# CF Member Jailed in California for Wanting Sex w/Teen



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2010)

Remember, presumed innocent until proven guilty.  This, from the _Gilroy Dispatch_:


> Police arrested a 24-year-old member of the Canadian Armed Forces after he drove his motorcycle nearly 2,000 miles from Saskatchewan to Gilroy in hopes of having sex with a 17-year-old girl, police said. The man first made contact with the girl when she was 13 years old, police said.
> 
> About 7:15 a.m. Sunday, the parents of the girl called police when Michael DeBruyn arrived at their house.
> 
> ...



More from the _National Post_ and the _Monterey Herald_.


----------



## Tyson Fox (12 Apr 2010)

Rough, he shouldn't have tried that in the states, they are way more strict on that kind of thing. I wonder if the norm is to return him to Canada. EDIT: you'd think 2000 miles would have given him time to think about what he was getting into


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Four years online.  Just shows that parents should really try harder at times to know what their teens are doing on line.  How often has this type of scenario been enacted across the continent in the last decade or more?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Tyson Fox said:
			
		

> ....... I wonder if the norm is to return him to Canada.



The norm is to try him and incarcerate him in the local he was arrested.  That would be California.


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The norm is to try him and incarcerate him in the local he was arrested.  That would be California.



Folsom Prison blues. Or, maybe San Quentin. If convicted. They have a lot of state prisons in California:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/index.html
If convicted, perhaps he can apply for a prisoner exchange to serve his time in Canada.

I read that Conrad "Black's legal team is also actively pursuing a possible transfer to a British penitentiary where the threshold for early parole is lower than in the United States." C.B. gave up his Canadian citizenship, but under the circumstances, seems to want it back now.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c85e5aa3-9a24-4ebb-a4b6-f04d7cdc8b42


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Apr 2010)

http://www.vancouversun.com/Soldier+arrested+after+sexting+California+teen/2875502/story.html

*Soldier arrested after 'sexting' California teen*
Ontario man based in Saskatchewan
Canwest News ServiceApril 12, 2010 4:54 PM









> GILROY, Calif. — Police arrested a Canadian man on Sunday for sending "sexually graphic text messages and photos" to a 17-year-old girl he was attempting to visit outside of San Francisco.
> 
> Michael DeBruyn, 24, originally from Wallaceburg, Ont., was arrested and charged in Gilroy, Calif., after driving his motorcycle to meet the teenager, said Sgt. Wes Stanford of the Gilroy Police.
> 
> ...



A comment to the article does state that the article and photo may not go together.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2010)

....attached as PDF - not loads new, though:


> On April 11, 2010 at about 7:15 a.m. the parents of a 17 year old juvenile called to report a suspicious subject near their home. Upon arrival, Gilroy Police Officers contacted Michael DeBruyn near the juvenile's residence. 24 year old DeBruyn is a Canadian citizen and member of the Canadian Armed Forces. A preliminary investigation determined DeBruyn has exchanged sexually graphic text messages and photos with the juvenile female for approximately the past two months, but has had online contact with the juvenile since she was approximately 13 years old.
> 
> DeBruyn is on military leave and rode his motorcycle to California for the purposes of engaging in a sexual relationship with the juvenile. DeBruyn was also found to be in possession of child pornography. After additional investigation and evidence gathering by Gilroy Police Officers and Detectives, DeBruyn was arrested for 311.1(a) PC - Sending or possession of obscene matter depicting minors, 288.3(a) PC - Contact of minor with intent to commit sexual offense, & 647.6(a) (1) PC - Annoying and / or molesting a child under 18. Gilroy Police booked DeBruyn into the Santa Clara County Jail ....



