Search forums

Forums

Export thread

ACORN and underage prostitute advice...?

Sep 16, 2009#1

strawman

Most national news media outlets have been ignoring it (except, of course, fox and cnn, bastions of conservatism that they are), but now there are (I've heard) four hidden camera videos of ACORN representatives giving advice on how to run prostitution rings with underage girls to generate cash for political contributions.

Wait, what?

The New York Times just tonight has this blurb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/us/politics/17acorn.html

You can find some of the videos by searching "acorn prostitution."

Sounds like Congress is distancing themselves very quickly by voting to cut funding to acorn...

Equipped with a video camera, conservative activists James O'Keefe, 25, and Hannah Giles, 20, sought the answer to this question: \"What if a 'prostitute' and her alleged law school boyfriend walk into ACORN seeking housing for an underage brothel to fund his future congressional campaign?\"

The answer, they discovered, was that some of the folks who work at ACORN (the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) were overly adept at looking the other way - even after O'Keefe and Giles told them that Salvadoran girls as young as 12 would be working as prostitutes in their brothel.

One ACORN worker told the couple they could list the under-aged prostitutes as dependents \"because they live in your house, especially if they're under 16.\" Some organizers emphasized that it was not their job to judge others. A Baltimore worker tried to sign up the couple as dues-paying ACORN members.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/16/MNFS19NG5L.DTL#ixzz0RKRHCOKZ

A higher level overview of acorn and what this could mean here: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/09/16/what-is-the-acorn-controversy-about/

And, as usual, Wikipedia provides relatively up to date info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associ...zations_for_Reform_Now#2009_undercover_videos

Is this systemic in the organization, or "just a few bad apples in a few different offices" as acorn indicates?

-Adam

Sep 16, 2009#2

Adammon

"Trisa Kaelke, one of the ACORN organizers interviewed, claimed that she did not take the two actors seriously, and made a variety of other absurd or joking statements in response to what she took as a gag"

There's something nutty with ACORN, but I'm more inclined to believe the whole thing is a farce than a guy walking into an office with a pimp cane and leopard print overcoat talking about bringing in 12 year old El Salvador girls while the woman talks about killing her husband (Which low and behold, has been confirmed to be 'not true')

---------- Post added at 03:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 AM ----------

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/duo_who_turned_this_trick_2sjQ58MdtwmSXxhfVELmZL

These are the two that posed as a pimp and a prostitute.

Still think this is legit?

Sep 16, 2009#3

Krisken

Wait, they actually dressed as pimps? They look like my cousins. I can't imagine them dressed as pimps.

Sep 16, 2009#4

Adammon

Krisken said:
Wait, they actually dressed as pimps? They look like my cousins. I can't imagine them dressed as pimps.

"After six weeks of research, Giles said they scavenged together their cos tumes from friends, except for the pimp coat, which was on loan from O'Keefe's grandmother."

...

Sep 16, 2009#5

strawman

Adammon said:
\"Trisa Kaelke, one of the ACORN organizers interviewed, claimed that she did not take the two actors seriously, and made a variety of other absurd or joking statements in response to what she took as a gag\"

There's something nutty with ACORN, but I'm more inclined to believe the whole thing is a farce than a guy walking into an office with a pimp cane and leopard print overcoat talking about bringing in 12 year old El Salvador girls while the woman talks about killing her husband (Which low and behold, has been confirmed to be 'not true')

---------- Post added at 03:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 AM ----------

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/duo_who_turned_this_trick_2sjQ58MdtwmSXxhfVELmZL

These are the two that posed as a pimp and a prostitute.

Still think this is legit?

Have you seen the videos? The one I saw was hilariously over the top - and there the acorn reps are, talking quietly about how they can avoid paying taxes on the income, get housing credits, etc.

Acorn has already fired several people involved, so I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if this is 'legit.' Congress acted pretty quickly on Monday's resolution (Senate voted 87 to 3 to revoke any funding going to acorn).

Perhaps Trisa thought it was a joke, but it's just as likely that she's trying to distance herself from it as everyone else appears to be doing.

So... I'm not sure what you're getting at - please elaborate. If you have additional information, I'd appreciate hearing it - admittedly I'm only skimming the stories, and have only watched one of the videos, so I'm very ill-informed, but it's quite the story.

Regarding their appearance, watch the videos. I don't know what pimps and call girls look like (except in movies, and I'm sure I've passed them on the street downtown occasionally) - but they look like what the movies portray at any rate.

-Adam

---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

Here's the one video I saw:

-Adam

Sep 16, 2009#6

Adammon

1:16 shows how the 'undercover pimp' dressed.

