ACORN and underage prostitute advice...?

[Krisken]

[/COLOR]Just so we're clear, nobody is getting arrested just for chatting up supposed minors (or thoughts thereof). They get arrested when they demonstrate clear intent by showing up good and ready to get freaky with them.

Depends on the state. In some states all they needed was the online chat.

THAT is bullshit.

Showing up with condoms and wine coolers and "Young Boy Anus Anal Lube w/Extra Pedobear!" is showing intent and much, MUCH more okay in my book.[/QUOTE]
You mean ok to prosecute. I agree with that. Getting people who talk online (who might just be kidding around with someone they figure is a 56 year old guy anyways) is a long way from intent, IMO.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Getting people who talk online (who might just be kidding around with someone they figure is a 56 year old guy anyways) is a long way from intent, IMO.

That's a real good point.

However, my understanding of the Chris Hansen thing- and other law enforcement "entrapments" - is that they catch the guys when they show up somewhere looking for some underage sex. Even if they're only arrested and charged for what went on in the chat, showing up for the meeting seems to show the intent to fuck an underage kid was there, that they didn't think they were chatting with a 56 year old guy.

It's all still iffy to me, though.

 

[AshburnerX]

So people that solicit murder for hire shouldn't be prosecuted, since nobody was actually killed?

Just so we're clear, nobody is getting arrested just for chatting up supposed minors (or thoughts thereof). They get arrested when they demonstrate clear intent by showing up good and ready to get freaky with them.

If the people they were soliciting were Cops, pretending to be contract killers long before they ever met? Who were complicit in allowing them to even get that far by bending over backwards to allow them into a trap? No. Why would you punish someone for a crime that was only committed BECAUSE the Cops lead them to it? You could argue that they would have just looked elsewhere, but that doesn't allow for the possibility of them not finding what they are looking for or simply giving up later on, in which case the crime wouldn't have been committed without police intervention.

Let me put it this way... if I left my front door open, allowing anyone who looked into my home a clear view to several high price items, with intent to lure in a burglar and shoot him dead while he attempted to steal stuff, I'd be arrested the moment the cops found out. That's exactly what the cops are doing themselves: They are creating an environment for a crime to happen intentionally and then punishing people who fall for the perfect scenario. Yes, the people they catch ARE scum, but that doesn't change the fact that the Police acted just as vile to catch them.

 

[Krisken]

I get the feeling that this could be it's own thread, guys.

 

[AshburnerX]

I get the feeling that this could be it's own thread, guys.

That's a good point. We should probably make another thread if we want to keep talking about this.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

BECAUSE THREADS MUST NEVER GO OFF-TOPIC!1!!!!

 

[Dave]

Getting people who talk online (who might just be kidding around with someone they figure is a 56 year old guy anyways) is a long way from intent, IMO.

That's a real good point.

However, my understanding of the Chris Hansen thing- and other law enforcement "entrapments" - is that they catch the guys when they show up somewhere looking for some underage sex. Even if they're only arrested and charged for what went on in the chat, showing up for the meeting seems to show the intent to fuck an underage kid was there, that they didn't think they were chatting with a 56 year old guy.

It's all still iffy to me, though.[/QUOTE]

Reread my last post about the guy who DIDN'T show up. They went to his house & tried to arrest him anyway.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

ah well, missed that bit.

Let's pretend I wasn't talking about that example, then.

 

[Krisken]

Getting people who talk online (who might just be kidding around with someone they figure is a 56 year old guy anyways) is a long way from intent, IMO.

That's a real good point.

However, my understanding of the Chris Hansen thing- and other law enforcement "entrapments" - is that they catch the guys when they show up somewhere looking for some underage sex. Even if they're only arrested and charged for what went on in the chat, showing up for the meeting seems to show the intent to fuck an underage kid was there, that they didn't think they were chatting with a 56 year old guy.

It's all still iffy to me, though.[/quote]

Reread my last post about the guy who DIDN'T show up. They went to his house & tried to arrest him anyway.[/QUOTE]
See, and I agree with that. That would be shit.

 

[Espy]

Yeah, who they arrest and how is BASED ON STATE BY STATE LAW.

Every state is a little different. Some they have to show up. Some just have to chat.

 

[strawman]

Yeah, who they arrest and how is BASED ON STATE BY STATE LAW.

