Couple accused of arranging sex with girl, 13

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The Chicago Tribune


http://i.imgur.com/OlFii.jpg

A Gurnee couple's bail was set at $50,000 each today after they were accused of sending text messages to a 13-year-old girl to arrange to have sex with her, officials said.

Gina M. Cusimano, 25, and Kevin C. Pettitt, 21, both of the 5100 block of Pembrook Court in Gurnee, were charged with indecent solicitation of a child, police said.

On July 30, the mother of the young teen discovered her daughter had inappropriate text messages from Cusimano and Cusimano’s boyfriend Pettitt in her phone. The mother alerted police, according to a news release from the Lake County Sheriff’s office.

A detective pretended to be the girl and agreed to meet the couple to be picked up and brought to their house to perform sexual acts, officials said.

When Cusimano showed up to meet the girl, she was arrested, officials said.

The detective then went to Cusimano’s residence and arrested her boyfriend as well, officials said.

Police do not believe there are any other victims but the investigation is ongoing.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Well, at least this is making it easier to get them off the streets

[RBP]

Hmmm idk I hate stings.

[DemonGeminiX]

This wasn't a cold sting like To Catch A Predator. They had probable cause on these two nitwits based on evidence prior to the sting.

[RBP]

This wasn't a cold sting like To Catch A Predator. They had probable cause on these two nitwits based on evidence prior to the sting.

I suppose, since they did actually solicit an actual 13-year-old before the cops stepped in.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yeah, I dont like stings, but this was just proper follow up

[Hal-9000]

I think stings are great....if you're not a sick fucking perv you have nothing to worry about :tup:


if it only takes opportunity, no matter how the opportunity materializes...you got a problem, plain and simple

[deebakes]

fuckin' bees :x

[RBP]

I think stings are great....if you're not a sick fucking perv you have nothing to worry about :tup:

if it only takes opportunity, no matter how the opportunity materializes...you got a problem, plain and simple

The problem is that, in those cases, they didn't actually solicit an underage person.

[RBP]

fuckin' bees :x

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hal-9000]

The problem is that, in those cases, they didn't actually solicit an underage person.

See your point but how about this...

attempted murder vs murder? With the former you're displaying intent and therefore get charged.....no one dies though.


hmmmm?

[RBP]

See your point but how about this...

attempted murder vs murder? With the former you display intent and therefore get charged.....no one dies though.

hmmmm?

If he misses the cooter then it's the same thing, otherwise no. :lol:

[Hal-9000]

:lol: not a good answer..


Ok how about this....You take out a contract on your ex wife. You are actively seeking someone to kill her and you'll pay for the service. Cops somehow get wind of it, you get set up meeting an undercover cop and agree that he'll cap your ex wife for $109.89 (your current bank balance). You pay him and he slaps the cuffs on you...


No one was killed, no hitman was hired, your ex wife was never in danger. You paid a cop and now you're in jail for attempted murder. It was a thought crime only...no?

[Hal-9000]

A man is in a study with one door and one window, both are locked from the inside. The man is found dead and it's not a suicide.

There's a feather on the floor, under one of the chair's legs. How did he die???????









:oops: :oops: :oops: sorry, got carried away there....please ignore

[deebakes]

no :hand:

[deebakes]

he clearly fluffed himself to death :hand:

[RBP]

:lol: not a good answer..

Ok how about this....You take out a contract on your ex wife. You are actively seeking someone to kill her and you'll pay for the service. Cops somehow get wind of it, you get set up meeting an undercover cop and agree that he'll cap your ex wife for $109.89 (your current bank balance). You pay him and he slaps the cuffs on you...

No one was killed, no hitman was hired, your ex wife was never in danger. You paid a cop and now you're in jail for attempted murder. It was a thought crime only...no?

No, because you actually solicited someone to kill someone, and that's illegal. It's like prostitution stings, I don't like them, think they are entrapment, but at least you actually solicited someone for sex.

Same thing with attempted murder, you actually tried to murder someone.