Now, there's multiple 'undercover' issues here, however the one specifically related to how to run a brothel out of your house, I believe is a complete joke; hence my post.

I'm just not ready to make a decision based on Fox News reporting yet.

Sep 16, 2009#7

Soliloquy

Now, this all raises an interesting question:

If I remember correctly, there was some sort of link between Obama and Acorn during the election year. Don't remember exactly what.

If this new information about Acorn came out during that time, do you think Obama would have been elected?

Sep 17, 2009#8

AshburnerX

Soliloquy said:
Now, this all raises an interesting question:

If I remember correctly, there was some sort of link between Obama and Acorn during the election year. Don't remember exactly what.

If this new information about Acorn came out during that time, do you think Obama would have been elected?

I'd imagine he'd have been able to do enough damage control that he'd have still made it.

Sep 17, 2009#9

tegid

Adammon said:
1:16 shows how the 'undercover pimp' dressed.

Now, there's multiple 'undercover' issues here, however the one specifically related to how to run a brothel out of your house, I believe is a complete joke; hence my post.

I'm just not ready to make a decision based on Fox News reporting yet.

I totally agree. It looks like a frakkin halloween costume...

But I'm thinking that maybe people that dress like this exist and had been to that office before, or the people at ACORN just tried to ignore it.

Dunno.

Sep 17, 2009#10

Silver Jelly

Adammon said:
There's something nutty with ACORN

I lol'd

Sep 17, 2009#11

Kitty Sinatra

So is ACORN into child prostitution, or did they just joke around with obvious pranksters?

Sep 17, 2009#12

Covar

I figured they would claim its just a few bad apples. Along with those members arrested in Floridia for voter fraud, and the other members involved in the 13 other FBI investigations.

Time to just admit the whole bushel is rotten.

Sep 17, 2009#13

Krisken

Covar said:
I figured they would claim its just a few bad apples. Along with those members arrested in Floridia for voter fraud, and the other members involved in the 13 other FBI investigations.

Time to just admit the whole bushel is rotten.

Said the pot to the kettle.

Sep 17, 2009#14

Covar

?

I'm not part of any "community organizer" group.

For the record, I'm talking about ACORN, not the Left in general.

Sep 17, 2009#15

strawman

Covar said:
?

I'm not part of any "community organizer" group.

For the record, I'm talking about ACORN, not the Left in general.

The left has been distancing itself publicly ( though not financially) from acorn for some time now. While acorn clearly supports liberal politics, they are not one and the same.

-Adam

Sep 17, 2009#16

sixpackshaker

So two rich crackers walk into an Acorn office in obvious costumes, and these ladies took them seriously?

Sep 17, 2009#17

Covar

stienman;256949][quote=Covar said:
?

I'm not part of any "community organizer" group.

For the record, I'm talking about ACORN, not the Left in general.

The left has been distancing itself publicly ( though not financially) from acorn for some time now. While acorn clearly supports liberal politics, they are not one and the same.

-Adam[/QUOTE]

umm. ok?

Sep 17, 2009#18

Adammon

sixpackshaker said:
So two rich crackers walk into an Acorn office in obvious costumes, and these ladies took them seriously?

Well, no, the defense from the lady in the interview was that it was obviously a joke and they were such bad actors she figured she'd play along. And it has been proven she said stuff that was completely wrong.

With only the edited video, it's hard to say one way or another. If members of ACORN weren't guilty of so much other crap, I'd dismiss this out of hand.

Sep 17, 2009#19

Jake

That looked a bit too serious and went on far too long for them to just be putting the "undercover operatives" on.

Sep 18, 2009#20

Krisken

Bobby Jindel wants to end state funding for ACORN. Unfortunately, he's trying to end something that doesn't exist

Jumpin jesus on a pogo stick, these guys are in charge. I want to be mad at ACORN, not have to roll my eyes at the people who can't do a little basic research and make promises to end something that isn't even happening. It's like promising to end the polar bear threat in Florida.

Sep 22, 2009#21

Tinwhistler

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6630289.html

Police say a worker with the activist group ACORN who was caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to authorities.
...
Police say he contacted law enforcement two days later. The detective consulted another police official who served on a federal human smuggling task force, who said he needed more details.
The ACORN employee responded several days later and explained that the information he received was not true and he had been duped.

Looks like the worker did the right thing, after all.

Sep 22, 2009#22

Covar

2 days later?

Sep 22, 2009#23

Krisken

I agree with one of the posters who stated that an unedited video would be nice to see. As MST3K said, anything can happen during the cut-away.

And 2 days? That seems like a long time to wait to me.

