backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Avitar.. on Feb 11 at 11:29 PM


A booking picture of Mr. Stancl is shown here. Mr. Stancl stands accused of luring 31 male classmates into sending him sexual images and video. He is also accused of blackmailing many of these classmates to try to get them to have sex with him. He suceeded in blackmailing 7 male classmates, according to victim testimony.
Male Facebook user posed as a girl and then lured classmates into sending him nude pictures, then blackmailed them for sex

As Facebook pulls away from MySpace in terms of social networking traffic, both networks face increasing challenges trying to monitor and prevent predatory user activity.  Such cases were accentuated by the Megan Meier-MySpace suicide case and MySpace's decision to terminate 90,000 registered sex offenders from its service.  Another recent incident saw a man kill his wife over a Facebook status change.  And the online world only gets stranger.

An 18-year-old male student who resides near Milwaukee, WI is accused of perhaps the most bizarre and disturbing instances of social network sexual predation to date.  The male, who attends New Berlin Eisenhower High School in New Berlin, which is about 15 miles west of Milwaukee, is accused of using Facebook to lure 31 of his male classmates into providing him with sexually explicit materials, and then blackmailing many of them into having sex with him.

Anthony Stancl was charged Wednesday on five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat.

According to officials, Mr. Stancl posed as a girl named Kayla or Emily on Facebook.  He then lured his classmates, most of whom were underage, into sending nude video and photos to him.  He was able to then tempt over 31 of his classmates into sending such pornographic materials.

After they sent the files, over half of the male classmates admitted that Mr. Stancl's alter-ego blackmailed them, threatening to release the embarrassing photos or videos if (her) demands were not met.  The user threatened to send the photos to the male classmates' friends and post them all over the internet.

Mr. Stancl's alter-ego demanded that the boys meet with (her) "male friend" and exchange sex acts with him.  The friend, of course, was Mr. Stancl.  According to testimony, seven of the victims admit to performing sex acts on Mr. Stancl or having sex acts performed on them by Mr. Stancl.  According to the boys, Mr. Stancl took pictures on his cell phone while engaging in these acts.

When raiding his house, police discovered 300 nude images of juvenile males on his computer.  The youngest victim of sex acts was 15; the pictures included victims as young as 13-years-old.

The incidents, which started in spring 2007, finally ended in November of last year.  Mr. Stancl was brought in for questioning about a bomb threat written on bathroom walls, which he stands accused of scrawling.  The threat closed New Berlin Eisenhower Middle and High School.  After his questioning, the victims began to come forward about their disturbing experience with Mr. Stancl and his alter-ego on Facebook.

Stancl's attorney, Craig Kuhary says his client will plead not guilty, but hopes to reach a plea agreement on the charges.  He states merely, "It's too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here."

New Berlin Police Lt. Mike Glider believes there may be even more victims.  He is urging anyone Mr. Stancl contacted to come forward.

Mr. Stancl's preliminary hearing has been scheduled for February 26.  If convicted of all the charges, he could receive a maximum sentence of 300 years behind bars.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Idiots
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 11:05:29 AM , Rating: 5
Obviously this guy is an idiot, but the so-called "victims" are also idiots as well. Sorry, if someone is dumb enough to send compromising photos/videos of yourself to an unknown "girl," and then try to cover it up by agreeing to engage in sex acts... Did this guy intentionally target low IQ classmates, or what?




RE: Idiots
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/5/2009 11:10:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Did this guy intentionally target low IQ classmates, or what?


Yea, they're called teenagers.

Sure, what his victims did was stupid, but they were KIDS. Kids do lots of dumb things that adults would have the sense not to. Trying to blame the crime on its victims or even partially is ridiculous in my mind. This guy is a disgusting creep and needs to be locked away in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 11:27:43 AM , Rating: 5
I would add, many if not most adults will do stupid things. Especial if they think sex may be involved. Teenagers are more likely to be taken advantaged of verse an adult.


RE: Idiots
By mdogs444 on 2/5/2009 11:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trying to blame the crime on its victims or even partially is ridiculous in my mind. This guy is a disgusting creep and needs to be locked away in solitary confinement for the rest of his life.

Two days in a row and we agree again, Jason.

This guy should have the sexual offender label, and stick with him for the rest of his life.


RE: Idiots
By tastyratz on 2/5/2009 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
yea how about this, even I agree with you today :-p
This guy is on the worst end of the spectrum, he deserves to have the book thrown at him.

I think he will change his views however when he goes to prison and good ol "hung like an elephant trunk" bubba performs "male sex acts" on him on a regular basis.


RE: Idiots
By bhieb on 2/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By dever on 2/5/2009 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 5
Gee, don't be too harsh, Wally.

How about punishing the criminal and not worry about some pansy-xxx way of trying to track him later. Possible solutions may involve chopping off one or more of his heads.


RE: Idiots
By VaultDweller on 2/5/2009 11:29:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
they're called teenagers.

quote:
they were KIDS.


So is he.

I agree the guy is pretty sick and blaming anything on the victims is absurd, but solitary confinement for life? That's pretty absurd too, and extremely disproportionate to the crime.


RE: Idiots
By mdogs444 on 2/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Idiots
By VaultDweller on 2/5/2009 12:13:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
should not be allowed to be around any children


Dude, he's barely more than a child himself. In fact if he's 18 now and has attempted this with 31 people, I'd assume he was a minor when he started. You make it sound like he's a pedophile for targeting his own age group.