If you never have contact with an underage person, you can't have solicited one. These cases rarely even get tried. TCAP's record for convictions is horrible.

[deebakes]

why didn't they just choose to use rbp's hooker whisperer skills? :-k

[RBP]

why didn't they just choose to use rbp's hooker whisperer skills? :-k

I try not to do the underage ones. 8-[

[Hal-9000]

No, because you actually solicited someone to kill someone, and that's illegal. It's like prostitution stings, I don't like them, think they are entrapment, but at least you actually solicited someone for sex.

Same thing with attempted murder, you actually tried to murder someone.

If you never have contact with an underage person, you can't have solicited one. These cases rarely even get tried. TCAP's record for convictions is horrible.

So even the idea that a person tried to solicit sex with a minor, while actually communicating with a police officer, isn't the same as my contracted killer scenario? I think it is ....





you wanted to kill your ex...

pervo wanted to fuck an underage child...


in both cases the communication would be with a police officer

[deebakes]

I try not to do the underage ones. 8-[

that makes one of us :tup:

[deebakes]

So even the idea that a person tried to solicit sex with a minor, while actually communicating with a police officer, isn't the same as my contracted killer scenario? I think it is ....





you wanted to kill your ex...

pervo wanted to fuck an underage child...


in both cases the communication would be with a police officer

too many words... why did he punch the store clerk in the face now? :-k

[Hal-9000]

Let me put it in more black and white terms...

Pervo is online and contacts 'Jimmy'. Jimmy is actually the vice squad. The vice squad tells pervo that he's 10, his parents are out and he wants some company.

As with your prostitution example, there never really is a prostitute when the john is talking to a chick cop dressed like a hooker...

nes pas?

[deebakes]

Let me put it in more black and white terms...


http://i.imgur.com/aRiJw.gif

[RBP]

Let me put it in more black and white terms...

Pervo is online and contacts 'Jimmy'. Jimmy is actually the vice squad. The vice squad tells pervo that he's 10, his parents are out and he wants some company.

As with your prostitution example, there never really is a prostitute when the john is talking to a chick cop dressed like a hooker...

nes pas?

Yes but the law is solicitation for sex (anyone) versus solicitation of an underage person.

[Hal-9000]

You're still not helping me understand :(

Do you think that there's actually 30, 40, 50 yr old males/females who want to meet strangers, kids under 12...for a nice game of catch in the park? Maybe see a movie together? :lol:

I can't see the sticking point or the line, where one example differs from the other?


Going back to your previous post - If you've never had contact with a minor......Wouldn't contacting them by phone or online be considered contact? I'm missing something here I know, but the kiddie pervs in general, not necessarily from this particular story, must have made some sort of initial contact, even if the cops set up a website called Kids R Us and the dude logs on and creates a user name...

[Hal-9000]

I gotta roll RBP dude, please continue in my absence :lol:

[RBP]

You're still not helping me understand :(

Do you think that there's actually 30, 40, 50 yr old males/females who want to meet strangers, kids under 12...for a nice game of catch in the park? Maybe see a movie together? :lol:

I can't see the sticking point or the line, where one example differs from the other?


Going back to your previous post - If you've never had contact with a minor......Wouldn't contacting them by phone or online be considered contact? I'm missing something here I know, but the kiddie pervs in general, not necessarily from this particular story, must have made some sort of initial contact, even if the cops set up a website called Kids R Us and the dude logs on and creates a user name...

I just think that you take someone with a predisposition that may never ever have an opportunity or the balls to actually act on it, and you lure them in like only an adult can.

I mean how many young teen girls knowingly invite middle aged men over? It's an absurdity that may have no basis in reality that is just used to corral the ignorant.

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm not quoting everything.

In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. It's an assault with the intent to kill another (physical assault is a crime in and of itself, unless we're talking self-defense in most jurisdictions). Attempted murder has the same legal components of murder, except the act hasn't reached it's intended conclusion, in other words, fail... nobody died.

