# Homeland Security Official Arrested in Online Sex Sting **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 5, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364 "2006-04-05T03:32:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/21 "2006-04-05T14:21:18Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Not that I believe in, or am in any way _for_ pedophiles or pederasts, but aren’t we eeking ever closer to a thought crime with this virtual stuff? I mean, if you think about it, write about it, but never leave your house and actually ATTEMPT it, what are you really guilty of? > > If you THINK you’re talking to a 14 year old, then you’re guilty automatically, even if you never actually intend to see, touch, or otherwise violate said 14 year old? > > I’m not sure I like where this is heading, although for proven or admitted child sex offenders, I’m with **duffer** though my way wouldn’t be anywhere near as sedate as death by beating. **duffer** , in his typically ham-handed way, took this as an opportunity to launch into a discussion of how violent he’s like to be to pedophiles, but don’t perpetrate his confusion of the issue. There’s a major difference between a child and a fourteen year old, and even if he had messaged an actual fourteen year old, she wouldn’t exactly have been traumatized for life. Hell, even if he’d managed to talk one into bed with him, it’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not remotely the equivalent of molesting a young child. I think our societal discussion of this issue is really badly clouded and it’s not helpful to equate any sex with anyone underage with child-molestation. I’m glad there are cops out there trying to get these guys - if nothing else, because the internet shouldn’t be a free space to find young people to have cybersex with. But I’m deeply troubled by the confusion between this kind of thing and child-molestation, which is a different, and much worse, crime. ---
**Author:** ![Plynck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Plynck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plynck)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/22 "2006-04-05T14:30:14Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > What was it someone said a few weeks back? “The Internet – where men are men, women are men, and children are Federal agents”? Virtual Lake Wobegon. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Can he really have been this stupid?If all charges are true, a mighty big “oops” for the department. I’m an outspoken critic of this administration, but I really _don’t_ think that blame can be laid at the door of Homeland Security. Pervs are everywhere. I’m glad that someone is catching them, and I’m glad that employment with Homeland Security doesn’t shelter this asshole from investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/23 "2006-04-05T14:35:20Z")
> [@DaddyTimesTwo](#): > > I don’t see how anyone, especially a 55yo man, can think the 14yo “girl” they are talking to and who is interested in having sex, can **really** be a 14 yo girl. How could they _not_ know that the girl who was saying “Oh yeah, I’d love to recreate that scene from “Horny Blondes Love Old Fat Guys” with you, I’ve been dreeaming about such a thing my whole life!”, was really a cop? I don’t know. Haven’t there been several cases involving REAL teenagers, who have corresponded with older men online, then run away to meet them because they were “in love”? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/24 "2006-04-05T14:35:33Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > If I pick up a girl at a bar who tells me she’s 15 and it turns out she’s 22, what am I guilty of, exactly? I just don’t know how these things work. in my jurisdictino (MI), depending on what you did w/said 15 year old, Criminal Sexual conduct in the first or second degree is possible. her age would be the deciding factor. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/25 "2006-04-05T14:38:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know. Haven’t there been several cases involving REAL teenagers, who have corresponded with older men online, then run away to meet them because they were “in love”? Those Dateline specials where the men arrange meetings at their teenaged partners house spring to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/26 "2006-04-05T15:23:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t know. Haven’t there been several cases involving REAL teenagers, who have corresponded with older men online, then run away to meet them because they were “in love”? That and some of these old guys lie about themselves too-they claim to be hot young guys in their 20s. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/27 "2006-04-05T16:39:07Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > Many here know my position on child molesters. Death. If proven, death. By severe beating. I’d hope for a more painful demise, but hopeless in this climate of “understanding” the criminal. > This guy needs to breath his last if proven guilty. > . Why? All he did was _fantasize_ about commiting a crime. I’ve fantasized about robbing Fort Knox, myself- Prsion time for me? I had fantasies about Tracy Lords before she was 18- even though I had no idea she was that young. A painful execution for me too? :dubious: And, the roughly 5 million men who jack-offed to her Porno? Death? :rolleyes: Take a look at this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7253633#post7253633](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7253633#post7253633) where I asked " So, if the pedophile just talked about it and planned it, but never actually drove to a meeting place, then there were be no conviction? It’s