NationStates Jolt Archive

No, it's not. Only if some cases equates to "has an appreciable impact upon the system as a hole outside acceptable tolerances." You haven't proven that. Denied.

What are acceptable tolerances? What percentage of cases?



The media has to act in a way that is antagonistic to your aims at restoring your reputation. If you don't substantiate it, then Occam's razor says the cabal of j00s wanting to get innocent doo gooders is false.

No, it doesn't. It takes no such position. It simply acts in its interest without regard from me in any fashion except as a consumer. That's a fact. Not a conspiracy theory. Your claims require me to ignore the very basis of their business.

And quit mentioning Occam. You don't understand it at all. Well, you do. Exactly as well as you understand that legal cases never find you inncent.



They're guilty of going to the house to have sex with a minor. The only way they are not guilty of that is if PJ and TCAP forged evidence. If that is the case then all these men will be freed from jail, sue for defamation, and none of this is the fault of the concept and goes outside the realm of this debate. Course, you have to prove that it is remotely likely that PJ and TCAP forged evidence.

No, they aren't. You're assuming. You really suck at this. I mean, really suck. These men were freed from jail. There were evidenciary problems. It could not be proved that evidence was forged. Yet.

Every man from one entire show was released due to evidenciary problems. The law recognizes their procedures are suspect even if you don't. Claiming that Occam's requires you to ignore this FACT is a complete misunderstanding of a basic concept.

We are talking about the usage of innocent. Only innocent. That's all. Blameless is one of the definitions of innocent. And that was how it was used, as a definition, not a synonym. The difference is important, but it's yet another you don't recognize.

The difference is non existent. Innocent used in place of blameless or not guilty. The fact that innocent is synonymous with one of it's definitions is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. There is no meaning of innocent that refers to the legal finding "not guilty". That is by design. It's by design because it's a wholly important distinction. Simply because you don't understand it doesn't make it unimportant. It just makes it like every other principle you've been attempting to apply, like synonym, like, various logical fallacies, like your understanding of the law, like the ridiculous arguments that have represented this thread throughout the night. The entire thing has been about explaining very basic concepts to you.

No, it's not important because the divide between what innocent and not-guilty means is zero. It's only important to you because you like to nitpick.

Innocent = Blameless and lawful.

See how that works. You said clearly that blameless is only one of the definitions that could apply, you committed the fallacy of equivocation by implying that the meaning might be that or might be another. It's not complicated. In fact, it's quite simple and it has nothing to do with synonyms.

... You're kidding.

Blameless is the only one that could apply within the context of its use. Wanna know why? Because being naive has nothing to do with the discussion. No one else is confused about what innocent, not guilty, blameless, faultless means in this discussion. Only you.

Lawful could also be used; if you are innocent then you are lawful. You cannot be unlawful and still be innocent logically.

*Jocabia inserts here how LEGALLY you can because the LEGAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND I CAN NEVER KNOW THAT AND NOR CAN ANYONE ELSE*

What are acceptable tolerances? What percentage of cases?

I don't know, since you think it's so important and widespread then look it up.

No, it doesn't. It takes no such position. It simply acts in its interest without regard from me in any fashion except as a consumer. That's a fact. Not a conspiracy theory. Your claims require me to ignore the very basis of their business.

Your claims require me to believe that the media won't report innocence, only matters of guilt. Does the media report people finding out they didn't do it? Yes it does. Because it makes for a good story. "The guy everyone think dun it didn't, so he who did is still out there."

No, they aren't. You're assuming. You really suck at this. I mean, really suck. These men were freed from jail. There were evidenciary problems. It could not be proved that evidence was forged. Yet.

They went to the house. Since you haven't provided any evidence that they were there for anything other than sex, or that NBC forged evidence, or that the j00s are behind it all, they went to the house for sex with a minor.

Every man from one entire show was released due to evidenciary problems. The law recognizes their procedures are suspect even if you don't. Claiming that Occam's requires you to ignore this FACT is a complete misunderstanding of a basic concept.

No, it doesn't. We've covered this. The DA is worried that the prosecution would have issues since PJ was not acting in the capacity as an agent of the law. He is worried that the defense will use the suicide as evidence that NBC's interest in their case compromised evidence regardless of facts.

Occam notes that every other DA had no problem prosecuting these cases and acquiring conviction, so the likelihood that they went to the house for sex is moreso than a widespread conspiracy to get ratings.

No, it's not important because the divide between what innocent and not-guilty means is zero. It's only important to you because you like to nitpick.
Not guilty does not by itself mean innocent, legally.

I don't know, since you think it's so important and widespread then look it up.

Huh? Seriously, the things you say are hilarious. You said within tolerances. That mean there is some level of tolerance. If so, what is it?



Your claims require me to believe that the media won't report innocence, only matters of guilt. Does the media report people finding out they didn't do it? Yes it does. Because it makes for a good story. "The guy everyone think dun it didn't, so he who did is still out there."

No, they don't. They require you to believe that making me look innocent or guilty is not their job. Their job is solely to get people watching. No more. No less. Trying to turn that into more simply reveals your desperation.

Your claim that the innocent story is bigger news does not hold true in reality. It is sometimes true, but all it has to be is sometimes not true.




They went to the house. Since you haven't provided any evidence that they were there for anything other than sex, or that NBC forged evidence, or that the j00s are behind it all, they went to the house for sex with a minor.

So I have to prove them innocent? You really don't have the first clue about any of what you talk about. I have the evidence that they were not charged due to evidenciary problems. I have the same skepticism of the evidence that the DA has. No conspiracy theory required. Skepticism you're unable to address even after dozens of pages. You fail.




No, it doesn't. We've covered this. The DA is worried that the prosecution would have issues since PJ was not acting in the capacity as an agent of the law. He is worried that the defense will use the suicide as evidence that NBC's interest in their case compromised evidence regardless of facts.

The DA recognizes that there evidenciary problems. The same evidenciary problems I cite.

The suicide has nothing to do with. You keep claiming that it does, but it is as yet unsupported.


Occam notes that every other DA had no problem prosecuting these cases and acquiring conviction, so the likelihood that they went to the house for sex is moreso than a widespread conspiracy to get ratings.

Um, Occam does no such thing. You cite Occam because like the rest of us, you recognize your credibility is shot. You're hoping to lean on the credibility of others. You've pretty proven that you don't know what the hell anybody thinks or most time even what they're talking about.

It's not a conspiracy to get ratings. It's their job as a corporation. That's not a possibility. It's not a guess. It's their job. To maximize profits. Ratings are the means for doing it. Pretending otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.

The difference is non existent. Innocent used in place of blameless or not guilty. The fact that innocent is synonymous with one of it's definitions is irrelevant.

Innocent never means not guilty. They are not the same. And again, almost nothing you wrote there resembles sense.


No, it's not important because the divide between what innocent and not-guilty means is zero. It's only important to you because you like to nitpick.

No, the gap is huge. That you don't recognize it is laughable. You're making a circular argument.

"There is no difference."
"Why"
"Because you're nitpicking"
"Why"
"Because there is no difference"

Seriously, this argument just sucks. Not guilty and innocent are not equal. No more than not turning right means I turned left.



... You're kidding.

Blameless is the only one that could apply within the context of its use. Wanna know why? Because being naive has nothing to do with the discussion. No one else is confused about what innocent, not guilty, blameless, faultless means in this discussion. Only you.

You claimed otherwise. That's not my claim. It was yours. Neo Art was meaning blameless and was pointing out that you can not claim a verdict of guilty means blameless. You've claimed otherwise and still are. Not guilty, means you cannot be found guilty. That you don't understand the difference disqualifies you from meaningful conversation on the topic.


Lawful could also be used; if you are innocent then you are lawful. You cannot be unlawful and still be innocent logically.

Nope. That only applies to one definition of the term, obviously. And not the blameless definition. But, hey, why apply reality to your little nonsensical rant.

Meanwhile, we're not talking about whether or not lawful and innocent are related. We're talking about whether a verdict of not guilty would mean you were lawful. It doesn't. It means they couldn't prove you were unlawful and the importance of that is obvious.


*Jocabia inserts here how LEGALLY you can because the LEGAL SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND I CAN NEVER KNOW THAT AND NOR CAN ANYONE ELSE*

You crack me up. Your argument is so detached from the actuality of the situation that I can't do anything but laugh.

Because there are various meanings of the word innocent that are identical.
There are not various meanings that are identical. They are different usages or they would not be different meanings.
What do you think a synonym is? Are the makers of the thesaurus guilty of the equivocation fallacy? No, of course not.

I figured it's time to put some of your arguments all in one place, since you change them every page or so. Apparently a word can have more than one identical meaning and these meanings are called "synonyms". Oh, but wait, there's more.

They need to get bitch slapped more

I only hope they don't compromise any more real police investigations.

Huh? Seriously, the things you say are hilarious. You said within tolerances. That mean there is some level of tolerance. If so, what is it?

Because that's applicable to every system. Your entire point in crafting the situation is the illustrate the proposed unfairness of the system as it pertains to your reputation. However, this only works if the problem is wide spread; IE, your situation is not isolated. Therefore, you get to substantiating your position and then we'll talk.

No, they don't. They require you to believe that making me look innocent or guilty is not their job. Their job is solely to get people watching. No more. No less. Trying to turn that into more simply reveals your desperation.

"Arr, your DESPERATION! YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE MAKING SENSE BECAUSE THEN I CAN'T LOOK SMART!" - The aside, your position requires me to believe that the news will only report matters of guilt because it generates a bigger boom in ratings rather than your innocence despite balanced reporting being a stable of several news organizations and the exact opposite being true in many cases. Denied.

Your claim that the innocent story is bigger news does not hold true in reality. It is sometimes true, but all it has to be is sometimes not true.


Strawman. I never claimed that it was bigger, that's your word right there boyo.

So I have to prove them innocent? You really don't have the first clue about any of what you talk about. I have the evidence that they were not charged due to evidenciary problems. I have the same skepticism of the evidence that the DA has. No conspiracy theory required. Skepticism you're unable to address even after dozens of pages. You fail.

Strawman. You have to prove them likely innocent instead of just saying they are despite the Big Fucking Mountain Range (TM) of evidence you continually ignore because it's inconvenient to acknowledged. The problem with evidence has been beaten like a dead horse already. It is a non-indicator of their innocence, it is only an indicator of the fear of a prosecutor worried about a successful entrapment defense in the face of unforeseen circumstances, the sort that did not exist when the other DAs (the ones you keep forgetting about) prosecuted their cases. That's what we have. A big heaping pile of NOTHING on your side.

The DA recognizes that there evidenciary problems. The same evidenciary problems I cite.

The suicide has nothing to do with. You keep claiming that it does, but it is as yet unsupported.

One DA. Other DAs claimed no such problem, and no such problem existed given that successful convictions were acquired. Presumably the same methods by PJ and TCAP were used in this case as they were in others. So what does that mean? That this situation is different, what are the possibly differences?

-The DA didn't want to prosecute pedos.
-The DA was overly paranoid.
-The DA was worried about a successful entrapment defense in the light of a suicide of a public figure and backlash against the operation, thus lending to a defense case, thus lending to pedophiles not being convicted, and also thusly keeping the DA in office by disassociating himself from the media circus that is To Catch A Predator.
-The DA is a magical evidence fairy who found something seven or so other departments didn't pertaining to the spurious legal ground TCAP and PJ both walked.

Which is it?

Um, Occam does no such thing. You cite Occam because like the rest of us, you recognize your credibility is shot. You're hoping to lean on the credibility of others. You've pretty proven that you don't know what the hell anybody thinks or most time even what they're talking about.

Blah blah blah, that's all I see when you say something like "Your arguments are crap because I say so." Occam requires us to acknowledge the simplest explanation to be the best when all things are equal. Since these people being guilty of being pedophiles who went to a house to fuck a kid is a simpler explanation to the j00s doing it, my explanation is better than yours.

<Occam> AND THUS I APPROVE!

