NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19486893/

About bloody time. They're putting kids in danger, causing people to committ suicide, engaging in entrapment of people (many of whome are innocent), and acting like they have the legal right to be judge jury and executioner.

I hope ABC gets a stern warning from the FCC for this behavior. Edit: Dateline should be taken off the air.

I most strongly object to them putting whole neighborhoods and local children in serious danger of being abducted just so total strangers can be 'entertained'. I think the people from Dateline and Perveted Justice should be put on trial. They ought to be charged with murder for all the suicides they've caused.

Dateline is on NBC and not ABC. And those guys are innocent? I doubt that. I have no remorse for someone who does these things to children.

Dateline is on NBC and not ABC. And those guys are innocent? I doubt that. I have no remorse for someone who does these things to children.

Well, its not as if they were doing anything to children per say, as they were arrested for talking to adults, that posed as children. Adults talking sexually to adults on the internet. Is that harming children? Sure, they had intent to hook up with teens, but since it didn't happen,and since it was adults involved, what case is there? I don't think there is anything they can really do.

Well, its not as if they were doing anything to children per say, as they were arrested for talking to adults, that posed as children. Adults talking sexually to adults on the internet. Is that harming children? Sure, they had intent to hook up with teens, but since it didn't happen,and since it was adults involved, what case is there? I don't think there is anything they can really do.

I am not a legal attorney so I can't really argue these points. What I do know however is that these alleged molesters had been procesuted and found guilty before.

Dateline is on NBC and not ABC. And those guys are innocent? I doubt that. I have no remorse for someone who does these things to children.

What makes you so certain they are guilty? Everyone has thought of doing teen girls every once in a while. It doesn't mean they intend to actually do it.
Dateline is entraping them by creating thought crimes.

Plus, a real 13 year old girl is not going to into a chat room or onto Myspace and seek out 50 year old adults just for sex.
So that is entrapment on Dateline's part.

Now if the adult sought out the 13 year old on his own and initiated a request for sex meetup, then he would obviously be guilty of being a pedophile.

But what dateline is doing is entrapping more innocent people than they are catching actual pedophiles.

Another thing, is that you have no right to entertain people via the humiliation of others. Especially when you are not entrusted with law enforcement authority.

Neither the Dateline reporter nor the people at P.J. are licensed cops. They aren't even lawyers. They have no authority to engage in the kind of sleazy crap they've been engaging in.

And those guys are innocent? I doubt that.

Fortunatly our justice system does not condemn people as guilty because of what you think. We actually require things such as evidence, proper procedure, and constitutional due process.

The fact is, these outside private agencies that are not bound by the constitution, are not supervised by government authorities, are not subject to laws requiring transparency and accountability, and at the end of the day, are not police.

Their presence corrupts evidence, creates concerns with proper due process, and raises questions about entrapment. It's about time some of them got thrown out.

Well, its not as if they were doing anything to children per say, as they were arrested for talking to adults, that posed as children. Adults talking sexually to adults on the internet. Is that harming children? Sure, they had intent to hook up with teens, but since it didn't happen,and since it was adults involved, what case is there? I don't think there is anything they can really do.

I agree with you.
The point is that only police have the authority to pretend to be teens or children to lure predators. Only they have the right to do stings.

I am not a legal attorney so I can't really argue these points. What I do know however is that these alleged molesters had been procesuted and found guilty before.

The problem with that is that those prosecutions were all rushes to judgement and if the cases were appealed in federal court, the prosecutions would be overturned. Even the ones where the people confessed because the people confessed under duress.

I am not trying to break down our own process. You are right, that was a personal opinion rather than a legal one. However, these people were convicted previously in other states, I am sure their own defense lawyers have tried to argue entrapment and such and have failed. Wouldn't that mean its legal, or no?

per say

"Per se", not "per say". Don't use Latin words if you don't know what they mean.

I am not a legal attorney so I can't really argue these points. What I do know however is that these alleged molesters had been procesuted and found guilty before.

really? all of em or just the ones they aired on Dateline?

I'm of two minds of this... one, Perverted Justice is not a law enforcement agency. they are volunteers.

but getting scum away from the kids is also a good thing.

What makes you so certain they are guilty? Everyone has thought of doing teen girls every once in a while. It doesn't mean they intend to actually do it.
Dateline is entraping them by creating thought crimes.Reading the article, it seems that the meetings were organised - with cameras present, of course -, under the impression that the underaged (Seriously underaged, that is) counterpart's present and willing.

That's a bit more than just a 'Thought Crime', I believe, and it makes a rather strong case for 'Intending to do it'.

Reading the article, it seems that the meetings were organised - with cameras present, of course -, under the impression that the underaged (Seriously underaged, that is) counterpart's present and willing.

That's a bit more than just a 'Thought Crime', I believe, and it makes a rather strong case for 'Intending to do it'.

And they usually had them bring condoms or beer to show intent.

I am not trying to break down our own process. You are right, that was a personal opinion rather than a legal one. However, these people were convicted previously in other states, I am sure their own defense lawyers have tried to argue entrapment and such and have failed. Wouldn't that mean its legal, or no?

which "these people"? Not the people in the article. They weren't convicted of anything.

OTHER people in similar stings were, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the validity of THESE proceedings, especially since different states have different evidentiary laws.

The concern here is really a matter of corruption. You have private groups logging conversation then turning those logs to the police. Who is to verify the verasity of these logs? What warrants were executed to monitor the IP to ensure they are accurate? What evidentiary procedures were followed to make sure they weren't tampered with?

THAT is the problem. I can make up a chat log right now making it seem you were trying to pick up an 11 year old girl to have sex with her. Should you go to jail for that?

Should your face be displayed on national tv for that?

And they usually had them bring condoms or beer to show intent.

nope.

they were also arrested with nothing but
1) they were there
2) the printout of their online chat where sexual acts were described.

what they brought didn't matter. one person said he'd bring shoes for 'her' to try on... and he didn't. but he was still arrested.

Infact, I also recall some being arrested after they drove by an then drove away.

"Per se", not "per say". Don't use Latin words if you don't know what they mean.

All Hail Lord Fass for saving the day! Seriously, post something on the topic, or GTFO.

I agree with you.
The point is that only police have the authority to pretend to be teens or children to lure predators. Only they have the right to do stings.

Even then, its questionable, because its consenting adults talking to consenting adults. Now they could have teenagers actually do it, but that would be child endangerment. Plus, isn't it entrapment, as they are initiating these conversations trying to get these men to do things that maybe they wouldn't have done before. I mean there is a difference between wanting sex from a teen, which is sick unless you are a teen, and having someone posing as a teen, coercing you into meeting to fulfill those desires. I am sure these stings are highly illegal, but if you speak against it, it obviously means that you are a pedo lover that hates the safety of children.

In fact, I also recall some being arrested after they drove by an then drove away.

Which means the guy delivering a pizza there could have his name dragged through mud. Lose his job, his spouse, his friends, his life. Because the media will always change volumes:

WE CAUGHT A PEDOPHILE!

Oops, my bad, he wasn't one.

What's left for him? A just vengeance against the people that destroyed his life, maybe?

Even then, its questionable, because its consenting adults talking to consenting adults.

Legally it does not matter. One can be guilty of attempt even if the thing that he was attempting was impossible.

Plus, isn't it entrapment

No. This has been yet anothe edition of brief answers to stupid questions.

I am sure these stings are highly illegal.

When conducted by the police, most times they are very legal.

I am not trying to break down our own process. You are right, that was a personal opinion rather than a legal one. However, these people were convicted previously in other states, I am sure their own defense lawyers have tried to argue entrapment and such and have failed. Wouldn't that mean its legal, or no?

And you know that how? Most of these people have never been convicted before, not even in other states. Unless traffic tickets count as pedophilia.

Reading the article, it seems that the meetings were organised - with cameras present, of course -, under the impression that the underaged (Seriously underaged, that is) counterpart's present and willing.

That's a bit more than just a 'Thought Crime', I believe, and it makes a rather strong case for 'Intending to do it'.

If the police were doing it your point would be valid. The point, which has already been made, is that Dateline and Perverted Justice are not police. They are not government officials and as such they don't have the authority to carry out these sort of things. Therefore they are engaged in entrapment and violation of civil rights.

And they usually had them bring condoms or beer to show intent.

ah. So now we have two things from this thread that we now know make you a pedophile:
traffic tickets and beer.

The most they can do with the beer is charging the guy with intent to give alcohol to a minor. But giving beer to a minor is not the same as pedophilia.

And we can't be certain that the person intends to use the condoms on a child. Most guys walk around with condoms in their wallets. Does that make all men in the US pedophiles?

Most guys walk around with condoms in their wallets. Does that make all men in the US pedophiles?

:eek: What about the truck drivers for condom factories??? They're PERVERTS! PAEDOS, ALL OF THEM!!! :eek:

Legally it does not matter. One can be guilty of attempt even if the thing that he was attempting was impossible.



No. This has been yet anothe edition of brief answers to stupid questions.



When conducted by the police, most times they are very legal.

It does matter.

That was not a stupid question. It is a very serious concern. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. I wouldn't suppose that you would be making the same arguments for keeping terrorists locked up. Yet, the same methods people oppose the US using against terrorism suspects, you support using against US citizens accused of pedophilia without regard for whether they are innocent or not.

Neither Perverted Justice nor Dateline are police officers.

I will not be at all shocked if the members of the neighborhood file suit against Dateline. In addition, every single member of the To Catch a Predator unit should be charged with child endangerment. Their was an elementary school 2 blocks away, for god's sake.

Now, do you get a charge of child endangerment for each child you endanger, or does it not matter how many children you endanger?

I will not be at all shocked if the members of the neighborhood file suit against Dateline. In addition, every single member of the To Catch a Predator unit should be charged with child endangerment. Their was an elementary school 2 blocks away, for god's sake.

Now, do you get a charge of child endangerment for each child you endanger, or does it not matter how many children you endanger?

OR... One could cheat them into thinking they are pedophiles, watch them attack him and sue, all the while with some note or proof somewhere that they were baiting them. It's not a crime to bait these people.

It does matter.

No, it does not. One can be guilty of an inchoate crime even if the underlying act would have been impossible to carry out.

That was not a stupid question.

yes, it was. Entrapment is a legal term. It has a legal definition. The majority of the time when the police engage in these types of stings it is not entrapment.

It is a very serious concern. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty.

which has nothing to do whether a particular instance of police conduct is entrapment or not.

Neither Perverted Justice nor Dateline are police officers.

And you will note that in the very post you quoted, I was discussing what POLICE do. Not what a non law enforcement private party does.

OR... One could cheat them into thinking they are pedophiles, watch them attack him and sue, all the while with some note or proof somewhere that they were baiting them. It's not a crime to bait these people.

But isn't it highly dangerous to bait them into an area with many children and an elementary school within two blocks?

They endangered children. I think it's well within the parent's rights to sue them for endangering their children.

But isn't it highly dangerous to bait them into an area with many children and an elementary school within two blocks?

They endangered children. I think it's well within the parent's rights to sue them for endangering their children.

Oh Lord... this of this situation...

a father picks up his daughter from school. as they drive home he notices a stranger entering a home that he knows no one lives in, so he parks his truck to investigate... and gets busted by TCaP/Dateline...

But isn't it highly dangerous to bait them into an area with many children and an elementary school within two blocks?

They endangered children. I think it's well within the parent's rights to sue them for endangering their children.

I meant baiting the TCaP. Basically PRETENDING to be a paedo in order to MAKE them attack, then sue them for damages (of all sorts). I'd be glad to share the cash with my neighbors if it disrupted their lives in any way. Plus it'd make an example of what happens when one attacks innocents in general and me in particular.

Oh Lord... this of this situation...

a father picks up his daughter from school. as they drive home he notices a stranger entering a home that he knows no one lives in, so he parks his truck to investigate... and gets busted by TCaP/Dateline...

Indeed. It's a deeply, deeply, deeply flawed show who's only real effect is to heighten the pedophile hysteria, which has already contributed to the death of one girl.

For those of you who will call me on that claim, I forget the guy involved's name, but he didn't pick up a little girl he saw walking along the road for fear of being labeled a pedophile, and the girl was murdered.

I meant baiting the TCaP. Basically PRETENDING to be a paedo in order to MAKE them attack, then sue them for damages (of all sorts).

So what? People might abuse the system, so no one should be allowed to use the system? That's nuts. These people's children were endangered, and I hope they get some compensation from these self-righteous idiots. Having a good cause doesn't excuse you from what you do trying to accomplish this cause. The ends do not justify the means. Ever.

Oh Lord... this of this situation...

a father picks up his daughter from school. as they drive home he notices a stranger entering a home that he knows no one lives in, so he parks his truck to investigate... and gets busted by TCaP/Dateline...
Witch hunts are bad *nods*

Besides there are cases peophiles are sometimes women you know. But I bet they were only looking for men. Isn't that Profiling.


For those of you who will call me on that claim, I forget the guy involved's name, but he didn't pick up a little girl he saw walking along the road for fear of being labeled a pedophile, and the girl was murdered. I remember that one, we discussed it here one time.

That was such a horrible thing...

Let to a horrible argument as well.

So what? People might abuse the system, so no one should be allowed to use the system? That's nuts. These people's children were endangered, and I hope they get some compensation from these self-righteous idiots. Having a good cause doesn't excuse you from what you do trying to accomplish this cause. The ends do not justify the means. Ever.

No, people SHOULD be allowed to use the system. They SHOULDN'T, however, be allowed to use the system with pitchforks and torches. I was talking exactly about bait-suing the self-righteous idiots. I right now think we agree but aren't understanding each other. o_O

No, people SHOULD be allowed to use the system. They SHOULDN'T, however, be allowed to use the system with pitchforks and torches. I was talking exactly about the self-righteous idiots. I right now think we agree but aren't understanding each other. o_O

Wow...

I think this is the first time I've had a heated debate with someone with exactly the same position as me.

My head hurts.

Wow...

I think this is the first time I've had a heated debate with someone with exactly the same position as me.

My head hurts.

Well, did you understand me now? I was talking about someone pretending to be a paedo to CAUSE the TCaP to react by harming many of this person's rights. Then sue them for damage and show them AND the media a dated e-mail (maybe with a registered, mailed or somehow documented copy in a safe and so on) informing everyone that that's EXACTLY what the person had set out to do. See?

If PJ is doing so great, why not make them an offical law enforcement agency. that way, their evidence wouldn't be questioned and their tactics would be withing the defined guidelines.

If PJ is doing so great, why not make them an offical law enforcement agency. that way, their evidence wouldn't be questioned and their tactics would be withing the defined guidelines.

Because nutcases with torches and pitchforks don't make good cops?

Because nutcases with torches and pitchforks don't make good cops?

Ah, but by becoming an offical Law Enforcement Entity, they would then be bound by the rules of evidence. Anything they turned in would be scrutinized even more and thus leading to less mistakes and more honest convictions.

add to that, they would also be bound by the need for public safety thus allaying some of these people's fears.

Ah, but by becoming an offical Law Enforcement Entity, they would then be bound by the rules of evidence. Anything they turned in would be scrutinized even more and thus leading to less mistakes and more honest convictions.

add to that, they would also be bound by the need for public safety thus allaying some of these people's fears.

It'd do nothing to improve the state of these people's psyches.

It'd do nothing to improve the state of these people's psyches.

but it will improve their 'evidence' gathering and sting techniques.

but it will improve their 'evidence' gathering and sting techniques.

Okay, but do the ones that get unfairly accused and thus see their lives destroyed get to destroy any of their lives in return or how does that work?

Okay, but do the ones that get unfairly accused and thus see their lives destroyed get to destroy any of their lives in return or how does that work?

now? guess they can sue.

if PJ becomes a law enforcement agency... they could still sue.

