To Catch A Predator

[The Riddler_]

Of course its right, i mean some guys might just want to "meet" them Ive watched the show and most send naked pics. So their definatly pervs and need to be arrested to protect real people

Lol they see the naked pics, yet, they still ask them to come over. Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

[TJ]

I'm giving an example of a different type of assault. It's a legitimate example.
Murder is removal of a life, sex is creation of a life.

I bare to think that killing someone is a different type of assault >.>
Murder and sex are two totally opposite things.

For the last time, he did commit a crime. Each one can be charged with lewdness, enticing a minor, intent to commit crimes, etc.

Lewdness : Both parties are guilty of lust, as the child was talking to him. Its not like he forced the child to meet him on a chatsite not knowing each other.

Enticing a minor : Same as above, the child got on the chat site by themselves, not forcingly.

Intent to commit crimes : I don't believe someone should be charged for words.

 

[The Riddler_]

Give me one example where they're not arrested. One.

Where'd you get this from? I was saying that not all people brought condoms and lube.

 

[Necromancer24]

This is a right thing to do. Pedophiles should be arrested this way. There's no other way to get them. They can just deny everything.

This way, with the chatlogs and proof that the pedophile showed up, you can arrest him and put him behind bars.

 

[The Riddler_]

This is a right thing to do. Pedophiles should be arrested this way. There's no other way to get them. They can just deny everything.

This way, with the chatlogs and proof that the pedophile showed up, you can arrest him and put him behind bars.

The only reason they're being arrested is because they are thought to take advantage of people underage. Other than that, there would be nothing wrong with people liking young people. So don't get too happy.

Every single person brought condoms or offered to get condoms.

No? Some people came open handed.

 

[TJ]

The analogy stands. They're both illegal, etc.

An eye for an eye...

He encouraged the behavior.

They drove over there, showing that they obviously had more intent than just their lewd conversations.

Since you want to argue your stance on a stancless subject, let me ask you this. What were the children doing on the chatroom?

 

[The Riddler_]

...and acted upon the thought. You keep screwing with your words to make it seem like they didn't take action, but they did.

Kay.

...and offered to get condoms from their truck or a store. Give me one example where they didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI196i4BvDk&feature=related

 

[Chantecleer]

Kay.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI196i4BvDk&feature=related

that actually made me laugh irl.
Just look at these men, they are crying their faces into the ground. They can't be that horrible.

edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9rf8WW8m_I&feature=related
"it's up to you"

 

[The Riddler_]

Where did it say he didn't bring condoms? He said he was going shopping for boots, linking him to the chat logs, showing his intentions.

Where are you getting this from? All I said was that not all people brought condoms and Lube. Stop adding. I know what they we're doing. If no crime was done, then they should get a lessened sentence. Also, It didn't say he had them. He had his hands empty.


You don't get the death penalty for attempted murder.

 

[cmd:Boot]

Yeah I feel like it's entrapment, and that the guys arrested really have not done anything wrong.

The chat logs and the fact they traveled all the way to the house and bring stuff like beer and condoms clearly shows they were intending to "engage in sexual activity" with the underage girl. There are girls out there like that, and the same situation happens, except MSNBC and the authorities aren't there to stop it.

 

[Revenge-ful]

That's pretty much like putting bear traps out for a human hungry bear. You can wait until the bear kills a human and react then or you can act before that and hunt that mo fucka down before he gets anyone..

 

[Sin666]

the people are basically lured into commiting a crime. Is this right?

The investigators are not allowed to initiate conversations or suggest anything illegal or inappropriate; they do not 'lure' anyone into committing the crime that did not already have the intention to commit one when they entered a chatroom full of young children. Moreover, there really aren't many pedophiles who would pick a victim, show up at the house, walk inside, and then decide - oh wait, nevermind, I'd rather go home now.

By the time they're caught, there's a damn good chance they would have gone through with it had the child been real. For the negligible few that wouldn't have, if their sense of morality is that slow to kick in, they're guilty enough.

 

[.Pot Head.]

hey your back ><


so they act like a 13 year old and ask say a 25 year old to have sex then if he shows they arrest? its like offerin me a blunt then arresting me for having weed.

 

[DustinDusang]

"Dateline" is indeed entrapping the men by having the decoys, at least some of the time, bring up the subject of sex and later invite the men to the house for a sexual encounter. I don't necessarily object to this method in extreme cases such as this. But if you accept the traditional legal definition of entrapment &#8211; that one is entrapped when "induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/07/publiceye/entry1290135.shtml

Taken from Perverted-Justice's site:

Q: How is this a crime? There was no actual minor!

A: Such a stupid statement. If you're reading this and you've uttered this at any point of your life, feel free to smack yourself for ignorance right now. No, there are no minors involved in what we do. That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the male involved in the solicitation is told there is a minor involved. At that point, it's a criminal act in the vast majority of U.S. States. Why?

