Here's something I've been wondering for a while...
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
Yeah that's one of the things that gets me about all this.
Everyone has heard of these kinds of setups at this point right? So if your Mr. Pedo, why not send a pizza to the house and see who answers the door?
And seriously, if one of these guys was carrying a concealed weapon, unless that announcer dude is some kind of Ex-commando he's gonna get a knife to the gut.
You don't solicit kids on the internet and agree to meet them at their homes by being smart. Crafty pedophiles travel overseas, don't they?
Here's something I've been wondering for a while...
What would they do if someone ordered a pizza to be delivered to one of those rigged houses? What if the UPS guy came a knockin'?
I'm personally surprised that no one has come into one of those houses with a concealed weapon, though that seems inevitable.
Yeah that's one of the things that gets me about all this.
Everyone has heard of these kinds of setups at this point right? So if your Mr. Pedo, why not send a pizza to the house and see who answers the door?
And seriously, if one of these guys was carrying a concealed weapon, unless that announcer dude is some kind of Ex-commando he's gonna get a knife to the gut.
You don't solicit kids on the internet and agree to meet them at their homes by being smart. Crafty pedophiles travel overseas, don't they?
It's still surprising that not one person has thrown a punch at Chris Hansen. You'd think, having reached the end of their rope...
It's still surprising that not one person has thrown a punch at Chris Hansen. You'd think, having reached the end of their rope...
I think a lot of them probably feel like they won't be in that much trouble since they haven't "done" anything yet.
I saw one episode where the guy called up his wife to come bail him out. That would be a really awkward conversation.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
But see, even if there is a trail and you can find the person guilty of stealthily placing child porn on your computer, you're still technically in possession of child porn. What I'm curious about is whether or not the law makes allowances for people who accidentally or unknowingly download child pornography, especially after reading that simply clicking on a link without knowing what it leads to and downloading an image to your browser constitutes possession.
For the record, I read that on some kind of tip sheet on a family watch website that described how to report child pornography. Basically, it stated that you're meant to report child pornography without ever viewing child pornography, since clicking a link counts as possession. That left me wondering how you can know something exists to be reported without ever seeing it for yourself, and it also gave me the impression that being found with even one image of child pornography that you got, as the site described, by clicking a link could merit arrest.
Disable your browser's ability to display/download images, and then report to the police. (No, seriously, that's how people who research this stuff avoid getting arrested.)
Possession is possession and the law does not like exceptions.
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
I'd like to see some real stuff on this. I mean, it makes sense that it wouldn't be illegal, but at the same time...I suppose I just want to see a case either way, with someone either being convicted or walking free for having hentai depicting minors.
And what if it's fanart of a real person? Does the fact that a real person is being taken advantage of by being drawn nude make it illegal, or does the fact that the drawing is a drawing and not a photo make it legal? This could all prove very interesting to see the mindsets behind various rulings.
US law forbids porn of real people under 18 or digitical porn which is 'indistinguishable' from real porn. (The Supreme Court has said that digital porn is protected, but then Congress just passed another law criminalizing it again.) It does not criminalize drawings. I don't know what the standards would be for pornographic drawings of real underage people.
But see, even if there is a trail and you can find the person guilty of stealthily placing child porn on your computer, you're still technically in possession of child porn. What I'm curious about is whether or not the law makes allowances for people who accidentally or unknowingly download child pornography, especially after reading that simply clicking on a link without knowing what it leads to and downloading an image to your browser constitutes possession.
For the record, I read that on some kind of tip sheet on a family watch website that described how to report child pornography. Basically, it stated that you're meant to report child pornography without ever viewing child pornography, since clicking a link counts as possession. That left me wondering how you can know something exists to be reported without ever seeing it for yourself, and it also gave me the impression that being found with even one image of child pornography that you got, as the site described, by clicking a link could merit arrest.
Disable your browser's ability to display/download images, and then report to the police. (No, seriously, that's how people who research this stuff avoid getting arrested.)
