MO: Former police officer, detective sentenced to five years probation in sodomy case

Source: emissourian.com 12/6/21

A rural Washington man who previously worked as a municipal police officer and a county sheriff’s detective has been sentenced to probation after pleading guilty to sodomizing a boy that police say he met online.

Ryan Shomaker, 48, who previously lived in the 600 block of Royal Oaks Court, pleaded guilty Nov. 22 to one count of second-degree statutory sodomy. He was originally charged with two counts of sodomy, but prosecutors dropped one of the charges in exchange for the plea.

St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Joseph Dueker accepted Shomaker’s plea and sentenced him to a suspended seven-year prison sentence, placing him on probation for five years, according to court documents. 

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

SUSPENDED sentence!

PROBATION!

Would a non-cop receive leniency like that?

This is another example of the great disparity of treatment between police and non police, and other people in authority who abuse their position.

So let me get this straight. He used a computer to lure a REAL minor in order to sodomize him and he gets a slap on the wrist, BUT police use adults to pose as minors in order to entrap the general public and they get the book thrown at them. Equal justice?????
I also find it quite strange that authorities refused to release the age of the victim.
This joke of a sentence needs to be protested.

No accountability for law enforcement just a slap on the wrist.

This was a former police officer, so he was well aware of what happens to a person who is convicted of a sex offense, yet this did not deter him one bit. That is the ultimate proof that the threat or existence of a sex offender registry does nothing to deter anyone, including police officers. I am only glad he got this somewhat lenient sentence because I believe that anybody else should also get this type of sentence, BUT enter a treatment program. Here in the US, it is overlooked that there are people who suffer from addiction or other types of issues that jail time won’t resolve. In Europe, they focus more on rehabilitation and prevention. They have a program where anybody can disclose their problems and the doctor/ patient confidentiality has to be honored. They try to help people overcome their addiction without the threat of imprisonment. This police officer did what he did, knowing the consequences, but the urge was most likely greater than the fear of going to prison. He and many others could have benefited from counseling and other treatment. Jail is never (or almost never) the answer.

He turned himself in in 2019 and spent 2 years in jail awaiting trial.
He met this guy on an 18+ dating site because he was pursuing someone of age and NOT a child. The person posed as an adult and was post puberty age.
The alleged victim was found to be falsifying his actual age portraying to be younger to authorities and that’s why they won’t disclose actual victims age.

The real story is their using the fact he was an officer to put him on blast when the so called victim went after hooking up with men on an adult site, portraying to be of age and looking above age, agreeing to meet, stealing from suspect and such.

This was far more likely the result of a plea offer from the D.A.’s office, in which the judge went along with it, and less likely a case in which the judge went ‘soft’ on the defendant because he was a cop. (Although that still is a possibility). The deal appears to be “drop one count, no time in custody and probation, and on to the registry, in exchange for the guilty plea”. True, the judge does not have to go along with it, but he did. No shock there.

The likely alternative was a trial with a 50/50 chance of an acquittal, imo, (which means a ‘loss’ for the prosecution. How horrible a thought). The prosecutor was likely speculating that the jury may be more sympathetic towards the detective and less sympathetic towards the complaining witness. The young man, it would be argued by the defense, was proffering himself to be older than what he actually was; was very willingly ‘exploring his sexuality’ and was a very willing participant which continued for at least three years (we can call it a ‘relationship’).

Importantly, for all those who are morally outraged (and that includes me up to a point), keep in mind that we do NOT have ALL of the facts to make an informed judgment here.

Further speculation: When there was a ‘break up’ in their statutorily illegal ‘relationship’ for whatever reason, the young man THEN ‘dropped a dime’ on the detective. We do not know the motivation. He could have been blackmailing the detective. The detective may have found another young man and ‘dumped’ the teen who, in a fit of jealous rage, called the cops. We do not know.

I know of several cases in which government law enforcement agents were arrested, prosecuted, and served time for sex offenses (mostly CP offenses, but they do get sent to prison).

If this man wasn’t a cop, we would be saying that this was a “fair and just outcome”. Yes, there are disparities, and yes, sometimes cops DO get a break because they’re cops. No doubt about that. But I’m not sure that THIS case is one that we should get worked up over.

First, I know from experience that cops never get a break when they are brought up on criminal charges, particularly for sex offenses. I was a cop when I caught my charge and got absolutely no leniency. The only possible exception I can think of is a murder charge if it was in the line of duty. For all others, they get the smack laid down on them – and often harder than any other person in similar circumstances – if for no other reason to try to demonstrate that they don’t get special treatment.

Second, for such a comparatively lenient sentence, my gut tells me the prosecution didn’t have a very strong case. The burden of proof in sex offense cases is nearly non-existent these days, and meeting that burden would have been child’s play if the circumstances were anything near what was reported in the story. In all likelihood, this particular article is yet another example of how reporters ignore some facts and exaggerate others to make a more compelling story.

Last edited 2 years ago by Dustin