Alan T. Panda convicted of trying to arrange sexual encounter with 15-year-old boy
Alan Berlin, known in the furry fandom as Alan T. Panda, has been convicted of trying to arrange a sexual encounter with a 15-year-old boy. [Skirtandzy/WikiFur]
Berlin, a fursuiter, babyfur, and "daddyfur/caretaker with a cub side", first made the news in 2009, when, on May 28, he was arrested on charges of propositioning an underage boy over the Internet. After the boy's parents found sexually explicit messages on his computer, they contacted the Attorney General's Child Predator Unit; two days later, Berlin was arrested.
Berlin's trial was initially scheduled for September 13, 2010, though was delayed until October. On October 27, just prior to the start of his trial, it was reported that Berlin had pleaded guilty to three felony counts in return for the attorney general’s office agreeing to drop several other charges against him.
On February 17, 2011, Berlin withdrew the pleas prior to sentencing, and a new trial date was set, with the Deputy Attorney General intending to reinstate the dropped charges. On April 12, the trial opened, and the jury was walked through ten Yahoo Instant Messaging exchanges between Berlin and the teen. These messages involved conversations about sex acts, and, in some of the messages, the two spoke of meeting to have sex in a backyard shed at the boy's home. Berlin also asked the teen to send him nude photos.
Berlin responded by stating that the texts were "only role playing", and he had never intended to actually meet the boy in real life. He further said that he had not realized he was chatting with a teenage boy until authorities raided his home.
After deliberating for about five hours over two days, the jury announced that they were hopelessly deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared.
On March 5, 2012, Berlin's retrial began, with a jury of eleven women and one man. On March 7, the jury found Berlin guilty on all counts. During the trial, Berlin told the jury he "is a furry, meaning he pretends to be an animal for sexual purposes", and defense attorney William T. Tully said that the furry community is "an imagination world where everybody pretends to be something they're not"; in this case, a juvenile dolphin. The jury foreman said the furry aspect was considered, but had little to do with the resolution of the case.
Berlin will be sentenced in May. Sentencing guidelines suggest he may be facing a minimum of four years in prison.
About the author
Higgs Raccoon — read stories — contact (login required)a (No longer a Flayrah contributor)
Comments
Nice try at a defense, but asking for nude pictures of someone pretending to be a minor is not (as far as I am aware) a common roleplaying activity, especially given that it would break the fantasy.
Also, way to mischaracterize a whole fandom as a fetish in an attempt to save your own skin. Glad the jury saw through it.
Here's the part I'm most interested in, why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? What changed? Was there new evidence that came to light or was the jury biased against him? It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children. Is it possible that they were all mothers and biased against him from that?
If the evidence were the same then any reasonable jury should always come to the same conclusion. Considering the first jury was deadlocked it doesn't seem like the evidence for him knowing that the boy was a teenager was all that strong.
He did do furry a terrible injustice with his description of it though.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
In the previous case, I believe the prosecutor went after the furry fandom and babyfur as perverse and tried to get them to convict based on reacting to the perverse recoiling against the fandom. That it was someone going after a minor was a sideshow.
In this case, the prosecutor left Furry and Babyfur out of it, and focused on showing that the man went after a minor for sex.
That was a great question.
"Why did one jury get deadlocked in five hours of deliberation and the other find him guilty in just over one hour? - It's noted that the second jury was almost entirely female and they are generally considered extra protective of their children."
That "generally considered" idea does exist, and it's bullshit. It's verifiable through annual stats from the US Dept of Health and Human Services, that no group commits more child abuse than mothers acting alone. It's twice as frequent as the amount done by fathers alone.
Those are a minority among the good parents out there. Baby-fur senate staffers who perv on teenagers are rare, too.
"Generally considered" ideas shouldn't happen in the justice system. They might when an almost all-female jury considers the case of a man accused of a gender-loaded crime.
You could compare it to an almost all-white jury considering the case of a black person accused of a race-loaded crime. It's verifiable that being male leads to a harsher sentencing gender disparity, that outweighs the well-known disparity for sentences between black and white people. "To Kill A Mockingbird" put both situations together.
(Gender-loaded: A man who honestly hasn't checked age while doing sex chat is both dumb, and excusable. There shouldn't be a list of sex offenders that lumps the most brutal rapists together with men who got listed for peeing in public, for sleeping with a 17-year-old girlfriend while they were 19, or for making an honest mistake about ID. These people get less constitutional rights than captured terror suspects.)