Possession is possession and the law does not like exceptions.
The spirit of the laws is to stop any form of victimisation or anyone being taken advantage of.
Also... From a few posts up - Anime isnt real. Nobody's being taken advantage of/abused... Its a little creepy, but I dont think its illegal.
I'd like to see some real stuff on this. I mean, it makes sense that it wouldn't be illegal, but at the same time...I suppose I just want to see a case either way, with someone either being convicted or walking free for having hentai depicting minors.
And what if it's fanart of a real person? Does the fact that a real person is being taken advantage of by being drawn nude make it illegal, or does the fact that the drawing is a drawing and not a photo make it legal? This could all prove very interesting to see the mindsets behind various rulings.
US law forbids porn of real people under 18 or digitical porn which is 'indistinguishable' from real porn. (The Supreme Court has said that digital porn is protected, but then Congress just passed another law criminalizing it again.) It does not criminalize drawings. I don't know what the standards would be for pornographic drawings of real underage people.
With regards to "possession is possession", this is not a nation-wide truth. A recent (a month or two ago) ruling in Georgia found a man not guilty of possession of child pornography because the "possessed" images were in his browser's cache, and the state law requires the person to knowingly possess material. As for the PROTECT act of 2003, you have no idea what you're talking about. Search the text of the law for 1466A. It specifically includes drawings, cartoons, and paintings.
With regards to "possession is possession", this is not a nation-wide truth. A recent (a month or two ago) ruling in Georgia found a man not guilty of possession of child pornography because the "possessed" images were in his browser's cache, and the state law requires the person to knowingly possess material. As for the PROTECT act of 2003, you have no idea what you're talking about. Search the text of the law for 1466A. It specifically includes drawings, cartoons, and paintings.
If you clicked on a link which you suspected of leading to CP, (the situation under discussion) even if just to check it out so you could report it to the police, then you KNOWINGLY clicked the link. The most efficient way to not knowingly possess something is to not possess it.
The Protect act of 2003 specifically targets "obscene" depictions of minors. Obscenity is already illegal, but is not the same as pornography.
With regards to "possession is possession", this is not a nation-wide truth. A recent (a month or two ago) ruling in Georgia found a man not guilty of possession of child pornography because the "possessed" images were in his browser's cache, and the state law requires the person to knowingly possess material. As for the PROTECT act of 2003, you have no idea what you're talking about. Search the text of the law for 1466A. It specifically includes drawings, cartoons, and paintings.
If you clicked on a link which you suspected of leading to CP, (the situation under discussion) even if just to check it out so you could report it to the police, then you KNOWINGLY clicked the link. The most efficient way to not knowingly possess something is to not possess it.
The Protect act of 2003 specifically targets "obscene" depictions of minors. Obscenity is already illegal, but is not the same as pornography.
Surely that's similar to, say, seeing a suspicious paper bag, picking it up to take a look inside, and then putting it down and calling the cops when you realize it has drugs inside. That can't possibly be considered to be possession.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
With regards to "possession is possession", this is not a nation-wide truth. A recent (a month or two ago) ruling in Georgia found a man not guilty of possession of child pornography because the "possessed" images were in his browser's cache, and the state law requires the person to knowingly possess material. As for the PROTECT act of 2003, you have no idea what you're talking about. Search the text of the law for 1466A. It specifically includes drawings, cartoons, and paintings.
If you clicked on a link which you suspected of leading to CP, (the situation under discussion) even if just to check it out so you could report it to the police, then you KNOWINGLY clicked the link. The most efficient way to not knowingly possess something is to not possess it.
The Protect act of 2003 specifically targets "obscene" depictions of minors. Obscenity is already illegal, but is not the same as pornography.