There's a big argument regarding pedophile stings and entrapment. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. Law enforcement pushing for the sale of drugs then busting the purchaser after his snap decision to buy... if they weren't aggressively pushing the drugs, would the buyer have actually gone through with the purchase? Can you prove that someone intended to do something when someone else is aggressively pushing that someone to do it? If the undercover "prostitute" offers sex, it's entrapment, but if he or she is solicited for sex without having ever mentioned it before the solicitation, therein lies the guilty mind and act. Does police setting up a sting to catch a pedophile soliciting minors for underage sex while the officers are pretending to be underage constitute entrapment? It really depends. Furthermore, if it's done online, can law enforcement prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that it was the suspect in question behind the keyboard?

A man looking for someone to kill his wife hasn't been convinced to kill his wife by the killer for hire... he decided to seek out the killer for hire for the precise reason of ending her life, which he had already decided to end prior to seeking out the killer. The crimes here are solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I'm not quoting everything.

Do it! :x

[RBP]

I'm not quoting everything.

In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. It's an assault with the intent to kill another (physical assault is a crime in and of itself, unless we're talking self-defense in most jurisdictions). Attempted murder has the same legal components of murder, except the act hasn't reached it's intended conclusion, in other words, fail... nobody died.

There's a big argument regarding pedophile stings and entrapment. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. Law enforcement pushing for the sale of drugs then busting the purchaser after his snap decision to buy... if they weren't aggressively pushing the drugs, would the buyer have actually gone through with the purchase? Can you prove that someone intended to do something when someone else is aggressively pushing that someone to do it? If the undercover "prostitute" offers sex, it's entrapment, but if he or she is solicited for sex without having ever mentioned it before the solicitation, therein lies the guilty mind and act. Does police setting up a sting to catch a pedophile soliciting minors for underage sex while the officers are pretending to be underage constitute entrapment? It really depends. Furthermore, if it's done online, can law enforcement prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that it was the suspect in question behind the keyboard?

A man looking for someone to kill his wife hasn't been convinced to kill his wife by the killer for hire... he decided to seek out the killer for hire for the precise reason of ending her life, which he had already decided to end prior to seeking out the killer. The crimes here are solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder.

well said.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

too many words... why did he punch the store clerk in the face now? :-k

:tup:


He warned her

[Muddy]

The Pre-cogs.

[Hal-9000]

I'm not quoting everything.

In the United States, attempted murder is when one physically tries to kill someone. It's an assault with the intent to kill another (physical assault is a crime in and of itself, unless we're talking self-defense in most jurisdictions). Attempted murder has the same legal components of murder, except the act hasn't reached it's intended conclusion, in other words, fail... nobody died.

There's a big argument regarding pedophile stings and entrapment. Entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. Law enforcement pushing for the sale of drugs then busting the purchaser after his snap decision to buy... if they weren't aggressively pushing the drugs, would the buyer have actually gone through with the purchase? Can you prove that someone intended to do something when someone else is aggressively pushing that someone to do it? If the undercover "prostitute" offers sex, it's entrapment, but if he or she is solicited for sex without having ever mentioned it before the solicitation, therein lies the guilty mind and act. Does police setting up a sting to catch a pedophile soliciting minors for underage sex while the officers are pretending to be underage constitute entrapment? It really depends. Furthermore, if it's done online, can law enforcement prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that it was the suspect in question behind the keyboard?

A man looking for someone to kill his wife hasn't been convinced to kill his wife by the killer for hire... he decided to seek out the killer for hire for the precise reason of ending her life, which he had already decided to end prior to seeking out the killer. The crimes here are solicitation and conspiracy to commit murder.

