Stiffler and Robert James Snow, 43, “were very upset when the detectives told them they had been having a sexual relationship with a 29-year-old man and not a pre-teen boy,” Quayle said.
wait… what?
Did he just get away with pretending to be a 12 year old boy while having sex with 2 men?
Should i even ask this question?
boggles
Wow. That is VERY odd. They were mad that he WASN’T a child? If anything, they got lucky. Now they can’t be charged with molestation. I wonder though…could they still be charged with intent to molest a minor, since they thought he was 12?
Can’t we just shoot them both and then figure it out? Humanity, thy ills pain me dearly.
Pretty freaky and disturbing. They deserved each other.
I would think so. Police routinely run sting operations where of-age undercover officers pose as children (usually on the net) and lure suspects to meetings. My understanding is that once the suspect shows up clearly intending to have sex with a (nonexistent) minor, they can be charged with at least the attempt, even though in fact no minor exists and the crime would be impossible to complete. I don’t see how this would be any different.
I guess drinking all that cum made him gay.
As much as I think that pedos should be shot, this particular method of enforcement is bullshit. Can you be charged with robbing a bank if you enter one with a note that says “I have a bomb, give me all the money” but then decided not to rob it?
No, but you can be charged with something. You didn’t rob the bank, but having such a note could very well get you into trouble.
I get what you are saying though. It’s a bit Minority Report to charge someone before he/she commits a crime. But do we really want to wait and see if the person actually molests a child first?
It’s routine in stings to arrest at the sign of intent, not actual commission of the crime.
Do vice cops have to wait for a john to actually have sex with an undercover office posing as a prostitute?
If investigation finds a conspiracy to commit armed robbery or murder, should the cops have to wait for the crime to occur to make a bust?
The charge is solicitation, it doesn’t require sex.
If investigation finds a conspiracy to commit armed robbery or murder, should the cops have to wait for the crime to occur to make a bust?
Those are specific conspiracy charges. Bank robbery with a note doesn’t (or shouldn’t) count as armed robbery - so what’s the charge? Conspiracy to carry a note? It certainly would be damn difficult to prove intent there.
If there’s a charge, I want to know what it is, because it’s certainly not molestation or statutory rape - is there a conspiracy version of those charges?
Maybe it could be criminal stupidity, with time off since they didn’t want to propagate their genes.
What’s wrong with people these days?
It depends, both on other facts and (more importantly) on what the jury decides they think about it. In California (and I believe it’s the same in federal court in this circuit), the law distinguishes between “attempts” (illegal) and “mere preparation” (not illegal). The cases are very frank that there’s no bright line between the two and that what looks like attempt to one person might look like mere preparation to another. An attempt to commit a crime occurs when you take a significant step, beyond just planning, to make the crime occur. All you need to do to be guilty of attempt is take one “direct” step towards committing the target offense, with specific intent (at the time to you take the step) to eventually commit it. You do not need to be 99% of the way there. Walking into someone’s house with a gun, intending to kill them, is enough. You don’t have to pull the trigger and miss.
California cases are crystal clear that your own, voluntary withdrawal from the offense is NOT SUFFICIENT to disprove an attempt. In your example, if defendant enters the bank intending to rob it, the attempt may already be complete at that moment – even if he reconsiders while standing in the teller line and eventually leaves the bank without doing anything.
The cases say that the clearer your intent is, the less clear your “direct step” has to be; and conversely, if your intent is not clear from the other evidence, a very clear direct step is necessary to prove an attempt. If you walked into a bank with a robbery note, your intent would be very clear. I would guess you are, technically, guilty of the offense. Of course, being technically guilty is not the same as being legally guilty: a jury might hear that story and vote to acquit (or at least hang), despite the fact that the law is pretty clear that you are guilty.
The same as always.
Good point, but child molestation DOES require sex (or at least touching for sexual purposes), and people still get convicted of the attempt when it is in fact impossible for them to have completed the offense (because there’s no actual child), although they don’t know that at the time.
Bank robbery with a note doesn’t (or shouldn’t) count as armed robbery - so what’s the charge? Conspiracy to carry a note? It certainly would be damn difficult to prove intent there.
The charge would be for an attempt, I would guess. Intent would be very easy to prove, if the police seized or recovered the robbery note. Obviously, if you walk into a bank with NO note, intending in your dark and secret heart to rob it, but then change your mind and walk out, you’re right. You would be technically guilty of attempted bank robbery, but nobody could ever prove it or even suspect it, absent some other evidence.
If there’s a charge, I want to know what it is, because it’s certainly not molestation or statutory rape - is there a conspiracy version of those charges?
Conspiracy is a crime unto itself, so you can be convicted of conspiracy to violate pretty much any criminal law at all, including molestation or statutory rape. In the case at hand, I guess you probably COULD charge them with conspiracy, since there are two of them. But you could also charge them with attempt.
That Stiffler, always getting into mildly humorous trouble.
How is that possible? Wouldn’t the analogy be “You came here to kill me, that’s obvious - so the charge is murder, not attempted murder.”
I believe that when they lure perverts into meetings for child sex intentions, they try to make sure it’s across a state line, so it’s a federal issue. That way, if they try to bargain out, they can still get burnt for any number of lesser things they settle for.
I have never heard that.