Remember the cop plotting to kidnap, kill, and eat women?

[Intoxiklown]

Source: http://anonhq.com/cannibal-cop-gets-acquitted/


Cannibal Cop gets acquitted

Imagine this: the year is 2012 and we’re inside the NYPD, looking over the shoulder of a 28 year old trusted member of the police force as he sifts through countless names on a Federal database. His search is for a particular type of woman fitting the profile of his case, and to collect specific information. Over time, he catalogues at least 100 women on his computer: profiles, addresses, photos.[1]

The nature of his search, which also involves fetish chat rooms, is a formulated design of rape, torture and cannibalism. The women are the potential victims.

One would be forgiven if they left Officer Valle to his devices. But it wasn’t a criminal he was investigating. The information gathering was for his own benefit; to satisfy what the courts labelled as his “fantasy.”

In conversations online via email, chatrooms and instant messaging, Valle outlined the “mechanics” of his depraved attacks:

“I was thinking of tying her body onto some kind of apparatus…cook her over low heat, keep her alive as long as possible.”[2]

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

thinking and doing are two different things, no matter how disgusting they are

[Dr.3D]

Unless he actually does something illegal, he shouldn't be arrested or tried for anything.

[fisharmor]

Unless he actually does something illegal, he shouldn't be arrested or tried for anything.

What a completely novel and alien concept.
Especially to his employer.

[Dr.3D]

What a completely novel and alien concept.
Especially to his employer.

Well, so far the man seems to have been arrested and taken to court for a thought crime.

[Intoxiklown]

Please read the article, and you'll get to the part where he CONSPIRED to kidnap and deliver a live woman to a person for money.

[Dr.3D]

Please read the article, and you'll get to the part where he CONSPIRED to kidnap and deliver a live woman to a person for money.

Did he attempt to deliver? Seems like somebody has a conspiracy theory.

[Anti Federalist]

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.

[PaulConventionWV]

Did he attempt to deliver? Seems like somebody has a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy is a real crime, which he obviously committed. Go figure he gets let off.

Whether conspiracy should be a real crime is another debate, entirely, but this would've been a good place to use it if ever there was one.

[Intoxiklown]

Conspiracy is a real crime, which he obviously committed. Go figure he gets let off.

Whether conspiracy should be a real crime is another debate, entirely, but this would've been a good place to use it if ever there was one.

Exactly.

More to the point, anyone else besides a cop would have received 25 years to life for the same charge.

[Antischism]

Meanwhile...

Teen in jail for months over sarcastic Facebook threat

Just sayin'.

[Dr.3D]

So folks here think, talking about doing something is the same as doing it and should have the same penalty as if he had actually done it?

[phill4paul]

Meanwhile...

Teen in jail for months over sarcastic Facebook threat

Just sayin'.

+rep.

[jkr]

W
T
F
?

[Christian Liberty]

Unless he actually does something illegal, he shouldn't be arrested or tried for anything.

I'm tempted to disagree just because he's in the NYPD. The fact that he joined that organization combined with the fact that he's fantasizing about killing people scares me. And in a sense I think he's an aggressor for being in the NYPD. I could justify action, again, simply because he's a cop.

I think "normal people" should be able to get away with openly fantasizing about torture and murder, but if someone who has joined the blue gang does so, I take that as a credible threat.

[Christian Liberty]

So folks here think, talking about doing something is the same as doing it and should have the same penalty as if he had actually done it?

I think the fact that he did it while having a badge effects things.

And I don't see any reason to believe that he wasn't intending on acting on it. And again, if someone would want to do such a thing, wouldn't it make sense for them to join the NYPD?

Admittedly, this is half just "screw them because they joined the NYPD" but frankly, there's something that freaks me out about somebody who's supposedly serving and protecting us (and yes, I realize that that is BS 99% of the time) talking about this kind of stuff. If a woman felt threatened by him and decided to shoot him I'd probably vote not guilty. And yes, its different if its a random teenager who sits in his mom's basement and plays video games. The fact that he's a cop, and thus could very likely get away with doing something awful like this, makes a difference.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not even the most anti-cop guy here. But I think if you're going to give a cop any slack you have to have good reason to do so. I don't go with the Cantwellian "kill them all" response, but it doesn't really take all that much to get me to a point where I'm like "yeah, there's no way this cop is well intentioned, so I don't really care what happens to him." And I think a statement like this qualifies.

[Dr.3D]

I'm tempted to disagree just because he's in the NYPD. The fact that he joined that organization combined with the fact that he's fantasizing about killing people scares me. And in a sense I think he's an aggressor for being in the NYPD. I could justify action, again, simply because he's a cop.

I think "normal people" should be able to get away with openly fantasizing about torture and murder, but if someone who has joined the blue gang does so, I take that as a credible threat.

So one set of rules for us and another for cops?

[Christian Liberty]

So one set of rules for us and another for cops?

