hypothetical situation, no crime had been commited. In this case, a crime has been commited and he is being charged with relation to the planning (or conspiracy) of that. [quote:c55bd3d740="Roman_K"]Marcia, I'm afraid that you've quite forgotten about conspiracy to commit a crime being a crime in itself. It may not apply to a lone person, but it certainly applies to two and more. Planning a bank heist, for example, *is* a crime in itself, if it's more than one person that does the planning. If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven, then it's a crime in itself, seperate from the actual robbery. Of course, it's only applicable if said robbery was stopped before it even happened. After it does, it's a robbery, and not a conspiracy to commit one.[/quote:c55bd3d740] The pertinent part of your quote, Roman is: [i:c55bd3d740]If said plan, said *conspiracy* can be proven...[/i:c55bd3d740] But what would constitute proof? A napkin with a drawing of the bank's layout wouldn't be. [quote:c55bd3d740="drunkmonkey"]Yeah, I agree that everything then could be taken literally, but I suppose it could be judged on how serious their claim is. Like suppose, you have elaborte plans to steal the Queen's money, or you're actually holding secret missions to do so.[/quote:c55bd3d740] Possibly, if you caught someone with an full schematic of the bank, all the tools they would need to actually penetrate the bank, proof of meetings with other people about this, proof that someone has invested a lot of money in this operation, proof that they had been monitoring the bank to gather information. If a detective had all that, then they may be able to get a conviction. Maybe, if they're lucky. But they couldn't be certain. The only way the detective could be sure it was a crime and be able to prove it, is if he waited (with a squad of men) for the conspirators to start commiting the crime, then arrest them as soon as they have done so. It would be the only way to get cast-iron proof that could stand up in court. The proof is in the pudding. Especially if they planned to use explosive tiramisu to open the vault.[/quote:c55bd3d740] I think that there is still a crime under British law "Going equipped for a crime" - but which would be subject to interpretation - for instance, a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone [i:c55bd3d740]without[/i:c55bd3d740] that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. There was a case many years ago when a someone - admittedly with a long criminal record - was convicted under this law because he had a sock in his pocket - judged to be usable to protect his hand when breaking a window to enter a house for the purpose of robbery.
Oh No! I'm always going equipped to carry out criminal acts! I am equipped for exposure and many types of indecent acts... Must get a new coat...
I always carry a swiss army knife and silver duck-tape in my bag, I never travel without them (except when I have to get on a plane), so I'm a potention kidnapper/murderer/serial killer/rapist/Macgyver, although that last one isn't a recognized crime in all countries.
[quote:8cf65140dc="Pixel"]a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone without that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. [/quote:8cf65140dc] This actually works both ways. The father of one of my highschool friends owned a bikeshop. After 2 robberies (Money, not the bikes ) he used to have a bat behind the counter. A friendly policeofficer explained that, if he would beat someone up with it, even if they were robbing him, he could be guilty of a crime, because the bat could only be in the shop for that.... He advised him to switch the bat with a "Spoke spanner", because that way it could just be "at hand", especially in a bikeshop. A spokespanner is a wooden thing, the size of a small bat, with some iron thingies at the end...
[quote:2a17b55f82="Pixel"]I think that there is still a crime under British law "Going equipped for a crime" - but which would be subject to interpretation - for instance, a professional locksmith might carry a set of lock-picks on the way to a job where he had to get someone into their house when they had locked themselves out and left their keys inside - perfectly legitimate - but someone [i:2a17b55f82]without[/i:2a17b55f82] that professional background, found with a set of lock-picks - especially at night - would almost certainly find themselves in court and convicted in very short order. There was a case many years ago when a someone - admittedly with a long criminal record - was convicted under this law because he had a sock in his pocket - judged to be usable to protect his hand when breaking a window to enter a house for the purpose of robbery.[/quote:2a17b55f82] Having the tools would be physical proof that you were planning to commit a crime. It has to do with the level of evidence, as in talking about robbing a blank versus having detailed plans and safe-blowing supplies. Regarding arrest: Police can arrest on probable cause that a crime has been committed. So they don't need hard evidence, but an actual crime has to be committed. Conspiracy law requires evidence that more than one person agreed to commit the crime together, and in many jursidictions requires the commission of an overt act by at least one of the people (for example, if one of the people is found to possess a weapon.) It's also considered to be unjust by many people, so there would be political consequences (could be positive or negative) for anyone involved with having someone convicted on conspiracy charges. edit: Two or more people planning a crime is different than one person planning a crime because once you start discussing the crime with other people and making plans with them, you're a step closer to carrying it out and it's harder to stop the process.
