Bruce Murphy disagrees
Milwaukee Magazine’s Bruce Murphy disagrees with me regarding the complaint against Brian Pierick. Murphy writes,
Conservative blogger James Wigderson takes issue with the complaint of child enticement, saying it “appears that Pierick had no way of knowing the boy was 17, not 18 or 19 as the boy claimed.” I read it differently, as the boy’s text messages make it clear he was worried about his mother and had to sneak out of his house, among other clues. It’s clear, by the way, that Pierick shared all the details of the back and forth texts with Russell.
It’s also clear that Pierick discovered that the boy did live with his parents and was still in high school. However, Pierick did ask the boy repeatedly if he was over 18, making it clear to the boy that they were not interested in someone younger than 18. The district attorney’s office practically conceded that point when the complaint stated that ignorance of the boy’s actual age was not an excuse.
And while the complaint strongly implies that Russell was aware of Pierick’s activity, if it was clear that it was Russell, wouldn’t he have been charged, too? Or is the charge weak enough that they felt they could barely get one of the partners?
I’m certainly not condoning the behavior but I still find it hard to believe that the district attorney is prosecuting this case. As I said before, I would be curious how similar cases were handled. Absent the politics and the other alleged crimes, I would suspect that we would be hearing complaints about the district attorney harassing a homosexual without good cause.
Russell could yet be charged.
Run with it, Jimmy. Let’s say Pierick and Russell were straight forty-somethings and operated a conservative blog together, and they were trolling for teenage girls on Craigslist, and they hooked your daughter or your friend’s daughter who was actually 17 but still living at home with her parents yet still willing to text these naughty conservative bloggers that she was 18. You’re in the opinion business. What’s your opinion of forty-something men who try to date 18-ish-year-olds? Would that make any difference to you?
What’s your legal advice to Pierick and Russell? That they should claim they thought he was 18? Tell me how well that defense works in real life. Can you point to a case where that was a successful defense?
No matter how you slice it, I believe the law says you need to be certain not to send pictures of your genitals to someone under the age of 18. (There are lots of other things you’re not supposed to do to kids.) How certain were your conservative blogging buddies? If someone sends you a text that they’re 18, should you assume it’s true and start driving your van to their neighborhood with a box of porn?
Would a text message be good enough proof for you to assert something in a blog post?
John Foust Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:33 am
It seems like the facts disagree with Wigderson, and agree with Murphy. Those darn facts!
The text message transcript in the criminal complaint (NSFW) starts on page 4. By page 5 the Pierick iPhone requests explicit pictures and describes what they’re going to do. (Siri was not invited to the scenario.)
It takes them until page 6 to mention “as long as you are 18″ . The minor didn’t answer, but perhaps he was distracted by the imagery of the alternative uses of vegetables.
You’ll need to read until page 9 to get to where they ask “And confirming you are 18, right?” and he answered “Yes I’m almost 19 daddy x/x/xx” and the Pierick iPhone replied “OK. Don’t leave your porn in the VCR or DVD player for Mom to find it” although given the context of their daddy / son roleplaying, maybe “Mom” isn’t who we think she is.
Charming and considerate, that Unambiguously Gay Conservative Blogger Duo!
As Detective DuCharme says on page 12, even though the minor’s Craiglist posting said he was 19, it should’ve been a red flag when he texted that he’d never had sex with another male before, apart from saying he was still in high school and still living at home.
James Wigderson Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I think you’re confusing facts with opinion. The facts are they answered an ad that claimed the boy was 19. (By the way, the boy placed the solicitation. That should scare the hell out of parents.) The presumption is 19, before the chat took place. Then the boy says almost 19, which would explain the 19. And I don’t know about you but I knew more than a few kids in high school who were 18. (That’s why the drinking age was raised to 19, remember?)
Now I find the whole story repulsive, disgusting, and definitely not safe for work. I also think it should scare the hell out of parents, and make us wonder about Craigslist. All that said, I find it hard to believe that a district attorney in Milwaukee (of all places) is prosecuting this. Unlike the internet crimes that we normally see splashed all over the newspapers and television (like the Racine Mayor Gary Becker story), the transcript shows an intent to find out if the kid was at least 18.
Gee, the kid is a gay virgin. Guess there aren’t many of those?
