Deputy Press Secretary Brian Doyle apparently got a little too frisky with an undercover police officer he thought was a 14 year old girl.
Can he really have been this stupid?
If all charges are true, a mighty big “oops” for the department.
Well it is a inverse relationship between the male and his approach to possible sex, and the distance between his brain and penis.
Sad I suppose.
Sadly, he could have been. It’s amazing how immune some of these guys think they are from discovery and prosecution.
Yep. Of course we need to wait until the guy is convicted, but if he is, this is the worst kind of breech of authority. It’s these guys’ job to protect us, and for them to be the ones exploiting our children… there are no words strong enought to condemn that kind of behavior.
Bigger than an “Oops”. Major prison time (sadly, the likely outcome), and IMO, as with any other case like this, death if it’s true.
Many here know my position on child molesters. Death. If proven, death. By severe beating. I’d hope for a more painful demise, but hopeless in this climate of “understanding” the criminal.
That said, this is a deputy press secretary. Hardly an indictment of the Administration. Which wasn’t stated, I know, but it will be. So for anyone that will accuse me of being a Bush apologist, lay it to rest.
This guy needs to breath his last if proven guilty.
If he’s innocent? He needs to hole up somewhere and avoid public life for ever putting himself in a position to be even suspected of this.
Uh… we’ve been electrocuting people to death in the US since 1890, so I think the attitude you’re strawman-ing came around long after this country decided that beating people to death brutally was not okay. :rolleyes:
And as far as the crime itself goes: if he’s actually guilty, I’m glad he was this stupid. I wish they all were.
What time is he actually facing here?
Damn, I forgot the electric chair was omnipresent. My bad.
Strawman-ing? No idea what you were going for so not sure what it means.
If you were referring to beating people to death, than yes; I’m advocating it for child molesters. But only as a mercy killing. Death by beating for child molesters should be the mercy option. I can think of about 37 other ways more appropriate to put them out of our existence.
Okay. 
What I was saying is that “this climate of “understanding” the criminal” is not the reason we don’t beat or torture all convicted child molesters to death. Whatever the hell you think that “climate” is - talk about your vague, random caricatures - I’m pretty sure nobody would say it dates back to 1890, when the transition from hanging to electrocution (a transition motivated by humanitarian concerns) was just starting.
What he did was nasty and bad, but does he really deserve to die, duffer?
A fourteen-year-old makes cybersex with a perv online, and they are an exploited, helpless, pitiable victim, who’s honor can only be restored with violence. A fourteen-year-old has sex with her sixteen-year-old boyfriend, and they are an irresponsible slut. A fourteen-year-old kills someone, and they are charged as an adult and villified as such.
We are not consistent with how we view fourteen-year-olds and their behavior.
At the danger of moving the thread back to a factual question …
Why did Polk County FLorida have a guy on the internet looking for chold molesters in Viriginia? I understand it served a greater good and all, but why should I, as the Polk County Chief of Police assign a guy to catch crooks in other areas?
I could have that guy catching shoplifters in my own area. WHy should I pay to find and prosecute people in far-off areas?
Is there some sort of federal funding for this sort of thing?
I’m not talking about 14 year olds. I’m talking about pedophiles. Justify it if you must, but no quarter will ever be given by me. In the case we’re talking about here there hasn’t been a conviction. I was talking about the broader sense of pedophiles. And I let the emotions get the better of me. I’ll bow out of the thread now.
I don’t understand the legality of these things… he didn’t actually talk to a child, so while we can all say there’s a considerable ick factor, what can they prosecute him for? Thinking he was comitting a crime doesn’t mean he did commit a crime. If I pick up a girl at a bar who tells me she’s 15 and it turns out she’s 22, what am I guilty of, exactly? I just don’t know how these things work.
I eagerly await the Orwellian pyschological probes that will tell us who is and who isn’t a pedophile. Until that time, we will have to reluctantly settle for only punishing those men who actually commit crimes.
It’s AOL. It’s not like everyone’s all divided up into zip codes. The cops in the sting operation just go online and wait for pervos to contact them. I’m guessing they just put their “age” and sex and wait for someone to msg them, or it’d be entrapment.
I’m assuming he’ll be charged on an “intent” or “attempted” charge. If you decide you’re going to kill your boss, buy a gun, go to your workplace, see him through the window, fire, strike him, and only then find out that he had a realistic mannequin of himself sitting in his chair, they’re not just going to charge you on destruction of property and unlawful discharge of a firearm. Bricker very recently posted some excellent information on a similar “intent”-related issue, explaining why you can be charged with a crime even though your target is not what you thought it was. This may be the thread, though I might have been thinking of another as well and just can’t dig it up at the moment.
Not necessarily. It’s only entrapment if the cop induces someone who otherwise wouldn’t commit a crime. If the guy is online trolling for underage nookie, and the cop presents him with the opportunity, it isn’t entrapment.
Not that I believe in, or am in any way for pedophiles or pederasts, but aren’t we eeking ever closer to a thought crime with this virtual stuff? I mean, if you think about it, write about it, but never leave your house and actually ATTEMPT it, what are you really guilty of?
If you THINK you’re talking to a 14 year old, then you’re guilty automatically, even if you never actually intend to see, touch, or otherwise violate said 14 year old?
I’m not sure I like where this is heading, although for proven or admitted child sex offenders, I’m with duffer though my way wouldn’t be anywhere near as sedate as death by beating.
I don’t see how anyone, especially a 55yo man, can think the 14yo “girl” they are talking to and who is interested in having sex, can really be a 14 yo girl. How could they not know that the girl who was saying “Oh yeah, I’d love to recreate that scene from “Horny Blondes Love Old Fat Guys” with you, I’ve been dreeaming about such a thing my whole life!”, was really a cop?
I hate to say it, but his guy has a problem. That doesn’t mean he should be lectured and allowed to return to his cushy government job, but geez, he was handing out his office number, his name etc. He is certainly not thinking with his brain any more.
What was it someone said a few weeks back? “The Internet – where men are men, women are men, and children are Federal agents”?