×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sex Offender Claims Police Entrapped Him With Animated Emoticons

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the can't-resist-the-smiley-face dept.

Crime 432

60-year-old John Jacques has appealed his conviction for engaging in sexually graphic online conversations with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl, saying the police entrapped him using animated emoticons during the chats. From the article: "Jacques claims prosecutors withheld evidence when they failed to use a computer program that would have shown the jury animated emoticons, which he argued was 'clear evidence of enticement.' He doesn't support his argument with a legal basis, the appeals court found. 'We fail to see how viewing the emoticons as animations would have led the jury to conclude that he was the victim of excessive incitement,' the court wrote."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

432 comments

Makes sense. (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35520990)

He was sexually attracted to the emoticons, not the girl.

Sweet Stache. (2)

dadelbunts (1727498) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521004)

Awesome mustache and his name is John Jacques. This man is clearly a french buccaneer from the 1700-1800's. At that time it was common practice to sleep with 13. Not his fault.

Re:Sweet Stache. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521212)

13 year olds dude.

Right-o, buddy. (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521018)

Good luck with that. You should also tell them how the mean and tricksy the police are for saying "Hey, I'm a 13-year-old girl" when they -really weren't-. Gasp. You were suckered right into soliciting sexually graphic conversations, they practically haxxored your Gibson with such coercion like "Hey, I'm a kid" and "I think Spongebob is great."

Re:Right-o, buddy. (1, Interesting)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521416)

Lets take the kid out of the equation and substitute something else that is often sensationalized - gun buying.

Mayor Bloomberg of NYC hired some folks in Arizona to go to a gunshow and purchase arms from private individuals. Nothing in Arizona law prevents person to person transfers, and Fed law only requires that both parties be residents of the same state and the transaction take place in that state. So legal for a non-Felon Arizona citizen to buy/sell to/from another non-Felon.

But... Bloomberg wants to close that awful "gunshow loophole". So he has the persons he hired lie and ask if there was a background check, "'cause I prolly can't pass it"

End result? No charges filed, no nothing, because the individuals were in fact not prohibited from buying guns. In fact, Bloomberg had to write Arizona a nice fat check over the whole deal.

Re:Right-o, buddy. (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521788)

That's a great strawman argument, and good luck with that, but I'm not falling for it. Hitting up vulnerable kids on the internet is NOT arms trade.

Someday they will almost all be cops (5, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521768)

Someday a defense lawyer will be able to prove that almost all the "kids hot for sex" on the Internet are not kids.

At that point he'll be able to credibly claim that his client's goal was to see the look on an adult's face when another adult showed up pretending to be interested in sex with a kid.

Once about 80-90% of "horny kids" online are not kids, judges will have no choice but to admit this into evidence and REQUIRE that the prosecution prove that the defendant is lying and that the defendant really did expect a kid to be there.

This will be especially true in cases where the defendant ONLY chatted up the policeman-pretending-to-be-a-kid and said he was coming over for sex but never showed. In a world where 80-90% of "online horny kids" are adults, NOT showing up is strong evidence that you were in it for the lulz rather than sex.

What I expect to happen a lot sooner:

Some edgy newspaper will, with the approval of their lawyers, go online and hit up "kids" online and then report each and every kid to the local family protective service authority or local cops. The local cops will have to take the time to double-check with the feds and state cops to make sure it's not a sting, chewing up valuable tax dollars in the process. Sooner or later there will be a mis-communication and family protective services or the local cops will "bust" an FBI agent.

I wonder how soon before we cross that 80-90% threshold, if we haven't done so already. I hope someday the "pretend" rate gets to 100%, because that will mean there are 0 horny kids out there chatting up adults for sex in Internet chat rooms.

Problem with that... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521914)

Millions of real kids are on the internet now. 10, 11, 12 year olds on facebook, and tons of other websites. These kids have clueless parents, and are allowed to do whatever they want. And more and more kids online every day.

Why don't you have a seat right over here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521056)

;)

Re:Why don't you have a seat right over here (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521228)

Are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop. Anyway, your emoticon clearly indicates you want some LSD. I know a guy. Let me know. Again, are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop. You're a cop aren't you?

Re:Why don't you have a seat right over here (4, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521266)

Are you a cop? You have to tell me if you're a cop.

This is where you go wrong - right there in step 1. Cops are allowed to lie to you.

Re:Why don't you have a seat right over here (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521566)

The character was trying to sell LSD, over slashdot, based on a single emoticon: there would have been multiple mistakes this ficticious character made before getting to the point of assuming cops couldn't lie about being a cop.