First off, there is no federal law against possession of obscene material in general. The only federal laws regarding obscenity have to do with interstate and international trafficking. Secondly, it's already been shown in the case of Dwight Whorley that hand-drawn pictures ("obscene Japanese anime cartoons") will be ruled obscene despite the intrinsic artistic value in any reasonably skilled hand-drawn picture and the fact that their subject matter differed from non-obscene material only in the "age" of the characters involved. What exactly, among sexually explicit conduct, is less likely to be found obscene than the vaginal and oral sex that the pictures from Whorley's case contained? The result of the PROTECT act and the reality that no sexually explicit image involving a (fake) child is going to pass the Miller test at this time is that fake child pornography is illegal regardless of whether "fake" means a photo-realistic rendering done by a disgruntled Pixar employee or a quick and dirty sketch drawn by Joe Schmoe.
With regards to your other claim - I'm not saying that looking for CP (or even doing something risky, like taking a link from 4chan) is a good idea. I'm just pointing out that the law is not always as clear-cut as "possession is possession." I agree whole-heartedly that it's best not to inspect possible CP sites, even if you are doing so with the intent of reporting them. If you have a link that you believe leads to CP, the best way to handle it is to forget you ever saw it. If you must be a good samaritan, then inform the proper authorities, but explicitly state that you saw the link on a chatroom/website/whatever described as a CP site and did not actually verify the claim for yourself.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Fallingman on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Terrorists are a little harder to catch; they've been known to explode.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Terrorists are a little harder to catch; they've been known to explode.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Terrorists are a little harder to catch; they've been known to explode.
When he started doing the other 'To Catch a...' he proved that he was in it for the confrontation and the ratings that it brought.
Yeah, I've seen the one where he catches some online scammers and an identity thief. The confrontation value on those didn't seem to be as high, in my opinion. Then again, I know dick about TV and ratings.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this show is how the host acts as if he is a cop and lures the pedophile into cooperating and staying in the room because he must think it's a cop and he can't very well just leave. Opening with "please place your hands on the counter top" is sort of going beyond the call of journalism. The second they say "we're doing a show with dateline, you can leave whenever you'd like" they book it, only to be arrested, but man, salt on the wound dude, fucking with peoples heads like that.
So tonight, Chris Hansen is doing "To Catch an iJacker," to track down people who take iPods that don't belong to them.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
Most people go to best buy to buy electronics.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Terrorists are a little harder to catch; they've been known to explode.
I think the thing that bothers me the most about this show is how the host acts as if he is a cop and lures the pedophile into cooperating and staying in the room because he must think it's a cop and he can't very well just leave. Opening with "please place your hands on the counter top" is sort of going beyond the call of journalism. The second they say "we're doing a show with dateline, you can leave whenever you'd like" they book it, only to be arrested, but man, salt on the wound dude, fucking with peoples heads like that.
There have been times where people recognize him, but they still sit around and talk to him. I saw one spisode with an O&A fan who did just that. The sad thing about that situation was that when this 20 something guy found out the girl was 14 he stopped talking to her about sexual stuff. The decoy then proceeded to re-direct the conversation back to hardcore sex and making out.
People have to learn, if not dressed in uniform, an agent of the government has to identify themselves. Then again, as has been stated several times in this thread, this guys typically aren't examples of evolution at its finest. There's plenty of stuff even a quasi-intelligent person could have done to avoid putting themselves in this position.
Yeah that's one of the things that gets me about all this.
Everyone has heard of these kinds of setups at this point right? So if your Mr. Pedo, why not send a pizza to the house and see who answers the door?
And seriously, if one of these guys was carrying a concealed weapon, unless that announcer dude is some kind of Ex-commando he's gonna get a knife to the gut.
They use a decoy, so generally the door is actually answered by an underaged girl. Chris Hansen doesn't show up until the guy's all the way in the house and it's obvious why he's there.
Of course, these "stings" usually target several people in one day/night...so you could probably hang back and keep an eye on the house for a while before your "date." If you see three other pedos come out and get tackled by the police, that might be your cue to book it out of there. At least avoid ending up on TV.