From the California Penal Code:


> 311.1(a) PC - Sending or possession of obscene matter depicting minors:  Every person who knowingly sends or causes to be sent, or brings or causes to be brought, into this state for sale or distribution, or in this state possesses, prepares, publishes, produces, develops, duplicates, or prints any representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, with intent to distribute or to exhibit to, or to exchange with, others, or who offers to distribute, distributes, or exhibits to, or exchanges with, others, any obscene matter, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or personally simulating sexual conduct, as defined in Section 311.4, shall be punished either by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by the fine and imprisonment ....
> 
> 288.3(a) PC - Contact of minor with intent to commit sexual offense:  (a) Every person who contacts or communicates with a minor, or attempts to contact or communicate with a minor, who knows or reasonably should know that the person is a minor, with intent to commit an offense specified in Section 207, 209, 261, 264.1, 273a, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 289, 311.1, 311.2, 311.4 or 311.11 involving the minor shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed for an attempt to commit the intended offense.
> (b) As used in this section, "contacts or communicates with" shall include direct and indirect contact or communication that may be achieved personally or by use of an agent or agency, any print medium, any postal service, a common carrier or communication common carrier, any electronic communications system, or any telecommunications, wire, computer, or radio communications device or system.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Apr 2010)

Dumb sh*t, had he waited one more year he could have done it legally with her.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Apr 2010)

Four years of contact, puts her at 13 and him at 20, and thats SICK! Why would a 20 year old man want to have any time of contact with a 13year old girl? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. 

Now she's 17 and he is 24, man-o-man! Throw the book at this guy! Good on the parents for contacting the Police, but perhaps this 'relationship' should have been stopped at the beginning. On that subject, why would the parents let it happen in the first place? Unless somehow she kept it a secret until recently, but 4 yrs, a child dupes her parents? Time will tell when there is more info allowed to surface. If I was a parent, I would be taking interest to see what he/she is doing on the internet unsupervised, and the computer would be in the family room, not allowed in the bedroom!

Looks like he could be in his a California paradise, but in the crowbar hotel as a 'rock spider' for a very long time.

EDITs to add his pic looks like he either has allergies or has had tears big as horse turds rolling down his cheeks. Me thinks I see a dog-tag chain? I am wondering if thats his 'mug' shot?

OWDU

N.B. - As much as I read the article in its entirety, at 0430 this am, for reasons unknown I typed out the wrong age (4 yrs ago), and I apologise for my own pre-dawn stupidity.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 Apr 2010)

And is he wearing his dogtags in his mugshot?

Loser.


----------



## Strike (13 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Four years of contact, puts her at 9 and him at 20, and thats SICK! Why would a 20 year old man want to have any time of contact with a 9 year old girl? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.



They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.

As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.  Either someone was really quick or he's new.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.  Either someone was really quick or he's new.



I checked that too.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> EDITs to add his pic looks like he either has allergies or has had tears big as horse turds rolling down his cheeks. Me thinks I see a dog-tag chain? I am wondering if thats his 'mug' shot?


It looks like the photo the cops shared with the news release - pg 2 of PDF attached here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/93108/post-923548.html#msg923548
so I'd guess it is, indeed, his "guest" shot.


----------



## chrisf (13 Apr 2010)

Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)

Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.


----------



## armyvern (13 Apr 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)
> 
> Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.



She's the minor, he's the adult.

I think he is also old enough to realize that the United States is NOT Canada --- n'est pas? In any case --- it doesn't matter because the fact is that the Criminal Code of Canada also states:



> 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
> 
> (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (13 Apr 2010)

Hmmm....she's 17 and he gets charged....does that mean there's a wack of 17 year old virgins in California?  ;D


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2010)

I was reading about the Age of Consent in Canada. Recently raised from 14 to 16.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/01/crime-bill.html


----------



## PanaEng (13 Apr 2010)

Regardless of whether we think he is a looser or not for driving 2k miles for some personal contact...
we could take into account that:
- regardless of state laws, some municipalities apply them differently - what's ok in most places in the US may be considered abhorrent in some towns;
- the girl may have lied to him about her age; that right there changes everything... except the charges.
- the definition of pornographic is very fluid - another cop could have seen the text or pictures and decided they were not pornographic and laid no charges. 
She probably sent him a picture of herself scantly clad, saying that she was now 19 or whatever and horny for him - not expecting that he would drive 2k miles to collect.