that final act that turns it from a fantasy to an attempted crime? If so, then I can buy that. But I know that dudes fantasize with others on-line, and neither is what they say they are, and both know that. So, just the act of IMing back & forth doesn’t make a crime, IMHO." and **Bricker** answered > [@](#): > > "Yup. There has to be a substantial step in furtherance of the crime in order to convict on attempt. > But I know that dudes fantasize with others on-line, and neither is what they say they are, and both know that. So, just the act of IMing back & forth doesn’t make a crime, IMHO. > > As long as both know they are fantasizing, there’s no crime either. > > Again, though, the problem is one of proof. A fact-finder (a jury, or a judge in a bench trial) is permitted to infer that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his actions. If you stay in your home and never actually show up at a meeting place to consummate your on-line relationship, then you can very convincingly argue that you knew it was a fantasy all along. But it’s difficult for a guy to claim he knew all along it was a fantasy if he gets in his car and drives to a meeting place." So, this sounds like a bogus arrest. However, since he did mention his real job title, he needs to lose his job, of course. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/28 "2006-04-05T17:04:15Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, this sounds like a bogus arrest. However, since he did mention his real job title, he needs to lose his job, of course. according to [this](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12165485/), he also sent video porn clips to some one he thought was a minor. that’s certainly illegal in most jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/29 "2006-04-05T17:11:30Z")
> [@wring](#): > > according to [this](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12165485/), he also sent video porn clips to some one he thought was a minor. that’s certainly illegal in most jurisdictions. But how do we know he really thought that person was a minor, and not just an adult pretending to be a minor for a fantasy? And, show me a juristiction where sending porn to someone you _think_ is a minor but really is an adult is a crime? And then- prove that’s what he _thought._ ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/30 "2006-04-05T17:15:33Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > It’s AOL. It’s not like everyone’s all divided up into zip codes. The cops in the sting operation just go online and wait for pervos to contact them. I’m guessing they just put their “age” and sex and wait for someone to msg them, or it’d be entrapment. So why would a local police chief want to spend the time and resources to troll for pedophiles who may very well be in Outter Mongolia? It does not make his town any safer. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/31 "2006-04-05T17:25:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But how do we know he really thought that person was a minor, and not just an adult pretending to be a minor for a fantasy? And, show me a juristiction where sending porn to someone you _think_ is a minor but really is an adult is a crime? And then- prove that’s what he _thought._ I would assume that the chat transcripts include the target stating they are underage. and it is quite illegal to give a minor pornography. No need to delve into his mind, if there was a statement that the person was a minor. Now, if you saw me in person, and I claimed to be a minor, you’d have some justification for stating “I didn’t believe her” (I"m over 50, havent’ looked underage since I was about 23 or so). But as it is, he’d have a difficult time attempting to prove that he had reason to believe that the person he was sending the porn to **wasn’t** a minor. that’s all that’s necessary for the ‘attempt’ charge to carry, I believe. IF I mail booze to a minor, knowing/believing they’re a minor and the mom intercepts the delivery, I’m still guilty of the attempt. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/32 "2006-04-05T18:09:01Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > So why would a local police chief want to spend the time and resources to troll for pedophiles who may very well be in Outter Mongolia? It does not make his town any safer. IIRC, AOL often has localized chatrooms. Two, it may just be a way of making older police more useful. But you’d have to ask them. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/33 "2006-04-05T19:34:13Z")
In a related vein: [Former Top DHS Child Porn Official Admits Being Sex Criminal](http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000294.php) > [@](#): > > The victim, a 16-year-old girl, said [DHS agent Frank] Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes, according to the _Tampa Tribune._ > > Figueroa was in court this morning; he pleaded no contest to charges of exposure of sexual organs and disorderly conduct He had formerly said he was not guilty. His trial is expected to begin tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/34 "2006-04-05T19:40:45Z")
> [@wring](#): > > in my jurisdictino (MI), depending on what you did w/said 15 year old, Criminal Sexual conduct in the first or second degree is possible. her age would be the deciding factor. I told you her age: 22. It’s not a crime in Tennessee to pick up a 22-year-old, and I don’t see how her having lied about her age would make it a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/35 "2006-04-05T19:51:41Z")
