Case dismissed by police, but not by the public

[proud2BlibKansan]

By Chris Colgin

The Dallas Morning News

(MCT)

DALLAS - Two years ago, Tommy Cison, a 21-year-old living at his parents' home, entered a Minnesota chat room.

He met "lizzie_luvs_fun_ mpls," who claimed to be a 13-year-old girl but was actually a Perverted Justice volunteer. They chatted online for about 30 minutes.

Those 30 minutes changed the lives of Cison and his family forever.

When Cison agreed to meet the girl at a mall, a news crew from KSTP-TV (Channel 5), the Minneapolis ABC affiliate, secretly videotaped him waiting for "lizzie" - who didn't show.

more . . .
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/15507479.htm

[plcdude]

1. and so your point is?

Should this have been dismissed? Has the public been harmed by this dismissal? Is chatting and meeting someone a violation of law? What?

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Sounds like vigilante justice to me

Did you read the article?

[aikoaiko]

13. read it for yourself and decide.

(disclaimer) I'm not 100% sure this is him, but I think it is.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?archive=pharaohblue

pharaohblue = Tommy
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls = Perverted Justice adult posing as 13 yr old.

The parts in parentheses after the dialogue is the cynical comments by the adult posing as the child. The meet-up at the mall must happen on the phone because its not in this text. I'd want to know about this guy. I wouldn't break the law, but I'd want to know. I'm not sure if it is against the law to say to someone who carried on this chat what you think of them, but I might do that too.

pharaohblue (7:36:01 PM): hi
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:36:05 PM): hih
pharaohblue (7:36:15 PM): how r u?
pharaohblue (7:37:15 PM): are you really 13?
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:37:28 PM): yep lol
pharaohblue (7:37:36 PM): wow, you look a lot older than that (Why do they always say this? Are they trying to convice themselves? The girl in the photo has braces and pigtails, for Chrissakes.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:38:16 PM): tyvm
pharaohblue (7:38:49 PM): well you are very beautiful
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:39:06 PM): tyvm
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:39:09 PM): u got a pic
pharaohblue (7:39:44 PM): in my profile
pharaohblue (7:41:08 PM): tell me what u think
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:41:16 PM): lookin
pharaohblue (7:42:56 PM): did u see it?
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:43:07 PM): yea u cute lol (Eh...One little white lie never killed anyone.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:43:11 PM): alabama w00t!
pharaohblue (7:43:23 PM): lol nice
pharaohblue (7:45:02 PM): so what do you do for fun?? (Fishing much?)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:45:17 PM): u know whatever school mall and stuff
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:45:25 PM): no money no license
pharaohblue (7:45:54 PM): lol i hear that
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:46:49 PM): :P
pharaohblue (7:46:50 PM): so what are you doin in an adult chat? (Whoa. Hold up there, Sparky. Try standard regional. Beefy don't play dat.)
pharaohblue (7:47:32 PM): i mean you lookin for older guys?? lol (Aren't we always?)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:48:24 PM): not adult chat lol
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:48:32 PM): i cant get in there
pharaohblue (7:48:38 PM): well true (Dumbass.)
pharaohblue (7:48:47 PM): so what do you look for in a guy, or arent y ou lookin for guys yet?? (Well, I mostly look for nice eyes, a cute smile, and a desire to date people who aren't in Junior High. So, you don't qualify, fuck-knuckle.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:49:05 PM): i dunno cute smart fun
pharaohblue (7:49:12 PM): nice, thas all me lol (Ooh! And MODEST, too!)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:49:44 PM): awesome
pharaohblue (7:49:49 PM): so ur from minneapolis??
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:50:12 PM): yep
pharaohblue (7:50:21 PM): where abouts in minneapoils?
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:50:27 PM): robbinsdale
pharaohblue (7:50:32 PM): reallly?
pharaohblue (7:50:39 PM): thats like 15 20 minuts not even from me lol (How convenient for you. I can see the wheels turning already.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:50:53 PM): that aint too bad
pharaohblue (7:51:05 PM): not one bit
pharaohblue (7:51:33 PM): so do you like guys ur age, or older men?? (Again, with the "older guys" bit.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:52:11 PM): i like men not boys lol
pharaohblue (7:52:26 PM): well im a man definitly
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:52:31 PM): im sure u are lol
pharaohblue (7:52:41 PM): i am, im all man (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You mean some people actually SAY this?!?)
pharaohblue (7:52:45 PM): you should meet me lol (Thanks for suggesting that. Y'know...Just in case you try to deny it was your idea later, or something. That NEVER happens.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:52:47 PM): ooh babie lol
pharaohblue (7:53:22 PM): you wanna meet me lol???
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:54:19 PM): :)
pharaohblue (7:54:30 PM): is that a yes??
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:55:01 PM): i dont see whay nott
pharaohblue (7:55:09 PM): sweet
pharaohblue (7:55:09 PM): lol
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:55:27 PM): u cute
pharaohblue (7:55:34 PM): well i try to be
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:55:54 PM): u succeed
pharaohblue (7:56:08 PM): score, i did something right for once (Well, not exactly...)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:56:18 PM): heeheehee
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:56:28 PM): u did somethin right lol (Right for ME, maybe. You might come to regret it.)
pharaohblue (7:56:32 PM): yes
pharaohblue (7:57:49 PM): sweet, so you a thong type gurl or not into that yet (Lovely.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:58:39 PM): no i like thongs (I thing thongth all the time! La, la, la!)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:58:40 PM): lol
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:58:44 PM): no vpls
pharaohblue (7:58:55 PM): vpls??
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:59:03 PM): visibel panty lines
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (7:59:11 PM): lol
pharaohblue (7:59:14 PM): i c, lol, thats good
pharaohblue (7:59:51 PM): so thongs are all you wear than? (Yep. That's it. Just thongs. By themselves. To school. It makes third period English a little uncomfortable, but, Phy. Ed. is a breeze!)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:00:01 PM): pretty much
pharaohblue (8:00:05 PM): kick ass
pharaohblue (8:00:50 PM): would you show em off to me, like model em?? lol (I have not the words.)
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:00:59 PM): heehee
pharaohblue (8:01:29 PM): is that a yes?
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:01:51 PM): if ur a good boy
pharaohblue (8:01:57 PM): im always a good boy
pharaohblue (8:02:03 PM): i stay on my best behaviour all the time (Except, y'know, those instances where you try to solicit little kids on the internet. Most might consider that a smidgen naughty.)
pharaohblue (8:03:28 PM): hey whats ur number, cuz maybe i could call you?? (Nice try.)
pharaohblue (8:04:14 PM): oh im thomas by the way
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:04:25 PM): u got a webcam
pharaohblue (8:04:36 PM): umm, i do, buts its not hooked up
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:04:43 PM): can u hook it up?
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:04:47 PM): :)
pharaohblue (8:05:15 PM): well not now, i gotta run, so i was wonderin if i could get ur # to call you in like 20 minutes??
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:05:30 PM): my moms got caller id but I can call u if u want
pharaohblue (8:05:40 PM): k call in like 15 minutes k
pharaohblue (8:05:46 PM): 763-757-4943 (Called, and confirmed.)
pharaohblue (8:05:49 PM): ask for tommy (You heard the man.)
pharaohblue (8:05:52 PM): i should answer though
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:05:53 PM): k
lizzie_luvs_fun_mpls (8:05:54 PM): i will
pharaohblue (8:05:59 PM): c ya htne