Let's put it in terms we can all agree with. If I go to what I think is a hitman to order a murder of my wife, I've committed a crime. Even if that "hitman" is an undercover person posing as one for the purposes of catching people conspiring to murder. No one on this planet says "Well hey! How could there be a crime! There was no actual hitman!" If a defense attorney tried that tactic in court to defend someone who solicited for the murder of another person, he would be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone believe there needs to be an "actual minor" when it comes to solicitation? All that needs to exist is the record that the solicitor was informed that the person was a minor and had the intent to have sex with that minor. Just as the charge is the same for a person conspiring to murder with a "fake" or "real" hitman, the charge is philosophically the same for conspiring to have sex with a "fake" or "real" minor.

If you disagree with the above paragraph, feel free to leave our site, never to return. You don't need to be here, we don't want you.

 

[Chantecleer]

"Stancless?"
How is that questions relevant?



Where did it say he didn't bring condoms? He said he was going shopping for boots, linking him to the chat logs, showing his intentions.



They're sad because they were caught.

watch the fucking video. He says it before Chris Hansen even comes out.

hey your back ><


so they act like a 13 year old and ask say a 25 year old to have sex then if he shows they arrest? its like offerin me a blunt then arresting me for having weed.

good defensive analogy. the human instinct would be to accept an appealing offer, even if it is illegal.

"Dateline" is indeed entrapping the men by having the decoys, at least some of the time, bring up the subject of sex and later invite the men to the house for a sexual encounter. I don't necessarily object to this method in extreme cases such as this. But if you accept the traditional legal definition of entrapment – that one is entrapped when "induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/07/publiceye/entry1290135.shtml

Taken from Perverted-Justice's site:

Q: How is this a crime? There was no actual minor!

A: Such a stupid statement. If you're reading this and you've uttered this at any point of your life, feel free to smack yourself for ignorance right now. No, there are no minors involved in what we do. That doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the male involved in the solicitation is told there is a minor involved. At that point, it's a criminal act in the vast majority of U.S. States. Why?

Let's put it in terms we can all agree with. If I go to what I think is a hitman to order a murder of my wife, I've committed a crime. Even if that "hitman" is an undercover person posing as one for the purposes of catching people conspiring to murder. No one on this planet says "Well hey! How could there be a crime! There was no actual hitman!" If a defense attorney tried that tactic in court to defend someone who solicited for the murder of another person, he would be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone believe there needs to be an "actual minor" when it comes to solicitation? All that needs to exist is the record that the solicitor was informed that the person was a minor and had the intent to have sex with that minor. Just as the charge is the same for a person conspiring to murder with a "fake" or "real" hitman, the charge is philosophically the same for conspiring to have sex with a "fake" or "real" minor.

If you disagree with the above paragraph, feel free to leave our site, never to return. You don't need to be here, we don't want you.

Dateline should take its cock out of its ass and GTFO.
"Hey, what do you do for a living?"
"I'm a 40 year old guy and i like to go an yahoo.com and pretend to be a 13 year old girl because it makes me horny and then I have pedo's come to my house and I arrest them. I also work part-time at my local jail where I come in and rape them during bathing hours."
That's your dateline.

 

[TJ]

"Stancless?"
How is that questions relevant?

Seeing how they met on a chat room, i fail to see how it doesn't have any relevance.

 

[wizardzgame]

I'm not too sure what the episodes are like, so could I get a link to the videos, for me and anyone else who hasn't seen it?

 

[The Riddler_]

I'm not too sure what the episodes are like, so could I get a link to the videos, for me and anyone else who hasn't seen it?

Look it up on YouTube.

 

[ablegain]

How is this any different then if the girl was actualy persay "real" in the perspective that she wasn't apart of an entrapment, either way they need treatment, aswell as the girl/boy who took part, and maybe even the parents?

 

[Arya]

Yes it does. The only reason it is a law because he is a minor, is because everyone assumes that once you hit the age of 18, you are mature, and know what you're doing. If a 14 year old invites 40 year old men to fuck and bring alcohol, they know what they're doing.

It's only a law because you supposedly taking advantage of them. When clearly, some cases are not like that.

No.

The law was set into place stating that certain scenarios dealing with what that state would consider to be a minor is ILLEGAL. These men knew that that law was in place, and still decided to go behind it.

Even if you're looking at it from subjective and/or moral points, the sting doesn't even happen unless they've gotten more evidence then the men simply showing up. They sent vulgar, nude pictures to someone whom they thought was 12-14.

I guess these people are saying it's okay to do what is illegal (being a minor and giving the address) as long as they are over 18. So if I am over 18, following Arya's logic, I will have the right to pretend I am a leader of Al Qaeda and carry out terrorist operations as long as I pretend to.

One flaw in your logic. The actors and actresses are never actual minors.

Another flaw. You can't pretend and carry out at the same time. It's a contradiction.

They have yet to commit a crime.

Sexting is a crime.

How is this any different then if the girl was actualy persay "real" in the perspective that she wasn't apart of an entrapment, either way they need treatment, aswell as the girl/boy who took part, and maybe even the parents?

Assume the scenario of me being an actor/actress.

If I played the part of someone who was mentally ill, that doesn't mean that I actually need help.

Care to disagree?