RE: Idiots
By nafhan on 2/6/2009 8:34:54 AM , Rating: 1
The fact that he's 18 actually has me worried as much as anything else about this. People with these kinds of problems don't get better with time without help, they progress into even worse behavior. If he hadn't been caught, who knows what he'd be into by the time he is 25 or 30.
As far as him targeting his own age group, the article says he had pics of a 13 year old! On top of that he's blackmailing people. This is not normal behavior (even for a teenager).


RE: Idiots
By emboss on 2/5/2009 1:15:37 PM , Rating: 5
The British tried that way back in 1770. Didn't turn out to be such a good idea in the long run :)


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 4:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I like Australia.... I think it’s a good place.


RE: Idiots
By notolerance on 2/5/2009 6:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just remember not all the convicts sent to Australia were "Sex Offenders". My background on my fathers side were convicts and were sent here - apparently as trivial as being caught stealing bread for his family... I reckon he shoulda made it worthwhile and took the stereo instead... oh, wait, scratch that!

Ironically my Mother's side were English royalty, and probably had some part in sending the poor bugger over here!

Back to the point, I think in the day most sex offenders weren't just shipped off to a distant land, at least not while they were still breathing... Off to the GALLOWS with them!!

And I agree, Australia is a good place.


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 6:25:41 PM , Rating: 4
The only real problem with Australia, is that you all have Winter at the wrong time of year. Winter is for Winter months not summer months..... :)


RE: Idiots
By overzealot on 2/5/2009 11:00:41 PM , Rating: 2
One of my ancestors got pushed here for embezzlement.
After serving his sentence, he became some politician's bookkeeper. Ironic.


RE: Idiots
By darkfoon on 2/6/2009 8:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
I used to believe the same thing about needing cities to put incurable and undesirable criminals.

However, that is essentially what the Siberian gulags were. But in that case the definition of "undesirable and incorrigible criminal" was expanded to include dissidents, homosexuals, religious dissenters, etc.

So while it's an appealing idea, the potential for abuse has already been historically demonstrated. You can not convince me that people are any better now than they were 60 years ago and would not abuse this kind of power.

(Imagine a city full of rapists, child molesters, murderers and journalists.)


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 12:06:45 PM , Rating: 1
It’s 31 cases of black mailing. This is just wrong. In these cases the black was to be paid off in homosexual activities. That’s very personal not like take money from someone, which is not right either, but money is money... It's not personal - it just sucks to lose money but better then being raped (having sex against ones will). In these cases not only were they having sex against ones will but homosexual sex. Most people on this planet are not into homosexual sex. Does not mean they care if others are into it or not, it's just not for them. Now, they have done an act which they can never clear out of their minds. This act would be against some of these if not all these 31 cases personal beliefs and/or religious beliefs. In many countries, if discovered both parties would be executed (yes, victim too).

Have no doubt, the punishment not only fits the crime but it may be a little light. Should add, the punishment fits no matter whom the victims were or would be: boys, girls, adults, elderly…


RE: Idiots
By Mojo the Monkey on 2/5/2009 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
I want to know whats going on at this guy's home. I'd bet good money on some pretty messed up circumstances. Not an excuse, but merely a prediction.


RE: Idiots
By wordsworm on 2/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Idiots
By madoka on 2/5/2009 2:24:20 PM , Rating: 5
"What planet are you on? Most of the guys I know, and plenty of the women enjoy watching and participating in homosexual sex."

Wordsworm you are an admitted PERVERT and a borderline pedophile. In the past, you've claimed that there is nothing wrong with tricking 7 year olds into watching hardcore porn. The fact that you are working with young children as a "teacher" is deeply disturbing.


RE: Idiots
By wordsworm on 2/6/2009 2:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
Intentionally exposing young children to porn via making them sit in front of a TV while a porn DVD is playing is, and should be, criminal. I have no idea what gave you the idea that I was a pedophile. Are you just trolling, or are you an idiot?

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality at all. I've known both genders - lesbians and gays - who tended to be outstanding individuals, just as I've known heterosexuals who were idiots. I'm guessing that you're one of them.


RE: Idiots
By madoka on 2/6/2009 4:46:04 AM , Rating: 2
Have you forgotten your stance on porn spam? Let me refresh your memory. You claimed it was perfectly fine for spammers to send hardcore ads to young children. Furthermore, you claimed that there was nothing wrong with children watching hardcore porn. You got negged on those posts as well. You don't seem to see that your views are twisted and certainly in the minority.


RE: Idiots
By wordsworm on 2/6/2009 6:30:57 AM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot who lacks reading comprehension. I said kids wouldn't be interested in porn spam. They simply wouldn't care. I was supporting the position that spam is a freedom of speech issue and that kids were both unlikely to get porn spam (unless they're putting their email addresses on porn sites) and unlikely to care if they did see it. If, on the other hand they saw Barney or that train that kids are into, I'm sure that would be another story.

Whether I'm in the minority or majority, it makes no difference. Right and wrong don't care about those things. You are the one who is twisting what you read into something that was not said. Did you go to the same school the Bush II did? The one that neglected to teach him how to hold a book upright or take the lens caps off of binoculars?

So what if I believe in freedom of speech. It doesn't make me a pedophile any more than university made Bush II become intelligent.


RE: Idiots
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 1:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well you wrote:

"Most of the guys I know, and plenty of the women enjoy watching and participating in homosexual sex. "

Which basically means you deliberately segregate yourself from most of society, either by choice, or through the reactions of others to your choices.

Being part of a minority doesn't make you wrong automatically, but of course there are also people who are a minority because of something they do wrong if you wanted to describe wrong-doers as a group. I am not speaking of homosexuals as a group, since that is a preference I can decline I am more offended by this idea that free speech to you means we have to allow others to FORCE their speech upon us.