Here's the $64,000 Question:

Has anyone caught by Dateline and Perverted Justice proven to have been wrongfully accused of being a pedophile?

now? guess they can sue.

if PJ becomes a law enforcement agency... they could still sue.

Why stop at a lawsuit when you can turn the person's life into hell by forcing the suit to drag on and on, consuming all of the enemy's time and money and exposing him (and maybe his family) to ridicule?

Here's the $64,000 Question:

Has anyone caught by Dateline and Perverted Justice proven to have been wrongfully accused of being a pedophile?

They don't have to prove to being wrongfully accused, if they aren't convicted, they WERE wrongfully accused.

They don't have to prove to being wrongfully accused, if they aren't convicted, they WERE wrongfully accused.

Going by that logic, you can say O.J. Simpson was wrongfully accused of double murder.

Here's the $64,000 Question:

Has anyone caught by Dateline and Perverted Justice proven to have been wrongfully accused of being a pedophile?

read the article. it casts doubt into PJ's 'evidence', questions jusdiction, and methods.

as for proving it wrong, that's for the defense lawyers to do.

Going by that logic, you can say O.J. Simpson was wrongfully accused of double murder.

In that he didn't have to prove a negative and in that he was acquitted? Yes.

They don't have to prove to being wrongfully accused, if they aren't convicted, they WERE wrongfully accused.

that's um.....that's not right.

that's um.....that's not right.

Well... Was he accused?

Well... Was he accused?

yes, yes he was. This however is irrelevant to the question of whether he was falsly accused.

unless of course you are laboring under the false premise that not guilty as a matter of law is equivalent to innocent as a matter of fact. Those two do not always equal each others, and it is entirely possible, extremely possible, for one to be accused of a crime that he, in fact, did do, yet still deemed not guilty as a matter of law due to insufficiency of evidence.

Therefore the position that any person who is declared not guilty as a matter of law is in fact falsely accused of the crime as a matter of fact is...rather silly.

Well... Was he accused?

Hahahha.

No please...go on. I can always use a 'legal idiocy laugh of the day'.

yes, yes he was. This however is irrelevant to the question of whether he was falsly accused.

unless of course you are laboring under the false premise that not guilty as a matter of law is equivalent to innocent as a matter of fact. Those two do not always equal each others, and it is entirely possible, extremely possible, for one to be accused of a crime that he, in fact, did do, yet still deemed not guilty as a matter of law due to insufficiency of evidence.

Therefore the position that any person who is declared not guilty as a matter of law is in fact falsely accused of the crime as a matter of fact is...rather silly.

If they have insufficient evidence, isn't it conceivable that the person is, guess, innocent?

Here's the $64,000 Question:

Has anyone caught by Dateline and Perverted Justice proven to have been wrongfully accused of being a pedophile?

Does it matter? Being a paedophile is not a crime.

If they have insufficient evidence, isn't it conceivable that the person is, guess, innocent?

is it conceivable? Of COURSE it's conceivable. It's certainly possible and well within the realm of conceivability that someone might have been accused falsely. Certainly inusfficient evidence to convict is indicative that the individual might have been falsely accused.

But you didn't say that, did you?

No, in fact, you said "if they aren't convicted, they WERE wrongfully accused."

that's an awful lot of absolutism which is patently false. If they aren't convicted they MIGHT have been wrongfully accused, yes.

But again, you didn't say that.

Does it matter? Being a paedophile is not a crime.

true, but attempting to act out those desires with a minor child is. I don't have any particular thing against these types of stings, when they are carried out by the police, who are bound by the constitution and proper rules of evidence, and do so in a way to ensure that there is no entrapment.

I DO have a thing against these types of stings when they are carried out by private entities which are not bound by evidentiary rules or constitutional requirements of due process.

is it conceivable? Of COURSE it's conceivable. It's certainly possible and well within the realm of conceivability that someone might have been accused falsely. Certainly inusfficient evidence to convict is indicative that the individual might have been falsely accused.

But you didn't say that, did you?

No, in fact, you said "if they aren't convicted, they WERE wrongfully accused."

that's an awful lot of absolutism which is patently false. If they aren't convicted they MIGHT have been wrongfully accused, yes.

But again, you didn't say that.

Look, the point is: If they were attacked that way and not seen to be pedophiles, they should get a comeuppance.

Look, the point is: If they were attacked that way and not seen to be pedophiles, they should get a comeuppance.

sure, I'd imagine a whole slew of lawsuits along the way. That being said, I'm sure dateline does too, and they probably only bring their camera to those they're pretty sure of.

For every 1 guy who gets nailed there are probably 100 other guys who were set up but didn't take the bait.

true, but attempting to act out those desires with a minor child is. I don't have any particular thing against these types of stings, when they are carried out by the police, who are bound by the constitution and proper rules of evidence, and do so in a way to ensure that there is no entrapment.

I DO have a thing against these types of stings when they are carried out by private entities which are not bound by evidentiary rules or constitutional requirements of due process.

Ditto really, but the whole idea that paedophile=child molester is something of a pet peeve of mine.

sure, I'd imagine a whole slew of lawsuits along the way. That being said, I'm sure dateline does too, and they probably only bring their camera to those they're pretty sure of.

For every 1 guy who gets nailed there are probably 100 other guys who were set up but didn't take the bait.

"Pretty sure" does not cut it!

NBC is Conan's network!

"Pretty sure" does not cut it!

for whom? You don't really seem to have a cause of action here. If one of these individuals is able to demonstrate that a civil action has occured, let him sue.

for whom? You don't really seem to have a cause of action here. If one of these individuals is able to demonstrate that a civil action has occured, let him sue.

Let's see: "They were pretty sure I was a paedo and broadcast it. Now I have no job, my wife left me and they found out I wasn't, in fact, a paedo."

That kind of thing either requires a lawsuit or vengeance to set things right!

Good.

I hate Dateline.

I hate dateline. They're the ones who ran the story about vaccinations causing autism a few years back, weren't they? Or way that sixty minutes?

Indeed. It's a deeply, deeply, deeply flawed show who's only real effect is to heighten the pedophile hysteria, which has already contributed to the death of one girl.

For those of you who will call me on that claim, I forget the guy involved's name, but he didn't pick up a little girl he saw walking along the road for fear of being labeled a pedophile, and the girl was murdered.

Try this one:

My brother won't spend time with his own son, out of fear of being labeled a pedophile.
It's been blown way out of proportion and, yes, it is endangering people's lives.

And they usually had them bring condoms or beer to show intent.

And how do we know that's what the real logs say, rather than one manipulated for impact hmm?

The problem with letting in media into criminal investigations is that they're not beholden to anyone. How do you know they won't pick some random mook out of the telephone book for their next victim on a slow day and fabricate the evidence?

I say shut down the program. Getting pedophiles is one thing, but not at the sacrifice of the legal system to reality show ratings.

Here's the $64,000 Question:

Has anyone caught by Dateline and Perverted Justice proven to have been wrongfully accused of being a pedophile?

Even in the confessions are questionable cause they were done under duress. We say that if a terrorists confession was obtained under duress, it destroys the case against him. The same applies to people accused of pedophilia and other crimes.

Many of these people confessed or didn't defend themselves because they were scared ****less. The primary response of a person who is scared is not to fight but to freeze. Therefore, even if innocent, these people won't fight back. Either they are afraid to or they don't have the money to.

Most states have a "citizen's arrest" law that allows anyone to arrest anyone else that they see committing a crime. It does not have to be professional police.

Most states have a "citizen's arrest" law that allows anyone to arrest anyone else that they see committing a crime. It does not have to be professional police.
Citizen's arrest via Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_States)...

United States
All states other than North Carolina permit citizen arrests if a felony crime is witnessed by the citizen carrying out the arrest, or when a citizen is asked to help apprehend a suspect by the police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanor crimes, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. Note particularly that American citizens do not have the authorities or the legal protections of the police, and are strictly liable before both the civil law and criminal law for any violation of the rights of another.[6]

North Carolina General Statutes do not provide for citizen arrest, but instead provide for detention by private persons.[7] These statutes apply both to civilians and to police officers outside their jurisdiction. Citizens and police may detain any person who they have probable cause to believe committed in their presence a felony, breach of the peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property. The key distinction between an arrest and a detainment is that the detainee may not be transported without their consent.

the Citizen still doing the arrest/detention is still liable and open for Civil and Criminal law. and it can be argued that PJ is not Witessing the criminal act but participating in it.

Many of these people confessed or didn't defend themselves because they were scared ****less. The primary response of a person who is scared is not to fight but to freeze. Therefore, even if innocent, these people won't fight back. Either they are afraid to or they don't have the money to.
Yeah, right..

"Why are you here tonight?"
"Uh...... I was invited over, said there would be food here... I was shopping in the area..."
"Didn't you come here to meet an underage girl?"
"No.. I had no idea she would be underage... I thought-.. I thought it was a joke..."
"According to these records here, you thought you were meeting an underage girl."
"I have no idea what you are talking about, I didn't mean to do anything here.."
"What did you mean when you said 'Would you like to ride my big stick?' ?"
"*silence*"
"Or when you sent this picture of you naked to her."
"I gotta go..."

Unless duress makes him say really incriminating shit before the duress occurs, that is horseshit.

Yeah, right..

"Why are you here tonight?"
"Uh...... I was invited over, said there would be food here... I was shopping in the area..."
"Didn't you come here to meet an underage girl?"
"No.. I had no idea she would be underage... I thought-.. I thought it was a joke..."
"According to these records here, you thought you were meeting an underage girl."
"I have no idea what you are talking about, I didn't mean to do anything here.."
"What did you mean when you said 'Would you like to ride my big stick?' ?"
"*silence*"
"Or when you sent this picture of you naked to her."
"I gotta go..."

Unless duress makes him say really incriminating shit before the duress occurs, that is horseshit.

What about the part in which, denying or not, he's asked these humiliating, demeaning, career-and-relationship-killing questions on National TV? Regardless of guilt. Do you think anyone will even remember what he says or simply ostracize him? These people could lead - and DID lead people to suicide.

What about the part in which, denying or not, he's asked these humiliating, demeaning, career-and-relationship-killing questions on National TV?
Forgive me if I don't feel bad for the pedophiles.

Regardless of guilt. Do you think anyone will even remember what he says or simply ostracize him?
Does it matter what he says in the interview? All that matters is what he says in the logs.

These people could lead - and DID lead people to suicide.
Shit happens. There would be alot more suicides if people couldn't reconcile their hypocrisy with themselves and the world.
"I'm a prosecutor who puts people in jail for doing illegal things, like having sex with little boys, but I have been caught trying to meet up with a little boy to have sex. Rather than face up to myself and the consequences, I will kill myself."
I believe that is referred to as hara kiri.

Forgive me if I don't feel bad for the people I, with evidence that can be forged and without any sort of due process, call pedophiles.

Bolded part mine.

Does it matter what he says in the interview? All that matters is what he says in the logs.

As was pointed out, anyone can fabricate a log. And I don't remember the judicial system in the US including public humiliation as a punishment, or a media circus becoming due process.

Yeah, right..

"Why are you here tonight?"
"Uh...... I was invited over, said there would be food here... I was shopping in the area..."
"Didn't you come here to meet an underage girl?"
"No.. I had no idea she would be underage... I thought-.. I thought it was a joke..."
"According to these records here, you thought you were meeting an underage girl."
"I have no idea what you are talking about, I didn't mean to do anything here.."
"What did you mean when you said 'Would you like to ride my big stick?' ?"
"*silence*"
"Or when you sent this picture of you naked to her."
"I gotta go..."

Unless duress makes him say really incriminating shit before the duress occurs, that is horseshit.

Actually it is duress just from the reporter and camera crew jumping in his face all of a sudden. It is duress when you have PJ people jumping out and pointing fingers and shouting at him that he's guilty.

The fact is that TCAP is nothing but an evil vigilante, reality TV witchhunt which harms the civil rights of American citizens. TCAP is not the police. They have no authority what so ever.

There are people who think they are talking to 50 year old men when someone online claims to be a 12 year old girl. It's a plausible hypotheses considering that real 12 year olds would not be talking to 25 or 40 year old men online unless it was someone they already knew.

You've obviously never been accused of pedophilia so you don't know how humiliating it is. You don't understand how merely being accused, even if it is a false accusation, can destroy your life.

People don't have to prove you guilty, all they have to do is the same thing that PJ and Dateline do: just point a finger at you.

Bolded part mine.
Oh pleas. I assume you people ended up on this show a couple times?


As was pointed out, anyone can fabricate a log.
Not on the perpetrator's computer. Programs like to have those on by default and thes guys don't strike me as the kind bright enough to go through and turn it off..

Not on the perpetrator's computer. Programs like to have those on by default and thes guys don't strike me as the kind bright enough to go through and turn it off..
the logs are not from the accused computer but PJ's computer.

Actually it is duress just from the reporter and camera crew jumping in his face all of a sudden. It is duress when you have PJ people jumping out and pointing fingers and shouting at him that he's guilty. So the press and reporter jumping in his face for showing up to have sex with an underage girl caused duress that stopped him from deciding not to meet up with a young girl for sex? Media can time travel!

The fact is that TCAP is nothing but an evil vigilante, reality TV witchhunt which harms the civil rights of American citizens. TCAP is not the police. Which is why Dateline contacts the local police and DA office before holding TCAP sessions. Soon as the people leave, they are arrested by police. Police use people pretending to be underage children to lure in predators all the damn time, mainly to prevent vigilantism. They are already doing it, so the police use them to catch the predators. You think Dateline are the only people?

They have no authority what so ever.

There are people who think they are talking to 50 year old men when someone online claims to be a 12 year old girl.
So they agreed to meet them for sex? And actually show up? I guess 24 year old men like creepy old 50 year olds.

]quote]It's a plausible hypotheses considering that real 12 year olds would not be talking to 25 or 40 year old men online unless it was someone they already knew. [/quote]
I see some one has never used an internet chat room. It must be nice to be that naive.

You've obviously never been accused of pedophilia so you don't know how humiliating it is. You don't understand how merely being accused, even if it is a false accusation, can destroy your life.
Maybe they shouldn't be chatting up people claiming to be 12 year old girls and the agree to meet them for sex and actually show up. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is a god damn fucking duck.

People don't have to prove you guilty, all they have to do is the same thing that PJ and Dateline do: just point a finger at you.
Wrong. Since you seem to have experience with being accused of pedophilia, maybe you would like to be let in on a secret - these people arn't innocent. There is no pointing fingers, shouting, and declaring of witch trials. There is months of proof in logs and capped by the fact the people actually show up. I don't suppose you plant to next suggest that all the men that show up actually live at the house they have the sting set up at.

the logs are not from the accused computer but PJ's computer.
And then you can subpoena the suspect's computer and confirm it.

Oh pleas. I assume you people ended up on this show a couple times?



Not on the perpetrator's computer. Programs like to have those on by default and thes guys don't strike me as the kind bright enough to go through and turn it off..

1- What is it you are insinuating?

2- The logs aren't from the suspect's computer.

2- The logs aren't from the suspect's computer.
But I would bet they are enough evidence to subpoena the records of the suspects. This is of course assuming the DA didn't authorize this in the first place.

And then you can subpoena the suspect's computer and confirm it.

1- What if it turns out there is no evidence? How would ould you give the person their life back?

2- Media humiliation is NOT a lawful punishment. That even ASSUMING the person is guilty.

But I would bet they are enough evidence to subpoena the records of the suspects. This is of course assuming the DA didn't authorize this in the first place.

Tell me what you were insinuating.

Also, you don't know that.

1- What if it turns out there is no evidence? How would ould you give the person their life back?
Did their life go away? And even if there were no records, we still of course have to explain why they showed up at some house and were greeted by a young looking girl.

2- Media humiliation is NOT a lawful punishment. That even ASSUMING the person is guilty.
I'm pretty sure people have been sentenced to humiliation before.
If they arn't guilty, why are they there in the first place? And why was the girl expecting them? And why was she talking about a hot tub?