Re:Why don't you have a seat right over here (4, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521890)

I never got how this was supposed to work. It's held against you if you lie to a cop, but they can lie to you with impunity. It seems like a recipe for abuse. The cops are free to trick people into making self-incriminating remarks, even though people supposedly have the right not to self-incriminate. There's really no difference between being manipulated into making a confession (they tricked you), and being cohered into it (they threatened you). This is a loophole in the 5th amendment that has essentially rendered it ineffective.

Michael Sims: Gay Nazi Conspirator (0)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521084)

Few today haven't felt the touch of censorship that is Michael Sims's modus operandi. Anything labelled subversive by this fascist editor is immediately moderated to -1 and its poster's account subjected to all sorts of terrible modifications meant to make it impossible to reveal the truth about Michael Sims. Truth that I, in this exposé, will reveal to you.

Having killed his mother in childbirth, Michael was left with only his father to raise him, a man with well-documented social disorders and sick sexual fetishes.

During his youth, Michael Sr. was known by the nickname “Mikey the Twink,” a reference to his thin, hairless body, and chest that was smaller than his waist, like a young boy's. The crowd Mikey the Twink ran with was more than just a little questionable. How many times would you have been allowed to arrive home at midnight with your clothes torn and semen leaking out of your bruised mouth? Well, this was San Francisco, and evidently Michael Sr. got away with this behavior while he was growing up gay on the mean streets of the Faggot Sex Capitol of the world.

Fast-forward to middle age, and this homosexual cock-lusting faggot is left with a son to rear. No wonder the Michael Sims we all know is so angry and apt to censor!

By the age of 13, Michael Sims had endured years of sexual abuse at the hands of his father and other relatives: let's be frank about this!

Michael was forced to suck his father's erect penis while his “Aunt” Jack would penetrate Michael's anus with his 5" thick throbbing meatpole. All while “Father” O'Reilly (yes, the same publisher Tim O'Reilly of Open Source fame) videotaped the gay orgies with a tripod as he sodomized young Michael's penis with his hot tongue or made Michael eat his hairy Irish asshole out!!!

Occasionally a ruddy streetman named Eric would join in the festivities and rub his crooked dick on Michael's smooth face and cover the lad in cumshot as he dribbled Jägermeister all over himself, singing the praises of Open Sauce and being surprised by cock.

Too many years of cum-baths and anal sex had gotten to Michael. In the wee hours of April 19, 1993, at the tender age of 16, Michael Sims secretly boarded a plane to Germany to join the Hitler Youth, hoping to escape the the excess sodomy in his life while gaining some discipline in the process. Little did Michael know that he was going from the frying pan and into the flames.

Upon entering the Hitler Youth, Michael smiled for the first time in his cock-filled life. He was surrounded by boys of all ages, and his cock-lust — cultivated by years of faggotry at his father's hand — blossomed in the harsh environment of the Hitler Youth. Michael progressed rapidly through the ranks until one day, he was called upon to serve in the elite SS. And then the bottom of Michael's world fell out.

Michael was greeted not by Adolf Hitler (long dead by now) or any other Nazi. Michael Sims was instead greeted by a homosexual face from the past: the insidious, ruddy complexion of ESR, the streetman named Eric that had fornicated him years ago! Yes, ESR was the dastardly Deutsch Gas Baron, and the Hitler Youth was nothing but a faggot recruiting front to satiate the twink-lust of ESR!

For the next six years, Michael Sims was almost constantly involved in some sort of homosexual activity, either sampling the famous gay bars of München, training recruits new to Raymond's Youth Corps (the facade of Hitler having since been dropped), or satisfying ESR's bottomless hunger for gay faggot cum-lusting sex. Michael was even one of the first Germans to contract HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

ESR's stake in Michael increased, as did Michael's lust for ESR's thin erect cock, until finally Michael had been made a general in ESR's diabolic Gas Barony. And it was at this time that Michael was given his very own life-long mission.

ESR needed someone that could take the literary world in their faggot hand and turn it to use for ESR and his worldwide Petroleum Fiefdom: propaganda for Crude Oil and Faggotry! Who better than Michael?

His first objective was to find a platform with which to gather mainstream literary credibility. Enter Censorware.org, which Michael infiltrated and later destroyed. Read the story of censorship, terrorism and ransom here. And do not forget it.

With Censorware destroyed, Michael's name got out into the Nazi and Faggot literary scenes, leading to the day that he received a phone call from none other than Rob Malda, of Slashdot.org, whose staff were the most desperate of homosexuals and whose editors were most Nazi-like in nature. Rob Malda was offering Michael Sims a job.

Michael had finally found his home and means of completing his homosexual mission. To this day he enjoys gay anal sex all day and all night, and a way to censor the truth-bringers, like me, on a whim.

X-rated emoticons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521092)

What the hell kind of emoticons were they using???? (and where can I get them...)

Appeals (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521100)

Fact is, even if the evidence wouldn't change the jury's mind, the court may have been wrong to suppress it, violating his right to due process.

Stupid prosecutors and judges are how shitbirds like this walk free.

Re:Appeals (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521828)

Appeals courts routinely ask two questions:

1) was there a legal error?
2) did the error make a difference?

Appeals which are based on errors that didn't affect the outcome are routinely denied in the interest of judicial efficiency.

Well then (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521102)

Well if the emotion was big glittery text saying "LET'S FUCK!!" then yeah, maybe. But somehow I doubt it.

Re:Well then (1)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521164)

I don't think it would matter what the emoticon showed or said. The guy is 60 and he went to meet up with a girl he genuinely believed to be 13 for sex - it doesn't matter how much encouragement there may have been from her (or someone pretending to be 13), it would still be illegal in most countries round the world (and, yes, that includes every state in the USA.

Precisely how is this "News for nerds" - or is someone suggesting that maybe we should start trying to think up a better defense for when we are arrested for the same thing?

Wait, what? (4, Insightful)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521112)

60-year-old John Jacques has appealed his conviction for engaging in sexually graphic online conversations with a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl

Explicit conversations with people under 18 are illegal? And can get you on the sex offender list?

Am I the only one who sees that as rather ridiculous?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521162)

FTA:

Police arrested Jacques Nov. 29, 2007, at a fast-food restaurant after arranging to meet the girl there for a sleepover. He engaged in sexually graphic conversations and sent a pornographic video and pictures to the police officer posing as the 13-year-old girl.

That is ridiculous.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Chaonici (1913646) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521196)

Alright, that's not so bad. But TFS gave me the impression that the conversation itself counts as, for lack of a better term, a sexual offense, and I find that hard to believe.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521368)

Not so bad? I dunno. I think that it would be far better if it were illegal to have such a conversation (and sending porn) with someone underage (provided they could prove you knew) than this. I mean the only victim I can see here is the offender of a police trap. If he actually contacted a minor sure, but what's illegal here? It's like possible intent to harm a minor probably if a minor was actually involved.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521504)

You don't get harmed by (normal) porn you nut, not even kids.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521856)

You don't get harmed by (normal) porn you nut, not even kids.

Kinda, kinda not. It really depends. I don't think there's any inherent harm in a boy seeing a boob, but realistically I think it does do some damage in that at that young with the hormones raging, you are looking at possible social damage. IE, kid starts looking at lots of porn instead of going out and trying to look at real boobies the old fashioned way.

Once upon a time it was common knowledge amongst young boys that those boobies they wanted to see so badly were to be found on roughly 50% of their peers - they just needed to develop a certain skill and tact to achieve that goal. Today the porn shortcut has lead to a decline in much of those skills.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521968)

sending pornographic pictures to youngsters is illegal and will get a prosecution in court. Having sexually explicit conversation with a kid on the internet is not grounds enough for a sentencing harsher than a restraining order, though in some cases I'm sure the offender could get a harassment charge.

Re:Wait, what? (2)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521474)

I don't know what the law is in the US but, given that we here in England seem to get most of our laws from you second-hand it's probably the same as here. It's a criminal offense called "Grooming" - or "Intent to solicit a minor to carry out a sexual act" (may not be the exact wording though). Would you say it was OK and shouldn't be a criminal offense if it was a 60-year old pervert sending your 13-year old daughter pornographic videos and telling her all the things he wanted to do to her?

To follow up... (1)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521724)

...to my own posting. He was found guilty of "felony use of a computer to facilitate a child sex crime". That was on top of the previous offences, child pornography and everything else.
Further articles (and further offences) about the same person;-
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_b53c4ad3-7a27-5791-bb48-770cced5037b.html [lacrossetribune.com]
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_02f1700c-36e5-5f88-b7b2-426ed40d3d22.html [lacrossetribune.com]
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/article_25b66060-41a2-5c07-ba82-22a6f1f1c40a.html [lacrossetribune.com]

I'm surprised he didn't get hit with an even longer sentence for a 'frivolous appeal' - coz that could certainly have happened to him if he'd tried this in the UK.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521752)

I would not say it's ok but 15 years seems way to harsh.

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521326)

Explicit conversations with people under 18 are illegal? And can get you on the sex offender list?

Perhaps not, but having explicit conversations with people pretending to be under 18 apparently is.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521350)

And remember parents: talking about birds and bees with your kids is a no-no.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521616)

And remember parents: talking about birds and bees with your kids is a no-no.

No, that's fine. But trying to get them to meet you in a hotel room so that you can fuck them without their mother finding out, that would be a problem.