Free speech does not ever mean you get to force someone to listen. It is always the listener's choice. Spam is never about freedom of speech when it is meant to popularize porn, sell other products. People who take action to opt-in to a mailing list should receive it, that's what free speech allows not crap you don't want. That includes you having no right to stand on my front porch and spew crap, an email box is private property too even if "private" means a business.


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
"What planet are you on? Most of the guys I know, and plenty of the women enjoy watching and participating in homosexual sex."

Ahhhh you are very, very, very wrong. I said most people on this planet, not most people you know. If most people on this planet were the way you are, you would not see so many families with little kids running around. You hang around a very small group of people (compared to the world population) if most of them are participating in homosexual sex. This is fine if you wish to be there, but do not believe that because most of the people you know are that way that most of the world is that way.

"As to the boys who got blackmailed - if they hadn't sent explicit sex photos, then they wouldn't have been blackmailed. I'm not suggesting that they deserved it, but they did something for it."

Actually you are saying they deserved it. Just like some people think because a girl wears a very short skirt with very tiny panties and a thin tube top for a shirt (basically showing the world all that she has...) deserves to be raped? In my book, no she does not. Of course she better expect to be starred at, hear all kinds of comments, and have photos taken as she walks around. In the same sense, just because these boys did a foolish thing (photos) does not mean that they should be raped. However, they should have expected comments and their photos to be looked at by others.
If someone wants to live a homosexual or any other lifestyle, ultimately it's their option. However, tricking others (blackmailing) into a different lifestyle is unacceptable.


RE: Idiots
By VaultDweller on 2/5/2009 5:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know... girl-on-girl action seems to have almost universal appeal amongst the men of the western world.


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 5:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
That's because most of us guys are dirty dogs. We tend to think, well if I was really there in front of those to mega supper hot chicks and they were going at it and saw me standing there, they'd say, "Come over here big boy and play with us...use any or every hole you want. We are your sex toys..."

There is a difference between fantasy and reality…. Reality is where you find the broken dreams and handcuffs – not the fuzzy kind. :P


RE: Idiots
By wordsworm on 2/6/2009 2:35:43 AM , Rating: 1
"Ahhhh you are very, very, very wrong. I said most people on this planet, not most people you know. If most people on this planet were the way you are, you would not see so many families with little kids running around."

First you say that most people aren't like me, but then in reply to the other fellow you say "That's because most of us guys are dirty dogs,"

Which is it? Are you trying to say that most men want it or don't want it and it's just the guys I know? Or were you just being an idiot like the other wanker?


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/6/2009 11:43:25 AM , Rating: 2
The answer is you are the idiot. Read what I said... I said "that's becausee most of us guys are dirty dogs,". That does not mean most men are into homosexuality. It means they are dirty dogs incase you still do not understand, a dirty dog just wants to put his pecker into a girl...


RE: Idiots
By mars777 on 2/9/2009 10:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for interrupting you but *Actually* you are wrong. The guy said he would like to get in where two girls are into homosexual acts.

Thats basically what you were commenting later.

Nowhere he said he would like to have homo sex.


RE: Idiots
By adiposity on 2/5/2009 1:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the first to say that sexual offender laws are out of control in this country, but this guy is basically a multi-count rapist. And I don't just mean statutory. These were probably nearly all heterosexual (at most bisexual) kids who were coerced into performing sex acts they didn't desire.

The only thing on his side is that he's basically a kid himself.

Solitary confinement, maybe not, but if you add up the counts of rape he could easily be in jail for life.

-Dan


RE: Idiots
By wordsworm on 2/6/2009 2:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't put it in the same context as, say, someone who overpowers another physically before doing their thing. I do believe he should get some time for this, but I think going outside of three, possibly five years in prison is too extreme. ie, judge issues 3-4 years for each of the rapes to be served concurrently.


RE: Idiots
By Steve1981 on 2/5/2009 1:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but solitary confinement for life? That's pretty absurd too, and extremely disproportionate to the crime


I suspect that depends on your beliefs/point of view. There are certainly areas of the world where he would be executed for comparable crimes and nobody would bat an eyelash.

In either case I imagine this kid is going to have a considerable amount of time in jail to think about what he's done.


RE: Idiots
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 12:08:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure, what his victims did was stupid, but they were KIDS. Kids do lots of dumb things that adults would have the sense not to
I understand they are kids, but my point really is that they chose to be victims. They made multiple bad decisions resulting in themselves becoming victims.

I still think the guy should go to prison, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the victims. They were almost willing participants if you ask me.


RE: Idiots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 4:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
If it was a case of one or two victims you might have a point. However, we are talking about 31 cases, 31 different people. This guy was hunting for prey, hunting for victims, and looking for a lot of them. By the time he took kid number 4 or 5 he was a pro at this game. The victims had no clue that they were walking into a trap.

I wonder how many, "got away" because they did not send him a photo?
Also, we should figure out a way to use real stories like these to teach the youth why to be careful and how to be careful. Are current program obviously is not working.


RE: Idiots
By mars777 on 2/9/2009 10:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
A simple program would suffice:

Making a new law: "Sending a nude photo to a stranger is against the law"


RE: Idiots
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 1:57:51 PM , Rating: 2
For being dumb enough to send compromising pics or videos, they would be victims of having those circulate, willing to share that without any real assurance that nobody else would see these displays.

