Utah Man Charged a Second Time With Enticing A Minor

A Utah man facing charges for enticing a minor was arrested a second time after attempting to entice a minor while out on bail.

Online crimes

Photo by: Bill Selak

31 year old Kyler Craig Robertson was arrested in early May for enticing a minor after he was caught trying to lure a young teen off the internet to meet him for sex. Robertson was arrested when the teen he was trying to meet up at a local park turned out to be an undercover police officer. Robertson told authorities he had sexual thoughts about minors and that he considered himself a danger to children. Regardless of this confession that could put other minors in harm’s way, he was released on bail shortly after his arrest.

Arrested while on bail

Less than three weeks following his arrest for enticing a minor, Robertson again attempted to entice a teen on the internet. When he arrived at the planned location to engage in sexual activity, he was arrested again. Robertson admitted to being attracted to young teens and claimed he also viewed child pornography. Following his second arrest, his bail was listed at a hefty $100,000.

Enticing a minor

Utah Code 76-5-401 states “A person commits enticement of a minor when the person knowingly uses the Internet or text messaging to solicit, seduce, lure, or entice a minor, or to attempt to solicit, seduce, lure, or entice a minor, or another person that the actor believes to be a minor, to engage in any sexual activity which is a violation of state criminal law.” The punishment for enticing a minor depends on the type of sexual activity the suspect intended to engage in with the minot. Section 76-5-401 goes on to explain that “Enticement of a minor . . . is punishable as follows:

(a) enticement to engage in sexual activity which would be a first degree felony for the actor is a . . . second degree felony upon the first conviction . . . ;
(b) enticement to engage in sexual activity which would be a second degree felony for the actor is a third degree felony;
(c) enticement to engage in sexual activity which would be a third degree felony for the actor is a class A misdemeanor;
(d) enticement to engage in sexual activity which would be a class A misdemeanor for the actor is a class B misdemeanor; and
(e) enticement to engage in sexual activity which would be a class B misdemeanor for the actor is a class C misdemeanor.”

Double or subsequent charge

911 Bail Bonds Las Vegas

The charges against Robertson would have been a first degree felony had he committed the act he intended to do with the young teen, so he is now facing multiple second degree enticement charges as explained above. It has not yet been stated whether or not he will be facing those charges together or individually, one right after the other, otherwise known as a subsequent charge. Section 76-5-401 warns that a second or any subsequent conviction of a second degree enticement charge is. . . “punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term of not fewer than three years and which may be for life”.

Knowing he’s a danger

Robertson committed these crimes against minors, but he also knew that he had a problem. By voicing to authorities his sexual feelings toward minors and admitting he was a danger to children, he was putting the safety of potential victims in the hands of the judicial system. Releasing him on an obtainable bail the first time set him up to fail a second time while also putting those around him in danger. Anyone facing criminal charges, regardless of whether or not they have a mental health issue is encouraged to be represented by a qualified attorney.

Criminal Charges For Utah Man Who Made Threat of Terrorism in YouTube Comment Section

A Utah man is facing criminal charges after he used the comment section on YouTube to make a threat of terrorism toward the site’s employees.

Keyboard warrior

Photo by: Kelly Schott

35 year old David Levon Swanson of Orem, Utah was arrested following a series of hateful comments he made on YouTube videos that led the video site’s employees fearing for their safety. Some of Swanson’s comments including talking about the executives being murdered as well as them not “last[ing] much longer”. He later specified that he would “visit their campus in two weeks . . . [and] shoot any employees exiting”. That final comment, where he crossed the line from wishing death on someone to detailing what appeared to be an actual threat, could have been the final evidence needed for authorities to consider the threat tangible.

Threat of Terrorism

Utah Code 76-5-107.3 states “A person commits a threat of terrorism if the person threatens to commit any offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, and:

    • threatens the use of a [real or fake] weapon of mass destruction” or “acts with intent to:
      • intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence or affect the conduct of a government or a unit of government;
      • prevent or interrupt the occupation of a building or a portion of the building, a place to which the public has access, or a facility or vehicle of public transportation operated by a common carrier; or
      • cause an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies to take action due to the person’s conduct posing a serious and substantial risk to the general public.”

Making a threat of terrorism is punishable as a second degree felony, third degree felony, or a class A misdemeanor depending on which of the above described subsections were violated.

Which Amendment?

Swanson claimed following his arrest that he did not make a threat to shoot the employees with a gun. He stated that when he used the term “shoot” he meant it in reference to shooting a camera. In his alleged threat he stated that by shooting the employees, he was exercising his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the freedom of religion, free speech, as well as the right to peacefully assemble. It also protects a person’s right to photography as long as they are taking pictures to send a message and that the pictures are going to be shared with an audience. Law enforcement read Swanson’s comment as a threat to use a gun to which he should have stated his right to use his Second Amendment right to bare arms. Either Swanson got his Amendment and their accompanying rights mixed up in his alleged threat of terrorism or his threat to shoot was meant merely to take candid photos of the employees.

Express or implied

If the comment to shoot the YouTube employees had been the only thing Swanson had blurted out online, there is a chance law enforcement may have understood that his intent was to take pictures, not kill people. Unfortunately, the other comments depicting death and murder of the employees painted his intent in a more distressing light. Utah Code 76-5-107.3 notes that regarding a threat of terrorism, “It is not a defense under this section that the person did not attempt to carry out or was incapable of carrying out the threat.” Additionally, A threat under this section may be express or implied.”Regardless of what Swanson actually intended to do, his history of violent speech online set him up to face criminal charges for any threat made.

Freedom to curb your online rants

While everyone including Swanson has the freedom to speak their mind, it does not mean that anything said out loud on online is okay. Harassment, threats of terrorism, or violent threats are all punishable under the law. Anyone facing criminal charges for something they said should consult with a defense attorney.