It's not a conspiracy to get ratings. It's their job as a corporation. That's not a possibility. It's not a guess. It's their job. To maximize profits. Ratings are the means for doing it. Pretending otherwise is being deliberately obtuse.

Their job as corporations that directly serve the public interest in the capacity as the media means that they are moreso watched, by each other especially, in their actions than other corporate agents. An entire field of ethics separate from business ethics, claims to balanced reporting, and a special place in the American socio-political system means that they are decidedly different than GE as a corporation.

At the end of the day this means that MAYBE they're in it to report the news, provide balanced coverage, and not out to screw you because the media is a big bad corporation.

They need to get bitch slapped more

I only hope they don't compromise any more real police investigations.

A single incident of the prosecutor getting skiddish after a high-profile suspect committed suicide is hardly their fault nor does it prove that doing this is "compromising police investigations" and should be stopped. Also, he claims he doesn't have jurisdiction. Cop out.

Dude, don't speak for Occam. If I was him, and people who misused my razor were putting words in my mouth, I'd wish a plague of boils or something on their household.

Innocent never means not guilty. They are not the same. And again, almost nothing you wrote there resembles sense.

I'm going to stop responding to your complaints about my choice of words. It's easy to anyone with a surplus of brain matter above the range of say, 0 grams what idea is conveyed by using innocent occasionally instead of not guilty. Or anything else that means "S/he dun didn't do it!"

No, the gap is huge. That you don't recognize it is laughable. You're making a circular argument.

"There is no difference."
"Why"
"Because you're nitpicking"
"Why"
"Because there is no difference"

Seriously, this argument just sucks. Not guilty and innocent are not equal. No more than not turning right means I turned left.

And you're wrong. If you're not guilty ergo blameless you are also innocent even if the later term does not exist in legal lexicon. Get it? Good. We're done talking about it.

You claimed otherwise. That's not my claim. It was yours. Neo Art was meaning blameless and was pointing out that you can not claim a verdict of guilty means blameless. You've claimed otherwise and still are. Not guilty, means you cannot be found guilty. That you don't understand the difference disqualifies you from meaningful conversation on the topic.

Not guilty does mean blameless. Look it up in the dictionary. The fact is there are various definitions of words, amazing right? There are also many synonyms that convey the same meaning / concept because the constant use of the same word over and over again is repetitive. My claim that it is not equivocation still stands, and your inability to provide anything that looks like a proof to the contrary is at least partially indicative of this unless you've just been lazy.

Nope. That only applies to one definition of the term, obviously. And not the blameless definition. But, hey, why apply reality to your little nonsensical rant.

If you are legally blameless you are innocent of the crimes committed because, DING DING! You're verdict was NOT GUILTY BABY!

That's why lawful could be used as long as it's definition within the debate carried the exact same connotations that the word it's substituted for is used. It's when the word's meaning changes to something that is illogical / nonsensical and creates a fallacy that it is by definition a fallacy. It's been explained, I'm done.

A single incident of the prosecutor getting skiddish after a high-profile suspect committed suicide is hardly their fault nor does it prove that doing this is "compromising police investigations" and should be stopped. Also, he claims he doesn't have jurisdiction. Cop out.

Personally I agree with the skidishness
Having a private entity routinely be this involved not to mention a very public one I think is worse then a bad idea.

I dislike pedophiles but I do not care to have people being tried in the court of public opinion rather then a real court first

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a difference between "You do not shoulder the blame for this incident" (Not Guilty) and "You are without blame before the law" (Innocent)? Because I can see one.

I figured it's time to put some of your arguments all in one place, since you change them every page or so. Apparently a word can have more than one identical meaning and these meanings are called "synonyms". Oh, but wait, there's more.

Innocent: synonymous with blameless, not guilty, faultless; it goes on. Innocent carries the same meaning as the listed words even if we were forced to use context clues only.

That's why you're wrong, and why I'm not going to entertain your pathetic critique of my word choices.

Because that's applicable to every system. Your entire point in crafting the situation is the illustrate the proposed unfairness of the system as it pertains to your reputation. However, this only works if the problem is wide spread; IE, your situation is not isolated. Therefore, you get to substantiating your position and then we'll talk.

Hilarious. Again. Please tell me what percentage of the time this would have to happen to be outside of tolerance. Tolerance in a system must be defined or it is ignored.


"Arr, your DESPERATION! YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE MAKING SENSE BECAUSE THEN I CAN'T LOOK SMART!" - The aside, your position requires me to believe that the news will only report matters of guilt because it generates a bigger boom in ratings rather than your innocence despite balanced reporting being a stable of several news organizations and the exact opposite being true in many cases. Denied.

No, I never said only. I said it that it choose news based on whether it garners ratings. Sometimes that would push the innocent story. Sometimes the guilty story. You have this problem with not realizing that something does have to happen all the time to be a problem.



Strawman. I never claimed that it was bigger, that's your word right there boyo.

Again, you try to avoid the point. Fine. Not bigger. You cannot claim it would always be an equal story. It doesn't bear out in reality.




Strawman. You have to prove them likely innocent instead of just saying they are despite the Big Fucking Mountain Range (TM) of evidence you continually ignore because it's inconvenient to acknowledged. The problem with evidence has been beaten like a dead horse already. It is a non-indicator of their innocence, it is only an indicator of the fear of a prosecutor worried about a successful entrapment defense in the face of unforeseen circumstances, the sort that did not exist when the other DAs (the ones you keep forgetting about) prosecuted their cases. That's what we have. A big heaping pile of NOTHING on your side.

No, I don't have to prove anything. If the best you can do is "likely guilty" then given the number of people, the likelihood of someone actually being innocent increases with relation to the number of people on the show.

No, it's not an indicator of innocence. It's an indicator that you cannot use the evidence to assure guilt. Evidence we've not seen. So you assume the evidence is perfect, or you simply can't assume guilt. That's a fact.



One DA. Other DAs claimed no such problem, and no such problem existed given that successful convictions were acquired. Presumably the same methods by PJ and TCAP were used in this case as they were in others. So what does that mean? That this situation is different, what are the possibly differences?

Oh, what was it you said about people with no faith in the justice system. Seriously, you just your argument based on whether the minute hand on the clock is odd or even.


-The DA didn't want to prosecute pedos.
-The DA was overly paranoid.
-The DA was worried about a successful entrapment defense in the light of a suicide of a public figure and backlash against the operation, thus lending to a defense case, thus lending to pedophiles not being convicted, and also thusly keeping the DA in office by disassociating himself from the media circus that is To Catch A Predator.
-The DA is a magical evidence fairy who found something seven or so other departments didn't pertaining to the spurious legal ground TCAP and PJ both walked.

Which is it?

Amusing. Who's got the evil "joos" conspiracy. It ain't me. That's like the tenth time you've claimed that you can just make up reasons why he wouldn't want to prosecute, while ignoring that multiple sources have given reasons why one should be skeptical of the show. Interesting how that works.



Blah blah blah, that's all I see when you say something like "Your arguments are crap because I say so." Occam requires us to acknowledge the simplest explanation to be the best when all things are equal. Since these people being guilty of being pedophiles who went to a house to fuck a kid is a simpler explanation to the j00s doing it, my explanation is better than yours.

<Occam> AND THUS I APPROVE!

You don't understand Occam. What you keep saying is such an affront to logic if Occam was God, you'd be struck by lightning.

I love how you think every thing must be oversimplified except your analysis of the DA who recognized the evidencial problems.



Their job as corporations that directly serve the public interest in the capacity as the media means that they are moreso watched, by each other especially, in their actions than other corporate agents. An entire field of ethics separate from business ethics, claims to balanced reporting, and a special place in the American socio-political system means that they are decidedly different than GE as a corporation.

HA. That's the best thing I ever heard. As a CEO of a corporation if you ever admitted you were ditching profits for some other interest, you'd be fired. Plain. Simple.




At the end of the day this means that MAYBE they're in it to report the news, provide balanced coverage, and not out to screw you because the media is a big bad corporation.

No one has mentioned screwing anyone. I mentioned that act in self-interest as is their job as a corporation. Could they abandon that job? Sure. But the burden of proof is on you.

Innocent: synonymous with blameless, not guilty, faultless; it goes on. Innocent carries the same meaning as the listed words even if we were forced to use context clues only.

That's why you're wrong, and why I'm not going to entertain your pathetic critique of my word choices.

You did not say that. You said that two different meanings of one word were identical and when I called you on how stupid that is, you asked me if I'd heard of synonyms. You can attempt to fix it now, but face it, you've been spouting of nonsense for dozens of pages and are continually caught in wild misunderstandings of very basic information.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a difference between "You do not shoulder the blame for this incident" (Not Guilty) and "You are without blame before the law" (Innocent)? Because I can see one.
It was brought up pages ago and he wasn't paying attention then.
Not Guilty and Innocent are two different things entirely. There was a case I heard of where a guy was found "Not Guilty" of some crime so brought the case back to court to try and get a ruling of "Innocent" (I'm not sure what that would do, expunge his record?) and failed.

I'm going to stop responding to your complaints about my choice of words. It's easy to anyone with a surplus of brain matter above the range of say, 0 grams what idea is conveyed by using innocent occasionally instead of not guilty. Or anything else that means "S/he dun didn't do it!"

*sighs* I recognize you don't get. I'm sorry. I can't make you understand the difference. There is a mountain of difference between cannot be proven guilty and innocent. It's not a wording problem. It's a problem that your ideas are wrong.


And you're wrong. If you're not guilty ergo blameless you are also innocent even if the later term does not exist in legal lexicon. Get it? Good. We're done talking about it.

You are not blameless. Not guilty doesn't mean blameless. I really hope you're done talking about it. You keep proving you don't understand what not guilty means.



Not guilty does mean blameless. Look it up in the dictionary. The fact is there are various definitions of words, amazing right? There are also many synonyms that convey the same meaning / concept because the constant use of the same word over and over again is repetitive. My claim that it is not equivocation still stands, and your inability to provide anything that looks like a proof to the contrary is at least partially indicative of this unless you've just been lazy.

Not guilty, legally, does not mean blameless. It would be a completely different burden of proof. You can't just pick a meaning for legal jargon. You keep trying to and THAT is the fallacy.


If you are legally blameless you are innocent of the crimes committed because, DING DING! You're verdict was NOT GUILTY BABY!

Um, you don't actually understand what not guilty means in legal jargon. What you're saying is dumb to anyone with even a passing understanding of the law.


That's why lawful could be used as long as it's definition within the debate carried the exact same connotations that the word it's substituted for is used. It's when the word's meaning changes to something that is illogical / nonsensical and creates a fallacy that it is by definition a fallacy. It's been explained, I'm done.

Lawful and blameless are two different meanings. As such flipping between them would be equivocation. That's the point. It doesn't have to be entirely illogical, it just has to change meaning. There is a significant difference between lawful and blameless, thus the two entries in the dictionary.

And, God, I hope you're being honest for one. Be done. Becuase you've not said one argument that exists in the reality of the legal fora. Not one.

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a difference between "You do not shoulder the blame for this incident" (Not Guilty) and "You are without blame before the law" (Innocent)? Because I can see one.

The second never happens. There is no such verdict as innocent. The law cannot hold that you are blameless or lawful. It can only hold that you cannot be proven to guilty or to have broken the law. That's all. It cannot, CAN NOT ever find you innocent.

Hilarious. Again. Please tell me what percentage of the time this would have to happen to be outside of tolerance. Tolerance in a system must be defined or it is ignored.

It's your assertion that it happens often if we can even determine that it happens at all. It's your job to provide evidence that it happens enough. You haven't done it, so there's no reason to acknowledge your argument.

No, I never said only. I said it that it choose news based on whether it garners ratings. Sometimes that would push the innocent story. Sometimes the guilty story. You have this problem with not realizing that something does have to happen all the time to be a problem.

You say later on in your post that it could not be equal while also implying that corporations are in it for the ratings and the ratings only because it is in their self interest. If I let this stand it means the innocent story will never be published because it could never equal the ratings of the guilty story. This while also acknowledging the implication that establishing guilty is more important than presenting innocence, even though the reporting of the Duke rape case denies this in total.