For blackmail, sexual abuse, and possibly rape, no it was not their decisions that resulted in this, anymore than you "decide" to hand armed robbers your wallet because of a prior poor decision to be in an area where an armed robber happened to be. Granted in the latter case there is threat of deadly force, this is why it is significant that they were minors which tend to over-react and have more protection under our legal system.


RE: Idiots
By Sungpooz on 2/11/2009 5:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
I guess it take 16 years for kids to understand why their mom told them "Don't talk with strangers."


RE: Idiots
By FaceMaster on 2/11/2009 8:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kids do lots of dumb things that adults would have the sense not to.


I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Kids aren't to blame for this current economic crisis (which was brought on by SEVERE stupidity)


RE: Idiots
By ccmfreak2 on 2/5/2009 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
These "victims" where young middle/high school males. In other words, every girl they come across is "hot", whether it's online or in person. Teenage boys will do just about anything to get attention from a hot girl. It's not like the nude photos were set via Facebook for all to see. But that doesn't mean you want the whole world to see photos of yourself naked.

I agree that they shouldn't have sent the photos of themselves, but kids always start out thinking they are the "exception" when it comes to these types of actions. "She'll never post MY photos. I'll send her a couple... Oh crap! She's threatening to post them!"


RE: Idiots
By Avitar on 2/11/2009 11:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Low IQ types are self selecting. The problem is that the same technique is being used across the ad world to put together large groups of idiots.


300 Years
By KingstonU on 2/5/2009 10:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
He should get the 300 year full sentence. This guy is 18 and already messed, he will never stop trying things like this. He will always be a sexual predator. He molested and permanently scarred all these young guys and many of them will likely always be cursed with relationship issues and other problems preventing them from living normal lives. God forbid they may even turn to being predators themselves as a result of having been a victim.




RE: 300 Years
By kondor999 on 2/5/2009 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 5
I'm a psychiatrist, and we try to tell people that predators like this *never stop*. We simply have no effective treatments for character flaws such as this.

This sort of thing goes to the heart of who they are as a human being, and it will never change. Some random percentage of humans are always going to be antisocial predators who have zero guilt about casually violating the rights of others.

Bottom line: once they're discovered, they should be segregated away from the rest of humanity.


RE: 300 Years
By mpc7488 on 2/5/2009 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is sick and wrong. The level of manipulation and boldness that this kid has, at the age of 18... I just can't even believe it. He's only going to get worse with age.


RE: 300 Years
By plowak on 2/5/2009 11:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
But there is treatment, it's called an inverse frontal lobotomy. After the frontal lobe of the brain is transected, all of the brain posterior to the transection is removed. 100% success rate!


RE: 300 Years
By koenshaku on 2/5/2009 11:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
300 hundred years that is like four life times, this guy makes Jeffrey Lenard look soft! As for the boys they were stupid and pretty this guy is nothing short of a super villain though.


RE: 300 Years
By acase on 2/5/2009 12:12:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
they were stupid and pretty


Pretty? Oh no we got another one!!!


RE: 300 Years
By bldckstark on 2/5/2009 12:22:25 PM , Rating: 5
I was a prison guard a while back, after I got out of the military. It is interesting to note other inmates consider child molesters to be the most disgusting humans on earth. They are unanimously despised by the general population of inmates, and are punished at every opportunity by the other offenders.

The most heinous offender we had in the prison I worked in always walked really strangely from the continual molestations that he had to endure. Of course, this just makes the offender a worse human being, but you can be sure that this guy will be tortured and possibly killed while in prison for these crimes. NOBODY except the chaplain cares about the beatings, rapes, and verbal torture these guys endure. It is a personal hell for child molesters.

On a side note - people used to ask me what the answer was to the prison problem. I couldn't even begin to answer them in a realistic fashion. The problem starts with society. I don't know how to fix it. So I always told them that we should give every inmate a Rambo knife, and put the guards outside the fence. You will reduce the prison population, reduce costs, eliminate new prison construction, and scare the living crap out of criminals who have not been caught yet. Ignorant idea for sure, but very effective.


RE: 300 Years
By VaultDweller on 2/5/2009 12:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
So I always told them that we should give every inmate a Rambo knife, and put the guards outside the fence. You will reduce the prison population, reduce costs, eliminate new prison construction, and scare the living crap out of criminals who have not been caught yet. Ignorant idea for sure, but very effective.


Cool idea. This way, the punishment scales not with the severity of the crime, but instead with the (lack of) physical prowess and aggression in the criminal. I'm all for a penal system where the punishment for a 100-pound pretty-boy caught shoplifting is to be raped and murdered, and the punishment for a 250-pound psychotic mob enforcer who commits multiple murders would be a trip to his personal utopia where he gets to play out a god complex and kill as many wimps as he wants.

/sarcasm


RE: 300 Years
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 12:43:30 PM , Rating: 4
From the outside, you kind of get the impression that prison is like that already.


RE: 300 Years
By JKflipflop98 on 2/5/2009 8:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
That's. . . how prison is anyways.


RE: 300 Years
By Noya on 2/5/2009 5:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
people used to ask me what the answer was to the prison problem . I couldn't even begin to answer them in a realistic fashion. The problem starts with society. I don't know how to fix it. So I always told them that we should give every inmate a Rambo knife, and put the guards outside the fence. You will reduce the prison population, reduce costs, eliminate new prison construction , and scare the living crap out of criminals who have not been caught yet. Ignorant idea for sure, but very effective.


Have you ever heard of the military industrial complex?

Well, there is also a prison version. The government doesn't want to reduce prisons. Look how much money is involved from busting a dumb drug user - arrested - cops are payed - lawyers paid - people paid to build prisons - the guards payed to work there - the drugs going in and out through the guards - etc. And now with all the private prisons coming online...it's just a HUGE market. Prisons = MONEY.