> [@Ferret Herder](#): > > I’m assuming he’ll be charged on an “intent” or “attempted” charge. If you decide you’re going to kill your boss, buy a gun, go to your workplace, see him through the window, fire, strike him, and only then find out that he had a realistic mannequin of himself sitting in his chair, they’re not just going to charge you on destruction of property and unlawful discharge of a firearm. **Bricker** very recently posted some excellent information on a similar “intent”-related issue, explaining why you can be charged with a crime even though your target is not what you thought it was. [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361019) may be the thread, though I might have been thinking of another as well and just can’t dig it up at the moment. What if it turned out my boss was a maniquen all along? That would have to be the case for the analogy to apply. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/36 "2006-04-05T19:59:37Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I’m with **duffer** though my way wouldn’t be anywhere near as sedate as death by beating. I’m always up for a game of oneupsmanship where each person tries to express just how morally apalled THEY are by pedophiles/terrorists/drunk drivers/smokers/homosexuals/liberals/etc. and the violent lengths THEY would go through to punish the P/t/dd/s/h/l/es… so I’ll see see your death by beating and raise you a skinned alive, rolled in salt, and buried alive in poop. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/37 "2006-04-05T20:04:40Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > Those Dateline specials where the men arrange meetings at their teenaged partners house spring to mind. No. While that’s certainly true, it supports **DaddyTimesTwo** ’s point, not mine. That’s a case of a real older guy fooled into believeing a younger person was interested in them, sexually. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > That and some of these old guys lie about themselves too-they claim to be hot young guys in their 20s. Undoubtedly, but that, too, isn’t my point. Have there been cases of real teens falling for real older guys? I’m sure there have. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/38 "2006-04-05T20:04:45Z")
> [@Walter Windchill](#): > > I told you her age: 22. It’s not a crime in Tennessee to pick up a 22-year-old, and I don’t see how her having lied about her age would make it a crime. sorry, got it backward. I still believe that you’d be charged- “the intent was to have relations w/a 15 eyar old” (unless, like I mentioned before you’d have some way of substantiating a claim of “I knew she was really 22”, like you knew her younger sister who was 21 etc.). again - if you write a note saying you’re robbing the bank, but the teller doesn’t read English, your intent is still there and chargable. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/39 "2006-04-05T20:13:04Z")
> [@wring](#): > > I would assume that the chat transcripts include the target stating they are underage. and it is quite illegal to give a minor pornography. No need to delve into his mind, if there was a statement that the person was a minor. Now, if you saw me in person, and I claimed to be a minor, you’d have some justification for stating “I didn’t believe her” (I"m over 50, havent’ looked underage since I was about 23 or so). But as it is, he’d have a difficult time attempting to prove that he had reason to believe that the person he was sending the porn to **wasn’t** a minor. that’s all that’s necessary for the ‘attempt’ charge to carry, I believe. > IF I mail booze to a minor, knowing/believing they’re a minor and the mom intercepts the delivery, I’m still guilty of the attempt. So? It is extremely common for dudes & dudettes to lie about their ages (and sex, and appearance, and income, and…) for purposes of fantasies on the Internet. So, anyone coming along with a claim that “well, the other person made such and such a claim, thus they _must_ have assumed this claim was accurate” is bullshit. Anyone who assumes accuracy on a blind internet post is a fool. And, in actual fact- the person _wasn’t_ what they claimed to be. The point is- If I said I was 21, and you sold it to me, and it turned out I was 16, you could get into trouble. BUT If I _said_ I was 16, but I really was 21, then there’d only be a crime if you could show that the other other person really thought I was 16, and even that’d be doubtful. Sure, if you mail booze _to a minor_. BUt if you mail booze to someone who \*said \* they were a minor, but really was 21- where would the crime be? (OK, it might be illegal to MAIL booze to _anyone_, but that’s not the point here). Hey, if somebody really does rape a child, I’m 100% behind dire draconian penalties. But “thinking about it” just can’t be a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Walter\_Windchill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Walter\_Windchill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walter_Windchill)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364/40 "2006-04-05T20:16:00Z")
> [@wring](#): > > sorry, got it backward. I still believe that you’d be charged- “the intent was to have relations w/a 15 eyar old” (unless, like I mentioned before you’d have some way of substantiating a claim of “I knew she was really 22”, like you knew her younger sister who was 21 etc.). > > again - if you write a note saying you’re robbing the bank, but the teller doesn’t read English, your intent is still there and chargable. If I would be charged, then the law must be changed. It’s a pretty fucked up world we live in when the complete absence of a victim makes no difference to the nature of a crime. For the bank example to hold up, it would have to turn out there was no teller, and no bank. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/homeland-security-official-arrested-in-online-sex-sting/351364.md?page=3)