Also, you don't know that.
Neither do you.

-snip-
Sounds like we've got a pedobear in our midst.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/999/fatpedobearqy3.jpg
Well thank Raptor Jesus for Admiral Ackbar.

Did their life go away? And even if there were no records, we still of course have to explain why they showed up at some house and were greeted by a young looking girl.


I'm pretty sure people have been sentenced to humiliation before.
If they arn't guilty, why are they there in the first place? And why was the girl expecting them? And why was she talking about a hot tub?


Neither do you.

I will ask until you answer me: WHAT WERE YOU INSINUATING? Spell it out if you have the guts to.

Yes, their life went away. Don't you think a person that got wrongfully exposed by the media as a pedophile will lose their job? Their spouses? Their friggin' lives?

Claiming "people have been sentenced to humiliation before" doesn't work in a country that DOESN'T INCLUDE IT AS A PUNISHMENT ANYMORE.

I will ask until you answer me: WHAT WERE YOU INSINUATING?
You seem to have a distinct aversion to this program based on what?

Yes, their life went away. Don't you think a person that got wrongfully exposed by the media as a pedophile will lose their job? Their spouses? Their friggin' lives?
I would be surprised if they didn't lose their wives, even if they wern't pedophiles. They still showed up at a young girl's house who was expecting them and was referring to a hot tub soon as they came in. Which you still havn't explained.

Claiming "people have been sentenced to humiliation before" doesn't work in a country that DOESN'T INCLUDE IT AS A PUNISHMENT ANYMORE.
By "before," I meant this year.

You seem to have a distinct aversion to this program based on what?

I will answer that after you tell me what YOUR innuendo was.

I would be surprised if they didn't lose their wives, even if they wern't pedophiles. They still showed up at a young girl's house who was expecting them and was referring to a hot tub soon as they came in. Which you still havn't explained.

How about their jobs? I don't have to explain anything, THEY have to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt!

By "before," I meant this year.

By the laws you claim to follow or simply in practice due to a media that loves some pitchforks and torches?

And then you can subpoena the suspect's computer and confirm it.and the subpoena will be baised off of what?

How about their jobs? I don't have to explain anything, THEY have to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt!
You can't prove guilt without evidence. The very fact they showed up to an expecting young looking girl automatically referencing a hot tub is evidence to their guilt. You don't have to prove shit beyond a reasonable doubt to arrest people and subpoena further evidence. The police arn't the jury or judge, they are doing their jobs by arresting these people who have seemingly showed up to commit an illegal act. There is a term for it, it's called a "sting."

Maybe you and Junnii can explain why they were there and therefore why they shouldn't be arrested and investigated?

You can't prove guilt without evidence.

You can't gather evidence while humiliating someone on national television.

Maybe you and Junnii can explain why they were there and therefore why they shouldn't be arrested and investigated?

I don't have to explain to you anything. We don't have to prove their innocence, the DA has to prove their guilt.

For that matter, you didn't spell out what you were insinuating. Why? Don't you have the guts to do it?

You can't gather evidence while humiliating someone on national television.
So the whole them showing up to an expecting young girl isn't real, it's all pretend and the guys all show up at the same house by accident and have no idea what is going on.


I don't have to explain to you anything. We don't have to prove their innocence, the DA has to prove their guilt.
The police don't.

For that matter, you didn't spell out what you were insinuating. Why? Don't you have the guts to do it?
Why can't you explain why they are there and why a young girl is expecting them?

So the whole them showing up to an expecting young girl isn't real, it's all pretend and the guys all show up at the same house by accident and have no idea what is going on.



The police don't.


Why can't you explain why they are there and why a young girl is expecting them?

The fact remains WE don't have to prove their innocence. YOU, however, are failing to tell me what you were insinuating not twenty posts ago, which IS a statement you would actually stand by and spell out if you had the guts.

You can't con an honest man, and you can't seduce a man who doesn't want to be seduced. If you're online and accept an invitation to have sex with someone who is representing himself or herself as underage--and make no mistake, that's what's happening in these cases, and you can find many of the transcripts online--then I find it difficult to feel sorry for you when your life winds up wrecked, entrapment or not.

The fact remains WE don't have to prove their innocence.
You have to explain why they are there if you want to sit there and assert they are innocent.

You can't con an honest man, and you can't seduce a man who doesn't want to be seduced. If you're online and accept an invitation to have sex with someone who is representing himself or herself as underage--and make no mistake, that's what's happening in these cases, and you can find many of the transcripts online--then I find it difficult to feel sorry for you when your life winds up wrecked, entrapment or not.

The media - or anyone else - is not entitled to ruin lives. The Judicial system is entitled to judge and carry out sentences. Not the media.

You have to explain why they are there if you want to sit there and assert they are innocent.

I'm asserting they may be. I'm asserting they haven't been judged. And I'm asserting they shouldn't be humiliated before going through the judicial system. Now, again, tell me what you were insinuating back there. Don't you have the guts to do it?

The media - or anyone else - is not entitled to ruin lives. The Judicial system is entitled to judge and carry out sentences. Not the media.
Oh please--there's one part of the the media that exists to ruin lives and nothing else. But the media didn't ruin these lives--the individuals themselves did. No one forced them to get in their cars and show up expecting to have sex with a goddamn pre-teen or someone under the age of consent. You want to give them the benefit of the doubt--fine. They'll be able to defend themselves in criminal court should it get that far, and in civil court if they were actually defamed.

Oh wait--in all your defending of them, you seem to have forgotten that they had civil recourse. These people aren't public figures--proving libel is relatively easy, and NBC has deep pockets. Are you telling me that there's not an enterprising lawyer somewhere who wouldn't be willing to take on a case like that if NBC was faking information to make a show more sensational? The payout would be enormous and NBC would take an unbelievable hit if they were faking this stuff and got busted.

Again--if you show up at a person's house expecting to have sex with an underage person, don't expect any sympathy from me. The public humiliation can't be great enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Snip.

Prove their intentions. And do put a price on the person losing their spouse due to the accusation.

Prove their intentions. And do put a price on the person losing their spouse due to the accusation.

They fucking showed up after discussing having sex with said underage person online. Proven.

And I don't have to put a price tag on losing a spouse. If a person wins a lawsuit against NBC for falsifying information and slandering an innocent person, that person will get to put as large a price tag as he wishes on it. I'd ask for 9 figures minimum, plus an admission of guilt, if it happened to me. If a spouse won't believe you after that, then fuck'em. They're not worth keeping around.

Query. if a policewoman, undercover, tells a perfect stranger, that she would have sex with him for a price, he accepts, and is then arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer... is that legal?

now, if a non-police officer goes up to to a person and says she would have sex with that person for a price, and he accepts. She then turns around and has the cops arrest him for soliticing sex, is that legal?

Perverted Justice is not a Law Enforcement Agency. they are volunteers. so who's to say that they are following the same procedures and safeguards to protect the rights of those they are turning over to the police? who initiates the sex talk, the perp or the PJ volunteer? the transcript evidence comes from where, the site servers (a possible violation of the privacy agreement)? or PJ's own computers? What of the persons right to a fair and just trial? How can that person get a trial by jury when their face is plastered on National Television? Do they (PJ) invite the person over for sex or does the perp ask to come over for sex?

As I said before (for all of you who think anyone arguing against TCaP and PJ MUST be a pedeophile) I have no problem with what PJ is doing, but the fact that they are NOT a Reconized Law Enforcement Agency is nothing more than Vigilatism and all it will take is one clever lawyer to not only destroy PJ, but cast doubt on all their other 200+ convictions.

They fucking showed up after discussing having sex with said underage person online. Proven.

And I don't have to put a price tag on losing a spouse. If a person wins a lawsuit against NBC for falsifying information and slandering an innocent person, that person will get to put as large a price tag as he wishes on it. I'd ask for 9 figures minimum, plus an admission of guilt, if it happened to me. If a spouse won't believe you after that, then fuck'em. They're not worth keeping around.

How about the criminal lawsuit for infringement of several rights? And no, not proven, because the log can be easily changed. Isn't it perfectly possible that they invited the people for one thing and changed the log into another?

And no, not proven, because the log can be easily changed. Isn't it perfectly possible that they invited the people for one thing and changed the log into another?
There are two sets of the log and one side is working with the police in a stingray operation. Irwin would be proud. The pedo can change his log or even delete it in an attempt to cover his tracks but as soon as he shows up he is guilty of making the attempt.

There are two sets of the log and one side is working with the police in a stingray operation. Irwin would be proud.
can you back this up?

So nazz... query. if a policewoman, undercover, tells a perfect stranger, that she would have sex with him for a price, he accepts, and is then arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer... is that legal? Nope--entrapment, clear case law on that.

now, if a non-police officer goes up to to a person and says she would have sex with that person for a price, and he accepts. She then turns around and has the cops arrest him for soliticing sex, is that legal?As I understand the law, if there's a deal in place for the woman to avoid prosecution, then she's acting as an agent of the police and it's still entrapment. Otherwise, it sounds to me like she's opening herself up to a prostitution charge, and if the cops don't charge her, it would make for a reasonable argument of quid pro quo in the defense.

Perverted Justice is not a Law Enforcement Agency. they are volunteers. so who's to say that they are following the same procedures and safeguards to protect the rights of those they are turning over to the police? who initiates the sex talk, the perp or the PJ volunteer? the transcript evidence comes from where, the site servers (a possible violation of the privacy agreement)? or PJ's own computers? What of the persons right to a fair and just trial? How can that person get a trial by jury when their face is plastered on National Television? Do they (PJ) invite the person over for sex or does the perp ask to come over for sex?All those are questions that should be answered by 1)the DA prosecuting (or not prosecuting) the case and 2) Dateline, assuming you're including them in this discussion. In the stories I've read on this in the past, the transcripts were witnessed by the reporter in real time, not read later, and they didn't read like entrapment to me.

This stuff is readily available online, and it's easy to find. Have you actually read it, or are you working from a theoretical position here?

As I said before (for all of you who think anyone arguing against TCaP and PJ MUST be a pedeophile) I have no problem with what PJ is doing, but the fact that they are NOT a Reconized Law Enforcement Agency is nothing more than Vigilatism and all it will take is one clever lawyer to not only destroy PJ, but cast doubt on all their other 200+ convictions.

I think it will take more than one clever lawyer, or it would have begun already. I'm not saying I know for certain that these people are following every chapter and verse of the legal code--I don't know that--but I know that a wrongful charge tied up with falsification of evidence would land both PJ and NBC in a world of legal shit, so I'm guessing that NBC, having decades of experience with this sort of thing, has covered their asses pretty well.

There are two sets of the log and one side is working with the police in a stingray operation. Irwin would be proud.

You mean the one they had access to and means to change before turning over?

How about the criminal lawsuit

The WHAT? A criminal lawsuit? WTF are you talking about?

See people, this is why amateurs shouldn't talk about law.

for infringement of several rights?

What rights are those exactly? A constitutional right? How does a private entity violate a right?

And no, not proven, because the log can be easily changed. Isn't it perfectly possible that they invited the people for one thing and changed the log into another?

Possible yes, and also easily proven, and would create one fucking HELL of a lawsuit if that were to happen.

Still trying to figure out what you meant by criminal lawsuit.

How about the criminal lawsuit for infringement of several rights? And no, not proven, because the log can be easily changed. Isn't it perfectly possible that they invited the people for one thing and changed the log into another?

Here's what you're saying: NBC would be willing to put its very existence on the line, its entire reputation as a news gathering organization, and subject itself to both criminal and civil liability for untold millions, if not billions of dollars, for the sake of a handful of ratings points for a show that doesn't cost very much to produce in the first place. Because that's what they'd be risking if PJ were falsifying logs and NBC was involved, even in the slightest. No one's going to do nuance on this story if they're involved in fraud of this nature--the other stations will be out for blood, and for NBC's audience share.

So what's more likely--NBC puts its corporate life on the line for a few ratings points, or the fuckers are actually guilty? You tell me. There's no reason for NBC to fake this stuff--there's not a single upside that's worth that potential risk, and you know it. Stop being silly.

Nope--entrapment, clear case law on that.

As I understand the law, if there's a deal in place for the woman to avoid prosecution, then she's acting as an agent of the police and it's still entrapment.

Um, no Nazz, sorry. That's not entrapment even in the slightest. If I a cop come up to a woman and say "will you have sex with me for money?" and that woman says "sure! 20 bucks." and I arrest her, that is in no way entrapment.

Entrapment law is....more complicated than that.

Edit: sorry, the example was I, a cop, approach a stranger and ask him if he would pay me for sex and he agrees then I arrest him, is that legal. Yes, that is perfectly legal as well, and is not entrapment.

Here's what you're saying: NBC would be willing to put its very existence on the line, its entire reputation as a news gathering organization, and subject itself to both criminal and civil liability for untold millions, if not billions of dollars, for the sake of a handful of ratings points for a show that doesn't cost very much to produce in the first place. Because that's what they'd be risking if PJ were falsifying logs and NBC was involved, even in the slightest. No one's going to do nuance on this story if they're involved in fraud of this nature--the other stations will be out for blood, and for NBC's audience share.

So what's more likely--NBC puts its corporate life on the line for a few ratings points, or the fuckers are actually guilty? You tell me. There's no reason for NBC to fake this stuff--there's not a single upside that's worth that potential risk, and you know it. Stop being silly.

Prove to me that NBC wouldn't. Prove to me that NBC would even KNOW. Your argument is like "he wouldn't kill anyone, he knows he'd be in trouble with the police".

Query. if a policewoman, undercover, tells a perfect stranger, that she would have sex with him for a price, he accepts, and is then arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer... is that legal?

Yes, perfectly legal, and in fact, that's how people get busted for soliciting prosecution ALL THE TIME.

The WHAT? A criminal lawsuit? WTF are you talking about?

See people, this is why amateurs shouldn't talk about law.

Brazilian here. This kind of shit includes criminal charges here.

Yes, perfectly legal, and in fact, that's how people get busted for soliciting prosecution ALL THE TIME.wrong, that is entrapment.

The buyer has to state that he is looking to purchase the sex from undercover officers. They don't initiate the sex talk, they let the 'John' approach them.

Look at all the shows that follow undercover street walkers. They never say what they're selling. They have to have the John say what they want.

Here's what you're saying: NBC would be willing to put its very existence on the line, its entire reputation as a news gathering organization, and subject itself to both criminal and civil liability for untold millions, if not billions of dollars, for the sake of a handful of ratings points for a show that doesn't cost very much to produce in the first place. Because that's what they'd be risking if PJ were falsifying logs and NBC was involved, even in the slightest. No one's going to do nuance on this story if they're involved in fraud of this nature--the other stations will be out for blood, and for NBC's audience share.

So what's more likely--NBC puts its corporate life on the line for a few ratings points, or the fuckers are actually guilty? You tell me. There's no reason for NBC to fake this stuff--there's not a single upside that's worth that potential risk, and you know it. Stop being silly.

Now, in MY opinion, they're absolutly totally guilty. Absolutly.

WITH THAT SAID however, these private entities are outside the chain of evidence, and nothing they take should be considered in a court of criminal law. ARE they faking it? In my opinion, no.

COULD they fake it? By being out of the chain of evidence, yes. And the fact that, because they are out of the chain of evidence, they COULD fake it, even if they're not, should be enough to throw out anything they get in a criminal case. I think these men are guilty as sin. I don't think they should be criminally charged, because simply the proof is outside the chain of evidence, and thus should be inadmissable.

Prove to me that NBC wouldn't. Prove to me that NBC would even KNOW. Your argument is like "he wouldn't kill anyone, he knows he'd be in trouble with the police".

Stop drinking. It's affecting your senses. You're arguing just for the sake of arguing now.

You know what--I'm turning it around on you. You fucking answer the question. Why would they? Where's the upside? Prove that they would.

