CF Member Jailed in California for Wanting Sex w/Teen

[Fishbone Jones]

PanaEng is right. There are two (or more) sides to every story. Let's not start building a gallows until we hear it all. Everyone should just simmer down.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[armyvern]

California dropped the ball with Phil Garrido. He was a registered sex offender in that state. Even had an ankle bracelet.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/local/me-jaycee-dugard5

Agreed. Apparently though, he was considered "low risk" to reoffend and thus the bracelet was not monitored ... supposedly, it was to serve more as a psychological deterrant. California has just changed that law ... now, low-risk "bracleted" offenders will be monitored a whopping 4 days per month (see last paragraph); the only deterrent being - the offender has no idea what 4 days a month those will be.

Even still, he was not "bracleted" when the abduction of Ms. Dugard occured. He was not required to wear a bracelet until the sex-offender registry came into effect.

 

[J.J]

Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)

Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.

Luring a child

172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with
(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;
(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 16 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 280 with respect to that person; or
(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 14 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 281 with respect to that person.
Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Presumption re age

(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.

No defence

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.

2002, c. 13, s. 8; 2007, c. 20, s. 1; 2008, c. 6, s. 14.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Dumb sh*t, had he waited one more year he could have done it legally with her.

Yeah, because THAT'S what's wrong with this whole story.

 

[PMedMoe]

They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.

As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.

There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.

 

[The Bread Guy]

There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.

Dopey question from the unknowing here:  even if they have e-mail addresses, Reservists are not on DWAN?

Meanwhile, CanWest News adds a bit more information:

A 24-year-old Ontario man stationed at the Canadian Forces Base in Dundurn is facing a number of charges in California following an alleged “sexting” incident ....

- edit to add CanWest link/lede -

 

[J.J]

There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.

Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?

Another way of reading the remark would be that the guy would be considered "a member of the CF", whether he's full- or part-time.

 

[Strike]

Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?

No.  We're just wondering why he doesn't seem to have a DWAN account.  No need to get your knickers in a knot.

 

[J.J]

Do all regular force privates have DWAN accounts?  If they do, I will retract and apologize for jumping to conclusions. If not, I think it is a fair question to ask?

 

[MJP]

Do all regular force privates have DWAN accounts?  If they do, I will retract and apologize for jumping to conclusions. If not, I think it is a fair question to ask?

Not at all, lots of them don't have accounts as they have no need or access in some cases to computers.

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here if all laws of the United States are fully followed they both go to jail. If the laws of Canada are followed both go to jail.

Man:
Intent to have sex with a minor (U.S.A)
Possessing Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)

Girl:
Spreading/reproducing/creating Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)


We'll see what happens but if the guy goes to jail the girl should as well. I know some people say it's a bogus law that teens go to jail for sexting pictures of themselves but if we are going to enforce the law here might as well enforce all of it.

 

[1feral1]

My earlier quote "Four years of contact, puts her at 9 and him at 20"

They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.

It was just too early (0430) when I read that post, and the gap between my brain and fingertips was out of whack. My post has been ammended accordingly.

Regret the stuff-around.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[PMedMoe]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here if all laws of the United States are fully followed they both go to jail. If the laws of Canada are followed both go to jail.

Man:
Intent to have sex with a minor (U.S.A)
Possessing Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)

Girl:
Spreading/reproducing/creating Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)


We'll see what happens but if the guy goes to jail the girl should as well. I know some people say it's a bogus law that teens go to jail for sexting pictures of themselves but if we are going to enforce the law here might as well enforce all of it.

How do we know that she did anything except text?  We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.

And my comment on the possibility of him being a reservist was just that; a comment.

 

[George Wallace]

Dopey question from the unknowing here:  even if they have e-mail addresses, Reservists are not on DWAN?

1st Point:  Reservists DO have DWAN accts, and CF email addresses.  (Some even have a PKI card as well. )

2nd Point:  NOT ALL Regular Force and Reserve Force pers have CF email addresses and DWAN accts.

 

[The Bread Guy]

1st Point:  Reservists DO have DWAN accts, and CF email addresses.  (Some even have a PKI card as well. )

2nd Point:  NOT ALL Regular Force and Reserve Force pers have CF email addresses and DWAN accts.

Thanks for the short & sweet, George - appreciated.

 

[TimBit]

How do we know that she did anything except text?  We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.

Then how could he be charged with possession of juvenile porn?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Then how could he be charged with possession of juvenile porn?

Now I'm just a crewman but I am going to assume it because they found it on his computer/phone/whatever and had the grounds to lay the charge?

Nothing says that it was from her or even of her... it could have been something he had from another site/date/person, no?

 

[The Bread Guy]

How do we know that she did anything except text? 

This, from the police news release (emphasis mine):

.... A preliminary investigation determined DeBruyn has exchanged sexually graphic text messages and photos with the juvenile female for approximately the past two months, but has had online contact with the juvenile since she was approximately 13 years old ....

Now, that said,

We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.

bang on - police aren't saying what the content of the "sexually graphic .... photos" was. That'll come out in court.

Even if an "exchange" is proven, though, Vern hits the nail on the head:

She's the minor, he's the adult.

 

[PMedMoe]

Okay, I didn't see the photos part, although, they may not have been sexually graphic.  Yes, Vern has it right.