I've had a lot of experience with cp cases and helped put away many a scumbag and the scenario that I described is not uncommon.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## armyvern (13 Apr 2010)

He's not being accused of rape or statuatory rape. He's been charged with posession of child pornography amongst other things. Here in Canada, that's anything under the age of 18 as per the Criminal Code. If he is found guilty of the alleged offenses, he'll be considered a sex offender; Exactly as he would also be considered in Canada had the charges been levied within our own borders followed up by a "guilty" finding.


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If he is found guilty of the alleged offenses, he'll be considered a sex offender;



California dropped the ball with Phil Garrido. He was a registered sex offender in that state. Even had an ankle bracelet.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/local/me-jaycee-dugard5


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2010)

PanaEng is right. There are two (or more) sides to every story. Let's not start building a gallows until we hear it all. Everyone should just simmer down.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## armyvern (13 Apr 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> California dropped the ball with Phil Garrido. He was a registered sex offender in that state. Even had an ankle bracelet.
> http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/05/local/me-jaycee-dugard5



Agreed. Apparently though, he was considered "low risk" to reoffend and thus the bracelet was not monitored ... supposedly, it was to serve more as a psychological deterrant. California has just changed that law ... now, low-risk "bracleted" offenders will be monitored a whopping 4 days per month (see last paragraph); the only deterrent being - the offender has no idea what 4 days a month those will be. 

Even still, he was not "bracleted" when the abduction of Ms. Dugard occured. He was not required to wear a bracelet until the sex-offender registry came into effect.


----------



## J.J (13 Apr 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Before everyone decides to dog pile on the fellow, just to play devil's advocate here for a minute, from the description of the events, he didn't actually break any Canadian laws... OWDU, if you re-read, it says initial contact occured when she was 13, she's 17 now, and it didn't become sexual in nature until recently... if the same events had occured, as described, IN CANADA, there likely would have been no charges (Or at least not the same charges)
> 
> Note: The above was based on the news article from the first post... he may well have been charged with possesion of child pornography in Canada.




Luring a child

172.1 (1) Every person commits an offence who, by means of a computer system within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2), communicates with
(a) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of eighteen years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under subsection 153(1), section 155 or 163.1, subsection 212(1) or (4) or section 271, 272 or 273 with respect to that person;
(b) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 16 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2) or section 280 with respect to that person; or
(c) a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 14 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under section 281 with respect to that person.
Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
Presumption re age

(3) Evidence that the person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) was represented to the accused as being under the age of eighteen years, sixteen years or fourteen years, as the case may be, is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused believed that the person was under that age.

No defence

(4) It is not a defence to a charge under paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) that the accused believed that the person referred to in that paragraph was at least eighteen years of age, sixteen years or fourteen years of age, as the case may be, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person.

2002, c. 13, s. 8; 2007, c. 20, s. 1; 2008, c. 6, s. 14.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Apr 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Dumb sh*t, had he waited one more year he could have done it legally with her.



Yeah, because THAT'S what's wrong with this whole story.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2010)

Strike said:
			
		

> They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.
> 
> As an aside, I noticed he's not on the DWAN.



There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.


Dopey question from the unknowing here:  even if they have e-mail addresses, Reservists are not on DWAN?

Meanwhile, CanWest News adds a bit more information:


> A 24-year-old Ontario man stationed at the Canadian Forces Base in Dundurn is facing a number of charges in California following an alleged “sexting” incident ....



_- edit to add CanWest link/lede -_


----------



## J.J (13 Apr 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> There's a possibility he is (was?) a reservist.  Not that it'll make any difference to the media.



Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?


