Karl Eric Scheffing is a child molest...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#111 Oct 15, 2012
MoronLogic wrote:
<quoted text>
The jury is an independant entity. That is the beauty of our judicial system-with all it's flaws. If a law is unjust or if the jury feels that the state has overstepped it's bounds-in addition to the letter of the law, there is jury nullification. This is the last line of defense for the PEOPLE to stop injustice. You still did not explain why these men are not taking this to trial. No one can MAKE them plea out. No one can force them to make a deal. They and they alone, have the final decision on their course of action. Most of them chose to plea out-WHY? Because they are guilty-period. I would not EVER plea to something that I did not do. With the stakes so high and the spectre of being labeled a sex criminal for the rest of their life-it makes absolutely NO sense to plea out.Our justice system is far from perfect-but I would trust a jury over a plea bargain any time.
I still don't have time for a full lengthy explanation but I do have a very good short answer this time. MONEY. Call a criminal defense attorney and ask how much it would be to represent you in a case like this. The answer will more than likely be $15000.00 up front please. This figure will not include anything to do with trial. Trial will be an additional $10,000.00 and will not include any experts to testify on your behalf or investigators to scrutinize every facet of the actual investigation. Experts will cost thousands more each and a defendant should have at least 2, one linguistics expert and a computer forensics expert. Investigation costs will run into several thousand dollars as well.

What does a person do when he doesn't have $50,000.00 in cash on hand? He takes a plea bargain. Even if he does have $50,000.00 lying around there's a good chance he'll take a plea bargain when he considers being tried by a jury of his peers that will include persons such as yourself that do nothing but proclaim guilty guilty guilty without hearing one iota of evidence.
MoronLogic

Virginia Beach, VA

#112 Oct 16, 2012
Maintaining wrote:
<quoted text>
I still don't have time for a full lengthy explanation but I do have a very good short answer this time. MONEY. Call a criminal defense attorney and ask how much it would be to represent you in a case like this. The answer will more than likely be $15000.00 up front please. This figure will not include anything to do with trial. Trial will be an additional $10,000.00 and will not include any experts to testify on your behalf or investigators to scrutinize every facet of the actual investigation. Experts will cost thousands more each and a defendant should have at least 2, one linguistics expert and a computer forensics expert. Investigation costs will run into several thousand dollars as well.
What does a person do when he doesn't have $50,000.00 in cash on hand? He takes a plea bargain. Even if he does have $50,000.00 lying around there's a good chance he'll take a plea bargain when he considers being tried by a jury of his peers that will include persons such as yourself that do nothing but proclaim guilty guilty guilty without hearing one iota of evidence.
You are incorrect sir. I would hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented. If I was an indigent defendant, I would utilize my public defender as that would be all that I have to use. I realize the shortcomings of the public defender but our judiciary system provides all accused with the right to a court appointed defense. Your excuses about money and presumed guilt are weak-I have defended myself in a misdemeanor case in which I was wrongly accused of battery-I won. The odds were stacked against me-three witnesses who lied against me. I only had my testimony-no alabi or witnesses. One of the witnesses against me was a pregnant woman and another one was her 14 year old daughter, the third was her husband. It did not look good for me. They were hell bent by hook or crook to convict me by lying and deciept, yet I stood my ground. Why? Because I had faith in the judicial system and would not take the many plea offers made by the state to settle before trial. Regardless of how it "looked" or the odds against me, I KNEW that I had not done what I was accused of. I was found INNOCENT and I did not make a deal-period.

You make an assumption that I would find the person guilty. If the facts indicated that the person committed a crime, I would find him guilty. But if he was innocent, I would aquit. It appears to me that your main argument is in the minutiae of the letter of law related to entrapment and enticement.