I’m not excusing the behavior. I’m just surprised it’s being prosecuted. And I resent you posting on Twitter that I am trying to excuse the behavior.
jimspice Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
So would you be surprised at the prosecution of a bartender who served minors at a private party at a frat house after the frat president assured him all attendees were at least 21?
James Wigderson Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
I’d like to point out that as far as I know, Russell and Pierick were not bloggers, and they certainly were not my buddies. I’ve met Tim Russell on a couple of occasions at political events. I don’t recall ever meeting Pierick or even knowing who he is until this scandal broke. I didn’t even know Russell was gay.
I’m not excusing the behavior. I’m just surprised it’s being prosecuted for the reasons I indicated.
John Foust Reply:
January 20th, 2012 at 9:40 am
My tweet said “WisGOP analyst @JWigderson says ‘But he said he was 18′ is best defense for Unambiguously Gay Conservative Blogger Duo”.
Maybe this is another case where you can criticize my reading comprehension. I’m assuming that “excuse the behavior” equals “the DA shouldn’t bother with this.” If that’s the case, then are you saying the DA shouldn’t bother with prosecuting anyone engaged in sexting, instant-messaging, or webcamming with any minors who are willing to claim they’re over 18? This will wipe out a great number of prosecutions and TV crime shows.
A gay virgin on Craigslist? Oh, yeah, there’s millions of them. One forum to the left of all the straight males who want to try having sex with a gay male for the first time, and one forum to the right of all the bored but hot 18-year-old girls who want to hook up tonight with anyone capable of answering their ad. Both categories have “never done it before.”
These two Republicans were quite adept at using web sites to find sex partners. You think Grindr.com is a blog about sausage-making? You’re seriously trying to argue that they couldn’t have known that sex-soliciting web ads might not be telling the truth? That in the business of 40-somethings trying to find partners who can pass as their “boy”, they shouldn’t be extra careful about not sexting teenagers?
Again, can you point to a case where “He said on the Internet and in a text message that he was over 18″ was a successful defense? I’d even accept an anecdote, like “I talked to a drunk attorney who said that defense works all the time.”
If R&P believed the age in the Craiglist ad, then why did they ask for explicit pictures, describe what they wanted to do in great detail, and then again worry that he wasn’t over 18? The best excuse I can imagine? They were in a hurry. Maybe their van was about to run out of gas.
As for whether they’re bloggers, isn’t it in evidence that Russeel was responsible for the Scott4Gov series of web sites, as well as posting to them on County time?
Capper’s “blogging on County time” because he read web sites on County time, but R&P aren’t “bloggers” because they had a business of hosting web sites, designing web sites, and posted to those web sites as both blog creator and sock-puppet commenters?
John Foust Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Wiggy, it’s been days. Did you ever find that attorney who recommends this “but I thought he was 18″ defense?
James Wigderson Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Yes, one so far. http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/pierick-seeks-dismissal-of-child-enticement-charges-c33v0uh-138126668.html
(I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV. But I’ve been around the world.)
I suggest that McMahon wouldn’t recommend that defense even though she may be using it.
I look forward to your defense of Russell’s creation of the “secret web site” for illegal campaign coordination on County time. Let me guess: he didn’t do it, and the DA shouldn’t charge.
James Wigderson Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
I don’t know if he did it or not. Good to know that you’re resorting to changing the subject.
John Foust Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Oh, no, please go on, don’t let me distract you with brief statements. I asked all sorts of questions above. Tell me more about the virgins on Craigslist.
James Wigderson Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 12:40 am
You’re more familiar with pretending to be a virgin when someone responds to a Craigslist ad than I’ll ever be. How’s that working out for you?
So far, so good. Some guy from West Bend won’t leave me alone, keeps emailing about rest stops and garden hoses, but he says he’s done it before.
As for comedic legal advice, let’s turn to page 29 of the Wink criminal complaint, as she’s talking with Russell:
How do I get rid of the PDF form off of my IM?
When you close yahoo it will go away
OK – I just am afraid of going to jail – ha! ha!
You wouldn’t, not for that.
Jeff Christensen Reply:
January 27th, 2012 at 9:21 am
No reason to laugh at the Darlene Wink complaint…too boring.
Now the Kelly Rindfleisch complaint….that’s comedy GOLD!
John Foust Reply:
January 28th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Has anyone counted how many people were working in Walker’s office, and how many haven’t been fingered in this John Doe? Who is left?