You mean the one they had access to and means to change before turning over?
Both the police and the pedos. Geuss who had cameras rolling the whole time so as to prove there was no tampering on their end.

As I understand the law, if there's a deal in place for the woman to avoid prosecution, then she's acting as an agent of the police and it's still entrapment. Otherwise, it sounds to me like she's opening herself up to a prostitution charge, and if the cops don't charge her, it would make for a reasonable argument of quid pro quo in the defense. that's right.

All those are questions that should be answered by 1)the DA prosecuting (or not prosecuting) the case and 2) Dateline, assuming you're including them in this discussion. In the stories I've read on this in the past, the transcripts were witnessed by the reporter in real time, not read later, and they didn't read like entrapment to me. yep, unfortunatly, many of them plead "No Contest" or "Not Guilty" which is their fault, not PJ or Dateline. also, how can you be sure that the reporter is there when PJ lures them in. after all, I see him covering other stories between TCaP episodes. which is why I kinda wish PJ becomes a law enforcement project. it will give them more credability and more protection.

This stuff is readily available online, and it's easy to find. Have you actually read it, or are you working from a theoretical position here? what's available? the Transcripts from PJ? how can you be sure they're not edited? and are they not evidence and thus has to follow the rules of evidence handling?

I think it will take more than one clever lawyer, or it would have begun already. I'm not saying I know for certain that these people are following every chapter and verse of the legal code--I don't know that--but I know that a wrongful charge tied up with falsification of evidence would land both PJ and NBC in a world of legal shit, so I'm guessing that NBC, having decades of experience with this sort of thing, has covered their asses pretty well.and all it takes is ONE mistake.

the dropping of the charges in this one city may, sadly, be only the first in a trend. :(

wrong, that is entrapment.


Um, no. That is not in any way entrapment. If I as an undercover officer go up to you and go "hey, wanna buy some pot" and you say "sure" and I bust you for attempted posession of drugs, that's perfectly 100% legal.

Entrapment has a specific technical definition, that is not it. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.

The buyer has to state that he is looking to purchase the sex from undercover officers. They don't initiate the sex talk, they let the 'John' approach them.

Um, no.

Now, in MY opinion, they're absolutly totally guilty. Absolutly.

WITH THAT SAID however, these private entities are outside the chain of evidence, and nothing they take should be considered in a court of criminal law. ARE they faking it? In my opinion, no.

COULD they fake it? By being out of the chain of evidence, yes. And the fact that, because they are out of the chain of evidence, they COULD fake it, even if they're not, should be enough to throw out anything they get in a criminal case. I think these men are guilty as sin. I don't think they should be criminally charged, because simply the proof is outside the chain of evidence, and thus should be inadmissable.

What he said.

Both the police and the pedos. Geuss who had cameras rolling the whole time so as to prove there was no tampering on their end.

really? they had the cameras going recording the on line chat to make sure that it wasn't PJ asking for the sex and the photos to be mailed to them? and the police was right there along side PJ as they were doing this?

Um, no. That is not in any way entrapment. If I as an undercover officer go up to you and go "hey, wanna buy some pot" and you say "sure" and I bust you for attempted posession of drugs, that's perfectly 100% legal. wrong, you go ask your police officers. that is entrapment. and NOT 100% legal.

Entrapment has a specific technical definition, that is not it. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about here.
fail (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm).

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
so in your example, and mine.
"wanna buy some drugs?" already breaks the first challange and casts doubt on the other two.

UNLESS they can prove that their person was already going to break the law. Which is why the person is first watched and/or a meeting is set up before hand.

if your undercover cop just walked up to a stranger and said "Hey, you wanna buy some [whatever]" that breaks the first check, and casts doubt on the second and third. hardly 100% legal.

wrong, you go ask your police officers.

How about I ask my boss, at the law firm where I work, as a lawyer. He used to be a federal prosecutor.

so in your example, and mine.
"wanna buy some drugs?" already breaks the first challange and casts doubt on the other two.

UNLESS they can prove that their person was already going to break the law. Which is why the person is first watched and/or a meeting is set up before hand.

if your undercover cop just walked up to a stranger and said "Hey, you wanna buy some [whatever]" that breaks the first check, and casts doubt on the second and third. hardly 100% legal.

http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

ENTRAPMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

I suggest you go back and read, really, REALLY hard the third prong of that test. It does not say "about to break the law". It says "ready and willing" to break the law when the police officer approaches him. It doesn't have to suggest that I was out there looking to buy drugs. That's not what it means.

It means, very simply, that the person has the means and the willingness to buy drugs. If I come up to you and offer you drugs, and you accept, you have demonstrated a willingness to violate the law. If a try to coerce, force, or in any other way manipulate you into doing it other than a simple offer of "hey, want to buy drugs?" then sure, then we have a third prong problem.

However if you accept my offer to sell you drugs, without any other prompting than "hey you, wanna buy drugs?" you have shown a manifest willingness to violate the law.

Ergo, no entrapment.

So yeah, fail.

How about I ask my boss, at the law firm where I work, as a lawyer. He used to be a federal prosecutor.



http://files.blog-city.com/files/aa/37231/p/f/morbo.jpg

ENTRAPMENT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY

I suggest you go back and read, really, REALLY hard the third prong of that test. It does not say "about to break the law". It says "ready and willing" to break the law when the police officer approaches him. It doesn't have to suggest that I was out there looking to buy drugs. That's not what it means.

It means, very simply, that the person has the means and the willingness to buy drugs. If I come up to you and offer you drugs, and you accept, you have demonstrated a willingness to violate the law. If a try to coerce, force, or in any other way manipulate you into doing it other than a simple offer of "hey, want to buy drugs?" then sure, then we have a third prong problem.

However if you accept my offer to sell you drugs, without any other prompting than "hey you, wanna buy drugs?" you have shown a manifest willingness to violate the law.

Ergo, no entrapment.:gundge:ah but read my example and yours. an officer walking up to a stranger cannot prove that the person (s)he's asking was "ready and willing" to break the law until that officer provided the opportunity.

thus third point fails because reasonable doubt can be cast upon it.

You walking up to me and asking me if I want to buy drugs doesn't show that I was looking for drugs to buy... UNTIL you came up and provided the opportunity.

ah but read my example and yours. an officer walking up to a stranger cannot prove that the person (s)he's asking was "ready and willing" to break the law until that officer provided the opportunity.

thus third point fails because reasonable doubt can be cast upon it.

You walking up to me and asking me if I want to buy drugs doesn't show that I was looking for drugs to buy... UNTIL you came up and provided the opportunity.

Your presumption that it's entrapment because, since the police officer approached someone and offered to sell him drugs and he accepted, you can't be SURE he was ready and willing before hand to buy drugs is silly. If this were true, ANY TIME police approached someone and offered them an opportunity to commit a crime, you could never prove entrapment, because you couldn't say for sure he was ready and willing until that very moment.

Because the third prong is seperate and distinct from the first, merely offering is not entrapment. Someone accepting a reasonable offer to break the law is demonstrable of a willingness to break the law. A mere offer, absent coersion or manipulation, is not entrapment, because if one accept, it is per se evidence that there was a manifest willingness.

Which would render the third prong absolutly superfluous. And Your claim that since the police approahced him first and ofered to sell drugs violates the 3rd prong would mean that any violation of the 1st prong is a per se violation of the 3rd. We don't do that in law. We say that if the legislature chose to put in three distinct elements then each element must be seperate from the others.

The legislature put in three elements. Each element thus is a seperate and distinct thing. Because they put a 3rd element in there, as a matter of law that third element can not be satisfied merely by satisfying another element, otherwise that element is superfluous, and we don't treat seperate elements as superfluous.

Let me give you an ACTUAL example of entrapment. Let's say a pot joint costs...30 bucks.

A cop goes up to a guy and says "hey, want to sell me a joint for 30 bucks?" and the guy goes "sure!" Nope, not entrapment.

A cop goes up to a guy and says "hey, want to sell me a joint for 30 bucks?" and the guy goes "nope, sorry, don't sell drugs".

Then the cop says "ok, 50 bucks for one".

"no, told you, don't sell drugs."

"Alright, I'll give you 100 dollars for a joint".

At which point the guy goes "alright, I don't have any but I know a guy who does, meet me back here in an hour and I'll sell you a joint for 100 bucks".

Then an hour later, they meet back, the guy tries to sell the cop the joint, and the cop arrests him.

NOW we have an entrapment problem. There was an initial reluctance to violate the law and only occured because the police placed a strong coercive element to get him to violate the law (offering to pay 5 times what the drugs were worth, and after an initial rejection).

A simple offer of an opportunity to break the law doesn't create an entrapment problem.

By the way, when you supply a source. Be sure to read the whole thing. From your link:

For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person.

A cop coming up to someone and going "hey, want to buy sex" is the agent pretending to be a hooker and directly offering someone the opportunity to engage in an unlawful transaction.

That's from YOUR OWN SOURCE.

Your presumption that it's entrapment because, since the police officer approached someone and offered to sell him drugs and he accepted, you can't be SURE he was ready and willing before hand to buy drugs is silly. If this were true, ANY TIME police approached someone and offered them an opportunity to commit a crime, you could never prove entrapment, because you couldn't say for sure he was ready and willing until that very moment.which is why sting operations are carefully planned and executed. as long as the officer Approaches the person and intitates the illegal activity, then it cannot be proven that the subject was willing and ready to commit that crime.

Because the third prong is seperate and distinct from the first, merely offering is not entrapment. Someone accepting a reasonable offer to break the law is demonstrable of a willingness to break the law. A mere offer, absent coersion or manipulation, is not entrapment, because if one accept, it is per se evidence that there was a manifest willingness.and I did NOT say mearly offering, but HOW.
Under cover Cop. : Hey big Guy.
Punk: Hey there.
UCC: you looking for something?
Punk: Maybe... What you had in mind?
UCC: Depends on what you're looking for.
Punk: well... how much for a date. (initiating the illegal activity.)
UCC: how much you willing to spend.
Punk: [sexual act]
UCC: [names price]
Punk: Agrees.
not entrapment because the punk initiated the illegal transaction.

now if it was
UCC walks up to complete stranger: Hey there, wanna have some fun?
Punk: what you had in mind.
UCC: I figure we go out on a date and have a little something something. (initiation of illegal activity)
Punk: Sounds like fun
UCC: Gonna cost ya $$$$
Punk: Ok.
that can be argued as entrapment since the UCC initiated the illegal deal by 1) offereing the sexual act. and 2) naming the price which indicates she's SELLING and not that he was necessarily BUYING.


Which would render the third prong absolutly superfluous. And Your claim that since the police approahced him first and [U]offered to sell drugs violates the 3rd prong would mean that any violation of the 1st prong is a per se violation of the 3rd. We don't do that in law. We say that if the legislature chose to put in three distinct elements then each element must be seperate from the others. right there, the underlined point is the point I'm making. the officer is OFFERING to sell the drugs. it has to be the perp to ask about the drugs and show 1)willingness to commit the act, 2) Preperation to commit the act, 3) committing the act.

thus the sting is usually set up before hand. "I know a guy..." then when that meeting takes place. the officer usually starts off with "I hear you wanna do business with me" not "I hear you wanna buy drugs from me." big difference.

The legislature put in three elements. Each element thus is a seperate and distinct thing. Because they put a 3rd element in there, as a matter of law that third element can not be satisfied merely by satisfying another element, otherwise that element is superfluous, and we don't treat seperate elements as superfluous.you cannot prove that the person was ready to commit the act if that person was offered the opportunity by the Undercover officer.

Let me give you an ACTUAL example of entrapment. Let's say a pot joint costs...30 bucks.

A cop goes up to a guy and says "hey, want to sell me a joint for 30 bucks?" and the guy goes "sure!" Nope, not entrapment.now prove that the guy was going to sell that joint to someone else (ready to commit the crime). that the Idea to sell that joint came from him and not the cop. (the idea to sell drugs did NOT come from the officer.) and prove that the officer did not pursuade him to sell the drug by offering money (Did not pursuade him to sell the drug, but only gave the opportunity to sell the drug)

A cop goes up to a guy and says "hey, want to sell me a joint for 30 bucks?" and the guy goes "nope, sorry, don't sell drugs".

Then the cop says "ok, 50 bucks for one".

"no, told you, don't sell drugs."

"Alright, I'll give you 100 dollars for a joint".

At which point the guy goes "alright, I don't have any but I know a guy who does, meet me back here in an hour and I'll sell you a joint for 100 bucks".

Then an hour later, they meet back, the guy tries to sell the cop the joint, and the cop arrests him.

NOW we have an entrapment problem. There was an initial reluctance to violate the law and only occured because the police placed a strong coercive element to get him to violate the law (offering to pay 5 times what the drugs were worth, and after an initial rejection).and so it's entrapment if the officer offers more than the street value? wrong.

and btw. there was a video on one of those reality cop shows where the Officer did JUST that. to get the weapon off of a dangerous Carjacker who admitted to not only carjacking the vehicle he was selling the officer, but admitted that he put the gun to the persons face and threatened to shoot the driver.

the officer offered to buy the weapon, and kept jacking the price up until the punk sold the gun as well as the stolen car... guess what. NOT ENTRAPMENT because the punk admitted (on tape) that he was willing and ready to cause harm with that weapon.

A simple offer of an opportunity to break the law doesn't create an entrapment problem.wrong, how the opportunity is presented can create an Entrapment Problem.

By the way, when you supply a source. Be sure to read the whole thing. From your link:



A cop coming up to someone and going "hey, want to buy sex" is the agent pretending to be a hooker and directly offering someone the opportunity to engage in an unlawful transaction.

That's from YOUR OWN SOURCE.Read it carefully.

ENGAGE, not INITIATE. big difference. You're Arguing INITIATATION OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, not just ENGAGEING. when you Initiate the illegal activity, you are inducing the illegal activity.

Oh pleas. I assume you people ended up on this show a couple times?



Not on the perpetrator's computer. Programs like to have those on by default and thes guys don't strike me as the kind bright enough to go through and turn it off..

While that is true, only the police can search the computer and only if they have warrant from a judge. If Dateline or PJ are hacking into people's computers they are breaking the law and can be sued/prosecuted.

.


Maybe they shouldn't be chatting up people claiming to be 12 year old girls and the agree to meet them for sex and actually show up. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and looks like a duck

Maybe we should just abolish the constitution and this thing we call civil rights while we are at it.


Wrong. Since you seem to have experience with being accused of pedophilia, maybe you would like to be let in on a secret - these people arn't innocent. There is no pointing fingers, shouting, and declaring of witch trials. There is months of proof in logs and capped by the fact the people actually show up. I don't suppose you plant to next suggest that all the men that show up actually live at the house they have the sting set up at.

That's how these witchhunts usually work. Destroy the reputation and lives of 100 innocent people just to destroy one wicked person. People who do these TCAP crusades don't give a rats *** about civil rights. They are enemies of a Constitution they would abolish at first chance.



And then you can subpoena the suspect's computer and confirm it.[/QUOTE]

again, only a judge can issue a subpoena and he's not going to give one to a private vigilante group like TCAP. PJ has no subpoena powers. Further it is a violation of civil rights for police to hand over any such logs, if they exist to the media or any private group because it is a violation of privacy. Neither Dateline nor PJ have any right or demonstrated interest to the logs. Only the government has a demonstrated interest in such logs.


And on another note, I challenge you to prove that 12 year old girls go into chatrooms just to talk sex with 50 year old men.

But I would bet they are enough evidence to subpoena the records of the suspects. This is of course assuming the DA didn't authorize this in the first place.

The DA cannot authorize a third party, especially a vigilante group who has no regard for civil liberties or the constitutional rights of those they accuse. The DA cannot give those people police powers. That is what we are talking about.

Dateline is not the police nor can they be given police powers.