However this guy was chatting about secret screwing in the backyard with someone who lived with parents. If he didn't check age in the first place, there's a big fat clue to do it.
This conviction sounds justified, but there's bigger issues around it.
Reason is cool.
"However this guy was chatting about secret screwing in the backyard with someone who lived with parents. If he didn't check age in the first place, there's a big fat clue to do it."
These days not really, a lot of adults live with their parents, not only furries but the general public as well.
HOWEVER, the fact that he had to GO to the parent's house should have been a clue... how many times do you bring a first date home to meet the parents? That just seems odd to me, especially if the goal is sex.
That statistic doesn't disprove anything about the claim that women would be biased in child abuse cases. As you said, those abusive women are a minority among the greater population of mothers/women, so it is still easily possible the majority has a bias toward overly protective. This isn't to say they do have such a bias, only that those stats don't verify things ones way or another for that claim.
Now, Rakuen, while I usually find some bit of intelligence in your posts, whether or not I agree with what you're saying, seriously:
>Using a stereotype to defend a walking, talking stereotype
:C
Good riddance. And of course, we'll be spending the next few years cleaning up the backlash and trying to convince everyone that we are not all creepers like this guy. Mess around with someone in a sexual manner...real life intentions be damned, and not verify the other person's age? Shame on you, you brought it on yourself.
Do you ask everyone's age? And, more importantly, what if someone lies? How can you verify someone's age and, if you couldn't, how much effort would someone have to make before you would consider them shameful?
Let's just say person X meets someone online and has sexual discussions and plans to meet them. It turns out that someone is only 15 but lied about their age and sent a photo of someone else which he claimed was his. Person X failed to verify the other person's age although they did attempt it and as far as they knew the person was of age. Would that still be a problem?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Welcome to the reason I stopped doing yiff scenes online in places that are not by rule 18+.
If they ARE 18+ , I at least have good faith effort on my side, but lately, I've not even enjoyed that, so I might stop completely.
Jesus Christ, Rakuen, are you seriously defending the convicted peodophile too now?
Also, "There were a lot of women on that there jury, and you know how them womens are."
Really?
Please read my posts properly. It surprises me how few people read what is said and instead react to what they think I said. Parts you might want to look at again are "generally considered" and "Is it possible...?"
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
In other words, you're the Devil's advocate.
I tend not to trust Devil's advocate because they are, you know, advocates for the Devil.
Because we all know those who preach loudly for the rule of Law or Lord always have the best of intentions and don't need any kind of oversight, right?
Nah, they're simply devil's advocates tricked into thinking they're working for the other team.
So the consensus is Devil's Advocates never have anything worth saying? I find it hard to believe people are that narrow minded no dissension can be brought up but...
The Devil's advocate in this case seems to have more advocacy for pedophiles and zoophiles than many others.
Fun fact: THe Devil's advocate was an official catholic church position until very recently. It was abolished as a result of the recent influx of child molestation cases and the fear that the office of the Devil's Advocate would stop people from being made saints because they MIGHT bring up the kiddie banging.
I thought we were talking about people who thought they knew God better then he knew himself, not devil's advocates. What I was saying is when someone believes they know God better then he knows himself, don't they literally take the position of Lucifer who though he knew how to run things better?
See, the irony is all men are devil's advocates, because there is no mortal who can be the opposite.
It's not that the devil's advocate never has anything to say, it's that implicitly trusting the devil's advocate doesn't have an agenda is being just as naive as implicitly trusting authority.
Furthermore, in this case, the dissenter has a past history of saying really fucking stupid things, so he's probably saying something really fucking stupid again.
The role of a devil's advocate should have nothing to do with trust. Either their questions have no bearing on the issue because they are easily answered, or attempting to answer the questions highlights an issue. An agenda would be irrelevant.
Oh, hell, no.
The guy above you is arguing that we shouldn't trust authority because they might have an agenda, and now you're saying agendas are irrelevant, and we should just automatically question the entire American judicial system because some South African dogfucker advocate who most likely has convinced himself attempting to buttfuck a fifteen year old in a toolshed is not such a bad thing after all.
I mean, seriously, yes there are times when the American judicial system has failed, and innocent people have gone to jail (or worse) because it messed up (which is something that has never happened due to the South African judicial system, oh no), but questioning the guilty verdict of a guilty man is something completely different.
"...questioning the guilty verdict of a guilty man is something completely different."
