30 Pedophiles Arrested in Virginia

[Ziggurat]

They are not manufacturing criminals. The target can simply choose to stop engaging when something illegal is offered.

You say that as if these things are mutually exclusive. But they are not.

I can understand why you don't want to talk about what the target should do - its the big elephant in the room for your argument.

Not really.

You only what to talk about that the Police do so that you can eliminate any culpability on the part of the predator.

No. I want to talk about what the police do because the public has a say in what the police do, and the power that the police have means they should be extremely cautious with how they use it. I have no say in how individual people act.

I hope you don't feel I am trying to pressure you or induce to you to change your mind or anything. You can always choose to stop engaging me on this.

(see what I did there)

I see what you tried to do. I also see why it fails, though I doubt you do.

 

[smartcooky]

You say that as if these things are mutually exclusive. But they are not.

Either you are starting to get it, or you didn't mean to phrase it that way

No. I want to talk about what the police do because the public has a say in what the police do, and the power that the police have means they should be extremely cautious with how they use it.

I am happy for the Police to keep operating these stings in much the way the do now. My opinion on that is not going to change

I have no say in how individual people act.

Nor do I, but I do have expectations as to how they should act when they are offered sex with a minor

I see what you tried to do. I also see why it fails, though I doubt you do.

Oh, it succeeded alright. You're still debating me aren't you?

 

[Arcade22]

As i said previously, the police in Sweden are not allowed to do these kind of "stings". It is arguably a weakness, especially when it comes to much more serious crimes, and they have discussed giving the police the power to do engage in it for decades. If the police are given the freedom to engage in "crime provocation" it's likely, at least initially, to be restricted to more severe crimes than "statuary rape".

But this does not prevent private individuals from engaging in it on their own. By chance i just saw a report in one of the major newspapers from last year where they pretended to be a 14 year old boy on one or more of the major LGBT+ meeting places online.

It's illegal to have sex, or to seek to have sex, with someone under the age of 15 in Sweden (although in practice it's difficult to convict people of the latter). Despite this, perhaps not very unexpectedly, they managed to get in contact with over 100 individuals who continued to maintain contact with the minor when it was revealed that he was under 15.

Not all of the individuals were explicitly seeking to have sex, at least initially, and out of the 30 individuals they highlighted (as is typical they were anonymized, we have a culture of privacy and personal integrity that also extends to people who do things like this) quite a few apparently made clear that anything that happened was if the "victim" wanted it. Others seemed far more aggressive and unrestrained.

As for the individuals background it included, again highly unexpectedly, people from all walks of life. A few were convicted of sexual offences, but most were not. Some of the more interesting ones included a senior official in the foreign affairs department, a guy working in military signal-intelligence, a married couple (that wanted to wait until he was 15 before they had sex), a medium (yes that's right, it said he worked as a medium), a senior official in Stockholm Pride.

What's so telling is how indiscreet these individuals are, even if they are not explicitly seeking to have sex. Just because it's not the police on the other line does not prevent them from potentially facing blackmail.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the police are given the freedom to engage in "crime provocation" it's likely, at least initially, to be restricted to more severe crimes than "statuary rape".

Did you mean statutory rape? Because that's a bit different than statuary. Agalmatophilia is a fairly obscure kink.

 

[bruto]

Did you mean statutory rape? Because that's a bit different than statuary. Agalmatophilia is a fairly obscure kink.

Galatea's bombshell new memoir, Not So Loverly, on sale now!

 

[Bubba]

I would like to see more sting operations like this. They are really cheap to do. All you need for the hook is a well-firewalled computer an internet connection with a VPN and a couple of computer-savvy cops.

Have so many of stings up and running that these scumbags will not be able to be sure if they are being stung or not.

An amazing woman appeals to a Wired/Google crowd.

Sue Black Catches Paedophiles by Looking at the Marks on Their Hands


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13106748

 

[bruto]

Messed up link above.

Try this one:

 

[Segnosaur]

Messed up link above.



Try this one:

That is a 15 minute video....

Care to give us a little hint about what her argument or idea is before we sit through it? Or is there a time stamp that we can forward to that provides a summary?

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[bruto]

That is a 15 minute video....

Care to give us a little hint about what her argument or idea is before we sit through it? Or is there a time stamp that we can forward to that provides a summary?

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Not really my link, just fixing Bubba's error (his link led to a version of his own post that contained the original).