Every state is a little different. Some they have to show up. Some just have to chat.

And in BOTH cases the police have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant COMMITTED A CRIME.

Soliciting underage minors in most states is a crime even if the act is never carried out. Most investigators prefer to wait until the defendant shows up for a meeting so the case is well beyond reasonable doubt, but they don't have to, and the law does not require them to wait.

I haven't read the article Ed posted, but given that a judge must have signed a warrent to search his computer and/or arrest him, then the police likely followed procedure. Was there anything that said the police did anything outside what they were paid to do?

-Adam

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

And in BOTH cases the police have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant COMMITTED A CRIME.

The following Internet Smart Ass Know It All Post is brought to you by Ed the Sock.

um, it's the prosecution that has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The previous Internet Smart Ass Know It All Post was brought to you by Ed the Sock.

 

[Mutiny]

It's not entrapment at all if the perpetrator approaches someone who he thinks is a minor and solicits them for sex. That's akin to saying approaching a shady-looking character in an alley and asking to buy some narcotics is entrapment.

It would be a different story if such a character or online personality approached person X advertising for sex or drugs, but that's not how it works as far as every instance of this I've seen. That simply wouldn't hold up in court in the United States.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Moral of these stories...

If some one shows up to your place of work and start talking about illegal activities... call the cops.

If you are chatting some one up who tells you that they are 14, believe them and GTFO. If you play along thinking it is a 50 year old dude, you will be right but he will have a badge and a gun.

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

TCaP is not entrapment. DeLorean was entrapped. The Feds found some one in financial trouble, offered him some quick cash to turn over some cocaine, and arrested him when he agreed to go along. He came into that meeting with no criminal intent, but left in hand-cuffs anyway.

The cops use the car sitting in a parking lot with the keys in it to trap car thieves. The normal citizen will walk past and not steal the car. A thief will take advantage of the situation and commit the crime.

When law enforcement poses as a under age child, only the pedo's will continue to solicit sex after the age has been posted. Not entrapment. A normal citizen will GTFO when they learn they are talking to a child.

 

[AshburnerX]

I love how you say "normal citizen"... your the type of guy who wouldn't mind being searched at random because you believe that you have nothing to hide, and that may be true. That doesn't stop the search from being a violation of your rights though, and some of us don't want to give up ours.

What the cops are doing is shady as hell, legal or not, and they are doing something that would get a private citizen arrested if they did it. How are we supposed to trust them when THIS is the depths they will sink to to find someone to arrest? And why the hell are they wasting so much time trolling the internet for pedophiles when they have stacks of unsolved cases just waiting at the station?

 

[sixpackshaker]

I love how you say "normal citizen"... your the type of guy who wouldn't mind being searched at random because you believe that you have nothing to hide, and that may be true. That doesn't stop the search from being a violation of your rights though, and some of us don't want to give up ours.

What the cops are doing is shady as hell, legal or not, and they are doing something that would get a private citizen arrested if they did it. How are we supposed to trust them when THIS is the depths they will sink to to find someone to arrest? And why the hell are they wasting so much time trolling the internet for pedophiles when they have stacks of unsolved cases just waiting at the station?

I said nothing about illegal searches. This is some one trolling the internet, to get rid of some of the worst dregs of society. If you were chatting up sexy_cathy_15@aol.com and she tells you that she is actually older (16), would you really keep going? Would you solicit a meeting with her? Would you show up to the house? That is considered intent to commit a terrible crime.

It is no different than a plain clothes cop walking the streets and busting 'Johns' for solicitation. Well it is different, because the crime involved is much more serious.

 

[AshburnerX]

Actually, 16 is generally the age of consent in most of the US... it's not the federal default, but it's generally where it's set at by the state/county governments.

 

[Tinwhistler]

16 is the age of consent, but if you want to send them naughty internet messages, they have to be 18.

 

[Jake]

I love how you say "normal citizen"... your the type of guy who wouldn't mind being searched at random because you believe that you have nothing to hide, and that may be true. That doesn't stop the search from being a violation of your rights though, and some of us don't want to give up ours.

What the cops are doing is shady as hell, legal or not, and they are doing something that would get a private citizen arrested if they did it. How are we supposed to trust them when THIS is the depths they will sink to to find someone to arrest? And why the hell are they wasting so much time trolling the internet for pedophiles when they have stacks of unsolved cases just waiting at the station?

I think he means "normal citizen" in the sense that they wouldn't try to steal a car or solicit underage girls for sex given the opportunity. You're stretching it into a completely irrelevant straw man. Nobody is talking about random searches. These people initiate contact themselves, break the law, and demonstrate clear intent to break it further.

That's not entrapment by any definition.

Unless you're arguing that you should have the right to get busy with underage girls (which wouldn't surprise me), you're way off base.

 

[Dubyamn]

So people that solicit murder for hire shouldn't be prosecuted, since nobody was actually killed?

Of course not Murder for hire is illegal no matter if you hire a 13 year old Adolescent or if you hire a 33 year old.

Same can't be said for going to their house and having sex with them.

 

[AshburnerX]

Unless you're arguing that you should have the right to get busy with underage girls (which wouldn't surprise me), you're way off base.

The only thing I'm arguing is that the Police are out of control in the methods they use to get people. Yes, it legal... that doesn't make it morally right and it certainly doesn't build up the public trust.

But of course when it comes to "the children", all kinds of things are suddenly OK in the eyes of the public. Well I'm just going to say it here: Fuck the Children. This country is entirely too focused on protecting children from the dangers of the world, when what we need to be doing is preparing them to face them when they become adults... as it is now, we have an entire generation of eternal children, unable to stand on their own.

 

[sixpackshaker]

What is so bad about posing as a kid to get a man to hit you up for sex?

 

[Jake]

The only thing I'm arguing is that the Police are out of control in the methods they use to get people. Yes, it legal... that doesn't make it morally right and it certainly doesn't build up the public trust.

Explain what is immoral about patrolling places where crimes are known to frequently be committed, then arresting people who commit crimes. Go ahead, I'll wait here. Either you don't know what the word means, or you're just striking an impotent "fight the power" pose from the safety of your parents' basement.

Fuck the Children

All suspicions confirmed.

 

[AshburnerX]

The only thing I'm arguing is that the Police are out of control in the methods they use to get people. Yes, it legal... that doesn't make it morally right and it certainly doesn't build up the public trust.

Explain what is immoral about patrolling places where crimes are known to frequently be committed, then arresting people who commit crimes. Go ahead, I'll wait here. Either you don't know what the word means, or you're just striking an impotent "fight the power" pose from the safety of your parents' basement. [/quote]

But that's just the thing... they aren't patrolling a place where a crime frequently happens, they are facilitating the crime to happen in the first place. They are pretending to be a target, announcing outright lies in the online world in order to fish for undesirables. Yes, the people they catch are scum... but the police aren't exactly being the bastions of public trust they are supposed to be.

 

[Iaculus]

Well I'm just going to say it here: Fuck the Children.

Sir, your magnificently tinny ear for the contextually appropriate demands only applause.

 

[strawman]

they are facilitating the crime to happen in the first place.

Stop being so shortsighted.

There are forums where 14 year old girls talk about twilight. They engage their fantasy online, and lap up any attention they get in these forums.

If a predator comes online pretending to be a 15 year old boy who loves twilight he may fish, and eventually snag, an innocent girl.

The police aren't setting up these chatrooms. They aren't putting real 14 year old girls inside these rooms to attract the flies. They are going into those rooms, and playing the part of the 14 year old girl when they see someone suspicious obviously fishing for the attention of real 14 year old girls.

Yes, they respond in a manner that will give the predator enough rope to hang themselves with, but at any moment the predator has the choice, "Do I talk to this girl about sex, or not. Do I send and request child pornography from this girl or not. Do I invite this girl out or not. Do I meet her and 'help' her live out her twilight fantasy."

It is VERY possible that if the police didn't lay the trap, then the predator would not go through with it - however the police never cross the line of entrapment, which is to say they don't invite the man to do things to them, they simply provide a chatty girl, and respond to his invititations.

For that reason these cases are very difficult to prove in court, entrapment is not a difficult defense, so they are very careful, provide full chat transcripts, and show that the predator methodically and with intent to harm did pursue the 'fake' child, and by so doing they prove that there is beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the crime in question.

Your assertion that if the police were not setting the trap, the predator wouldn't have been successful is faulty - it doesn't matter what he might have done if they weren't there he should NEVER have done it regardless of whether it was a fake girl or real.

