• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

30 Pedophiles Arrested in Virginia

smartcooky said:
Not necessarily. For example, when police use a bait car to catch car thieves, they give an overall description of how the bait car works. usually either a motion detector or a remote control to trigger the locks. It is not necessary for the prosecution's case to provide in evidence a circuit diagram of the locking mechanism, with a list of the brand names and serial numbers of all the individual components used.
Click to expand...

But in this case it's not like they would have much evidence to prove that the accused is guilty unless they show the records of their communications that show intent. Trying to steal a car is a crime by itself but I don't think just showing up at a police "sting" is inherently criminal.
 
Arcade22 said:
But in this case it's not like they would have much evidence to prove that the accused is guilty unless they show the records of their communications that show intent. Trying to steal a car is a crime by itself but I don't think just showing up at a police "sting" is inherently criminal.
Click to expand...

You still don't need to show all the hundreds of messages with all the sordid details, which would necessarily include the language the Police used. All you need is two things.

1. Did the target arrange a date for sex with what he thought was an under aged person

2. Did he show up for that date

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS

I would be happy for the judge/grand jury in cases such as these to see a complete record of all the interactions prior to the case going to trial. I would not be happy to see all this made public, and frankly, I would rather see the law in this matter err on the side of protecting the rights of victims rather than on the side of protecting the scumbags. I would not like to see any information out in the public arena that will inhibit the ability of Police to do the good work of getting these scumbags behind bars where they belong.

ETA: Look, I'm might seem to be a bit OTT on this, but I have good reasons. I know two of this guy's victims...

https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/10...ilson--found-guilty-of-historical-sex-charges

Two previously happy, well adjusted young girls from good families whose lives have been destroyed by this scumbag. I have zero sympathy for anyone who trawls for under aged girl and boys to sexually abuse and rape - whatever it takes to bring these vile specimins of human trash to justice.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You still don't need to show all the hundreds of messages with all the sordid details, which would necessarily include the language the Police used. All you need is two things.

1. Did the target arrange a date for sex with what he thought was an under aged person
Click to expand...

I think Arcade is arguing about the amount of information needed to establish this claim.
 
smartcooky said:
Perhaps you missed a couple of words in Chris_Halkides' post

"Most Internet stings originate with ads the police place on websites, such as Craigslist."

I'll let you work out for yourself which two words they are?
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Craigslist doesn't do personal ads. Please tell me the two words.
 
smartcooky said:
"such as"
Click to expand...

I certainly saw and understood those words. That's why I explained that it couldn't be Craigslist.

Your objection was really quite absurd. Imagine a person saying that, "Many people live in New Zealand's big cities such as New York." Then I explain that it can't be New York because that big city is not in New Zealand. Then you hit me with some goofy ass complaint about what I clarified.
 
William Parcher said:
I certainly saw and understood those words. That's why I explained that it couldn't be Craigslist.

Your objection was really quite absurd. Imagine a person saying that, "Many people live in New Zealand's big cities such as New York." Then I explain that it can't be New York because that big city is not in New Zealand. Then you hit me with some goofy ass complaint about what I clarified.
Click to expand...

Utter Bollocks. That is no comparison at all.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
But "such as" doesn't actually apply if Craigslist isn't even a possibility.
Click to expand...

What makes you think its not a possibility? Yes, I know they don't officially take personal ads, but there are a number of ways around that, particularly when both the seller and the target buyer know what to look for.

If you see someone selling "40 Roses" on Craigslist, you're a bit naive if you think she is selling flowers. I promise you, that ain't what she is selling.

Can you guess what she is and what she's selling?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You still don't need to show all the hundreds of messages with all the sordid details, which would necessarily include the language the Police used. All you need is two things.

1. Did the target arrange a date for sex with what he thought was an under aged person

2. Did he show up for that date

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS
Click to expand...

Actually it can be quite important in terms of determining the severity of the criminal offence. There's a difference between someone trying to pressure or trick a underage person into having sex, and the supposed underage individual basically trying to pressure the defendant into having sex.

Even if their conduct is sufficient to establish criminal guilt they still have a right to put forth evidence of mitigating circumstances. The police cannot withhold such information by saying that it's a trade secret. They can't just assume that police and prosecutors are truthful.

I should note that laws regulating what police are allowed to do often restrict them from not just engaging in ecrime provocation precisely because they have a tendency to engage in misconduct. For example the Swedish police are not allowed to do these things.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Actually it can be quite important in terms of determining the severity of the criminal offence. There's a difference between someone trying to pressure or trick a underage person into having sex, and the supposed underage individual basically trying to pressure the defendant into having sex.
Click to expand...

"She pressured me to drive 400 miles to come to their house to have sex with them!!!!!"
 
theprestige said:
Argument by sarcastic space robot.

I think that once the cop goes from offering an illegal service to encouraging the target to use that service, it's already entrapment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can explain how someone can be "pressured" into driving 400 miles to have sex with someone underage.
 
pgwenthold said:
"She pressured me to drive 400 miles to come to their house to have sex with them!!!!!"
Click to expand...

Someone who's identity is known might feel unable to back out if they are threatened with having the fact that they were hitting on a minor, or even just entertaining the thought of paying them for sex, to their spouse or employer.

Even if it's legal to have sex with them, the supposed minor might ask to get paid if they were to have sex. It's not all that unlikely that the cops could use various kinds of enticements or even threats to induce persons to go from "legal sex" to "child prostitution". Especially if it's a more long term contact.

Trusting the police and taking their word that they are not essential creating crimes simply to catch criminals sounds really stupid.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Someone who's identity is known might feel unable to back out if they are threatened with having the fact that they were hitting on a minor, or even just entertaining the thought of paying them for sex, to their spouse or employer.
Click to expand...

So it's better to show up and go through with it?
 
theprestige said:
Your argument seems to be that things like this can't happen, because people don't act this way.
Click to expand...

No my "argument" is that people who drive 400 miles to have sex with someone they know to be underage have done so willingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom