CF Member Jailed in California for Wanting Sex w/Teen

[J.J]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 case of a 24-year-old member of the Canadian Armed Forces who drove his motorcycle from Saskatchewan to Gilroy in hopes of having sex with a 17-year-old girl was postponed for a week.

Michael DeBruyn, of Wallaceburg, Ontario, was charged with employing, persuading or inducing a minor's involvement in modeling, posing or performing sexual conduct, possession of child pornography, contacting and communicating with a minor with intent to commit a crime, and distributing harmful matter to a minor. He faces a maximum sentence of five years and eight months in prison, according to DA spokeswoman Amy Cornell.

DeBruyn is currently in police custody on $100,000 bail.

On leave from military duty, DeBruyn showed up in town April 10 at a Gilroy High School event and tried to contact the girl, police said. About 7:15 a.m. April 11, DeBruyn showed up at the girl's house, but she was not home, Sgt. Wes Stanford said. The parents then called police.

"The parents basically told him to leave," said Sgt. Wes Stanford. "When he didn't leave, they called us."

DeBruyn and the girl met when the girl was 13 on an online social networking Web site, but their contact wasn't continuous over the next four years, Stanford said. The initial contact wasn't sexual in nature, he said. Only in the last few months did the two begin exchanging sexually graphic text messages, according to police. DeBruyn also started talking about coming to visit, Stanford said.

"She really didn't believe him," Stanford said. "Then he showed up and that changed everything. It was more than she had bargained for."

Police concluded through unspecified evidence that DeBruyn had come to Gilroy to have sex with the girl and arrested him. DeBruyn was also in possession of child pornography, police said.

DeBruyn is scheduled to appear in court 1:30 p.m. April 27 in Department 105 at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill for a plea hearing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

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.

DeBruyn arrived in Gilroy, Calif., on April 10 and attempted to link up with a 17-year-old girl he had met online four years ago. The two had allegedly been sending explicit text messages to one another in recent months.

When DeBruyn told the teen he was near her house, the girl told her parents, who then called police ....

.... 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.

DeBruyn, of Wallaceburg, Ontario, also pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor charge of possessing or controlling matter depicting a person under 18 engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, which was reduced from a felony charge.

He was originally charged with two related additional felony counts and faced a maximum sentence of five years and eight months in prison, according to Santa Clara County District Attorney spokeswoman Amy Cornell. He will be sentenced 9 a.m. Aug. 31 in Department 110 at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill. He could receive a maximum possible sentence of 16 months in prison.

On leave from military duty, DeBruyn showed up in town April 10 at a Gilroy High School event and tried to contact the girl, police said. About 7:15 a.m. April 11, DeBruyn showed up at the girl's house, but she was not home, police said. The parents then called police.

DeBruyn and the girl met when the girl was 13 on an online social networking Web site, but their contact wasn't continuous over the next four years, according to police. The initial contact wasn't sexual in nature, and only in the last few months did the two begin exchanging sexually graphic text messages, police said.

Police concluded through unspecified evidence that DeBruyn had come to Gilroy to have sex with the girl and arrested him. DeBruyn was also in possession of child pornography at the time, police said.

 

[greentoblue]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Journeyman]

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.