The only way I'd ever consider watching this again (I watched a couple episodes after the last time it was discussed here, just to see what everybody was talking about) is if it was broadcast live. Just on the off-chance I'd get to see Chris Hansen stabbed to death.
They use a decoy, so generally the door is actually answered by an underaged girl. Chris Hansen doesn't show up until the guy's all the way in the house and it's obvious why he's there.
Of course, these "stings" usually target several people in one day/night...so you could probably hang back and keep an eye on the house for a while before your "date." If you see three other pedos come out and get tackled by the police, that might be your cue to book it out of there. At least avoid ending up on TV.
The only way I'd ever consider watching this again (I watched a couple episodes after the last time it was discussed here, just to see what everybody was talking about) is if it was broadcast live. Just on the off-chance I'd get to see Chris Hansen stabbed to death.
The decoy who answers the door and leads the pervs in is actually over 18. She just looks underage. Everyone (Police, Perverted Justice, NBC) would be literally be sued out of existence if they allowed a minor to be placed in that kind of jeopardy.
I'm sure some pervert has thought of the "hang out and watch" plan in case it is a sting operation. I'm equally sure the police have contingencies in place for just such an occurrence.
"Yeah, I knew it was you guys. I also know your decoy is over 18. I brought some lube, let's get to business."
The internet decoy, or the house decoy? I know the internet decoys are older, but I thought the house decoys were actual underage girls. Maybe not, and they just look young to me. Guess I'd make a crappy pedophile, then...always hooking up with 18 and 19 year olds by accident.
Also, I wonder if there's any possible way to make that defense work. Like, have a sealed letter sent to yourself stating that you know it's just Dateline, and you're only showing up to fuck with them. Probably not, but for some reason that would amuse me.
EDIT: Of course, this is all tangential to the fact that this show is nothing but sensationalist crap used to destroy the lives of sick people even more than necessary in order to make money. Yeah, there are pedophiles out there. They hook up with kids in internet chat rooms. We get it.
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
"Yeah, I knew it was you guys. I also know your decoy is over 18. I brought some lube, let's get to business."
The internet decoy, or the house decoy? I know the internet decoys are older, but I thought the house decoys were actual underage girls. Maybe not, and they just look young to me. Guess I'd make a crappy pedophile, then...always hooking up with 18 and 19 year olds by accident.
Also, I wonder if there's any possible way to make that defense work. Like, have a sealed letter sent to yourself stating that you know it's just Dateline, and you're only showing up to fuck with them. Probably not, but for some reason that would amuse me.
EDIT: Of course, this is all tangential to the fact that this show is nothing but sensationalist crap used to destroy the lives of sick people even more than necessary in order to make money. Yeah, there are pedophiles out there. They hook up with kids in internet chat rooms. We get it.
Sure... do whatever research it takes to determine that its actually TV people, and document it. Surely if all that matters is that you believe you're propositioning a minor, then that works in reverse.
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
But you DO have people claiming "entrapment," which this isn't. The question of whether or not to have sex with an underage child should always be answered with a "no," and for someone to claim "I had no choice, I just needed to fuck this kid" is insane. These are grown, responsible adults.
As for "the principles of justice," we allow the media to comment on crimes all the time, and I'd say this show is far more damning while far less biased than what crime coverage we usually see in the media.
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
But you DO have people claiming "entrapment," which this isn't. The question of whether or not to have sex with an underage child should always be answered with a "no," and for someone to claim "I had no choice, I just needed to fuck this kid" is insane. These are grown, responsible adults.
As for "the principles of justice," we allow the media to comment on crimes all the time, and I'd say this show is far more damning while far less biased than what crime coverage we usually see in the media.
True, but I still feel as though there's a line being crossed here. The example of "lol lets see if he'll whip it out!" reeks of exploitation plain and simple.
Also, speaking of entrapment, I wonder if the old standby "are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies?" works for the perps in this case. I mean, in a sting operation, short of being a narc, aren't you legally obligated to disclose your involvement in law enforcement?