Again, you try to avoid the point. Fine. Not bigger. You cannot claim it would always be an equal story. It doesn't bear out in reality.

I don't claim it would always be anything. Those are your words, not mine.

No, I don't have to prove anything. If the best you can do is "likely guilty" then given the number of people, the likelihood of someone actually being innocent increases with relation to the number of people on the show.

My Claim: They are likely guilty based upon the evidence.

Your Claim: They are innocent based on ???

Interesting note: using statistics one person out of a hundred would HAVE to break their leg from a one foot controlled fall. Blind statistics are not evidence.

No, it's not an indicator of innocence. It's an indicator that you cannot use the evidence to assure guilt. Evidence we've not seen. So you assume the evidence is perfect, or you simply can't assume guilt. That's a fact.

I assume that showing up at the house makes them guilty of attempting to illicit sex with a minor.

I assume based on the chat logs they show, the chat logs every DA has hitherto had access to and used to attain a conviction, that these people are likely guilty.

You assume the evidence is tainted; you provide no evidence of your own. You assume they're there for a different reason, but there's no evidence of that either. See what your argument is lacking? Take a guess: substantiation.

Oh, what was it you said about people with no faith in the justice system. Seriously, you just your argument based on whether the minute hand on the clock is odd or even.


You want to change what I argued based on the convenience of doing so. People with no faith in the justice system are crazy dicksmokes. People who are blindly loyal to it despite clear problems on a case-by-case basis or regardless of a glaring flaw in its mechanations are also cockmasters. It's the people in the middle who are rational you fail to see, and I also like the lack of an argument your reply is.

Amusing. Who's got the evil "joos" conspiracy. It ain't me. That's like the tenth time you've claimed that you can just make up reasons why he wouldn't want to prosecute, while ignoring that multiple sources have given reasons why one should be skeptical of the show. Interesting how that works.

They're inferences based upon the evidence at hand because the likelihood of the other choices, no matter how tailored to mock you and your stance, are basically nill.

You don't understand Occam. What you keep saying is such an affront to logic if Occam was God, you'd be struck by lightning.

<Occam> The simplest situation is best when all things are equal.

You have a different version of Occam I don't know about?

I love how you think every thing must be oversimplified except your analysis of the DA who recognized the evidencial problems.

Indeed, like you've pointing out an oversimplification of anything. Also supposes that these evidenciary problems are a fact. There are seven or so DA's that would like a word with you.

HA. That's the best thing I ever heard. As a CEO of a corporation if you ever admitted you were ditching profits for some other interest, you'd be fired. Plain. Simple.

NBC is not Ford Motors boyo. Course, this assumes that being responsible is equatable with profit dumping; interesting distinction there on your part.

No one has mentioned screwing anyone. I mentioned that act in self-interest as is their job as a corporation. Could they abandon that job? Sure. But the burden of proof is on you.

The fact that they, under your system, exist solely to garner ratings means that they are out to screw people over: what generates more ratings and by extension profit? Answer is obvious.

There job goes beyond that of a normal corporation as agents of the media. Balanced coverage, factual reporting, and investigative journalism is apart of their job and responsibility, and despite the former not being the paragon of profit generation, they practice them anyway. Rather easily annihilates your supposition that ABC and GM are the same thing doesn't it? Why yes it does.

It's your assertion that it happens often if we can even determine that it happens at all. It's your job to provide evidence that it happens enough. You haven't done it, so there's no reason to acknowledge your argument.

Let's break this down to one absurd argument at at time. I recognize my burden. I want you to state what will satisfy before I provide evidence. You claim I have to have at least a certain percentage of cases. Tell me what percentage I must meet to be within tolerance. If you can't understand that as a reasonable request, just quit now.

The rest of your argument I can't damage more than letting people reading what you wrote.

Also, provide links to your claim that every other DA successfully tried every other case. I'll wait.

Let's break this down to one absurd argument at at time. I recognize my burden. I want you to state what will satisfy before I provide evidence. You claim I have to have at least a certain percentage of cases. Tell me what percentage I must meet to be within tolerance. If you can't understand that as a reasonable request, just quit now.

The rest of your argument I can't damage more than letting people reading what you wrote.

First: Concessions accepted. It's taken you this long to admit you still can't substantiate your claims in any way whatsoever. Thanks for wasting my time.

You don't recognize is apparently. Any example has to carry with it a likely chance of occurring in any given system more than once, otherwise we wouldn't have a single working system because random chance always changed it. You want to assert that your example falls into this criteria: that it happens enough for TCAP to be unjustified and to prove your assertion that reputation repair is an impossible burden (obvious venues not withstanding and your views of the media still unsubstantiated).

It's your assertion, your example: you should know the tolerances by now if you want your example to mean anything because guess what, I don't know the tolerances as they pertain to your situation, and given your reluctance to cite _anything_, you don't either. So either come prepared or don't come at all.

<Occam> The simplest situation is best when all things are equal.

You have a different version of Occam I don't know about?

Well, you're using a variation of the paraphrase.

Original: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Translated: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Common Paraphrase: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.

Also note the following from Wikipedia.

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may. (Note that simplest theory is something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists"). Simpler theories are preferable other things being equal. The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory. Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one.

["But Ockham's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better."http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html Skeptic's Dictionary]

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Usenet Phyics FAQs (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/)

Also, provide links to your claim that every other DA successfully tried every other case. I'll wait.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=bluegrizzly32
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29
http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/archives/2006/12/how_to_catch_a.php


Go down.

They've successfully convicted numerous child predators while working in tandem with TCAP, it's only a shame that they don't have an organized list denoting which ones come from TCAP and which ones come from other efforts.

You know what? I tire of this. Since it's not objectionable that I get called a pedophile, it's not objectionable that I point out that TPH and EX want mob rule and despise the rule of law either. Then again, their bloodlust might be hiding their OWN wishes, kind of like the closeted homosexual that hates gays.

First: Concessions accepted. It's taken you this long to admit you still can't substantiate your claims in any way whatsoever. Thanks for wasting my time.

You continue to lie. I'm breaking this down because you keep flipping your argument. Let's take one at at ime.


You don't recognize is apparently. Any example has to carry with it a likely chance of occurring in any given system more than once, otherwise we wouldn't have a single working system because random chance always changed it. You want to assert that your example falls into this criteria: that it happens enough for TCAP to be unjustified and to prove your assertion that reputation repair is an impossible burden (obvious venues not withstanding and your views of the media still unsubstantiated).

It's your assertion, your example: you should know the tolerances by now if you want your example to mean anything because guess what, I don't know the tolerances as they pertain to your situation, and given your reluctance to cite _anything_, you don't either. So either come prepared or don't come at all.

You don't know the tolerances? Then how can you say that though it occurs it is within tolerance? This is an admission of ignorance.

I never claimed there was a "tolerance level". You dismissed your own admission that these events occur by saying they are "within tolerance". I've asked you to clarify for three pages only to get to "I don't know". Amusing to say the least.

Do you have any other arguments to make that you will eventually admit to not having a clue what they mean?

Now that we've settled that you don't know what you're talking about there. Let's move on.

Links to prove your claim that everyone who has been on TCAP has been convicted. You claimed that all the other convictions were successful. Links.

You know what? I tire of this. Since it's not objectionable that I get called a pedophile, it's not objectionable that I point out that TPH and EX want mob rule and despise the rule of law either. Then again, their bloodlust might be hiding their OWN wishes, kind of like the closeted homosexual that hates gays.

You go too far, Heikoku!

You know what? I tire of this. Since it's not objectionable that I get called a pedophile [...] Then again, their bloodlust might be hiding their OWN wishes, kind of like the closeted homosexual that hates gays.
Hypocritical much?

No one asserted you were a pedophile, I asserted that your overzealous objection to these proceedings might have implied you have been caught in the net before. If you take that to mean that I asserted you were a pedophile, I must question the reason you are even arguing here.

You go too far, Heikoku!

He did it first, the mods saw nothing actionable. Newton's third law of motion.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=bluegrizzly32
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29
http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/archives/2006/12/how_to_catch_a.php


Go down.

They've successfully convicted numerous child predators while working in tandem with TCAP, it's only a shame that they don't have an organized list denoting which ones come from TCAP and which ones come from other efforts.

First of all, a tip - when I asked the question I already knew the answer. You haven't answered yet. Numerous means nothing.

How many men have been accused on TCAP. Of them how many have been convicted? Tip - it's about 1 in 4. But you can find your own numbers if you like. A couple of cases is all you've cited so far and that really kicks the ass out of your claim that everyone else is convicting all of the men on the show.

Hypocritical much?

No one asserted you were a pedophile, I asserted that your overzealous objection to these proceedings might have implied you have been caught in the net before. If you take that to mean that I asserted you were a pedophile, I must question the reason you are even arguing here.

1- I live in Brazil, where these morons don't reach.

2- You made several insinuations about my "reasons" to dislike this group. I have none other than the fact that I care about the rule of law.

3- You stated that most or all of the people this group attacked are paedos and asserted that I got caught in the net before. You implied I'm a pedophile. I pointed out that your bloodlust may work like the one of the people that hate gays. Tit. Tat.

4- Reacting against you isn't hypocritical. It's reacting against you.

Well, you're using a variation of the paraphrase.

Original: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Translated: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Common Paraphrase: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.

Also note the following from Wikipedia.



["But Ockham's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better."http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html Skeptic's Dictionary]

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Usenet Phyics FAQs (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/)

Yes, exactly. He keeps claim that Occam requires him to ignore any other evidence we have for skepticism since he must keep it simple. I suspect he hasn't actually studied Occam.

4- Reacting against you isn't hypocritical. It's reacting against you.
That would almost be a defense that didn't suck if you didn't accused Electron X of it too.

And your own actions are easily seen as bloodlust towards Dateline and Perverted Justice, maybe you secretly want pedophiles to be put away without trial.

He did it first, the mods saw nothing actionable. Newton's third law of motion.

I was only kidding. I heard that out of some movie somewhere, like back in the 17th century where some guy sassed back at some respected dude. Cue line.

Or something. I can't remember where I heard that.

That would almost be a defense that didn't suck if you didn't accused Electron X of it too.

Cute if he didn't say, and I quote, "jump into the pro-pedo bandwagon".

Now, I wonder why you claim to hate pedophiles so much...

Now, I wonder why you claim to hate pedophiles so much...
Which is funny because I never made that claim.

I wonder why you claim to hate people who claim to hate pedophiles so much they want them put away without proper judicial proceedings.
Maybe you secretly want to kill all pedophiles.

I was only kidding. I heard that out of some movie somewhere, like back in the 17th century where some guy sassed back at some respected dude. Cue line.

Or something. I can't remember where I heard that.

Age will do that to people. ;)

Well, you're using a variation of the paraphrase.

Original: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Translated: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Common Paraphrase: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.

Also note the following from Wikipedia.

... And?

["But Ockham's razor does not say that the more simple a hypothesis, the better."http://www.skepdic.com/occam.html Skeptic's Dictionary]

"when you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better." Usenet Phyics FAQs (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/)

The simpler theory is best when all things are equal:

I left money out on my windowsill, it disappeared sometime during the day.

Theories: God needed milk money.
Someone stole it.
The wind was so strong it blew away an entire pound of cash.

What does Occam's razor say? That option 2 is best.

Option one requires use to ask three questions: Does God exist? Maybe. Did he need milk? Maybe. Does God need money? Maybe. This sets off an endless procession of debate regarding three inconclusive answers.

Option three is only likely if it has been established that the wind blowing on that day was forceful enough to move an object with a small surface area. If that is not the case then option 2 is best.

How does it relate to the current debate? Either TCAP is forging evidence with PJ, the DA's had hitherto not noticed / cared, the defense attorney's were too incompetent to raise the defense (though this might just be an issue with that one county / state's system and not an indicator that the evidence as bad anyway) of entrapment, and NBC is an uncaring money hungry media whore, or these people are likely guilty for wanting to have sex with a minor. Which one is best?

Which is funny because I never made that claim.