In other words, to you the questions are easily addressed and have no bearing on the issue. No discussion of agenda required, in agreement with the post you are replying to. No need to over-dramatise it.
I wasn't pointing out the questions Rakuen were asking were easily answered; I was pointing out, and I quote, he was "seriously defending the convicted peodophile (sic) too now."
I will now point out that you are defending the guy who was defending the guy who was defending the guy who was defending the convicted pedophile.
Nope. I'm saying it's all well and good to say that you shouldn't engage in sexual roleplay with minors but verifying that is, for practical purposes, impossible. I'm also saying that adolescents have strong hormones and want that sort of discussion and are prepared to lie for it. Point is it's not possible to verify someone's age.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
It might cause problems, but it shouldn't be illegal - the intent to have unlawful contact with a minor is required for conviction. In this case, the jury decided that the evidence fit the crime. In the example you gave, it would not.
1.8 with 10 votes? Do you people really disagree that you can't verify someone's age online?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I do not disagree with that, however, that's not what happened here.
If you are in a place that is 18+, you have made a good faith effort. If you ask, "how old are you", you've made a good faith effort. Police will take that into account.
Honestly, though, I think with the way you're acting and stances you're taking, Rakuen, many of us feel that it's only a matter of time before we read about you here.
My post wasn't directed at the story as such. It was directed at a comment which says this.
"Mess around with someone in a sexual manner...real life intentions be damned, and not verify the other person's age? Shame on you, you brought it on yourself."
I was then asking how one could be expected to verify another person's age. I don't know enough to comment on what happened with case. All I've heard about it are some news reports on what eventually came out.
Also, if you expect me to be here for committing a crime for asking questions... well you may actually be right. In some countries people are sued, threatened or arrested for far less. However there is still a certain protection for freedom of speech and reason in the West and I don't intend to give that up.
You shouldn't trust something as the truth just because it was said by some authority figure. I would also advise people to read a bit further because there are people who ask the same sort of questions, both in the public sphere and in academic journals. Failure to question accepted views will lead to stagnation and prevent the shedding of poor ideas.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
If I'm going to meet someone IRL I would have chatted on video camera with them, and also done a drivers license check over such. So it's quite easy to do, and if they don't want to that raises an alarm in my head. IRL the easy way to do it is to compare drivers license photos. Even if they are not a driver, chances are anyone 18+ will have a non drivers ID in the U.S. Really, no one should get offended at being asked for ID. I never am.
Yeah it could be fake, but if it looks reasonably real you have a solid defense. Prosecutors will factor that in there in deciding if charges should proceed. They don't like losing a case, so if you do take precautions they might decide it's not in their favor to pursue
"I don't know enough to comment on what happened with case."
You know what, Rakuen, you sure do say variations of this phrase a lot.
"I would also advise people to read a bit further"
Boy, howdy, friends.
I have to because people keep acting as though I'm trying to speak from knowing everything about a specific story. Most of the time it's taking an issue that has arisen and then looking at that issue. So in this case the issue was whether or not age can be verified. None of us here, to my knowledge, have read the chat logs or heard the arguments in court or are omnipotent so none of us have the sort of knowledge that will let us say for certain whether or not he knew the kid was under-age or not.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I'm sure if the 15 year old lied about their age or never specified their age that would have been the FIRST thing the defense used. If not then Mr. Sad Panda had a really terrible lawyer, and that would be his fault for getting bad representation. I mean, it'd certainly be more relevant to his defense then his definition of a furry, which is not only irrelevant but does make him sound like a sexual deviant. If I were his lawyer I would have told him to keep that under his hat.
I totally agree. Similarly, if he had asked and got a real answer then that's the first thing the prosecution would have used, instead of focussing on nonsense about him being a furry. That, to me, says that either Alan did know but the chat logs were not a complete record of all communication or that Alan truly didn't know. Since they no doubt had access to both Alan and the teen's PC I find it hard to believe that they didn't have all the messages and am incline to believe that Alan was ignorant of the boy's true age and that the evidence was not overwhelming, hence why the jury was deadlocked in the first trial. Never specifying an age would not be a perfect defence as it could perhaps be inferred.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Well, seriously, dude, don't set yourself up then.
I mean, you did totally lob that one over the plate.
I know this is all old news, but really...
"Failure to question accepted views will lead to stagnation and prevent the shedding of poor ideas."