EXACTLY MY POINT.....intent is there in both cases, murder for hire and solicitation

[DemonGeminiX]

EXACTLY MY POINT.....intent is there in both cases, murder for hire and solicitation

No, you said before that it was a thought crime. That's not true. Actively seeking someone out to commit a crime in exchange for goods or services is the criminal act (solicitation), in and of itself. You have to actively physically seek someone out and follow through with the transaction for it to be a crime. If all the person did was think it, but never physically sought out the killer for hire, never acted on the thought, then there is no crime. If it was purely a thought crime, then we'd all be guilty of it, because we've all had moments in our lives when we were so pissed off at someone that the thought crossed our minds that we would like to see them dead. And then you have Minority Report come to life. And Tom Cruise running around after his own eyeballs that are rolling all over the floor.

[Hal-9000]

No, you said before that it was a thought crime. That's not true. Actively seeking someone out to commit a crime in exchange for goods or services is the criminal act (solicitation), in and of itself. You have to actively physically seek someone out and follow through with the transaction for it to be a crime. If all the person did was think it, but never physically sought out the killer for hire, never acted on the thought, then there is no crime. If it was purely a thought crime, then we'd all be guilty of it, because we've all had moments in our lives when we were so pissed off at someone that the thought crossed our minds that we would like to see them dead. And then you have Minority Report come to life. And Tom Cruise running around after his own eyeballs that are rolling all over the floor.

omg :facepalm:


I may have used the term but explained in more than one post about pedos going online, actively seeking kids. That was the whole point of my discussion with RBP.

I never once used the example of a perv sitting in his living room just daydreaming about the act ...he goes online or has contact on the phone, said that for sure...


ffs :lol:

[Hugh_Janus]

his head is like an upside down egg :rofl:

[Hal-9000]

I used the word thought crime in one post, completely describing a different scenario than trolling for kiddies...

all other posts talk about contact with the alleged child, ie the cops....

:thumbsup: yay hal

[RBP]

I wouldn't give a suicidal person a gun and expect them not to shoot it.

[Hal-9000]

I wouldn't give a suicidal person a gun and expect them not to shoot it.

Is that really comparable to a pedophile online searching for children and getting stung by the police?

Apples and bananas mon frere...

[RBP]

Is that really comparable to a pedophile online searching for children and getting stung by the police?

Apples and bananas mon frere...


I do think it's comparable. How did you smoke weed the first time?

[Hal-9000]

My sister invited me but it turned out she and all of her friends were cops and I got stung....:sad2:



:lol: I can't remember, please tell me the tie in

[DemonGeminiX]

omg :facepalm:


I may have used the term but explained in more than one post about pedos going online, actively seeking kids. That was the whole point of my discussion with RBP.

I never once used the example of a perv sitting in his living room just daydreaming about the act ...he goes online or has contact on the phone, said that for sure...


ffs :lol:

Ok, back to the original discussion regarding the stings. You've got Joe Fuckhead trolling chatrooms that have gone out of style before 2002, looking for a kid to have sex with. You've got John Q. Law pretending to be Rosie Teenybottom and he lets Joe F. control the conversation. Joe F. moves it towards sex, moves it to his desires, and a "date" is set up. Joe F. shows up and gets busted.

Let's think about this: Different states have different laws on the book regarding sexual solicitation of a minor. Some of the wiggle room began with the idea that the early laws said that the solicitation had to be with a minor, period. Some fuckheads got off with the argument that John Q. Law wasn't an actual minor, and some people have a real problem with the fact that it is indeed true that John Q. Law is not a minor. Joe Fuckhead gets in contact with an actual minor, is the minor dumb enough to actually set up a date with Joe Fuckhead? Does it really happen? Did the duo in this article have a chance in hell of the little girl actually setting up a date with them? In that respect, was Joe Fuckhead's civil rights being violated?

Later refinements of the law said that sexual solicitation of a minor was with someone identifying themselves as a minor, a big difference opening the door for John Q. Law to catch a whole mess of fuckheads. Contrary to popular belief, if someone point blank asks John Q. Law if he or she is a police officer, they do NOT have to tell you. John Q. Law can lie to your face about them being law enforcement. They can use whatever psychological tactics they have at their disposal to get you to reveal evidence of your crime to them. They do not have to tell you the truth at all.