-Adam

 

[SpecialKO]

I would briefly point out that as much as the "thin blue line" does exist, police still don't behave as a monolithic hierarchically structured organization across the nation.

 

[strawman]

Too true. Many innocent people go to jail or are executed, and many people are never brought to justice.

It is, at best and worst, run by humans.

-Adam

 

[Mutiny]

Fuck the children. This country is entirely too focused on protecting children from the dangers of the world, when what we need to be doing is preparing them to face them when they become adults... as it is now, we have an entire generation of eternal children, unable to stand on their own.

Because letting a naive child get molested is going to help them cope with adult life, right?

....right?

..........anybody?

Edited for broken bold tag.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

as it is now, we have an entire generation of eternal children, unable to stand on their own.

That'd be Generation Newborn, right?

 

[Bubble181]

Too true. Many innocent people go to jail or are executed, and many people are never brought to justice.

It is, at best and worst, run by humans.

-Adam

I'm not going to take sides in this particular debate, but I would like to point out a problem with this.
Law - both US law, as state laws, as alll internaitonal laws - are written with the explicit intent of protecting the innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, 100%. "It's still run by humans" is very true, of cours,e but that's the point - if there is, anywhere, anyhow, any doubt at all, it's to be supposed to be in favour of the defendant. It's been stated by someone authorative but I forget who (sorry, drunk posting - I think either Franklin or Rawls, but don't quote me on that) that it's always better to let 10 guilty go free than to convict one innocent.
When it comes to murder, a lot of people tend to agree -when it comes to "abstract" crimes (embezzling funds or whatever) almost everyone agrees - but when it comes to toucing the poor children, for a lot of people, this goes straight out the window.
This is very, very dangerous. Yes, I understand the sentiment - heck, I know far too many people molested as children themselves to consider this an imaginary threat - but at the same time, this increases the problems with faulty accusations. How many people's lives have been ruined over being implicated in a child molestation case; even when they were never convicted or even brought to trial?

Dangerous territory, all in all.

 

[Covar]

AshburnerX's arguement basically coming down to Cops going undercover is wrong. Bullshit.

 

[Dubyamn]

AshburnerX's arguement basically coming down to Cops going undercover is wrong. Bullshit.

Unfortunately.

I'll admit I agree with the premiss that what the guys were doing (chatting with a cop/ volunteer of LEGAL) age isn't a crime because all involved were legally able to gve consent and view the pictures and to arrest the person for doing something that was completely legal because he thought he was doing something illegal just doesn't sit right in my gut.

But to say that police can't lie or go undercover to make a case is just absurd.

 

[strawman]

I agree with the premiss that what the guys were doing (chatting with a cop/ volunteer of LEGAL) age isn't a crime because all involved were legally able to gve consent and view the pictures and to arrest the person for doing something that was completely legal because he thought he was doing something illegal just doesn't sit right in my gut.

Intent is just as valid as reality.

I was mugged awhile ago with what I found out later was an airsoft pistol.

Does it matter that the defendants didn't REALLY have a gun?

No.

The fact that I believed they had a weapon with which they could kill me was enough to make the robbery legally and technically "armed."

It doesn't matter that the predator isn't really talking to a 14 year old girl - the fact that he believes he is and is STILL pursuing her makes it legally and technically the same.

-Adam

 

[Dubyamn]

Intent is just as valid as reality.

Eh to a point. I still don't think it's enough to turn a legal action into an illegal one.

I was mugged awhile ago with what I found out later was an airsoft pistol.

Does it matter that the defendants didn't REALLY have a gun?

No.

The fact that I believed they had a weapon with which they could kill me was enough to make the robbery legally and technically "armed."

I don't really see why you brought this up. Robbery with a airsoft gun is illegal the same way that robbery with a pen in your pocket or robbery through the Bank drive through is still illegal. Weapon doesn't matter all that matters is that they are commiting an illegal act.

It doesn't matter that the predator isn't really talking to a 14 year old girl - the fact that he believes he is and is STILL pursuing her makes it legally and technically the same.

-Adam

Maybe legally I don't really care enough to look it up. But on the technically bit I'm going to have to disagree with you because the entire system is set up on the technicality of which side of the 18th birthday the victim finds her/himself on.

So technically the police can only prove that he did a dirty chat with another legally constenting adult which technically isn't solicitation of a minor.