NationStates Jolt Archive

Brian J. Doyle, a deputy press secretary with the department of homeland security, was busted by Florida sheriff's deputies for trying to seduce what he thought was a 14 year old girl. In fact, the person he was communicating with was a law enforcement officer.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/04/homeland.arrest/index.html

But, but, it doesn't count because he was only a press secretary! A deputy press secretary at that! The "real" DepHomSec officers are still clean; all they have to do is denounce him as a secret terrorist agent who infiltrated their ranks by treachery! War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!! ;)

You'd think he would have had a co-worker check his "friend" just to be safe.

Excuse me while I finish gut-laughing at that.....

Ah, the interweb: Where men are men, women are men and children are police officers.

oops

geez internet chat rooms are getting to be worse than radical campus organizations in the 60s. more fbi agents than real participants

Thing is, this perv-jackass actually identified himself as the deputy HS press secretary!!! How stupid do you have to be to post your highly-visible job title when knowingly hunting some underage nookie?

This is just one more piece of evidence to support my theory: the farther to the right someone is in public, the more they have to hide. Bombast as a cover for bugaboos. I'd be surprised, but I don't think I'm capable of that anymore regarding my government. *sigh*

What the hell is wrong with these stupid bastards?


Maybe we are lucky they seem so stupid-otherwise they might be harder to catch. Ist almost as if they want to be caught.

Have you seen these investigative shows where these douchebags think they are going to meet an underage girl home alone and show up with booze and condoms and lame freaking stories?

They are pathetic examples of human beings. I guess I'll never understand the desire for underage girls-children. I wasnt even interested in young teens when I was one myself-I was always dating girls years older than me even then.

This has already been posted, btw.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10701681#post10701681

This has already been posted, btw.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10701681#post10701681
My bad.

My bad.
Naughty DCD, naughty!
You won't get any dessert tonight for that!

Who will announce his sudden disappearance? :p

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/rids/20060405/i/r1047097984.jpg
--arrested on charges of using the Internet to try to seduce a 14-year-old girl
Montgomery County Police Department photo

But, but, it doesn't count because he was only a press secretary! A deputy press secretary at that! The "real" DepHomSec officers are still clean; all they have to do is denounce him as a secret terrorist agent who infiltrated their ranks by treachery! War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength!! ;)


Big Bushie is watching o.o

I hope this guy gets locked away for a long, long, long time. Pedophiles make me ill.
With all the other unpopular stuff dragging Bush down, I have to ask a question: Is this an appointed position? I heard it was, and that, if it wasn't Bush directly who appointed him, it was someone who works close to him.
True or false?
If it's true... I can't imagine that administration being able to take many more knocks on the head before it completely collapses.
Their absolute lack of judgement is disgusting, even before this case.

I hope this guy gets locked away for a long, long, long time. Pedophiles make me ill.
With all the other unpopular stuff dragging Bush down, I have to ask a question: Is this an appointed position? I heard it was, and that, if it wasn't Bush directly who appointed him, it was someone who works close to him.
True or false?
If it's true... I can't imagine that administration being able to take many more knocks on the head before it completely collapses.
Their absolute lack of judgement is disgusting, even before this case.

Seconded. Bush is a hyper active monkey of only moderate intelligence. That's why we pay to read Bushisms.

I hate to say it. I mean I really hate to say it, but this is as clear a case of entrapment as I've ever seen.

I mean do we accept it when police officers go out, sell someone drugs, and then bust them for posession? Isn't it entrapment when police pose as prostitutes, and then arrest their "clients"? Why is it acceptable in this situation?

I'd also like to call into question the operating methods of the police. I admitedly am not familiar with how the police conduct such stings, but assuming that most children who use the internet are not getting propositioned, I would have to assume that the police do certain things to, shall we say, improve their odds.

It isn't right.

I hate to say it. I mean I really hate to say it, but this is as clear a case of entrapment as I've ever seen.


Wow.

Wow.Prove me wrong.

but assuming that most children who use the internet are not getting propositioned

That's a rather big assumption.