Re:Wait, what? (3, Insightful)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521358)

I always assume that someone who says they're 13 is either a cop or a fat guy in a basement. Real 13 year olds pretend they're older.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521884)

Great, now you're leaving the 8-year-olds out in the cold. Who's supposed to chat them up?

Re:Wait, what? (1)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521948)

Great, now you're leaving the 8-year-olds out in the cold. Who's supposed to chat them up?

I'm sure you can volunteer.

But what about reall 11 year olds? (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521900)

I always assume that someone who says they're 13 is either a cop or a fat guy in a basement. Real 13 year olds pretend they're older.

[lawyer voice]
But what about reall 11 year olds? What age do they pretend to be?

[dramatic pause while my co-counsel whispers in my ear].
I've just been informed that real 11 year olds aren't allowed to use the Internet. I withdraw the question.

Re:Wait, what? (1)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522046)

What is even more ridiculous, is that he is being charged with that, yet at no point did he talk to an underage girl. There was an adult police officer on the other end the whole time.

Good point (1)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521122)

This defense is like saying "She got me horny, then said she was 14. Then after repeatedly asking me to do it, and humping the air, I did it anyway". Nice tale, you still made the decision to have sex with a child. You lose, and you need help. The only defense you get is if you never actually touched a child. This being the case, you should get help. If, however, you did not just talk about these things, the other inmates will take care of you just right.

Re:Good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521460)

They used to kill girls for bewitching men. Now they want to kill men for being bewitched by girls.

Re:Good point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521532)

Yes, you definitely need help for being attracted to a sexually mature female.

If she's old enough to ask for it, she's old enough to take it.

Re:Good point (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521638)

It's only in modern times that pedophelia has become taboo. Go back 15 hundred years and you will see legal works reflecting upon and discussing the ramifications of sex with minors, both male and female, as well as sex of minors with each other.

The idea that sexual attraction to, or between, minors is somehow "wrong" is reminiscent of modern society's hang-up with homosexuals.

Re:Good point (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521908)

An important difference is that the girl in the story is 13. In your example she's 14, which is legal in a few states (I don't know of any state that goes lower than 14 though). All a cultural thing. Depending on the country you're in it could be much lower. I believe it's 12 many parts of Mexico for example.

Ugh. Mistrial. (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521216)

Yes, this guy is probably guilty and belongs behind bars. No, it probably wouldn't make a difference to show animated emoticons. But that's not the point. The point is that he was convicted by a jury of his peers when that jury was shown evidence that differed from what was actually the case. In essence, the evidence was tampered with. It shouldn't be up to a judge to decide if that is a material difference, it should be up to the jury to decide. They were deprived of that choice, and all judgements that followed from that point on should be considered null and void.

Yeah, it will cost the taxpayer money to have a retrial. But that money is worth it to ensure the integrity of the justice system. If you care so much, take it out of the salary of the person that fucked up the evidence.

On a side note, I think it's pretty despicable that this was filed under "idle", as if we are supposed to point and laugh at the stupid defence. This goes right to the heart of how we are supposed to enact justice, it's not a laughing matter. I'd rather the guy went free than we jailed him on the basis of faulty evidence. The moment we decide it's okay to skip due process when we're "sure" of guilt, we give up the foundation of modern justice and undo centuries of civilisation.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521402)

it was probably a printed transcript, which can't be animated. Are you also saying that photographs should be inadmissible, since they aren't animated? Not to mention that they're 2D and only contain a limited frame.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (2)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521538)

it was probably a printed transcript, which can't be animated.

There's no reason why they can't show animations to the jury. If the reason was that it was printed, then it was a mistake to print it instead of showing it on a screen.

Are you also saying that photographs should be inadmissible, since they aren't animated? Not to mention that they're 2D and only contain a limited frame.

I'm not complaining that they weren't animated because I value animation. I'm complaining that the jury were misled. Everybody understands that photographs don't tell the whole story. Not everybody understands that a printed transcript may not accurately replicate what the guy was reading.

Look at it this way: if he'd sent an animated GIF to somebody he knew was epileptic to intentionally cause a seizure, would you be okay with the jury being shown a print out of the first frame of the GIF showing a smiley face and the jury being told "hey, he just sent a picture of a smiley face"?

Bogus Standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521544)

There is always a balance between ensuring citizens have due process, and also due justice. There is no reason to make prosecutions of one single sex offendor cost millions of dollars because every stupid little detail _might_ matter. Similarly you can't push someone through a kangaroo court because its economical. In this case the appeals court did its job, and said that it wouldn't have mattered, and the guy got a chance to make his complaint, just not to the jury, but the law wasn't broken. Sounds like another win for society.

Re:Bogus Standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521688)

The thing is, every stupid little detail really, really may matter in the end, and the minute we decide we're going to convict someone when we haven't dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's is the minute we turn our backs on one of the founding principles of this country - that it's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (2)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521572)

Yes, this guy is probably guilty and belongs behind bars. No, it probably wouldn't make a difference to show animated emoticons. But that's not the point. The point is that he was convicted by a jury of his peers when that jury was shown evidence that differed from what was actually the case. In essence, the evidence was tampered with. It shouldn't be up to a judge to decide if that is a material difference, it should be up to the jury to decide. They were deprived of that choice, and all judgements that followed from that point on should be considered null and void.

Actually, the judge gets to decide what evidence is relevant and admissable to begin with. So also, judges get to decide whether overlooked/suppressed/incorrect evidence could possibly be sufficient to change a verdict. Nothing inherently wrong with that--while I personally think great care should be taken to give the defendant the benefit of any doubt, some mistakes are just obviously too minor to have had any influence on the jury...

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521780)

Well, gee, I hope they get the font right next time. And make sure its the same tone of magenta as he uses on his chat program. And get a monitor calibrated to match the settings of his own. In fact, the whole jury should have to dogpile onto his chair in front of his computer, in his house, just so it matches the evidence precisely.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521622)

Unless the animated emoticon said, "I....AM....REALLY....A....POLICE....OFFICER....AND....I....WANT....TO.....MEET....YOU....FOR....SEX....AND....WATCH....YOUR....PORN", there is nothing in that claim that would have kept him from sending porn to and arranging to have sex with what he thought was a 13 year-old girl.

This was not a miscarriage of justice, and was not taking shortcuts with the law. Even if we accept that this was one I that wasn't dotted, or one T that wasn't crossed, there is no way that it would have changed the outcome. The rest of the evidence was more than enough to compensate for that trivial error.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521736)

Exactly. Does it have to be shown in the same font he read it in, too? No, because that isn't material to the case.

Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha (0)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521632)

An alarm sounded in the dark, and Linus Torvalds groaned and shuffled under his covers. His wife lay lazily snoring next to him, and the alarm clock bathed their forms in red light as it pulsed.

Before long Linus slapped the snooze button on the alarm, grunted, stretched, and ambled out of bed.

Linus's alarm was was no ordinary one. For starters, it was a 386-based mini-ATX custom rig with 32 MiB that ran Linux 2.6.36.2 in a one-off distro Linus called Alarmix. He used emacs to edit his alarm configuration file every night, and in the morning when alarmd woke up it played a rather loud klaxon. But today it was far earlier than he had set his alarm, and this was a source of worry for Linus.

This klaxon was a special one, run when alarmd was remotely activated by the Git server, meant to alert the core Linux developers that someone was attempting to hack into the Linux kernel code repository. There would likely be a logfile of attempted intrusions displaying on Linus's workstation right now.

Stretching his back and cracking his neck as he wandered slowly to his study, Linus fell lazily into his chair.

"I wonder who it is this time," Linus thought to himself as he jiggled his mouse, temporality blinding himself as his 50" LCD TV came on.

But before Linus's eyes could adjust, he saw stars. Something hard and cold hit him dead-center in the forehead, flipping him backward in his chair onto the floor.

"Hello, Linus," a voice standing over Linus said. "Long time no see, isn't it?" the voice chided.

"What the fuck?" was all Linus could muster as he recovered from the blow.

"In case you're wondering, Linus, that was the butt of my Colt M1991A officer's model," the voice, high and whiny as Linus's ear tuned back in, said. "It's the small-frame six-shot 3-5/8"-barrel version of the classic .45 ACP design."

Linus's heart beat like a jackrabbit fucking on a hot tin roof. A gun? This was a first. His high Finnish forehead was still numb, but he could feel it swelling.

"This baby's small enough to conceal but has excellent stopping power, wouldn't you agree?"

The interloper laughed at his own joke and Linus's ears perked: the narcissistic sense of humor the whiny, nasal voice it finally came together in Linus's addled brain: his assailant was none other than Eric S. Raymond, the ruddy Open Source advocate and Jger-guzzling, gun-toting gas-bag.

"Fuck you, Eric!" Linus shouted. After almost twenty years of tolerating the megalomaniacal bullshit that Raymond served on a regular basis, Linus was more angry than scared. "You can go fuck yourself!"

"I'm glad you brought that up!" Eric said, cheerfully. "That's exactly why I dropped in for a little visit tonight! But I won't be fucking myself"

Linus's moan was muted by the thin, pale, crooked penis covered in a dark brown syrup plunging rudely into his open maw. He gasped through his nose as the skinny, misshapen prick started pumping in and out of his slick mouth.