RE: 300 Years
By robinthakur on 2/9/2009 7:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think this guy is absolutely devious and deserves to have the book thrown at him. However I'm slightly uncomfortable with the whole paedophile tag thing as when he carried out these acts he was a minor himself and the acts were on people of his own age, which I would think is rape. He is CURRENTLY 18. I'm not certain that kids that age think things through with respect to ages of consent etc. especially if it concerns their own age group. Its a grey area which is allowed to exist because its part of growing up in many western countries.

However you slice it though, pictures of a 13 year old is vile and he deserves to be punished for what he's done. I don't think that we should be talking life sentences, however, without knowing anything about his circumstances.

Perhaps a shrink could explain to him that if he's a decent human being then he doesn't need to trick guys into sex acts. The fact that he's gay is not an excuse but does tend to mean that its more difficult in some backward parts of America (and the wider world) to live the life openly which he might want, but it needs to be made crystal clear that this is not how decent members of society conduct themselves, gay or straight, and therefore a custodial sentence of some kind would seem to fit.

Sentencing depends on his reasons (however twisted) for doing what he did: was it because he had no other way of meeting guys (that he knew of) or was it the thrill of entrapping his classmates? The latter is disturbing and indicates significant and incurable psychological problems, while the former is less so. The whole thing reminds me of the plot of that movie Heathers!


Judge, jury, and executioner
By dresche2 on 2/5/2009 12:20:08 PM , Rating: 1
It seems that a lot of you are quick to jump on this kid and want him dead or locked up for the rest of his life. I am not saying what he did is right, indeed it is most definitely wrong, but you don't know why he did it.

quote:
It's too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here.


Maybe its just me, but this makes me think there might be previous actions that led him to do this. For all I know he was beaten to a pulp and/or sexually assaulted by each of these guys daily until he decided he had enough. This is the whole purpose of a trial, to let prior events come to light. If indeed something like this had happened, that is definitely going to affect his developing thought process and reasoning.

It just seems you guys are shooting first and asking questions later...




RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 12:29:37 PM , Rating: 5
Assuming the evidence in this case is correct - he presents a clear and present danger to society, and he should be locked up. I'm not against him getting treatment for mental health issues while he's in prison, but we as a society need to be protected from people like this.

In other words, if you commit a crime, you do the time - no excuses.


RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By dresche2 on 2/5/2009 12:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but I think that should be applied universally. If it comes out that the "victims" were aggressors as well, they should also receive a prison/psychiatric sentence.


RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 12:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but I'll bet this guy's defense attorney will probably try to convince the jury that the victims gave their consent for sex. I don't think that matters in terms of guilt or innocence, but I would imagine that would enter in terms of determing sentencing. But I'm not a lawyer.


RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By JKflipflop98 on 2/5/2009 8:46:30 PM , Rating: 2
The "WHY" doesn't matter.

Look, if my ailing grandma is in the hospital and needs a 4 million dollar heart transplant, does that make it ok for me to knock over a few banks to pay for it?

No.

So now, what in your mind would make it OK to blackmail 31 young kids into homosexual acts? There has to be something there.


RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By AMDJunkie on 2/6/2009 10:43:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So now, what in your mind would make it OK to blackmail 31 young kids into sexual acts?


Fixed that for you.


RE: Judge, jury, and executioner
By ekv on 2/10/2009 2:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
No. Anthony Stancl stands accused of blackmailing 31 other juveniles into having homosexual acts [7 acceded]. Why would you want to state otherwise? Do you think it reflects negatively upon the homosexual community?

Of course, it doesn't really rise to the level of the Jason Shephard case ...

http://us.altermedia.info/news-of-interest-to-whit...


By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 2:15:36 PM , Rating: 2
I vote, he was molested by a family member, someone he trusted a loved and in his screwed up head this is what relationships are, doing that or others allowing it to happen.

IMO, psych evaluation is needed along with uncovering prior events not just related to the crimes directly by preceding them - as a society we should know what causes these things so we can better screen people and try to detect, avoid situations that produce people like this kid in the future.

He definitely needs removed from society for awhile at the very least, but I tend to agree that death or lifelong imprisonment seems a bit harsh since people were only emotionally traumatized as far as we know. It was a horrible thing he did several times but rapists and blackmailers don't generally get sent away for dozens of years, let alone life from age 18.


By UNCjigga on 2/5/2009 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 3
Judging by the comments, it seems some people are forgetting that fact. It's one thing for two same-sex consenting adults/teens to enjoy sexual relations with each other. But it is something else entirely for this guy to target straight men and force them to perform sexual favors. Mr. Stancl was enjoying the domination/blackmail as much as the sex acts themselves. He is beyond CREEP and I agree with the "locked up for life" sentiments. But don't think he became that way just because he's gay.




By Proteusza on 2/5/2009 11:57:01 AM , Rating: 1
I think you're being a bit too sensitive. I dont see any comments that blame his crimes on the (likely) fact that hes gay. I only see comments saying that hes a danger to society and that he should be locked up.

I agree though - this guy is pretty sick and twisted, and needs to be locked up for a very long time, if not indefinitely.


By AMDJunkie on 2/6/2009 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 1
Let me propose a little thought experiment for DailyTech. I suggest several different scenarios, all with similarities to the case listed in this story, but with changes made specific in each.

Scenario #1: An 18 year old senior of her high school, who is admittedly quite attractive, asks guys in her school of pictures of them nude. She them sleeps with them. This includes some boys as young as thirteen, which would be considered soliciting sex from a minor.