Do you really think the internet - ya know, the place where GIANT COCK ENLARGEMENT XXX spam was invented - is child-friendly? Well, it is. Very friendly.

Prove me wrong.

Well I don't know the legal details of the case- I thought it was entrapment if the officer lied about being an officer. I didn't think withholding the information was enough- the hooker scenario you used would be :

"You a cop?"
"No." (Lie)

Thats entrapment, no?

This guy just assumed she was 14 and never went...
"You a cop?"

Prove me wrong.

Okay.

Police stake out places where prostitutes look for work, for the purpose of arresting those who break the law.

Police stake out areas which are known for high drug traffic, for the purpose of arresting those who break the law.

Police have always (this isn't a recent thing) staked out chatrooms for pedophiles - this is the only way to catch them, really.


It's not entrapment unless the police forces the person to fuck the whore/smoke the crack/rape the child, it's simply catching them in the act and preventing it from happening, therefore enforcing the law. It's what they do.


There. Proven wrong.

If a guy wants to bang girls that age, he should be able to, IMO.

Stupid puritanical AOC laws. :(

Prove me wrong.

If I recall correctly, it only counts as entrapment if you have to be conviced to commit the crime by an officer.

Also, there are many, many cases of the feds selling people drugs and then busting them for it.

Merely saying "Are you a cop?" doesn't make you immune to the law. (http://www.snopes.com/risque/hookers/cop.htm)

I hate to say it. I mean I really hate to say it, but this is as clear a case of entrapment as I've ever seen.

I mean do we accept it when police officers go out, sell someone drugs, and then bust them for posession? Isn't it entrapment when police pose as prostitutes, and then arrest their "clients"? Why is it acceptable in this situation?

I'd also like to call into question the operating methods of the police. I admitedly am not familiar with how the police conduct such stings, but assuming that most children who use the internet are not getting propositioned, I would have to assume that the police do certain things to, shall we say, improve their odds.

It isn't right.
Its only entrapment if the cop propositions the suspect not the other way around

Sory but a large majority of litigation are against your opinion

Okay.

Police stake out places where prostitutes look for work, for the purpose of arresting those who break the law.

Police stake out areas which are known for high drug traffic, for the purpose of arresting those who break the law.

In both cases, the police aren't actively enticing someone to break the law, but rather they are watching places where people do. Staking places out is different from actually getting involved in the crime yourself.

Police have always (this isn't a recent thing) staked out chatrooms for pedophiles - this is the only way to catch them, really.

I could be a prick and point out that chat rooms themselves haven't always been around, but that would be entirely beside the point.

The thing is that when the police conduct such stings, they're actively tempting people to break the law. That is the very definition of entrapment.

It's not entrapment unless the police forces the person to fuck the whore/smoke the crack/rape the child, it's simply catching them in the act and preventing it from happening, therefore enforcing the law. It's what they do.

It would be catching him in the act if they'd been monitoring a chat room and he'd had this conversation with someone else. It is entrapment because they were active participants in his crime.

There. Proven wrong.
Not at all. Entrapment occurs whenever there would have been no crime without government intervention. Since this immaginary crime was dreamed up by the police in the first place, this is entrapment.

Its only entrapment if the cop propositions the suspect not the other way around

Sory but a large majority of litigation are against your opinion
Why bother with even that distinction? I mean the point is to get the perverts off the streets, right? Why not let the cops go out, and proposition all they want, and then arrest the perverts who say okay?

Personally I don't see the distinction.

Why bother with even that distinction? I mean the point is to get the perverts off the streets, right? Why not let the cops go out, and proposition all they want, and then arrest the perverts who say okay?

Personally I don't see the distinction.
Because one is coercian and one is not

Same reason a cop can not advize someone to go blow up a building but can bust them if the guy is trying to discuss it with them

I dont know its pretty clear to me ... one is the cops idea the other is the perpetrators.

In both cases, the police aren't actively enticing someone to break the law, but rather they are watching places where people do. Staking places out is different from actually getting involved in the crime yourself.