Did their life go away? And even if there were no records, we still of course have to explain why they showed up at some house and were greeted by a young looking girl.


I'm pretty sure people have been sentenced to humiliation before.
If they arn't guilty, why are they there in the first place? And why was the girl expecting them? And why was she talking about a hot tub?


Neither do you.

Their life was destroyed. There could be lots of reasons why they showed up.
But that's for a judge and jury to decide. Not for you, not for Dateline, and not for PJ.

In the US, humiliation would fall under cruel and unusual punishment clause of the US Constitution. The precedent for this is that humiliation of people convicted of terrorism is illegal as cruel and unusual.

You can't gather evidence while humiliating someone on national television.



I don't have to explain to you anything. We don't have to prove their innocence, the DA has to prove their guilt.

For that matter, you didn't spell out what you were insinuating. Why? Don't you have the guts to do it?

It seems me that TPH is arguing that you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

So the whole them showing up to an expecting young girl isn't real, it's all pretend and the guys all show up at the same house by accident and have no idea what is going on.



The police don't.


Why can't you explain why they are there and why a young girl is expecting them?

How about you explain what young girl you are talking about. All the people involved are adults.

You can't con an honest man, and you can't seduce a man who doesn't want to be seduced. If you're online and accept an invitation to have sex with someone who is representing himself or herself as underage--and make no mistake, that's what's happening in these cases, and you can find many of the transcripts online--then I find it difficult to feel sorry for you when your life winds up wrecked, entrapment or not.

Well talking sex on the internet is not a crime. It is impossible to tell who you are really talking to. I suppose you are going to claim that these victims of the witchhunt had telepathic powers to know they were talking to real children?

If the police really want to prove to me that these men were pedophiles, they would wait until the guy starts dropping his pants or, in person, suggests to the person who acting like an underage girl, that they have sex in her room or right there.

Computer logs are hearsay.

You have to explain why they are there if you want to sit there and assert they are innocent.

Have you ever thought that maybe they just went there to talk? No. You assume that everytime an adult talks to an underage girl its only to solicit sex.

[QUOTE=The Nazz;12833899]They fucking showed up after discussing having sex with said underage person online. Proven.

QUOTE]


That discussion alone can't be used to convict them. What did they do at the scene of the sting? Nothing. The only thing they did was just show up, which in most states is not illegal. Thoughts aren't illegal. Only actions are.
How many of the victims of Dateline, showed with their first words being "are you ready to hop in the sack?"

Very few.

How many of them started pulling out condoms when they showed?

How many of them started removing clothing?

Computer logs are hearsay.actually, Computer Logs are considered Recordings. and due to their nature, they would be constituted as willful and voluntary recording of all parties involved.

There are two sets of the log and one side is working with the police in a stingray operation. Irwin would be proud. The pedo can change his log or even delete it in an attempt to cover his tracks but as soon as he shows up he is guilty of making the attempt.

Wrong. There are three logs. One on the PJ computer. One on the accused's computer. Both of those are alterable.
The third one, one server of the chat provider is the most reliable. And though the provider cannot provide it to PJ or the police, a judge can subpoena it for a trial.

Here's what you're saying: NBC would be willing to put its very existence on the line, its entire reputation as a news gathering organization, and subject itself to both criminal and civil liability for untold millions, if not billions of dollars, for the sake of a handful of ratings points for a show that doesn't cost very much to produce in the first place. Because that's what they'd be risking if PJ were falsifying logs and NBC was involved, even in the slightest. No one's going to do nuance on this story if they're involved in fraud of this nature--the other stations will be out for blood, and for NBC's audience share.

So what's more likely--NBC puts its corporate life on the line for a few ratings points, or the fuckers are actually guilty? You tell me. There's no reason for NBC to fake this stuff--there's not a single upside that's worth that potential risk, and you know it. Stop being silly.

NBC is in it for the ratings. Afterall, pedophiles are considered the worst scum of all. People don't care if your rights are abused when you are accused.

Again, its not ok to entrap a would be terrorist but it is ok to entrap a US citizen.

Yes, perfectly legal, and in fact, that's how people get busted for soliciting prosecution ALL THE TIME.

And would you mind explaining why people would want to solicit "prosecution"?

Brazilian here. This kind of shit includes criminal charges here.

meh, the most Americans get to do is file a civil rights lawsuit.

somethings on this log: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11103248/ that incriminate Dateline:

The reporter, Chris Hansen, states "I really think we could do this story anywhere in the country and have dozens of men show up."

So he thinks that all Americans are pedophiles.

"After I ask the guy a few questions, I surmise he’s a 19-year-old whose screen name is “Jazzman04.” He’s here to meet a 12-year-old girl. He doesn’t hang around long. He makes a run for it, and the Riverside County Sheriffs have no choice but to spring into action.

In a matter of seconds, have the cuffs on “Jazzman04” as well as the two other men waiting in their cars."

Depending on the questions, which it doesn't show, that could be entrapment. Since the people in the cars did not go to the door nor interacted with the people in the sting, their arrests are arbitrary and a violation of civil rights and the US Constitution.
The police had no reasonable cause to arrest the people in the cars unless they thought one of them was a get away driver.

"Some think I am with law enforcement"

So he misrepresents himself. Also this part is entrapment. He has to tell them who he is at the start. If he doesn't it's entrapment.

"The one guy who surprises even me, though, is “Southbayguy310.” When he shows up at our house, another man is being arrested outside. I’m thinking, “This guy will never come back.” I am wrong.

He phones the decoy. She makes up an excuse about the police activity, and within minutes he’s walking in our back door. And if you are wondering how determined some of these men are to meet a 12 or 13-year-old, consider this: It turns out “Southbayguy310” was not only caught by Perverted-Justice once before for doing the same thing, he actually saw our last Dateline investigation!"

Ok. I'll grant that guy was guilty.

"It turns out he’s really 68. And just 5 months ago, he was arrested for a lewd sex act with a person 15 or younger. Now he’s here after chatting online with someone who told him he was 13. As I am speaking to him, he’s on probation for his previous crime."
ok. That guy is guilty.

"We’re already starting to get e-mails from many of you"

So this isn't for the ratings? If so, why is this guy checking fan mail in the middle of a "legit" sting?

"the potential predator is the one who makes the first contact with the decoy posing as a child."

Hmm. Sounds like they're covered there.

"We have also had men show up whose chat logs were perhaps inappropriate but not necessarily illegal. Those men are usually not shown"

An admission that just talking to someone about sex on the internet is not illegal regardless of their age.

"From Nancy, Davenport, Iowa: How is that you are allowed to show the faces of the predators without their permission? I thought releases had to be signed. By the way, what you are doing is wonderful.

Chris Hansen: It would be more customary to obtain release, but Dateline is a news program not an entertainment program. It really depends on the circumstances. In some sensitive situations involving minors, for example, we have the parents sign release forms"

So, since they are a "news" program rather than an "entertainment" program, it is ok to humiliate these people before they've even had a trial. I'm sorry but he's still required to get their consent before putting their faces on air.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/07/publiceye/entry1290135.shtml

Stone Philips, some guys associated with Dateline, says "In many cases, the decoy is the first to bring up the subject of sex"

Later he says "Enticement? Yes. Entrapment. I don't think so"

A bit defensive he is.

This site gives very good reasons why what Dateline is doing is a violation of civil liberties.

"Some other suspects contacted Perverted Justice decoys online but never showed up at the house. Among them was Louis Conradt Jr., an assistant prosecutor from neighboring Kauffman County, who allegedly engaged in a sexually explicit online chat with an adult posing as a 13-year-old boy.

As police knocked at his door and a "Dateline" camera crew waited in the street, Conradt shot himself."

So they weren't just having people go to their sting house. They were busting down people's doors and humiliating for talking to people on the internet.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0529071nbc1.html

One of Dateline's own producers has defected and was fired for challenging the tactics used in "To Catch A Predator".

Edit: Ooooh. This time Dateline is going down in flames for good. She's got them. She has evidence that PJ has been altering the manuscripts of the online chats and leaving important sections out.

Yeah, after reading that. TCAP is as good as gone probably.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3235975&page=1

NBC is in it for the ratings. There is no doubt about this, which is why I detest the show for taking a very serious subject and making it into a media cash cow. If they really cared they're donate money to law enforcement agencies specializing in catching child predators instead of making an over-dramatized show about it (don't forget during the first season there WERE no cops).

However.

That doesn't mean they've faked shit. The interviews with Hansen shows that these people are guilty. The fact they run away shows they are guilty. The fact some walk in, see Hansen, and run like hell shows they are guilty; the logs not withstanding. The logs themselves can be forged but photos can be photoshopped just as easily as logs can be tampered with but that doesn't stop people from using them as evidence. Wanna know why? It's hard to fake actual conversations just as it is hard to prove in a court room that a photo is real if it's fake. All that aside the alleged pedophiles can look on their PCs for logs and use them against Dateline if they so want, but they don't for the very real reason that they'd be fucking themselves.

I hate TCAP, but that doesn't mean I'll jump on the pro-pedo bandwagon and claim they've entrapped people because they care more about ratings than people.

I hate TCAP, but that doesn't mean I'll jump on the pro-pedo bandwagon and claim they've entrapped people because they care more about ratings than people.

Pro-pedo bandwagon? That's classy. Of course, ANYONE that opposes what they're doing and wants these people to be given a trial instead of automatic accusation, and a sentence instead of public humiliation, must be pro-pedo, right?

Again, its not ok to entrap a would be terrorist but it is ok to entrap a US citizen.
Let me repeat it for you since you didn't get it the first time.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg

They tailor what they do specifically so it doesn't fall under entrapment.

Pro-pedo bandwagon? That's classy. Of course, ANYONE that opposes what they're doing and wants these people to be given a trial instead of automatic accusation, and a sentence instead of public humiliation, must be pro-pedo, right?
So being arrested for showing up to have sex with an underage person isn't enough cause to arrest some one? Hell, I guess every arrest ever is an illegal "automatic accusation" and shouldn't happen. No one should be arrested until there is enough evidence to convict them on the spot. Then the police can be judge, jury, and executioner.

Here is what cops look like in Heikoku world:
http://outflux.net/images/collection/images/judgedredd.jpg

So being arrested for showing up to have sex with an underage person isn't enough cause to arrest some one? Hell, I guess every arrest ever is an illegal "automatic accusation" and shouldn't happen. No one should be arrested until there is enough evidence to convict them on the spot. Then the police can be judge, jury, and executioner.

Here is what cops look like in Heikoku world:


It's a bird! It's a plane! No! It's STRAAAAWWWMAAANNN!!!

Faster than a speeding insult! More powerful than an ad hominem! Able to leap argumental pitfalls with a single bound!

Also, doesn't Perverted Justice sound REALLY creepy? I mean...They go on the internet and pose as little kids...I mean, isn't that the same thing pedophiles do?

Also, doesn't Perverted Justice sound REALLY creepy? I mean...They go on the internet and pose as little kids...I mean, isn't that the same thing pedophiles do?

"All of us are now dumber having listened to your response. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Let me repeat it for you since you didn't get it the first time.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg

They tailor what they do specifically so it doesn't fall under entrapment.

MORBO!

Dateline doesn't intiate the converstaion. They just enter a chatroom and wait.

"All of us are now dumber having listened to your response. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

So now we have a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Man, maybe you'll respond to this post with yet another fallacy! Then we can have three! YAY!

So now we have a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Man, maybe you'll respond to this post with yet another fallacy! Then we can have three! YAY!
You have no room to talk Mr I-don't-know-what-a-pedophile-is

You have no room to talk Mr I-don't-know-what-a-pedophile-is

Oh boy...

You know, you really aren't worth my time.

Oh boy...

You know, you really aren't worth my time.
Good, I don't want to have to listen to you argue about things you don't know about.
They go on the internet and pose as little kids...I mean, isn't that the same thing pedophiles do?
NO
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4966/deedeedee6tz.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=deedeedee6tz.jpg)

Knock it off, the both of you. :rolleyes:

NO
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4966/deedeedee6tz.th.jpg (http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=deedeedee6tz.jpg)

Must you image spam the thread?

Forgive me if I don't feel bad for the pedophiles.


Supposed pedophiles, like supposed terrorists.

The law is the law, due process must be given regardless of what they stand accused of.

Double standard much?

I am not a legal attorney so I can't really argue these points. What I do know however is that these alleged molesters had been procesuted and found guilty before.

Really? Where's your source for this? Eh? Or are you just assuming? Which I'm sure you are.

You know, I thought guilty until proven innocent was something that ended several hundred years ago, but I guess not.

Supposed pedophiles, like supposed terrorists.
Supposed pedophiles like the people who ran cars into the airports in the UK the other day are supposed terrorists.

The law is the law, due process must be given regardless of what they stand accused of.
I'm sorry, do you people not know what the police are?

I'm sorry, do you people not know what the police are?

They aren't Dateline / the media, that's for sure.

Supposed pedophiles like the people who ran cars into the airports in the UK the other day are supposed terrorists.


I'm sorry, do you people not know what the police are?

Careful, you almost touched on an argument in the last two pages. Wouldn't want to accidentally break your streak of fallacies and you know actually address the topic rationally.

Knock it off, the both of you. :rolleyes:

When an average 12-year-old is telling you [the adult(s)] to knock it off, you must REALLY be acting childish.

Read it carefully.

ENGAGE, not INITIATE. big difference. You're Arguing INITIATATION OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, not just ENGAGEING. when you Initiate the illegal activity, you are inducing the illegal activity.

You missed a word there, Ju. Offer. They said not that he can pretend to be someone else and engage in an illegal activity. It says s/he can OFFER to engage. Offer means initiate. It says offer, not accept. Leaving that word out changes the meaning to what you're arguing. However, with that word, there is no getting around that it infers the initiation by the officer.

Now, in MY opinion, they're absolutly totally guilty. Absolutly.

WITH THAT SAID however, these private entities are outside the chain of evidence, and nothing they take should be considered in a court of criminal law. ARE they faking it? In my opinion, no.

COULD they fake it? By being out of the chain of evidence, yes. And the fact that, because they are out of the chain of evidence, they COULD fake it, even if they're not, should be enough to throw out anything they get in a criminal case. I think these men are guilty as sin. I don't think they should be criminally charged, because simply the proof is outside the chain of evidence, and thus should be inadmissable.

That's my position. PJ and TCAP are clearly in the wrong here. They have made ENORMOUS mistakes. However, I don't think that's the same as denying that these mean are almost certainly guilty.

EDIT: Totally quoted the wrong person and opinion.

When an average 12-year-old is telling you [the adult(s)] to knock it off, you must REALLY be acting childish.

13. But that still applies.

Wow. It's entrapment, except that it doesn't meat the elements of entrapment, it's hearsay, except that it isn't, and a private organization violates civil liberties.

The ignorance that has surfaced in this thread is astounding

Wow. It's entrapment, except that it doesn't meat the elements of entrapment, it's hearsay, except that it isn't, and a private organization violates civil liberties.

The ignorance that has surfaced in this thread is astounding

If you're at all referring to my post, I was intending to quote you when I agreed.

If you're at all referring to my post, I was intending to quote you when I agreed.

no, more of the general theme. For example, someone claiming a private organization violates civil liberties (they can't, constitutional limitations apply to government, not private entities), or that it's hearsay (except that statements made in furtherance of a criminal attempt or conspiracy are a hearsay exception) or that when police initiate an illegal opportunity it's entrapment. Which makes me wonder how they bust people for selling alchohol to minors, other than bringing the alchohol to the counter and beginning the illegal transaction...do they stand in the store and wait for someone to offer to sell them beer? It's like the cops are bloody vampires, they can't come in unless you invite them! You have to ask THEM otherwise it's entrapment.

