Guy Sets Up The Rape of His Wife -- But It's Craigslist That Gets The Attention

from the blame-game dept

Thu, Jun 4th 2009 4:09am — Carlo Longino

A North Carolina man has been arrested after allegedly arranging for his wife to be raped via Craigslist, a story that's sure to give more ammo to the "blame Craigslist" crowd. What's clear from the details is that, if the reported details of the crime are true, this guy is pretty evil: apparently he posted a couple of ads on the site "in an effort to arrange for someone to come to his home and have sex with his wife using some type of scare tactic." When police responded to a 911 call saying an armed man was sexually assaulting a woman in the house, the guy was present. While Craigslist gets the mention in the headline -- and will likely catch flak for it -- it's hard to believe that a person capable of such an act did it just because Craigslist was available. What doesn't get too much mention, though, is the usefulness of the Craigslist ads (again) have in investigating and prosecuting the guy.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blame
Companies: craigslist

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Skippy T. Mut, 4 Jun 2009 @ 5:22am

Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
This is an episode of Law & Order: SVU from a couple weeks back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- some old guy, 4 Jun 2009 @ 5:32am
  
  Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
  They steal ideas from the news all the time. It's really smart of them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - minijedimaster (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:28am
    
    Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
    I'm surprised that no one has sued them for infringement yet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 9:09am
    
    Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
    It's not stealing. Unless you want to start copyrighting every single move you make. They're using drama to highlight social issues and topics... stealing... what a tit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
      Ohh goody! Another "let's argue the semantics of "stealing" twat.
      
      Yay...
      
      I love how these idiots completely ignore the point to argue some completely irrelevant semantics BS *no-one* else gives two shits about.
      
      What a tit....indeed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Tgeigs (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
        " love how these idiots completely ignore the point to argue some completely irrelevant semantics BS *no-one* else gives two shits about"
        
        I know, stupid US Supreme Court...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Luci, 4 Jun 2009 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
    Considering that you can't copyright facts, and the news is just chock full of those, it can't even be considered infringement, let alone theft. Try again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- prata, 4 Jun 2009 @ 5:48am
  
  Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
  You say that like it's a bad thing....^_^
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:53am
  
  Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
  Time to shut down all the crime dramas for demonstrating how to commit a crime, how to avoid being caught and convicted, and for suggesting crimes the viewer might not yet have thought of.
  Obviously there are 50,000 predators watching TV.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:30am
    
    Re: Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
    And movies too. How many movies have detailed how to commit crimes, and with far more creatively than real crooks typically use? Then there are books that do the same thing. Does anyone remember the line, "Don't shoot the messenger"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ImpatientGirl, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
  Substitute Craigslist for a chat room and you've got an episode of NCIS from a few years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Walter (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:16am
  
  Re: Apparently nobody watches TV anymore...
  Yep ... saw that episode ... probably where he got it ... NBC should get the attention as well!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd., 4 Jun 2009 @ 5:44am

That Law & Order: SVU was several years ago.

And that's what immediately came to mind for me, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:11am

He could have went to any street corner and arranged the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:48am
  
  Re:
  Yup, but by using CL, shouldn't CL have a little concern as to what their business is being used for?
  
  Should a corner store owner not care if gangs are selling drugs out of his store, or arranging murders there?
  
  Hmm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tgeigs (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:14am

Wrong
"Guy Sets Up The Rape of His Wife -- But It's Craigslist That Gets The Attention"

No, you got it wrong, it isn't Craigslist, it was Craig's list. You see, the husband's friend Greg needs direction in life, so the husband made out "To Do" lists for Greg. That days:

1. Pick up the dry cleaning
2. Grocery Shopping
3. Rape my wife
4. Clean the gutters (C'mon Greg, they're getting disgusting!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:56am
  
  Re: Wrong
  I don't care who you are, that's funny!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:09am

He could have hired a hitman to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  NO that is a different website.
  
  HitList.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courtney (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:04am

You know, there are quite a few sites that screen postings before they ever hit the site...perhaps CL should start doing something like that, if only to cover their asses. My guess is that if this happens again - where a twisted crime like this ends up getting CL media attention of the worst kind - they're going to have to face some serious issues with their users going somewhere else. If they actually screened all their postings (which would admittedly raise their operating costs, but what can you do?), they might be able to catch this stuff before it hits the news.

And anyway, how many new jobs would that create?

Courtney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:37am
  
  Re:
  New jobs cost money.
  
  Where should they get that?
  
  Would you prefer they charge for postings? Charge membership fees? Set up a screening center in India?
  