Another way of reading the remark would be that the guy would be considered "a member of the CF", whether he's full- or part-time.


----------



## Strike (13 Apr 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Why would it make a difference if he was reservist? Would it make it more palatable or acceptable for some?



No.  We're just wondering why he doesn't seem to have a DWAN account.  No need to get your knickers in a knot.


----------



## J.J (13 Apr 2010)

Do all regular force privates have DWAN accounts?  If they do, I will retract and apologize for jumping to conclusions. If not, I think it is a fair question to ask?


----------



## MJP (13 Apr 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> Do all regular force privates have DWAN accounts?  If they do, I will retract and apologize for jumping to conclusions. If not, I think it is a fair question to ask?



Not at all, lots of them don't have accounts as they have no need or access in some cases to computers.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (13 Apr 2010)

Just to play Devil's Advocate here if all laws of the United States are fully followed they both go to jail. If the laws of Canada are followed both go to jail.

Man:
Intent to have sex with a minor (U.S.A)
Possessing Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)

Girl:
Spreading/reproducing/creating Child Pornography (U.S.A and Canada)


We'll see what happens but if the guy goes to jail the girl should as well. I know some people say it's a bogus law that teens go to jail for sexting pictures of themselves but if we are going to enforce the law here might as well enforce all of it.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Apr 2010)

My earlier quote "Four years of contact, puts her at 9 and him at 20"



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> They first made contact when she was 13 so she's 17 now.



It was just too early (0430) when I read that post, and the gap between my brain and fingertips was out of whack. My post has been ammended accordingly.

Regret the stuff-around.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Apr 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Just to play Devil's Advocate here if all laws of the United States are fully followed they both go to jail. If the laws of Canada are followed both go to jail.
> 
> Man:
> Intent to have sex with a minor (U.S.A)
> ...



How do we know that she did anything except text?  We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.

And my comment on the possibility of him being a reservist was just that; a comment.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Apr 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Dopey question from the unknowing here:  even if they have e-mail addresses, Reservists are not on DWAN?



1st Point:  Reservists DO have DWAN accts, and CF email addresses.  (Some even have a PKI card as well. )

2nd Point:  NOT ALL Regular Force and Reserve Force pers have CF email addresses and DWAN accts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 1st Point:  Reservists DO have DWAN accts, and CF email addresses.  (Some even have a PKI card as well. )
> 
> 2nd Point:  NOT ALL Regular Force and Reserve Force pers have CF email addresses and DWAN accts.


Thanks for the short & sweet, George - appreciated.


----------



## TimBit (14 Apr 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> How do we know that she did anything except text?  We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.



Then how could he be charged with possession of juvenile porn?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Apr 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> Then how could he be charged with possession of juvenile porn?



Now I'm just a crewman but I am going to assume it because they found it on his computer/phone/whatever and had the grounds to lay the charge?

Nothing says that it was from her or even of her... it could have been something he had from another site/date/person, no?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Apr 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> How do we know that she did anything except text?


This, from the police news release (emphasis mine):


> .... A preliminary investigation determined DeBruyn has *exchanged* sexually graphic text messages and photos with the juvenile female for approximately the past two months, but has had online contact with the juvenile since she was approximately 13 years old ....


Now, that said, 


			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> We don't know that she sent a picture of herself to him.


bang on - police aren't _saying_ what the content of the "sexually graphic .... photos" was. That'll come out in court.

Even if an "exchange" is proven, though, Vern hits the nail on the head:


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> She's the minor, he's the adult.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Apr 2010)

Okay, I didn't see the photos part, although, they may not have been sexually graphic.  Yes, Vern has it right.


