FBI arrests New York cop for plan to cook, eat women

[Analme]

I think in this case there is evidence which allow the police to act accordingly.

1) he's a police officer,
2) tapped into the data base which is illegal in this instant,
3) they were given this tip from an individual who knew him well, estranged wife
4) along with his writings, these potential victims did exist to the point he actually had lunch with one of them,
5) he wanted to go into the kidnapping business

I agree with the authorities on this one. I would charge his ass, wrap a leather mask around his face and lock him up.

 

[tboy]

like I said, he is probably a whacko.....but to take the word of an estranged/ex wife? lol I don't know too many who wouldn't jump at the chance to nail their ex husband to the wall........and say whatever to do it.....

The point here though is at what point does a "thought" become a crime?

As for the lunch instance, hell, I've had lunch with tons of women I wanted to fuck silly, but wanting to, and actually doing it, are two different things......

 

[papasmerf]

after giving some thought to a preemptive strike I guess you could compare it to preventing a bomber from setting a bomb.

to arrest him before he takes a life seems odd but welcome.

 

[tboy]

I think the key here is whether or not the person has the capacity to actually carry out the deed.....I think this should apply to the "uttering a threat" laws we have up here too.

I say this because a boat buddy of mine was arrested for uttering a threat to his ex wife....he was supposed to pick up his kids that afternoon for his weekly visit, bring them down to his boat and spend the day soaking up the sun....his ex-wife said something to him on the phone like "nope, not letting them go out on your boat today" (even thought they'd been down countless times) and he said something like "you try and stop me and I'll kick your ass"....2 hrs later the cops were on the dock and he was being taken away in handcuffs....

Now I will state, he was a really nice guy, never said a bad word about anyone, but was pissed off because his ex wife was playing fricken games with him......did that matter? nope...he was arrested anyways......

 

[papasmerf]

I think the key here is whether or not the person has the capacity to actually carry out the deed.....I think this should apply to the "uttering a threat" laws we have up here too.

I say this because a boat buddy of mine was arrested for uttering a threat to his ex wife....he was supposed to pick up his kids that afternoon for his weekly visit, bring them down to his boat and spend the day soaking up the sun....his ex-wife said something to him on the phone like "nope, not letting them go out on your boat today" (even thought they'd been down countless times) and he said something like "you try and stop me and I'll kick your ass"....2 hrs later the cops were on the dock and he was being taken away in handcuffs....

Now I will state, he was a really nice guy, never said a bad word about anyone, but was pissed off because his ex wife was playing fricken games with him......did that matter? nope...he was arrested anyways......

How many times do you hear family and neighbors say I never would have believed that of him?
He seemed like just a decent guy who loved his family.

 

[tboy]

after giving some thought to a preemptive strike I guess you could compare it to preventing a bomber from setting a bomb.

to arrest him before he takes a life seems odd but welcome.

that's the key though, if they hadn't been arrested would they have taken a life or set a bomb? (to use your example).

Now if you're talking about 5 devout muslim extremists, who are incountry under false passports and are seen to have all the makings of an IED, then, yeah, you'd probably be right in arresting them before they actually built the thing and put it in place....but by the same token, if you have 3 science nerds, who talked online about how to build a bomb, didn't have any idea where to get the materials, or how to put it together, I might question whether the arrest was warranted.....

 

[papasmerf]

that's the key though, if they hadn't been arrested would they have taken a life or set a bomb? (to use your example).

Now if you're talking about 5 devout muslim extremists, who are incountry under false passports and are seen to have all the makings of an IED, then, yeah, you'd probably be right in arresting them before they actually built the thing and put it in place....but by the same token, if you have 3 science nerds, who talked online about how to build a bomb, didn't have any idea where to get the materials, or how to put it together, I might question whether the arrest was warranted.....

In some cases I am in favor of erring on the side of caution.

I would not support preemptive arrests in every case but if there is tangible proof of a crime about to be committed then yes.

But at the same time just because you have a tarp, shovel, tyvex suit, surgical gloves, splash shield, chain saw and you ex-with in the car does not mean you are planning anything.

 

[tboy]

I think you hit the nail on the head: tangible proof.

How many documentaries and interviews with FBI agents etc who "knew" a certain mafioso was guilty of many crimes yet they couldn't arrest them? Why did they have to find concrete evidence when the mere "thought" or "plan" was enough to arrest them?

Take Al Capone for example, they couldn't "prove" that he actually was in charge and got rich via bootlegging so they had to get him on income tax evasion.....

Now as for the "err on the side of caution" aspect...while I tend to agree, the whole justice system is based on "innocent until proven guilty".....and I think someone else mentioned a writing something like "100 guilty should go free before they jail an innocent person" or something like that.....

I think in a case like this, they would have gotten wire taps, tailed him, kept him under surveilance and arrested him if he indicated he was actually going to do something......