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
But you DO have people claiming "entrapment," which this isn't. The question of whether or not to have sex with an underage child should always be answered with a "no," and for someone to claim "I had no choice, I just needed to fuck this kid" is insane. These are grown, responsible adults.
As for "the principles of justice," we allow the media to comment on crimes all the time, and I'd say this show is far more damning while far less biased than what crime coverage we usually see in the media.
True, but I still feel as though there's a line being crossed here. The example of "lol lets see if he'll whip it out!" reeks of exploitation plain and simple.
Also, speaking of entrapment, I wonder if the old standby "are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies?" works for the perps in this case. I mean, in a sting operation, short of being a narc, aren't you legally obligated to disclose your involvement in law enforcement?
That would make undercover work wful hard wouldn't it?
I don't understand why it isn't entrapment. In Jacobson vs. United States, government agents repeatedly solicited a guy to buy child porn, and then arrested him under the Child Protection Act when he finally bought their child porn. The Supreme Court said that was entrapment, didn't it? And what's the difference here?
I don't understand why it isn't entrapment. In Jacobson vs. United States, government agents repeatedly solicited a guy to buy child porn, and then arrested him under the Child Protection Act when he finally bought their child porn. The Supreme Court said that was entrapment, didn't it? And what's the difference here?
I don't believe the decoys ever explicitly invite these guys, they just bait them into offering it up themselves. There's the difference.
Your example shows cops actively soliciting illegal material, and repeatedly at that.
I don't understand why it isn't entrapment. In Jacobson vs. United States, government agents repeatedly solicited a guy to buy child porn, and then arrested him under the Child Protection Act when he finally bought their child porn. The Supreme Court said that was entrapment, didn't it? And what's the difference here?
I don't believe the decoys ever explicitly invite these guys, they just bait them into offering it up themselves. There's the difference.
Your example shows cops actively soliciting illegal material, and repeatedly at that.
That is so absurd.
Is that really the distinction? We have chatlogs in this thread where the 'invitation' is so implicit as to be practically right there. I mean...
... never mind, I missed raggaholic and CoJoe on page two. I guess that's settled; the entrapment defense doesn't reach as far as I thought it did. I'm inclined to think that it should reach farther. Regardless: boo predators, boo show.
I recall watching a clip where they caught the same guy twice in 24 hours. Dude arrives at the house naked, gets caught, goes home, logs back onto a chat room with the same SN, and proceeds to seek out underage boys again.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
But you DO have people claiming "entrapment," which this isn't. The question of whether or not to have sex with an underage child should always be answered with a "no," and for someone to claim "I had no choice, I just needed to fuck this kid" is insane. These are grown, responsible adults.
As for "the principles of justice," we allow the media to comment on crimes all the time, and I'd say this show is far more damning while far less biased than what crime coverage we usually see in the media.
True, but I still feel as though there's a line being crossed here. The example of "lol lets see if he'll whip it out!" reeks of exploitation plain and simple.
Also, speaking of entrapment, I wonder if the old standby "are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies?" works for the perps in this case. I mean, in a sting operation, short of being a narc, aren't you legally obligated to disclose your involvement in law enforcement?
Not only are undercover people not obligated in that manner, it's been covered in the thread.
Posts
You don't solicit kids on the internet and agree to meet them at their homes by being smart. Crafty pedophiles travel overseas, don't they?
It's still surprising that not one person has thrown a punch at Chris Hansen. You'd think, having reached the end of their rope...
I think a lot of them probably feel like they won't be in that much trouble since they haven't "done" anything yet.
I saw one episode where the guy called up his wife to come bail him out. That would be a really awkward conversation.
That dude was a doctor. He's like. 'I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!! Honey I need you to get $20,000 out of the bank. I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING!!'
edit: Chirst, I think I've seen almost every single episode.