"Oh yeah" Eric said between breaths. "Ohhh yeah."

The room was silent except for muffled moaning and a wet, fleshy rhythmic pumping sound which reverberated off the dingy, tiled walls.

"Fuck your mouth, Linus!" Eric said. "I want to see cum and Jgermeister all over your pretty little Finnish face!"

Linus was crying, the eye-liner Eric forced him to apply at gunpoint running down his cheeks from his glassy, bloodshot eyes. He gagged and drool poured from his lips.

"I'll need a little lube first, though," Eric said, reaching for his Jger bottle. "Your mouth isn't quite wet enough for old uncle Eric"

Eric uncapped the bottle in one quick motion, not letting his Colt stray from Linus's forehead. Then, something dark and brown started raining on the festivities, covering Linus's face and Eric's bushy dick.

"This shit'll be good, Linus. Oh, fuck! Open up your mouth, you little bitch," the man said as he withdrew his cock from Linus's bitch-hole.

"Please No more Jäger Can't breath I'm going to be sick" Linus gasped as he desperately inhaled fresh air. The scent of unwashed hacker penis was strong in his nose.

"Open up and say ah, boy!" Eric shouted and Jer splashed around the unholy union of Linus's soft lips and Eric's gangly penis and balls. "I want you to get every last drop in that sweet little mouth of yours!"

Eric's face was aglow with the last of his Jäger and his grin, leering and anxious, spread his dropping orange mustache wide.

"Eric, no more. Please. I can't-" Linus said just as Eric cockslapped him.

"You'll do as I say or else", Eric said. "But you could use a break, couldn't you, you stupid little faggot bitch?"

Eric released his hand from around his junk and withdrew his cock from Linus's worn mouth.

Gasping, Linus sat against the wall in the bathtub. Covered in various body fluids, his eyes were dark and sunken. He had scrapes and bruises here and there, especially around his jaw. This was his sixth day of being locked in Eric Raymond's bathroom.

"You know, that's a good position there," Eric said. He laid his Colt on the nearby toilet tank, the metal clankingon the ceramic toilet tank lid. He took several gulps of his magic liqueur and likewise set the bottle down.

"Now open up and take it like a good little bitch," Eric said with a look of child-like glee on his face. "Here comes Hurricane Eric!"

With this remark, Eric turned around and pointed his ass at Linus, his shaky hands spreading his bulbous, white butt cheeks as far apart as they'd go. His yellow-brown ass crack was covered in a red fur that became darker as it neared his asshole. Eric's puckered anus shook and twitched for a second, and then the walls of the shower reverberated with a wet ripping noise.

"Oh god, take it boy!" Eric shouted in ecstasy.

Linus, at the business end of Eric Raymond, could do little more than cry as his face was covered in blast after blast of Eric's light brown ass-burps. One shot his him on the neck, the next shotgunned his forehead and hair, and one finally took him square in the mouth. After a few seconds the slimy assault slowed to a twitching trickle.

Linus sobbed and wiped his face with the back of his hand. He streaked the shit, but didn't remove it.

"Oh, you're not done yet, Rustard," Eric said from the other end. "One more little gift for you, coming up right about"

Eric began shitting the largest turd Linus had ever seen in his life. It was a reddish brown clay color with streaks of blood and mucus. It slipped from Eric's ass with ease even though it was already nearing a foot long and had to be as big around as Eric's wrists, which were straining to hold his ass-cheeks apart.

"Oh my god," Eric cried as the last of the dark beast left his ass. He turned to look at Linus and saw him against the wall, eyes rolled back in his head, with the turd halfway down his throat. He was convulsing, trying to breathe—or was he trying to inhale it? Eric watched in a mixture of shock and arousal for a second before stepping toward the beaten Linux developer.

"No you don't, not today, Linus," Eric said as he kicked Linus in the diaphragm with his good foot. "No suffocating yourself so you can get out of being my sex slave. No siree bob!"

Linus vomited the turd back up along with dinner from earlier. His hot wet sick smelled like an untended portable toilet that had seen use during an attack of dysentery. Linus was sobbing now between coughs, wishing for more than anything to die.

"Okay, Linus, you're done for now," Eric said. "Get upstairs and modify my privileges in the Linux Git server."

Linus looked at Eric with weary eyes. After days of shit and rape and Linux, he was finally broken. He would give Eric what he had been after for so long and had finally earned by pooping in Linus's mouth: root privileges on the Git server that maintained the Linux kernel source code.

"And remember, when you go to do it," Eric said, smiling as he turned on the shower head and began sweeping the shower curtain closed, "I am a core Linux developer!"

Weeping, Linus climbed on unsteady feet and walked toward the door. He held his stomach and trembled as he went. Now that his playtime was over, he felt dread and nothing more: dread of CML2 running in Linux.