----------



## J.J (14 Apr 2010)

A simple explanation for a photo to be considered child pornography is the *focus* of the photo has to be of the subjects genitals. The subject has to be known or believed to be under the age of 18. 
This is why when a parent takes a picture of their child playing or being silly in the bathtub etc it is not considered to be illegal.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (14 Apr 2010)

WR said:
			
		

> A simple explanation for a photo to be considered child pornography is the *focus* of the photo has to be of the subjects genitals. The subject has to be known or believed to be under the age of 18.
> This is why when a parent takes a picture of their child playing or being silly in the bathtub etc it is not considered to be illegal.



Actually, a few people are going to court now a days in the states for taking pictures of their kids in the bath tub because of a "Robin Williams" so to speak in photo developing.


----------



## TimBit (14 Apr 2010)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> Actually, a few people are going to court now a days in the states for taking pictures of their kids in the bath tub because of a "Robin Williams" so to speak in photo developing.



That's f'n sick. I'm sure we have somewhere some pictures of my 16 months old daughter in bath and if anybody ever arrests me or anything else I'll take it to supreme court. Granted, I don't post those on the internet but it seems to me that there is a _very_ clear line between child porn and keeping memories of early years for later days.

I hope those poor people in the States then turn around and friggin sue the life out of whoever went ahead with those charges.


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2010)

TimBit said:
			
		

> That's f'n sick. I'm sure we have somewhere some pictures of my 16 months old daughter in bath and if anybody ever arrests me or anything else I'll take it to supreme court. Granted, I don't post those on the internet but it seems to me that there is a _very_ clear line between child porn and keeping memories of early years for later days.
> I hope those poor people in the States then turn around and friggin sue the life out of whoever went ahead with those charges.



There have been some cases in the media.:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8622270


----------



## TimBit (14 Apr 2010)

Yes I was aware of such pathetic and stupid cases... the one you linked to is particularly good.

I hope such nonsense never crosses the border.


----------



## J.J (14 Apr 2010)

The photo in article cannot in the wildest interpretation be classified as child pornography. It would not be thought of as illegal in Canada

Unfortunately there are websites that cater to "artistic" photo's of children in varying states of undress, this websites are objectionable, but not illegal. The key factor what is the photo "intention" is. 

I am trying to be as delicate as it is an extremely sensitive and abhorrent subject.

A simplistic explanation of the differences;
-you have a picture of a child sitting in a bathtub and the centre of the photo is the child's smiling face=good
-you have a picture of a child sitting in a bathtub and the centre of the photo is the child's genitals=bad

I took a course a few years ago on classifying child pornography, very uncomfortable and sickening 3 days of my life.


----------



## mariomike (14 Apr 2010)

I remember reading what the US Supreme Court Justice had to say about obscenity, "I know it when I see it".
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

There is a Duty to Report suspected child abuse and/or neglect in Ontario:
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/reportingabuse/abuseandneglect/abuseandneglect.aspx

Also pornography:
"any person who reasonably believes that a representation or material is, or might be, child pornography shall promptly report the information to an organization, agency or person designated by a regulation made under clause 216 (c.3). 2008, c. 21, s. 3 (2)."


----------



## TimBit (14 Apr 2010)

> I took a course a few years ago on classifying child pornography, very uncomfortable and sickening 3 days of my life.



I hear you... as a tech for an Internet company in the 80's, I used to filter out newsgroups for child porn and bestiality. Very angering and heart-wrenching. Who could hate their children so much as to do this kinda stuff? As a father myself, I cannot understand.

Would you say that what you do with the picture also has an impact? I.e. your own child on your computer, ok - someone else's not so. Your child on the Internet - not so too. Does that make sense?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Apr 2010)

So from the facts in the story, he started talking to her when he was 20 and she was 13, the online relationship apparently only became sexual in the last few months when she was 17. She was apparently playing a game that she felt had no consequences and he was taking it far to seriously. I stand corrected, they are both dumb ****

I am bit more forgiving of a young guy trying to hit on a younger girl as opposed to an old guy doing it. Young guys are often wandering around ready to hump telephone poles. Most realize that it’s a bad idea to chase these young girls and stick to their age group or hope for a cougar or two. I suspect that any guy who would drive 2,000 miles to meet a 17 year old, is either seriously in love or hasn’t ever got it without paying for it in his life. Maybe a combination of both in this case. If he was in his 30’s I would say throw the book at him, but I suspect in this case it was a really dumb idea gone really bad.

