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.
Is Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" anti gun?
- Thread starter Zen21Tao
- Start date
- Status
average_shooter
Member
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...
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
Member
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
Member
"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.
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.
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'
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'
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
alsaqr said:
Are those Dateline cases?
theleveloftime
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 66
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.
Last edited:
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
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 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.
theleveloftime
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 66
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
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
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:
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
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
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.
To paraphrase Mencken: there is always an easy solution to every problem — neat, plausible and wrong. And if I might add, utterly immoral.
theleveloftime
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 66
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
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
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
member
grim
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
(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.
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
(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
Member
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
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
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.
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
Member
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
By all event accounts I live alone with my wife but three people have regular access to my computer
Working Man
Member
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
Member
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
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
Member
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
Member
"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.
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
Member
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.
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
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
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:
Entrapment:
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)
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:
Entrapment:
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)
Working Man
Member
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
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
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.
- Status