Re:Ugh. Mistrial. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521694)

Do you people even read the articles?

#1) He provided graphic images of himself
#2) They arrested him at a fast food restaurant where he had arranged to have a "sleep over" with who he thought was a 13-year-old girl

It's not like all they did was chat and he spanked it on the other end because the girl was being suggestive. Whether winkies enticed him in to physically going in to a situation where he would have been in direct contact with a minor with sexual intentions is irrelevant because this is something you just DON'T FUCKING DO.

cuz those smileys are such a turn on (2)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521248)

Haven't sexual predators figured out that "they were asking for it" doesn't work as a defense regardless of how prudish the judge and jury might be?

Re:cuz those smileys are such a turn on (3, Insightful)

Whatsisname (891214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521480)

You've already made an error in assuming they would "figure it out" to begin with. Most of them are mentally ill, are essentially incapable of "figuring that out", or are unable to recognize they are even harming someone. Harsher prison sentences or abuse from other inmates will never solve the problem.

What they need is treatment, and the security to be able to get treatment without fear of reprisal from other people so they can work on their problems before they hurt someone. Ignorance and failure to accept that simple fact and calls for harsher penalties from the "tough on crime" crowd will never solve the issue, but it will simply make pedophiles keep their mouths shut, avoid treatment, and ultimately hurt someone, further destroying their life and causing abuse for their victim.

Re:cuz those smileys are such a turn on (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521702)

Unlike physical abuse, it's rather unlikely that any child would be (emotionally) harmed by sex if shitheads like you didn't make a big deal out of it. Sex is not only natural, it's imperative for the continuation of our species. To demonize sex at all hurts people far more than sticking a penis in a pre-pubescent vagina.

Re:cuz those smileys are such a turn on (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#35522020)

Err, no, a child can actually be killed by that act, and the resulting bleed-out. But so often these stories are about physically mature girls (yet far from the age of consent), where your argument becomes a cultural one. At least from your sig I can conclude you're not from the "soft on crime" crowd.

The thing is, you don't need to "demonize" sex to feel that it's best left to a more emotionally mature age, any more than you need to demonize driving a car to suggest it's left until a more emotionally mature age. It is amuzing how different people's reactions are when you switch the genders around, however.

Re:cuz those smileys are such a turn on (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521978)

Since no one has been able to show a reliable way to treat these people (short of castration), I think that society has opted for keeping the offenders locked up.

Someday we'll be able to rewire bad brains, but until then let's just keep the societally destructive ones apart from the rest of us.

Regardless of the legality of the issue ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521320)

... if he didn't get nailed by "a police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl" . . . he would probably be hitting on a real 13-year-old girl . . . claiming that he was 14. Sorry, Jacques, "No sympathy (or soup) for you!"

We need a new tag for this story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521352)

diddler.

I mean really, you can't tell me that when you this guy that isn't the first thing that pops to mind?

Yet another "It was entrapment!" defense (1)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521366)

I don't know how many times I've heard people talk about how "The cops offered him xxx, it was entrapment!" IANAL, but my understanding is that entrapment requires duress of some kind (cop tells you to go buy drugs or he'll break your legs, and then arrests you for buying drugs) or overt trickery where you lack any intent (cop sells you a toaster filled with drugs even though you genuinely thought you were just buying a toaster). Merely offering something comes nowhere near the legal baseline for entrapment. This guy's "defense" would be like a drug user saying "But the guy told me it was like really, really, really good stuff, and that he loved it himself, so it sounded so good I had to have it too".

(as an aside, even though I used drug laws as an example, I personally don't agree with most of the drug laws that are on the books)

Re:Yet another "It was entrapment!" defense (2)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521440)

No that isn't just entrapment. Entrapment is meant to protect from police soliciting people into illegal things that they did not initiate, and conceivably would not have without the cop inviting them.

Take the following example. A really hot female undercover police officer walking down the street on the Vegas strip, stops random guys that look drunk and offers them sexual favors if they cover her bar tab.

Re:Yet another "It was entrapment!" defense (4, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521524)

Roughly, yes. More specifically, entrapment is something that induces someone to commit a crime that he would not have otherwise. Pretending to be a 13-year old online in order to attract old perverts who are looking for 13-year-olds is not entrapment.

(Important precedent was established in the DeLorean case. DeLorean was told there were investors interested in his troubled car company. As soon as the undercover feds mentioned drugs he started trying to back out. They threatened his family. He dealt. They arrested. He spent a long time and a lot of money at his trial to force them to produce the unedited video of that meeting.)

