Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
"A Michigan man has pleaded guilty to sex abuse after being accused of wearing a 'World's Greatest Dad' shirt to meet for sex with someone he thought was a 14-year-old-girl. Thirty-three-year-old Daniel Allen Everett pleaded guilty Thursday in Oakland County Circuit Court to child sexual abuse and using the Internet to attempt child sexual abuse. [...] Authorities have not confirmed whether Everett has children."
Somebody get Chimpy a 'World's Greatest Presnit' T-shirt
Posted by: waldo at August 8, 2008 04:53 AMAh, I see now the monkey attack story is from last year. The McCain story is fresh, though!
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at August 8, 2008 10:55 AMI'm disturbed by this sort of 'sting'. Ok, this guy is probably a menace to society, but no actual 14 year old was involved. He's arrested because he thought there was one and that makes this a thought crime. Do we really lock people up for bad intentions, or should there be a real crime with a real victim? I really don't know, but this still bothers me.
Posted by: caradoc at August 8, 2008 12:02 PM4: Chris Hansen would like you to have a seat over there.
Posted by: Ashley at August 8, 2008 02:09 PM4: Good point, though we often lock people up for less that "real crimes with real victims." Consider conspiracy to commit murder. We can have laws that allow some one to be convicted of a crime when they show an intent to do serious harm. However, such crimes as conspiracy to commit murder aren't the same as murder and carry lighter sentences.
Note that you cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder if your intended victim does not exist. Despite my careful plans to kill former president Regan tomorrow, the prosecution isn't going to succeed. Similary, it seems to me that if there is no real intended victim, this man can't actually be guilty of attempting to have sex with a 14-year old girl.
Given the terrible awkwardness of the first sentence, I'd wager that there is some very shoddy reporting going on here. My guess is that the charges were more like "Solicitation of a Minor" and "Attempted Child Sexual Predation" or something. And my guess is that the sting involved him soliciting actual minors over the internet, not FBI agents pretending to 14-year old girls (while on the job.)
Posted by: lenhart at August 8, 2008 02:47 PM5: The best part of that show is where they get the perp to sign the release to go on TV.
Posted by: caradoc at August 9, 2008 12:02 AMMy guess is that the charges were more like "Solicitation of a Minor" and "Attempted Child Sexual Predation" or something. And my guess is that the sting involved him soliciting actual minors over the internet, not FBI agents pretending to 14-year old girls (while on the job.)
Generally the law is that if your intent is to solicit a minor, and you think you're soliciting a minor, then it doesn't matter if it turns out that it's not actually a minor you're soliciting after all. Of course the prosecution has to prove your intent and thought, which can be difficult.
Somewhat analagous: you intend to murder your roommmate, and you fire a gun at the lump in her bed, thinking that you are indeed murdering her. Now it so happens that she spent the night on the couch, and all you did was shoot up her pillow. You're still liable for attempted murder, even though you didn't acutally shoot at a person.
Posted by: M/tch M/lls at August 10, 2008 02:47 AMwhat a douche... he actually wears WWE t-shirts!?
Posted by: skinnydipinacid at August 12, 2008 02:04 AM