Now, again... is this fair? Would Joe Fuckhead actually get a date with a bona fide minor? Would the kid be that brave/stupid to invite a complete and total stranger that they know are after sex with them to their house or whatever arrangement that could be made? Some people argue no, and therefore the sting is a purely adult maneuver. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Again, another point: If the Fuckheads refuse to admit their actual reason for being there when they show up. "I was just knocking to ask for directions because I'm lost". In that case, they use logs of chats to prove the guilty mind. But, what if there's no definitive personally identifiable information? Can you prove that it was actually Joe Fuckhead behind the keyboard? How do you know it wasn't someone else spoofing Joe F's IP address. How do you know Joe F. isn't some fantastic hacker with the skills to hide his tracks so well that the chat logs couldn't possibly be admissible in a court of law?

In some respects, allowing this could possibly lead to some really scary legal precedents that could conceivably violate people's civil rights in other ways. It could possibly turn into a slippery slope. Things are not exactly that cut and dry now that we're knee deep in the digital age.

Personally, I think it's best that the Joe Fuckheads are behind bars, but I have to acknowledge the possible ramifications of the tactics being used to put them there.

[RBP]

My sister invited me but it turned out she and all of her friends were cops and I got stung....:sad2:

:lol: I can't remember, please tell me the tie in

If you weren't offered it the first time you may never have started.

[Muddy]

Can we whore this bitch yet? God damn I keep checking back and seeing all this SD in here.. :lol:

[Hal-9000]

Ok, back to the original discussion regarding the stings. You've got Joe Fuckhead trolling chatrooms that have gone out of style before 2002, looking for a kid to have sex with. You've got John Q. Law pretending to be Rosie Teenybottom and he lets Joe F. control the conversation. Joe F. moves it towards sex, moves it to his desires, and a "date" is set up. Joe F. shows up and gets busted.

Let's think about this: Different states have different laws on the book regarding sexual solicitation of a minor. Some of the wiggle room began with the idea that the early laws said that the solicitation had to be with a minor, period. Some fuckheads got off with the argument that John Q. Law wasn't an actual minor, and some people have a real problem with the fact that it is indeed true that John Q. Law is not a minor. Joe Fuckhead gets in contact with an actual minor, is the minor dumb enough to actually set up a date with Joe Fuckhead? Does it really happen? Did the duo in this article have a chance in hell of the little girl actually setting up a date with them? In that respect, was Joe Fuckhead's civil rights being violated?

Later refinements of the law said that sexual solicitation of a minor was with someone identifying themselves as a minor, a big difference opening the door for John Q. Law to catch a whole mess of fuckheads. Contrary to popular belief, if someone point blank asks John Q. Law if he or she is a police officer, they do NOT have to tell you. John Q. Law can lie to your face about them being law enforcement. They can use whatever psychological tactics they have at their disposal to get you to reveal evidence of your crime to them. They do not have to tell you the truth at all.

Now, again... is this fair? Would Joe Fuckhead actually get a date with a bona fide minor? Would the kid be that brave/stupid to invite a complete and total stranger that they know are after sex with them to their house or whatever arrangement that could be made? Some people argue no, and therefore the sting is a purely adult maneuver. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Again, another point: If the Fuckheads refuse to admit their actual reason for being there when they show up. "I was just knocking to ask for directions because I'm lost". In that case, they use logs of chats to prove the guilty mind. But, what if there's no definitive personally identifiable information? Can you prove that it was actually Joe Fuckhead behind the keyboard? How do you know it wasn't someone else spoofing Joe F's IP address. How do you know Joe F. isn't some fantastic hacker with the skills to hide his tracks so well that the chat logs couldn't possibly be admissible in a court of law?

In some respects, allowing this could possibly lead to some really scary legal precedents that could conceivably violate people's civil rights in other ways. It could possibly turn into a slippery slope. Things are not exactly that cut and dry now that we're knee deep in the digital age.

