Is Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" anti gun?


PDA






Zen21Tao
January 1, 2008, 01:33 AM
Ok. I was flipping through the channels at about 12:30 am and I came across Chris Hansen’s Dateline show, “To Catch a Predator” on MSNBC. For those not familiar with this show, adults show up to a house to have sex with an underage teenagers and find only Chris Hansen there to interview them, and then when they leave the house, they are taken into custody by the police and charged with a sex crime.


Up to this point, I found the show had been pretty balanced. I think that most would agree that sexual predators are low lifes and should be kept off the streets. This show doesn’t just catch and embarrass potential child predators, it arguably creates an added deterrent effect.


But here is where the show lost me. They showed some officers tackling potential predators exiting the house as the narrator said “officers are sometimes extra aggressive, but in Florida they are allowed to act extra aggressively because, in Florida, it is easy for people to get concealed weapon permits and could be armed.” (Paraphrased)


I continued to watch to see if I was just making much ado about nothing, but later in the show they mentioned one suspects use of a gun in an armed robbery (fair enough, he did use a gun to commit a crime) but the show then made a big deal about a shotgun being in the car of another suspect who was an active duty Marine.


So my question is, am I incorrect to think that this show is attempting to correlate pedophiles and gun ownership, when it can do so?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" anti gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Albatross
January 1, 2008, 01:57 AM
I've read that the majority of all those fellows "captured and removed from the streets" plead not guilty and are quickly released with lack of evidence. One has to wonder why the show doesn't release the conviction rates of the people they "help capture".

All in all, the show is just a filthy waste. TV crews aren't cops and shouldn't conduct sting operations. TV stations shouldn't be in the business of public humiliation nor should such punishment be used as entertainment/justice.

Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

As for the negative gun references I think that is just to build the drama. The more dangerous they can make these "predators" the better the show sells.

average_shooter
January 1, 2008, 02:00 AM
Well, you could argue that they use entrapment, which is a tactic many disagree with.

Gun related; they harassed a guy to the point of committing suicide. That's pretty much when I lost the last bit of respect for the show I had. Catching predators is one thing, but baiting them into something then harassing them to the point of suicide is ridiculous. If I remember correctly they said something like "it could have been much worse had he turned the gun on the cops."

And at some point I remember seeing a show or reading an article about the police getting in trouble for pointing guns all over the place to take down unarmed and compliant subjects just to look good for the cameras. That's bad form, I'm not "cop-bashing."

Standing Wolf
January 1, 2008, 02:45 AM
There's a world of difference between corrupt and corruptible. Expecting so-called "journalists" to bear such a subtle disctinction in mind would be like hoping skunks will quit stinking.

Zen21Tao
January 1, 2008, 04:50 AM
Wow... This gets even better. I went back to the show, MSNBC seems to be airing a number of episodes back to back, and at 4:20 am they found a loaded Kahr in a suspected predator's car (lol, I like the pun) and the narrator says "and what has the police even more worried is that the man has a legally registered* gun in his car."

*This was an episode taking place in California.
---

Average_Shooter:

I do have to say that I agree with others that shows like this are entrapment. I have a very powerful view on the law. The law has to be applied correctly and equally for all, even for the worst of the worst. Shows like this have the real potential of creating a slippery slope that could in turn lead to abuses of power.


I also agree that many police have a tendency to use "bad form" when cameras are present. In fact, one guy was tasered because he didn't imediately respond to officers instructions. He just stood there motionless for about 4-5 seconds and was tasered. In some cases it could be the adrenaline of the situation getting the best of them, in others it could be them showing off for the cameras. In fact, it is possible that "To Catch a Predator" may have made so much fuss over the dangers of gun as a CYA move for the local police's actions in their arrests.

Eric F
January 1, 2008, 08:13 AM
its the media of course they are anti gun however thankfully this particular show focuses on some thing else generaly

elrod
January 1, 2008, 11:05 AM
Who deputized MSNBC??? :confused::uhoh::confused:

jaholder1971
January 1, 2008, 11:48 AM
It's MSNBC and NBC who produce this show, you really gotta ask???

joab
January 1, 2008, 12:01 PM
Well, you could argue that they use entrapment, which is a tactic many disagree withEntrapment is enticing someone to commit a crime that they normally would not do
Unless the decoys are initiating contact and/or sexual conversation this is not entrapment
Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.Nothing I can say that would not be censored

So my question is, am I incorrect to think that this show is attempting to correlate pedophiles and gun ownership, when it can do so?I don't think they are, I think they are commenting on the easy access to guns in general
Accessibility to guns in Florida is a concern to LEOs here when apprehending this type of low life predator who may very well be planning on much more than a little afternoon tryst
But I do think the comments are abbreviated blurbs made by people who are used to guns not being so accessible and need to make a point quickly, especially when you realize that we don't even need permits here for vehicle carry.
That would sure bunch their shorts up a little

alsaqr
January 1, 2008, 12:13 PM
"Gun related; they harassed a guy to the point of committing suicide."

Yes, he did commit suicide. You forgot to mention that he was a prosecutor in another county. Was the arrest handled well? Probably not.

Personally, I'm not sure they are anti-gun or not. IMO: They are doing a service to the country by getting sexual predators off the streets. A few of these guys are registered sex offenders who have raped or molested kids previously.

The Perveted Justice folks home on in would be child predators who are online in chat rooms trolling around for kids to molest or rape: I see nothing wrong with that.

buy guns
January 1, 2008, 12:13 PM
I think it is reasonable for them to be concerned about the predators being armed, even if they are otherwise law abiding. You have to remember, they are pretty much backing these guys into corners. These aren't the normal criminal types. You think any of these creeps could handle going to jail for a "tough guy" crime, let alone for being a sex offender? On top of that they are getting arrested on national tv.

ilbob
January 1, 2008, 12:19 PM
Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the Internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.
This is not really a predator problem so much as it is a parenting problem. But it is not PC to blame parents for failing to instill appropriate values in their children and not enforcing proper conduct.

plexreticle
January 1, 2008, 12:23 PM
Who cares if he has a gun permit.

It's the media trying to lump gun permits in with sex crimes.

CannonFodder
January 1, 2008, 12:29 PM
You turned on that drek and expected something substantive and well-reasoned? That's "saxophonist-with-a-pager"-level of optimism.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 01:00 PM
I've read that the majority of all those fellows "captured and removed from the streets" plead not guilty and are quickly released with lack of evidence. One has to wonder why the show doesn't release the conviction rates of the people they "help capture".

All in all, the show is just a filthy waste. TV crews aren't cops and shouldn't conduct sting operations. TV stations shouldn't be in the business of public humiliation nor should such punishment be used as entertainment/justice.

Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

As for the negative gun references I think that is just to build the drama. The more dangerous they can make these "predators" the better the show sells.


Where did you supposedly read this?

If you actually watch the show, it goes over all the people arrested and their sentences. In some states many of the guys get 5 to 9 months in prison with probation, in other states the guys get 3-9 years. So I have no clue where you supposedly READ this stuff.

The show works WITH police departments, and there the ones who make the arrests, NOT MSNBC. (Chris Hanson doesn't jump out and throw cuffs on anyone.)

I think the show is great. It catches all the *&*$#& and locks them up. And amazingly, they keep coming. It's also NOT entrapment.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 01:03 PM
Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the Internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.
This is not really a predator problem so much as it is a parenting problem. But it is not PC to blame parents for failing to instill appropriate values in their children and not enforcing proper conduct.

This is true, to an extent.

You will not always be able to stop your daughter from doing things. Similar to when your daughter dates a guy you don't want too. What are you going to do when she says, "Dad, you don't understand, he loves me, I love him." You can fight with her and yell at her, and only alienate her. And then watch her run off with him. You have to be careful.