The intent of these stings is deterring sexual manipulation of underage children. You claim that the intent is some conspiracy of law enforcement to pad it's arrest statistics and target innocent men who are "role playing"? While I can agree that there are some cases that implicate innocent people, the problem of online predators is real and needs to be addressed. Our justice system is not perfect and never has been. How would you deal with the problem differently? Or do you think that the whole online predator issue is fabricated? Curious-

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#113 Oct 16, 2012
MoronLogic wrote:
<quoted text>
You are incorrect sir. I would hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts presented. If I was an indigent defendant, I would utilize my public defender as that would be all that I have to use. I realize the shortcomings of the public defender but our judiciary system provides all accused with the right to a court appointed defense. Your excuses about money and presumed guilt are weak-I have defended myself in a misdemeanor case in which I was wrongly accused of battery-I won. The odds were stacked against me-three witnesses who lied against me. I only had my testimony-no alabi or witnesses. One of the witnesses against me was a pregnant woman and another one was her 14 year old daughter, the third was her husband. It did not look good for me. They were hell bent by hook or crook to convict me by lying and deciept, yet I stood my ground. Why? Because I had faith in the judicial system and would not take the many plea offers made by the state to settle before trial. Regardless of how it "looked" or the odds against me, I KNEW that I had not done what I was accused of. I was found INNOCENT and I did not make a deal-period.
You make an assumption that I would find the person guilty. If the facts indicated that the person committed a crime, I would find him guilty. But if he was innocent, I would aquit.
I would submit that a misdemeanor trial is a far cry from a felony trial. I would also submit that the right to court appointed counsel is highly dependent on the income level of the accused at the time of his or her 'first appearance' hearing. If that judge decides that the accused makes too much money then the idea of a public defender is just that, an idea. After that determination getting a public defender or other court appointed counsel takes some fairly serious maneuvering the most common of which would probably be filing a motion for conflict free counsel which usually takes a lawyer to get filed.
MoronLogic wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears to me that your main argument is in the minutiae of the letter of law related to entrapment and enticement.
This isn't something I have argued. I have explained some terminology and talked about 1 statute in particular but argued entrapment and/or enticement? No, sorry I haven't.
MoronLogic wrote:
<quoted text>
The intent of these stings is deterring sexual manipulation of underage children. You claim that the intent is some conspiracy of law enforcement to pad it's arrest statistics and target innocent men who are "role playing"? While I can agree that there are some cases that implicate innocent people, the problem of online predators is real and needs to be addressed. Our justice system is not perfect and never has been. How would you deal with the problem differently? Or do you think that the whole online predator issue is fabricated? Curious-
I haven't made this claim either.

I would never suggest that there aren't any online predators, there are obviously some out there. As I have stated before though, I do not believe there are anywhere near as many as these sting operations would lead people to believe. Internet sex crimes against children account for less than 2% of all sex crimes against children which simply doesn't add up with the number of sting arrests Florida is making these days. Couple that with the fact that there hasn't been a single arrest or conviction for internet crimes against children resulting from an actual investigation and I have a problem. The sting operations aren't investigating individuals suspected of performing illegal activities, they are fishing expeditions of a type that aren't legal virtually anywhere else in the country.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#114 Oct 16, 2012
As litmus test consider this:

Any crime involving the internet automatically falls under federal jurisdiction courtesy of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution and all internet crime arrests are reviewed by federal authorities. They pay particular attention to internet sex crimes against children. Federal authorities only elect to prosecute approximately 13% of the cases stemming from Florida sting operations. Out of that 13% only 80% of the cases are successfully prosecuted. That's a huge discrepancy compared to Florida's nearly 8 times as many cases with a successful prosecution rate of 95+%. The only realistic reason a federal prosecutor would pass on such 'sure thing' convictions is if the there's something wrong with the cases in question. When you compare Florida with other states, federal prosecutors take on a much larger percentage of cases, 80+% on average and have a much higher successful prosecution rate of 99%.