But just like in space, on the internet, no one can hear you scream, even if it makes perfect damned sense.
I'm sorry to say most people treat you like a pariah based on your more acedemic and questioning approach to issues that are controversial but ambigious. God forbid, you know, someone has the balls to think outside of the box and get their hands dirty in a mess of taboo subject matter AND question the issue on various angles.
I hate to say it, but it looks like the majority of what you preach and question only further strengthens the larger portion of the site readers/participants dogmatic, narrow-minded beliefs. On the other hand, just know you got one person here at least that appreciates your intellect.
I'd rather be dogmatic than a dogfucker any day.
If I didn't know any better, I would have thought you were just waiting to throw that cute little muse of yours out there. You just had to let the dogs out. I actually kind of laughed, really.
But really, either way you go there, I find either of the two to be rather soul sucking and a big mess not worth getting into in the end. Not because of the challenges and very low public acceptability of one, and the ridiculous non-disputable authoritative foundation of another. Either activity makes no logical sense and is the pain in the ass to try and defend or understand. Kinda sad you picked one over the other, though. There's also "none of the above" you know. :P
But I guess that doesn't sound as fun and sassy as what you said, huh? And I think you think more about dogfucking (even if it's in a good old healthy hateful manner) than Rakuen or anyone else who dares to question the questionability of such a strange act. But really... You're STILL bringing that up? Wasn't that like... 2 months ago or something?
Let it fucking die already.
Oh, you really are new here. You think this is just two months old?
I've been nursing this vendetta with Rakuen since at least June, when the Krypto case started (and we had a much friendlier rivalry going back since 2010). You should also note that we're both on the site "staff list" -Rakuen as a contributing editor, me as a reviewer- and I have never questioned his right to be up there, or asked my name to be taken down in protest. Furthermore, I don't hound Rakuen's stories with "please get the hell out" type comments; rather the opposite, in fact. Yes, I am going to shout at him for defending pedophilia and bestiality, but as long as he never goes beyond defending those acts, he's a welcome contributor. Who may not always feel welcome, admittedly.
Cute dog puns aside, the question both you and Rakuen failed to ask was whether I and others like me were being truly dogmatic, or whether we had asked the question ourselves and decided, hey, maybe dogma has a point on this one.
We're frigging furries, dude. Accusing us of strictly following dogma without question is, well, stupid.
I have to agree with Rakuen's comments below. I mean seriously... "real life intentions be damned" and that if someone didn't verify the age of someone who is willingly participating in an online cyber session they're jailbait? Forget the Pandas case, are you serious that this is the standard you'd hold everyone to? That someone with no intention of doing something in RL who is cybering with another participant and does not or can not verify the age and THAT means they deserve to go to jail???
I know there's a lot of anger over what Alan did but keep it directed at that guy for his rightfully disgusting crime without throwing all of our rights under the bus in a hysterical online fit, okay?
If you don't verify the age of your partner, ignorance is no excuse of breaking the law.
However, if you're on a site that's 18+ , and you say "Are you over 18?" and they respond in the affirmative, then you have established GOOD FAITH.
I think that the burden is clear here. If you don't establish or make a good faith effort to verify the age of your sexual partner, you are liable if they are minors.
There's no throwing away of rights here. Stop typefucking everything that moves, and think about your actions. It's VERY easy to say "Hey,btw, before we get into this, are you over 18?"
Done.
If that is his definition of a furry, it is little surprise that he ended up where he ended up.
Okay. It's one thing when a television network says this, because I can usually chalk it up to ignorance and/or the "sex sells" mantra.
But when an actual member of this community says this shit...
Okay, you know what, fuck it. I'm not even going to try to articulate just how stupid that is. I'm just going to say this:
Alan T. Panda, fuck you.
Soon he'll be able to pursue all those prison roleplaying sessions.
What's the safeword for prison rape-roleplay sessions?
There is no safeword, hahahahah :-D
Another Critical Hit?!?!
Two years on, I think this cartoon holds up rather well, don't you?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/2341575/
Actually it's a better commentary of what's wrong with public reactions to things that they find offensive.
-It was done before he was found guilty so it completely ignores the concept innocent until proven guilty. Even now the first jury couldn't come to a decision which hardly suggests overwhelming evidence.
-It gives the perception that violence is an acceptable response to actions you disagree with. No doubt you'd say it's fine for what the supposed crime but that neglects that to many other people being gay, having long hair or listening to music is a crime that warrants death.