I wonder why you claim to hate people who claim to hate pedophiles so much they want them put away without proper judicial proceedings.
Maybe you secretly want to kill all pedophiles.

Arguing for due process of law = secret vigilante killing spree?

There something missing there. A huge piece.

Which is funny because I never made that claim.

I wonder why you claim to hate people who claim to hate pedophiles so much they want them put away without proper judicial proceedings.
Maybe you secretly want to kill all pedophiles.

Did I claim to hate you? You are the one that's willing to expose people to public humiliation without evidence because they might be pedophiles. It's not hard to think that you have something to hide from yourself.

... And?



The simpler theory is best when all things are equal:

I left money out on my windowsill, it disappeared sometime during the day.

Theories: God needed milk money.
Someone stole it.
The wind was so strong it blew away an entire pound of cash.

What does Occam's razor say? That option 2 is best.

Option one requires use to ask three questions: Does God exist? Maybe. Did he need milk? Maybe. Does God need money? Maybe. This sets off an endless procession of debate regarding three inconclusive answers.

Option three is only likely if it has been established that the wind blowing on that day was forceful enough to move an object with a small surface area. If that is not the case then option 2 is best.

How does it relate to the current debate? Either TCAP is forging evidence with PJ, the DA's had hitherto not noticed / cared, the defense attorney's were too incompetent to raise the defense (though this might just be an issue with that one county / state's system and not an indicator that the evidence as bad anyway) of entrapment, and NBC is an uncaring money hungry media whore, or these people are likely guilty for wanting to have sex with a minor. Which one is best?

It's relevant because your blatant misunderstanding and misuse of the razor makes baby Occam cry.

First of all, a tip - when I asked the question I already knew the answer. You haven't answered yet. Numerous means nothing.

How many men have been accused on TCAP. Of them how many have been convicted? Tip - it's about 1 in 4. But you can find your own numbers if you like. A couple of cases is all you've cited so far and that really kicks the ass out of your claim that everyone else is convicting all of the men on the show.

Accused? 129. Convicted? I'm not going to trudge through the entire PJ site to find every one because they haven't created a list that would make the process feasible.

The point is that DA's are getting convictions, they are prosecuting, and they are not running into these problems with evidence you continually cite from your ass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/?page=4 <--- Oddly enough this interview seems to give a more accurate (although it is in qualitative terms and not strictly quantitative) picture than the PJ site.

Accused? 129. Convicted? I'm not going to trudge through the entire PJ site to find every one because they haven't created a list that would make the process feasible.

The point is that DA's are getting convictions, they are prosecuting, and they are not running into these problems with evidence you continually cite from your ass.

Because it's not like government-employed attorneys have ever done and/or turned a blind eye to things of questionable legality. Nope. Never.

In fact, I'd guess they might be more prone to it. After all, they can get a good idea of just how much they can get away with -- No offense to lawyers or anything.

It's relevant because your blatant misunderstanding and misuse of the razor makes baby Occam cry.

Go ahead, prove it. Don't say I'm doing it wrong while also failing to point out how that is the case. As it is your words aren't worth a grain of salt.

Accused? 129. Convicted? I'm not going to trudge through the entire PJ site to find every one because they haven't created a list that would make the process feasible.

The point is that DA's are getting convictions, they are prosecuting, and they are not running into these problems with evidence you continually cite from your ass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17601568/?page=4 <--- Oddly enough this interview seems to give a more accurate (although it is in qualitative terms and not strictly quantitative) picture than the PJ site.

Okay, so you admit another of your arguments is ignorant. Shall I keep going? So far, you've admitted you cannot support nearly every claim you've made. And certainly every claim you've been directly challenged on. Shall I quote your numerous admissions that your own arguments were ignorant and that we should stop calling you out for not even having a working knowledge of the terminology of law.

Go ahead, prove it. Don't say I'm doing it wrong while also failing to point out how that is the case. As it is your words aren't worth a grain of salt.

Good. Neither are yours.

In any case, Jocabia has consistently tried to show you that you were using incorrectly. Your defense was based on trying to claim your definition differently than him. Now that we've established a standard and locked you into a definition, there is really no way for you to argue your way out of this one.

Game. Set. Match.

Go ahead, prove it. Don't say I'm doing it wrong while also failing to point out how that is the case. As it is your words aren't worth a grain of salt.

Dude, we have proved it. The problem is you don't understand the usage enough to understand it. You keep making a ridiculous claim about a notion you don't understand. That sound you're hearing is laughter.

Okay, so you admit another of your arguments is ignorant. Shall I keep going? So far, you've admitted you cannot support nearly every claim you've made. And certainly every claim you've been directly challenged on. Shall I quote your numerous admissions that your own arguments were ignorant and that we should stop calling you out for not even having a working knowledge of the terminology of law.

And here we go again "I am so smart and you are so dumb that's all I have to say in response to you!"

Does the link I provided say that I'm wrong? No, actually, it says that people are convicted, pleading out, or their cases are on going. Should I probably not have said they have all gotten convictions unilaterally even if the trials are ongoing? I guess, though most wouldn't argue that an ongoing trial shows tainted evidence, or that the convictions hitherto established were based on it either. Still, point stands that no other DA had problems with TCAP cases until now.

Your response: "YOU MAKE SOMEWHAT OVERLY BROAD CLAIMS SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!"

That's not debating, that's being a jackass.

Good. Neither are yours.

In any case, Jocabia has consistently tried to show you that you were using incorrectly. Your defense was based on trying to claim your definition differently than him. Now that we've established a standard and locked you into a definition, there is really no way for you to argue your way out of this one.

Game. Set. Match.

Proof? None. Concessions accepted, have a nice day.

Arguing for due process of law = secret vigilante killing spree?

There something missing there. A huge piece.
You are obviously missing the sarcasm.

Did I claim to hate you? You are the one that's willing to expose people to public humiliation without evidence because they might be pedophiles. It's not hard to think that you have something to hide from yourself.
I see you still failing to explain why they showed up at the house to an underage looking girl who was expecting them to show up and told to make themselves at home.

Do I need to translate it to Portuguese?

Proof? None. Concessions accepted, have a nice day.

You know, it's pretty damn funny that you admit your own ignorance, make claims without substantiation, then demand someone disprove them.

As stated before, it's not our job to disprove your claims, it is your job to prove them. Which you have failed to do, because, and sorry junior, "I think so" doesn't prove jack.

So nobody needs to concede anything to an argument that has not been properly made. You lost this one long ago, and keep losing every time you try.

And here we go again "I am so smart and you are so dumb that's all I have to say in response to you!"

"Your argument is incorrect and unsupported by facts."

Does the link I provided say that I'm wrong? No, actually, it says that people are convicted, pleading out, or their cases are on going. Should I probably not have said they have all gotten convictions unilaterally even if the trials are ongoing? I guess, though most wouldn't argue that an ongoing trial shows tainted evidence, or that the convictions hitherto established were based on it either. Still, point stands that no other DA had problems with TCAP cases until now.

So, because this guy is the first one to realize that there may in fact be a problem, he is automatically assumed wrong because past DAs either didn't catch it, or turned a blind eye because they let their emotional feelings toward the case get in the way of the law?

Your response: "YOU MAKE SOMEWHAT OVERLY BROAD CLAIMS SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!"

Well, if you actually stuck to one...

That's not debating, that's being a jackass.

Pendulum swings both ways.

Proof? None. Concessions accepted, have a nice day.

How rude. I never made any.

You know, it's pretty damn funny that you admit your own ignorance, make claims without substantiation, then demand someone disprove them.

I admitted my own ignorance to the technical workings of civil and criminal law, the underlying point was still true and I went to great pains communicating such. Every claim thus far as been substantiated unless I erred in making said substantiation overly broad and hence clarification was done and the argument itself still left to stand.

As stated before, it's not our job to disprove your claims, it is your job to prove them. Which you have failed to do, because, and sorry junior, "I think so" doesn't prove jack.

I've proven all that needs to be proven save in instances already mentioned.

Has TCAP / PJ gotten convictions? Why yes they have.

Have the DA had issues with evidence up till now? Why no, no they haven't.

Is NBC run by the j00s watching over us in the Death Star of David? I don't think so.

So nobody needs to concede anything to an argument that has not been properly made. You lost this one long ago, and keep losing every time you try.

"Blah blah" is all I'm seeing, because that's all it is.

Wow, take a day off and get left behind.

Neo Art, won't continue to argue definitions, I'll conceed. :cool:

However, is it legal for someone like PJ to employ actions that would normally be defined as entrapement even tho they are NOT a legal law enforcement agency and NOT be held responsible?

My problems with the show:

1)Perverted Justice is NOT an authority of any kind. It is a volunteer group, and from what I see of the show, a vigilante group. They are not properly trained, and as we just saw, their "evidence" got a whole lot of cases thrown out -- cases that very well MAY have been viable had the authorities handled it alone. and the sad part is, should this trend continue, what would it do to the cases where the person was convicted on PJ's Evidence alone?

Do you believe everything the TV tells you?isn't DATELINE supposed to be a NEWS/Informative/investigative show? do you automatically discount anything

now if Dateline's "TCaP" had the disclamer that "Those shown already went to trial and have been convicted..." then that would satisfy my concern about 'trial by public opinion'... but that doesn't satify my concern about the law using illegal means (PJ, not being a Law Enforcement Agency thus how closely monitored are these volunteers) to catch these guys.

Accused? 129. Convicted? I'm not going to trudge through the entire PJ site to find every one because they haven't created a list that would make the process feasible.

The point is that DA's are getting convictions, they are prosecuting, and they are not running into these problems with evidence you continually cite from your ass.the PJ site has a 200+ convictions that I last saw. now whether this is only those that they helped with or not... I can't say.

"Your argument is incorrect and unsupported by facts."

"I continue to say things without substantiating them, how cute."


So, because this guy is the first one to realize that there may in fact be a problem, he is automatically assumed wrong because past DAs either didn't catch it, or turned a blind eye because they let their emotional feelings toward the case get in the way of the law?

It presumes many things: That none of the other DAs saw it, that the police involved were incompetent / ignorant of proper evidenciary procedure, that the evidence is in fact tainted and that the circumstances surrounding this DA are irrelevant to the situation.

Have you substantiated these presumptions? No you haven't, in fact no one has and it's likely no one will.

This show was for entartainment. Plain and simple. It's not out there to do a public service or to crusade with the law.

It takes advantage of the fascination the media has cultivated with sex crimes and makes itself look good by casting itself as a crusader for the safety of teens online.

That makes it sleaze. There are plenty of legitimate cases out there for police to concern themselves with. This kind of nonsense only distorts public perception of reality and that's just not good for anybody.

"I continue to say things without substantiating them, how cute."

Adorable. But there kind of has to be something there first. I mean, why bother substantiating against something that's not grounded in reality?



It presumes many things: That none of the other DAs saw it, that the police involved were incompetent / ignorant of proper evidenciary procedure, that the evidence is in fact tainted and that the circumstances surrounding this DA are irrelevant to the situation.

Have you substantiated these presumptions? No you haven't, in fact no one has and it's likely no one will.

As someone once said, "Blah blah" is all I'm seeing, because that's all it is.

I admitted my own ignorance to the technical workings of civil and criminal law, the underlying point was still true and I went to great pains communicating such.

And that's your problem. You assume it's possible to have a conversation about the law while being ignorant of the technical workings. You can't. It's like trying to discuss how a car works, without the "technical" understanding of how a car works.

For instance, I asked you what you'd do next in response to a pleading, you said summary judgement motion and the plaintiff would produce evidence.

That is just wrong. You don't know how the law works. You THINK you know how the law works, but you're wrong. Your claim that you know how things work despite technical ignorance just proves that you don't know how it works, because law is ALL ABOUT technicalities. You make specific claims about burden of proof, but if you knew anything about the technical issues of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss you would know you're wrong.

You can try to argue as much as you want that even though you don't know the rules of law that somehow, magically you still know how the law works. That even though you don't know how it works you somehow just manage to mystically intuit how it works. You can claim that all you want. It doesn't make you smart, it doesn't make it true. It just makes you look more nad more ignorant.

