Police Department Rewards Officer Caught By An Online Pedophile Sting With Full Retirement Benefits
from the in-order-to-protect-YOU,-we-must-first-protect-OURSELVES dept
When parents, law enforcement or politicians discuss web-related issues, one topic always comes up: the possibility that predators are actively stalking children through various social media services. Sometimes this issue is conflated with others in order to push legislation through, while other times it's used as convenient shorthand for the dangers of unsupervised communication.While the issue is often blown out of proportion, the underlying threat still remains. Arguably, it's much smaller problem than these concerned groups make it out to be, but it is still a real problem. Law enforcement, and the politicians who keep them funded, make capturing child predators a priority, often utilizing extensive sting operations and weeks (or months) of undercover work to put these offenders behind bars.
But what happens when the potential sex offender is himself a member of law enforcement? The answer, at least according to the Worcester, MA police department is "not much." Via Simple Justice comes this ugly story of police protectionism.
The handling of the case involving former Worcester Police Officer Neil Shea and his ensnarement in a sting operation targeting sex predators might have some wondering whether the priority of law enforcement is to protect and serve the community, or to protect and serve itself.The story begins with an investigation being run by an undercover officer who, while pretending to be a 14-year-old girl, engaged Officer Shea (Latenightcop171) in this conversation:
Latenightcop171 — So you want to learn thingsShortly thereafter, the undercover cop went offline to track down any information on Latenightcop171. The cellphone number provided by Latenightcop171 led back to Officer Shea. Moments after this discovery, the investigation was terminated.
Undercover — What can you teach me
Latenightcop171 — Lot of things
Latenightcop171 — We’d have sex
Undercover — Of course silly, but anything special or weird.
We know that once his identity was discovered, someone from the command post alerted the Worcester Police Department Detective Bureau, which confirmed that Mr. Shea was indeed a member of the department.Any normal investigation would have continued until the "line" was crossed but in this case, in order to keep one of their own from incriminating himself further, the Detective Bureau called off their own investigator. And it looks as if Officer Shea would have gone further, if given the chance.
We know that once this confirmation was made someone decided to terminate the conversation with Mr. Shea.
We know that the termination was suggested by the Worcester Detective Bureau on the grounds that if Officer Shea had not at that point made “any offers, or broken any law, and that he had not crossed the line, then we should just move on to other more promising subjects.”
We also learned that later, after the undercover officer went offline, law enforcement officials later went back to check the transcript of the chat room conversation and found that “Latenightcop171” had made additional contact, including leaving a friend request.The District Attorney's office denies any involvement in the investigation's termination. Police Chief Gemme, however, claims the termination call was made by an on-scene police supervisor who decided that there was "insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal complaint."
What Gemme says is inarguably true, but only because the investigation was shut down, not because any of Officer Shea's actions up to that point indicated he did not want to pursue this further. While it's true that some people have walked up to the precipice (so to speak) and peered over it before deciding to step away, we'll never know for sure if Officer Shea was one of them. Instead, he was met at the precipice by his employers, who carried with them a taxpayer-funded safety net.
Officer Shea obviously wasn't going to be able to escape this situation unscathed, but what he ended up with is a lot more than any average citizen in the same position could possibly expect.
We are told Mr. Shea did not commit any crime, but that it was determined by Police Chief Gary Gemme that Mr. Shea committed several violations, including incompetence, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer.Officer Shea ducked a pedophile sting (with some inside help) and exited with a full pension. This works out well for him, and keeps the Worcester PD from having to dirty its hands any further. But, as The Telegram asks, how does this help the community? You know, the same community Officer Shea was supposed to be protecting from criminal activity like this?
Mr. Shea resigned before the investigation, in which all allegations were sustained, was completed. He is free to receive all retirement benefits.
Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice asks the same question, only in a much more righteously furious tone. What "line" does the Worcester PD actually think needs to be crossed before someone like Officer Shea is forced out without collecting benefits?
After all, there is nothing a police officer can do, not even roaming the interwebz to find teenage girls in his community with whom to chat about sexual liaisons, that warrants stripping a cop of his pension. For anyone who doesn't appreciate the importance of the pension, this should make it abundantly clear, as not even his pedophile conduct was sufficient to push him over the line of denying him a pension.As Greenfield suggests, the next time someone starts wringing their hands about child predators roaming the 'net, be sure to point out that those actively engaged in countering this threat were forced to cut a potential sex offender loose simply because he was one of the "good guys." How does this police department, in good conscience, sell out its own community in order to keep a fellow officer from being incarcerated or stripped of his benefits? How can they look their fellow citizens in the eye and claim they're here to serve and protect the public?
While the mere inquiry, without further action toward making contact happen, may not have pushed this conduct from "unbecoming" to criminal, the termination of the sting before Shea took the next step of setting up a meeting with his new 14-year-old friend precluded his prosecution and, upon conviction, the end of his ability to entice little girls to have sex with him...