And it is a predator problem. We see it happen quite often, and we need to be aware of it, and on the look out for it.

Kman
January 1, 2008, 01:05 PM
John Walsh, Chris Hansen, both have taken The High Road, to use the media in a positive fashion by educating the public on the actions and identities of criminals, we can only hope that more shows will reveal the dangerous individuals that lurk in our society.

tsidorus
January 1, 2008, 02:00 PM
Its perhaps a little dramatic at times but I give the show a emphatic two thumbs up. I just wish the police had the resources to do this kinda of thing 24/7. And to comment on the DA that committed suicide, it wouldn't bother me a bit if each and every one of those lowlifes felt compelled to suck start a 45. (I know harsh, but some people are still alive simply cause its against the law to kill them.) You shouldn't feel bad about a criminal being publicly humiliated. If they are so concerned with public image perhaps they shouldn't do something that is publicly condemned.

-Tsi

hank327
January 1, 2008, 02:05 PM
This show did a sting in Collin County, TX a year or so ago. Collin County neighbors Dallas to the Northeast and is a booming suburb. Anyway, the end result of that show was that the Collin County District Attorny's Office threw out every case brought to them as a result of the show. I'm not at all comfortable with LE being invovled in the entertainment business. Allowing a journalist to ride along is one thing, but allowing the so called journalist to be calling the shots is something else entirely.

theleveloftime
January 1, 2008, 02:09 PM
There is something vile going on in these shows, something on both sides, the perp is vile and the supposed "good guys" are vile also. I hate the utter dishonesty that is required to pull this off. To quote Faramir in the Lord of the Rings as he spoke to Gollum (possibly one of the most vile creatures in a book ever) "I would not snare an orc with a lie". These guys are all orcs. I am ashamed that all these men keep showing up. They say they never run out of customers. I still think there is something really sick going on both sides. It is dam entertaining though. When guns are finally outlawed they will have a show about guys showing up at a house for "free guns". I am sure some of it!

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 02:14 PM
Revolting
There is something vile going on in these shows, something on both sides, the perp is vile and the supposed "good guys" are vile also. I hate the utter dishonesty that is required to pull this off. To quote Faramir in the Lord of the Rings as he spoke to Gollum (possibly one of the most vile creatures in a book ever) "I would not snare an orc with a lie". These guys are all orcs. I am ashamed that all these men keep showing up. They say they never run out of customers. I still think there is something really sick going on both sides. It is dam entertaining though. When guns are finally outlawed they will have a show about guys showing up at a house for "free guns". I am sure some of it!

Why do you hate the "dishonesty" to catch these guys?

Would you rather they catch them after they've molested a child?

NCHornet
January 1, 2008, 03:01 PM
Quote:
If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

Even if the girl invites the sick pervert over to her house there is NO EXCUSE FOR A GROWN MAN TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH A CHILD!!! I hope I misunderstood your statement, because your response makes me wonder about you!! I don't care if the girl begs the pervert, there is simply no excuse for this behavior, and many times these predators know exactly what to say to these girls and boys to have their way. I think this show started off okay but has now gotten very sick in what they repeat on the air about the conversations that went on between the decoy and the pervert. I think everyone should be castrated and their fingers cut off so they can't type on a keyboard anymore!! Show this live on TV and it might have more of an impact!!

Double Naught Spy
January 1, 2008, 03:10 PM
Is Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" anti gun?

So my question is, am I incorrect to think that this show is attempting to correlate pedophiles and gun ownership, when it can do so?

Which is it? Are you asking if they are anti gun or are you asking if they are trying to connect gun ownership with pedophilia?

With that queried, if you really have to ask a question as to whether or not they are anti-gun, then either you aren't familiar with the show, didn't pay attention, or don't know the difference between what is reporter/TV show opinion versus what the cops have told them. Often times people attribute negative statements in the media to the media types when in reality they are just reporting, parroting, what the cops have told them.

On the second question, no, they are not trying to tie gun ownership to pedophilia. In fact, you asked the wrong question. The question would be whether or not they were trying to tie licensed concealed carry to pedophilia, not just plain gun ownership. In the quote made, the reporter is simply stating that police are working on the assumption that the person might be armed because of the commonality of people carrying concealed in FL because of the ease of getting a license.

Funny thing that they were not worried about folks illegally carrying concealed.

So since the question was asked if the show was anti gun, then what I would like to know is why it would matter. So what if the show is anti-gun or not?

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 03:12 PM
Quote:
If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

Even if the girl invites the sick pervert over to her house there is NO EXCUSE FOR A GROWN MAN TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH A CHILD!!! I hope I misunderstood your statement, because your response makes me wonder about you!! I don't care if the girl begs the pervert, there is simply no excuse for this behavior, and many times these predators know exactly what to say to these girls and boys to have their way. I think this show started off okay but has now gotten very sick in what they repeat on the air about the conversations that went on between the decoy and the pervert. I think everyone should be castrated and their fingers cut off so they can't type on a keyboard anymore!! Show this live on TV and it might have more of an impact!!

LOL. I thought the same thing. These guy's who are so mad at being "tricked" or whatever, why are they so upset about it?

And exactly what your saying....these are KIDS their tricking. Not ADULTS. Which is the point. Kids are CURIOUS about all kinds of stuff. That's why their kids. And their INNOCENT.

alsaqr
January 1, 2008, 03:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

Even if the girl invites the sick pervert over to her house there is NO EXCUSE FOR A GROWN MAN TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH A CHILD!!! I hope I misunderstood your statement, because your response makes me wonder about you!! I don't care if the girl begs the pervert, there is simply no excuse for this behavior, and many times these predators know exactly what to say to these girls and boys to have their way. I think this show started off okay but has now gotten very sick in what they repeat on the air about the conversations that went on between the decoy and the pervert. I think everyone should be castrated and their fingers cut off so they can't type on a keyboard anymore!! Show this live on TV and it might have more of an impact!!

"LOL. I thought the same thing. These guy's who are so mad at being "tricked" or whatever, why are they so upset about it?"

The Perverted Justice person is simply going online as a kid. IMO: There is nothing wrong with that. The child molester/would be child molester then hits on a person that he knows to be a child. Many of these scumbags send photos of their genitals to folks that they know to be kids. This is as bad as it can get: That guy has violated federal law. He could be arrested at that point and prosecuted in federal court.

hamourkiller
January 1, 2008, 03:46 PM
The only thing better than a caught child molester is a DEAD child molester! I am glad the one in Dallas is dead! We dont need such scum in Texas.

Deanimator
January 1, 2008, 04:09 PM
Well, you could argue that they use entrapment, which is a tactic many disagree with.
"Entrapment" is getting somebody to do something which they had no previous inclination to do. These guys are in those chat rooms SPECIFICALLY to commit statutory rape. Some of them have prior convictions for molestation and statutory rape. They KNOW what they're doing is wrong, and they've got no right to be surprised when it comes back to bite them.

jaholder1971
January 1, 2008, 04:21 PM
Would you rather they catch them after they've molested a child?

Respectfully, that's the way our system of justice is supposedto work. Catch and punish after a crime was committed, not entrap people into thought crimes.

jaholder1971
January 1, 2008, 04:24 PM
So how this works is online adult geeks are pretending to be underage deliberately soliciting dirty old adult men. The online version of the Little Schoolgirl/Cheerleader role playing kink.

So I'm trying to figure out how this is a sex crime unless a real underaged person is involved?

highorder
January 1, 2008, 04:33 PM
the same way you can be prosecuted for armed robbery by holding up a store with a stick in your pocket...

