October 22, 2010

Regarding the 'To catch a predator' episode I was watching...


Really?

32 comments:

  1. for the record, this is a valid opinion

    ReplyDelete
  2. It actually *is* bullshit that they entrap these people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I would love to see all child predators get their comeuppance, it *is* entrapment, and many of the people on this show have been able to get out of the charges because it's entrapment. :-\

    ReplyDelete
  4. You guys are so ridiculous. This is about raping children, which is a crime of enough severity that any entrapment aspect really does not matter.

    Guess what, if you commit murder, even if it's the result of a police sting and a police officer actually said to you "hey, how about you pick up that gun and kill that guy!" you don't get to stand there with blood all over your hands and say "I'm innocent! It was entrapment!" If you get elected as a government official and an FBI agent offers you a folder full of cash to do something corrupt and you take it, sorry, you're not getting off by saying that it was entrapment.

    You should read more about what entrapment actually is under law, too: for the police to simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime, even if it's a really really attractive opportunity, is NOT entrapment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The guy above me is a bit of an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The issue with what the 'To Catch a Predator' people do is that they actively convince a lot of these men to committ a crime; in a few cases, some of these guys get lead on for weeks, and a lot of these men never would have been inclined to actually try anything if it wasn't made to seem so real to them.

    Men are naturally attracted to young women - it's instinct. While most of us (myself included) are able to get over and ignore this instinct, you can't bait a dude with a virile, beautiful young woman for a month (or more) and not expect him to act on it.

    It's absolutely entrapment what they do and it's very hard to prosecute the people who end up on the show because in almost every case the same evidence they're trying to use to prosecute the accused is the evidence for throwing out the case due to entrapment - they mainly hope that people confess and plead guilty. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

    These people are huge pieces of shit, for the record, but there's a lot of pieces of shit out there, you can't just throw their rights out the window because you want to get them off the street.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow. There's not a single one of you here who has the faintest clue what you're talking about. And I should know. Because I was one of the founding staff members of the watchdog group that worked with "Dateline NBC" on the "To Catch a Predator" series. And I worked on every episode that aired.

    To begin with, armchair attorneys never have the faintest fucking clue what "entrapment" actually is. But I do. I had to. Because we had very strict rules of operation that were carefully vetted by local, state and federal law enforcement, up to and including the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation. And every single thing we did was absolutely within the law. In letter AND in spirit. If you watched the shows, you saw our personnel working elbow-to-elbow with law enforcement at every turn. And if a single thing we'd done had been outside the law, they would have been OBLIGATED to arrest us on the spot. You'll notice it never happened. Nobody's rights were violated, and no laws were broken...At least, not by US.

    Second:

    "You can't bait a dude with a virile, beautiful young woman for a month (or more) and not expect him to act on it."

    Right. Totally. Because men are nothing but erect, walking cocks, and nobody should ever expect them to have enough maturity or self-control to be able to say..."Hold on a second. I'm 32. She's 13. This is 100% illegal as shit." Why should men be held accountable for not raping adolescents? They can't control themselves!

    What it boils down to is that there are very specific laws on the books regarding solicitation of minors. And all of them basically say the same thing: DON'T FUCKING DO IT, ASSHOLE. Those guys weren't innocent victims. They weren't "entrapped," or "led on." THEY initiated the chats in every instance. THEY steered the conversations into inappropriate waters. THEY showed up at the house hoping to get their rocks off molesting a kid. And that is why THEY are doing time. Which they are. Because we never ONCE lost a case. Not ONCE.

    What you saw on TV was only the tip of the iceberg. Those stings took WEEKS to set up, every detail was examined carefully, and they were choreographed and executed with damn-near military precision because they HAD to be.

    So, feel free to talk out your uninformed asses all you like, but those of us who were instrumental in putting "Predator" together and then pulling it off without a hitch are the only ones who can speak with any authority on the subject. You honestly don't know shit about any of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also, jesus christ, in what world do you live in where a flat-chested 13-year-old is a "beautiful young woman"? 16, okay, that's iffy, but if she hasn't hit puberty yet, you're a creeper if you think she's sexy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As the head of the president of NBC I can attest to the fact that this show as highly illegal and that everyone working on it was a child molester themselves who buttfucked actual children in the "command center."

    ReplyDelete
  10. To the anonymous person who claims to have worked on the show:

    1) Show some proof that you worked on it. Anyone can claim to be anything when posting anonymously online.

    2) When the people at either end of the chat are adults, no crime is actually being committed. Period. While the pedophile may THINK that they're breaking the law and coming onto a child, they haven't been. You cannot prosecute someone for a crime that hasn't been actually occurred. All you've done is proven that the person in question is CAPABLE of such acts. If they arrest them for that, it's most certainly entrapment, and also false arrest. If they want to get those sick fucks off the street, they need to have solid evidence of an ACTUAL crime having been committed by the perv.