Anybody want to bet that all the parents of teenage girls in Worcester are cool with the fact that they are not only paying Shea's pension, but that he's still got unfettered internet access to chat up their babies?
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: pedophile, police, sting, worchester
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Holding cops to a higher standard signifies a society of laws.
Holding cops to a lower standard signifies a police state.
Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Get Him
These people should be ashamed of themselves and they are culpable if he hurts a child at any point in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
Are all cops pedophiles? No. Are all cops crooked? Probably not.
However, in story after story, when a single cop if found to be bad or do something wrong, he almost always is protected by the others.
Even if they don't do the bad thing themselves, the percentage of cops that are either complicit or cover-up or even just 'look the other way' is way, way too high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
A few bad apples spoil the bunch.
Moreover, it proves that laws designed "for protecting children" are ineffective, provided you have the right contacts. This is reprehensible and needs to be fixed ASAP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
When a similar instance came out about the Boy Scouts of America last year, their response was, "Sorry, we were wrong in this and we screwed up, which meant that we didn't help children." The Catholic Church did so, after a good long time. The same goes for the BBC and Jimmy Savile.
Further to that, my actual point was that, in so doing, those priests tarnished the image of the clergy with not only the laity, but with possible converts. This incident will do the same to the police organisation affected. And that both saddens and infuriates me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
Sorry, not buying it.
The Catholic Church does tremendous good in the world, such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick, providing clothing and shelter, tending to the forgotten and the abandoned, giving hope to people who come from nothing. I've watched them pile up trucks with gifts for children who have been abandoned by the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
Oooh less than 1%, how many years did the church keep facilitating them by moving them to new places and letting them have access to more victims?
Most child molesters identify as heterosexual even if they are abusing same sex targets.
I'd say nice try, but... yeah your not very good at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
For decades, the Boy Scouts have had to deal with a rather tremendous amount of homosexuals sexually abusing the youths ...and most of them got away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
The problem with 'proving' anything was precisely the amount of covering up and even hostility to apparent victims that the church has shown. And this is an organisation that supposedly prides itself on its 'moral' stances on many issues. So it has to be seen to not only fair and open, but harder on its own that 'stray' - or lose what credibility it has - and in some catholic countries, even it has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
No, not in and of itself, but the fact that there's an extreme tendency towards reported same-sex abuses, that cannot be ignored.
There's nothing wrong with the Church's stance on morality; there is, however, something wrong when those who should know better and lead by example do the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
Want to serve the public trust? Then stop covering shit up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why I have a poor opinion of cops in general.
IF there were a significant component of HONEST kops, then they would HAVE TO squeal on a LOT of their fellow kops, because they KNOW a LOT of them do illegal shit that is not particularly egregious (except for -you know- the disrespect for The Law, which is a life-sentence for us peons), and SOME of them do illegal shit which IS egregious...
but, they don't squeal, do they ? ? ?
nope, they go along to get along, and almost NEVER squeal on kops they KNOW are corrupt...
what does that say about THE WHOLE SYSTEM...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the more evident...
One rule for the rest of society...
Get out the popcorn, there may be a riot soon when people figure out the game is rigged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who watches the watchers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who watches the watchers....
Unfortunately, in their overzealousness to protect their own, police often damage their public image in the process. It doesn't mean that every police officer is bad, no, but this situation does create a bad environment wherein certain officers will feel that they can violate the law with impunity and their superiors will protect them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who watches the watchers....
WRONG! The police are suppose to enforce all the laws, it is not their job to decide which ones are constitutional ... that's the courts job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who watches the watchers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who watches the watchers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who watches the watchers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who watches the watchers....
Don't compare crooked pedophile cop shielding to legitimate reasons to ignore "laws" that are in fact NOT laws because they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Find a better comparison - this is a total logic fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who watches the watchers....
Police officers don't get to decide what laws are unconstitutional...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in Court...
'You're not a cop'
'Ahh...'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And we will never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And we will never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And we will never know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double standards
No.
However, in any other instance, with someone who wasn't a police officer making those kinds of statements to someone they believed to be an underage individual, such statements would certainly be enough to warrant the start, not ending, of an investigation.
I'll give them this much, as least they're not even trying to hide their hypocrisy, and their belief that they are above the law that they themselves are supposed to be enforcing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Double standards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF? Oh I get it. It was his screenname
"We know that the termination was suggested by the Worcester Detective Bureau on the grounds that if Officer Shea had not at that point made “any offers, or broken any law, and that he had not crossed the line, then we should just move on to other more promising subjects.”