Disable your browser's ability to display/download images, and then report to the police. (No, seriously, that's how people who research this stuff avoid getting arrested.)
Possession is possession and the law does not like exceptions.
US law forbids porn of real people under 18 or digitical porn which is 'indistinguishable' from real porn. (The Supreme Court has said that digital porn is protected, but then Congress just passed another law criminalizing it again.) It does not criminalize drawings. I don't know what the standards would be for pornographic drawings of real underage people.
With regards to "possession is possession", this is not a nation-wide truth. A recent (a month or two ago) ruling in Georgia found a man not guilty of possession of child pornography because the "possessed" images were in his browser's cache, and the state law requires the person to knowingly possess material. As for the PROTECT act of 2003, you have no idea what you're talking about. Search the text of the law for 1466A. It specifically includes drawings, cartoons, and paintings.
If you clicked on a link which you suspected of leading to CP, (the situation under discussion) even if just to check it out so you could report it to the police, then you KNOWINGLY clicked the link. The most efficient way to not knowingly possess something is to not possess it.
The Protect act of 2003 specifically targets "obscene" depictions of minors. Obscenity is already illegal, but is not the same as pornography.
Surely that's similar to, say, seeing a suspicious paper bag, picking it up to take a look inside, and then putting it down and calling the cops when you realize it has drugs inside. That can't possibly be considered to be possession.
What's funny is how just about everyone claims that they bought it at best buy. Is this product placement, or did Best Buy become the defacto leader in electronics?
First off, there is no federal law against possession of obscene material in general. The only federal laws regarding obscenity have to do with interstate and international trafficking. Secondly, it's already been shown in the case of Dwight Whorley that hand-drawn pictures ("obscene Japanese anime cartoons") will be ruled obscene despite the intrinsic artistic value in any reasonably skilled hand-drawn picture and the fact that their subject matter differed from non-obscene material only in the "age" of the characters involved. What exactly, among sexually explicit conduct, is less likely to be found obscene than the vaginal and oral sex that the pictures from Whorley's case contained? The result of the PROTECT act and the reality that no sexually explicit image involving a (fake) child is going to pass the Miller test at this time is that fake child pornography is illegal regardless of whether "fake" means a photo-realistic rendering done by a disgruntled Pixar employee or a quick and dirty sketch drawn by Joe Schmoe.
With regards to your other claim - I'm not saying that looking for CP (or even doing something risky, like taking a link from 4chan) is a good idea. I'm just pointing out that the law is not always as clear-cut as "possession is possession." I agree whole-heartedly that it's best not to inspect possible CP sites, even if you are doing so with the intent of reporting them. If you have a link that you believe leads to CP, the best way to handle it is to forget you ever saw it. If you must be a good samaritan, then inform the proper authorities, but explicitly state that you saw the link on a chatroom/website/whatever described as a CP site and did not actually verify the claim for yourself.
Also, iJacker is just a fucking stupid name.
The concept alone is completely retarded.
To Catch a Predator, I can at least understand when viewed through the greedy, moralless eyes of a corporation executive. Child predators are the big scare, a show all about capturing them and putting these MONSTERS who capture our children through the internet would sell like gangbusters. But thievery of a rather popular item? That's not exactly much of a boogie man.
I'm waiting for "To Catch a Terrorist". My god - it would be unpatriotic to not watch!
Terrorists are a little harder to catch; they've been known to explode.
2 birds, 1 stone
There have been times where people recognize him, but they still sit around and talk to him. I saw one spisode with an O&A fan who did just that. The sad thing about that situation was that when this 20 something guy found out the girl was 14 he stopped talking to her about sexual stuff. The decoy then proceeded to re-direct the conversation back to hardcore sex and making out.
People have to learn, if not dressed in uniform, an agent of the government has to identify themselves. Then again, as has been stated several times in this thread, this guys typically aren't examples of evolution at its finest. There's plenty of stuff even a quasi-intelligent person could have done to avoid putting themselves in this position.
They use a decoy, so generally the door is actually answered by an underaged girl. Chris Hansen doesn't show up until the guy's all the way in the house and it's obvious why he's there.
Of course, these "stings" usually target several people in one day/night...so you could probably hang back and keep an eye on the house for a while before your "date." If you see three other pedos come out and get tackled by the police, that might be your cue to book it out of there. At least avoid ending up on TV.
The only way I'd ever consider watching this again (I watched a couple episodes after the last time it was discussed here, just to see what everybody was talking about) is if it was broadcast live. Just on the off-chance I'd get to see Chris Hansen stabbed to death.
"Yeah, I knew it was you guys. I also know your decoy is over 18. I brought some lube, let's get to business."
The decoy who answers the door and leads the pervs in is actually over 18. She just looks underage. Everyone (Police, Perverted Justice, NBC) would be literally be sued out of existence if they allowed a minor to be placed in that kind of jeopardy.
I'm sure some pervert has thought of the "hang out and watch" plan in case it is a sting operation. I'm equally sure the police have contingencies in place for just such an occurrence.
The internet decoy, or the house decoy? I know the internet decoys are older, but I thought the house decoys were actual underage girls. Maybe not, and they just look young to me. Guess I'd make a crappy pedophile, then...always hooking up with 18 and 19 year olds by accident.
Also, I wonder if there's any possible way to make that defense work. Like, have a sealed letter sent to yourself stating that you know it's just Dateline, and you're only showing up to fuck with them. Probably not, but for some reason that would amuse me.
EDIT: Of course, this is all tangential to the fact that this show is nothing but sensationalist crap used to destroy the lives of sick people even more than necessary in order to make money. Yeah, there are pedophiles out there. They hook up with kids in internet chat rooms. We get it.
While the show does tend to lead people on, at the end of the day these guys do have a choice, and when the crime is hooking up with an underage child there's not any possible excuse in the first place. It's a bit different from entrapment with drugs/money in that regard.
You know what though? I don't think anyone is going to defend their actions.
The problem is the basic principals of justice that are getting pissed on by parading these people on camera before they ever have a chance to defend themselves in court.
And I too saw a clip involving a dude showing up naked. They asked him to show up naked, just to see if he would. Why this show isn't airing exclusively on MTV2 is beyond me.
Sure... do whatever research it takes to determine that its actually TV people, and document it. Surely if all that matters is that you believe you're propositioning a minor, then that works in reverse.
I wouldn't put it past him looking for terrorists. Saw on CNN this week about a former female judge doing that and with success too.
But you DO have people claiming "entrapment," which this isn't. The question of whether or not to have sex with an underage child should always be answered with a "no," and for someone to claim "I had no choice, I just needed to fuck this kid" is insane. These are grown, responsible adults.
As for "the principles of justice," we allow the media to comment on crimes all the time, and I'd say this show is far more damning while far less biased than what crime coverage we usually see in the media.
True, but I still feel as though there's a line being crossed here. The example of "lol lets see if he'll whip it out!" reeks of exploitation plain and simple.
Also, speaking of entrapment, I wonder if the old standby "are you affiliated with any law enforcement agencies?" works for the perps in this case. I mean, in a sting operation, short of being a narc, aren't you legally obligated to disclose your involvement in law enforcement?
That would make undercover work wful hard wouldn't it?
I don't believe the decoys ever explicitly invite these guys, they just bait them into offering it up themselves. There's the difference.
Your example shows cops actively soliciting illegal material, and repeatedly at that.
That is so absurd.
Is that really the distinction? We have chatlogs in this thread where the 'invitation' is so implicit as to be practically right there. I mean...
... never mind, I missed raggaholic and CoJoe on page two. I guess that's settled; the entrapment defense doesn't reach as far as I thought it did. I'm inclined to think that it should reach farther. Regardless: boo predators, boo show.
Not only are undercover people not obligated in that manner, it's been covered in the thread.
I host a podcast about movies.