IIRC, the intent of soliciting (what they think is ) a minor is a crime.

Wes Janson
January 1, 2008, 04:33 PM
It's also worth pointing out that the definition of "child" is vague, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and is treated by the media to emotionally weight statements. From a historical perspective, the concept of 18 and older as being the definition of an adult is a new and unusual concept. I know I'm wasting my time by pointing this out, but consider how Brady/VPC/Handgun Control/etc like to harp on the number of teenage gangsta "children" who are killed by guns each year. Nevermind if it's a 17-y/o shot in self defense while committing armed robbery. "Think of the children!" should automatically trigger everybody's BS-o-meter, period.

My primary concern is that law enforcement and entertainment should NOT be allowed to merge together. It's one thing to educate the public about the realities of crime and policework, it's another thing entirely to make it into entertainment programming.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Would you rather they catch them after they've molested a child?

Respectfully, that's the way our system of justice is supposedto work. Catch and punish after a crime was committed, not entrap people into thought crimes.

Respectfully, you are wrong. That is why we have "Attempt" to commit a crime. That's why these men are being charged with "Attempting to solicit sex with a minor", and NOT "Sex with a minor".

Example: A man is hiring a hitman to murder his wife.

They do not wait for the hitman to kill the wife, and then charge them.

They arrest them immediately and charge them with "Attempted murder".


Obviously, if we had to let everyone commit crimes before we arrested them, there would be many more victims. And it is the police's job to "Protect and Serve". Protect = Protect the public from dangers, before they happen if possible.

alsaqr
January 1, 2008, 05:09 PM
"Respectfully, you are wrong. That is why we have "Attempt" to commit a crime. That's why these men are being charged with "Attempting to solicit sex with a minor", and NOT "Sex with a minor"."

There is an explosion of child molestation in the US. We need dozens more sting operations like the one run by Date Line. Something is drastically wrong with a man who lurks on a teen site trying to solicit sex with folks he knows to be children.

Not too long ago one of these stings was run by Date Line in little Walters, OK: It was a little different than some. The person who went online was a cop. Think the decoy also also a cop. They caught a bunch of perverts including a registered sex offender and a preacher. The online decoy was corresponding with as many as 51 guys.

"It's just shocking,” said John Sheppard, Walters city manager. "No one ever imagined this thing would get this big. One day they had 18 men lined up. They caught 11. I mean these guys were practically bumping into each other at the door.


"And they are coming loaded with sexual toys and alcohol and drugs. They look like they're going to a bear hunt.”

"Carter first got the idea to set up a sting for sexual predators a year and a half ago when he attended a conference on exploited and missing children.

"All those kids who are missing and have just vanished,” Carter said, shaking his head. "And where did a lot of those cases start? On the computer. That really touched me. Parents need to know who their kids are chatting with online.”

Eventually, Carter arranged two days of free training in November from the organizers of Perverted-Justice.com. "I'm really proud of our entire police department,” Sheppard said. "A lot of them have volunteered their own time, away from their families, to catch these predators. Robbie Carter — the chief's wife and one of our reserve officers — has been invaluable."

Tully M. Pick
January 1, 2008, 05:14 PM
There is an explosion of child molestation in the US. We need dozens more sting operations like the one run by Date Line.

I'd prefer a reward system based on tips resulting in a conviction. Dateline doesn't even make very good TV, and I doubt anyone has been convicted of a precrime in these cases.

jagter82
January 1, 2008, 05:15 PM
The police is under no legal obligation to protect anyone.

If you put the media and police together you are asking for trouble. Police like to show off and as to the aggressiveness they have no right to do that, the badge does not empower them to be aggressive but it is a norm nowadays.

As to a media interview that should not happen when the perp walks in the house he should find the police waiting for him and not a reporter.

Kman
January 1, 2008, 05:29 PM
"new and unusual concept!?!?!" IT'S THE LAW! and as far as the merger of T.V. and law enforcement, show me a downside to consider? I see a huge plus by having the video to witness at our leisure.
Entrapment of a non-pedophile is impossible. A school bus full of naked children will not lure a non-pedophile into a sexual encounter.:fire: Only a sick and disturbed SOB would show effort to seek a sexual encounter with a child, and these sick SOB's are doing just that by going to predetermined locations!! this shows intent!!! :cuss:
What is so disturbing is our lack of action as a society!! these sickos need to be thinned from the herd, off the streets period. :banghead:

elderboy02
January 1, 2008, 05:44 PM
I saw the one where he said "he had a legally registered firearm in the trunk of his car". Who cares? It is Legal. Lock him up for the importuning. That show is all about building up drama.

alsaqr
January 1, 2008, 05:47 PM
"Dateline doesn't even make very good TV, and I doubt anyone has been convicted of a precrime in these cases"

Tell that to this pervert.

http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5540

"KS Man Caught in OK Sex Sting Date: December 28, 2007
A federal judge has sentenced a Kansas man to more than 11 years in prison for trying to arrange a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl in Oklahoma. Forty-three-year-old Lawrence Paul Mai (MY) pleaded guilty in Oklahoma City to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, which is a felony. Mai remains on home confinement in Salina. Mai and more than a dozen other men were caught in a sex sting by police in Walters, Oklahoma. Authorities said each of them traveled to the town to have sex with a person they thought was an underage girl they met on the Internet. The girl was an undercover officer. Mai admitted he made a "bad decision" and in court Thursday begged the judge for a sentence short enough to allow him to continue counseling. But the judge the seriousness of the crime warranted serious punishment."

Tell that to the pervert preacher:

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/local/local_story_298005636.html

"OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A former Tahlequah minister caught up in a computer sex sting is being sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for sending a picture of his genitals to a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl.

Forty-six-year-old Charles Barry Shaffer was arrested in February when he went to Walters to have sex with the girl"

JLelli
January 1, 2008, 06:05 PM
I don't know if To Catch a Predator itself is anti-gun, but there is no question in my mind that Dateline as a whole is.

Hoplophile
January 1, 2008, 06:17 PM
Knowing Perverted Justice more intimately than your average user, I can say that they're utter lowlifes. They ruin people's lives, regardless of the facts. They're a loosely-defined mob with no regard for the JUSTICE and all the concern for the PERVERSION. It really is "Perverted Justice".

They're not helping cops, they're not helping kids, they're not doing anything but entertaining Americans who know nothing about stings, cops, pedophiles, or the Internet.

I personally see this show as an attack on the Internet, and by extension, an attack upon free speech.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 06:43 PM
Knowing Perverted Justice more intimately than your average user, I can say that they're utter lowlifes. They ruin people's lives, regardless of the facts. They're a loosely-defined mob with no regard for the JUSTICE and all the concern for the PERVERSION. It really is "Perverted Justice".

They're not helping cops, they're not helping kids, they're not doing anything but entertaining Americans who know nothing about stings, cops, pedophiles, or the Internet.

I personally see this show as an attack on the Internet, and by extension, an attack upon free speech.

Knowing Perverted Justice more intimately than your average user

You seem really angry and say you know them better then your average user, were you on the show?

They ruin people's lives

People ruin their OWN lives. Similar to saying, the show Cops is ruining DUI drivers lives when they get caught. The Cops Show and the Police did not ruin the guy's life. He did it himself.

they're not doing anything but entertaining Americans

Perverted Justice has been around since 2002, long before the show "To Catch a Predator" came on. So, to say they were made to entertain the public is blatantly false.

divemedic
January 1, 2008, 06:44 PM
As the Father of a girl who I caught having sex with a much older man, I would like to weigh in here. My daughter was 15, and the man was 25.