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. So is it now against the law to talk on the internet?

The guy did nothing wrong. Sleazy - yes. Illegal - no.

[aikoaiko]

22. Apparently you didn't read the article -- no charge was filed.

So no, chatting on the internet is not illegal. Citizens are not throwing this guy in jail.

But it is still within citizens' rights to post the info, read the info, and talk to others about the event if they wish. This includes talking or communicating with the Tommy character. It is illegal to threaten or harrass and no one should do that.

A little social ostracism is not a bad thing in some cases.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. LOL I posted the article so yes I did read it

This guy is being penalized for talking on the internet. That is his 'crime'. Go back and read it again and tell me what he did that was illegal that warrants this harrasment.

[aikoaiko]

26. I think you're confusing legal consequences with social consequences.

This person has received no legal consequences. Therefore when you rhetorically ask "so talking on the internet is against the law" -- its really a silly question. Of course it isn't and no legal consequences were incurred.

Tommy Cisson is experiencing other types of social consequences including pariahism, condemnation, and yes, even harassment and threats (which, depending on what was said, may be illegal and, if they are, I don't condone). But there is nothing wrong with telling a person what you think of them (aside from any harassment or threats) because of what they did. I don't see any denial from him or his family that the chat is a misrepresentation.

You don't have to do anything illegal in order to be shunned or ostracized. There is no right to liked or befriended by your neighborhood.

He asked her if she (ostensibly a 13 year old) liked guys her own age or older men.

He asked her if she would like to meet him.

He asked her about the type of underwear she wears.

He asked her to show her underwear to him -- to model them.

He asked her for her phone number, they talked (but we don't know what was said, but a meetup is set up), and then he goes to meet her.

I would tell this dude, I think he is pervert and should stay away from my family. If he feels bad because it -- so be it.

[Kagemusha]

29. I just hope they never stray from real targets

I also... do not regard the posting of chat logs with snide comments interspersed with actual dialogue to be sound practice but whatever, that's PR, not evidence in a court of law. But the world has enough trouble without witch hunts.