Exactly ... thats what this cop was doing ...staking out a place where pedophiles go and waiting for someone to come to them to commit the crime

In both cases, the police aren't actively enticing someone to break the law, but rather they are watching places where people do. Staking places out is different from actually getting involved in the crime yourself.

I could be a prick and point out that chat rooms themselves haven't always been around, but that would be entirely beside the point.

The thing is that when the police conduct such stings, they're actively tempting people to break the law. That is the very definition of entrapment.

It would be catching him in the act if they'd been monitoring a chat room and he'd had this conversation with someone else. It is entrapment because they were active participants in his crime.

Not at all. Entrapment occurs whenever there would have been no crime without government intervention. Since this immaginary crime was dreamed up by the police in the first place, this is entrapment.

Uh, no. All wrong. I'm sorry.

The crime wasn't "imaginary". If it hadn't been an FBI agent, it would've been a real 14-yr-old girl he was interested in. That's why he's a pedophile, because he wants to fuck underaged girls. He's a sick bastard, and he would've done it if he'd had the chance. It happens all the time, which is why agents stake out rooms like this - it's only entrapment if the FBI agent is actively advertising herself as a 14-yr-old looking to have sex with an older male. I highly suspect that wasn't the case, and even if it was, then I'd still be all for that type of entrapment if it caught someone going "Hey, I'd like to fuck a 14-yr-old girl! When do you wanna meet?" and actually following through with it, because he's a sick bastard as well.

Just because someone offers for you to kill them doesn't mean he's not breaking the law when he stabs them in the head.

Doyle isnt responsible for a crime, hes only responsible for a "Thought Crime"..one set up by our government

Because one is coercian and one is not

Same reason a cop can not advize someone to go blow up a building but can bust them if the guy is trying to discuss it with them

I dont know its pretty clear to me ... one is the cops idea the other is the perpetrators.
It may be clear to you, but it isn't the least bit clear to me. Who said what first has nothing to do with cohersion, unless you're going to honestly tell me that cases of statutory rape should only be prosecuted if the adult was the initiator of the relationship.

that I think about shooting Bush in Dallas on a grassy knoll...will I goto Jail?

Doyle isnt responsible for a crime, hes only responsible for a "Thought Crime"..one set up by our government

Yeah, he thought about getting him some 14-year old poon.

that Lyndon B Johnson will be standing next to me on said knoll with a bazooka? In case I miss?

for the fascist cops to arrive in my condo, since im a Thought Criminal

Since this immaginary crime was dreamed up by the police in the first place, this is entrapment.

That gives me a thought. It is quite possible that you could argue that he did not do anything illegal, as he was not talking to an underage individual. He was talking to a cop, and if he didn't ask if she was a cop he could argue that he knew they were an adult. Or simply hide behind the fact that thinking your commiting a crime doesn't mean you can be charged as having commited one.

Uh, no. All wrong. I'm sorry.

The crime wasn't "imaginary". If it hadn't been an FBI agent, it would've been a real 14-yr-old girl he was interested in. That's why he's a pedophile, because he wants to fuck underaged girls. He's a sick bastard, and he would've done it if he'd had the chance. It happens all the time, which is why agents stake out rooms like this - it's only entrapment if the FBI agent is actively advertising herself as a 14-yr-old looking to have sex with an older male. I highly suspect that wasn't the case, and even if it was, then I'd still be all for that type of entrapment if it caught someone going "Hey, I'd like to fuck a 14-yr-old girl! When do you wanna meet?" and actually following through with it, because he's a sick bastard as well.

So you aren't really saying it wasn't entrapment. What you're really saying is, "Who cares if it is entrapment? One less pervert out there."

Just because someone offers for you to kill them doesn't mean he's not breaking the law when he stabs them in the head.
I take it then that you're against assisted suacide?

It may be clear to you, but it isn't the least bit clear to me. Who said what first has nothing to do with cohersion, unless you're going to honestly tell me that cases of statutory rape should only be prosecuted if the adult was the initiator of the relationship.
WTF? you must be operating on some other plane of "logic" then the rest of us. We are talking about when there is a COP involved and the steps THEY are allowed to take.

I want to fuck a 14 year old (No i dont)...am I a "criminal"? or a victim of a fascist system?

So you aren't really saying it wasn't entrapment. What you're really saying is, "Who cares if it is entrapment? One less pervert out there."
snip
No he is saying he would agree even if they crossed the proposed line

He is not saying they did in this case

WTF? you must be operating on some other plane of "logic" then the rest of us. We are talking about when there is a COP involved and the steps THEY are allowed to take.
But why is it okay if it was a cop asking a person to commit a crime versus some average joe asking a person to commit a crime. The criminal is suddenly less responsible if they were asked by a cop? This distinction is completely beyond me.

I want to fuck a 14 year old (No i dont)...am I a "criminal"? or a victim of a fascist system?
No but unlike you he took steps to not only send sexualy explicit information to this 14 year old but set up a meeting for the express purpose of having sex with a minor

It may be clear to you, but it isn't the least bit clear to me. Who said what first has nothing to do with cohersion, unless you're going to honestly tell me that cases of statutory rape should only be prosecuted if the adult was the initiator of the relationship.

The word is coercion, and undercover busts of internet stalkers is routine in the United States. Never did the officer invite Doyle to come over for underaged poon. You probably think prostitution stings and drug busts are "coercion" as well.

:rolleyes:

But why is it okay if it was a cop asking a person to commit a crime versus some average joe asking a person to commit a crime. The criminal is suddenly less responsible if they were asked by a cop? This distinction is completely beyond me.
You got it backwards

Its NOT ok if it is a cop asking a person to commit a crime

Just because someone offers for you to kill them doesn't mean he's not breaking the law when he stabs them in the head.

No, but if the knife turns out to be made of rubber you can't be done for murder.

The word is coercion,
Thank you. You've helped me make a big decision. I'm setting up a signature that says, "I can't spell. Get over it."
and undercover busts of internet stalkers is routine in the United States.
Does the fact that it's common place make it any less wrong?
Never did the officer invite Doyle to come over for underaged poon.
You clearly have more information about this case than I was able to glean from the article. Point of fact is that he didn't invite "her" over either by the time the polcie moved in for the arrest.

I also was not privy to the actual conversations, but assume that the "girl" did what "she" could to encourage the man, so as to make a clearer case before the courts. I assume "she" did more to encourage it than a normal 14 year old girl would have, but I admit I don't know that for a fact.
You probably think prostitution stings and drug busts are "coercion" as well.

:rolleyes:
Nope, but they are entrapment, whether they're prosecuted as such or not.

Everyone else just said what I was going to say, referring to your reply to my last post.

Bottom line: If the girl has 14 in her profile for her age, and the man IM's her for the distinct purpose of having the end result being underaged sex, he's a child molester.

And yeah, because it happens often -does- make it less wrong. It was never wrong in the first place, so having more of it would in fact be a good thing, considering they probably saved one or more young girls from being taken advantage of by this bastard.

Everyone else just said what I was going to say, referring to your reply to my last post.

Bottom line: If the girl has 14 in her profile for her age, and the man IM's her for the distinct purpose of having the end result being underaged sex, he's a child molester.

You actually read those profiles? Maybe it's because I don't do much IMing, but it always seemed to me that those profiles were worthless anyway. If that was the only place the supposed age appeared, there's a clear oportunity to plead ignorance.

And yeah, because it happens often -does- make it less wrong. It was never wrong in the first place, so having more of it would in fact be a good thing, considering they probably saved one or more young girls from being taken advantage of by this bastard.
I never said it wasn't effective. I didn't say it wasn't a good thing that this guy was caught. What I question is the doctrine of entrapment. Why is it okay in some circumstances and not okay in others? Where is that line, and how was it arrived at?

I disagree with your assertion that common use makes anything more okay. If we upped the murder rates enough, would that make murder okay? How about rape?

Thank you. You've helped me make a big decision. I'm setting up a signature that says, "I can't spell. Get over it."

Where's the sig? :rolleyes:

Does the fact that it's common place make it any less wrong?