That would mean that if the SAME thing happened with someone who wasn't a cop, then the sting should move on to more promising subjects. Seems like the standard for "promising" is someone who logs on with the screen name ImaPedophilePleaseArrestme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
b) if this had happened to an ordinary worker, they would have been publicly embarrassed, and thrown out on the street with little chance of getting another job. as for compensation, they wouldn't have even got leaving pay they were entitled to and owed, let alone get 'early retirement and a pension'! same old story! when it's someone that suits, they get all that is good. for everyone else, there's shit street!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They may be Incredibly stupid for believing everything they see on the internet, but i don't see how that gives anyone justification to have them arrested.
This whole thing just seems like a giant fishing expedition for the police to use to get into the news and say "Look, we're saving the children!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 30th, 2013 @ 7:25am
If the guy was just unlucky in that he happened to attract an agent instead of an actual child, then a victim was real but avoided. However, I've also seen such things happen where the person involved was just desperate or lonely and the possibility of sex/abuse only arose because the agent moved it in that direction. In those cases, there's no victim because the possibility of the crime only arose after encouragement from the agent. You can argue that there would have been some eventually, but it's also possible that you just tricked someone into doing something they wouldn't normally do (not defending pedos here obviously, just voicing the possibility).
It's like those cases where the FBI busts terrorist plots that they set up to begin with. If the people involved were predetermined to perform the crime but were caught because they spoke to the wrong people, fine. If not, there were not and never were any victims to save. It's like if I try to sell you drugs and you happen to be a cop, fair play. If you come to me while I'm poor and desperate, goad me into agreeing to get some drugs for you and arrest me when I deliver what I promised, you haven't put any drug dealers out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Soliciting sex with a minor, whether that person is ACTUALLY a minor or not, is illegal. So is sending sexually explicit material to a minor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i was thinking i was the only numbskull on the planet who thought ALL these 'entrapment' scenarios are BULLSHIT...
they are CREATING crimes NOT COMMITTED to snare careless and/or innocent (in the sense of naive) people... *THAT* should be the 'crime', not responding to a weird (ON ALL LEVELS) fake 'girl' who doesn't exist...
world gone crazy, is what i say...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, for instance, the undercover asks the guy "hey older man, wanna show me the ropes?" If he says yes, it's not entrapyment. If he says no, the undercover could say "if you don't show me the ropes I'm going to put your name and address on the Internet". Now, if the target says yes, he has an entrapment claim, because an agent of the police induced him into performing an illegal act that he would not have otherwise performed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Ortiz's Job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is Ortiz's Job
Are you listening prosecutors in MA? Do you want to earn back some of the respect your profession lost from the Swartz case? Here is your opportunity. Pick up the ball and run with it. We are all watching.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect and Serve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect and Serve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting their own..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
What if instead of a defined benefit plan, he had an IRA that contained money contributed by him and his employer over the last 30 years - should that be seized automatically because he was a suspect?
hey, if you are fired for cause (i.e.theft, insubordination, fighting, etc.) your employer still has to pay your accrued vacation time.
So to quote the appropriate quote "enough of the phony outrage".
If the investigation suddenly stopped cold, that's a question for the investigators to answer; I seriously doubt one cop on a municipal force has that pull. What did they think they would find when they were talking to "latenightcop"?
His department did what you expected them to do - they begain investigating, and if he had not resigned he would have been fired (violating departmental behaviour guidelines). Even fired, he would still get his pension.
We don't take everything a person has the moment they are suspect. Their lawyer does that over the next year or 3.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
And there is plenty of precedent for revoking pensions. http://blogs.app.com/politicspatrol/2012/02/13/cop-loses-pension-over-web-solicitations/
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Should_criminal_cops_lose_their_pension_.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piggy, Piggy
Here Piggy, Piggy.
Come and get it Piggy, Piggy.
STOP THE INVESTIGATION, this Piggy is "More Equal" than the others on this Animal Farm.
No one believes more firmly than Chief Gemme that all are equal, but he insists that some are "More Equal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be a pedophile police man = retire with full pension, no charges filed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe if he was caught violating a websites's terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well only that 1 guy did wrong... except every single one of you who was aware of the incident after the fact and said nothing to "encouraged" others to stay silent or else are just a guilty.
But we are a brotherhood we have to protect our own... isn't that the same justification used by the mob, gangs, and cartels?
If we don't have each others backs who will?... your allowing someone who rapes, cheats, steals, molests (the list of these cases does go on for a while) to watch your back... are you fucking stupid?
They would never do it to us... ya know people used to say that about the government and terrorism, and we are less safe and more spied on than ever before.
I don't have the answer how to fix this, I doubt there is a magic wand, but to pretend we have to accept the enforcers of the law violating them as the price of safety is stupid. We deserve better, we need to demand it, and stop letting the fearmongering win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big deal
Stop the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cop
Even if you believe that the cops stopped the chat so that this guy wouldn't cross the legal line, it doesn't matter. He didn't break the law; he gets his pension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Govt Authorities are the Sex Predators
they run the child porn & Sex Industry
they also do this to murder off the disabled, because they love the smell of MONEY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]