Scenario #2: An 18 year old senior of her high school, who is rather homely and perhaps unable to get herself the attention she feels she deserves, poses as a much more attractive female online. Upon receiving requested nude photos of the male students she contacted, she then threatens to blackmail them to school and parents alike as deviants who sent unsolicited nude photographs of themselves to her for their jollies. This has serious legal consequences, she reminds them. In exchange for quiet, they sleep with her.

Scenario #3: An 18 year old senior of her high school, who is rather homely and perhaps unable to get herself the attention she feels she deserves, poses as an attractive male online. Upon receiving requested nude photos of the female students she contacted, she then threatens to blackmail them to school and parents alike as deviants who sent unsolicited nude photographs of themselves to her for their jollies. This has serious legal consequences, she reminds them. In exchange for quiet, they sleep with her.

Scenario #4: An 18 year old senior of his high school talks to other male students on IM. He is able to coerce some of them into sending nude photographs and then convinces them to explore their sexuality with him. All events have the consent of both parties.

Now a little analysis:

Now, we know the public’s reaction to scenario #1; I’ve affectionately termed it the “Debra Lafave phenomenon.” In other words, it’s considered natural and publically acceptable for an underage male to sleep with an attractive female, no matter the difference of age. I believe South Park made light of this fact.

I posit that scenario #2 would elicit a harsher reaction from the public and media than scenario #3 from similar reasoning: If you’re going to exploit someone for sex, making it between two females is a sure-fire way to majority (i.e., male) acceptance of the situation.

Yet scenario #4, despite its similarity to scenario #1, would be evaluated as worse than even scenario #2. Homosexuality is “unnatural” and something “kids shouldn’t get caught up in.” Never mind the fact that all of the persons in the age range described here are developing and exploring their sexuality. They're damn well going to get "caught up" in something, or I should say, someone. Homosexuality is seen like an unfortunate handicap by even open-minded people; you’re not a worse person, you just aren’t “like us” if you are. Or, as already some of the trolls have demonstrated, you think them a perverse scourge for being so.

tl;dr – This is shocking and offensive to the DailyTech commentariat not because that he used Facebook to blackmail students into sexual activities, but because he coerced them into homosexual activities.

(Virgins shouldn't worry themselves about sexual matters anyhow.)


By robinthakur on 2/9/2009 8:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're being overly derrogatory to the posting community here, and overly sensitive to gay rights. While some are bigots here, most are not. The reaction to this is rightly incredulity that this person blackmailed classmates of his peer group and age into sleeping with him. This is not a decent way to behave and this needs to be communicated to him through whatever sentence is handed down.

Homosexuality is completely natural as has now been proven (duh) beyond most reasonable doubt based on the shape of the brain. Whilst you say that most open minded people consider it as a handicap, this has never been my experience in the UK, though Perhaps in America this is different. Where there are comments above which seem written by homophobes, its fairly obvious by their tone and phraseology. Decent, fair-minded people do pick up on this fairly quickly, it has to be said.

The adverse reaction to this sort of thing in the media and amongst straight people is actually shared by gay people who feel exasperated that somebody like this sets the cause of mainstream gay-acceptance back several years. At the end of the day, whilst there are many millions of gay people around the world, we are a minority to straight people so crimes involving a gay felon will be more unusual. The saddest thing is the orange is not his colour...


By mircea on 2/10/2009 6:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't believe that "Homosexuality is completely natural as has now been proven (duh) beyond most reasonable doubt based on the shape of the brain."
No real scientific proof has been made in this area. But enough VIP and people of influence have been vocal to make most people at least ignore these claims.

Another thing is that no religion in the world accepts homosexuality as any kind of normal behaviour, and by it's own explanation, evolution means in any species the survival of the fittest and the passing of it's strong genes to offsprings, making any kind of homosexual behaviour dead with each generation. So homosexuality is not natural, it's a deviance to the normal. Yes they are still people, they can be better or worse than anyone around them because they are people, not because they are gay.

In this case just as crimes made against something specific to minorities receive harsher judgement from the society, so should crimes made because of something specific to the minority.


By robinthakur on 2/11/2009 10:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
You might not believe it, but that comes down to your individual faith. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever and neither do millions or billions of other people, and the religious viewpoint doesn't really affect scientific outcomes, does it?. Religion at least is something you choose to believe in and is not genetically determined.

The BBC had an article on the study and the findings were widely reported. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

The fact that no religion in the world deigns to "accept" a naturally occuring phenomenon which also exists in the animal world is also irrelevent. I really couldn't care less what they choose to believe, and frankly how many burning bushes and people-turning-into-salt do you see on a daily basis? Since when did we base modern scientific understanding on the Bible, of all things? Evolution also brought about homosexuality (by your own argument, and they are 'generally' born to heterosexual parents lol) and there's nothing to stop gay people from using their own DNA to reproduce, just not with each other...they even have been known not to have gay children. Wow, how shocking! </sarcasm> Its almost as shocking as you declaring first that religion is against homosexual acts and then using *Evolution* of all theories to try and cement your point. I think the two do not make good bed-fellows...

Gay people don't need VIP's and people of influence to tell the wider world that it is naturally occurring, because they already know this for themselves. Perhaps if you actually talk to any, before gracing us with your opinion, it would be as obvious to you.

You might as well say that Black people, Jews and other minorities are 'deviants' because from a gay person's perspective this argument is absolutely no different (the Nazis certainly treated all these groups similarly). I'm sure that religious people would love homosexuality not to be naturally occurring so that they can carry on their hate campaign against it, blaming them for hurricanes, floods and other kinds of generally inclement weather. Ludicrous.

