Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cooking Kimberly: The Valle Trial

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This is a trial that is going on right now, and I wonder that even if the prosecution was not able to prove that this is an actual blueprint, but was just a fantasy, that that fantasy, as such, how would it be viewed under objective law? Is it cool because of freedom of speech? Or are there legal actions that could be taken simply for having such fantasies?

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=17562584&ref=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cannibal cop wiki&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cannibal-cop-plotted-eat-100-women-feds/story?id=17562584&ei=okUwUcDWCsHG0QHF1oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNF0H9B-nSX_7zjF5ukFdoWJY63T6A&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ

Here is more on what's going on in the trial right now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/nyregion/at-officer-gilberto-valles-trial-a-focus-on-the-line-between-intent-and-fantasy.html?_r=0

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, his thoughts are on trial here, basically. He is charged with accessing a data base, that should be easy for the prosecution to convict him on, which he probably will do 5 years for, but for actually plotting, intending to actually follow through with what he wrote about, will be quite a challenge for the prosecution. He did use real name and photos, and may have even met one of two of them, and so forth, and with accessing the data base, he may have gone beyond just fantasy. For me it's the fantasies alone that disturb me. What kind of man has such fantasies? If we can't convict him for life in prison, what about in a mental hospital or something to that effect? Don't thoughts get people into those?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, his thoughts are on trial here, basically. He is charged with accessing a data base, that should be easy for the prosecution to convict him on, which he probably will do 5 years for, but for actually plotting, intending to actually follow through with what he wrote about, will be quite a challenge for the prosecution. He did use real name and photos, and may have even met one of two of them, and so forth, and with accessing the data base, he may have gone beyond just fantasy. For me it's the fantasies alone that disturb me. What kind of man has such fantasies? If we can't convict him for life in prison, what about in a mental hospital or something to that effect? Don't thoughts get people into those?

No. The inability to control one's actions is what gets people into those. Having these thoughts and not acting on them is proof that he is in control.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He did use real name and photos, and may have even met one of two of them, and so forth, and with accessing the data base, he may have gone beyond just fantasy.

 

In these kinds of cases, couldn't the FBI have used one of the girls to their advantage? (For example, they could have asked the friend from college to meet up with Valles and get him to admit something in person. Or they could have taken that same girl, had her meet up with Valles, then waited for his responses online & looked for definite plans for future kidnappings.) Seems that if they would have waited, they could have caught him 'in the act,' so to speak, or gotten a confession. Or is that just in the movies?

Edited by mdegges
Link to post
Share on other sites

In these kinds of cases, couldn't the FBI have used one of the girls to their advantage? (For example, they could have asked the friend from college to meet up with Valles and get him to admit something in person. Or they could have taken that same girl, had her meet up with Valles, then waited for his responses online & looked for definite plans for future kidnappings.) Seems that if they would have waited, they could have caught him 'in the act,' so to speak, or gotten a confession. Or is that just in the movies?

I think that happens in real life all the time (see various terror sting operations, or "To catch a predator" - I think that's what that TV show was called). However, I don't think they are allowed to actually send in a civilian as bait. They would've probably had to use an undercover law enforcement officer.

Perhaps they opted against that because the guy's a cop and he'd see through it. Or they realized that he's not serious, and there's no point.

Either way, I think exposing him was good work. I'm just not convinced about all the charges. It seems like it's way too easy to charge someone with a crime, in the US. In other countries (Japan, for instance), they don't charge someone with a crime unless there's virtually no question of their guilt.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

 The FBI must understand that their case is flimsy. Does anyone think that they charged him just so they could expose him to the public? Even if they don't have a case? Is this wrong?

Well yeah, using the criminal justice system for anything except to try and punish criminals is wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article mentions that he was carrying out surveillance of women that he was discussing doing this to. Proving that would go a far way towards this being an actual crime as opposed to a "thought crime".

Regarding this, Intellectual Ammo's question and Nicky's response:
"snapback.png

Yeah, his thoughts are on trial here, basically. He is charged with accessing a data base, that should be easy for the prosecution to convict him on, which he probably will do 5 years for, but for actually plotting, intending to actually follow through with what he wrote about, will be quite a challenge for the prosecution. He did use real name and photos, and may have even met one of two of them, and so forth, and with accessing the data base, he may have gone beyond just fantasy. For me it's the fantasies alone that disturb me. What kind of man has such fantasies? If we can't convict him for life in prison, what about in a mental hospital or something to that effect? Don't thoughts get people into those?

No. The inability to control one's actions is what gets people into those. Having these thoughts and not acting on them is proof that he is in control."

You are somewhat incorrect there Nicky (although mental health holds standards vary a little from state to state.)
Generally when it is deemed that someone is a threat to themselves or others an involuntary mental health hold and evaluation (usually 72 hours) can be used on someone based on whether there is a threat and a plan. The man definitely wrote down plans and that he stalked some potential victims would be seen as reasonable cause to believe it was more than chat room fantasy- at least from a mental health hold standpoint.
    

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this should be viewed from a mental health standpoint:

the officer admitted that his online passion had consumed him, ruining his personal life.

Valle "claimed he did not enjoy it and he did not know why he was doing it," the agent said.

Staying up late at night, not interested in sex w/wife, etc.