As I said elsewhere though, I've heard a lot of bad excuses by perverts and those genuinely caught trying to pull underage girls into their complexes don't deserve sympathy. That appears to be the case with this particular story.

[aikoaiko]

31. Agreed.

Witch hunts can be terrible things. Even in this situation, there could have been others in the communuty with the same name, the address could have been outdated, etc. This is how bad things happen. Its important for the community to stay within the law.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. There is no reason to penalize his family

I also believe we should respect law enforcement and trust them to do their jobs.

[aikoaiko]

32. Sure, but we (you and me) were talking about Tommy Cison.

I see you are no longer talking about him. I probably wouldn't say anything to the other family members especially if he was out of their house. If he was still in the hosue, I might ask a parent why their 21 year old son is chatting that way with an ostensible 13 year old.

The article didn't report what events she found intimidating, harassing, and threatening so we don't know what was said or done. I don't support anyone doing anything illegal to the family or even the apparent pervert.

The report didn't say if any charges were filed against anyone for intimidating, harassing, and threatening the family, (so lets assume there hasn't been) so are you willing to cut those people the same slack you cut the pervert because no charges appear to have been filed?

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. No I thought we were talking about perverted justice

which has targeted his family.

[aikoaiko]

34. Its not clear what info was posted, who posted it, or its context.

I tried to look for it on the PJ site but you have to a registered member to get to the forums.

You are disowning your own posts. You posted the article without comment, someone asked what your point was, you said it was vigiante justice, I posted the chat dialogue from PJ, you posted "So is it now against the law to talk on the internet?", and I talked about the appropriateness of ostracism, you posted "tell me what he did that was illegal that warrants this harrasment?", and I posted about social consequencess, and then you replied to me about the family not being penalized. No where before that did you mention the treatment of the family before that.

It really doens't matter what Tommy Cisson did, no one should do anything illegal to the family. Even if Tommy were a convicted sexual predator, his family should NOT be intiimdated, harrassed, or threatened. But that doesn't mean people can't talk to them about it, either.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Since when it is a rule that you have to comment on an article?

The only thing this guy did was talk on the internet. It was a gross conversation but still not illegal. I already pointed out that the parents of the young girls who these types of predators are trying to attract do have a responsibility to know what their kids are doing on the internet. I find more fault with them in many of these cases. Supervision would prevent most 13 year old girls from meeting men on the internet, would it not?

I would prefer not having a big brother society where people are arrested or even accused for what they MIGHT do.

[Kagemusha]

4. I guess it hinges on the "claiming to be 13" part.

If that's basically the only thing the 21 year old guy knew about "her" then well, it's entirely possible that he was indeed interested in a relationship with an underage girl that would strike the public as a statutory rape waiting to happen.

Assuming that's all on the level.

Edit: Just to not have to post twice to reply to post #3 - ok, if the guy had been meeting her with explicit promises of sex (i.e. statutory rape of someone not legally authorized to consent under criminal law) then that might expose him to criminal charges, particularly if it was a sting operation by police and not by a private group (which could say, tamper with logs of chat rooms to implicate the target).

Just arranging a meeting to "meet in real life" isn't a crime because it's not soliciting a minor for sex over the internet or whatever. It may lead to the same place. It may not. In this day and age, it might be damned stupid, even if the 21 year old had no ill intent. OTOH not everyone who commits statutory rape has any ill intent whatsoever but that doesn't stop them from being locked away for a decade because society is horrified at what they are not horrified at.

[whistle]

6. Sounds like thought crimes, all part of the Patriot Act mentality

[Kagemusha]

10. Yeah but still. Above age of consent males after underage girls...

It's hard for a reasonable person to believe that such solicitation is not for the purpose of sex and is not for the purpose of sex that is statutory rape. Because that's something that happens a LOT. Sometimes it's caught and charges filed and people put away for a damn long time behind bars. It's hard for a reasonable person to believe that a man (not a boy, a man) would solicit a 13 year old online if it wasn't for sex because that's how it's going to look like to everyone if it ever comes out so, why take such risks if there's not some "reward" looming? It's hard for people to separate the solicitation from the act because in real life, the two are so closely and regularly intertwined.

But anyway, it's all for naught unless the guilt is real and provable in a court of law before a jury of one's peers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. But he didn't commit a crime

You can't convict anyone for what you think they might do.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Yes that's what I thought as well

[aikoaiko]

17. deleted (see post 13, above, for the actual chat)

deleted. I didn't need to repost it.