- My daughter knew right from wrong. She chose to do what she did. I certainly never told her that it was OK to do what she did. Not a parenting issue, she knew better, but made her choices. You teach your children the correct path, but as individuals, they make their own choices.

- As the adult, the older person is legally supposed to know better, and is the one who is supposed to be held responsible, and rightly so.

- If the situation is reversed, and an older attractive woman has sex with a young teen boy, many see this as a lesser crime, or not a crime at all.

- The group "Perverted Justice" is a bunch of a-holes. They harass people for alleged crimes with no chance for a fair trial or even a chance to defend themselves. Vigilante "justice" is not the answer.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 07:04 PM
Cops have started their own Online Predator Sting Operation show, with no-ties to the MSNBC show, "To Catch a Predator" show starring Chris Hansen.

The show is called: Inside: Predator Task Force

Internet predator sting snares Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/1128/inside-predator-task-force_ctv.html

By Mallory Simon
Court TV

A California sheriff's deputy arrested in a sting operation targeting Internet child predators was charged Tuesday with two felonies for allegedly trying to meet someone whom he thought was a 13-year-old girl for sex.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy Joseph Mican Abadla Carlos, 31, was charged with meeting a minor for lewd purposes and an attempted lewd act upon a child under the age of 14.

The sting by the South Bay Predator Task Force, which resulted in the arrest of Carlos and three other men, was filmed by Court TV as part of a special called "Inside: Predator Task Force." The task force, created by the Hawthorne Police Department with detectives from six other police departments, arrested 15 people during its 12-day operation. (VIDEO)

The show examines the task force's efforts to track down predators by logging the conversations adults have with decoys, whom they believe are underage girls. It follows officers as they arrange meetings with the suspects, set up surveillance and make arrests once the suspects make contact with the decoy.

In March, a police detective posing as a 13-year-old girl began chatting online with a person police believed to be Carlos. In the chat, the person said he wanted to have sex with the girl and asked her to call him. A 25-year-old volunteer, who would later pose as the girl, called the number to set up a meeting.

When the man questioned the volunteer about her age and why she was interested in meeting him, she said she was an eighth grader who was "curious" about "sex."

The man told the volunteer, "You don't sound 13."

"I'm kind of worried," he said. "This could be a sting operation or something. Is it?"

The volunteer tried to reassure him, but the man continued to press the issue. He asked her to "promise" and "swear" that it was not a sting.

"You're not a cop, are you?" he asked.

After she said no, he asked if she still wanted to meet. They agreed to meet at a Chevron gas station in Inglewood. She told him she would ride her bike to the station.

Police officers set up surveillance in and around the gas station as the decoy waited for the person, who had identified himself as "Joe."

In the filmed encounter, Carlos drove into the gas station, got out of his car and walked up to the decoy.

After Carlos told her he was "Joe," officers jumped out of their vehicles and ordered him to the ground. When police checked his pockets, they found a box of condoms.

"I'm so sorry," Carlos said. "I'll never do this again, I swear."

Carlos told them he was a deputy and that he had a weapon in his car.

"You just disgraced us," Sgt. Ti Goetz said to Carlos. "This is our worst fear come true."

"Mine too," Carlos said.

He pleaded with the officers, asking if he could "just go home."

"I would say you are in serious trouble, brother," an officer replied.

On the tape, Goetz said he was "thoroughly embarrassed" to arrest another police officer for trying to have sex with a minor.

"I'm all for catching predators," Goetz said. "But I'm really disappointed to get this one."

Carlos was placed in a squad car and taken in for questioning. Detectives asked him whether they would find any child pornography if they searched his computer.

Carlos, banging his hand on the table, insisted they would find nothing.

When pressed about the computer, Carlos put his head on his arm and began to cry.

"Once in a while there's a bad apple that gets into law enforcement, just like anywhere else," one of the officers said on the tape. "We all have a black eye now."

Carlos has been free on bail since his arrest on March 31.

He was placed on paid leave following the arrest, according to a press release from the district attorney's office, but on Nov. 9, a spokesman for Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said the department had begun termination proceedings against Carlos.

He faces four years in state prison if convicted.

"Inside: Predator Task Force" will air on December 2 at 10 p.m. ET on Court TV.

So, with or without Perverted Justice, the police have taken the lead set by MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator" and started their own sting operation and show.

What will people who are against Perverted Justice say now, since this clone to the "To Catch a Predator" show does the same thing, without Perverted Justice being involved?

ilbob
January 1, 2008, 07:08 PM
And it is a predator problem. We see it happen quite often, and we need to be aware of it, and on the look out for it.
I am wondering why it is no longer a predator issue when the girl turns 18?

I also do not consider teenagers to be children. Many drive, hold jobs, etc. They are not exactly innocent 3 year olds as some would try to make out.

I think someone that would abuse a young child needs to be dealt with harshly. I am less concerned about a 16 or 17 YO. I realize we have to draw the line somewhere, but in some states the line is drawn so that it is OK for a 16 YO to have sex with a 14 YO, but the day the 16 YO turns 17 it is a felony. Does that make any sense? And why is it OK for a 16 YO and not a 26 YO? They are both aware of the law, and are equally aware what is going on is illegal.

divemedic
January 1, 2008, 07:13 PM
If they get a fair trial, I dont have a problem with it. I do have a problem with this:

But Laura, who chats posing as a girl between the ages of 10 and 13, admits that the men who take her bait haven't committed any crime: "It's a fine line. These guys are showing their intentions, they're taking overt steps for hooking up with a child, but technically they haven't done it, so from a law-enforcement point of view there is nothing to arrest yet."

and then:

There's no arrest, no charge, no reading of Miranda rights, no trial by jury for the guys whose mugs appear on the Perverted Justice site. The "charge" is simply "wannabe pedophile." After volunteers from the site call to confirm their phone numbers, they are literally tried in the Internet court of public opinion; <snip>
The crime doesn't occur until they attempt to meet the kid or they actually meet the kid with the intent to have sex. What they say on the Internet and what they say on the phone just isn't enough."
<snip>
On his profile, Frank Fencepost offers a list of what outraged readers of the site should not (wink), do with the phone numbers of the men who appear on the site: "Posting these numbers in Gay Phone Sex Chat:1 is a terrible, terrible thing. Don't do THAT ... please, don't do THAT. Do not offer these phone numbers to Jehovah's Witnesses, telling them that you need as many prayer meetings as you can get."

The police doing it means a trial, and evidence. Not some a-hole and his internet friends slamming someone by calling his boss and cell numbers to ruin his life.

EmGeeGeorge
January 1, 2008, 07:17 PM
Don't care for the show, personally, but a kiddie raper is a kiddie raper... When you're 28 or 32 or 23 or 55 and you go to a 12 or 13 yr olds home to get your rocks off, your rocks should be removed rather unceremoniously with a pair of pruning shears, period.
Its hard enough for a kid to grow up normal without pedophile scum preying on them...
as one post says (wrongly)"I also do not consider teenagers to be children. Many drive, hold jobs, etc. They are not exactly innocent 3 year olds as some would try to make out." So if a 11 year old girl comes to your house to mow your lawn, she is obviously a self-employed, responsible person and should be legal... Legal age in WA where I'm at is 16. Anything younger than that is Rape of a Child 1 2 0r 3 depending on the perverts level of perversion.

jaholder1971
January 1, 2008, 07:27 PM
Respectfully, you are wrong. That is why we have "Attempt" to commit a crime. That's why these men are being charged with "Attempting to solicit sex with a minor", and NOT "Sex with a minor".


But they're not soliciting sex from a minor, they're soliciting sex from another adult pretending to be a kid. Creepy, but I really don't see a crime here.

There is an explosion of child molestation in the US.

No there isn't, you just hear about it more because it makes great ratings.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 07:40 PM
But they're not soliciting sex from a minor, they're soliciting sex from another adult pretending to be a kid. Creepy, but I really don't see a crime here.

It doesn't matter that their not ACTUALLY minors. Just like when police set up stings for prostitution, the people in the sting do not have to actually be prostitutes.

The mere fact that the men THINK it's a minor they are coming to meet shows intent.

Example: The DNR sets up a fake robo deer for poachers to shoot. Once the poachers attempt to shoot the fake deer, there arrested.

Would it be better to put a real living deer tied down for a poacher to shoot at, to make it legal?

It is well within the law for the police to use such tactics as fake minors, fake prostitutes, fake hitmen, and many other such things. It's called, trickery.

They could be charged with meeting a minor for lewd purposes and an attempted lewd act upon a child under the age of 14.

Albatross
January 1, 2008, 07:40 PM
You guys caught me. You guys musta been Dateline "reporters" in another life or something?

It is sadly too true, that anyone who expects teenagers to have self respect and make halfway intelligent decisions all by themselves secretly harbors uncontrollable desire towards their young supple bodies.

/What a screwed up place you fellows casting such aspersions must live in.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 07:54 PM
What appalls me is how someone can defend someone who:

1.) Talk to someone they think is underage about graphic sexual things.

2.) Get in their cars and DRIVE to their houses to meet them.

3.) Enters a complete STRANGERS house. (This takes huge cojones to do.)

4.) Actually expect an underage child to be there.

How can you defend this?

Saturnine
January 1, 2008, 08:14 PM
What appalls me is how someone can defend someone who:

1.) Talk to someone they think is underage about graphic sexual things.

2.) Get in their cars and DRIVE to their houses to meet them.

3.) Actually expect an underage child to be there.

How can you defend this?
No one is trying to defend these people. They are scum and should be treated accordingly. We have a system in place for doing so. What we don't need is a bunch of internet geeks with no lives spending all their free time making people's lives a nightmare. Perverted Justice is a vigilante organization, we have no place for that in our justice system. They do more than just what's shown on dateline. They do everything in their power to ruin the lives of people they find to be evil, regardless of whether or not they've been proven guilty or have already served their time. That is unacceptable.

average_shooter
January 1, 2008, 08:27 PM
Back to the suicide; the thing is, he hadn't yet committed the crime. In fact, he backed out. He was not going to meet the "child." When he didn't show up at the sting-house when he said he would, THEY WENT LOOKING FOR HIM. Then Cris Hansen lied about his role in it. Hansen said in an interview that he and the camera crew were down the street out of sight, letting the cops handle thing. Then you see him on camera standing in the guy's front yard talking to the SWAT guys. Then SWAT goes in like the butterflies they are and lo-and-behold the guy caps himself. His last words reportedly were, "I wasn't going to do it, I couldn't do it."

Again, I'm not cop-bashing, they were "just doing their job."

As for entrapment, I used chat online a while ago. I usually lurked political, religious, or gaming chat rooms. Even in those rooms I got numerous solicitations to "cyber." For all I know it was one of those "Catch a Predator" folks trying to start a conversation that might lead to a new episode of their show... The kind of sad part is that it seemed to me everyone trying that uses the same script, makes it pretty obvious to anyone paying attention...

jerkface11
January 1, 2008, 09:34 PM
It is entrapment. They don't just log on and wait for someone to start talking to them. They seek people out and start conversations with them. Then talk them into coming to meet them. The conviction rate may not be high but they do ruin peoples lives conviction or not. However they've picked a very emotional subject for their witch hunt and anyone who dares to speak out against them is denounced.

alsaqr
January 1, 2008, 09:38 PM
"What appalls me is how someone can defend someone who:

1.) Talk to someone they think is underage about graphic sexual things.

2.) Get in their cars and DRIVE to their houses to meet them.

3.) Enters a complete STRANGERS house. (This takes huge cojones to do.)

4.) Actually expect an underage child to be there.

How can you defend this?"

Bingo!!! Something is drastically wrong with people who defend this kind of crap.

akodo
January 1, 2008, 09:48 PM
entrapment? I think not. This is what happens.

The fisher creates a fake identity, something that screams young female. Something like "JV-Volleyball" They then sit and wait. Soon they will get unsolicited chat from many people, from horney 16 year olds to 55 year olds.

The faker does not innitiate sexual talk, and allows the pedophile to suggest everything, and simply agrees to it.

That is not entrampent.

However, some organizations go about it wrong. They create a fake profile put up a cute pic, and then start breaching the subject of sex to anyone who seems interested in them.

Does a good man agree to have sex with a 13 year old just because she suggested it? No. It is still entrampent. Just like a good man doesn't agree to have his wife killed by a hitman, but it is still entrapment if a cop in disguise hangs around outside a divorce attourney's office and offers his services to 'whack the b!#(h'

Tully M. Pick
January 1, 2008, 09:51 PM
http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/new...hp?itemID=5540

"KS Man Caught in OK Sex Sting Date: December 28, 2007
A federal judge has sentenced a Kansas man to more than 11 years in prison for trying to arrange a sexual encounter with a 14-year-old girl in Oklahoma. Forty-three-year-old Lawrence Paul Mai (MY) pleaded guilty in Oklahoma City to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, which is a felony. Mai remains on home confinement in Salina. Mai and more than a dozen other men were caught in a sex sting by police in Walters, Oklahoma. Authorities said each of them traveled to the town to have sex with a person they thought was an underage girl they met on the Internet. The girl was an undercover officer. Mai admitted he made a "bad decision" and in court Thursday begged the judge for a sentence short enough to allow him to continue counseling. But the judge the seriousness of the crime warranted serious punishment."

Tell that to the pervert preacher:

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/local...298005636.html

"OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A former Tahlequah minister caught up in a computer sex sting is being sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for sending a picture of his genitals to a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl.

Forty-six-year-old Charles Barry Shaffer was arrested in February when he went to Walters to have sex with the girl"

Are those Dateline cases?

theleveloftime
January 1, 2008, 10:49 PM
To answer the question, I hate lies and liars, I don't like it from anyone. I don't have to admire it because you have some wonderful "cause" that makes it ok. I think the whole thing sucks. The perverted people areas crummy as anyone they catch, they have a license to be perverted. I have noticed that some folk really grab onto to it's OK to hate "child molesters", it is so easy, and safe. OH Boy someone to hate, and there are no restrictions on it, and it's even admirable. Yeah they are vile, but I always smell a rat when you start dehumanizing anyone. And as someone else astutely oberved the attack on the internet. And to paraphrase Big Daddy from a Cat on a Hot Tin Roof "Goddam all lies and liars". And another observation, I have noticed that gun control advocates will tell tremendous bold face lies to achieve thier aims and think how high and mighty they are and it is OK to lie because thier cause is just. No SIr I don't like it, ain't got to like it, ain't gonna like it. And as far as justice is concerned our system is supposed to catch crooks and punish them after the fact. That pre emptive thing is another gun control idea - if it saves just one child etc.

usmarine0352_2005
January 1, 2008, 11:51 PM
It is entrapment. They don't just log on and wait for someone to start talking to them. They seek people out and start conversations with them. Then talk them into coming to meet them. The conviction rate may not be high but they do ruin peoples lives conviction or not. However they've picked a very emotional subject for their witch hunt and anyone who dares to speak out against them is denounced.

Entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit those acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.


So, even if they start talking to someone first, it is not entrapment.

The average person who is on the computer and has a 13 yr old child come online and start talking about sex, does not go, "O, Boy. I'm on my way."

This is what a pedophile says.

An average person says, "Whoa, what's going on. I'm done talking now."

They sure as hell don't get in their friggin' car and DRIVE TO MEET THEM.


I have noticed that some folk really grab onto to it's OK to hate "child molesters", it is so easy, and safe.

I have no problem hating child molesters. And believe me, if you go to prison and they find out your a child molester, you'll find out they hate you too. Even scumbag murderers in prison have a code.





For all of the people who say, "No one's been convicted OR it's Entrapment" - Incorrect, on both counts:

Here are a bunch of the cases and sentences. If it was entrapment, none of these cases would have went to trial, and no one would be convicted.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/?page=4

I’m always asked are these men getting convicted and sent to prison? Of the more than 200 men charged in our investigations, not one man has been let off. In every case the man has either pleaded guilty, been convicted at trial or the case is pending.

Rabbi David Kay was indicted, facing federal charges. He requests a bench trial in federal court, in other words, no jury. He just goes before a federal judge. The case is heard. He’s convicted, sentenced to six and a half years in federal prison, partly because, the judge said, the rabbi lied when he testified in his own defense that he really didn’t think there was a 13-year-old boy home alone.

In Riverside County 51 men were arrested. They were all charged. They are all being prosecuted with the exception of 17 who have pled guilty. We didn’t offer any plea bargains to any of these individuals; no deals whatsoever.
The two longest sentences: One was given to Daniel Allen. The other one was given to Hoi Chen. They were both three years in state prison. They got the longest sentences because the judges in their case, realized the incredible harm that could have occurred. And so, they got the sentences that they deserved. And quite frankly, all of ‘em deserved those sentences.

There’s the Homeland Security agent. I think that case will go to trial. And there are well. What they’re going to argue? I have no idea.I would imagine that they’re gonna talk about entrapment. But once people see those communications—those written communications, between the defendant and what appeared to them to be an underage child and then they see the interviews—done by Dateline, I can’t imagine anybody being successful at trial.

theleveloftime
January 2, 2008, 12:56 AM
We got a real moral problem here. Prisoners are not supposed to be victimized in prison. Being deprived of thier liberty is the punishment not being abused by other prisioner - those are crimes too. Do you support crimes? I should hope not. I tell you this is bad bizness. But what do I care what you think. Enjoy your hate. So you take the low road and I'll take the high road and I'll be in Scotland before ye. I just know evil actions beget evil actions. I know it.

usmarine0352_2005
January 2, 2008, 01:05 AM
We got a real moral problem here. Prisoners are not supposed to be victimized in prison. Being deprived of thier liberty is the punishment not being abused by other prisioner - those are crimes too. Do you support crimes? I should hope not. I tell you this is bad bizness. But what do I care what you think. Enjoy your hate. So you take the low road and I'll take the high road and I'll be in Scotland before ye. I just know evil actions beget evil actions. I know it.

Forgiveness is between them and God.

I never said it was ok to hurt people, did I?

I said that a harsh reality is, that if they go to prison, they will probably not be well liked and may be hurt.

I hate child molesters. You like them. That's ok. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. If that's the high road, then it is the wrong road.

I do not judge myself a better person then others, like you do, by thinking so highly of myself.



You are right about one thing:

I just know evil actions beget evil actions. I know it.

Evil Action: .................Evil Action:

You molest a child. You will go to prison.


If your a religious person, and you molest a child, I'm sure hell is involved there someplace too.

Wes Janson
January 2, 2008, 01:35 AM
We've got two choices. Either every action has a moral value attached to it, or screw it all because the ends justify the means. You can't just say "They belong in prison, and I wash my hands of what happens there or ever after". Prison is a punishment, specifically chosen, designed, laid forth by law, and decided upon through due process. No more, no less.

To paraphrase Mencken: there is always an easy solution to every problem — neat, plausible and wrong. And if I might add, utterly immoral.

theleveloftime
January 2, 2008, 02:02 AM
OK, pay attention USM, I didn't say anything about liking hester the molester. I know I shouldn't respond to you because you seem to have screws lose or you can't read. First you decide you were cool because you hate someone, now you hate me. Where does this all end for you? To all, I am sorry I even bothered. Carry on.

usmarine0352_2005
January 2, 2008, 02:11 AM
OK, pay attention USM, I didn't say anything about liking hester the molester. I know I shouldn't respond to you because you seem to have screws lose or you can't read. First you decide you were cool because you hate someone, now you hate me. Where does this all end for you? To all, I am sorry I even bothered. Carry on.

Well, your high and mighty attitude and words trying to paint me as immoral sort of put me off. I never said hating someone was cool, obviously you like making things up.

I don't hate you, and obviously by my post, I never said I did. (Once again, you putting words in my mouth and making things up. Show me the part where I say, "I hate you.", you won't find it, because it was never said.)

How the heck did you get so off topic?

I'm not saying you have a screw loose. What you've already said will stand on it's own.

I'm no here to fight you, or explain how I'm more moral then other people and will thus end up in Scotland. So, I'll be the bigger man, take the highroad, and say goodbye.

gunsmith
January 2, 2008, 03:24 AM
Quote:
If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

Even if the girl invites the sick pervert over to her house there is NO EXCUSE FOR A GROWN MAN TO HAVE RELATIONS WITH A CHILD!!! I hope I misunderstood your statement, because your response makes me wonder about you!! I don't care if the girl begs the pervert, there is simply no excuse for this behavior, and many times these predators know exactly what to say to these girls and boys to have their way. I think this show started off okay but has now gotten very sick in what they repeat on the air about the conversations that went on between the decoy and the pervert. I think everyone should be castrated and their fingers cut off so they can't type on a keyboard anymore!! Show this live on TV and it might have more of an impact!!
LOL. I thought the same thing. These guy's who are so mad at being "tricked" or whatever, why are they so upset about it?

And exactly what your saying....these are KIDS their tricking. Not ADULTS. Which is the point. Kids are CURIOUS about all kinds of stuff. That's why their kids. And their INNOCENT.

they have caught LE and Doctors doing this reprehensible, vile garbage.

in keeping with the topic, Chris Hansen is doing a public service and getting great ratings. He'll play up the gun angle because it sells ad space by increasing ratings.
I think he is personally against guns and voting for Hillary, but I still kind of like the show.

Nevada age of consent law is 16 (unless you're a teacher) and I don't really have a problem with it.
I am not so narcissistic as to presume any "sweet 16" would even consent to me giving an approving look at her:neener: (generally women under 35 do not consent to me looking either)


Strategically "To Catch A Predator" is taking a huge risk, I wouldn't be surprised if one day Chris asks a guy "why are you here"? and the answer is "not to have sex, I just want to kill a famous person" and pulls out a gun and shoot Mr Hansen....of course THAT show would get HUGE ratings....Thats what really counts on TV.

divemedic
January 2, 2008, 06:36 AM
The problem that I have with the "Perverted Justice" people is not that they do this show, it is with what they do on their website. In the cases where they do not have evidence to convict, or the police aren't involved, they publish the name, address, and phone numbers of the subject and his employer, so that they can publicly humiliate a person who has not been convicted of, or even charged with, a crime.

Often, these people have only chatted online and have not attempted to meet anyone. That doesn't matter to these people- the ends justify the means. Never mind that they are breaking the law themselves, never mind that they are ruining an innocent ma's life by getting him fired, causing him family problems, or anything else- the only thing that matters is that they are getting back at someone, a "pervert."

It happens all the time, insert cause here. There is no difference here between Bloomberg's lawsuits against gun stores, and what these people do.

1 Entrap person into supposed "offense"
2 Use extra-legal means to ruin them

Dihappy
January 2, 2008, 06:59 AM
IT doesnt matter if they get convicted or not.

If anyone knwingly chats with a 12, 13, 14 yo about sex, talks about going to meet them, shows them graphic pictures of themselves, then it doesnt matter that they never really went or were convicted.

They deserve to lose their job and their family and friends should know what kind of a sicko they are.

joab
January 2, 2008, 07:46 AM
Maybe Dihappy but what lengths are the PJ people going to substantiate their accusations

By all event accounts I live alone with my wife but three people have regular access to my computer

Working Man
January 2, 2008, 07:47 AM
Top that off with the fact the cops should be off doing real work. If your teenage daughter is inviting random men from the Internet over to your house for sex, she isn't exactly an innocent little girl or much of a victim.

This is not really a predator problem so much as it is a parenting problem. But it is not PC to blame parents for failing to instill appropriate values in their children and not enforcing proper conduct.

If your 12 or 13 year old daughter is "playing adult" online that does not mean
she would be any less of a victim. She may be quoting a few lines from Gray's
Anatomy or Desperate Housewives or any of a number of crap shows that don't even
have to be on cable to have adult content. It does not mean that she truly understands
where all that may lead to. Regardless how she sounds or looks, she is not an adult.

Many kids....

1. have their heads up their arse
2. are curious
3. don't think things through
4. have no concept of the real dangers out there

.... they're kids, thats what they do.

Hell their brains aren't even fully formed till their early twenties.

Yes, parenting does play a big role in this but who here did everything we were told to do
growing up? I made some bad choices all on my own against good advice.... does that
mean I should have been thrown under the bus? Got my butt or lip busted but I was not
left out for the wolves.

And what the hell is going through their minds?
The only time I think "Mmmmm 12 year old" is when I'm talking about a good scotch.
I don't care if something suggestive was said, they are children playing adult. Looking
at them in any other way is just plain sick.

I have no issue with the show.

Zen21Tao
January 2, 2008, 07:47 AM
What will people who are against Perverted Justice say now, since this clone to the "To Catch a Predator" show does the same thing, without Perverted Justice being involved?

Remember why most are against the group Perverted Justice. The number one criticism of Perverted Justice is that they knowing, repeatedly and aggressively violates people’s rights. While it may feel good to say that this is type of vigilantism is fine because it is pedophiles they are dealing with, it sets the stage for wide spread abuses by “concerned citizens” that just want to clean up their streets.

The folks at Perverted Justice are NOT police officers operating under “cover of law.” Police officers are held to a legal standard that requires them to exercise their legal authority and powers without depriving citizens of their legal rights. Remember, the law has to work correctly for to worst of us, so we know it will work correctly for the rest of us. So, the way these officers ran their sting sounds to be exactly how such stings should be run, legally and by on duty police officers


What appalls me is how someone can defend someone who:

1.) Talk to someone they think is underage about graphic sexual things.

2.) Get in their cars and DRIVE to their houses to meet them.

3.) Enters a complete STRANGERS house. (This takes huge cojones to do.)

4.) Actually expect an underage child to be there.

How can you defend this?

We are not defending them, their thoughts or their actions. We are defending their right to due process. All citizens, even the most potentially vile amongst us, have the right to due process of law. Law enforcement officers are bound by “color of law” to provide such due process. The citizens that make up Perverted Justice are not, and quite frequently demonize and demoralize individuals that have not been convicted of anything.


I have nothing against a sting operation conducted by the police or even the use of such sting operations as media entertainment as long as those caught have been given due process and have already been found guilty or pled no contest to a valid crime. But, I lump Perverted Justice in the same category as Mayor Bloomberg and the private security companies he uses to set up gun store owners so that he can demonize them and sue them civilly, even when these gunshot employees/owners have not been convicted of any crimes.

Deanimator
January 2, 2008, 07:54 AM
It is sadly too true, that anyone who expects teenagers to have self respect and make halfway intelligent decisions all by themselves secretly harbors uncontrollable desire towards their young supple bodies.
Teenagers don't have the power of consent, certainly not the 13 and 14 year olds that those degenerates go after. Trying to change the subject to the nonexistent "halfway intelligent decisions" that teenagers don't have the legal power to make is just a pathetic dodge of the sort used by subhuman filth like NAMBLA.

alsaqr
January 2, 2008, 08:12 AM
"If anyone knwingly chats with a 12, 13, 14 yo about sex, talks about going to meet them, shows them graphic pictures of themselves, then it doesnt matter that they never really went or were convicted."

Bingo!!! Any pervert who sends photos of his private parts over the internet to a kid needs to be locked up for a very long time.

"Are those Dateline cases?"

Do not remember for sure, i did see it. Cannot find it on the Dateline site. Perverted Justice did train the online decoy: The online decoy was a cop. The girl decoy was a very young policewoman-she may have been a reservist. The feds took jurisdiction in the cases at Walters, OK.

Zen21Tao
January 2, 2008, 08:30 AM
As to whether or not Perverted Justices' actions constitute entrapment.

Yes, it is true that the entrapment involves inducing a person who would be otherwise unwilling to commit the crime. But keep in mind, that it is the willingness to commit THAT particular crime he is arrested for not a general crime of that type.

The decision in Sorrell v United Sates (287 U.S. 435 (1932) identified the controlling questions as to whether or not entrapment was present to be "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials". [cited below]

As the above quote states, the key consideration is whether or not the illegal action(s) of the person arrested was the product of the law enforcement officers' activities and without such activities that person would otherwise not have committed that crime.

This is the difference between a female undercover officer leaning into a man’s window offering to perform a sex act for money on him and that female undercover officer being invited by a man into his car and/or being asked by the man to perform a sex act on him for money.


As far as the work of Perverted Justice goes, one guy that showed up to the house had proof in his transcripts that as soon as the Perverted Justice employee he had been talking sexually with said she was 12, he replied that he didn't want her to have any further contact him and he would reporting here to Yahoo. This Perverted Justice employee continued to message him over and over until he gave in and resumed chats with her. Then everything that followed (having sex, meeting at the house, a phone call, etc.) was the suggestion of the Perverted Justice employee, not his.


This actually sounds very similar to the case I mentioned above of Sorrells v United States which unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. The justices applied the question I referred to above and determined that the factory worker’s actions were the product of repeated requests of the undercover probation officer and without such requests, he would not have chosen to violate the law.

usmarine0352_2005
January 2, 2008, 10:59 AM
If this was ENTRAPMENT, the men would have been freed, and they would NOT have been convicted of a crime.

This show has gotten TONS of exposure and is known Nation wide. Believe me, if it was ENTRAPMENT they would have lawyers calling in and people saying, "This is entrapment." But they haven't, and the men have been convicted.

Whether or not you believe it fits the definition of Entrapment is a mute point, since the U.S. COURTS do NOT see it as Entrapment and have convicted the men.

Obviously, since they were convicted, it WASN'T Entrapment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/?page=4

I’m always asked are these men getting convicted and sent to prison? Of the more than 200 men charged in our investigations, not one man has been let off. In every case the man has either pleaded guilty, been convicted at trial or the case is pending.


Entrapment:
This became known as the "subjective" test of entrapment, since it focused on the defendant's state of mind.
Prosecutors won the next two times entrapment came before the Court, in United States v. Russell (411 U.S. 423 (1973)) and Hampton v. United States (425 U.S. 484 (1976)), albeit by narrow margins. In the former, the Court upheld the conviction of a Washington man for manufacturing methamphetamine even though an undercover agent had supplied some of the ingredients, and also pondered an "outrageous government conduct" defense, though it did not enable it. Hampton let stand, by a similar margin, the conviction of a Missouri man who had, upon seeing track marks on a DEA informant's arms, expressed interest in selling him heroin. After several sales to the informant and undercover agents, he was arrested. The defendant alleged he had been led to believe by the informant that he was not selling heroin but a counterfeit. The Court found he was adequately predisposed to sell heroin in any event.. The state courts or legislatures of 37 states have chosen the subjective test, while the others use the objective test.