The local court hasn't declared it entrapment so it's not wrong, period. And while you're harboring an impression that every police department in the country is an episode of The Shield, there are procedures for undercover internet operations that are followed.

You clearly have more information about this case than I was able to glean from the article. Point of fact is that he didn't invite "her" over either by the time the polcie moved in for the arrest.

I also was not privy to the actual conversations, but assume that the "girl" did what "she" could to encourage the man, so as to make a clearer case before the courts. I assume "she" did more to encourage it than a normal 14 year old girl would have, but I admit I don't know that for a fact.

The point of a sting is to avoid the appearance of entrapment which gets the accused a lighter sentence if not acquittal. If the officer didn't "coerce" Doyle to do what he did, the charges will stick. If he or she did, then the case will be affected.

Nope, but they are entrapment, whether they're prosecuted as such or not.

Would you rather prefer if Doyle actually went over to have sex with a minor, and maybe injure or kill her before the police move in? That happens too often with these internet meetings. Of course you'd want your cake and eat it too, bitching about how the police didn't act soon enough to save the girl if that was the case.

:rolleyes:

You actually read those profiles? Maybe it's because I don't do much IMing, but it always seemed to me that those profiles were worthless anyway. If that was the only place the supposed age appeared, there's a clear oportunity to plead ignorance.

Ignorance is no excuse for taking the bait like Doyle did.

I disagree with your assertion that common use makes anything more okay. If we upped the murder rates enough, would that make murder okay? How about rape?

Straw Man fallacy.

Where's the sig? :rolleyes:

I'm still trying to get it to work. Is it on now?

The local court hasn't declared it entrapment so it's not wrong, period. And while you're harboring an impression that every police department in the country is an episode of The Shield, there are procedures for undercover internet operations that are followed.

Actually, what I'm assuming is that sometimes people get so focused on taking down people they percieve as bad, that ignore their own rules.

The point of a sting is to avoid the appearance of entrapment which gets the accused a lighter sentence if not acquittal. If the officer didn't "coerce" Doyle to do what he did, the charges will stick. If he or she did, then the case will be affected.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I'll admit that possibility. Perhaps it's just my own paranoid mind overreacting. Have you actually heard of such a case as this which did not end in conviction because the police officer crossed the line? If so, I'd feel a lot better about the whole situation if I could read up on it.

Would you rather prefer if Doyle actually went over to have sex with a minor, and maybe injure or kill her before the police move in? That happens too often with these internet meetings. Of course you'd want your cake and eat it too, bitching about how the police didn't act soon enough to save the girl if that was the case.

:rolleyes:
What I want is for people to be consistent with their rules. I don't have a problem with entrapment, persay. (I really hope that signature shows up this time.) What I have a problem with is people ignoring their own rules. If you're not going to follow a rule, don't make that rule. If you're going to make exceptions to your rules because something was "just too haenous", you don't really have a rule.

It's that sort of mentality that lead to offshore Americal prisons for "terror suspects" where due process rights were suspended. Because these people's "crimes" were so bad, it was determined that they didn't get the same rights as other accused. You may support that sort of thing, but I don't.

Ignorance is no excuse for taking the bait like Doyle did.

So what? If he actually didn't know that the police officer was pretending to be underage, then that's still no excuse? He should have picked up on the character from what? "Her" spelling? If he was never told "she" was underage, and the man he was really talking to wasn't himself, then how does he still bear responsibility?

Straw Man fallacy.

Do you even know what that means? Arround here, it seems to be a blanket statement that you throw at anyone who disagrees with you in the hopes that they'll shut up.

My point was that just because something is commonly used, does not make it right. For some reason which is completely beyond me, you made the oposite assertion, then tried to pretend you didn't know what I was talking about when I called you on it.

Why doesn't this signature work?

Why doesn't this signature work?

It does. Oh, and use www.spellcheck.net.

Do you even know what that means? Arround here, it seems to be a blanket statement that you throw at anyone who disagrees with you in the hopes that they'll shut up.