I had the dubious pleasure of watching some of our cadet girls hitting on every male that walked by, these girls were 14 going on 20 and dressed to turn heads, putting out a impressive display of sexual energy. They knew what they were doing and I can see some young guy who is not good at relationships giving in to temptation.


----------



## kkwd (21 Apr 2010)

Here is an update. 

 Article link



> Plea delayed for Canadian military man accused of trying to have sex with minor
> Apr 20, 2010
> By Sara Suddes
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2010)

This from Postmedia News ....


> A soldier stationed at CFB Dundurn has entered a plea of no contest in relation to charges he faced after driving from Saskatchewan to California to meet with a teenage girl.
> 
> According to the Gilroy Dispatch, Michael DeBruyn, 24, entered the no contest plea to one felony count of contacting and communication, and attempting to contact and communicate with a minor with knowledge and intent to commit a specified crime and one felony count of distributing or exhibiting harmful matter to a minor.
> 
> ...



.... and this from Gilroy, California's hometown paper, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._:


> A Canadian man police said drove his motorcycle from Saskatchewan to Gilroy in hopes of having sex with a 17-year-old girl pleaded no contest to three of his five charges as part of a negotiated deal with prosecutors.
> 
> Michael DeBruyn, 25, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, pleaded no contest to one felony count of contacting and communicating, and attempting to contact and communicate, with a minor with knowledge and intent to commit a specified crime and one felony count of distributing or exhibiting harmful matter to a minor.
> 
> ...


----------



## greentoblue (25 Sep 2010)

DeBruyn has been sentenced in California:

"DeBruyn will receive credit for 248 days in pretrial custody, leaving four months remaining to be served."  After that he will be deported back to Canada and the military will take a whack at him with a career administration review.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Canadian+soldier+jailed+sexting+teenage+girl/3580167/story.html#ixzz10aSqqt1W


----------



## 57Chevy (26 Sep 2010)

Canadian soldier jailed in U.S. for ‘sexting’ teenage girl
 link  The Gazette

A Canadian soldier will spend several months in a California jail after he travelled to the U.S. in an apparent bid to see a teenage girl he had met online four years ago.

Michael DeBruyn, 25, who wass stationed in Dundurn, Sask., has been sentenced to one year in a Santa Clara County jail.

Authorities said DeBruyn arrived in Gilroy, Calif., after driving down from Saskatchewan, on April 10 and attempted to see the 17-year-old girl. 

Authorities said the two had been sending explicit text messages to one another before the attempted meeting, which was thwarted when the girl’s concerned parents called police.

DeBruyn was arrested and has remained in custody.

He pleaded no contest this week to contacting a minor with intent to commit a specified crime, distributing harmful matter to a minor and possession of child pornography. The court reduced the offences to misdemeanours from felonies, said Amy Cornell, a spokeswoman for the Santa Clara County district attorney.

DeBruyn will receive credit for 248 days in pretrial custody, leaving four months remaining to be served.

DeBruyn, originally from Wallaceburg, Ont., was on leave when he was arrested.

DeBruyn’s future with the Canadian Forces will be determined after the completion of his sentence, said Lt. Donna Riguidel, a spokeswoman for 17 Wing Winnipeg.

Upon his release, DeBruyn will be returned to Canada. An administrative review of his file will be conducted to decide "what, if any, ramifications" will result.