    Also, to the person who likened the show's entrapment to forcing someone into murder:

    1) No. It's actually like giving someone a gun that they THINK is loaded with actual bullets, but instead has a clip full of blanks and having them pull the trigger at someone loaded with a squib set to go off to make it LOOK like they killed someone. It's not the same thing.

    2) Any cops involved in the sort of sting you described would be prosecuted as accessories to murder.

    The basic point of this is that while the suspects featured on the show are certainly capable of the disgusting acts that are simulated on the show, the acts are still only being simulated, not actually committed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. just goes to show... they're out there!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure how this isn't entrapment, but they're not "poor guys." They're big fucking assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  13. <.< Insensitive but I HAVE to throw this out.

    INTERNET. SRS BSNS.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Because we never ONCE lost a case. Not ONCE. "

    Wrong.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060707dnmetsexsting.36ff8b8.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. "1) Show some proof that you worked on it. Anyone can claim to be anything when posting anonymously online."

    A) I don't owe you anything. B) I'm not about to tell you who I am, and open myself up to ignorant hate attacks from people who have no idea of process or legalities involved. C) You'd just dismiss any "proof" I'd offer anyway using the same rationale you just did..."Big deal. You can SAY anything on the internet." So what's the point?

    Suffice to say, I was there from the beginning, and left in 2007. In between, I watched the site grow from a local Portland, Oregon area chat room focused on shaming predators into a pop-culture touchstone that touched off a wave of awareness and law enforcement all over the country. And I'm damn proud of that.

    "2) When the people at either end of the chat are adults, no crime is actually being committed. Period."

    That's interesting. Then I wonder why so many of them were convicted in legitimate courts of law, and were sentenced to prison? Must have been a GIANT conspiracy involving THOUSANDS of people. Oh, and WHERE did you say you went to law school, again?

    Here are the facts, from someone who HAD to know them intimately:

    In most states (37 of them by the time I left the organization), solicitation of a person that a given actor even has has REASON TO BELIEVE is a minor via personal, electronic, or written means is a prosecutable felony. "Mens rea" (literally, "guilty mind") is a well-established legal principle that takes into account the state of mind, and therefore the intent, of the accused. In other words...When someone attempts but fails to commit murder, that is a criminal charge. Y'know..."Attempted Murder." So, your argument is that we should just NOT prosecute attempted murder cases just because someone has shitty aim? "Oh, well. You're free to go. Better luck next time!" Wrong.

    Fact is, I know what I'm talking about, based on at least a dozen court cases I was called to testify in, and protocol guidelines vetted by the FBI. You...don't. PERIOD.

    (cont'd)

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You cannot prosecute someone for a crime that hasn't been actually occurred. All you've done is proven that the person in question is CAPABLE of such acts."

    Wrong. Once again, see "attempted murder." There are others, but that's the only example that needs to be given in order to demonstrate that I know what I'm talking about, and you're just talking out your ass.

    "If they arrest them for that, it's most certainly entrapment, and also false arrest."

    No. "Entrapment" has a VERY specific legal definition. First, "entrapment" MUST be committed by a peace officer or law enforcement officer, which we were not. Right out of the gate, it fails the definition. Second, the crime MUST represent an "irresistable opportunity" that no average person would pass up. "Psst! Hey! HD TV's! Fell off a truck! Twenty bucks!" So, if your argument is that a sexually-available 13-year-old represents an "irresistible opportunity" for the average person, then I'd be careful who you admit that to. That's the sort of shit that winds up with you being required by law to introduce yourself to all of your neighbors, son.

    But most importantly...AGAIN...no lost court cases. But I'm sure YOU know better than over 500 judges, right?

    "If they want to get those sick fucks off the street, they need to have solid evidence of an ACTUAL crime having been committed by the perv."

    So, your argument is that there should be no route to prevention? That an ACTUAL CHILD needs to be SEXUALLY MOLESTED before the law can step in and do anything? So...if some tot-grabber tosses a kid in his van, and the cops tear the doors off while he's nude and busy lubing up, we should just let him go. I mean, he hadn't actually DONE anything yet, right?

    Thankfully, the legal system is run by people who AREN'T gigantic dumb-fucks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, and it must be said:

    "Wrong. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060707dnmetsexsting.36ff8b8.html"

    I said we never LOST A CASE. And that's true. Those cases in Murphy were never even brought to trial, because the Asst. DA refused to prosecute on a legal loophole. It was a dumbass decision, but they stuck to it despite our perfect record.

    The record of cases that have actually been prosecuted? A 100% rate of conviction.

    EXCEPT OMG ITS THOUGHT CRIME AND FALSE ARREST AND ENTRAPMENT

    Wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. *I* DO. And the evidence is 100% on MY side, just like it was in all the court cases.

    Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "2) When the people at either end of the chat are adults, no crime is actually being committed. Period. While the pedophile may THINK that they're breaking the law and coming onto a child, they haven't been. You cannot prosecute someone for a crime that hasn't been actually occurred. All you've done is proven that the person in question is CAPABLE of such acts. If they arrest them for that, it's most certainly entrapment, and also false arrest. If they want to get those sick fucks off the street, they need to have solid evidence of an ACTUAL crime having been committed by the perv."

    The attempt of a crime is punishable just like the actual commission of a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm glad you're calling people names like "Dumb fuck" and letting everybody know how much smarter you are than them. I can really take you seriously because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rather disturbing number of pedophiles commenting on this cartoon. Yikes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous, first thing is that you still haven't provided any evidence that you are who you claim to be. I'm providing a genuine identity for myself with methods where you could confirm that I am who I say I am.

    Second, you are a very nasty person. Not as bad as the people you claim to have been involved with entrapping, but still.

    Third, the biggest problem with the show's method: you went after them, they didn't seek you out. Imagine some dude with pedophilic leanings who is not actively seeking out underage people to sexually assault, but has done stuff in the past that he's trying to distance himself from. Then one member of the crew of the show you claim to have worked on starts bugging him and trying to get him to take the bait. In a moment of weakness, he does.
    Might that have happened anyway without your show sticking it right in his face? Yeah, and in that case one would hope that the police would arrest him before it goes any further than just communication, but with "your" show, the deck was stacked against the man. It's like you stuck an open bottle of whiskey in front of an alcoholic and claimed that it was all his fault that he drank. Of course the person is still responsible for their actions, but it's not like they weren't given a push in the wrong direction.

    In short: the show is good in concept and I'm in favor of its intent, but I find the execution to be horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. By the way, Anon. I called you nasty because of your completely horrid manners. I may swear from time to time, too, but I try to be polite in anonymous online discourse. You should too.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shouldn't this be under creeps?

    Great blog. You may want to change the comment text color from black.

    ReplyDelete
  24. They're not "poor guys," but for the record, it actually is entrapment, and guys from the show have been found innocent because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why is anyone even arguing with someone who clearly knows what they are talking about? As someone who just recently became a lawyer, here's the standard "entrapment" definition as it appears on the bar:

    Entrapment Defined: It is a defense if:
    (1) government unfairly tempted defendant to commit crime
    (2) criminal design originated with government
    (3) the def was not predisposed to commit the crime

    So no, the show is not entrapment, because even if (3) is debatable, (1) and (2) are obviously not true because nobody on the show was a cop, so it is NOT ENTRAPMENT.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It scares me that so many people here are defending pedophiles.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You know what scares me? People getting labeled as pedos just for expressing their opinion. What a joke. I watched the show and thought it was bullshit too. But to be honest? They got a lot of fucking creeps off the streets.

    P.S. guy from to catch a predator, you proud you guys fucked up that one case and had a guy kill himself? Pushing the cops to raid his home with cameras just so you could get your ratings? You sicken me.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ^Says the pedo.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am sitting here reading this and I simply cannot believe how you people think its ok for Child Molesters to do what they do without penelty. Who cares if it is close to entrapment. Arrest them, Imprison them, plaster thier faces all over the place as Child Molesters. get them off the streets. Kill them what ever. Bottom Line we need to start to protect our children. You sit there in righteous indignation and cry entrapment. you you do not seem to care about are the PERMANETLY shattered lives of the victims and thier families.

    ReplyDelete
  30. lol anonymous eye think you need to chill. eye don't know why you think the PERMANETLY (whatever that means) shattered lives of the victims are more important than the PERMANENTLY shattered lives of people who didn't do anything wrong and got caught up in a massive societal witch hunt.

    pedophilia is not illegal because ideas are not crimes

    ReplyDelete
  31. Pediatrics, podiatry, and hemophilia are not crimes, but I'm pretty sure the jury's in on pedophilia being illegal.

    Not entrapment, but still kind of a gung-ho stance to take on law enforcement. Something people wouldn't support so heavily if it involved anything but children. (But apparently people have trouble supporting even that)
    Just FYI the people who enforce laws are "Dumb-Fucks." Ive seen several news broadcasts about children as young as ten being charged and classed as sex offenders. These kids only had a vague notion of what sex is, but after the legal case was settled (most don't go to court for obvious reasons) I'm pretty sure they figured it out.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Considering cops weren't even involved in the early episodes, and the FBI uses this same tactic of an adult posing as a child in chat rooms on the off chance an adult will approach them sexually I have a really hard time understanding the accusations of entrapment. Some of the men on the show were already actively abusing children, the guy who brought his 5 year old along for the 'fun and games' being a horrible example. What of those men who stripped down when the actress left the room only to greet chris hansen naked? Were they just poor confused victims as well?

    ReplyDelete

.

.