You know what, I'm honestly OK with that if it means that cops are actually held to a stricter standard. I've always felt this way.

Frankly, I have no qualms about saying that a cop who violates the law (the written law, not the NAP) and commits an armed robbery should get the death penalty. And I wouldn't say the same about a civilian. Why? The cop is held to a higher standard because of his badge. Mind you, its not because he has a stupid uniform and a piece of metal. Its because you were trained since childhood that you're supposed to trust that guy, and what's worse, you are effectively being threatened by the might of the State if you resist him.

If a regular guy is fantasizing about raping and torturing women, we can stay away from him. We can keep our kids away from him. We can not give him access to any of our resources. And if he acts on it, you can kill him and very likely get away with it.

If a cop does this, you are bound (not morally, but by the threat of violence) to submit to his authority. And you are forced to pay his salary. And if he does act on his dark and perverted fantasies, and you kill him, you will almost certainly not get away with it.

The enforcement class is afforded with extra privileges, its not right but it is what it is. So, they should be doubly responsible for what they do. And I don't think we can strictly apply the NAP in our interactions with them, since they are in some sense violating the NAP by taking the positions we have (note that I don't take the opposite extreme where any cop in any situation is "fair game" so to speak. But I think we are perfectly justified in being extra-careful regarding people who have been given a right on paper to use violence first, and who have the backing of a massive gang should they be resisted.)

I guess I see it this way: If a high school male rapes a high school female, its terrible. But its even worse if a teacher does it, because of the position of authority that teacher is in. And if a teacher were writing fantasies about raping one of his students, we would be creeped out. We wouldn't arrest him (well, as libertarians we likely wouldn't, at any rate) but we would certainly want him fired and staying away from our daughters and our property.

Its the same with cops. Everything they do is worse because of the position of authority they hold. And no, I don't actually respect the position but it is one that is backed up with force. So it does exist, even though I dislike it.

[Working Poor]

I did not see in the article if this guy was allowed to return to his job as a police but, I can't help but wonder if this guy has already "acted out" creepy...

[Intoxiklown]

So folks here think, talking about doing something is the same as doing it and should have the same penalty as if he had actually done it?

No, I think there should be equal treatment under the law. And jails are full of people like you and I for doing the things he did (conspire with another person to kidnap and deliver a live victim for money). We are talking about A and C, and you seem hell bent on talking about Z.

[jbauer]

He's certainly guilty of using personal records for things other then work. In just about ever other profesion he'd loose his job. If he's in a job that requires licensing they might be fineable.

As for guilt I guess it depends on how far he went. Does the not guilty crowd believe in attempted murder? Or must you commit said crime to be guilty?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Must be one of the good cops.

[Dr.3D]

He's certainly guilty of using personal records for things other then work. In just about ever other profesion he'd loose his job. If he's in a job that requires licensing they might be fineable.

As for guilt I guess it depends on how far he went. Does the not guilty crowd believe in attempted murder? Or must you commit said crime to be guilty?

Did he cause damage to anybody?

[Christian Liberty]

Almost certainly yes, simply by virtue of his profession.

This man has chosen to live not by the NAP, so I don't see a problem with protecting ourselves against him.

[Dr.3D]

Almost certainly yes, simply by virtue of his profession.

This man has chosen to live not by the NAP, so I don't see a problem with protecting ourselves against him.

Well, then all cops would be guilty and not just him for thinking and talking about doing something that would cause someone damage.

Interesting concept.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, then all cops would be guilty and not just him for thinking and talking about doing something that would cause someone damage.

Interesting concept.

In some sense yes. Again, I'm not the most hardcore about it, but I don't see how you could join the NYPD and not be guilty in some sense.

To some degree intent is playing a role for me here though. There are some cops who are genuinely deceived into thinking that they are keeping us safe. There is no way this guy is, thus I feel like he's just a scumbag who I'd like to see punished.

[Dr.3D]

In some sense yes. Again, I'm not the most hardcore about it, but I don't see how you could join the NYPD and not be guilty in some sense.

To some degree intent is playing a role for me here though. There are some cops who are genuinely deceived into thinking that they are keeping us safe. There is no way this guy is, thus I feel like he's just a scumbag who I'd like to see punished.

You do know they can play by those rules too if you decide those are the rules you want to live by. They can then say you thought about committing a crime and then talked about doing it so you are then guilty of conspiring to commit a crime and put you on trial.

I thought we were all about not prosecuting victimless crimes.

[Christian Liberty]

You do know they can play by those rules too if you decide those are the rules you want to live by. They can then say you thought about committing a crime and then talked about doing it so you are then guilty of conspiring to commit a crime and put you on trial.

I thought we were all about not prosecuting victimless crimes.

I hear you. The difference I see is that I have no track record of committing aggressive acts, and the cops do.

[Dr.3D]

I hear you. The difference I see is that I have no track record of committing aggressive acts, and the cops do.

I don't believe we should be singling people out for special treatment just because of their profession.