DeBruyn could face discipline ranging from being assigned extra duties to a dishonourable discharge, Riguidel said.
                (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## DeBruyn (17 Jan 2011)

9 months and i finally get to start sorting shit out. for those of you who have enough common sense to know that there are two sides to every story, thank you. for those of you who enjoy judging me based on horse shit in the media, you are ignorant. and for those of you who will continue to judge me harshly even after i am able to show this god forsaken world the real story, go fuck yourselves. you are hypocrites and bigots. frankly, those of you in that category can fall on a steak knife. i don't care for you, nor do i care for your moot opinions. 
i read the posts here. It makes me sick. To clarify something that seems to have been hot in your minds. i had not talked to her for four years! the facts behind that is that while in a PUBLIC chat/forum website, ( whatever you might call it; for general discussion topics) like an idiot who never used technology, i allowed my hotmail address to be viewable PUBLICLY; so in turn i ended up with allot of people on my msn messenger list who i did not know. 
I'm going to be making my case known more publicly... (probably youtube). I'm not ashamed. i was ignorant, not stupid. there is a large difference. there is more that i need to say. much more; too much to put in a hardly noticed forum reply. the fact of this matter now is that if you cared enough to give your opinion anytime in the past 9 plus months, then you should care enough to hear my true story.

Mike DeBruyn


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 Jan 2011)

Anyone considering posting in this thread it to review this one first. (This is your warning.)

Tone and Content on Army.ca

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## midget-boyd91 (17 Jan 2011)

Mr. O'Leary's post taken into consideration;

Here's a quote/snippet from earlier in the thread


> A preliminary investigation determined DeBruyn has exchanged sexually graphic text messages and photos with the juvenile female for approximately the past two months



The investigation being spoken of was preliminary at the time. Is it correct in what it says?


----------



## DeBruyn (17 Jan 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Anyone considering posting in this thread it to review this one first. (This is your warning.)
> 
> Tone and Content on Army.ca
> 
> Milnet.ca staff



my appologies for the vulgar language O'Leary. in my haste of responding here, the animocity towards the social media's twist on my unfortuanate troubles allowed the F word to slip a little too easily. I will contain myself herein.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jan 2011)

Well, thank you for your time and your carefully-worded introductory post to this 'hardly noticed forum,' to tell us that....well, that you're going to tell everyone something....sometime.....(probably youtube).


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jan 2011)

For what its worth, he's got the cajones to come on this thread and defend himself.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jan 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> For what its worth, he's got the cajones to come on this thread and defend himself.


Actually, he hasn't done more than to say, "go fuck yourselves. you are hypocrites and bigots. frankly, those of you in that category can fall on a steak knife."

"Defending himself" would imply actually explaining his behaviour, which suggests more than "I'm not ashamed. i was ignorant, not stupid. there is a large difference."

Sorry, but there's nothing here for _deBruyn_ to have earned congratulations.


----------



## my72jeep (17 Jan 2011)

Remember every one is Innocent till posted on a social media site.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (17 Jan 2011)

DeBruyn said:
			
		

> my appologies for the vulgar language O'Leary. in my haste of responding here, the animocity towards the social media's twist on my unfortuanate troubles allowed the F word to slip a little too easily. I will contain myself herein.



DeBruyn please use proper capitalization and spelling in your posts.....

MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Jan 2011)

> even after i am able to show this god forsaken world the real story



You were convicted, though - correct? If you couldn't make the California legal system see "the real story", how do you intend to do any better with the members at Army.ca?


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jan 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> You were convicted, though - correct? If you couldn't make the California legal system see "the real story", how do you intend to do any better with the members at Army.ca?



It was all just a big misunderstanding you see........

 :


----------



## midget-boyd91 (17 Jan 2011)

If he honestly wants to 'defend' himself:
 I've already posted him a question.... whether or not he'll just read it and ignore it, or answer it, or decide to start talking hostile again is yet to be seen.



> Here's a quote/snippet from earlier in the thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2011)

...before we get too far down the wrong path, I'm locking this one for 24 hours so people can step back, take 9 seconds to think and 1 second to act.


----------