Re:Yet another "It was entrapment!" defense (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521546)

You are completely mistaken. An classic example of entrapment is this: A police officer posing as a prostitute tells someone that they will have sex with them for $X. This is why when police pose as a prostitute they always wait for the "John" to bring up money. The same is true when a police officer poses as a "John", the officer will wait for the prostitute to bring up money.

Seriously (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521376)

"We fail to see how viewing the emoticons as animations would have led anyone to conclude that he was the victim of excessive incitement to engage in sexually graphic online conversations with what he thought was a 13-year-old girl" the court should have wrote.

Meta-crimes (1, Insightful)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521452)

Really now... using "a computer to facilitate a child sex crime"? Let's work back here. Was there a child? Was there any sex? What exactly was facilitated? Oh, but he used a computer! Gotcha.

Re:Meta-crimes (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521728)

I don't understand why they don't think a 13-year-old won't start lying and saying they're 18-years-old when they want to have explicit conversations with strangers on the internet. Also, I thought chat programs were supposed to disallow all people who are 13-years-old from entering explicit rooms. Shouldn't there be reasonable expectation that if somebody identifies themselves as 13 in a chatroom mean they're just trying to engage in virtual ageplay because they've already told the chat protocol they are of age? Most likely I'm thinking too hard about this, though. After all, it's not illegal too have sex IRL with a 21-year-old man dressed up as a catholic school girl no matter what age you are.

Rules (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521464)

There are no women on the internet and every underage girl is an FBI agent.

While these are not always true, it's a good idea to assume they are.

And on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

http://chrisabraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nobodyknowsyoureadogontheinternet.jpg [chrisabraham.com]

--
BMO

Re:Rules (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521580)

The internet is where:

The men are men
The women are men
The little girls are FBI agents

The cop forgot (1)

JackpotMonkey (703880) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521552)

Apparently the cop forgot to use his [imreallyacop] emoticon, I can see why he felt entrapped, those pixels are just irresistible. /sarcasm

How can I have an intelligent response to this... (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521706)

...if I don't get to see the emoticons?
Was it the wanking banana?
Anyone have a link?

What fails to be stated is that... (1, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521712)

...if there were any animated icons, he put them there himself or picked the theme himself or they were the default theme.

I know of no chat client that sends actual animated graphics over the interbutt. They are all locally stored and used when the chat program successfully greps an ascii smiley and substitutes for it.

They are *his* *own* *emoticons*

--
BMO

Problem with these stings (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35521730)

IANAL but I've always questioned the core illegality of being caught in a sting that isn't *really* illegal. By that I mean, he wasn't really engaging in a conversation with a 13 year old. All he actually did was talk dirty to an adult. Same with drug busts with fake cocaine or whatever. Have I truly committed a crime if I exchange a suitcase full of cash for bags of sugar?

Another problem I have is who these guys are catching. I watched a lot of To Catch a Predator and, while some guys seemed like Predators with a capital 'P', most of them seemed like total losers who figured they'd hit pay dirt for the first time in their lives ("omg a girl wants to have sex with me!"). Most were either really awkward or borderline mental cases. Are those the guys we're concerned about? I'm worried about the manipulators sophisticated enough to groom their victims; not send a JPG of their penis 2 minutes into an online conversation and then think they're going to get laid.

Re:Problem with these stings (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522006)

IANAL but I've always questioned the core illegality of being caught in a sting that isn't *really* illegal. By that I mean, he wasn't really engaging in a conversation with a 13 year old. All he actually did was talk dirty to an adult. Same with drug busts with fake cocaine or whatever. Have I truly committed a crime if I exchange a suitcase full of cash for bags of sugar?

It makes all the difference when a crime has an "attempt" element on the books. Thus, while buying bags of sugar won't get you a "possession of a controlled substance" conviction, you can certainly go down for "attempted possession," as long as all the elements of the attempt crime are satisfied. "Factual impossibility," i.e. the fact that the cocaine / 13-year-old / prostitute weren't real is not a defense to an attempt crime, as long as the perpetrator thought he was buying / meeting / soliciting the "real thing" (thus making it a "real attempt").

Re:Problem with these stings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35522044)

Real sex predators don't have to go online looking for girls. Because, realistically, the success rate has to be pretty bad there... what with the men being men, the women being men, and the little girls being FBI agents. Real predators don't solicit sex; they simply demand it, and the victims are usually in no position to negotiate. Or perhaps I should amend that: the predators who do try soliciting sex don't last for long. The ones you should be worried about are the ones who aren't actively soliciting sex, because they're harder to find. They're the ones whose victims rarely if ever speak up.

But you can always pat yourself on the back and feel like you're doing something this way.

Welcome to the Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35521782)

Welcome to the Internet: where the men are men, the women are men, and the 13-year-old girls are FBI agents.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...