Seriously this whole myth of "the police can't offer you drugs otherwise it's entrapment" is about as silly as "if you ask if he's a cop, he has to tell you!"

no, more of the general theme. For example, someone claiming a private organization violates civil liberties (they can't, constitutional limitations apply to government, not private entities), or that it's hearsay (except that statements made in furtherance of a criminal attempt or conspiracy are a hearsay exception) or that when police initiate an illegal opportunity it's entrapment. Which makes me wonder how they bust people for selling alchohol to minors, other than bringing the alchohol to the counter and beginning the illegal transaction...do they stand in the store and wait for someone to offer to sell them beer? It's like the cops are bloody vampires, they can't come in unless you invite them! You have to ask THEM otherwise it's entrapment.

Seriously this whole myth of "the police can't offer you drugs otherwise it's entrapment" is about as silly as "if you ask if he's a cop, he has to tell you!"
:)

I think I love you today.

You can't gather evidence while humiliating someone on national television.



You have to remember that the show isn't live. They don't show the cases where there is a doubt. They mask the faces of some if there is a question. Their lawyers review every inch of tape. There is really less risk of a mistake when a show waits several months before airing than the local nightly news with a live helicopter and live ground feeds.

Seriously this whole myth of "the police can't offer you drugs otherwise it's entrapment" is about as silly as "if you ask if he's a cop, he has to tell you!"

That is entrapment. If the policeman offers you drugs and you buy it, it is entrapment. If you walked up to a cop who has been playing a dealer and ask to buy drugs and exchange money for them, it isn't.

This TCAP is not entrapment, and if it was, you would have to have evidnce to that effect. The argument "it is entrapment because they show up there and get arrested!" is horse shit. If it was entrapment, they wouldn't have prosecuted people caught before.

That is entrapment. If the policeman offers you drugs and you buy it, it is entrapment. If you walked up to a cop who has been playing a dealer and ask to buy drugs and exchange money for them, it isn't.

Oh geez, not this shit again.

Where did you guys get your law degrees from again?

Oh geez, not this shit again.

Where did you guys get your law degrees from again?

Old Mill Diplomas.

Oh geez, not this shit again.

Where did you guys get your law degrees from again?

Urban Myth Uni, of course

That is entrapment. If the policeman offers you drugs and you buy it, it is entrapment. If you walked up to a cop who has been playing a dealer and ask to buy drugs and exchange money for them, it isn't.

This TCAP is not entrapment, and if it was, you would have to have evidnce to that effect. The argument "it is entrapment because they show up there and get arrested!" is horse shit. If it was entrapment, they wouldn't have prosecuted people caught before.

You should really try getting your understanding of the law from something other than police dramas. It would really help prevent you from saying such silly things. Or we could hope.

You should really try getting your understanding of the law from something other than police dramas. It would really help prevent you from saying such silly things. Or we could hope.

At least they're not watching horrible police dramas. We could wind up with someone explaining that it's well within the law to beat the crap out of suspects of a sex offense before any guilt has been established or even an explanation of why you're doing it has been given.

Oh geez, not this shit again.

Where did you guys get your law degrees from again?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source

Main Entry: en·trap·ment
Function: noun
1 : the action or process of entrapping <entrapment is un-American and has no place in law enforcement —Tip O'Neill>
2 : the state or condition of being entrapped; also : the affirmative defense of having been entrapped by a government agent (as an officer or informant) —see also PREDISPOSE
NOTE: Entrapment is available as a defense only when an agent of the state or federal government has provided the encouragement or inducement. This defense is sometimes allowed in administrative proceedings (as for the revocation of a license to practice medicine) as well as criminal proceedings. In order to establish entrapment, the defendant has the burden of proving either that he or she would not have committed the crime but for the undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent, or that the encouragement was such that it created a risk that persons not inclined to commit the crime would commit it, depending on the jurisdiction. When entrapment is pleaded, evidence (as character evidence) regarding the defendant that might otherwise have been excluded is allowed to be admitted.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Try again, skippy. If the officer, or entity condoned to do this stuff, initiates the proceedings that leads to an arrest, it is entrapment. The suspect must initiate proceedings and go through with them.

Let's see you argue the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law got their definition from a Cracker Jack Box.

Try again, skippy. If the officer, or entity condoned to do this stuff, initiates the proceedings that leads to an arrest, it is entrapment. The suspect must initiate proceedings and go through with them.

Let's see you argue the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law got their definition from a Cracker Jack Box.

Hey kids, I have an idea. Let's read our OWN bloody definition, shall we? It says:

In order to establish entrapment, the defendant has the burden of proving either that he or she would not have committed the crime but for the undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent, or that the encouragement was such that it created a risk that persons not inclined to commit the crime would commit it

"hey, want to buy some drugs" is not undue persuasion. I'ts not coersion, or manipulation, or strong arming, or anything. It's an offer to sell drugs. Nothing "undue" about that.

Likewise it's not indicative that "hey, want to buy some drugs" is such that it created a risk that people normally not inclined to commit the crime would commit it.

Why? BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE FUCKING DRUGS THATS WHY.

"wanna buy some pot" is not an offer you can't refuse. You can't argue that the police created a situation that would ensare otherwise law abiding citizens. "hey, want to buy some pot" isn't going to ensnare anyone, other than those willing to buy pot.

Jesus fucking christ people, what's with you guys and not even bothering to read your own sources?

And ok, here we go:

The lone fact that an undercover police officer, personally or through an informant, offers to purchase or obtain marijuana is not an inducement to commit a crime resulting in the availability of entrapment as a defense for the seller of the marijuana.


Source (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ne&vol=sc/072000/99-1235&invol=1)

And another:

The defense of entrapment also doesn't necessarily apply if the police officer simply asks the system operator to do something illegal and he does it.

From here (http://daimyo.org/node/218)

Want more, I got more:

In practice, it is relatively easy for the defendant to satisfy the first part of the test. "Inducement" has been defined expansively as "soliciting, proposing, initiating, broaching or suggesting the commission of the offense charged." (17) It is clear that inducement requires more than merely the furnishing of an opportunity for crime. (18) An offer to purchase drugs at market price, for example, is not an inducement.

Source (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3517958_ITM)

Are you sure you really want to continue down this road?

Hey kids, I have an idea. Let's read our OWN bloody definition, shall we? It says:



"hey, want to buy some drugs" is not undue persuasion. I'ts not coersion, or manipulation, or strong arming, or anything. It's an offer to sell drugs. Nothing "undue" about that.

Likewise it's not indicative that "hey, want to buy some drugs" is such that it created a risk that people normally not inclined to commit the crime would commit it.

Why? BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE FUCKING DRUGS THATS WHY.

"wanna buy some pot" is not an offer you can't refuse. You can't argue that the police created a situation that would ensare otherwise law abiding citizens. "hey, want to buy some pot" isn't going to ensnare anyone, other than those willing to buy pot.

Jesus fucking christ people, what's with you guys and not even bothering to read your own sources?


I was reading his source and thinking the same exact thing. Where does it say that the office cannot make the offer? Oh, wait, it doesn't.

In fact, let's just go right to the American Law Journal, Volume 12, 2nd edition:

The defendant's readiness, or even eagerness, to commit the crime, when given the opportunity, is considered strong evidence of his predisposition. In other words, evidence that the defendant readily committed the offense is viewed as evidence that the intent to commit the crime originated in his mind, rather than the mind of the agent or informer. Similarily, evidence that the defendant committed the offense without any extraordinary inducement or coercion on the part of the government agent or informer is also considered evidence of the defendant's predisposition to commit the offense.[FN19] Thus, where there is little more than mere solicitation by a government agent, followed by the defendant's ready sale of narcotics, there is no entrapment.[FN20]


Repeating that last line, just for emphasis. Where there is little more than mere solicitation by a government agent, followed by the defendant's ready sale of narcotics, there is no entrapment.

Read that, very carefully. When there is nothing more than solicitation, this is not entrapment.

Guys, I think Neo Art just won the debate.

Guys, I think Neo Art just won the debate.

Shhhh... it'll be more entertaining if they keep putting up sources that don't really support their argument.

Shhhh... it'll be more entertaining if they keep putting up sources that don't really support their argument.

You're right; it's great when they get their asses whupped by their own links.

Shhhh... it'll be more entertaining if they keep putting up sources that don't really support their argument.

see the problem is, my law knowledge comes from:

1) going to lawschool
2) studying for, and passing, the bar
3) working in a law firm
4) keeping up to date with various journals

Their law knowledge comes from...CSI apparently.

"Won't someone please think of the child molesters/perverts/pedophiles!?"

see the problem is, my law knowledge comes from:

1) going to lawschool
2) studying for, and passing, the bar
3) working in a law firm
4) keeping up to date with various journals

Their law knowledge comes from...CSI apparently.

Frankly, I don't have an issue with someone educated on a subject arguing with someone actually working in the field. It's certainly possible in a discipline such as law to get a good working knowledge of it and have never attended law school. Now, you may disagree given what you spent in law school, but I'm sure you've heard many non-lawyers make very good legal analyses. This is more important on the internet, where frankly, tph could claim to actually be a lawyer, and we couldn't necessarily say whether or not it was true.

What I take issue with is claiming to understand a subject better than someone educated on that subject when YOU KNOW you don't know a damn thing about it. Put in a music or art theory thread and if I start claiming to know better than some art historian or something like that, then I'm just being an ass. No more. No less.

I react to what people demonstrate, not what credentials they claim. What tph is posting is nonsensical drivel whether or not he's passed the BAR or not. In fact, I'd argue that I've seen armchair lawyers make much better legal analysis of various cases than that lunatic, Thomas.

"Won't someone please think of the child molesters/perverts/pedophiles!?"

Ah, yes, the old, we know they're bad so we don't need to do things like follow the law when prosecuting and persecuting them. The mentality of lynch mobs, used to such positive effect in the past.

Frankly, I don't have an issue with someone educated on a subject arguing with someone actually working in the field. It's certainly possible in a discipline such as law to get a good working knowledge of it and have never attended law school. Now, you may disagree given what you spent in law school, but I'm sure you've heard many non-lawyers make very good legal analyses. This is more important on the internet, where frankly, tph could claim to actually be a lawyer, and we couldn't necessarily say whether or not it was true.

What I take issue with is claiming to understand a subject better than someone educated on that subject when YOU KNOW you don't know a damn thing about it. Put in a music or art theory thread and if I start claiming to know better than some art historian or something like that, then I'm just being an ass. No more. No less.

I react to what people demonstrate, not what credentials they claim. What tph is posting is nonsensical drivel whether or not he's passed the BAR or not. In fact, I'd argue that I've seen armchair lawyers make much better legal analysis of various cases than that lunatic, Thomas.

I agree with you to an extent. THe problem is many people have views of law that rest in the extremes. Some view it as this strange mystical thing that normal folks just don't understand and it takes these wierd creatures known as lawyers to pierce the veil of gooblygook.

Others of course think law is as simple as picking up a legal dictionary and citing a source going "SEE???"

The truth is, it lies in the middle. Law...it's not EASY per se, but it's not impossible either. It's possible that someone without formal training could have a grasp of the law good enough to hold thier own against a lawyer. Sure, it's possible.

It's not easy though.

The problem is, and it's what gets me mad, is that people don't respect law as a profession. Yes, laypeople can learn law on their own volition. And those that do can discuss law. Likewise people can earn medicine on their own volition, and discuss medicine.

But people who KNOW they don't know shit about medicine won't bother. Yet people seem to believe they just magically intrinsicaly KNOW about law. That they can, with NO training, formal or informal, look up a legal definition and just magically intuit what it means. And that is disrespectful of the profession.

Now yes, again, people CAN know law without being a lawyer, but it's not something that just enters your brain. you can't just "figure it out", and people think they can.

Things in law don't always mean in law what they mean in common speech. Words mean different things. You look at a legal definition written with legal terms, unless you KNOW what those terms mean, you don't understand the definition. You just don't.

Again, I don't think it is disrepectful to argue with me. If you know what you're talking about, go ahead. But, as a lawyer, I can tell when you don't know what you're talking about. I can tell because you throw up a definition that doesn't mean at al lwhat you think it means. You don't have any real training, formal or informal, and yet you INSIST on arguing with me. And you KNOW you don't have any training, but you insist on believing you understand it anyway.

THAT is disrepectful to my profession. The belief that, somehow, magically and mystically, you're going to just intuit something that I have spent years learning.

Hey kids, I have an idea. Let's read our OWN bloody definition, shall we? It says:



"hey, want to buy some drugs" is not undue persuasion. I'ts not coersion, or manipulation, or strong arming, or anything. It's an offer to sell drugs. Nothing "undue" about that.

Likewise it's not indicative that "hey, want to buy some drugs" is such that it created a risk that people normally not inclined to commit the crime would commit it.

Why? BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT THE FUCKING DRUGS THATS WHY.

"wanna buy some pot" is not an offer you can't refuse. You can't argue that the police created a situation that would ensare otherwise law abiding citizens. "hey, want to buy some pot" isn't going to ensnare anyone, other than those willing to buy pot.

Jesus fucking christ people, what's with you guys and not even bothering to read your own sources?
Let's not skip the important part
Entrapment is available as a defense only when an agent of the state or federal government has provided the encouragement or inducement.
I assume you need inducement and encouragement defined.

Looks like some one that isn't me got their law degrees from a Cracker Jack Box.



I would also demand you show how all your proof about undercover officers offering to buy illegal substances is relevant to officers offering to sell illegal substances.

Let's not skip the important part

I assume you need inducement and encouragement defined.

Not at all, considering I've already noted that under law, mere offering does not meet the definition of inducement.

As you said, let's not skip the important part.

Looks like some one that isn't me got their law degrees from a Cracker Jack Box.

Well whomever that person is, still knows more law than you.

I would also demand you show how all your proof about undercover officers offering to buy illegal substances is relevant to officers offering to sell illegal substances.

Because as a general proposition, as I have noted, furnishing an offer to commit an illegal act is not inducement. If you knew anything about law you would already realize that the general proposition of "the police can make first contact applies broadly.

Unless of course you believe that if a cop comes up to you and says "hey, want to sell me some drugs" this is not entrapment but somehow, magically, "hey, want to buy some drugs" is. Sorry, I don't make it my business to disprove magic. As i have already cited:

The defense of entrapment also doesn't necessarily apply if the police officer simply asks the system operator to do something illegal and he does it.

Nothing about buying OR selling, merely that it is not apply if the police simply ask you to do something illegal.

Give it up already, you've lost.

Let's not skip the important part

I assume you need inducement and encouragement defined.

It means they had to do more than ask, actually. We don't need it defined, because it's clear how it's applied. In matters of law, it's a fact, that a law enforcement agent can ask a person if they'd like to buy a joint. Inducement or encouragement would require coersion or some further attempt to talk them into it.

Since you asked. From M-W, your source.

Inducement - a motive or consideration that leads one to action or to additional or more effective actions

That means that if they offer them something that would specifically cause the crime, point a gun at them, offer them five times the worth, etc. The motive for the act would have to have been supplied by the officer. A simple offer is not a motive for performing the action.

I assume you don't need further explanation of encouragement. Certainly you know the difference between "would you like to buy a joint" and "come on, buy a joint. It'll make your chick want you." There is no evidence of inducement or encouragement in "wanna buy X"



Looks like some one that isn't me got their law degrees from a Cracker Jack Box.

Thus, where there is little more than mere solicitation by a government agent, followed by the defendant's ready sale of narcotics, there is no entrapment.

It's not a question whether the law disagrees with you. It's a fact.


I would also demand you show how all your proof about undercover officers offering to buy illegal substances is relevant to officers offering to sell illegal substances.

Ha. Actually, the burden is on you. You're making the positive suggestion, that there is a material difference in matters of law related to buying or selling. Provide your proof.

and let me supply the quote, ONE MORE TIME:

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.


Read this part again

For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person.