  *laughing*
  
  Media is free publicity. CL is eating this up. This doesn't affect 99.999 percent of the people *using* CL, and won't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:07am

I can see it now. Wife & hubby watch episode of crime drama with that theme. Hubby says that looks like fun. Wife doesn't really listen as hubby tells about his fantasy, rather just agrees and nods while watching the TV. Hubby thinks wife is down with it, sets it up. When it happens wife wishes she'd listened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jenna, 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:17am

Ladies! That's a deal breaker!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 4 Jun 2009 @ 9:03am

@Courtney -- Umm... who would you suggest do the screening? You do realize that it would take a massive amount of manpower to screen all of the listings going up on Craigslist, right? And that all of those people would need to be paid? It would increase Craiglist's overhead by millions of dollars each year, which would have to be recouped in one way or another, which would require Craigslist to charge for ads and thus render it entirely worthless. I LOVE the freedom that Craigslist offers, and how easily it can connect me to others offering services I want, I have found and furnished my last two apartments through Craigslist. That freedom also results (very occasionally) in bad things. If you put it behind a paywall, the bad people will go elsewhere, nothing will be solved, and the good people will lose a valuable tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  Freedom comes with responsibility. CL's business model doesn't allow for them to check listings, which in the end leaves them wide open as a source for fraud and other problems, such as intentionally fake ads designed harass someone. The best examples of that are the pissed of ex-husbands / boyfriends putting their girl's photo and phone number up on the "for a good time call" section.
  
  In the end, CL is claiming the same thing as YouTube and many others: If we had to check everything, we would go broke. In the words of Mike Masnick, perhaps they need a better business model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think the point was that the business model suggested by various govt. agencies won't work for CL.
    
    So, yes, indeed, they need a business model that involves NOT checking proposed listings. The problem is as laws go on the books that require classified ads to be reviewed for whatever the public crisis of the day is, checking will be required and as has been said is likely to put them in worse financial shape, if not out of business altogether.
    
    The difference between this case and the music industry (for example) is that the regulations put into place on classified ad listing could damage the business model, while for the music industry, govt. intervention/regulation has been and continues to be sought in order to protect an existing business model. Very different issues.
    
    Hence, your snide "perhaps they need a better business model" comment is rather misplaced. In this case, perhaps, there is no need for regulation?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And what do you think would happen if they started screening everything? The jerks (and worse) would suddenly stop being jerks, because they can't do it on CL anymore? Hardly! The jerks, and a whole bunch of ordinary users, would just find somewhere else to go. Lather, rinse, repeat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 3:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It always comes to the same thing: If you make being a jerk simple, more people will be jerks.
      
      Child molestation is a real problem - the internet has made it possible for these people to connect and as a result, we see more activity today than ever before. The internet make it easier for them to be jerks.
      
      CL is facilitating jerks. They shouldn't wash their hands of responsibility because they aren't the only ones dealing with them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2009 @ 6:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    *laughing*
    
    "The best examples of that are the pissed of ex-husbands / boyfriends putting their girl's photo and phone number up on the "for a good time call" section."
    
    Um... Perhaps the "girls" should be a little more careful? Their stupidity in allowing images of them to be taken in compromising situations should be *their* responsibility alone. CL is *not* in the business of covering for the idiocy of others.
    
    "perhaps they need a better business model."
    
    What's wrong with their business model? They offer a free service and make money. Sounds good to me. You (and Mike...and the "save the Children" crowd simply can't take responsibility for your own actions and seem to find pleasure in blaming everyone else...or begging the government to do it for you.
    
    Got a better business model? Go for it. Make millions. Show them all how wrong they are. Until then, you're just pissing on everyone else's success.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2009 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Perhaps the "girls" should be a little more careful? Their stupidity in allowing images of them to be taken in compromising situations should be *their* responsibility alone. CL is *not* in the business of covering for the idiocy of others."
      
      Again, if CL was more careful and more aware of who was posting, they might not run the ad to start with (girl's picture, but guy's credit card? Hmmm!). Plus the pictures could just a headshot or an innocent snap from a beach vacation, it doesn't have to be pornographic. Geez.
      
      "What's wrong with their business model?"
      
      Quite simply, like many of the other web 2.0 dealies, these guys aren't making enough income to properly monitor all of their business. Realistically, they should be aware of everything that is one their site, and in theory it should get at least a passing eyeball from a staff member. But they can't because they can't afford to do it - which is a failing of the business model. Newspapers process each classified ad before it is posted up. Slightly different business model, less likely to have a picture of someone's ex girlfriend apparently offering free sex to the first 5 guys to her house.
      
      In the end, if CL was more dilligent, it's service would not have been used to set this up. Isn't that enough to show at least passing culpability?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuart, 4 Jun 2009 @ 5:36pm

craigslist in general
I think craigslist should significantly increase the standards in place on their erotica section. The current setup allows anyone that has an email address to post any horrible disgusting act all by checking their email and verifying the ad. I am very big on people being allowed privacy but we have to draw the line somewheres. Craigslist, wise up. I'm also sorry that the woman was married to a piece of garbage like her husband as well. It's not the same world our parents grew up in unforunately. People in general, wise up :)

Stuart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scott, 5 Jun 2009 @ 9:55pm

Making money A to Z
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090603/1627155116.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]