April 04, 2006

Send Him To Jail Hell

If these charges are true, I'd welcome the possibility of him getting a death sentence. Unfortunately, we are too "enlightened" to give it to him.

The deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security was arrested last night on charges that he used the Internet to seduce an undercover Florida sheriff's detective who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested at his Silver Spring home at 7:45 p.m. and charged with seven counts of using a computer to seduce a child and 16 counts of transmitting harmful materials to a minor, according to a sheriff's office statement.

Agents with the department's Inspector General's Office, the U.S. Secret Service, the Montgomery County police and the Polk County Sheriff's Office served a search warrant and seized his home computer and other materials, the statement said.

Doyle was online at the time awaiting what he thought was a nude image of a girl who had lymphoma, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in an interview with Fox News' "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren." "We wanted to make sure he was using that computer and talking to detectives at the time of the arrest," Judd said.

What is almost as disturbing is his breach of agency security, disclosing phone numbers and other information to his intended victim -- who he believed to be a child.

However, I'm not particularly disturbed that this is the second DHS official arrested on kiddie sex charges -- if one accepts the notion that 1% of the public falls into this category of sick freaks, then it was bound to happen. We've seen it with clergy, teachers, and other groups. Why not Homeland Security Department employees?

UPDATE: You know, even a liberal like Dana gets things right sometimes.

UPDATE 2: Here's an interesting bit of information on this mutt -- he's a registered Democrat and former employee of Time Magazine.

Posted by: Greg at 10:26 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The death sentence for disgusting behavior on the internet? No attempt by Mr. Doyle was made to meet with this "decoy". All he is guilty of, besides incredibly poor judgment, is the potential for being a sexual deviant. If all one does is chat with someone about a crime one might commit, or wish to commit, but does nothing about, should that person be locked away, or put to death as you advocate? And what if Mr. Doyle was engaged in the same behavior with someone he thought was "of-age", and it turned out to be a 14 year-old girl, what then? Would we still have to put old Mr. Doyle to death? And what if we develop a machine that reads thoughts in the future, are we going to lock people up because they thought about having sex with a minor, or for that matter, thought about cheating on their taxes, or thought about strangling their boss on a particularly stressful day on the job?

Be careful of the roads we travel here, because I think the entrapment of Mr. Doyle and the outing of his deviancy may be doing society a favor, but it certainly poses issues as to the level of criminality his actions represent.

Posted by: R.M. Johnson at Wed Apr 5 06:31:40 2006 (GS/+M)

2 So you favor execution for the crime of negotiating sexual favors with a cop? Well, only if the cop pretends to be a 14-year old girl. Oh yes, and the miscreant must not be aware of the false identity, because if he knew full well that the cop only wished she were still 14, then our frothmouth-flecked host would only call for life in prison without parole.

When you wingnuts call for death to anyone who merely indulges in a little wishful thinking, you've left nothing in your toolbox against those who commit actual crimes. Why not cut to the chase and demand death for everyone but yourself and a few of your best buddies? The good side to this would be that the handful left amidst the corpse-strewn landscape would know to hold up their end of your favorite beer-chugging game in lieu of the consequences.

Posted by: jeffreydj at Thu Apr 6 00:45:30 2006 (NYuyP)

3 Well, I'm glad that the supporters of child sexual abuse have shown their true colors.

Let's clue you in on some facts.

1) Those who indulge in kiddie-porn generally have already sexually molested.

2) Those who seek out and seduce children on-line and are caught are generally recidivists who have already sexually molested dozens -- if not hundreds -- of children. The on-line seduction is usually a prelude to an actual molestation.

I teach students the age of this sack of shit's intended victim. I've had students in the past who have fallen victim to such predators. I have no tolerance for them -- and if that makes me a wing-nut, then I will gladly accept the title.

On the other hand, your position makes you guys apologists for pedophiles -- assuming that you don't indulge in "young stuff" yourselves.

In either event, I hope neither of you is regularly around children.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Apr 6 10:11:39 2006 (RcMVE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0074, elapsed 0.0159 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0119 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]