One more time, JUST IN CASE you missed it

For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person.

it says, right there, in plain english, A direct offer to engage in unlawful transactions, A DIRECT OFFER is not entrapment. It doesn't say anything about buying. It doesn't say anything about selling. It doesn't say anything about offering sex for money, it doesn't say anything about offering money for sex. It makes no distinction what so ever. All it says is that EVEN IF the police make a DIRECT OFFER of illegal activity, merely offering, even directly offering

IS

NOT

ENTRAPMENT

Seriously, get that through your head, you have provided nothing, NOTHING to indicate otherwise.

Unless of course you believe that if a cop comes up to you and says "hey, want to sell me some drugs" this is not entrapment but somehow, magically, "hey, want to buy some drugs" is.
So you can't answer my question? For some one that went to law school there seems to be a lack of recognition of nuance.
It is alot easier to make the entrapment defense when you are offered drugs then when you go around seeking them out or have them on you ready to sell.

*snip*

Please don't do that, Art. He's wrong. It's obvious to everyone except him. Getting overly incensed lends credibility to him, not you.

So you can't answer my question? For some one that went to law school there seems to be a lack of recognition of nuance.

You've not demonstrated there there is any material difference. You do realize that you have to demonstrate it exists before proof is required to show that difference doesn't.

So you can't answer my question? For some one that went to law school there seems to be a lack of recognition of nuance.

I've answered your question, many times. The burden is on you to demonstrate why the law involving police buying drugs is somehow different from police selling drugs.

COnsidering you have failed to understand even the simplist of definitions, I'm not the one missing nuances.

Again, give it up, you've failed.

I've answered your question, many times. The burden is on you to demonstrate why the law involving police buying drugs is somehow different from police selling drugs.
The entrapment defense is easier to make when you are offered drugs than it is if you have drugs on you ready to sell or if you go around actively seeking them out.


Again, give it up, you've failed.
You can listen to whatever Jocabia is babbling about if you want, but I fail to see where you have won anything.

Please don't do that, Art. He's wrong. It's obvious to everyone except him. Getting overly incensed lends credibility to him, not you.

not overly incensed in the slightest. He has demonstrated a direct inability to read the words on the screen, so I made sure the text was nice and big for him.

The entrapment defense is easier to make when you are offered drugs than it is if you have drugs on you ready to sell or if you go around actively seeking them out.

No, it's not. HOw about you read the quote i have supplied to you 3 times now?

You can listen to whatever Jocabia is babbling about if you want, but I fail to see where you have won anything.

You failing to understand something isn't that surprising today.

so I made sure the text was nice and big for him.
Then I assume you have no intention of wanting me to read it.

Then I assume you have no intention of wanting me to read it.

A statement that is not surprising from you, given your propensity to defy all logic and reasoned understanding.

Let me guess, the sky is green, grass is blue and water isn't wet, right?

Then I assume you have no intention of wanting me to read it.

You've demonstrated that you are unwilling to read anything that disagrees with you. You've presented evidence of your own that shows what entrapment is and isn't. More importantly, it's a fact of law, that the entrapment defense does not work the way you say. Not a guess, not a possibility.

I'll tell you what. Provide one case, just one case, where a person in the US was declared not guilty simply and solely because an officer went up to them and said "wanna buy a joint" or something similar. No other coersion or inducement. Just the question. Certainly you can provide examples, since it's illegal and must get thrown out of court all the time. We'll wait.

Snip bullshit.

PJ are not cops. The media are not cops. Neither are entitled to publicly humiliate people.

Got it now?

Also, what were you insinuating back there? Don't for a moment think I forgot you did not answer me.

You have to remember that the show isn't live. They don't show the cases where there is a doubt. They mask the faces of some if there is a question. Their lawyers review every inch of tape. There is really less risk of a mistake when a show waits several months before airing than the local nightly news with a live helicopter and live ground feeds.

Public humiliation is cruel and unusual punishment.

Having people yelling at you with a camera WILL change what you say to the cops, guilty or innocent.

Media is not the law.

No, it's not. HOw about you read the quote i have supplied to you 3 times now?
So your argument is that there is no ability to argue the entrapment defense because there is intent? How do you establish intent to buy when the officer is there offering the drugs to anyone that comes up?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ne&vol=sc/072000/99-1235&invol=1
7. Criminal Law: Entrapment: Intent. Under “the origin of intent” test, the defendant was entrapped if (1) the government induced the defendant to commit the offense charged and (2) the defendant’s predisposition to commit the criminal act was such that the defendant was not otherwise ready and willing to commit the offense on any propitious opportunity.

Do you reject the assertion that intent to buy is harder to prove when the drugs are offered to the defendant than when they actively ask for drugs or have drugs on them to sell? Is the "origin of intent" test somehow equally as hard to use when they have drugs on them as it is when an officer asks them if they want to buy some drugs?


PJ are not cops. The media are not cops. Neither are entitled to publicly humiliate people.
The cops who arrest them are. Maybe you should watch the fucking thing before coming here spouting bullshit?

OK, enough of this nonsense. YOu don't believe me. OK. You want proof that comes out directly and says "merely asking someone if they want drugs is not entrapment? Fine.


FACTS

J.D.W. and a friend went to the Layton Hills Mall to buy a musical compact disc. While there, they were approached by officer Dave Wakefield of the Davis Metro Narcotics Strike Force. Wakefield asked if they were interested in a smoke. J.D.W.'s friend asked “smoke what?” and Wakefield made a gesture simulating smoking marijuana. Wakefield told them that he had some marijuana and hashish and that if they were interested they could go outside and look at it. J.D.W. and his friend thereupon followed Wakefield outside. Once outside, J.D.W.'s friend stopped while J.D.W. and Wakefield continued on a short distance further. Wakefield presented J.D.W. a baggy containing marijuana. J.D.W. took the baggy, “separated the buds from the shake” and smelled the contents.FN1 Wakefield also offered J.D.W. the hashish, but J.D.W. refused it. J.D.W. asked how much the marijuana cost. Wakefield told him that it was $35. J.D.W. only had a $100 bill and offered to go get change. Wakefield told J.D.W. that he could make change, whereupon J.D.W. paid Wakefield, who then gave J.D.W. the marijuana and the change. Wakefield then arrested J.D.W. for possession of a controlled substance.


FN1. Wakefield later testified that J.D.W.'s actions indicated that he “had a knowledge of marijuana, that he'd been around it, because somebody who doesn't know about that wouldn't even think [to separate the buds from the shake.]”


J.D.W. was charged in a juvenile court petition with one count of possession of a controlled substance, a class B misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-8(2)(a)(i) (1994). J.D.W. filed a motion to dismiss based on a claim of entrapment. After an evidentiary hearing on J.D.W.'s motion to dismiss, the trial court issued a memorandum decision in which it determined, based on the facts, that J.D.W. was not entrapped. J.D.W. entered a conditional guilty plea in which he preserved his right to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. See State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935, 938-40 (Utah App.1988). The issue on appeal is whether J.D.W. was entrapped, as a matter of law, when he purchased marijuana from an undercover police officer.



ANALYSIS
Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or a person directed by or acting in cooperation with the officer induces the commission of an offense in order to obtain evidence of the commission ... creating a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by one not otherwise ready to commit it. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment.

Several factors must be considered in determining whether government action induces criminal activity or, conversely, if it merely affords a person the opportunity to participate in criminal activity. State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496, 503 (Utah 1979). “[T]he transactions leading up to the offense, the interaction between the agent and the defendant, and the response to the inducements of the agent” must all be evaluated. Id. Moreover, “[e]xtreme pleas of desperate illness or *1244 appeals based primarily on sympathy, pity, or close personal friendship, or offers of inordinate sums of money, are examples, depending on an evaluation of circumstances in each case, of what might constitute prohibited police conduct.” Id. Additionally, excessive pressure or goading by an undercover officer might constitute entrapment. State v. Sprague, 680 P.2d 404, 406 (Utah 1984). Because entrapment is such a highly fact-intensive defense, we defer to the fact-finder's determination, unless we hold it to be erroneous, as a matter of law. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936-38 (Utah 1994); accord Beddoes, 890 P.2d at 3.

[5] The facts in the record support the trial court's determination that, by merely providing the opportunity for a drug purchase, Wakefield did not engage in any activity that “would be effective to persuade an average person ... to commit the offense.” Taylor, 599 P.2d at 503.FN2 Wakefield did not rely on any type of close, personal relationship to induce J.D.W. to buy the marijuana. See id. at 503-04 (holding that defendant's former lover and close friend played on his pity while she apparently withdrew from heroin addiction). Wakefield did not offer J.D.W. inordinate amounts of money, or large quantities of marijuana for an extremely low price. Rather, Wakefield used the market rate to determine the price of the marijuana. Furthermore, Wakefield did not make repeated requests or badger J.D.W. to buy the marijuana. Cf. Sprague, 680 P.2d at 406 (holding that agent entrapped defendant by goading defendant and repeatedly requesting drugs from him). J.D.W. immediately responded positively to Wakefield's offer. Despite the trial court's discomfort about some of Wakefield's actions, the trial court determined that Wakefield did not entrap J.D.W. under the standards set forth by the Utah Legislature.FN3 We cannot say, as a matter of law, that J.D.W. was entrapped. We therefore defer to the trial court's resolution of the issue.

Affirmed.


State v. J.D.W.,910 P.2d 1242, Utah App.,1995.

There it is, black and white. Cop goes up to random person. Cop offers to sell person drugs. Person accepts. Cop arrests. Ruled not to be entrapment. That's EXACTLY your position. There it is, right there, not entrapment.

I expect you to concede now.

OK, enough of this nonsense. YOu don't believe me. OK. You want proof that comes out directly and says "merely asking someone if they want drugs is not entrapment? Fine.
Your degree in law has you doing what? Flipping burgers? You can't even answer a simple question?

I expect you to concede now.
After you answer the actual question at hand instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

The cops who arrest them on easily falsifiable evidence, humiliating them in front of the media when, as far as we know, they might have been invited for a legal activity and PJ might have altered the logs, are. Maybe you should watch the fucknig thing before coming here spouting bullshit?

Fixed.

Also...

What were you insinuating back there? Tell me. Now. Or admit you have no courage to.

So your argument is that there is no ability to argue the entrapment defense because there is intent? How do you establish intent to buy when the officer is there offering the drugs to anyone that comes up?

Entrapment is a specific defense and as you'll find it requires that this defense meet certain criteria. He's explaining the criteria to you and you're ignoring it, claiming that it's enough if the officer asked first. By fact, it's not enough, and I challenge you find a single case where it was.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ne&vol=sc/072000/99-1235&invol=1


Do you reject the assertion that intent to buy is harder to prove when the drugs are offered to the defendant than when they actively ask for drugs or have drugs on them to sell?

You didn't say it was harder. You said it was illegal. Meanwhile, you bolded half the requirements but the connector is AND. That means it has to mean 1) which requires some level of coersion.


The cops woh arrest them are. Maybe you should watch the fucknig thing before coming here spouting bullshit?

The problem that is being pointed out is that PJ is who is controlling the evidence and this is what creates the problem in prosecution.

Fixed.
No, you fail. The end.

Why exactly is TPH arguing about law? He's showed time and again he doesn't give a damn about it.

Your degree in law has you doing what? Flipping burgers? You can't even answer a simple question?


After you answer the actual question at hand instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

There is a difference between him not answering and you not understanding the response. He has explicitly answered repeatedly. You fail to recognize an answer when you get it.

No, you fail. The end.

1- Tell me why I fail.

2- Tell me what you were insinuating.

Why exactly is TPH arguing about law? He's showed time and again he doesn't give a damn about it.

Because unlike you, I'm not totally incompetent nad because Neo Art thinks himself some sort of law savant despite his inability to answer my question about actual application.

Your degree in law has you doing what? Flipping burgers? You can't even answer a simple question?

Are fucking blind? I just gave you a case that said EXACTLY what you were asking for.

After you answer the actual question at hand instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

Oh my god....dude, look. Look at my post. I gave you a case that had EXACTLY what you were asking for. Cop goes to random person, cop offers to sell drugs, person accepts, cop arrests, no entrapment.

What more answer do you WANT? There it is, black and white case law. That's it, no more, game over. You lost. No more debate, no more us arguing over interpretation. There's the court who said it, clear as day. There it is, it's law.

What the fuck more can you POSSIBLY want?

Fixed.

Also...

What were you insinuating back there? Tell me. Now. Or admit you have no courage to.

How do you think an admission is going to help you? The mods are not idiots. They know what he meant, you know what he meant, I know what he meant. It wasn't subtle. If either of you think the difference between being modded is an admission, you're patently wrong.

Because unlike you, I'm not totally incompetent nad because Neo Art thinks himself some sort of law savant despite his inability to answer my question about actual application.

So I remind you of the basics of due process and I am the incompetent one. Cute.

Also, what were you insinuating back there?

Because unlike you, I'm not totally incompetent nad because Neo Art thinks himself some sort of law savant despite his inability to answer my question about actual application.

Dude, SERIOUSLY now. I got you a REAL CASE. I cited you ACTUAL LAW about ACTUAL PEOPLE in an ACTUAL SITUATION. There it is, clear as day, an actual case where the police approached a stranger and asked him if he wanted drugs. No entrapment.

It's done, give up. I just cited case law to disprove you. What more could you possibly want? For me to drag the judge to your house and explain it to you himself?

Because unlike you, I'm not totally incompetent nad because Neo Art thinks himself some sort of law savant despite his inability to answer my question about actual application.

Neo Art quoted an actual case to you that shows that what he says is true. Again, if what you say is true, you should be able to find a case where the judge threw out a case based on entrapment that was "hey, wanna buy some bud?"

How do you think an admission is going to help you? The mods are not idiots. They know what he meant, you know what he meant, I know what he meant. It wasn't subtle. If either of you think the difference between being modded is an admission, you're patently wrong.

I still want to force it. Mostly to see if he has the guts.

So I remind you of the basics of due process and I am the incompetent one. Cute.

Also, what were you insinuating back there?

Stop asking that stupid question. Who cares? It's not going to help you to keep asking and it might in fact hurt you since you seem to be trying to bait him by questioning his manhood.

In fact, as I red this closer, I note that the defendants name is in initials. That means he's a juvenile. It's a lot easier to prove entrapment for a juvenile since under law children are assumed to be less aware than adults, and thus certain comments by police which would otherwise not entrap an adult may still entrap an unsophisticated juvenile.

Since this case ruled that this wasn't even enough to entrap a juvenile, there's NO WAY it can entrap an adult.

Stop asking that stupid question. Who cares? It's not going to help you to keep asking and it might in fact hurt you since you seem to be trying to bait him by questioning his manhood.

Oh, it's not manhood. It's willingness to stand up for what he said, of which he has shown none.

I think I can explain why Jocabia and Neo Art are wrong:

Because when one is hunting the evil pedos then silly things like facts and law are irrelevant. Both can easily be twisted or ignored after we have the evil pedos in jail.

In fact, as I red this closer, I note that the defendants name is in initials. That means he's a juvenile. It's a lot easier to prove entrapment for a juvenile since under law children are assumed to be less aware than adults, and thus certain comments by police which would otherwise not entrap an adult may still entrap an unsophisticated juvenile.

Since this case ruled that this wasn't even enough to entrap a juvenile, there's NO WAY it can entrap an adult.

Ask him to provide a case that demonstrates that one CAN successfully argue entrapment for an officer simply asking you if you'd like to buy drugs or if you'd like to sell drugs. Certainly if what he says is true, it must happen all the time, no?

Is this thread done being derailed now? The point is that some people think the inordinate amount of evidence against the alleged pedophiles isn't enough, some of this hinging upon a debate about the definition of entrapment as if anyone with a braincell doesn't know what it is already.

Heik is also way too emotionally involved in this thread, and should go take a breather for a few hours before he decides to come back.

Back to the topic at hand: has anyone proven in any case whatsoever that the alleged pedophiles aren't guilty without calling upon unsubstantiated hypotheticals whilst also hiding behind the sentence "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Oh, it's not manhood. It's willingness to stand up for what he said, of which he has shown none.

