Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Edmonton man acquitted in chat luring case

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-01 4:17

An Edmonton man charged with using the internet to link up with a 12-year-girl in Ontario has been found not guilty after a judge ruled that "dirty talk" does not constitute luring.

"The conduct, as morally reprehensible as it is, is not caught by the legislation," said Justice John Agrios. "I simply cannot find an indication the accused was luring the child."

The case, which may have broad impact on Canada's internet luring law, centred on Craig Legare, who faced charges of luring a child under 14 and invitation to sexual touching.

In April 2003, Legare, who was 32, met the 12-year-old in an internet chat room, Agrios was told.

He allegedly told her he was 17, and she said she was 13. In two explicit text conversations, they reportedly both talked about having sex.

They later traded contact information, and Legare followed up with a phone call in which he said he wanted to perform a sexual act on the girl, the trial was told. She hung up and her father phoned police.

Agrios ruled the online conversations weren't enough to convict Legare.

He said the transcript of the second discussion was almost all sexual, but there wasn't sufficient evidence to say he was luring her.

Legare's lawyer, Laura Stevens, said her client was only fantasizing and never wanted to meet the girl.

Questions raised about luring law's intent

But Crown prosecutor Steve Bilodeau argued that Legare wanted to have sex with the girl and she was harmed by the conversation.

He said that when Parliament passed an internet luring law in 2002, it didn't mean for the Crown to prove an accused intended to follow through with a sex act.

"We are going to have to sit down carefully and see what has to be in a conversation like this for it to be captured by the Criminal Code," Bilodeau said.

Randy Wickins, a detective with the Integrated Child Exploitation team in Edmonton, said "dirty talk" is one of the first steps in luring and should be seen that way in law.

"My fear is that some of them will meet. Doesn't matter whether you are from a poor home or a wealthy home, children can be easily manipulated."

Wickins said the ruling means he'll have to determine whether the cases he is working on meet these guidelines.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-01 6:16

I'm glad he wasn't found guilty.  This is just another example of Canadian cops charging people for crimes they didn't commit.  That's why they try really hard to get plea bargins.  They know their cases often would never hold up in court.

What he did may be immoral.  But, charging people for talking about sex and expressing what they are thinking is very dangerous.  If that ever does become illegal, practically every teenager and preteen in the country will suddenly be guilty of "luring".

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-01 6:21

Yeah, I agree. Sex with minors should be legalized.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-01 7:13

The cops should've waited awhile and busted his ass when tried to meet the girl.  Has Canada learned nothing from Dateline?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-01 7:19

>>2
Well, canada is really hideous hole of censorship when it comes to sex. They make it look like that they're more free than America, while in reality they're not. America's censorship isn't govermental. Just look at big list what their customs have banned from importing, even educational books there. It wouldn't surprise me if they charged someone who just talked about sex with minor.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-03 17:03

Ignorence is bliss. They'd rather be happy than properly informed. There are places here in the USA that are like that in a way...

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 1:59

>>2

I don't think they were talking about teens talking to each other, but a freaking pedo 32 yo trying to get some with a 12 year old girl, heck he should just have an accident involving his nads and a door to a stall in the court's men's room, problem solved. Guess that's why its a good thing I'm not a cop.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 11:47

>>7

"Guess that's why its a good thing I'm not a cop."

Other things you're not:

Employed.
Sexuality Active.
Living anywhere but your parent's house.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 15:07

>>8

why so angry? hit too close to home pedo? its the weekend shouldn't you be at some park stalking little boys?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 15:41

>>7
What do you think about this pedophile?

http://www.world4ch.org/read/newnew/1143750207/

Me? I'd have him disintegrated at sight (by sight). I guess it's a good thing I don't meddle with human affairs too much.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 16:53

Sex is an adult thing. That's why age of consent laws and crap about age differences is stupid.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-08 19:21

>>9
Fuck off. Kids are fun to play with.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 11:57

>>12
Please kill yourself. The father of that girl should have been given the address of that pedophile.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 14:06

>>13
What would that have accomplished?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 15:06

>>14
yaoi.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-09 22:11

>>14
So they could avoid him and warn others about the pedo.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-10 6:41

>>16
I'm sure such news propagate rather fast even without human intervention.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-24 21:51

You never really know someone, but this guy has deep dark secrets.  He will slip again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-24 21:51

You never really know someone, but this guy has deep dark secrets.  He will slip again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-09-28 1:29

>>13 Maybe the father of that girl should have made better rules regarding the internet. It takes no time at all to find the guys address when you have his full name.

Victim… at what point does personal responsibility become a factor in that equation.

Plenty of parents keep their kids safe on the internet. As a Legal Guardian should you not be responsible for what your kids are exposed to or what they do?

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List