Words in law have technical meanings. They have specific definitions. In matters of law "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing. No matter how hard you try to say otherwise, no matter how hard to try to obfuscate and keep saying people are found "innocent", they are not.

You're just, simply, wrong. They can not be used interchangeably, they're not the same thing. They're just not. The more you try to claim that somehow you "know the law" without knowing the technicalities, when the law is ALL ABOUT technicalities, the more stupid you look.

*snip*

You can have a conversation about star formation without having a graduate degree in astronomy or understanding the the underlying mechanics that it involves. The same applies to law, and a giant wall of text doesn't make that untrue.

Dateline is not entrapping anyone..that is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard..and this DA is a moron..maybe he was in the same class with the Durham DA...he needs to be removed as well though as he clearly has no understanding of the law



Dateline and the police forces involved are simply providing an opportunity and place for the suspects to break the law..the only way any of these cases would be entrapment is if a law enforcement officer picked up the men after the online chats and then drove them to the sting house thereby directly causing the suspect to break the law..because the men drive to the house under their own will where they believe a minor is waiting... it is NOT entrapment.....not to mention a lot of the men take pictures of themselves and send it to the decoys which that is a whole nother law they're breaking.. the fact that some of you are defending pedophiles is sickening and very disturbing

Its quite simple really to avoid the whole situation if they used their brains and stopped the convo after they found out the person they're chatting to is supposedly a minor

man:How old are you?
decoy:14/f
man: I'm sorry I don't think we should continue talking

it really is as simple as that...

Also I should add when a man goes to a house where he thinks a 13 yr old girl is waiting with a six pack of beer, condoms and lubricant on his person its pretty clear what his intentions were...especially after you read over a transcript of the chat between the man and the young girl where he describes doing sexual acts with the minor..the whole "prove they were there to fuck a kid" argument is a load of garbage..

Who on here is defending pedophiles? Not me. Not anyone else from 26 pages that I've read. Try reading the whole thread.

Nor is anyone saying the DA let them off because of "entrapment" which has already been covered and is now just a side issue. He dropped all charges because of the INVOLVEMENT OF DATELINE AND PJ which contaminated the evidence.
I have yet to see anyone on here arugue that ALL of the men are innocent. But the fact that the sting was carried out by powerhungry vigilantes and a ratings hungry reality network poisons the evidence to the point that it can't be used in a court. The judge would have little choice but to release even the guilty parties back onto the street.

What we are saying is that TCAP and PJ are harming the fight against pedophilia.

Proof? None. Concessions accepted, have a nice day.

Is that you're tail firmly tucked? You've already admitted your claims are from ignorance.

You can have a conversation about star formation without having a graduate degree in astronomy or understanding the the underlying mechanics that it involves. The same applies to law, and a giant wall of text doesn't make that untrue.

How exactly do you expect to have a conversation about star formation without understanding the underlying mechanics of star formation?

How can you discuss it if you don't know how nuclear fusion works? What can you POSSIBLY add to the conversation? How could you hope in any way to have a valuable opinion on the subject of star formation if you don't know how fusion works? Your contributions ot the conversation of stellar formation without having at least a basic understanding of the mechanisms is about as grounded as a creationist discussing evolution.

"Sunlight...is a warm hug...from Jesus"

You can have a conversation about star formation without having a graduate degree in astronomy or understanding the the underlying mechanics that it involves. The same applies to law, and a giant wall of text doesn't make that untrue.

You can have a discussion on it, but you better not do something as silly as correct a physicist when you don't understand the basics of the discipline. This is the problem. You don't even understand well enough to recognize that you've been proven wrong. You've claimed to be ignorant of a basic understanding of the legal requirements and then proved it. Incidentally, it's the only thing you've proved.

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.

I have to disagree with you on pretty much everything. There is no thought crime here. These are folks that come into the house with the intent of meeting someone for sex who they thought were underage. This is pretty clearly an attempted crime.

The Dateline folks and perverted justice are not police, so what? They partner up with the police and do not actually make any arrests. I am not sure what your point is.

The one good point that you raised is that they are setting up pedophilia traps in neighborhoods that may have children in them. However, how could you avoid this situation. The trap has to be believable in order to work. I think that giving the police a heads up might help marginally but not much because a huge police presence would probably be a good tip off to the pedos. In fact though, this program probably helps kids more than it hurts them because we are getting rid of a few pedos.

In my profession I had a part in bringing a pedo to light who then killed himself. You think I am responsible for his decision to kill himself. If you are right, then I honestly am not upset. I like to see kid rapers dead. It does not make me weep bleeding heart liberal tears of remorse. In fact I am sort of proud of it. How many bad guys did you help eliminate? I can answer that by saying "1 sort of."

And here we go again "I am so smart and you are so dumb that's all I have to say in response to you!"

Does the link I provided say that I'm wrong? No, actually, it says that people are convicted, pleading out, or their cases are on going. Should I probably not have said they have all gotten convictions unilaterally even if the trials are ongoing? I guess, though most wouldn't argue that an ongoing trial shows tainted evidence, or that the convictions hitherto established were based on it either. Still, point stands that no other DA had problems with TCAP cases until now.

Your response: "YOU MAKE SOMEWHAT OVERLY BROAD CLAIMS SO I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE ACTUAL ARGUMENTS!"

That's not debating, that's being a jackass.

You admitted your arguments are ignorant. It's not being a jackass to make that clear. It has nothing to do with how smart you are or how smart I am. It's just your understanding of the topic, which you keep admitting is lacking and then telling us WE have to address. Your ignorance is not our responsibility.

You guys ever seen the movie "Minority Report?"

if a guy drives out to the home of a teenager after a sexually charged chat, his intentions are not in dispute. Yes, he went there for sex.

On the other hand, the same philosophical question raised in that movie is raised here. Can you ABSOLUTELY say with perfect assurance that he would have done it? Can you eliminate with 100% certainty the possibility that he wouldn't have had a change of heart or second thoughts and not gone through with it? We're not talking odds here. 999/1000 isn't good enough, because until it happens, it hasn't happened yet and I have strong ethical doubts about punishing someone for something they haven't done, no matter how certain you are that they'd have done it.

You guys ever seen the movie "Minority Report?"
Yes, and it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Thank you, please come again.

On the other hand, the same philosophical question raised in that movie is raised here. Can you ABSOLUTELY say with perfect assurance that he would have done it? Can you eliminate with 100% certainty the possibility that he would have had a change of heart or second thoughts and not gone through with it? We're not talking odds here. 999/1000 isn't good enough, because until it happens, it hasn't happened yet and I have strong ethical doubts about punishing someone for something they haven't done, no matter how certain you are that they'd have done it.
You do realize the movie was about psychics who saw murders right? There was no investigation, there was no lead up evidence, just some people laying around in a pond dispensing likely situations created by psychic visions.

You guys ever seen the movie "Minority Report?"

if a guy drives out to the home of a teenager after a sexually charged chat, his intentions are not in dispute. Yes, he went there for sex.

On the other hand, the same philosophical question raised in that movie is raised here. Can you ABSOLUTELY say with perfect assurance that he would have done it? Can you eliminate with 100% certainty the possibility that he would have had a change of heart or second thoughts and not gone through with it? We're not talking odds here. 999/1000 isn't good enough, because until it happens, it hasn't happened yet and I have strong ethical doubts about punishing someone for something they haven't done, no matter how certain you are that they'd have done it.

Ahh but you're missing one crucial legal fact. The men that get arrested are not charged with child endangerment.

They CANT be charged with child endangerment. There was no child to endanger. He's charged with attempted child endangerment. And we're not punishing someone for something they haven't DONE yet, and that they MIGHT not do.

we're punishing someone for taking substantial steps towards the completion of the crime. The fact that this person MIGHT have changed his mind later doesn't matter. He had taken substantial steps in the furtherance of a crime before he was arrested. That's an attempt.

Yes, and it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Thank you, please come again.


You do realize the movie was about psychics who saw murders right? There was no investigation, there was no lead up evidence, just some people laying around in a pond dispensing likely situations created by psychic visions.

Yeah hey wow thanks for dodging the issue. To spell it out for you: Is it right to prosecute people for crimes they haven't committed yet?

I say no.

Yeah hey wow thanks for dodging the issue. To spell it out for you: Is it right to prosecute people for crimes they haven't committed yet?
Let me try this again..
You do realize the movie was about psychics who saw murders right? There was no investigation, there was no lead up evidence, just some people laying around in a pond dispensing likely situations created by psychic visions.

Is it right to arrest people for crimes it appears they are going to commit? Yes.
Is it right to prosecute people for crimes that evidence shows it is very, very likely they are going to commit but havn't committed yet? Yes, yes it is.

Like Art said, this is why the prefix "attempted" exists.

They are morally guilty for being sick fucks, they may or may not be guilty in the criminal justice system. See the difference?



The entire series of To Catch A Predator.



Fallacy of equivocation: guilty from the legal realm is not equatable to guilty in the moral / social realm. You keep jumping from one meaning of the word to the other, and that's a fallacy.

To be morally guilty they have to be guilty of violating a religious law/precept. In which case you get into having the state enforce religious doctrine. I might note however that niether the Bible nor other texts I have say that it is immoral to have intercourse with a person who is a minor. In fact, I see a big divergence from what the US considers a minor and what many nations in Europe, Latin America Africa consider a minor. In the US you are a minor if you are under 18. In most of Europe you are a minor if you under 16. And in some nations you are a minor only if you are under 13.
It's relative to what nation you are living in and what religion you are. Not everyone is a wacko offshoot of christianity cultist.

TCAP is not evidence.

Well, just because they guilty due to your religious code does not mean they guilty according to anyone elses.


Anytime you say they should be jailed for being morally guilty, you necessarily imply that the government should force religion on people.
That's opening Pandora's Box.

The press can take and publish their picture as long as they are in normal control of their actions. If they are not in control of their own actions such as falling down then you have to get a release. Under many conditions a release is asked for anyway just to CYA but that isn't required. It doesn't matter if a profit is involved. Just think if a TV network had to get permission from everyone in the stadium. Now if someone gets hit with a ball and is bleeding that would be questionable because they didn't choose to bleed. However most tickets have a waiver printed on them for those occasions.

So the only pictures that would be questionable would be those where the police take the man down and cuff and stuff him. But that is done outside and can be covered as an arrest story just like any arrest. Every night the news shows people getting cuffed and stuffed.

If you are in public, regardless of what you are doing, anyone can take your picture at anytime. There is no privacy when you are in a public place, such as a street. It doesn't matter if the wind blows your skirt up or someone punches you and gives you bloody nose. Your right to privacy ends when you leave your home and if you are not in the public restroom. Heck, you don't even have the right to privacy in a public library.

When you are in supermarket or retail shop, it is up to the owner if they want to provide you a sense of privacy by banning cameras but they don't have to.

Move for summary judgment: the plaintiff has presented no evidence.

You: WAIT! Here's a picture of the defendant masturbating instead of watching the road when he hit me!

Me: Shit.

Judge: Denied, baby.

There is one problem with that argument.
In police beating cases, the pictures and the videos show the police beating the suspect. But most times they don't show what happened before hand. They don't show the suspect provoking. They don't show the suspect attacking the police. Yet in many cases it is presumed the police are automatically guilty because of the video.
That is the problem with relying on pictures or TV shows to prove a person's innocence or guilt. They never tell you the whole story. They only tell part of a story. There could parts that were left out or off the air that could prove the person innocent.
Hence, being featured on a TV show does not equat with being guilty.

Claim: If you are proven innocent of the crimes against you then people will treat you as innocent.

-Argument assumes that you are proven innocent; IE, that you were not guilty of the crimes you were tried for.
-Argument assumes that people are rational; IE, that they have faith in the justice system.

Conclusion: Premise is true because people are proven innocent and people do have faith in the justice system.

Your Claim: No, what about OJ?!

-Argument claims things are not always absolute; IE, you may be innocent based upon spurious legal circumstance.
-Argument assumes that the civil and criminal legal systems are entirely analogous; IE, a contradiction was found.

Conclusion: Your reputation will not recover because OJ was still found guilty in a civil system.

What your argument lacks: substantiation that people are irrational and do not trust the justice system; That spurious legal circumstance is common place in the legal system; That people are ignorant of those circumstances if they arise; That the civil and criminal justice systems are analogous entities; That the circumstances surrounding OJ and these men from TCAP are analogous here. Start proving.

It's not petty. You keep claiming that because you vary your words equating them is equivocation. You can't have it both ways.
[/quote]

Word variation for the sake of communication and word variation for the sake of winning an argument are two different things. Fallacy of equivocation, again.



You can be absolutely innocent, how is that hard to see?[/QUOTE]

The problem with that is that it is a step towards mob rule. Society, when it includes everybody including non legal professionals, does not have the ability to decide a person's innocence or guilty.
See my previous post where I mentioned there is stuff that the general public, that society at large is not privy to but that lawyers and judges and juries are privy to.
And the "common sense" argument just doesn't cut it. In many recent studies it was found that MOST people in our society do not have common sense and that most people don't even know what it really is.

Except it is the media's fault. Otherwise how would anyone know about you anyway? It's the media that effects the reputation you are so worried about.




Then it is still the fault of the media because otherwise your reputation wouldn't have been effected one way or the other.





If you maintain that the media is a non-agent in the shift in your reputation then it doesn't matter either way.

But weren't you arguing that the society decides if you are innocent based off of what they see on a TV program that may or may not give all the relevant evidence?

You were claiming that even if the media doesn't present the evidence that shows your innocent, then you are still guilty in the eyes of society.

Jocabia was asking how you would go about proving to society that you really were innocent. It's already been said that you can't get a retrial.

I don't know, since you think it's so important and widespread then look it up.



Your claims require me to believe that the media won't report innocence, only matters of guilt. Does the media report people finding out they didn't do it? Yes it does. Because it makes for a good story. "The guy everyone think dun it didn't, so he who did is still out there."



They went to the house. Since you haven't provided any evidence that they were there for anything other than sex, or that NBC forged evidence, or that the j00s are behind it all, they went to the house for sex with a minor.



No, it doesn't. We've covered this. The DA is worried that the prosecution would have issues since PJ was not acting in the capacity as an agent of the law. He is worried that the defense will use the suicide as evidence that NBC's interest in their case compromised evidence regardless of facts.

Occam notes that every other DA had no problem prosecuting these cases and acquiring conviction, so the likelihood that they went to the house for sex is moreso than a widespread conspiracy to get ratings.

How do you know that ALL the other DA got convictions in ALL those other cases? I doubt TCAP even followed up on all of them.

You have the burden to prove that ALL those other people who were showed on ALL the previous episodes of TCAP were convicted from the Dateline stings.

*snip*

"Stars form because hydrogen clumps up and starts burning."

"Stars are hot because they burn."

"Stars are made of hydrogen."

Someone who doesn't know the technical mechanics; IE, mass required to start fusion, star type based on the mass of the hydrogen 'clump', whether or not this is absolute in the case of failed stars (requisite hydrogen was not available in sufficient quantities), the typical life span of stars in general, and the effect supernova have on star formation. You don't need to have a degree in $_field to understand a basic concept and have a conversation about it. Just as you don't need a degree to know that the shift in burden from the criminal to civil system has a detrimental effect to the defendant's ability to win as the standard for achieving victory on the plaintiff's side is much lower.

We done here? Good, thank you.

If you are in public, regardless of what you are doing, anyone can take your picture at anytime. There is no privacy when you are in a public place, such as a street. It doesn't matter if the wind blows your skirt up or someone punches you and gives you bloody nose. Your right to privacy ends when you leave your home and if you are not in the public restroom. Heck, you don't even have the right to privacy in a public library.

When you are in supermarket or retail shop, it is up to the owner if they want to provide you a sense of privacy by banning cameras but they don't have to.

Obviously a surveillance camera has the right to photograph everything. But we are talking about publishing. A monitor showing their cameras in real time over closed circuit isn't considered publishing or broadcasting.

A news organization (or anyone else for that matter) can't publish a person in an embarrassing situation if that person is not in normal control of his/her actions. In other words, if you took a photo of someone doing something out of their control such as the wind blowing up a skirt, the crime wouldn't be taking the picture, the crime would be making the picture public. Or for that matter, publishing can be defined as showing the picture to another person.

So taking pictures in public is not controlled but letting others see those pictures is. And, for the most part, publishing pictures taken in public is also free. BUT not when the person is not in normal control of their actions. However; most photographers ask for a release just to cover their a--.

As it relates to this thread: The men shown are in normal control of their actions and their picture can be published (broadcast) without their permission.

You admitted your arguments are ignorant. It's not being a jackass to make that clear. It has nothing to do with how smart you are or how smart I am. It's just your understanding of the topic, which you keep admitting is lacking and then telling us WE have to address. Your ignorance is not our responsibility.

Historical revisionism doesn't suit you. <Marx> RAWR YOU SUCK AT IT!

I admitted that my lack of technical knowledge meant that I was easily mistaken in some / all of the claims I made about the civil system, however the underlying argument (Which you have yet to address because addressing any argument would be debating and Lord knows you don't want to start doing that) remained in tact.

Either address my arguments or don't expect a response from me anymore; I've said what I've come here to say and it stands firmly against your Giant Pile (TM) of unsubstantiated claims and the non-arguments you have graced us all here with today.

How do you know that ALL the other DA got convictions in ALL those other cases? I doubt TCAP even followed up on all of them.

You have the burden to prove that ALL those other people who were showed on ALL the previous episodes of TCAP were convicted from the Dateline stings.

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

We already covered this, sorry if you didn't see the post.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=bluegrizzly32
http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29
http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/archives/2006/12/how_to_catch_a.php


Go down.

They've successfully convicted numerous child predators while working in tandem with TCAP, it's only a shame that they don't have an organized list denoting which ones come from TCAP and which ones come from other efforts.

I like how you refer to PJ's site to back claims that all suspects shown on Dateline were convicted.
Seriously, though, find a third party source.
Hey. I have an idea... Why don't you prove by going to a government site?

*snip*

I believe I addressed this elsewhere; please read every post and not just the ones you feel like reading.

I like how you refer to PJ's site to back claims that all suspects shown on Dateline were convicted.
Seriously, though, find a third party source.
Hey. I have an idea... Why don't you prove by going to a government site?

Do you know of a government site that was setup to record and monitor all of TCAP's convictions / Pleas / Ongoing trials? Sorry but www.tcapconvictionspleasandongoingtrials.gov doesn't seem to exist.

Are you saying PJ is lying when they say they got a conviction? Seems to me if that was the case the alleged convicts could sue for libel, and that is in fact what they would do.

This isn't a spurious source, it won't be a spurious source, to argue otherwise is insane.

One of the things people seem to be missing on this thread is in the US it is considered better to let 10 guilty go free than to punish one innocent.

Because of that theory, it is really very hard to convict a person. At every level the accused can get off. The police can refuse to arrest. The DA can refuse to accuse. The judge can outright dismiss. The jury can ignore all evidence and simply vote not guilty. The accused can then appeal and live on bail for years. After all state appeals the convicted can appeal to the federal courts all the way to the supreme court. And each appeal can be on one narrow issue so there can be unlimited appeals based on every atom of evidence.

If someone gets off, that is normal. If they get convicted that is abnormal. To get convicted the evidence is overwhelming. (Yes, mistakes are still made even with all this precaution not to convict the innocent.)

People every day get off. How the public reacts to those people is out of the hands of the justice system. How those people react to the system is also out of the control of the justice system. If someone kills himself over something like this, that is his choice. He could choose to move and change his name. Or he could choose to stay and wait for time to lesson memory.

This is no different than any of the millions of arrests that take place every day.

I admitted my own ignorance to the technical workings of civil and criminal law, the underlying point was still true and I went to great pains communicating such. Every claim thus far as been substantiated unless I erred in making said substantiation overly broad and hence clarification was done and the argument itself still left to stand.



I've proven all that needs to be proven save in instances already mentioned.

Has TCAP / PJ gotten convictions? Why yes they have.

Have the DA had issues with evidence up till now? Why no, no they haven't.

Is NBC run by the j00s watching over us in the Death Star of David? I don't think so.



"Blah blah" is all I'm seeing, because that's all it is.

You keep bringing up "joos". Do you have a problem with Jewish people? Are you suggesting you are a racist?

I have to disagree with you on pretty much everything. There is no thought crime here. These are folks that come into the house with the intent of meeting someone for sex who they thought were underage. This is pretty clearly an attempted crime.

The Dateline folks and perverted justice are not police, so what? They partner up with the police and do not actually make any arrests. I am not sure what your point is.

The one good point that you raised is that they are setting up pedophilia traps in neighborhoods that may have children in them. However, how could you avoid this situation. The trap has to be believable in order to work. I think that giving the police a heads up might help marginally but not much because a huge police presence would probably be a good tip off to the pedos. In fact though, this program probably helps kids more than it hurts them because we are getting rid of a few pedos.

In my profession I had a part in bringing a pedo to light who then killed himself. You think I am responsible for his decision to kill himself. If you are right, then I honestly am not upset. I like to see kid rapers dead. It does not make me weep bleeding heart liberal tears of remorse. In fact I am sort of proud of it. How many bad guys did you help eliminate? I can answer that by saying "1 sort of."

So because you thought the guy guilty, you had a party to celebrate his death. You are proud when people, who have not been convicted of anything, die, because you think they are guilty of something.

One of the things people seem to be missing on this thread is in the US it is considered better to let 10 guilty go free than to punish one innocent.

Ahahahahahahaha
*breath*
AHAHAHAHAHA
*breath*
ha

Anecdote is not legal precedent. Innocent people have been put away before, easy. This was not "omg, some one could be innocent!", the prosecutor doesn't give a fuck. This was political.

Let me try this again..


Is it right to arrest people for crimes it appears they are going to commit? Yes.
Is it right to prosecute people for crimes that evidence shows it is very, very likely they are going to commit but havn't committed yet? Yes, yes it is.

Like Art said, this is why the prefix "attempted" exists.

The problem is that in most states, discussing something is not enough to be prosecuted for it. Otherwise you would be throwing the 1st amendment out the window.
In most states, you have to actually committ crime to be prosecuted for it, not just demonstrate a willingness to do it. Otherwise, again, you are prosecuting for thought crimes.
As for the people showing up, almost none of them showed any inclination, at the houses, that they were going have sex with the minor.

As far as I know, there is only one state in the US where it is illegal to talk about sex and then go to the persons house right after talking about sex. Forget which state that is though.

Obviously a surveillance camera has the right to photograph everything. But we are talking about publishing. A monitor showing their cameras in real time over closed circuit isn't considered publishing or broadcasting.

A news organization (or anyone else for that matter) can't publish a person in an embarrassing situation if that person is not in normal control of his/her actions. In other words, if you took a photo of someone doing something out of their control such as the wind blowing up a skirt, the crime wouldn't be taking the picture, the crime would be making the picture public. Or for that matter, publishing can be defined as showing the picture to another person.

So taking pictures in public is not controlled but letting others see those pictures is. And, for the most part, publishing pictures taken in public is also free. BUT not when the person is not in normal control of their actions. However; most photographers ask for a release just to cover their a--.

As it relates to this thread: The men shown are in normal control of their actions and their picture can be published (broadcast) without their permission.

I agree that if you photograph someone in public with their skirt being blown up, it is wrong to publish it to the public.

As far as TCAP is concerned though, the place where they are taped is not a public place, but a house. And in houses, people have a reasonable right to privacy and the permission requirement applies.

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

We already covered this, sorry if you didn't see the post.

No where on that site does it say that all 200 people on the show were convicted. In fact it says that some people were actually released without even being placed on probation.

The argument is that all 200 other suspects were convicted.
Let me start at the top of the page:

In Greenville, Ohio, 18 of the men were arrested. Out of those 18, 17 have already been—to court and found guilty.

Sounds to me like one got off.

In Riverside County 51 men were arrested. They were all charged. They are all being prosecuted with the exception of 17 who have pled guilty.
That's saying they are being prosecuted. Being prosecuted does not equal "being a convict". Therefore out of 51 people, they only got conviction for 17.
If you ask me, that's a very poor record.

In Long Beach, California 35 men were arrested. 18 so far have pled guilty and the remaining 17 are still fighting it out in court.

Again, only 18 are convicted. YOU SAID THAT ALL OF THEM HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED. A trial to prosecute is not the same as being convicted.

You have no way to no that the people who chose a trial are going to be convicted. You have no way to know that they are guilty.

As stated before, this last DA was probably only the first DA who are going to find problems with TCAP. I seriously doubt he's going to be the only one.

Do you know of a government site that was setup to record and monitor all of TCAP's convictions / Pleas / Ongoing trials? Sorry but www.tcapconvictionspleasandongoingtrials.gov doesn't seem to exist.

Are you saying PJ is lying when they say they got a conviction? Seems to me if that was the case the alleged convicts could sue for libel, and that is in fact what they would do.

This isn't a spurious source, it won't be a spurious source, to argue otherwise is insane.

It is spurious when they are the center of the controversy and there are questions that they may be altering logs. In that case that brings everything on thier site into question.

EDIT: States do have laws requiring that all persons convicted of sex crimes or who have to register as sexual offenders have to have their names and photos published on the internet.

It is spurious when they are the center of the controversy and there are questions that they may be altering logs. In that case that brings everything on thier site into question.

There's not evidence that they've done such a thing. There is a concern that such might happen. You fail.

The other problem with your refusal to prove that all men were convicted, is a little thing called Megans' law. A law that requires to states to publish onto the internet the names and photos of all persons convicted of sex crimes and or who have to register as sexual offenders.

Such sites do exist and they are government run.

No where on that site does it say that all 200 people on the show were convicted. In fact it says that some people were actually released without even being placed on probation.

... It says not one has been let off, casting a large shadow of doubt upon your assertion.

The argument is that all 200 other suspects were convicted.
Let me start at the top of the page:


That WAS the argument. I overgeneralized. I clarified already.


Sounds to me like one got off.


Article says otherwise.

That's saying they are being prosecuted. Being prosecuted does not equal "being a convict". Therefore out of 51 people, they only got conviction for 17.
If you ask me, that's a very poor record.

Trials are ongoing, plea agreements. That's not what the article said, that's what you're saying because you don't know how to read.

Again, only 18 are convicted. YOU SAID THAT ALL OF THEM HAD ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED. A trial to prosecute is not the same as being convicted.

Read the whole thread or none of it.

You have no way to no that the people who chose a trial are going to be convicted. You have no way to know that they are guilty.

As stated before, this last DA was probably only the first DA who are going to find problems with TCAP. I seriously doubt he's going to be the only one.

None of the others have found problems with prosecution, those with convictions found no problems, any DA which has gotten plea agreements has had no problems. The supposition is that there is a problem with the evidence. Well get this boyo, no other DA had hitherto found an issue with the evidence. Prove that there are likely problems with the evidence, and we'll talk. Otherwise read the entire thread before you decide to waste my time.

The other problem with your refusal to prove that all men were convicted, is a little thing called Megans' law. A law that requires to states to publish onto the internet the names and photos of all persons convicted of sex crimes and or who have to register as sexual offenders.

Such sites do exist and they are government run.

Wow, really? I guess they have an easily accessible list of those who have been convicted / Caught by TCAP. Too bad the national sex offender registry doesn't have one.

There's not evidence that they've done such a thing. There is a concern that such might happen. You fail.

You're really grasping for straws. I didn't say there was proof they had done it. I said there was a serious question that they could have done it.

Go back and reread my post. Saying it is possible is not the same as saying it did. The fact that it is a possibilty is enough in itself to taint the evidence and the DA in the Texas case agreed. Ergo he dropped all the cases.

... It says not one has been let off, casting a large shadow of doubt upon your assertion.



That WAS the argument. I overgeneralized. I clarified already.




Article says otherwise.



Trials are ongoing, plea agreements. That's not what the article said, that's what you're saying because you don't know how to read.



Read the whole thread or none of it.



None of the others have found problems with prosecution, those with convictions found no problems, any DA which has gotten plea agreements has had no problems. The supposition is that there is a problem with the evidence. Well get this boyo, no other DA had hitherto found an issue with the evidence. Prove that there are likely problems with the evidence, and we'll talk. Otherwise read the entire thread before you decide to waste my time.

Who is wasting whose time here? You've spent close to 40 pages by double talking and attempting to redefine terms.

I suggest you reread the top of the webpage again. The first thing it says is that out 18 people, 17 have been convicted. That means they either lost a case or the DA dropped the 18th case.

You're really grasping for straws. I didn't say there was proof they had done it. I said there was a serious question that they could have done it.

There is also serious question that we went to the moon, that terrorists did 9/11, and that the Oswald killed Kennedy. Does questioning a source make it illegitimate? No, it doesn't. Evidence makes it illegitimate. Until you provide any evidence at all that PJ has forged / tampered evidence, then your criticism isn't worth the kb of space it takes up.

Go back and reread my post. Saying it is possible is not the same as saying it did. The fact that it is a possibilty is enough in itself to taint the evidence and the DA in the Texas case agreed. Ergo he dropped all the cases.

It's possible that I'm George Carlin. The degree of possibility is what is important, not the fact that a possibility exists.

Wow, really? I guess they have an easily accessible list of those who have been convicted / Caught by TCAP. Too bad the national sex offender registry doesn't have one.

It doesn't have to say "caught by TCAP". All you have to do is go to the TCAP site, and then, in a seperate window go to a Megan's Law site. Then start comparing names and pics.

If a name and pic don't appear, that means there's a problem with Mr. Hansen's claim that every single person who appears on his show gets convicted.

Who is wasting whose time here? You've spent close to 40 pages by double talking and attempting to redefine terms.

I suggest you reread the top of the webpage again. The first thing it says is that out 18 people, 17 have been convicted. That means they either lost a case or the DA dropped the 18th case.

No, it doesn't:

In Greenville, Ohio, 18 of the men were arrested. Out of those 18, 17 have already been—to court and found guilty. But, two of ‘em went to trial.

Where does it say he was let off? Why it doesn't, thank you. Any more arguments espousing the same thing will have me wash my hands of you; I have better things to do than touch on the same point over and over because you can't read.

There is also serious question that we went to the moon, that terrorists did 9/11, and that the Oswald killed Kennedy. Does questioning a source make it illegitimate? No, it doesn't. Evidence makes it illegitimate. Until you provide any evidence at all that PJ has forged / tampered evidence, then your criticism isn't worth the kb of space it takes up.



It's possible that I'm George Carlin. The degree of possibility is what is important, not the fact that a possibility exists.

That's for the DA to decide, not laypersons like you. You don't know the whole story behind what happened. Yet you claim the right to convict based on a frivolous show whose only goal is ratings. THe goal of all TV shows is ratings.

This was not "omg, some one could be innocent!", the prosecutor doesn't give a fuck. This was political.



Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head.

The media loves sex crimes. They scare the crap out of parents and kids and titillate the curious. Fox and CNN have hour long shows which discuss very little else.

Politicians like to grandstand and there is no easier topic. Everyone is repulsed by sex offenders so they pass more and more punitive and constitutionally questionable laws.

Prosecutors (District Attorneys) know that high profile sex cases can easily be the ticket to the next highest office (which is what got the DA prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse team rape case in so much trouble).

I can understand Dateline. Whoring for ratings is expected of media types.

It is the Perverted Justice People that really make me wonder. FBI behavioral scientists tell us that perps often inject themselves into investigations. What kind of people hang out in chat rooms pretending to be deviant adolescents? Seems to me like they (Perverted Justice) know a lot more about this subject than they should.

I wonder how they would fare under intense scrutiny!?

No, it doesn't:

In Greenville, Ohio, 18 of the men were arrested. Out of those 18, 17 have already been—to court and found guilty. But, two of ‘em went to trial.

Where does it say he was let off? Why it doesn't, thank you. Any more arguments espousing the same thing will have me wash my hands of you; I have better things to do than touch on the same point over and over because you can't read.

Are you blind to the problem with your argument. There was only 18 people.

It says 17 were convicted but two of them went to trial. You sound extremely certain that the "2" that "went to trail" were not part of the 17.

Tell me, are you really Chris Hansen? How do I know you aren't with PJ and trying to cover your group's tracks?

Are you one of the one the DA's who did the prosecuting?

How can you be so sure of your position?

Bingo. You've hit the nail on the head.

The media loves sex crimes. They scare the crap out of parents and kids and titillate the curious. Fox and CNN have hour long shows which discuss very little else.

Politicians like to grandstand and there is no easier topic. Everyone is repulsed by sex offenders so they pass more and more punitive and constitutionally questionable laws.

Prosecutors (District Attorneys) know that high profile sex cases can easily be the ticket to the next highest office (which is what got the DA prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse team rape case in so much trouble).

I can understand Dateline. Whoring for ratings is expected of media types.

It is the Perverted Justice People that really make me wonder. FBI behavioral scientists tell us that perps often inject themselves into investigations. What kind of people hang out in chat rooms pretending to be deviant adolescents? Seems to me like they (Perverted Justice) know a lot more about this subject than they should.

I wonder how they would fare under intense scrutiny!?

DITTO

If a name and pic don't appear, that means there's a problem with Mr. Hansen's claim that every single person who appears on his show gets convicted.considering the fact that they aired the Texas stings and the DA threw them out... ;)

None of the others have found problems with prosecution, those with convictions found no problems, any DA which has gotten plea agreements has had no problems. The supposition is that there is a problem with the evidence. Well get this boyo, no other DA had hitherto found an issue with the evidence. Prove that there are likely problems with the evidence, and we'll talk. Otherwise read the entire thread before you decide to waste my time.so if no one else found a problem with it then there is no problem? or could it be that this DA sees a problem that others are either 1) Overlooking or 2) turning a blind eye to the 'Problem'.

I really would like to watch and see where and how this ends up and how it affects a Volunteer, offically civilian group like PJ.

I agree that if you photograph someone in public with their skirt being blown up, it is wrong to publish it to the public.

As far as TCAP is concerned though, the place where they are taped is not a public place, but a house. And in houses, people have a reasonable right to privacy and the permission requirement applies.

Yes, and the owner of the house gave permission. The arrest is normally in the front yard which is open to public viewing.

Historical revisionism doesn't suit you. <Marx> RAWR YOU SUCK AT IT!

I admitted that my lack of technical knowledge meant that I was easily mistaken in some / all of the claims I made about the civil system, however the underlying argument (Which you have yet to address because addressing any argument would be debating and Lord knows you don't want to start doing that) remained in tact.

Either address my arguments or don't expect a response from me anymore; I've said what I've come here to say and it stands firmly against your Giant Pile (TM) of unsubstantiated claims and the non-arguments you have graced us all here with today.

I did address your arguments. When I asked you for specific that would support your argument you said "I don't know'. In other words, an argument from ignorance. You keep acting like that's an ad hominem, but I've proven you guilty of a logical fallacy. There is nothing further to say. Proving that your arguments are intentionally ignoring information or claiming information you admit you don't have, won't have and can't have, proves your claims have no standing. That does address your arguments.

Yes, yes, I know you don't understand. Honoestly, I don't think it's possible to make you understand. But the fact is you lost this argument a dozen pages ago at least. You're just in the death throes.

Meanwhile, I could care less if you respond. I'm quite happy to point out your fallacies with or without your response.

Yes, and the owner of the house gave permission. The arrest is normally in the front yard which is open to public viewing.

That's fallacious. The owner cannot violate your rights and grant permission for people to take your picture for malicious reasons as was the case here.

You retain a right to privacy even at other people's homes. Their permission is still required when inside the building.

In the yard is another thing because those are normally viewable from a public street.
On the other hand, if the front yard was walled off.....


It's like when you go to a store. The store cannot allow people to photograph people who go there because the owner of the property would be sued for invasion of privacy if they did.

It's like when you go to a store. The store cannot allow people to photograph people who go there because the owner of the property would be sued for invasion of privacy if they did.

Yes they can. As long as those photographed are in control of their actions.

I did address your arguments. When I asked you for specific that would support your argument you said "I don't know'. In other words, an argument from ignorance. You keep acting like that's an ad hominem, but I've proven you guilty of a logical fallacy. There is nothing further to say. Proving that your arguments are intentionally ignoring information or claiming information you admit you don't have, won't have and can't have, proves your claims have no standing. That does address your arguments.

Yes, yes, I know you don't understand. Honoestly, I don't think it's possible to make you understand. But the fact is you lost this argument a dozen pages ago at least. You're just in the death throes.

Meanwhile, I could care less if you respond. I'm quite happy to point out your fallacies with or without your response.

What you've done is nitpick my word choice and anything else you could without addressing anything.

Unless someone else has anything they'd like to add, I wash my hands of you.

That's fallacious. The owner cannot violate your rights and grant permission for people to take your picture for malicious reasons as was the case here.

You retain a right to privacy even at other people's homes. Their permission is still required when inside the building.

In the yard is another thing because those are normally viewable from a public street.
On the other hand, if the front yard was walled off.....


It's like when you go to a store. The store cannot allow people to photograph people who go there because the owner of the property would be sued for invasion of privacy if they did.
What about Surveillance camera's?

What about Surveillance camera's?

They have to notify you... those signs in the parking lot, etc. do that.

They have to notify you... those signs in the parking lot, etc. do that.
Are there any requirements on size because I know I go into a lot of businesses that I never see any warning for but can see the camera.

Hell not sure we even have a sign on the building where I work (though on the far parking lot we do)

They have to notify you... those signs in the parking lot, etc. do that.
Never, ever, seen any "you are being monitored signs" that are visible. They probably have tiny placards where you can't see them. Everyone knows the cameras are there, but they don't tell you.

"You are being monitored at all times so please stop having sex in the display tents."

What you've done is nitpick my word choice and anything else you could without addressing anything.

Unless someone else has anything they'd like to add, I wash my hands of you.

We're not talking about word choice. You admitted to being ignorant of the percentage of convictions to the number of people on the show, yet you claimed that every other DA had successfully prosecuted everyone. That's not word choice, buddy.

You claimed that the law finds people innocent and as such help people repair their reputations. They don't. EVER. That's not word choice, buddy.

You claimed to know enough about the law to argue with a lawyer about what entrapment is. You then later admitted you don't know what the hell your talking about, and even though a thorough analysis demonstrates this, you continued to make claims about it. That's not word choice, buddy.

You claimed that the reasoning the DA dropped the charges was because of the suicide, but it wasn't. That's a fact. And you admtted you don't actually know that this is the reasoning of the DA. That's not word choice, buddy.

You claimed that the incidence of people being innocently accused by the law and reported on the by the media in situations where it is never cleared up is "within tolerance" and then admitted you don't know how often it happens OR what the tolerance would be for such a thing. That's not word choice, buddy.

Those are all arguments based on your ignorance of the topic at hand. Not supposed ignorance. But ignorance you admit to. These are fallacious arguments that have no grounding because you admit you've not taken the effort to give them any.

It has nothing to do with word choice or attacking you personally. Your arguments suck by your own admission of the foundation behind them. Saying you don't know things and then saying that the basic elements of those things should still be considered factual is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, there even further problems in your arguments that even you don't recognize. Like that you keep arguing that Occam supports you when the very idea is just silly. It's just another thing you don't have the basic elements to support.

And I could go on all day. So wash your hands of me. But your argument is crushed and not replying to my issues with your argument isn't going to help you appear more credible. Tuck that tail. It was time 40 pages ago.

I've seen the show a few times and was always disgusted by the slime-balls that showed up.

What I dont agree with is the reality-type show sting operation being used for entertainment.
I would prefer Dateline was involved in monitoring and exposing true exhanges between would-be predators and actual minors. We have to assume those are going on right now. Why create a phony monor and bait people into it? Why not use the same resources to go after REAL criminal activity that is really happening,rather than create a criminal situation to draw a criminal out?

I feel the same way about police posing as decoy prostitutes.

Make any sense?

I've seen the show a few times and was always disgusted by the slime-balls that showed up.

What I dont agree with is the reality-type show sting operation being used for entertainment.
I would prefer Dateline was involved in monitoring and exposing true exhanges between would-be predators and actual minors. We have to assume those are going on right now. Why create a phony monor and bait people into it? Why not use the same resources to go after REAL criminal activity that is really happening,rather than create a criminal situation to draw a criminal out?
Because the threat is still there. The people wouldn't not be trying to meet up with minors for sex if these people wern't out there luring them into it. They are still there. Either we can definitely catch them now or maybe get lucky later far after the fact.

I feel the same way about police posing as decoy prostitutes.
Prostitution being illegal is absurd anyway.

I've seen the show a few times and was always disgusted by the slime-balls that showed up.

What I dont agree with is the reality-type show sting operation being used for entertainment.
I would prefer Dateline was involved in monitoring and exposing true exhanges between would-be predators and actual minors. We have to assume those are going on right now. Why create a phony monor and bait people into it? Why not use the same resources to go after REAL criminal activity that is really happening,rather than create a criminal situation to draw a criminal out?

I feel the same way about police posing as decoy prostitutes.

Make any sense?

Of course it does. I tend to agree.

I don't even particularly mind a well-done operation. However, if the interest of Dateline was to actually catch a predator they'd be working with the actual police organizations that do this. Of course, they way THEY do it is quite boring and more effective, but it wouldn't help the ratings.

Nevermind that it's unethical to pay your source. Nevermind that they claim to have one motive while demonstrating another. Nevermind that the defense for their actions is that ratings aren't their number one goal, but they prove this to be untrue. Forget all that. Because they're pedophiles so we should just enjoy our bloodlust and watch the public hangings.

Never, ever, seen any "you are being monitored signs" that are visible. They probably have tiny placards where you can't see them. Everyone knows the cameras are there, but they don't tell you.

"You are being monitored at all times so please stop having sex in the display tents."

I have. usually it's at the entrance to the parking lot or the mall itself. "These premises are under 24 hour electronic survellance." but whether or not it's REQUIRED is not known. I do believe they have to inform you via signs if survellance is in areas where privacy is expected. like the restrooms and changing areas. but really not sure.

Because the threat is still there. The people wouldn't not be trying to meet up with minors for sex if these people wern't out there luring them into it. They are still there. Either we can definitely catch them now or maybe get lucky later far after the fact.


Prostitution being illegal is absurd anyway.

I know the threat is there, but I think the same intelligence,time and resources should go into protecting victims that are already in the process of being victimized. There are many real children at any given moment being set up and lured into being victims-intervene on those.
Monitor THOSE chats and surveille the meetings and then grab the predator en route to a real victim.

Dont misunderstand me-I am all for protecting all children from all predators. I feel the individuals they spotlighted on the show were all true scumbags, but apparently,there was a real problem with the procedure and now the scumbags could walk. Burned and much more wary.

I put child predators in the same category as murderers in terms of seriousness and I dont believe they can be rehabilitated. A child is the cost of finding out they werent.

I know the threat is there, but I think the same intelligence,time and resources should go into protecting victims that are already in the process of being victimized. There are many real children at any given moment being set up and lured into being victims-intervene on those.
Monitor THOSE chats and surveille the meetings and then grab the predator en route to a real victim.
Ok fine, monitor and intervene on those. I assume you are going to let your computer be bugged and monitored 24/7 by the cops just in case you might be a child molester looking for a new target. Even assuming it was feasible that every single person's computer was monitored 24/7 by the cops, that is a major invasion of privacy. Since that is neither feasible nor legal, the best way to get these people off the street is set up traps for them to fall into.

but apparently,there was a real problem with the procedure and now the scumbags could walk. Burned and much more wary.
Yeah - some one with political clout killed themselves so the prosecutor is playing games to save his ass.

Of course it does. I tend to agree.

I don't even particularly mind a well-done operation. However, if the interest of Dateline was to actually catch a predator they'd be working with the actual police organizations that do this. Of course, they way THEY do it is quite boring and more effective, but it wouldn't help the ratings.

Nevermind that it's unethical to pay your source. Nevermind that they claim to have one motive while demonstrating another. Nevermind that the defense for their actions is that ratings aren't their number one goal, but they prove this to be untrue. Forget all that. Because they're pedophiles so we should just enjoy our bloodlust and watch the public hangings.

It is done in a most sensational manner. The few I have seen have made me cringe-the girl coyly speaking and flitting out of sight and the nervous,horny,excited shit-bag checking everything out,then confronted with the Hanson guy and reduced to lying & crying,pathetic weasels.

The police could just grab the guy on the front lawn after he parks,rather than have a reporter obtain a confession?

It may have done some good, but it was more entertainment than crime fighting. Maybe it made some arents more aware. Maybe it made some kids more aware.

Yes they can. As long as those photographed are in control of their actions.

I don't know which country you are talking about but I'm talking about the USA.

A store gets sued for letting random people go in and photograph its shoppers. Go to an American supermarket, say Albertsons. Take a camera with you and just start snapping pictures. See how fast they kick you out and ban you from their store after a shopper complains you've violated her right to privacy by photographing her inside a supermarket.

What about Surveillance camera's?

Supposedly they're allowed to too cause their part of store security. But if you are not store security or you do not work for the government, you cannot take pictures.

I know it sounds hypocritical but I got arrested for taking pictures inside a store before. And it wasn't the upskirt kind. It was random shots for my art class project. They charged me with invasion of privacy cause I was photographing random people inside a supermarket.

They have to notify you... those signs in the parking lot, etc. do that.

It's also on the door. There's also a sign that says no video or photography. If there isn't you can argue that you didn't know. That's how I got of jail cause they didn't put a sign up saying picture taking wasn't allowed.

Although I have no sympathy for those @$$wads, I do agree that no police force or investigation team should EVER be at the whim or will of the entertainment industry.

I was going to let this die, but there's been a update.

On the Reilly Factor, PJ has admitted that they are paid 75,000 US dollars by Dateline to do their stings.


Also, this isn't just PJ talking, the DA who refused to prosecute is acting peculiar. He sending rude emails to people questioning his decision. WTF.

Reilly took PJ's spokesman to task for his group accepting kickbacks, which I didn't know they were doing.



This looks like a bigger mess than we thought it was.

I don't know which country you are talking about but I'm talking about the USA.

A store gets sued for letting random people go in and photograph its shoppers. Go to an American supermarket, say Albertsons. Take a camera with you and just start snapping pictures. See how fast they kick you out and ban you from their store after a shopper complains you've violated her right to privacy by photographing her inside a supermarket.

The manager of a store can ask you to quit or leave based on a customer complaint as s/he is the representative of the private owner of the property. If you don't cease they could charge you with trespass or some other charge relating to private property, they can ban you from the store, but not taking pictures. If they did you need a first amendment lawyer.

What you've done is nitpick my word choice and anything else you could without addressing anything.

Unless someone else has anything they'd like to add, I wash my hands of you.

Hint: Only play the intellectually superior card when you are, in fact, intellectually superior. Simplifies things a bit in the long run.

Who brought up the Michael Jackson thingy??????


A reporter has just stepped forward to disclose that there was a media conspiracy to have him declared guilty.
Reporter Aphrodite Jones wrote a book describing her participation in meetings with other journalists where they would talk about the best ways to "make Mr. Jackson look like a villain so our ratings can go up."

She also told the Reilly Factor that she watched a videotape of the interrogation of the little boy, whose mom was the one that accused Jackson of child molestation. She said the child was making things up and that the cop was telling the kid what to say on the witness stand. He said that the cop even gave the kid a script and had him practice it right there in the interrogation room.

Michael Jackson got railroaded.

I need to find that book so I can read it. It exposes the vast media conspiracy.