Like I said, pressing this further is a mistake. You keep stating this stuff and it's just going to create trouble for you.

Are fucking blind? I just gave you a case that said EXACTLY what you were asking for.
"This snake has two heads, therefore all snakes have two heads."
Hasty generalization. Fallacy.

Are you rejecting the assertion that intent is easier to prove when the defendant actively seeks out illegal substances or when they have illegal substances on them ready to sell than it is to prove intent when the cop puts forth the idea of the drug sale?

If you reject that assertion, for what reason do you put forward for the existence of the entrapment defense?


Oh my god....dude, look. Look at my post. I gave you a case that had EXACTLY what you were asking for. Cop goes to random person, cop offers to sell drugs, person accepts, cop arrests, no entrapment.
And I agree with the court's ruling in that case, it still doesn't answer the question.
And to prove I can bold relevant portions of the case too.

FN1. Wakefield later testified that J.D.W.'s actions indicated that he “had a knowledge of marijuana, that he'd been around it, because somebody who doesn't know about that wouldn't even think [to separate the buds from the shake.”

What more answer do you WANT? There it is, black and white case law. That's it, no more, game over. You lost. No more debate, no more us arguing over interpretation. There's the court who said it, clear as day. There it is, it's law.
Under the judicial system in Neo Art land, there would be one case creating precedence and any case similar would be ignored and ruled exactly how the original was ruled. Every case is not the same, that is why the courts hear the same type of cases over and over.

State v. Taylor, 599 P.2d 496, 503 (Utah 1979). “[T]he transactions leading up to the offense, the interaction between the agent and the defendant, and the response to the inducements of the agent” must all be evaluated. Id. Moreover, “[e]xtreme pleas of desperate illness or *1244 appeals based primarily on sympathy, pity, or close personal friendship, or offers of inordinate sums of money, are examples, depending on an evaluation of circumstances in each case, of what might constitute prohibited police conduct.” Id. Additionally, excessive pressure or goading by an undercover officer might constitute entrapment. State v. Sprague, 680 P.2d 404, 406 (Utah 1984). Because entrapment is such a highly fact-intensive defense, we defer to the fact-finder's determination, unless we hold it to be erroneous, as a matter of law.

Ask him to provide a case that demonstrates that one CAN successfully argue entrapment for an officer simply asking you if you'd like to buy drugs or if you'd like to sell drugs. Certainly if what he says is true, it must happen all the time, no?

Even though you are correct, the burden is on him, I'm not going to do that, for one reason.

he's not a lawyer. As such he neither has access to the research resources necessary to find such a thing, nor the knowledge of how to conduct a search even if he did.

Therefore his failure to find a case to support his proposition would not be a de facto rejection of his position, given that he lacks the tools and sophistication to find such a thing. I don't want to give him the opportunity to argue that his failure to find such a thing was due to his inability to find it, rather than that such a thing does not exist.

Regardless, I have already provided him case law to prove him wrong. There's really nothing more he can say at this point.

Is this thread done being derailed now? The point is that some people think the inordinate amount of evidence against the alleged pedophiles isn't enough, some of this hinging upon a debate about the definition of entrapment as if anyone with a braincell doesn't know what it is already.

Heik is also way too emotionally involved in this thread, and should go take a breather for a few hours before he decides to come back.

Back to the topic at hand: has anyone proven in any case whatsoever that the alleged pedophiles aren't guilty without calling upon unsubstantiated hypotheticals whilst also hiding behind the sentence "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Sadly, in this country, innocent until proven guilty is EXACTLY what they'll hide behind. I know. I wish it didn't exist and we could just throw everyone in jail who couldn't prove they were innocent, but there it is.

They are likely guilty, but as we haven't seen the evidence and it is legally unreliable it's not all that likely they'll actually be proven guilty. And absent that, they've got a pretty decent argument for a lawsuit, I'd say (though I admit I'm much less familiar with civil law).

Heik is also way too emotionally involved in this thread, and should go take a breather for a few hours before he decides to come back.

I got called incompetent and insinuated as a pedophile. And yet I have yet to insult either you or him. It's pretty damn funny that you claim I got too emotionally involved. Was that before or after I got called a pedophile and a pro-pedophile by you two?

Back to the topic at hand: has anyone proven in any case whatsoever that the alleged pedophiles aren't guilty without calling upon unsubstantiated hypotheticals whilst also hiding behind the sentence "Innocent until proven guilty"?

We don't need to prove a negative, especially in a case in which people with no competence have complete control over the evidence. Due process law is one of the basis of any democracy. And public humiliation and people with interest in a sensational event having control over the evidence aren't due process.

Sadly, in this country, innocent until proven guilty is EXACTLY what they'll hide behind. I know. I wish it didn't exist and we could just throw everyone in jail who couldn't prove they were innocent, but there it is.

Strawman = fail.

They are likely guilty, but as we haven't seen the evidence and it is legally unreliable it's not all that likely they'll actually be proven guilty. And absent that, they've got a pretty decent argument for a lawsuit, I'd say (though I admit I'm much less familiar with civil law).

No one is arguing that they shouldn't get a trial. People are arguing that based upon the evidence they are guilty. The former does not invalidate the later.

Something you all seem to forget when hiding behind an ideological statement.

Um, I'm really not sure what the fuck you're trying to prove here. yes, the court does clearly say that if the cop used pressure or undue influence that would be entrapment.

No shit. I've said that the whole time. That, however, isn't the question.

The question is, is a cop coming up to someone and saying "do you want pot" entrapment. That's it. NOt, does the cop pressure the defendant, not does the cop coerce the defendant, not does the cop threaten the defendant, none of that. That's never been the issue, and if you want to try and argue that SOMETIMES the cop can do something that WILL make it entrapment I say again, no shit.

But the fact is you're emphasizing things that have NOTHING to do with a situation when a cop goes up to someone and says "do you want pot?" That alone is not enough to substantiate entrapment. The fact is that IF the cop did other things that MIGHT make it entrapment is not only irrelevant, it's obvious. And the fact that you're so desperate to try and point out the fact that IF the cop did OTHER THING that it might be entrapment only shows that you are incapable of showing that if the cop does nothing more than offer drugs, it's not entrapment.

I said pages upon pages ago that IF a cop tries to add undue influence then it's entrapment. I don't see the point in you trying to convince me of that. I know that. Everybody who has the slightest familiarity of the law knows that. However, as this court ruled, simply asking if someone wants to buy drugs is not undue influence.

Yes, entrapment is fact sensitive. Congratulations, you've just proved something everyone knows. And the facts must be evaluated to determine if undue influence has occured. ANd this court ruled that merely offering drugs is not enough. You need more. IF there had been more, it might have been entrapment. But there wasn't more. It was merely an offer of drugs. And merely offering drugs is not sufficient facts to substantiate an entrapment claim. That's exactly what the case says. Are you trying ot argue that if the cop did more than merely offer drugs then it might have been entrapment? Well, no shit.

Except that's not at all what you've been saying.

You don't have a leg to stand on here.

"This snake has two heads, therefore all snakes have two heads."
Hasty generalization. Fallacy.

The reason he has to do that is because you refuse to meet your burden of proof. You said that entrapment is defined a certain way. As such even if he provides millions of cases supporting him, they will never prove that a case cannot be decided the way you claim. As such the burden is on you.

Meanwhile, the case says clearly that the asking of a question does not mean entrapment. That's not the same as finding an example that supports him. It's actually finding an evaluation by an expert that supports. Very different.

You've misapplied the fallacy. Not that this is surprising, since you don't have any other defense at this point.

Are you rejecting the assertion that intent is easier to prove when the defendant actively seeks out illegal substances or when they have illegal substances on them ready to sell than it is to prove intent when the cop puts forth the idea of the drug sale?

If you reject that assertion, for what reason do you put forward for the existence of the entrapment defense?

And I agree with the court's ruling in that case, it still doesn't answer the question.
And to prove I can bold relevant portions of the case too.



Under the judicial system in Neo Art land, there would be one case creating precedence and any case similar would be ignored and ruled exactly how the original was ruled. Every case is not the same, that is why the courts here the same type of cases over and over.

Again, did you read you're own case? This is just ludicrous. It said explicitly what NA is arguing. It rules directly against you. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not just taking a piss here. How in the hell could you read what you quoted and think it helps you?

Even though you are correct, the burden is on him, I'm not going to do that, for one reason.

he's not a lawyer. As such he neither has access to the research resources necessary to find such a thing, nor the knowledge of how to conduct a search even if he did.

Jacobson v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540)
Sorrells v. United States I believe as well.

Back to the topic at hand: has anyone proven in any case whatsoever that the alleged pedophiles aren't guilty without calling upon unsubstantiated hypotheticals whilst also hiding behind the sentence "Innocent until proven guilty"?

I'd like to re-iterate something. Being a paedophile is not a crime, nor is paedophile synonymous with child molester.

Also, until they are proven guilty they are innocent, it's not just a saying, it's how the law works in America.

Also, proving a negative is not something one does with ease.

No one is arguing that they shouldn't get a trial. People are arguing that based upon the evidence they are guilty. The former does not invalidate the later.

Something you all seem to forget when hiding behind an ideological statement.

Even assuming they're guilty, they shouldn't be exposed to public humiliation AT LEAST until they went through due process!

I got called incompetent and insinuated as a pedophile. And yet I have yet to insult either you or him. It's pretty damn funny that you claim I got too emotionally involved. Was that before or after I got called a pedophile and a pro-pedophile by you two?

Grow some thicker skin, we all get called names eventually, not that I've called you anything because talking to you is antithetical to pleasure.

We don't need to prove a negative, especially in a case in which people with no competence have complete control over the evidence. Due process law is one of the basis of any democracy. And public humiliation and people with interest in a sensational event having control over the evidence aren't due process.

Unsubstantiated claims: They're not guilty because they are innocent. PJ is incompetent. America is a Democracy and due process is being invalidated. That being publicly humiliated is illegal. NBC is tampering with evidence.

See everything above? Prove it, or stop posting.

Strawman = fail.

Uh-huh. Did you or did you not ask us to ignore innocent until proven guilty. We can't because this is the US and when we talk about legal guilt in the US that is applies.


No one is arguing that they shouldn't get a trial. People are arguing that based upon the evidence they are guilty. The former does not invalidate the later.

Something you all seem to forget when hiding behind an ideological statement.

No one here has actually seen the evidence. We don't actually know how they ended up in those houses. You cannot argue based on the evidence. Based on what we know, is it likely they are guilty? I'd say pretty damned likely. Does that mean every one of them is guilty? Nope. It can't. And to pretend to know they are guilty is simply just using a lynch mob mentality. It has nothing to do with logical application.

I'd love to analyze the evidence. Since you have it can you provide it unedited for entertainment value?

Grow some thicker skin, we all get called names eventually, not that I've called you anything because talking to you is antithetical to pleasure.



Unsubstantiated claims: They're not guilty because they are innocent. PJ is incompetent. America is a Democracy and due process is being invalidated. That being publicly humiliated is illegal. NBC is tampering with evidence.

See everything above? Prove it, or stop posting.

The burden of proof is on you. You want everyone to assume guilt if they can't be proven innocent. You're claiming to know they are guilty, can you provide evidence that meets even the basic standards of evidence?

I'd like to re-iterate something. Being a paedophile is not a crime, nor is paedophile synonymous with child molester.

Within the context of this discussion the pedophiles here are the kind that get arrested. What's your point?

Also, until they are proven guilty they are innocent, it's not just a saying, it's how the law works in America.

Innocent until proven guilty is not equatable with what everyone demands here. It's never meant that, it will never mean that, and no amount of crying will change that fact.

Also, proving a negative is not something one does with ease.

They're innocent! (Absolute statement). They're guilty / likely guilty! (Mounds of evidence buttress this absolute statement).

Where's the evidence they are innocent again?

Grow some thicker skin, we all get called names eventually, not that I've called you anything because talking to you is antithetical to pleasure.

I'm pointing out that I'm not the one that got "emotional" here, kid.

Uh-huh. Did you or did you not ask us to ignore innocent until proven guilty. We can't because this is the US and when we talk about legal guilt in the US that is applies.

Nope. Never asked that.

No one here has actually seen the evidence. We don't actually know how they ended up in those houses. You cannot argue based on the evidence. Based on what we know, is it likely they are guilty? I'd say pretty damned likely. Does that mean every one of them is guilty? Nope. It can't. And to pretend to know they are guilty is simply just using a lynch mob mentality. It has nothing to do with logical application.

Not my fault you've never seen an episode of the show, because otherwise the Big Fucking Mountain Range (TM) of evidence would be rather blatantly staring you in the face. The trial will sort out who is guilty and who is not, as it always has with a non-appreciable margin of error.

I'd love to analyze the evidence. Since you have it can you provide it unedited for entertainment value?

Look on youtube.

Jacobson v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540)

Hmm...

At a time when federal law permitted such conduct, petitioner Jacobson ordered and received from a bookstore two Bare Boys magazines containing photographs of nude preteen and teenage boys. Subsequently, the Child Protection Act of 1984 made illegal the receipt through the mails of sexually explicit depictions of children. After finding Jacobson's name on the bookstore mailing list, two Government agencies sent mail to him through five fictitious organizations and a bogus pen pal, to explore his willingness to break the law. Many of those organizations represented that they were founded to protect and promote sexual freedom and freedom of choice, and that they promoted lobbying efforts through catalog sales. Some mailings raised the spectre of censorship. Jacobson responded to some of the correspondence. After 2 1/2 years on the Government mailing list, Jacobson was solicited to order child pornography. He answered a letter that described concern about child pornography as hysterical nonsense and decried international censorship, and then received a catalog and ordered a magazine depicting young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was arrested after a controlled delivery of a photocopy of the magazine, but a search of his house revealed no materials other than those sent by the Government and the Bare Boys magazines. At his jury trial, he pleaded entrapment and testified that he had been curious to know the type of sexual actions to which the last letter referred, and that he had been shocked by the Bare Boys magazines, because he had not expected to receive photographs of minors. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed, independent of the Government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt, to violate the law by receiving child pornography through the mails. In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 442 . Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications


Well, gee, it seems that this case he was not simply given the opportunity, and accepted that opportunity.

That might have clued you in where it says he "was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity."

And the fact that in order to prove that merely offering the opportunity to commit a crime is entrapment, you choose a case which says specifically that the defendant was not merely offered the opportunity to commit a crime is...well...kind of stupid.

once again, merely offering the opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. Offering to sell someone drugs is not entrapment. The case you have provided holds that the actions the government took went beyond merely offering the opportunity.

That's the whole point. It went beyond mere offer. NOW we're in entrapment. however "hey, want some drugs" is merely an offer, as my case had stated. Once again, in the plain language of your own case, this was not a matter of merely offering.

Read your own fucking source.

Of course, if I wanted to be a dick I'd say that this case has to do with child pornography, and challenge you to prove that it applies to drugs.

The burden of proof is on you. You want everyone to assume guilt if they can't be proven innocent. You're claiming to know they are guilty, can you provide evidence that meets even the basic standards of evidence?

I claim to know they are likely guilty because I watched an episode of the show. You haven't, so you're arguments are based upon ignorance, strawmans aside.

Jacobson v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=503&invol=540)
Sorrells v. United States I believe as well.

That case references induction. They induced the crime. I recognize you're not seeing the difference here, but most people certainly would.

The police repeatedly solicited him for 2.5 years. Seriously, I wonder if you even read your sources.

Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications

In other words, they explictly support NA in saying that if they had simply offered and moved on it would not have been entrapment but it was the 26 months of working on him that created the situation for inducement.

I claim to know they are likely guilty because I watched an episode of the show.

And that wouldn't influence a jury and expose them - pedophiles or not - to undue humiliation because...?