Actually I do. And I don't see how coming up with a hyperbole of rape and murder being legalized by numerical increase addresses the issue of police procedure on internet operations. If anything you're trying to compare undercover stings to legalized rape and murder and try to argue your point by taking on an issue that has no relativity to the topic at hand whatsoever. Hence that statement was a Straw Man.

My point was that just because something is commonly used, does not make it right. For some reason which is completely beyond me, you made the oposite assertion, then tried to pretend you didn't know what I was talking about when I called you on it.

And your point seems to be that "nobody can trust the police, period." Hence your inclination from the beginning to assume that Doyle was unjustly lured into a conversation with an officer pretending to be 14-year old girl and thus "entrapped" into presenting himself as working for Homeland Security and trying to arrange a meeting with her.

Actually I do. And I don't see how coming up with a hyperbole of rape and murder being legalized by numerical increase addresses the issue of police procedure on internet operations. If anything you're trying to compare undercover stings to legalized rape and murder and try to argue your point by taking on an issue that has no relativity to the topic at hand whatsoever. Hence that statement was a Straw Man.

Perhaps you missed what I was responding to with that statement about murder and rape. Here it is:

And yeah, because it happens often -does- make it less wrong.

What I wrote looks like a pretty reasonable arguement against that, doesn't it? It's a little thing called context. You'll learn about it eventually.

And your point seems to be that "nobody can trust the police, period." Hence your inclination from the beginning to assume that Doyle was unjustly lured into a conversation with an officer pretending to be 14-year old girl and thus "entrapped" into presenting himself as working for Homeland Security and trying to arrange a meeting with her.
My point was that people have a disturbing tendency to throw out the rule book when dealing with things that sufficiently turn their stomaches. I'm sorry you failed to see that.

Perhaps you missed what I was responding to with that statement about murder and rape. Here it is:

And yeah, because it happens often -does- make it less wrong

What I wrote looks like a pretty reasonable arguement against that, doesn't it? It's a little thing called context. You'll learn about it eventually.

Except that that quote is nowhere to be found in this thread. Not only are you taking things out of context, you also resort to outright lying about what another poster wrote.

My point was that people have a disturbing tendency to throw out the rule book when dealing with things that sufficiently turn their stomaches. I'm sorry you failed to see that.

And do you have documented proof that the rules and procedures were "thrown out" in this case at all? If not then you're just wrapping tin foil around your head looking for conspiracy theories. Or even trying to excuse and defend Doyle.

Except that that quote is nowhere to be found in this thread. Not only are you taking things out of context, you also resort to outright lying about what another poster wrote.

It's post number 48 of this thread genius. Look at the first sentence of the third paragraph.

And do you have documented proof that the rules and procedures were "thrown out" in this case at all? If not then you're just wrapping tin foil around your head looking for conspiracy theories. Or even trying to excuse and defend Doyle.
I'm not saying this was against established procedure. What I'm saying is that either we accept the idea that someone who is entraped is stull guilty, or we reject that notion entirely.

It's post number 48 of this thread genius. Look at the first sentence of the third paragraph.

Okay, there I'm wrong. But you're still assuming that a few instances of criminal misconduct on the part of the police delegitimizes all undercover sting operations.

I'm not saying this was against established procedure. What I'm saying is that either we accept the idea that someone who is entraped is stull guilty, or we reject that notion entirely.

And how do you know Doyle was entrapped? Again you're sounding like you refuse to believe he's guilty of soliciting a minor short of videotaped footage of him fucking a 14-year old girl.

Okay, there I'm wrong. But you're still assuming that a few instances of criminal misconduct on the part of the police delegitimizes all undercover sting operations.

You just can't conceed a point peacefully, can you?

What I'm assuming is that the more horrible the crime one is suspected of, the greater the temptation to throw out the rulebook.

And how do you know Doyle was entrapped?

It defines entrapment when the police decide what crime they want to prosecute ahead of time, then go out and tempt people to commit it.

Again you're sounding like you refuse to believe he's guilty of soliciting a minor short of videotaped footage of him fucking a 14-year old girl.
When did they accuse him of that? From what I read, the most he solicited was pictures.