(CNN) The online ad was pretty blunt: “Dominate [sic] male police officer seeks fun, discreet, sub playmate — m4w.”
Before long, that officer got a response from a purported 14-year-old girl. And the age didn’t dissuade him, authorities said.
“… everyone has to have a first time,” the officer responded, according to a criminal complaint. “… you will just have to get me naked tomorrow.”
But the officer sending those crude messages wasn’t just any cop — he was Michael William Diebold, the police chief of Leechburg, Pennsylvania, investigators say.
And that 14-year-old girl wasn’t really an eighth-grader. It was a special agent for the state attorney general’s Bureau of Criminal Investigations.
When Diebold tried to meet the (fictional) girl on Friday, he was instead met by fellow law enforcement officers. The 40-year-old police chief was arrested and faces several charges, including unlawful contact with a minor related to sexual offenses.
Bail was set at $500,000. Diebold remained in custody Sunday at Westmoreland County Prison in Pennsylvania.
Looks like Elmer Fudd stepped in his own trap
One pervert cop pretending to be a child and another pervert cop falling for it. You just can’t make this stuff up!
This story made my day – Thank you!
We live in the age of “thought police”, whereby you are guilty for simply thinking of potentially doing something that is offensive to someone else. Therefore, the entire human race, including the ‘thought police’ themselves, must be immediately and eternally incarcerated without further delay. The so-called ‘law’ is simply the attempt of a few flawed men to control the behavior of the rest of the flawed men, which is impossible.
TB,
Doesn’t even have to be offensive, only potentially offensive. Remember the old South Park episode of the totally non-denominational, non-offensive Christmas?
What gets me is when they charge a 14 with murder. Because they “acted like an adult and understood the consequences of their actions”. If you are adult enough to commit murder you should be adult enough to have sex, if you choose.
Another excellent point. The idea that children are too stupid or immature to think for themselves in sexual matters is absurd. Nature decided the human body was physically ready for sex at puberty, so who decided that young people weren’t smart or mature enough to decide sexual matters for themselves for anywhere from 2 to 6 years later? What was the basis for that decision?
As you mentioned, the same people also believe kids are smart or mature enough to decide to kill or beat someone, rob or steal, do or deal drugs, and so on. Of course, they claim that’s on a case-by-case basis.
So why not determine that on a case-by-case basis in sex offenses? Many sex offenses were consensual or even instigated by the purported victim. How are they supposedly “scarred for life”? And how does that automatically make the defendant a predator? Sounds more opportunistic than predatory. Last I heard, opportunism isn’t illegal or even frowned upon in most cases.
That’s not saying sex between adults and children should be allowed or ignored. In cases of consenting juvenile victims where no force, violence, or threat is involved, it would be more proportionate to imprison the defendant and release him when the consenting victim reaches the age of consent, IMHO. Force or violence, of course, changes the entire situation and penalties should be stiffer. Pre-pubescent victims, of course, are a whole different discussion.
Why are LEO’s permitted to entice and entrap people like this? I would understand if he was openly seeking out a minor, but it was a standard personal ad looking for a romantic or sexual companion. He wasn’t seeking out illegal activity; it jumped out in front of him giftwrapped on a silver platter, and the fake victim probably engaged in salacious flirting before revealing their purported age.
The standard response from the courts to that is “we merely presented an opportunity to the defendant, there was no arm twisting involved. ” What they don’t tell the public is the amount of salesmanship that comes from the “child” or the fact that the majority of the arrests for these types of crimes are a direct result of sting ops.
The thing that bothers me is that there was no 14 year old victim. If there were, I would join the crowd in wanting this guy convicted (though not registered; my stance on the registry being useless remains) IF proven guilty.
Prosecutors and courts shouldn’t be allowed to overlook that in sex offenses. It’s bad enough they overlook rules of evidence and the constitutional rights of the accused. But the absence of an actual victim or a fictional one would mean there was no actual crime and would be thrown out if it were any other kind of criminal case. The main (or only) reason they don’t is because the penalties for attempts are considerably less and may not result in or allow for registration, depending on the state.
It should be very concerning that glaring exceptions are already made regarding defenses, burdens of proof, and rules of evidence in the state’s favor when prosecuting sex offenses, particularly against children. Not even requiring an actual victim only further shows how our criminal justice system has become the kangaroo courts we used to deride. Charge him with attempt to whatever, and I would have no issue.
Also, we shouldn’t forget the presumption of innocence. That can be hard at times, but we all know the media will exaggerate or bury facts to make for a more sensational story.
Dustin, TB; excellent points. There is no logic in the way sex offenses: real, perceived or outright non-existent, are investigated and prosecuted, it’s all emotion and dates back to America’s Puritan history. Sex is bad and those who “do it” must be punished. Just look at horror movies; what are the victims usually doing right before they are killed? Making out or having sex!
Applying the flawed premise that just because someone looks at CP they will seek out a victim, anyone who enjoys killing in a video game will go out and commit mass murder. It’s not even being punished for your own thoughts, it’s being punished for what someone else thinks you will do.
The argument for CP penalties is “justified” by the purported mental and emotional abuse endured by the children depicted and overlooks the fact that that damage was done by whoever took such pictures or made the video. I’ve yet to see a lawmaker, therapist, or child safety advocate that will/can explain how such abuse could be rendered by a person who never met or spoke with the affected children.
Second, even if true, it would also apply to the law enforcement officers and prosecutors who viewed those pictures and videos, which is compounded by using them as worms on the hook of their fishing expeditions.
Bring in the case of samantha fox. In the 80s huge porn star then pop star then revealed she was 17 during her initial movies. How many hundreds of thousands of 40somethings that grew up to those centerfols etc. are guilty of viewing cp by default as of right now? Cp doesnt just include preteens its anyone under 18 even 17 and 364 days. Funny how we see the odd cases also of 17 year olds having relations with older which is allowed due to age of consent laws but if theres a sexting message or pic to their partner thats an automatic cp conviction. There are too many laws and the view is fogged for justice.