For those who are so angry about Perverted Justice doing it, what about this, are you still angry?
(This sting was done soley by the police department, with no help from anyone like Perverted Justice)

Internet predator sting snares Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy

http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/112...force_ctv.html

By Mallory Simon
Court TV

A California sheriff's deputy arrested in a sting operation targeting Internet child predators was charged Tuesday with two felonies for allegedly trying to meet someone whom he thought was a 13-year-old girl for sex.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputy Joseph Mican Abadla Carlos, 31, was charged with meeting a minor for lewd purposes and an attempted lewd act upon a child under the age of 14.

The sting by the South Bay Predator Task Force, which resulted in the arrest of Carlos and three other men, was filmed by Court TV as part of a special called "Inside: Predator Task Force." The task force, created by the Hawthorne Police Department with detectives from six other police departments, arrested 15 people during its 12-day operation. (VIDEO)

The show examines the task force's efforts to track down predators by logging the conversations adults have with decoys, whom they believe are underage girls. It follows officers as they arrange meetings with the suspects, set up surveillance and make arrests once the suspects make contact with the decoy.

In March, a police detective posing as a 13-year-old girl began chatting online with a person police believed to be Carlos. In the chat, the person said he wanted to have sex with the girl and asked her to call him. A 25-year-old volunteer, who would later pose as the girl, called the number to set up a meeting.

When the man questioned the volunteer about her age and why she was interested in meeting him, she said she was an eighth grader who was "curious" about "sex."

The man told the volunteer, "You don't sound 13."

"I'm kind of worried," he said. "This could be a sting operation or something. Is it?"

The volunteer tried to reassure him, but the man continued to press the issue. He asked her to "promise" and "swear" that it was not a sting.

"You're not a cop, are you?" he asked.

After she said no, he asked if she still wanted to meet. They agreed to meet at a Chevron gas station in Inglewood. She told him she would ride her bike to the station.

Police officers set up surveillance in and around the gas station as the decoy waited for the person, who had identified himself as "Joe."

In the filmed encounter, Carlos drove into the gas station, got out of his car and walked up to the decoy.

After Carlos told her he was "Joe," officers jumped out of their vehicles and ordered him to the ground. When police checked his pockets, they found a box of condoms.

"I'm so sorry," Carlos said. "I'll never do this again, I swear."

Carlos told them he was a deputy and that he had a weapon in his car.

"You just disgraced us," Sgt. Ti Goetz said to Carlos. "This is our worst fear come true."

"Mine too," Carlos said.

He pleaded with the officers, asking if he could "just go home."

"I would say you are in serious trouble, brother," an officer replied.

On the tape, Goetz said he was "thoroughly embarrassed" to arrest another police officer for trying to have sex with a minor.

"I'm all for catching predators," Goetz said. "But I'm really disappointed to get this one."

Carlos was placed in a squad car and taken in for questioning. Detectives asked him whether they would find any child pornography if they searched his computer.

Carlos, banging his hand on the table, insisted they would find nothing.

When pressed about the computer, Carlos put his head on his arm and began to cry.

"Once in a while there's a bad apple that gets into law enforcement, just like anywhere else," one of the officers said on the tape. "We all have a black eye now."

Carlos has been free on bail since his arrest on March 31.

He was placed on paid leave following the arrest, according to a press release from the district attorney's office, but on Nov. 9, a spokesman for Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said the department had begun termination proceedings against Carlos.

He faces four years in state prison if convicted.

"Inside: Predator Task Force" will air on December 2 at 10 p.m. ET on Court TV.

Working Man
January 2, 2008, 11:08 AM
As far as the work of Perverted Justice goes, one guy that showed up to the house had proof in his transcripts that as soon as the Perverted Justice employee he had been talking sexually with said she was 12, he replied that he didn't want her to have any further contact him and he would reporting here to Yahoo. This Perverted Justice employee continued to message him over and over until he gave in and resumed chats with her. Then everything that followed (having sex, meeting at the house, a phone call, etc.) was the suggestion of the Perverted Justice employee, not his.


That may change things legally but it does not change the fact that he thought
she was 12 yet "gave in" to the child's persistence. He is still a lecher and pedophile.

usmarine0352_2005
January 2, 2008, 11:21 AM
That may change things legally but it does not change the fact that he thought
she was 12 yet "gave in" to the child's persistence. He is still a lecher and pedophile.

EXACTLY.

What person goes, "Well, since SHE (the 12 yr old) induced ME (the 44 yr old ADULT), then it's ok. Because she KEPT talking to me."




They've already gone over this........it is NOT a DEFENSE!!!!!




When someone says that the ADULT, who talked to the child is the real VICTIM, that is a problem.

And that's what a true pedophile thinks.





All I can say is this:

No adult who is INNOCENT goes online and talks to a 13 yr old about SEX.


You talk to a child about sex online, you are GUILTY.

Case Closed.

DragonFire
January 2, 2008, 11:27 AM
I'm not familiar at all with PJ except what I've seen on the show. The guys that show up are trying to meet very young teenagers (12, 13, 14), and very few are even relatively young themselves (it's not a 21 yo trying to meet a 17 yo). From the parts of the transcripts that have been read on the show, these guys aren't looking for "love", just sex. Do they care what happens to these kids? Not even a little bit.

Is it entrapment? I don't know. Do the adults get harassed into talking to the decoys? I don't know. But I think there isn't anything someone I think is a 13 year old could do to make me have a sexual chat with them, and even less to get me to drive to their house (whether to have sex or "just talk") and I'm positive that I'd never send naked pictures of myself to ANYONE.

I've read hundreds of post on THR complaining how the sheeple just sit back and expect the police to take care of them, but people on this thread keep saying how bad it is that MSNBC and PJ should do exactly that. If PJ is doing everything being said here, then I'd expect them to be sued and/or prosecuted for it. Honestly even if this is entrapment, and the person should be released on a "technicality", I still think these guys (at least the ones on the show) are scum, and deserve to be punished. And technically, can private individuals even commit entrapment? Isn't that only for the "govenment" (i.e. the police)? Individuals can do alot of things that would get cases thrown out of court if done by the police (like illegal searches).

My local paper publishes a "police blotter" every week with the names and charges of people arrested. I've never seen any follow up to say what happens with these people. Is this any worse? Maybe since it's national TV, but the crimes are that much worse.

The Dateline show were aired months after the operations were conducted. If someone was proven innocent, do you think they'd still be shown, without mentioning that fact? I don't.

Just about everyone that shows up at the house claims it's "the first time" they've "done anything like this". Many times that's proven to be a lie. They even caught the one guy from the first show trying to meet another decoy the very next day. I just don't think these are "good people" convinced to do bad things.

K3
January 2, 2008, 11:52 AM
IT doesnt matter if they get convicted or not.
If anyone knwingly chats with a 12, 13, 14 yo about sex, talks about going to meet them, shows them graphic pictures of themselves, then it doesnt matter that they never really went or were convicted.

They deserve to lose their job and their family and friends should know what kind of a sicko they are.

Not really a fan of due process, are you?

Perhaps more thought and less emotion might serve you well.

Justin
January 2, 2008, 12:03 PM
Closed as off-topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" anti gun?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!