What is Florida doing differently? If Florida is doing a better job than other states then why don't federal prosecutors prosecute more Florida cases? Why does the federal successful prosecution rate drop 19% with the few Florida cases they do take?
MoronLogic

United States

#115 Oct 17, 2012
Maintaining wrote:
<quoted text>
I would submit that a misdemeanor trial is a far cry from a felony trial. I would also submit that the right to court appointed counsel is highly dependent on the income level of the accused at the time of his or her 'first appearance' hearing. If that judge decides that the accused makes too much money then the idea of a public defender is just that, an idea. After that determination getting a public defender or other court appointed counsel takes some fairly serious maneuvering the most common of which would probably be filing a motion for conflict free counsel which usually takes a lawyer to get filed.
<quoted text>
This isn't something I have argued. I have explained some terminology and talked about 1 statute in particular but argued entrapment and/or enticement? No, sorry I haven't.
<quoted text>
I haven't made this claim either.
I would never suggest that there aren't any online predators, there are obviously some out there. As I have stated before though, I do not believe there are anywhere near as many as these sting operations would lead people to believe. Internet sex crimes against children account for less than 2% of all sex crimes against children which simply doesn't add up with the number of sting arrests Florida is making these days. Couple that with the fact that there hasn't been a single arrest or conviction for internet crimes against children resulting from an actual investigation and I have a problem. The sting operations aren't investigating individuals suspected of performing illegal activities, they are fishing expeditions of a type that aren't legal virtually anywhere else in the country.
If you look at my previous statement, I said exactly the following: "If I was an indigent defendant, I would utilize my public defender as that would be all that I have to use." My statement was in response to your previous statement of the following: "What does a person do when he doesn't have $50,000.00 in cash on hand? He takes a plea bargain." Obviosly

Listen closely - you fight it with your public defender if you have no money or your private attonrey if you do have money. A plea bargain is NOT a defendant's only option when indigent. Nor is it his only option if he has a private attorney. In addition, I don't think the misdemeanor/felony status has anything to do with it. If you believe in your innocence and have the resources or not, fight it. Either way, you DO have a defense. No one can "make" them take a plea bargain.

It appears that you are blaming the high number of plea bargains on the simple assumption that too many people like "me" will proclaim him guilty without weighing the evidence. Not only are you accusing law enforcement and the legal system of railroading these guys, you are also accusing the majority of potential jurors of railroading them as well. So these poor guys are victims of the perfect storm of over zealous law enforcement, blind judicial system, and equaly blind and biased juror pools. That's a pretty bad deck stacked against these poor guys who were only "role playing". Maybe a good policy for them to follow is to avoid getting on the internet and "role playing" or otherwise conversing with what might be a minor. Seems like a pretty easy way to avoid putting one's self in this situation.

I guess this is asking too much considering the victim based mentality which pervades our society now. It's the system and the biased juror's who are to blame-not the guy who thinks that he is talking sex to a 16 year old girl.

Again, I can tell you what I would do in this situation-STOP THE CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!!! And I doubt that I will ever be sitting in front of a judge having been charged with an underage internet sex crime. These poor victims zealous law emforcement and blind juries need more advocates to speak out on their behalf to stop this travesty-LOL!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#116 Oct 17, 2012
Please take your own advice and LISTEN CLOSELY!

You are correct in that a plea bargain is not the only option for an indigent defendant however you incorrectly assume that a non-indigent defendant will miraculously always have enough money to pay for representation all the way through trial. This simply is not true for all non-indigent defendants and in fact is only true for a distinct minority of defendants. The phenomenon of not being able to afford a trial is not limited to just internet sex crimes it is something that is pervasive throughout criminal defense for any crime. When you retain an attorney you are informed of the fee schedule for representation through a plea bargain and how much above that you will be charged to go to trial and the fees are explained in just that manner.

Lawyer - "For $15000.00 I'll take the case and represent you up to and including plea bargaining. If you want to go to trial that will be $10,000.00 plus any expenses."