Sep 22, 2009#24

SeraRelm

So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

Sep 22, 2009#25

Tinwhistler

I can see it taking me 2 days to call.

When I was young and poor, you dealt with the cops as little as possible. Calling the cops to report a crime might invite suspicion and scrutiny on you, even though you were the one trying to report a crime. If it wasn't your business, you generally stayed out of it. At least, that's how it worked in the poor parts of town I grew up in.

As a specific example, when I was in my 20's, I saw someone I knew on the Crimestoppers wanted sheets you can pick up in the corner convenience store. It was an acquaintance i didn't really know--he just happened to be taking the same Wu Shu class I was taking. Still, i had no loyalty for the guy, and he was wanted for armed robbery, so I called it in. The cops immediately started grilling me on how I knew the guy and treating me like I was some kind of partner in crime. They didn't believe that that I didn't know where he lived, and wouldn't send someone to the studio to pick him up, even though he was there every week. They never did come arrest him, and I never got my $2000, and the whole experience was just a giant headache.

Plus, I'd probably spend the first day thinking they were full of shit. I mean, the way they were dressed was totally over the top. But then, after wrestling with it, I'd probably give in and call the cops anyway, just in case..they were talking about child-smuggling after all.

Sep 22, 2009#26

Covar

SeraRelm said:
So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

yea, and the FBI need to stop pretending to be little girls on the internet too.

Sep 22, 2009#27

Krisken

Covar;260945][quote=SeraRelm said:
So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

Sep 22, 2009#28

Dave

One thing that the conservative news hasn't touched on is that there were several offices who turned them down and called the police. So some employees were stupid. Go to ANY large chain and request illegal activities and you'll hit enough that you have some successful video to damn them all.

But what I have an issue with is the fact that people are starting to pull their Michael Moore bullshit and are being backed by the party for whom it benefits. They should be condemning this just as harshly because if this is allowed to go on it will eventually get used on them.

I liken this to the police who take 16 year old kids from convenience store to convenience store trying to buy cigarettes. Here in Omaha they did a story on the news about how stores were allowing kids to buy smokes and then when you read it it turns out that 1 store out of the 50 or so they went to didn't card. So 1 busy convenience store worker tries to save a little time and suddenly it's big news?

This is crap.

Sep 22, 2009#29

AshburnerX

Krisken;260948][quote=Covar;260945][quote=SeraRelm said:
So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

Sep 22, 2009#30

Krisken

AshburnerX;260970][quote=Krisken;260948][quote=Covar;260945][quote=SeraRelm said:
So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

Sep 22, 2009#31

Armadillo

Krisken;260987][quote=AshburnerX;260970][quote=Krisken;260948][quote=Covar;260945][quote=SeraRelm said:
So a couple of rich kids decide to waste a lot of time and money playing Ashton Kutcher with community organizers. People like this really need to go live in a desert away from other humans.

yea, and the FBI need to stop pretending to be little girls on the internet too.[/quote]
I don't think those two things have anything to do with each other. One is a couple of kids playing dress up, the other is a crime prevention unit.[/quote]

No, one is a couple of kids wasting someone's time and the other is entrapment for a thought crime. I may not like pedophiles, but I don't pretend that the people who hunt them by posing as children ONLINE are any better.[/QUOTE]
This is one of those things I don't have a specific position on.[/QUOTE]

I gotta side with Ashburner here. Every time I see a guy getting stung by Chris Hansen, my blood boils. Not that I think people who molest children don't deserve castration via SlapChop, but the guys on those shows and the ones nailed every day by the FBI haven't actually DONE anything. They're scummy as all hell, but arrested for THINKING or TALKING about committing a crime? Me no likey.

Sep 22, 2009#32

Jake

AshburnerX said:
I may not like pedophiles, but I don't pretend that the people who hunt them by posing as children ONLINE are any better.

Just to clarify, you don't consider pedophiles worse than law enforcement trying to flush them out?

I honestly wish I was surprised.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

Armadillo said:
I gotta side with Ashburner here. Every time I see a guy getting stung by Chris Hansen, my blood boils. Not that I think people who molest children don't deserve castration via SlapChop, but the guys on those shows and the ones nailed every day by the FBI haven't actually DONE anything. They're scummy as all hell, but arrested for THINKING or TALKING about committing a crime? Me no likey.

Sep 22, 2009#33

Krisken

Jake;261077][quote=AshburnerX said:
I may not like pedophiles, but I don't pretend that the people who hunt them by posing as children ONLINE are any better.

Just to clarify, you don't consider pedophiles worse than law enforcement trying to flush them out?

