NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/27/nbc-sued-for-suicide-of-alleged-pedophile-prosecutor/?mod=googlenews_wsj?mod=fpa_blogs

He really rips into Dateline on this. Sending a fully armed swat team after a man who can't even run then acting as judge and jury and executioner.

Full text of her decision here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/conradt.pdf

Its hard for me to feel sorry for a kiddy toucher, but a SWAT team was not necissary.

What is sadder is that he never touched the decoy and that he actually turned the decoy's advances down 7 different times before they goaded him into approving the meeting with the decoy.

Supposedly the family has recording of chats where he kept turning it down. It sound like deliberate entrapment just to boost ratings: "Hey lets get more viewers by catching a pedophile prosecutor who has been elected 5 times." Never mind the fact that if he was a pedophile, he would have been caught in his 2 term. A predeliction for children is not something a high profile official can secret for as long as 5 terms.

What is sadder is that he never touched the decoy and that he actually turned the decoy's advances down 7 different times before they goaded him into approving the meeting with the decoy.

Supposedly the family has recording of chats where he kept turning it down. It sound like deliberate entrapment just to boost ratings: "Hey lets get more viewers by catching a pedophile prosecutor who has been elected 5 times." Never mind the fact that if he was a pedophile, he would have been caught in his 2 term. A predeliction for children is not something a high profile official can secret for as long as 5 terms.



Never heard about that part.


Oh well, I dont like Dateline anyway. Maybe it'll get cancelled. The guy in charge of that show...what his name? pisses me off.

Did anyone see this part:
"he was about to be arrested by police for attempting to solicit a minor online."

Eh. Actually from what I've read on this it was the minor and dateline who were soliciting him. Repeatedly.

oh look vigilantly thugs (out to exploit peoples horrors no less) don't help

they should pay every penny into research for re-animating the dead and the emotional stress their little game causes

Its hard for me to feel sorry for a kiddy toucher

proof?

I personally feel this went out of bounds for Responsible Journalism. If a journalist does gather information on an individual who is participating in illegal activities, they should pass this information onto law enforcement not get a camera crew and go film the person get arrested.

I just feel a lot of journalists are selling out and forgetting the ethics just to get a quick pay.

There was no need for the cameras to be there.

I'll wait and see how this plays out.

proof?

I think he was referring that Dateline went on the air afterward and had declared the man guilty after he had killed himself and hence was not able to exercise his right to innocent until proven guilty in a criminal court.

Dateline seems to have been replacing the judicial system in that case.

There are a lot of problems here...

First off, there's the debate on whether or not Fourth Amendment rights were broken. While the police obtained a warrant, the judge stated explicitly if he knew of Dateline's involvement, there would have been no warrant issued.

On this part, I have to say that NBC is guilty.

Then there's the matter of whether or not Dateline was responsible for the man's suicide. As stated, Conradt didn't know that Dateline was there--rather only that the police were. This could be argued to alleviate some guilt, however, if I read the full case text correctly, his sister amended that claim.

I won't even get into whether or not his suicide constitutes reasonable suspicion or not. But it does seem a little fishy to me that he turned down the decoy several times, and they still went after them.

And, honestly...A SWAT team? For a [supposed] pedophile?

I think they really blew things out of proportion, and I hope this suit brings Chris Hanson falling into obscurity...He's really kind of a dick.

Is anyone reading the ruling?
The judge found that the whole point of Dateline is "public humiliation" of people.

Because their target did not go to the sting house, Hansen asked the police to go to his house so Dateline can film the arrest and humiliation of a high profile public official.

Always thought it had overtones of entrapment. More importantly, it caused slight damage to my opinion of Jon Stewart when he had the presenter from this on his show and treated him like a hero.

How about when they had the Hansen host the Democratic Debate awhile back?

According the ruling: Hansen demanded that the police get an arrest warrant and bust into Contradt's home because he did not show up at the sting house.

What is sadder is that he never touched the decoy and that he actually turned the decoy's advances down 7 different times before they goaded him into approving the meeting with the decoy.

Supposedly the family has recording of chats where he kept turning it down. It sound like deliberate entrapment just to boost ratings: "Hey lets get more viewers by catching a pedophile prosecutor who has been elected 5 times." Never mind the fact that if he was a pedophile, he would have been caught in his 2 term. A predeliction for children is not something a high profile official can secret for as long as 5 terms.

where did you hear this? can you provide a link backing this up?

Always thought it had overtones of entrapment. More importantly, it caused slight damage to my opinion of Jon Stewart when he had the presenter from this on his show and treated him like a hero.

NBC was initially charged under RICO but that dismissed.

Because their target did not go to the sting house, Hansen asked the police to go to his house so Dateline can film the arrest and humiliation of a high profile public official.

REALLY?


Ok, that to me says they went for entrapment, he said sure the 8th time just to get them off his back and had no intention of showing up at the sting house, and Hansen got pissed because he lost of show and pressured the cops to kick the door in.

The man shot himself. HIMSELF is the key word. Suing someone for 100 mil because your brother shot himself is incredibly stupid IMO.

They are suing them over the conditions in which her brother was forced to shoot himself. They have a solid case, and deserve to win.

The man shot himself. HIMSELF is the key word. Suing someone for 100 mil because your brother shot himself is incredibly stupid IMO.

You know what I think is interesting:

The defendents are insisting that Contradt had no way of knowing that Dateline was there, despite the fact that they had Dateline camera and sound crews in his back and front yard and all over his street where he could clearly see them from a window.

Just because a person doesn't indicate that he knows you are there does not mean he doesn't know you are there. Especially when you are crawling all over the place and violating on his privately owned property.

good. I hope dateline has to pay every cent, followed by more suits, leading to the show begin cancled, and NBC loosing a few billion for agreeing to host such a terrible show. Real-life Law Enforcement should never be entertainment, and it's sickening when it's used as such.

Page 18 the judge really rips into Dateline and the law enforcement that was involved in the operation.

EDIT: Page 18 of the ruling. This stuff is good reading.

In all cases I've heard of people "soliciting a minor", the person actually has to go to the sting house. It's ridiculous that they went to his house with a SWAT team. I mean, pedophiles are dangerous.. but not that way. You don't need a SWAT team to take out a pedophile. (Which it's questionable if he even was one if he repeatedly turned down the solicitation.)

Now, I do know of someone who was arrested for driving by the sting house and not stopping. But, those circumstances were fishy enough as is. (It was a guy who went to my high school, so I got to hear the news version and what he told all his friends. Very... interesting.)

edit: Reading legal documents is still a bit difficult, even for me. gah. But it's interesting.

Let's not get too carried away here people. The case merely survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. That means, the court had to accept as true everything alleged by the plaintiff and make all inferences in the plaintiff's favor in deciding whether the plaintiff stated any case at all. The court merely held that if everything were looked at favorably to the plaintiff, some of the plaintiff's claims were capable of having merit. The court dismissed seven of the plaintiff's nine causes of action, but held that two causes of action could have merit. This is a far cry from condeming Dateline or declaring that Dateline must stand trial. There are more steps between a motion to dismiss and trial, particularly motions for summary judgment.

You know what I think is interesting:

The defendents are insisting that Contradt had no way of knowing that Dateline was there, despite the fact that they had Dateline camera and sound crews in his back and front yard and all over his street where he could clearly see them from a window.

Just because a person doesn't indicate that he knows you are there does not mean he doesn't know you are there. Especially when you are crawling all over the place and violating on his privately owned property.

The judge actually addresses this issue on page 26 of his ruling.

In all cases I've heard of people "soliciting a minor", the person actually has to go to the sting house. It's ridiculous that they went to his house with a SWAT team. I mean, pedophiles are dangerous.. but not that way. You don't need a SWAT team to take out a pedophile. (Which it's questionable if he even was one if he repeatedly turned down the solicitation.)

.


Exactly. SWAT teams are a para-military unit and should only be called for such situations requiring a team of men in full body armour and carrying Sub-machine guns. Plus calling them for such arrests is a pointless waste of time, it takes about twenty minutes to suit and un-suit, plus driving, plus a briefing, plus a de-briefing. All in all, when we get called, it means about two hours are gone, often at the expense of sleep, followed by having to go on duty the next day.

Let's not get too carried away here people. The case merely survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. That means, the court had to accept as true everything alleged by the plaintiff and make all inferences in the plaintiff's favor in deciding whether the plaintiff stated any case at all. The court merely held that if everything were looked at favorably to the plaintiff, some of the plaintiff's claims were capable of having merit. The court dismissed seven of the plaintiff's nine causes of action, but held that two causes of action could have merit. This is a far cry from condeming Dateline or declaring that Dateline must stand trial. There are more steps between a motion to dismiss and trial, particularly motions for summary judgment.

But for summary judgment wouldn't Dateline have to admit guilt? Which they clearly seem intent on not doing.

But for summary judgment wouldn't Dateline have to admit guilt? Which they clearly seem intent on not doing.

Whuh? That just means the judge reviews the case, rather than bringing in a jury. Cheaper by miles.

But for summary judgment wouldn't Dateline have to admit guilt? Which they clearly seem intent on not doing.

If I understand it right, summary judgment doesn't mean admitting guilt. It just means you admit that all the given information is true.

But for summary judgment wouldn't Dateline have to admit guilt? Which they clearly seem intent on not doing.

No, they wouldn't.

Here are some definitions of a motion to dismiss (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m045.htm)and a motion for summary judgment (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m043.htm). So far, two of the nine claims of the plaintiffs have survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In a 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff doesn't have to offer any evidence. They merely have to make allegations sufficient to state a cause of action. To survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff have to present evidence on each element of a cause of action sufficient for the jury to find in the plaintiff's favor.

In Russia, the media is not allowed to go around violating people's rights.

Nah. In Russia, if media violate your privacy, we take them into street and shoot them with firing squad.

EH...Them and any policemen who help them.

We skip trial part because trial part is too expensive.

In Russia, the media is not allowed to go around violating people's rights.


Because in Russia, they don't have rights!

I'm seeing a lot of hearsay here, and not much in the way of actual supporting evidence.

Um. You're not seeing ANY supporting evidence, because the existence of evidence isn't relevant at this stage of the procedings. The plaintiff's case consists merely of allegations which, on their face, state two causes of action.

I'm seeing a lot of hearsay here, and not much in the way of actual supporting evidence.

I do not understand though, why US not just take Dateline to firing squad that way to eliminate waste of government money.

That is what Russia would do.

Just imagine:

"chris Hansen, the President of all the Russias declares you guilty of crimes against humanity. You will now be executed for all your crimes by firing squad."

I do not understand though, why US not just take Dateline to firing squad that way to eliminate waste of government money.

That is what Russia would do.

Just imagine:

"chris Hansen, the President of all the Russias declares you guilty of crimes against humanity. You will now be executed for all your crimes by firing squad."

Because then we'd have to do the same to Joe Francis for all the Girls Gone Wild lawsuits.

not relevant but funny

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hKUkwh8TmM0

Because then we'd have to do the same to Joe Francis for all the Girls Gone Wild lawsuits.

no, Joe makes good Movies, Chris makes the worst show on TV.

Because then we'd have to do the same to Joe Francis for all the Girls Gone Wild lawsuits.

But, would anyone but horny old dudes (or college guys who cant get any) really have a problem with that?

Because I wouldnt.


Anyone who gets drunk college chicks to flash them and have sex on camera and then sells them, gets sent to jail, and then in an interview compares himself to Rosa Parks frankly deserves to get shot.

Rolling squid;13490047']no, Joe makes good Movies, Chris makes the worst show on TV.

Okay, my brain just exploded. Someone said the Girls Gone Wild series qualifies as "good movies"....

I will say some of the circumstances he's gotten in trouble for have been shady, but not enough of them to excuse how much of an idiot he is. So, yeah, I do agree the world would be better off if Joe Francis had never gotten famous or made these movies.

And, yes. Porn = good. But let's stick to the porn made by people who know exactly what they're getting in to, not inebriated college girls.

Porn is overrated.


All though, in relation to your post, I will say Im noticing a trend lately with girls liking porn. Maybe they just hide it until theyre older, but to me it seems like all of a sudden girls just decide "Hey porn really turns me on!"


Its kind of a mind fuck initially.

Okay, my brain just exploded. Someone said the Girls Gone Wild series qualifies as "good movies"....

porn = good.
girls gone wild = porn
therefore, girls gone wild = good

Chris Hansen deserves to be beaten in to a bloody, swollen smear on the ground that can't remember how to tie his own shoes or wipe his ass.

I never did like "To Catch a Predator" series. It seem too much like entrapment, but I'm not a legal person so what do I know what is Entrapment and not.

Anyone who gets drunk college chicks to flash them and have sex on camera and then sells them, gets sent to jail, and then in an interview compares himself to Rosa Parks frankly deserves to get shot.

I will say some of the circumstances he's gotten in trouble for have been shady, but not enough of them to excuse how much of an idiot he is. So, yeah, I do agree the world would be better off if Joe Francis had never gotten famous or made these movies.

And, yes. Porn = good. But let's stick to the porn made by people who know exactly what they're getting in to, not inebriated college girls.

Porn is overrated.


All though, in relation to your post, I will say Im noticing a trend lately with girls liking porn. Maybe they just hide it until theyre older, but to me it seems like all of a sudden girls just decide "Hey porn really turns me on!"


Its kind of a mind fuck initially.

I only discuss watching porn with people I'll possibly watch it with, usually. But girls liking porn is no new thing, really. Ever read a Harlequin Romance, or seen the "book excerpts" in the back of Cosmo? Just because it's packaged differently doesn't make it different.

I will say it's generally not a getting older thing, it's what other girls will think. I know that I don't mention porn to my female friends (well, all but one) just because I don't want to deal with their reaction. However, with some of my guy friends... we'll occasionally discuss it. (Until it leads to a quick change of topic... or, in certain cases, watching it together. :x )

Because then we'd have to do the same to Joe Francis for all the Girls Gone Wild lawsuits.

Yes but then government takes over Girls Gone Wild then Girls Gone Wild belongs to the people so everyone get free Girls Gone Wild DVDs.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=O6-psmcDWps&feature=related