Defendant - "Uhhh ok"

When a defendant cannot afford to pay for trial 99 times out of 100 he or she will accept a plea deal regardless of innocence or guilt especially if the plea deal means no prison time.

You wondered why anybody would accept a plea deal if he or she KNEW they were innocent. Welcome to reality. It happens all the time regardless of what YOU would do and nothing you say will make that simple fact any less true.

If you are faced with felony charges the last thing any remotely sane person should do is try to represent himself in a felony trial. The rules and procedures for felony trials are different and the prosecutor will bury anybody that tries to do so. Judges do not grant the same amount of latitude for self representation that they do in misdemeanor cases. They will do everything in their power to coerce a defendant into retaining representation. All of this is done to limit any basis for appeal. A possible recourse would be for the defendant to file a motion for conflict free counsel but also again, that's something you really want a professional to at least help with.

Now for the love of God would you please stop attributing me with statements that I never made or even implied! I have not accused law enforcement, the legal system or the potential jury pool of railroading anyone nor have I mentioned anything about 'role playing'

As far as what you would do in this situation? Your brilliant idea to "STOP THE CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!"? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you missed the part about this being a crime that cannot be abandoned? If so then you should reconsider your propensity for autodidacticism.
If the conversation makes it that far then you've probably already violated a statute. My problem isn't with law enforcement, the legal system or potential jurors it's with piss poor legislation.

These statutes don't make a distinction between a real minor and a fake minor but the "belief" portion only applies to fake minors. What that means in the real world is a minor can lie and claim to be older and even though you believe what she tells you and have absolutely no knowledge of her real age you will be in just as much trouble as anybody caught in these sting operations. Your belief is irrelevant. When it comes to the fake minor that tells you a fake age, everything depends on what you can prove you believed. In this scenario the state doesn't have to prove what you believed, all they have to prove is that a minor age was stated at some point. It's up to the defendant to prove he didn't believe he was talking to a minor, something that would take things like a linguistics expert witness to demonstrate to a jury. It shouldn't be necessary for a defendant to prove his innocence. It's supposed to be state that has to prove the defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. These statutes make a mockery of that concept allowing the state to shirk that responsibility. I find that reprehensible.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#117 Nov 5, 2012
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIGN THIS PETITION AND GET EVERYONE THEY KNOW TO SIGN IT TOO:

http://www.change.org/petitions/florida-gov-s...
Hang molesters

United States

#118 Nov 6, 2012
DueProcessIsDue wrote:
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIGN THIS PETITION AND GET EVERYONE THEY KNOW TO SIGN IT TOO:
http://www.change.org/petitions/florida-gov-s...
I'll sign your's if you sign mine-

http://www.change.org/petitions/enforce-stron...

As Clint Eastwood says-HANG EM HIGH!
Gayle

United States

#119 Dec 10, 2012
He indeed troll the Internet to find a young girl!!!! I knew Karl intimately and he was into so really kinky stuff. He told me the story about his stepdaughter a few months after we were involved and I believed him too. But, now I don't believe him. He said one time that he would love to be with a much younger girl. And he always would say "of age, if course." So, tell me he didn't troll Craigslist looking to hook up with a young girl!!!
chit wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed Karl made a mistake, I do not negate that, nor does he. He did not get on the internet with the intent to "troll" for someone underage. He has not touched nor contacted anyone underage with sexual intent. He has not viewed nor owned any form of media of sexual nature of someone underage.
Gayle

United States

#120 Dec 10, 2012
DueProcessIsDue wrote:
EVERYONE NEEDS TO SIGN THIS PETITION AND GET EVERYONE THEY KNOW TO SIGN IT TOO:
http://www.change.org/petitions/florida-gov-s...
He would've gotten caught sooner or later!!! Bastard should be in jail and not on probation.
Gayle