So thoughts can get someone into such places, like suicidal thoughts. I wonder, in all the things he wrote, talked, fantasized about, if any of it, could qualify?

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

And this should be viewed from a mental health standpoint:Staying up late at night, not interested in sex w/wife, etc.

So thoughts can get someone into such places, like suicidal thoughts. I wonder, in all the things he wrote, talked, fantasized about, if any of it, could qualify?

No, not just the thoughts.

You have to be reasonably deemed a direct danger to yourself or others to be legally put on involuntary mental health hold (this is a good thing as many governments abuse involuntary institutionalization against poltical dissidents).

What that means is this:

You think about hurting yourself/someone else frequently and mention this to your therapist. The therapist is not mandated to report this or to attempt to have you detained.

What they are obligated to do is ask you about "planning". Then they assess whether you are experiencing "active suicidal ideation" or "passive suicidal ideation".

Passive, your liberties cannot be legally restricted. Passive would be thinking about, writing a fantasy about, you know.... *passive*.

Active you can be put on hold and evaluated for being a danger.

Active would be .... you've been thinking about hurting the girl that just dumped you and you tell your therapist. Your therapist questions you and you reveal that you've soundproofed your basement and have begun following her and her new boyfriend while armed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not just the thoughts.

You have to be reasonably deemed a direct danger to yourself or others to be legally put on involuntary mental health hold (this is a good thing as many governments abuse involuntary institutionalization against poltical dissidents).

What that means is this:

You think about hurting yourself/someone else frequently and mention this to your therapist. The therapist is not mandated to report this or to attempt to have you detained.

What they are obligated to do is ask you about "planning". Then they assess whether you are experiencing "active suicidal ideation" or "passive suicidal ideation".

Passive, your liberties cannot be legally restricted. Passive would be thinking about, writing a fantasy about, you know.... *passive*.

Active you can be put on hold and evaluated for being a danger.

Active would be .... you've been thinking about hurting the girl that just dumped you and you tell your therapist. Your therapist questions you and you reveal that you've soundproofed your basement and have begun following her and her new boyfriend while armed.

 

What does that have to do with mental health?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with mental health?

If you scroll back to where I entered the conversation you will see that I am responding to direct questions posed by Intellectual Ammo (who started the thread) that pertain to his original intent in the post: at what point can things you talk about/write about get one locked up? He asked how it would work under Objective law and since posters were obviously confused about where the law currently stands I posted it.

As to what it has to do with mental health: it is the law pertaining to mental health involuntary holds.  That is what a person would be held under in a circumstance like this if they had not yet committed the crime but it was demonstrable that they were well on their way toward it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

his original intent in the post: at what point can things you talk about/write about get one locked up? He asked how it would work under Objective law

Right, and thank you for your contributions auctions to this thread. There is Mich I don't know about in this area.

For me, even just fantasizing about tying someone up, or being tied up, (seemingly anything SMBD) suggests to me something might not be right with them, like psychologically and so forth, and I was wondering if objective law would warrant any investigating, or psychological evaluations into such "lifestyles" just based on fantasizes alone, or even engaging in SMBD shit in relationships period.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, and thank you for your contributions auctions to this thread. There is Mich I don't know about in this area.

For me, even just fantasizing about tying someone up, or being tied up, (seemingly anything SMBD) suggests to me something might not be right with them, like psychologically and so forth, and I was wondering if objective law would warrant any investigating, or psychological evaluations into such "lifestyles" just based on fantasizes alone, or even engaging in SMBD shit in relationships period.

Michigan's Involuntary MHH policies are amongst the most pro-involuntary commital.

that is, the burden of proof for the government to commit someone who has not yet commited a crime is lower than in the majority of other states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assistant U.S. Attorney Hadassa Waxman told a Manhattan jury at Valle's kidnapping conspiracy trial. "The law does not require that we wait until he carries out his crime."

The defense claims Valle is being prosecuted for indulging in offensive, but harmless, fantasies fed by visits to fetish websites meant solely for role-play.

His attorney, Julia Gatto, started her closing by reading from a 2012 Valle e-mail saying, "I just have a world in my mind and in that world I am kidnapping women and selling them to people interested in buying them."

But prosecutor Waxman argued the evidence shows that Valle "left the world of fantasy and entered the world of reality." The officer's actions were "no joke," she added. "It was not just sick entertainment."

The prosecutor argued that Valle took concrete steps to further the plot — looking up potential targets on a restricted law enforcement database, searching the Internet for how to knock someone out with chloroform and showing up on the block of one woman after agreeing to kidnap her for $5,000.

Valle also viewed a clip of the slaughter of a goat, a "gruesome video ... a practical how-to guide to killing, an educational tool for Valle's killing," the prosecutor said.

At trial, the jury heard the testimony of women who knew Valle and were trading innocent-sounding emails and texts with him at the same time prosecutors say he was scheming to make meals out of them. The government also sought to drive home the point that Valle was more of a threat because he was a police officer.

Jury deliberation has now begun in this trial. Edited by intellectualammo
Link to post
Share on other sites

He was convicted.

 

The evidence that led to his conviction was concrete evidence that he went beyond fantasy into real actions of planning:
These included: illegally using the police database to access information about women he was writing about planning to kill including one women he accpeted an offer of $5000 to carry out the kidnapping. After finding her whereabouts he started surveilling her home.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...