The person in question identifies pedophiles using their unique vein patterns. Since it appears many such people make videos of their performance and even post them, it's possible sometimes to identify them this way.

I didn't watch it all the way through, as it ends up being an appeal for funds. It seems interesting and appears to have some scientific credibility.

 

[smartcooky]

That is a 15 minute video....

And?

 

[theprestige]

And?

... And I personally prefer written words, for the following reasons:

- It's relatively easy for me to skim the content and get the gist of what's being said and how. Then I can go back and read around the interesting bits for context and clarity.

- It's easy to grab verbatim quotes to cite and reference in my own discussion.

- Most importantly, I can read at my own pace. I don't have to sit there waiting for the guy in the video to get to his freaking point.

I get that some people prefer to stare at a video until the loot drops, but that's not me. Video is pretty much a non-starter for me. 15 minutes of video that may or may not actually have anything to do with the discussion, 15x so.

For sure if someone drops a link to a 15 minute video without bothering to put in writing the salient parts they want to talk about, I assume they don't actually want to talk about it, and it probably doesn't have any salient bits worth talking about anyway.

 

[Arcade22]

Not really my link, just fixing Bubba's error (his link led to a version of his own post that contained the original).

The person in question identifies pedophiles using their unique vein patterns. Since it appears many such people make videos of their performance and even post them, it's possible sometimes to identify them this way.

I didn't watch it all the way through, as it ends up being an appeal for funds. It seems interesting and appears to have some scientific credibility.

Hopefully the authorities make good use of this technology in fighting these lewd brats who are sharing indecent and often quite illicit images of themselves online. Many people have been lured into crimes by the teenage boys and girls who spread their legs through the internet.

Even when there is nothing illegal per se, it probably should be as these homewreckers are a serious threat to the stability innocent families. If they got to spend a couple of years in prison they could think about what they have done and the consequences of their actions.

 

[Matthew Best]

... And I personally prefer written words, for the following reasons:

- It's relatively easy for me to skim the content and get the gist of what's being said and how. Then I can go back and read around the interesting bits for context and clarity.

- It's easy to grab verbatim quotes to cite and reference in my own discussion.

- Most importantly, I can read at my own pace. I don't have to sit there waiting for the guy in the video to get to his freaking point.

I get that some people prefer to stare at a video until the loot drops, but that's not me. Video is pretty much a non-starter for me. 15 minutes of video that may or may not actually have anything to do with the discussion, 15x so.

For sure if someone drops a link to a 15 minute video without bothering to put in writing the salient parts they want to talk about, I assume they don't actually want to talk about it, and it probably doesn't have any salient bits worth talking about anyway.

Here's a better link for you:

To catch a paedophile, you only need to look at their hands
When a paedophile or rapist films their crime, professor Sue Black can track them down using nothing more than the veins, scars and other markings on their hands

 

[smartcooky]

... And I personally prefer written words, for the following reasons:

- It's relatively easy for me to skim the content and get the gist of what's being said and how. Then I can go back and read around the interesting bits for context and clarity.

- It's easy to grab verbatim quotes to cite and reference in my own discussion.

- Most importantly, I can read at my own pace. I don't have to sit there waiting for the guy in the video to get to his freaking point.

I get that some people prefer to stare at a video until the loot drops, but that's not me. Video is pretty much a non-starter for me. 15 minutes of video that may or may not actually have anything to do with the discussion, 15x so.

For sure if someone drops a link to a 15 minute video without bothering to put in writing the salient parts they want to talk about, I assume they don't actually want to talk about it, and it probably doesn't have any salient bits worth talking about anyway.

Fine.

Personally, think its a lack of attention span in most cases... people seem to want to skim everything, and have their information spoon fed to them in superficial ten second sound bites. That's the way the world is now unfortunately, and I hate it, because its both a reason for, and a symptom of, the poor standards of modern education, so many people seem to have no desire to understand a subject deeply.

If I link a video on a subject, its there for people to watch. Its up to them whether they do or they don't but I WILL NOT summarise it for them. Its not my job.

 

[Ziggurat]

When a paedophile or rapist films their crime, professor Sue Black can track them down using nothing more than the veins, scars and other markings on their hands

Not quite. She doesn't track them down, the police still need to find the perpetrators by other means. What she does is confirm their identities as the perpetrators, which is critical to securing a conviction. But it generally still needs the police to find the culprit so that they have someone they can compare those biometric identifiers against.

The work she does is great, but it's sort of off-topic to this thread, since it doesn't have anything to do with sting operations.