United States

#121 Dec 10, 2012
Protect the Kids Correctl wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, there is no need for name calling.... Trying being a little more mature when speaking to people. I have not called you a single name or belittled you at all. It seems that name calling is a last resort for you and I don't appreciate it and neither do any of the other viewers.
Law enforcement has to provide a reason why they are targeting a specific group (in this case MEN on craigslist) and also have to have to give reasoning why they went after specific person. There is no logical predisposition trapping people on an ADULT WEBSITE.
Answer me this question: Why would a "pedophile" be searching on and ADULT website for children. It makes absolutely no sense. One of my favorite qutes that I have seen used a couple times says: ITS LIKE TAKING A VEGAN TO STEAKHOUSE AND AND MAKING HIM EAT A STEAK SALAD BECAUSE IT HAD THE WORD SALAD IN IT.
Law enforcement and the prosecuting attorneys have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person was specifically on that ADULT website to look for children to prey on.
If this sting was done correctly, law enforcement would hang out on sites where children hang out. The predators are there. Those are the people that deserve to rot in a prison and not a guy on an ADULT website who got a rogue itch in his pants.
He was NOT on an adult website!!! He was on Craigslist trolling for young girls.
Pervert Exposer

United States

#122 Dec 11, 2012
Gayle wrote:
<quoted text>
He was NOT on an adult website!!! He was on Craigslist trolling for young girls.
The truth always reveals itself. His mommy and other defenders of this pervert can't except the fact that Scheffing is a sexual deviant who got caught....no blame for police or courts or any other excuses. HE did it-HE got caught-HE is now identified for protection of society.

What does amaze me is the lack of empathy for the potential victim. Would his mommy who defended him here have defended him if it was HER 15 year old daughter who was being sought out by a bald, 40 year old ex marine who likes sex with young girls.

Gayle, thank you for dispelling the false claims and reinforcing the knowledge that one more bottom feeder has been identified and neutralized for society safety.

It's about time for another sting eh? You trolling pervs will never know when it's real or set up. The best bet for all deviants is don't role play, chat, talk, converse or communicate in any way with a percieved minor-then you have nothing to worry about
talknstang

Monroeville, AL

#123 Mar 3, 2013
its only a matter of time before these stings are exposed for their illegal tactics....and when it does, it should make for great news headlines. Its just who is going to be held accountable for all the lies being told to the public? That should be rather interesting. Florida is in some deep shit, but it serves em right for turning a blind eye to a serious problem. The problem isnt a "pedo" problem, the problem is rogue law enforcement agencies with the "God" complex doing just about whatever they want. Good job Miami-Dade county for not allowing these type stings to happen. Either that or no "pedos" live in the most populous county in the state, lmao FACTS vs. Lies

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#124 Mar 3, 2013
talknstang wrote:
its only a matter of time before these stings are exposed for their illegal tactics....and when it does, it should make for great news headlines. Its just who is going to be held accountable for all the lies being told to the public? That should be rather interesting. Florida is in some deep shit, but it serves em right for turning a blind eye to a serious problem. The problem isnt a "pedo" problem, the problem is rogue law enforcement agencies with the "God" complex doing just about whatever they want. Good job Miami-Dade county for not allowing these type stings to happen. Either that or no "pedos" live in the most populous county in the state, lmao FACTS vs. Lies
These guys should not even be "role playing" with girls that say they are under age. If given the opportunity these guys would sleep with any age girl. Otherwise they would never have intercourse with anyone but themselves.
talknstang

