Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
gecko575 wrote:Just because he's been charged does not mean he is guilty. We're going to have to wait for more information
Ryu Connor wrote:gecko575 wrote:Just because he's been charged does not mean he is guilty. We're going to have to wait for more informationSDNY Complaint wrote:6. PETER BRIGHT, the defendant, was thereafter advised of his Miranda rights, waived those rights, and agreed to speak with law enforcement officers. Among other things, BRLGHT admitted to having chatted with UC-1 regarding engaging in sexual activity with the Minors.
Link
I wouldn't recommend reading it. The submitted evidence is distasteful and that's too simplistic an adjective.
just brew it! wrote:Topinio wrote:Serious question to US/NY peeps: what's the expected sentence he's looking at, and will you keep him in your jails or try sending him back here?
If he's found guilty as currently charged, I believe Federal sentencing rules call for 10 to life. Upon release he will also need to register with local authorities as a convicted sex offender, and depending on jurisdiction there may be additional restrictions (e.g. where he can live, what he can do for a living, where he is allowed to go) to minimize the chances for physical interaction with potential victims.
I don't know what his citizenship status is; if he's here on a Green Card (legal permanent resident but not a citizen), I assume that would probably be revoked. In that case, he'd probably serve out his sentence here, then be deported upon release. (IANAL so obviously this is speculation.)
DancinJack wrote:Actually not sure on the sentencing guidelines now that I look it up.
Section 2422(b) of Title 18 provides that if the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine. from: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... 8-usc-2422
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422
dragontamer5788 wrote:Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.
The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.
So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.
---------
The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.
DancinJack wrote:dragontamer5788 wrote:Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.
The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.
So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.
---------
The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.
I literally copied it from the complaint. Though I only posted the parts about 2242 b and not II. I didn't say he did any or all of the above, I'm just literally giving you what's in the complaint. The differing language in both is why I posted both sources.
https://www.docdroid.net/UMNWMSx/bright.pdf
but hey, go off dude.
dragontamer5788 wrote:Thanks for the reference. I read the charge again and you are correct.
Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.
It's probably going to pass jury trial though. But I can't square the quoted law with the evidence presented. ut y'all know me, I'm pretty detail oriented and a stickler for even minor mistakes in logic.
DancinJack wrote:dragontamer5788 wrote:Thanks for the reference. I read the charge again and you are correct.
Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.
It's probably going to pass jury trial though. But I can't square the quoted law with the evidence presented. ut y'all know me, I'm pretty detail oriented and a stickler for even minor mistakes in logic.
I'm not in the FBI, a prosecutor for SDNY, nor will I be a part of the jury, but I'm guessing if the FBI suggested this particular statute to the attorneys at SDNY, they have the evidence and it's the proper law. The FBI isn't (generally speaking) in a habit of referring stuff without evidence. /shrug
dragontamer5788 wrote:Hmm. I don't think the prosecutors are doing as tight a job as they are supposed to be doing. He's clearly guilty of something, but I don't think the particular law they quoted for this case is a slam dunk.
Ryu Connor wrote:There's not likely an issue, the black letter writing of the law is rarely the full scope or interpretation of that law. Put another way, arguing that the famous SDNY charged you with the wrong statue isn't going to be a winning defense at trial.
Ryu Connor wrote:As an aside, I find it distasteful that ArsTechnica hasn't reported on this. They were more than happy to dredge up ancient posts about Edward Snowden from their forums when he frequented the site years before his crime, but one of their staff gets in trouble and it's radio silence.
Ryu Connor wrote:As an aside, I find it distasteful that ArsTechnica hasn't reported on this. They were more than happy to dredge up ancient posts about Edward Snowden from their forums when he frequented the site years before his crime, but one of their staff gets in trouble and it's radio silence.
derFunkenstein wrote:I'm sure that nobody there wants to be the person to write it up. Still, writing it up is the job description of a journalist so it's time to get to work.
Captain Ned wrote:Legal is running this show 100%.
Captain Ned wrote:Legal is running this show 100%.
dragontamer5788 wrote:DancinJack wrote:Actually not sure on the sentencing guidelines now that I look it up.
Section 2422(b) of Title 18 provides that if the individual who has been persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced to engage in prostitution or other criminal sexual act is under the age of 18, then the penalty is 15 years imprisonment and/or a fine. from: https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-res ... 8-usc-2422
(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life. from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2422
Hate to be 'that guy' but y'all know me by now, lol.
The evidence doesn't match this particular crime you quoted unfortunately. The cop was pretending to be an adult woman who was putting her children in sexually explicit situations, while Peter here mostly just accepted the offer.
So Peter didn't 'coerce' the (fake) children in this sting operation.
---------
The section of law he is accused of is in the charge. There is certainly something Peter is accused of here, but it isn't that particular law you quoted.
Redocbew wrote:I can only speak for myself, but if I worked there, and legal had advised against any statement I wouldn't want to say anything.
If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?
Redocbew wrote:If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?
CScottG wrote:-the complaint might be based on previous admittance during the sting: i.e. "talk of having done so before" - presumably with details that they have/are verifying, though with enough detail to take to a Grand Jury (and that are within the Statute of Limitations). Of course it could just be an "end-run" to revoke his Green Card and deport his sorry @ss (.."criminal activity", NOT convicted criminal activity).
curtisb wrote:I'd like to think they're working up an appropriate response to the situation...if there is such a thing.
Redocbew wrote:If you're going to cause a ruckus and declare first amendment rights, then would you really want to do it over this guy?