[mainegreen]

3. Some people just like a public lynching.

It's an american tradition. If the police found no evidence of a crime, and chose not to persue charges, more than likely there was no crime. Is it a crime for an adult to talk to minors? Evidently these people think so. I guess I better stop saying hello to the neighbors children when I see them.

Why is american heading in the direction of pre-crime? I guess Phillip K. Dick was more right than he guessed.

[acmejack]

20. That's the shame of it. I am afraid to be nice to a kid.

I am afraid to smile at a little girl, talk to a young boy. Will people think I am a grandfatherly figure or a possible child predator. It is easier to remain aloof and ignore the cute little kid than be taken for a pedophile.

[aikoaiko]

28. I understand, but you don't have to worry much about being nice to a kid.

But you should worry if you ask a 13 year old if she likes older guys, what type of underwear she wears, whether she would model that underwear for you, and then set up a meeting. Thats what this guy did.

Having said that, I completely understand and empathize with your lament over the chilling effect on normal, friendly behavior.

[whistle]

5. Perverted-Justice is a faith-based government funded enterprise

...which uses collection agency tactics to entrap and then blackmail suspected child molesters and their relatives. All part of the Christian fascist movement in this country. PeeJ has its own type of perversions, it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverted-Justice.com

[Kagemusha]

8. Though it'd be fun to call the org name a double entendre...

...the stuff in that Wiki is just thin. It's not enough that I, not a fan of entrapment, not a fan of police abuse, not a fan of vigilantism, can fairly say that there's evidence that this group is routinely entrapping and blackmailing suspected child molesters and their relatives.

I've spent a lot of time online in the last decade and I know ALL ABOUT the sorry excuses pedophiles make. I am not impressed by them. The "blackmail" part of your post does concern me but, based on the facts available to me, I just cannot hold their being faith-based against them, because the results are not sufficiently damning to judge the effort to be a crock and a scam.

[whistle]

11. Oh, there is a website, but you had better have firewalls in place

....before you sign on because PeeJ could get your internet ID especially if they are working with NSA.

[Kagemusha]

12. The NSA can get that ID any time it feels like it, you know

As for PeeJ, it's not my fight. I wish I had the luxury of believing online perverts to be my biggest problem in life. I spend my time discussing Al Qaeda, ripping up the Bill of Rights and the insurgency in Iraq. This stuff's strictly small time to me.

[aikoaiko]

7. It is as it should be.

Except for anyone breaking the law when contacting them (e.g., harrassment, threats, actual violence, vandalism, etc).

It takes a village sometimes.

I'll see if anything can be found on pj

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. It the fucking POLICE saw no evidence of crime, they should back off

and at the very least take personal information off their website.

Perverted Justice. How involuntarily accurate.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Just bad parents

All these people who go to extreme lengths to "protect the children" are just bad parents who are incompetent to protect their own children.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. I wonder why they can't just keep their kids off the internet

I know if my kids were young (they are in their 20s now) there is no way they would be allowed to surf the net and meet predators. We didn't have cable TV when they were young because we didn't want them exposed to what we felt were inappropriate shows for kids. Sure it was inconvenient for hubby and I but who ever said being a parent was supposed to be a convenience?

This blows my mind. Instead of protecting their kids by keeping them off the internet, they go on a witch hunt. How about just being a good parent? Sheesh :eyes:

[CBGLuthier]

15. This is where they started to cross the line

She went to the Web site and was surprised to find her home address, her home phone number and other personal information about two of her sons, her daughter, her husband and herself posted in the "follow-up forum" section.



If they want to harrass the shit out of the guy they chatted with that is one thing. But to drag his entire family into it is wrong wrong wrong.

Also, from my reading of this, it says he agreed to meet her.

Makes me wonder whose idea it was to meet.

Perverted Justice may seem to have lofty goals but their methods are suspect as all hell.

[aikoaiko]

16. True if its PJ that posted the info

For example, it might have been the paper that published his full name, and then its just a matter of public record/zabasearch to find him.

I don't think PJ publishes full names or addresses.

[NashVegas]

23. Way Across The Line

I can sympathize with PJ's goals; if it crosses a line, but not a legal one, the family should take it upon themselves to persuade PJ to take it down.


The chat transcript shows the 21 year old leading what he thought was a giggly 13 year old into sexual conversation.

If he'd stopped it at that, he wouldn't have gotten into trouble.

Why would a 21 year old man want to meet face to face with a 13 year old? Think he wanted to give her Frisbee-throwing tips?

Sorry, but the guy IS a perv. There's no law against outing someone who'd do a 13 year old.

I'm not saying what they did was the best solution, but as long as the law isn't pressing charges, I'm not all that bothered by it. I wonder what kind of conversations took place between the 21 year old & his family, and the site's operators, when the family asked for the info to be removed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. "Perverted Justice"

Oh, the irony.