-It blows things out of proportion in an attempt to create hatred against a specific person. He wasn't guilty when that was drawn and has never been accused of engaging in sex with anyone. He may have been planning it but he also may not have even known.
Overall the cartoon is irresponsible, reactionary, neglects his rights and disregards what there is and isn't evidence for. Perhaps you think it's amusing but I can read in the news stories about many people who have been accused of a crime and, before they've even been arrested or reported to the police, had their homes burned down or even been killed by angry mobs.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
"Perhaps you think it's amusing..."
Not nearly as amusing as the thought of poor l'il Alan T. Pandaboy getting gang-banged up his sorry ass while in the can, in the manner of a Trashcan Champion illustration, let me assure you! :-D
You could've said "even that douchebag crossie said it wasn't funny," linked to my review, and maybe ended up with better karma.
For the record, it's still not funny, but I'd rather see unnecessary cartoon violence over cub porn any day of the week and totally cop to the double standard which Rakuen may or may not be aware of.
Rakuen does have one point; stop with the prison rape jokes. They are inappropriate, which I could forgive if they were funny, but they aren't.
Trashcan Champion drew some furry prison rape pictures, IIRC. That's furry (and funny) enough for me!
Let's hypothetically suppose *I* get off on prison rape fantasies, as opposed to fucking dogs or propositioning 15-year-old boys. Where's *my* Rakuen to defend *my* masturbatory fantasies, to make excuses and bullshit musings regarding what floats *my* boat?!
See, now you're trying. That wasn't exactly ready for primetime, but it made a point, was kinda clever and wasn't "prison rape!" End joke.
A gang gets sent to prison for robbing a New York bank; in jail, thay rape Alan T. Panda.
What do they say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnCR8kSSmqw
"Gangbang!"?
This place is nothing but drama and reviews of yiffy literature.
And yet you're here all the time.
(Also, that's not true--crossie reviews movies, too.)
He's not here all the time, just when there's drama or yiffy literature reviews.
I see what you did there.
But you forgot I write something every time there is a new NON-PORNOGRAPHIC moview/comic/book review.
I am flattered you divide Flayrah into "drama," "yiffy literature reviews" and "crossie movie reviews."
However, I feel obliged to point out that the majority of site content is none of the above.
Recently it has been.
I'm just going to do this, and I can't open tabs on my cell phone; plus it's hard.
Anyway, of the 15 stories on Flayrah's front page (not counting the In-Fur-Nation piece), we have:
Cute animal stories: 1 or about 7% ("Vixen has Jack Russell foster parent")
Press releases: 2 or about 13% ("2011 Ursa Major Awards nominations now closed," "Furnal Equinox releases March 2012 newsletter")
Newsbyte archives: 1 or about 7% ("February 2011 Newsbyte archive")
Non-yiffy literature (including comics) reviews: 2 or about 13% ("Review: 'PKP for President' by Beth Hilgartner," "Review: 'Peachy Keen Book 1: Tempted', by Mandi Tremblay')
Yiffy literature (including comics) reviews: 2 or about 13 % ("Reviews: 'Dragon's Hoard 2', 'Dragon's Hoard: Runt' and 'Creampie'," "Review: 'Bonds of Silver, Bonds of Gold', by Kristina Tracer")
News pieces not causing comment box drama: 5 or about 33% ("Anthropomorphic researchers launch Winter 2012 survey," "February furry media round-up", "Moar toons, eh?," "Fur-friendly cafe Fernando's to close before Anthrocon 2012," "Five hundred new fairytales discovered in Germany")
News pieces causing comment box drama: 1 or about 7% ("Alan T. Panda convicted of trying to arrange sexual encounter with 15-year-old boy")
Videos: 1 or about 7% ("Video: 'Taylor")
crossie movie reviews: 0 or about 0%
That's pretty much what the fandom is, really.
Drama, yiffy literature, and yiffy drawings.
Perhaps you should start writing more for this site, Mister Twister :D
Are closet fuhrehs considered a part of the fandom?
I say yes.
If anyone was still wondering I’m still a dolphin and still a furry. Also I was just a dumb horny kid if anybody hadn’t guessed that already. The only reason I’m posting here right now is to finally be heard and apologize for the damage that I caused by being a stupid kid. Ever since this case I’ve been a firm advocate of child safety and age restricted chat. Also he got off on parole about two weeks ago he should be on the registry within a month or two just saying.
Post new comment