Canadian faces American Justice!

[JLM]

Chilliwack man charged with child enticement in Idaho - British Columbia - CBC News


I doubt if this bastard (if guilty) will be bothering anyone for awhile. Canadian Justice system should pay close attention!

 

[Dixie Cup]

Bravo - I hope the idiot rots in jail!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So. . . he never enticed a real, existent fourteen-year-old.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

If you're going to be a criminal it pays to be north of the 49th.

 

[JLM]

Bravo - I hope the idiot rots in jail!

"Idiot" is too kind!

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

So. . . he never enticed a real, existent fourteen-year-old.

How does the law work in this regard? Do they fish them in and then hope they find something else to prosecute them on?

 

[JLM]

So. . . he never enticed a real, existent fourteen-year-old.

I doubt if he travelled 800 miles to hob nob with the cops!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How does the law work in this regard? Do they fish them in and then hope they find something else to prosecute them on?

I think they can get him on "intent." Has to do with the way the statute is written, and I ain't up on Idaho law (for which I'm extremely thankful).

I doubt if he travelled 800 miles to hob nob with the cops!

Yes, but according to the low-on-facts article, his entire "enticement" was of a police officer, not an actual 14-year-old. In other words, he "enticed" a fictional character.

Analogies: If a kinda freaky Harry Potter fan goes online and has sex chat with somebody claiming to be "Hermione Granger" (Harry's female witch friend, and underage), then agrees to meet her for sex, and the person he meets with is an adult, has there been a crime?

Analogies, Part Deux: If a person has sex with what he believes to be a 14-year-old, but the person is actually 18, and only claiming to be 14, has he committed a crime?

Analogies, Part Drei: If a person tries to buy marijuana (where it's illegal) from an "dealer" who turns out to be an undercover cop and sells him a Baggie of oregano, is the intent to buy marijuana a crime if no marijuana is bought? Oregano is legal, by the way. Damn tasty on pizza, too.

The general rule in the U.S. is no. The Supreme Court held, in a case where a man tried to bring U.S. currency into the U.S., thinking it was illegal when it isn't, that intending to commit a crime that isn't actually a crime. . . isn't a crime.

I hope the guy gets a good lawyer. This could be interesting.

 

[Johnnny]

They "entice" people who want to kill their spouses or buy explosives also.

If the intent was there then he is guilty. And no 14 year old was injured or raped in this arrest.

It's preventative action.

No one in their right mind would have correspondence with an unrelated 14 year on the internet.

One less predator out there

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

They "entice" people who want to kill their spouses or buy explosives also.

If the intent was there then he is guilty. And no 14 year old was injured or raped in this arrest.

It's preventative action.

No one in their right mind would have correspondence with an unrelated 14 year on the internet.

One less predator out there

That's a perfectly valid opinion. I'm just not sure I agree with it. I'm a little concerned that locking people up for "intending" to commit crimes when there's no real victim is a bit of a stretch. It seems to open the door to a lot of abuse and questionable cases, as in the three hypotheticals I posted.

Or in real life. Down here, there's in increasing trend of charging minors who send nude selfies to their boy/girl/whateverfriends for child pornography. I'm not at all sure it makes any sense at all to charge a 15-year-old with felony child pornography for voluntarily sending a nude photo of her/him/itself to a lover or would-be lover who is also 15.

In one particularly egregious case in Virginia, a teenage girl sent her teenage boyfriend some boob-shot selfies. He sent back a selfie of his erect dick. Her mother looked at her phone and called the police (her mother, not the girl). The DA actually got a warrant to take the boyfriend to a hospital and inject him with a drug that would give him an involuntary erection, for "identification" purposes.

Does that make sense?

 

[Nick Danger]

I'm a little concerned that locking people up for "intending" to commit crimes when there's no real victim is a bit of a stretch. It seems to open the door to a lot of abuse and questionable cases, as in the three hypotheticals I posted.

I wonder what the laws in Idaho say about solicitation of a minor? The article mentioned that he did place an online advertisement that appeared to target underage women.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I wonder what the laws in Idaho say about solicitation of a minor? The article mentioned that he did place an online advertisement that appeared to target underage women.

And I would consider that a clean bust. As I said, the article is a little light on facts. I'll follow this one if it's covered by online-available sources.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

In one particularly egregious case in Virginia, a teenage girl sent her teenage boyfriend some boob-shot selfies. He sent back a selfie of his erect dick. Her mother looked at her phone and called the police (her mother, not the girl). The DA actually got a warrant to take the boyfriend to a hospital and inject him with a drug that would give him an involuntary erection, for "identification" purposes.

Does that make sense?

No, and thank God the judge never ordered it, in the end the teen got a one year probation without being found guilty or innocent, from what I recall. If that had happened there would have been a political storm.

 

[JLM]

I hope the guy gets a good lawyer. This could be interesting.

So he gets back on the street to do some (more) kiddy diddling?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No, and thank God the judge never ordered it, in the end the teen got a one year probation without being found guilty or innocent, from what I recall. If that had happened there would have been a political storm.

The judge did order it. That's what a warrant is. They just never executed the warrant because there was a political storm.

So why the heck was the kid given probation anyhow? If it's legal to have sex with the girl (it is, they were both underage) why is it illegal to send her a picture of your li'l feller?

So he gets back on the street to do some (more) kiddy diddling?

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Nick Danger]

It's always impressive to see the emotion that flies around sex crimes, especially those that involve minors. Reason and objectivity go right out the window, and blood-thirst and lynch mob mentality take over.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's always impressive to see the emotion that flies around sex crimes, especially those that involve minors. Reason and objectivity go right out the window, and blood-thirst and lynch mob mentality take over.

Yep. And you can always rely on idiots trotting out logical fallacies like "If you question the wisdom of the laws or the honesty or accuracy of the cops and DAs, you APPROVE OF RAPING BABIES, YOU BASTARD!"

 

[taxslave]

Judging by his picture I don't see a female of any age wanting to have sex with him.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

The judge did order it. That's what a warrant is. They just never executed the warrant because there was a political storm.

I know what a warrant is, the judge blocked it after the prosecutor requested it, it was never issued. If it were they would have gone through with it.

So why the heck was the kid given probation anyhow? If it's legal to have sex with the girl (it is, they were both underage) why is it illegal to send her a picture of your li'l feller.

I have no clue, I couldn't find any reason why.

 

[Johnnny]

From the article.

John R. Jones was arrested, Friday, when he showed up at the meeting place.

If in the messages indicated he went there to talk to a 14 year old about pokemon and barbie then id question the guys sanity and intelligence level and have him get counselling lessons. That alone is reason enough to see him as potential predator, susceptible to errant behavior.

If the messages he sent to the supposed 14 year old indicated he was intending to get freaky when he arrived at the place of meeting then he is guilty as sin.

Like i said no one was hurt and thank god. Either way he is not fit to be without supervision.

The guy needs a psych evaluation at the minimum, people like this are predators. Either way this guy does not fit the description of your average acting with intent person, even if the article is obscure.