The Goat Pen

Bolf, what do you think of Jamie Skeen's draft prospects?

Happy Birthday Ron!!

even when a guy knows better his dick overrides his logical thinking

On February 16, 2007, while in the romance chat room, the defendant, using the screen name “Andrewfsx,” invited Jenny to have a private conversation.4 After exchanging names and towns of residence, the defendant told Jenny that he was a thirty-one year old man and sent her a shirtless photograph of himself. Shortly thereafter, Jenny responded by sending two photographs of herself, in both of which she was fully clothed, and she informed the defendant that she was fifteen years old and a sophomore in high school.5 The defendant expressed some concern about Jenny's age saying, “that's not ok lol.i could go to jail.”6 He also stated during this part of the conversation that “there are cops in here all the time pretending to be girls,” and, “i just don't want to go to jail,” and, “i wish you were 16..that's what you should have said.” Jenny tried to end the conversation by saying, “well ․ i guess it ur decision ․ nice 2 meet u.” But the defendant persisted and said, “prove you're not a cop.” After Jenny offered to do so, they both agreed that there was no way for her to prove it, and the conversation continued.

This conversation went on for approximately one hour and twenty minutes, during which the defendant initiated sexually suggestive talk by saying, “i need to see you to turn me on..lol ․ i don't want to go on a cam just staring at this computer screen.” He asked when Jenny was going to reach the age of sixteen, and Jenny told him that that would not occur for another ten months. He discussed having marijuana that he wanted to smoke and mentioned that he would love to smoke it with Jenny but that he had seen too many episodes of the television program, “Dateline,” explaining to Jenny that it was “the show where they show all the guys picking up girls on the internet.”7 The conversation continued regarding nonillicit topics such as the television programs that Jenny watched and how she had been at private school but had to leave because she got into too much trouble and was now in the tenth grade at Newtown public high school. The defendant said, “i'd have so much fun with you.” When Jenny responded in kind, the defendant said, “[G]od ․ you're driving me crazy,” explaining that she was driving him crazy “cause you're only 15..it's your fault ․ jk hehe.”8 The defendant suggested that Jenny “go away ․ change your name..and say you're 17 lol.” Jenny responded, “LOL ․ fine ․ do u want me to tell u that im 18 ․ OK ․ Im 18 ․ is that better ․ lol.” The defendant replied, “it's ok.”


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of- ... 32827.html

This guy was in my first group of trainees we hired back in 2006. I consider him a friend.

she informed the defendant that she was fifteen years old and a sophomore in high school

and that's when he should have stopped. there's too many girls out there that are legal to risk this.

AugustWest wrote:she informed the defendant that she was fifteen years old and a sophomore in high school

and that's when he should have stopped. there's too many girls out there that are legal to risk this.

it should have but it didn't. That said, the "15" year old asked for his cell number, and initiated contact with him multiple times.

While he will forever be lumped in with the same class of guys cruising elementary schools in panel vans looking for 8 year olds, he isn't a sexual predator. He is just a lonely dumbass who thought that talking about how much weed he smoked would impress a girl.

15 must be the magic number for computer geeks. I had to talk to a guy in my group in 2007 about hitting on a 15 year old at the corporate apartments we rented for you. The apartment complex told us to tell him to stop or they'd kick us out of 8 apartments we rented.

eCat must work for Panel Vans Unlimited.

Yeah, the "entrapment" defense didn't work there, but it sure read like the police came pretty close to that line at least. Regardless, putting that kind of effort into "lonely dumbasses" doesn't seem like the best use of law enforcement resources.

My impression of e talking to the guy about the apartment complex:

"Look Raj, I don't care if you go down to the mall and troll for underage tail, hell I know you have to blow off some steam. Programming is high stress career. And between that and your pending arranged marriage, things must be getting tense. But don't you shit where we eat. Savvy?"

TheBigMook wrote:My impression of e talking to the guy about the apartment complex:

"Look Raj, I don't care if you go down to the mall and troll for underage tail, hell I know you have to blow off some steam. Programming is high stress career. And between that and your pending arranged marriage, things must be getting tense. But don't you shit where we eat. Savvy?"

heh, you weren't too far off - the guy was Korean, not Indian

since the apartments were being paid for by my cost center, shitting where you eat isn't a bad analogy

Ron Mexico wrote:Yeah, the "entrapment" defense didn't work there, but it sure read like the police came pretty close to that line at least. Regardless, putting that kind of effort into "lonely dumbasses" doesn't seem like the best use of law enforcement resources.

Yeah, entrapment is a major issue in those bullshit cases, and a lot of Dateline's To Catch A Predator cases were thrown out because of entrapment.

Ron Mexico wrote:Yeah, the "entrapment" defense didn't work there, but it sure read like the police came pretty close to that line at least. Regardless, putting that kind of effort into "lonely dumbasses" doesn't seem like the best use of law enforcement resources.

The guy got 10 years. That stuns me - for what you *said* you were going to do on the internet as an anonymous poster without mind you , him ever being caught with marijuana or physically touching the girl.

While I'm all for keeping pedophiles off the streets, I thought you actually had to break the law before you went to jail.

Well, his actions probably violate a statute in which that type of conversation is prohibited. Hell, "sexting" is illegal in NC in certain circumstances (mostly those involving persons under the age of eighteen) now.

DooKSucks wrote:Well, his actions probably violate a statute in which that type of conversation is prohibited. Hell, "sexting" is illegal in NC in certain circumstances (mostly those involving persons under the age of eighteen) now.

oh I understand what he did was illegal, but I just think if you're going to lock a guy away for wanting to fuck a 15 year old, prisons are going to fill up pretty quick. Would he have taken her home and had sex with her? yea probably but until that happens I don't see the guy deserving 10 years of his life being taken away from him

You got kind of a minority report thing happening here

I've got another headache right now with an employee intentionally hiding information from us that would have affected us hiring him.

I'll be meeting with legal next week so I'm walking around on eggshells trying not say something wrong that will result in a lawsuit if this guy gets pissed off

Here's what I don't understand, if a girl tells you she's 18 and you bang her then it turns out she was only 15, then you're guilty because what she said doesn't mean jackshit, it's the true age that counts.

Then a 58 year old cop tells you she's 15 and then all of a sudden the law flips and it's only because you thought she was a minor that makes you guilty?

Also, where in eCat's story above did the guy cross the line into criminal conduct? I only scanned it expecting it to leap out at me, but I didn't really see where he emailed a picture of his cock or showed up on her doorstep with 50 rubbers.

I have no problem locking away pervs, but I kinda have a pretty big problem with locking away people for attepmpting to have sex with characters that dont exist.

This guy arranged a meeting to have sex with someone that doesnt exist. There is no 15 year old girl that can actually say that this guy attempted to have sex with her. All they can say is that he would have done it if there really was a 15 year girl, Aha!

For the jury to find the defendant guilty of attempt to commit sexual assault in the second degree, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with a person older than thirteen years of age but under sixteen years of age and that the defendant was more than two years older.

WHats the definition of "person?"

whatever the cops say it is. "thoughtcrime" is a reality.

aTm wrote:This guy arranged a meeting to have sex with someone that doesnt exist. There is no 15 year old girl that can actually say that this guy attempted to have sex with her. All they can say is that he would have done it if there really was a 15 year girl, Aha!

I wish one of our lawyers could explain this. If the actual age is the only thing that counts then how are all these cops pretending to be kids getting convictions? And if its only what you thought their age was that counts then how do people keep getting convicted for statutory rape in cases where the girl tells them she's of age but actually isn't?

Shouldn't it have to be either/or?