Monroeville, AL

#125 Mar 3, 2013
the men are not responding to ads that mention anything about a minor. It isnt until after the allure of sex is made by law enforcement placing a suggestive ad in Craigslist, when "the switch" occurs. Its called "bait and switch" and thats how these men get suckered. Here is a good example from the Panama City sting last summer that was reported.
" officers posing as boys and girls between ages of 8 and 14 visit websites and engage potential predators in chats on sex. In these cases, officers posted ads on websites with headlines like "yung fun 4 u-w4m-26"
now you tell me how the men that responded to this ad are actively seeking out children between the ages of 8-14 when the ad specifically mentions a 26yr old female. If you can do that, then i am a monkeys uncle and i will admit to not knowing a damn thing, lmao. They lie, thats how! And even better, that article that said that disappeared just like the ECSD press release on BLue Shepherd did as well. It used to be there, now its not. Fortunately i made a copy of it. Its kinda odd that WEAR's online report disappeared as well...FOX10's is still online. Hmmm...makes you wonder
talknstang

Monroeville, AL

#126 Mar 3, 2013
Inflorida wrote:
<quoted text>
These guys should not even be "role playing" with girls that say they are under age. If given the opportunity these guys would sleep with any age girl. Otherwise they would never have intercourse with anyone but themselves.
i agree with you, but at the same time, law enforcement shouldnt be encouraging this as well, and that is what is happening. Not only that, but they send out photos of a very mature female adding the the level of confusion. People are not always who they say they are online, so when the cops do stuff like that.....well hopefully you get my point. They are not allowed to send pictures depicting any minor so we know for a fact that any photograph that they send is someone of legal age.
Pierced Perv

United States

#127 Aug 8, 2013
Check out Karl the Molestor's mug on the Florida sexual predator website. Looks like dumbass decided to get some perv piercings to fit in with and increase his chances of nailing some underage tail. Hey BVD skidmark, havenn't you learned yet?
look into this

United States

#128 Aug 11, 2013
Theres are sex offender who was imprisoned for aggravated rape of a minor and he claims he is now innocent. Children are in the home around him and neighbors should watch him for any activity. He is on Loyola street
Reaper

Jonesborough, TN

#130 Feb 13, 2014
As for me, I will side with the accused. Pensacola has proven itself to be a modern day sodom with it's NO blankets to homeless people and such. That indicates a total lack of morality on their part. And if they are head of the snake , then what's it's tail look like ?

I stay in constant prayer that Gods wrath falls on the heads of the families of those who would harm Gods Children. In my eyes, they are little Hitlers, worse than this child molester even if he is guilty.

So, as long as you live in Sodom, you are a Sodomite. If the accused is a sodomite and he gets a jury trial, it will be by a jury of his equals. Sodomites judging sodomites.

I have a collection of over 100 cases where someone purposely harmed the homeless or otherwise less fortunate, and they came to a bad end. The latest entry comes from Tennessee. A while state of hate and bigotry and ignorance and godlessness, approaching Naziism.

Anyhow, the Lt Governor Ron Ramsey goes to Nashville and fires off a couple rounds at the down trodden! then returns home to find that his grandson of three years old has testicular cancer? BAMM !

This stuff is as real as gravity. God will get the city council. It's just the way He works. Justice for His Children.
Dune

Cantonment, FL

#131 Feb 21, 2014
chit wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you do not know as much as you think you do. you people are basing and forming your opinion on gossip, mis-informed rantings of scorned women from his past and news reporters that did not have details of each individual case.
I am confident he did not come and inform you while he was being a pervert. Do you really think you're convincing us of anything wholesome at all? Grow up. Children need protecting, not exuse making for, or from, charismatic failures!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pensacola Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Removal of MlK bust on Palafox. Nov 12 Reality Camp 8
The truth about "chaplain" George Clyde from wa... (Aug '16) Nov 5 ANONYMOUS 8
Escambia County Sheriff's (Dec '06) Nov 3 Jrt81 145
GULF Islands National Seashore Oct 29 Jerry Grubb 1
Hooker RoundUp & Judging (Feb '13) Oct 25 Niemand 52
News Pensacola Florida Thinks Poor Black People Shou... (Jan '08) Oct 25 Niemand 105
Stallone's Pizza (Nov '13) Oct '17 pippapuggle 12

Pensacola Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pensacola Mortgages