I honestly wish I was surprised.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

Armadillo said:
I gotta side with Ashburner here. Every time I see a guy getting stung by Chris Hansen, my blood boils. Not that I think people who molest children don't deserve castration via SlapChop, but the guys on those shows and the ones nailed every day by the FBI haven't actually DONE anything. They're scummy as all hell, but arrested for THINKING or TALKING about committing a crime? Me no likey.

Sep 22, 2009#34

Dave

Krisken;261139][quote=Jake;261077][quote=AshburnerX said:
I may not like pedophiles, but I don't pretend that the people who hunt them by posing as children ONLINE are any better.

Just to clarify, you don't consider pedophiles worse than law enforcement trying to flush them out?

I honestly wish I was surprised.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:57 PM ----------

Armadillo said:
I gotta side with Ashburner here. Every time I see a guy getting stung by Chris Hansen, my blood boils. Not that I think people who molest children don't deserve castration via SlapChop, but the guys on those shows and the ones nailed every day by the FBI haven't actually DONE anything. They're scummy as all hell, but arrested for THINKING or TALKING about committing a crime? Me no likey.

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

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

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.[/quote]
See, that's what I thought, but since I don't really have a working knowledge of how those operations are performed I really didn't know how to respond.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. In most cases it's illegal to participate in salacious behavior with a minor online even if no physical contact is going to take place. They don't get arrested for showing up - they get arrested for what they did in the chat. Case in point: When Louis Conradt stopped chatting and taking phone calls the police went to his house where he then killed himself.

In a lot of these TCaP cases it's unclear whether it's entrapment or not. I enjoy the shows, too, but sometimes the methods used leave me feeling as icky as the people they catch.

Sep 22, 2009#35

Espy

Jake said:
[/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.

Sep 22, 2009#36

Krisken

Espy;261153][quote=Jake said:
[/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.

Sep 22, 2009#37

Kitty Sinatra

Krisken said:
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.

Sep 22, 2009#38

AshburnerX

Jake said:
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.

Sep 22, 2009#39

Krisken

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

Sep 22, 2009#40

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
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.

Sep 22, 2009#41

Kitty Sinatra

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

Sep 22, 2009#42

Dave

Gruebeard;261157][quote=Krisken said:
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.

Sep 22, 2009#43

Kitty Sinatra

ah well, missed that bit.

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

Sep 22, 2009#44

Krisken

Dave;261183][quote=Gruebeard;261157][quote=Krisken said:
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.

Sep 22, 2009#45

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.

Sep 22, 2009#46

strawman

Espy said:
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

Sep 22, 2009#47

Kitty Sinatra

stienman said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#48

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.

Sep 23, 2009#49

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.

Sep 23, 2009#50

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?

Sep 23, 2009#51

sixpackshaker

AshburnerX said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#52

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.

Sep 23, 2009#53

Tinwhistler

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

Sep 23, 2009#54

Jake

AshburnerX said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#55

D

Dubyamn

Jake said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#56

AshburnerX

Jake said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#57

sixpackshaker

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

Sep 23, 2009#58

Jake

AshburnerX said:
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.

AshburnerX said:
Fuck the Children

All suspicions confirmed.

Sep 23, 2009#59

AshburnerX

Jake;261898][quote=AshburnerX said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#60

Iaculus

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

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

Sep 23, 2009#61

strawman

AshburnerX said:
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

Sep 23, 2009#62

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.

Sep 23, 2009#63

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

Sep 23, 2009#64

Mutiny

AshburnerX said:
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.

Sep 23, 2009#65

Kitty Sinatra

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

That'd be Generation Newborn, right?

Sep 23, 2009#66

Bubble181

stienman said:
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.

Sep 24, 2009#67

Covar

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

Sep 28, 2009#68

D

Dubyamn

Covar said:
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.

Sep 28, 2009#69

strawman

Dubyamn said:
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

Sep 28, 2009#70

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
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.

Sep 28, 2009#71

Covar

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.

or you know, intent to solicit explicit acts with an underage minor. Hey you slept with a 15 year old from a club. Guess what? still illegal even though she told you she was 18.

Sep 28, 2009#72

Armadillo

Covar said:
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.

Click to expand...

or you know, intent to solicit explicit acts with an underage minor. Hey you slept with a 15 year old from a club. Guess what? still illegal even though she told you she was 18.

...also bullshit. You can't be expected to do a police database search on every hot chick you come across, although anyone who sleeps with someone without knowing them a little better than that is a raging, 5-alarm idiot.

You know, maybe people like that SHOULD go to jail, if only to knock some goddamned sense into them.

Sep 28, 2009#73

Iaculus

Dubyamn;264004][quote=stienman said:
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."

Forums