Those with a functioning brain (gay or straight) can make their own minds up on which is believable and facts-based and which claim is made up by narrow minded, frequently hypocritical, people to pray upon the divisiveness and gullability of the their target audience.


By mircea on 2/11/2009 1:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
Where in my post did you see anything about the bible or burning bushes or people-turning-to-salt???

"A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb." This does not make for scientific proof. It's someone opinion on the matter. Of course you'll take for granted and point others to someone who supports your view point. Just as I normally do. No human on earth will be objective to this and a few other clashing view points. Until there is flowing research from the womb to gay bar, there is no proof.

Just because religion and evolution don't stand together it doesn't make the point invalid. As you said, humans can adopt or use DNA to continue life. What other species on earth can do that? The general rule of evolution as stated before in this case stands. Why we need a liquid hidrogen tube to support a 'naturally occurring' thing?

By the way Hollywood and western media go about it you'd think half the world is homosexually oriented. Yet out of 6.5 billion people, only millions are as. So I say that VIP and people in position do influence the general view on this point.

Well done! Try to mix in race, ethnicity and the evil in the world in, so I would be afraid to speak out against a behaviour? That will surely make me more narrow minded.

Just because something like gay behaviour happens in millions of people on the planet doesn't mean it's naturally occurring. Rape is a behaviour that happens much more frequent, yet we can't accept it as natural, it's a criminal behaviour. Handicaps or other birth defects or sickness is not accepted as natural no matter how often it happens. Now because homosexuality is not a criminal behaviour or something interfering with normal life and activities doesn't make it any more natural.


By Fritzr on 2/11/2009 9:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
No religion? The Iriquois certainly accepted them. Gay braves were usually elite warriors.

The Anglican Church appears to accept homosexuality. At least they are willing to ordain gay ministers.

Just two examples. There are many religions around the world which are quite accepting of gays. The USA is quite backward and provincial in this respect.

You personally do not like gays and they are unacceptable in your religion. Your religion is not the only one in this world.

As for evolution, look at African wild dogs and around the world the various wolves. The alpha female raises pups, the rest of the pack supports them. To be a junior pack member is similar to being a strict gay ... no offspring. Canines are not alone in this type of behavior.

The Theory of Natural Selection does not state that seeming non-survival characteristics will die out. It simply states that unless there is an offsetting advantage, the characteristic will be less likely to be passed on. Having double sickle cell anemia genes is usually fatal, a single offers resistance to malaria, none makes malaria more dangerous ... sickle cell anemia disappears from the population when malaria is removed ... it becomes more common where malaria exists.

When there is a chance that a small neo-natal change wil generate homosexuality it will be selected against...if the same thing also provides a benefit then you will see the non-survival trait in a constant percentage of the population generation after generation.

Homosexuality appears to be a non-survival characteristic, but there is evidence that homosexuality has been around for as long as we have written records. I'd say that it is unlikely to be cultural since it appears in all cultures and religions. That last part strongly implies a biological basis. There are also brain changes that have been found to be consistent with the individual's sexual preferences.


By Fritzr on 2/11/2009 9:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
#1 She is 18 and her partners are underage -- Statutory rape. In Washington she is okay as long as the age diff is 4yrs or less. Your 13yr old would still send her to jail in Washington

#2 Blackmail and possible rape/molestation charges based on coerced sexual relations. In addition see #1 which applies to this also

#3 Blackmail and possible rape/molestation charges based on coerced sexual relations. In addition see #1 which still applies here. The rape/molestation charges are more likely to result in conviction than #2

#4 If they are underage then #1 again applies. Blackmail and molestation charges are possible once the police start interviewing the "willing" partners.

Your analysis to number one does not stop the County Prosecutor from campaigning for votes by prosecuting a statutory rapist.

#2 & #3 remain blackmail cases and regardless of the mix of people will remain blackmail cases. The mix and details will determine whether rape is added.

#4 is the least likely to generate charges since there appears to be no coercion. The first impression will be that it is no worse than any other 2 students getting into bed due to mutual desire. If some of those partners provide evidence of blackmail then again a prosecutor looking to polish an image may take it to court.

The predator in the article is your Scenario #3 with a gay male as the perp. The items charged are blackmail, coerced sex (rape) and depending on the laws in his state possible statutory rape. The added charges of creating and possessing child pornography simply make it much more likely that he will spend life behind bars where he will learn that a profile on a dating site and honest answers on what you want is a much safer way to get into BDSM.


First and only rule:
By ss284 on 2/5/2009 1:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Girls don't exist on the internet. Everyone online should always take that into mind to avoid situations like this.




RE: First and only rule:
By ninjaquick on 2/5/2009 1:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
pretty much yeah..


RE: First and only rule:
By exanimas on 2/5/2009 1:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, there's many other rules. For instance, Rule 34 - If you can think of it, there is porn of it. NO EXCEPTIONS. =)


What a piece of trash!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/5/2009 10:55:39 AM , Rating: 5
My first thought is that this guy should be sent to a FPMITA prison, but he might enjoy that too much.




THANK GOD
By TimberJon on 2/5/2009 12:38:46 PM , Rating: 3
This guy never played any video games. Or at least there was no mention of it.

Praise Al-- the holy light.




RE: THANK GOD
By Fritzr on 2/11/2009 9:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
It'll come out in court that he was also addicted to Baldies and Lemmings :P


A sickening individual
By psychobriggsy on 2/5/2009 7:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Now this is someone that actually deserves to be labelled for life as a sex offender. There is so much wrong with what this person did, it staggers belief.