Personally, I think it's best that the Joe Fuckheads are behind bars, but I have to acknowledge the possible ramifications of the tactics being used to put them there.

Love it, excellent post.

My contention is/was and always will be that when Joe Fuckhead takes that first step to secure contact with a minor, whatever that step may be...he's committed the crime already. Since the act itself is illegal, anything the cops do after that point is fine by me. They can call themselves Rosie Teenybottom (:lol:), they can lie about their age, hell they can even dress a 20 yr old up in pigtails and a Hello Kitty dress....

I hear (and have read) the various workarounds these dickwads try and do in terms of letter of the law (asking for directions etc), but the main point is that John Smith arranged a date with Rosie at this place, at this time...and he should be held accountable.

And that goes back to my first comment to RBP, stings should be a viable method to catch crooks. To be blunt...I'm not the guy on that site, chatting with 'Rosie' so I will never, ever have anything to worry about in that regard. Joe Pedo however....

[Hal-9000]

If you weren't offered it the first time you may never have started.

wow, I can't even comment on how different that situation is compared to pedophilia...and really can't believe you posted it :lol:

So if I've never desired sex with an 8 year old girl, if someone enabled me...I would or might? No. These guys are actively seeking the hook up, let's not lose focus.

[RBP]

Ok, back to the original discussion regarding the stings. You've got Joe Fuckhead trolling chatrooms that have gone out of style before 2002, looking for a kid to have sex with. You've got John Q. Law pretending to be Rosie Teenybottom and he lets Joe F. control the conversation. Joe F. moves it towards sex, moves it to his desires, and a "date" is set up. Joe F. shows up and gets busted.

Let's think about this: Different states have different laws on the book regarding sexual solicitation of a minor. Some of the wiggle room began with the idea that the early laws said that the solicitation had to be with a minor, period. Some fuckheads got off with the argument that John Q. Law wasn't an actual minor, and some people have a real problem with the fact that it is indeed true that John Q. Law is not a minor. Joe Fuckhead gets in contact with an actual minor, is the minor dumb enough to actually set up a date with Joe Fuckhead? Does it really happen? Did the duo in this article have a chance in hell of the little girl actually setting up a date with them? In that respect, was Joe Fuckhead's civil rights being violated?

Later refinements of the law said that sexual solicitation of a minor was with someone identifying themselves as a minor, a big difference opening the door for John Q. Law to catch a whole mess of fuckheads. Contrary to popular belief, if someone point blank asks John Q. Law if he or she is a police officer, they do NOT have to tell you. John Q. Law can lie to your face about them being law enforcement. They can use whatever psychological tactics they have at their disposal to get you to reveal evidence of your crime to them. They do not have to tell you the truth at all.

Now, again... is this fair? Would Joe Fuckhead actually get a date with a bona fide minor? Would the kid be that brave/stupid to invite a complete and total stranger that they know are after sex with them to their house or whatever arrangement that could be made? Some people argue no, and therefore the sting is a purely adult maneuver. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Again, another point: If the Fuckheads refuse to admit their actual reason for being there when they show up. "I was just knocking to ask for directions because I'm lost". In that case, they use logs of chats to prove the guilty mind. But, what if there's no definitive personally identifiable information? Can you prove that it was actually Joe Fuckhead behind the keyboard? How do you know it wasn't someone else spoofing Joe F's IP address. How do you know Joe F. isn't some fantastic hacker with the skills to hide his tracks so well that the chat logs couldn't possibly be admissible in a court of law?

In some respects, allowing this could possibly lead to some really scary legal precedents that could conceivably violate people's civil rights in other ways. It could possibly turn into a slippery slope. Things are not exactly that cut and dry now that we're knee deep in the digital age.

Personally, I think it's best that the Joe Fuckheads are behind bars, but I have to acknowledge the possible ramifications of the tactics being used to put them there.

Nicely done again.

[Hal-9000]

Rosie Teenybottom actually made me laugh for the first time in a very long morning....:thumbsup: