Lens N Light wrote:
I still think these operations are and ought to be called "entrapment". They are a lot like the cops that used to go around in civies with fast cars goading others into a drag race and then arresting them.

You are equating on line pedophiles in search of children to rape, with drag racing? It isn't "entrapment" when you allow someone an opportunity to do what he already wants to do and far more than likely has done many times before. As far as I'm concerned, it shoud be done far more often. And yes, as a photographer of the nude for many years, I've received many emails from apparent 12 to 14 girls, wanting either to pose nude or to 'meet' with me.  I'm confident at least some of those were law enforcement, but simply deleting the email or chewing out the 'young girl' causes them to move on. Only agressive law enforcement and sting operations such as this type, will get predators  put where they belong.

SayCheeZ! wrote:
The program is basically a sting operation, where predators who believe they are corresponding with minors via the internet go to a location to meet them, with the intention of having sex.

A buddy of mine, who is a 400+lb computer systems guy, wears an XXXL Tshirt that reads "I AM THE 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL YOU WERE GETTING OFF WITH IN THAT CHAT ROOM LAST NIGHT."

He says its really fun to walk around in that and, periodically, some guy will look extremely nervous.

mjr.

Lens N Light wrote:
I still think these operations are and ought to be called "entrapment". They are a lot like the cops that used to go around in civies with fast cars goading others into a drag race and then arresting them.

Yep.  If you took away all the cops posing as hookers, johns, fences, drug dealers, drug buyers, arms dealers, arms buyers, terrorists, spies, child porn bait, child porn merchants, and all the other forms of entrapment they pull, the crime rate would probably drop significantly.  But, what the hell.  Making new criminals is a hell of a lot easier than going after old criminals.  And there is no strategy that is too low for them when it comes to temping someone to "cross the line".  They could make your grandmother into a major drug trafficer and once that happens, no one is going to be on your side.

Another aspect of these witch hunts is that the press rarely questions the validity of the claims made by law enforcement.   It's easier just to report it as is and the more inflated the numbers, the better the drama.

Lens N Light wrote:
I still think these operations are and ought to be called "entrapment". They are a lot like the cops that used to go around in civies with fast cars goading others into a drag race and then arresting them.

One of those episodes had a guy undress in the garage and then come into the house naked with beer.. hilarity ensues when the "host" pops out!  Touchy subject or not, *that* was funny lol

Re: entrapment
I'd call it culling, not entrapment.  I had a 17 year old contact me, and I felt like the dirtiest old man in the world when I figured out what she wanted.  Ew!

Who wants to meet a 14 year old girl anyway, they're like chihuaua's on speed.

Lens N Light wrote:
I still think these operations are and ought to be called "entrapment". They are a lot like the cops that used to go around in civies with fast cars goading others into a drag race and then arresting them.

That doesn't sound like "entrapment" that sounds like "forced evolution applied to f***ing idiots" to me.

The litmus test for "entrapment" is whether you are an agent of law enforcement or the government (i.e.: a civilian cannot 'entrap') and you encourage the perpetrator to do something that they would not otherwise do. If you were a cop in civvies and pulled up next to them and revved your engine: entrapment. If you're a cop in civvies in a hot car and they pull up next to you, and then burn out when the light turns green: idiots.

I actually know one of the guys who does the chat room scene for a living (building identity maps of the internet hacker community)  He's quite passionate about it because he says it's amazing how comfortable these clowns are with their ability to commit crimes anonymously on the Internet. And if your online persona is female, it's amazing the number of idiots who'll try to hit on you immediately. Back in the 1980s, when it was easier technically, me and a buddy put a sockets interface on a copy of "Eliza" and had "her" log into a few online games as "Eliza" (female, age 18) - reading the logs of all the d0rks asking her if she was really a girl, and if she had big boobs, etc, etc - at first it was funny but then it became horrifyingly sad.

mjr.

Freeman Photography wrote:

One of those episodes had a guy undress in the garage and then come into the house naked with beer.. hilarity ensues when the "host" pops out!  Touchy subject or not, *that* was funny lol

Re: entrapment
I'd call it culling, not entrapment.  I had a 17 year old contact me, and I felt like the dirtiest old man in the world when I figured out what she wanted.  Ew!

Who wants to meet a 14 year old girl anyway, they're like chihuaua's on speed.

I wouldn't say that. I know sme really nice, intelligent people who are teenagers. They, in fact, surpass a number of the "adults" on this site for both maturity and good common sense.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Yep.  If you took away all the cops posing as hookers, johns, fences, drug dealers, drug buyers, arms dealers, arms buyers, terrorists, spies, child porn bait, child porn merchants, and all the other forms of entrapment they pull, the crime rate would probably drop significantly.  But, what the hell.  Making new criminals is a hell of a lot easier than going after old criminals.  And there is no strategy that is too low for them when it comes to temping someone to "cross the line".  They could make your grandmother into a major drug trafficer and once that happens, no one is going to be on your side.

Another aspect of these witch hunts is that the press rarely questions the validity of the claims made by law enforcement.   It's easier just to report it as is and the more inflated the numbers, the better the drama.

Oh my gawd...While I do agree with you on cases where cops do entrap many..You can't justify nor excuse a grown ass man coming into what he thinks is a 13 year girls home, parents home at that. Thinking that he's going to get some young action, takes his muthafuckin clothes off, sits butt ass naked on a stool, being interviewed by multiple cameras asking why did he come to the house for. Come on, no way..This is on the same NBC show...

Freeman Photography wrote:
Who wants to meet a 14 year old girl anyway, they're like chihuaua's on speed.

Probably no one likes young girls.  Probably no one likes shaved pubic hair or school girl outfits either.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Probably no one likes young girls.  Probably no one likes shaved pubic hair or school girl outfits either.

luv the sarcism..good point and yet, sad. sad because that is what the media and the adult industry portrays grown women in these types of movies..school girl look, etc..so it looks like it is a fantasy for many. Just look at some of the ports of some of the models on here. Some are wearing the school girl look with the innocent but naughty look and a teadybear animal sitting on the bed..

Legacys 7 wrote:
Oh my gawd...While I do agree with you on cases where cops do entrap many..You can't justify nor excuse a grown ass man coming into what he thinks is a 13 year girls home, parents home at that. Thinking that he's going to get some young action, takes his muthafuckin clothes off, sits butt ass naked on a stool, being interviewed by multiple cameras asking why did he come to the house for. Come on, no way..This is on the same NBC show...

My post makes no such claim.  Do they catch real child molesters?  I have no doubt that they do.  Does that justify the others that may never have committed a crime if it hadn't been for the cops providing the opportunity and plenty of encouragement?  I don't think so.  And, it is very rare that someone gets off by claiming entrapment.  Once charged with any crime having to do with children (real or imaginary), you're basically screwed.  You can see by the tone of the posts in this and similar threads that people will condemn someone for the mere suggestion that they might possibly, maybe, have injured a child (real or imaginary).  Entrapment is a defense tat works only when there's sensitivity to it on the part of the public.  If you're labeled a child molester, no one cares how they managed to snare you. 

Just as a point of illustration, these are the same kind of folks who will interrogate you for 16 or 20 hours until you confess to a crime you didn't commit.  It happens all the time.  If you need an example how about the central park jogger? They managed to get confessions from like four or five people for that.  All false.  There is no such thing as ethics when it comes to nailing the "bad guys".  After all, they are bad guys, right?  So who cares?

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Some may claim it's entrapment, some may say it's just a great way to catch predators.

One of the other things a lot of people don't realize about the entrapment defense is that no attorney with a clue is going to attempt to use it to defend. Why? Because in order to attempt an entrapment defense you basically have to admit that you did commit the crime, fully, and knowingly. At which point, you're pretty much toast.

mjr.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Probably no one likes young girls.  Probably no one likes shaved pubic hair or school girl outfits either.

Young: yes
Shaved: yes
School Girl outfits: yes

Children: no.

That about sums it up for me.  Anyone going to a house for sex with a minor deserves what they get.  An officer(or a real girl) couldn't get me into that house no matter what she said.  It's just wrong.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
The litmus test for "entrapment" is whether you are an agent of law enforcement or the government (i.e.: a civilian cannot 'entrap') and you encourage the perpetrator to do something that they would not otherwise do.

That brings up a very good point.  On the other episodes that I saw, it was noted that civilian volunteers were used to play the part of the minors.  Law enforcement was not involved except for witnessing the activity and making the arrests.  In each case that I saw, the volunteer simply put up a web page and the alleged perpetrator initiated contact.

Not surprisingly, an identical sting happened here in Las Vegas, however there were no police involved, nor would they be able to arrest the predator even if they were involved.

Y'see, in MOST other states, the law applies if the victim is 'thought' to be a minor.
In Nevada (and at least one other state) the law REQUIRES the victim to ACTUALLY be a minor.  If a real minor was used in a sting, it would be considered child endangerment and the law enforcement agents / media that were involved would be arrested for committing such a crime.

Similar Federal laws are on the books as well. Laws from the 1996 'Child Pornography Protection Act' makes it illegal for recording pornographic acts of someone 'PORTRAYING' a minor. The law does not only pertain to adults acting as children, but also includes computer generated images and drawn animations.

Dave Krueger wrote:
If you took away all the cops posing as hookers, johns, fences, drug dealers, drug buyers, arms dealers, arms buyers, terrorists, spies, child porn bait, child porn merchants, and all the other forms of entrapment they pull, the crime rate would probably drop significantly.

What the hell have you been smok'n?..

This would be not only be unrealistic, but the crime rates would frick’n explode.

Since sting operations, crime rates have dropped big time and not only from the actual perp’s getting caught, but the increased forethought of getting busted.

I support these types of police interventions and applaud the perversity the media is putting on most of these crimes (prostitution and marijuana excluded).

SayCheeZ! wrote:
Some may claim it's entrapment, some may say it's just a great way to catch predators.  The reality is that the predators are out there and people need to know how NOT to become one of their victims.

They could easily catch all the predators they like...Just by going to Mass.  I think this whole "online predators" media scare is totally bollocks...As big a waste of time and manpower as sending cops into raves/concerts to bust kids with a couple of hits of whatever on them. 

Just stupid.

McKenzie Bros Photo wrote:
1 out of 5 minors (under 13) are solicited for sex via the internet...
This is a big number, what the hell has gone wrong????

Yeah, they're probably being propositioned by the 1 in every 4 people who are "mentally ill".

Dave Krueger wrote:
My post makes no such claim.  Do they catch real child molesters?  I have no doubt that they do.  Does that justify the others that may never have committed a crime if it hadn't been for the cops providing the opportunity and plenty of encouragement?  I don't think so.  And, it is very rare that someone gets off by claiming entrapment.  Once charged with any crime having to do with children (real or imaginary), you're basically screwed.  You can see by the tone of the posts in this and similar threads that people will condemn someone for the mere suggestion that they might possibly, maybe, have injured a child (real or imaginary).  Entrapment is a defense tat works only when there's sensitivity to it on the part of the public.  If you're labeled a child molester, no one cares how they managed to snare you. 

Just as a point of illustration, these are the same kind of folks who will interrogate you for 16 or 20 hours until you confess to a crime you didn't commit.  It happens all the time.  If you need an example how about the central park jogger? They managed to get confessions from like four or five people for that.  All false.  There is no such thing as ethics when it comes to nailing the "bad guys".  After all, they are bad guys, right?  So who cares?

I am a observer. I try not to get involved, but I observe things around me..That being said, I'm a niether for or against person who is either on this side or that side..


Here's what I've said about stuff like this from both angles. The sex offenders is the begining of a Big Brother type system to come for all. Megan's List..Megan's List in the future will be more than just some perverted guy who is on there for life for sexually rapping a child, a man who is on thier for rapping a women etc..


You'll have a Megan's List but a non sex offence types for people stealing a loaf of bread that will be in the system via interenet via government. I say this because you see the new laws where they want sex offenders, the worst of the worst to wear a teather for life that will monitor them whenever they get around a school full of kids. To me this is a sign of things to come for society period..you are being watched. But big Brother isn't just your government, but your nextdoor neighbors with their hightech cameras, their computers etc...Watching you, suspect you of something and put your name and face via internet ruining your life, doing as much damage as the government..So yes, I agree about slander and those who can and have been falsey accused..Even after they have been proven innocent, a reputation is hard to get rid of and people are quick to judge and believe without questioning it first.


This case on t.v. I can understand your point that the guys didn't commit an act of crime. They didn't sleep with a minor, but many Johns don't sleep with hookers when they are arrested by a undercover cop. Still is a crime.

It's a controversial thing because we have the sex offender (men that will be looked at) that many of us want to see get hit, and then there's the media who gives us the illususion that they are our saviour by showing us this. We feed off of it and bite into it believing everything that we see. It makes me think about some of these games shows..'Deal or no Deal'. I said to myself one day. Is this stuff real, or could this all be setup? A sponsered audience and contestant. The question is, what is real and what isn't. Like a Jerry Springer show, springing up the comedy of life of reality to entertain your eyes and brain because this is what many get off on..What you chose to believe is your choice, but chose wisely by reading between the lines. Something like the blonde woman who got off and got off, because the fools who let her off, got off on her looks and freaky ways. The power of the media and the system.

SayCheeZ! wrote:

That brings up a very good point.  On the other episodes that I saw, it was noted that civilian volunteers were used to play the part of the minors.  Law enforcement was not involved except for witnessing the activity and making the arrests.  In each case that I saw, the volunteer simply put up a web page and the alleged perpetrator initiated contact.

This is why they use the civilian group Perverted Jutice to act as the 13 yo girl.

Bottom line though, regardless of the definition of entrapment, any man that shows up at a house expecting to see a naked 13 yo girl while her parents are not home, deserves to get locked away for life.

Everyday I'm amazed that here in SW Florida the number of sexual predators we have around us. Even with out the sting, there always arresting or finding another pervert down here. The recently arrested a bank VP for molesting is 13 yo babysitter and last month nailed a Bonita Springs photographer (Who would shoot youth sporting events for middle schools and the local rec center) for taking child porn of a couple of the girls he talked into coming back to his house.

And if you do a registered sex predator search, there are a ton of them down here. Its fricking sick, any way to get these perverts off the streets is alright with me.