If this involved girls, surely far stronger terms like rape and serious sexual assault would be used, so why is the law different when it is men that are victims?




RE: A sickening individual
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 7:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
The charges brought against this guy are the same as they would be if the victims were girls.


So...
By afkrotch on 2/5/2009 10:55:39 AM , Rating: 3
If he didn't scribble some crap about a bomb threat, he'd still be banging underage dudes.

It's like one of those, "pulled over for a broken tail light and end up catching one of America's Most Wanted."




WTF?
By Suomynona on 2/5/2009 11:39:23 AM , Rating: 3
I can understand that plenty of idiots would send him nude pics, but giving him a beej to try to cover it up? Unless you're actually into it, how colossally stupid do you have to be to agree to that?




Charges...
By AvidDailyTechie on 2/9/2009 11:29:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
five counts of child enticement,
two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child,
two counts of third-degree sexual assault,
possession of child pornography,
repeated sexual assault of the same child,
and making a bomb threat.

owned.




Soap time!!!
By dflynchimp on 2/5/2009 12:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
This sicko should find himself right at home behind bars.

I agree with other posters that the victims are huge idiots. No way around that assessment. Nude photos of yourself shouldn't even exist in the first place. Who are you gonna show/give them to? Your significant other(s)? That's just prime retaliatory ammunition should you break up with someone. Bottom line. Unless you get off on seeing yourself naked, DO NOT take nude pictures and make them available to people.




By androticus on 2/5/2009 8:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
Please please please don't blackmail me and make me perform gay sex acts!

Well, ok... but don't tell my friends, ok???




Disgusting...
By suryad on 2/6/2009 12:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
...is all I can say. I think it is human tendency to take something as useful to keep in touch with mates all over the world using Facebook and turn it into something sick. That person if he can be called that deserves to rot in solitary confinement. You have to be a sick bastard to come up with something like that!




desperate
By supergarr on 2/8/2009 6:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
People will do anything nowadays to get laid. You think maybe if this kid accepted he was gay, he wouldn't be doing this?




Dahmer in training?
By KeepSix on 2/8/2009 9:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
If it can be proven unequivocally that he is guilty, he should be put down. There is no cure. I'd much rather feed the unfortunate with my taxes than give this human turd three squares a day.




Wonderful...
By Intelman34 on 2/8/2009 11:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... I graduated from that high school in 2002.

Looks like things are going well...




remember
By Screwballl on 2/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: remember
By JKflipflop98 on 2/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: remember
By phxfreddy on 2/6/09, Rating: 0
Tip of the Iceberg
By pcwhizzer on 2/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By CommodoreVic20 on 2/5/2009 11:55:53 AM , Rating: 4
What I don't understand is why didn't one of the 'victims' beat the shit out of him when they met. When I was 15 years old there is no way in hell someone would have blackmailed me into sucking their dick just because they have some nude pix of me. I think these victims may have been a little 'gay' themselves. I know I would have shown up with a bat and made him into silly putty.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By pcwhizzer on 2/5/2009 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 4
I concur with that! Good point..


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By Murloc on 2/5/2009 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
yes, it's weird. 7 of them actually had sexual acts with him. Even if you present if you're not gay you are not really going to do it just because of some nude pics.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By TomZ on 2/5/2009 12:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly - I agree 100%. I'm not saying the guys "wanted it," but obviously there were not strongly motivated to avoid it either.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have enough info to know this for certain. For example, at what point the blackmailing started, and what their other concerns were. Consider that if it were known they had sent nude pictures of themselves, they could be labeled a sex offender for the rest of their lives and it could ruin any chances of getting into a good college, as could arrests for assault.

We'd really need the full story, obvious this predator had done a lot of scheming and manipulation to hook 7 people out of 31, that's a rather high ratio even for teens in their experimental years, considering the initial draw was that he was posed as a girl, not a gay guy when the pics were sent.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By ZachDontScare on 2/5/2009 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thats first thing I thought, too. Are our kids just too pussified these days, or what? And really, with so many nudie pictures out there, unless you plan on being President, who cares if there's one of you floating around?


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By mindless1 on 2/7/2009 2:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you recall recent new of minors being charged as sex offenders for sending nude pics of themselves? There's more involved than just a bit of embarrassment though to a teenager even that might be enough if they were fragile emotionally. I'd imagine this perv targeted people who did seem fragile.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/5/2009 4:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are forgetting the age difference...
Some of them were as young as 13.... Big difference in size between the average 13 year old and an 18 year old... 14 or 15 not much better, you have to go case by case at that age.
Your mental state changes a lot during these years. It's where you start to really learn to stand up for yourself. The victims might not have crossed that thresh hold.


RE: Tip of the Iceberg
By Belard on 2/11/2009 6:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
That is you. But millions of teenage boys are NOT you.

What those boys did was dumb (and girls do simular things on the net as well) - and that is how they got black-mailed. The fear of being caught was more important to their child-brains than telling mom or dad what happened.

This is why we have laws (moral and legal) is that children cannot make proper decisions like this. Neither can many adults, but thats a different thing.

All it should have taken is for these boys to be able to talk to their parents about the blackmail. Then a call to the police would have resulted in an investigation... "okay, lets meet here" and then bust this perv. ass.

Thousands of girls in the USA alone are tricked into prositution. Many dissappear because of the baddies on the internet. Parents have got to realise this and teach their kids to NOT MEET people they don't know. That dots on the screens are just that.


FILTY HOMO
By SPOOOK on 2/6/09, Rating: -1
"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki