Possibly they do, but speaking from personal experience, I haven’t had sex with a guy yet. Though one of the guys bought me a hamburger at the Sonic we met at.
Perhaps some guys can be tempted with just a hamburger, but I am going to need at minimum $10,000. Maybe $5000. Well, it depends exactly what I have to do and if I am the top or the bottom.
Maybe I can do gay for pay porn after all.
‘Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I once made a date with someone on the internet who I believed to be a woman. The person was a man and bought me a hamburger. And that’s why you must find my client not guilty: yes, he went to a chat room that was expressly for young teens, and yes, he initiated a chat with a user who identified herself as a young teen and behaved like a young teen, and suggested they should meet for sex, and he then went to what he believed to be her house with a several condoms in his wallet. The police arrested him once he entered the house. But you must acknowledge it is possible that my client went into that chat room for young teens with the good faith assumption that all of the users were actually men and women of legal age, and that if he agreed to come to their houses and have sex with them, they would give him a delicious hamburger. That is reasonable doubt, and that is why the law says you must vote to acquiet my client, Mr. J. Wellington Wimpy.’
And I would still have a 50/50 chance of getting my client acquitted.
You wouldn’t because your story is ridiculous even if it’s true. Guilty or not guilty does not mean you have a 50/50 shot. Based on your own posts in this thread, your odds would not be anything like 50/50:
TCAP resulted in dozens of convictions (this article mentions 31 from one of the specials). If only one went to trial - and I don’t think it was one, but it was only a couple - that means dozens of people realized decided their lawyers would probably not be able to instill reasonable doubt in even one juror, and so they plead guilty.
No, I don’t think so. You do know juries don’t decide based on a coin flip, right? Do you even understand what “reasonable doubt” means?
A. Marley ‘joked,’ and I was responding with a joke.
B. My defense would not be based on a hamburger.
C. I would not be preparing any type of defense for anyone because I am not a defense lawyer.
D. If I was a juror and the defendant was claiming he believed the girl was older than she said she was, I would give him reasonable doubt. As I am not a mind reader. If he offered no such defense, then I have no reason to doubt why he was there. i do believe people are THAT stupid and I don’t believe stupid people should go to jail just because they are stupid.
E. The defense I presented has already gotten someone acquitted on the grounds of entrapment. Though not entirely. The judge I believe was more concerned in the way in which Perverted Justice coerced the man into meeting.
If I have a gun, and it’s the same caliber used in a shooting in a crime nearby on someone I knew and had motive to kill. If I just happened to have no alibi for that date and time and I was the prime suspect, but was not guilty… what should I do?
Basically, everything looks bad and my only chance is a plea bargain to get a more lenient sentence. This happens ALL THE FUCKING TIME! Hell, it happens with even less circumstantial evidence than that. I am sure you know about the Memphis Three.
Innocent people are always being forced to take these plea deals for reduced sentences when the cards just happen to be stacked against them. Even the Memphis Three had their guilty verdict sustained even though they were let out of jail.
The justice system is imperfect and I don’t expect perfect justice, but I at least expect crimes to have victims. Too many of these preventative measures seem to be crossing the line. I think there is even less chance for a fair trial when you are being accused of attempted child rape.
Having been poor, I’ve never been tempted to steal a car. I’ve known middle-class and rich kids who’d steal that Porsche for a joyride.
IRC was back in the late 1990s, and there were real girls a-plenty when I was on there (having talked to more than a few via voice.). There were also…not real girls a-plenty.
Regardless, these days it’s Yahoo chat and ChatRoulette and whatnot. All of which girls of my sister-in-law’s high school acquaintance used with zeal.
It is, and it’s also (somewhat disingenuously) focusing on a specific example rather than the general universe of semi-anonymous chat sources, all of which have a not-insignificant population of real girls these days.
Wait, let’s examine this.
If I’m in a courtroom for murdering a guy, and I say “I am not guilty, because even though he told me the gun was loaded, operational and the safety was off, I honestly believed that the gun was unloaded and had no firing pin.”
You’d honestly give me reasonable doubt? That’s what you’re saying here.
Did the person that you were shooting not actually exist? Then yes.
It’s the WEST Memphis Three. Different city, different state.
This kind of misinformation riddles all your posts. I realize you are unaware of that fact, but nonetheless, I think I am not alone in hoping quite fervently you are never on a jury deciding a case of any importance.
How about if I decide I’m going to kill you, and I get a gun and go to your house at night and take a shot at the silhouette in your window, and blow the brains out of a department store mannequin?
Do I get reasonable doubt for attempted murder if I claim I knew it was a mannequin the whole time?
Even if records exist that I told you online that I’m going to come to your house and kill you?
Will we ever find a perfect analogy for this man?
My god. How could I have possibly made that mistake about a case which I only recently became aware of through the recent news coverage and documentary.
I am so sorry that I paid more attention to the substance of the story rather than the stupid name the media gave them. I have trouble with ignoring what seems irrelevant (instead of latching onto it like certain other people).
Again, please contact the Judge Arthur Wick and tell him how wrong he was to acquit Joseph Roisman if you’re so adamant about it. Please explain to him how his experience or education pales in comparison to your own understanding of United States law.
I’d be more than amused to see what he says to you.
So was it the mannequin who called to entice you to kill me? Or did I call you and tell you I wanted to die, but then I put a mannequin in the window? Did we meet in a chat room first? Should we roll for stats?
If you go by the typical chat transcript?
You have a chat name like “suicidaldude”.
I come saying “Do you want to be killed?” and you respond with “eh, I dunno, does it hurt? I’m a sad low-self-esteem guy.” And I cajole the hell out of you while you respond noncommittally, until we finally set up a date for it.
At no point do YOU ask to be killed–I offer to kill you. Insist on it, talk about it at length, while you go “meh”.
At no point do YOU invite me over–I invite myself over.
Am I guilty of attempted murder? (the correct answer? Hell to the yes, I am. I did a deed that matches the crime, and I intended to do it. Same with a chat pedo–he did the deed (showed up at a place where he invited himself for underage sex, with wine coolers and condoms) and he intended to do it (in every case I’ve seen, he specifically says he wants sex and specifically says he knows that the victim is underage).)
And if I was actually a police officer and if you were telling me that you wanted to kill me and I seemed like I wanted to die, then it’s entrapment.
entrapment doesn’t require one to have no intention to commit a crime, it only requires that a law enforcement official entices you to commit the crime. If you’re a homicidal maniac and a police officer is luring you over to kill him because he claims to want to die… that’s the very definition.
http://www.corrupted-justice.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11025
And it appears to be they are trying to exploit the loophole in the wording of these laws. So instead of having the police officers do the entrapment, they have vigilantes do it.
Not legally. There’s a very strict definition of what “entrapment” is–paging Bricker–
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
[ol]
[li]The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.[/li][li] Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.[/li][li] The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.[/li][/ol]
You are mistaken. A lot of people assume this to be the case but it’s not. Look at the entrapment section in the Wikipedia page for To Catch A Predator. This was already pointed out earlier in the thread and it was also on the Wikipedia page.
EDIT: Okay, I read wrong, I didn’t realize that you had used a conditional. However, a large amount of the cases fall under entrapment then, right?
I’d agree that that’s an easy assumption to make, I mean they’d have to be stupid to bring up sex first right? But that’s what they did do.
Please stop giving them the benefit of the doubt every time. Other people also assumed they wouldn’t call them up begging them to come, but that’s what they did do, multiple times.
I might be in favour of a show like TCAP if they were able to catch some of these guys really good using proper law enforcement techniques. But they’re not, and they resort to this sort of thing. And if it had to be that good then there’d be no show.
And what makes you think it’s “indifferent responses”? Because Chris Hanson said so? I do acknowledge that the decoy generally does not get more explicit than the person they’re talking to, however this is usually the way it goes with explicit male/female chats.
And I’ll just LOL at this.
Please show me links to the Perverted-justice transcripts where this has happened. The wikipedia section you cite is short on facts and cites and long on generic criticisms.
I am basing my judgements on the PJ transcripts that I have personally read.
I believe that from reading a selection of transcripts. Which meets the criteria for “not entrapment”.
I presume that’s because you have no argument, as that’s the only reason not to offer one. Being in a teen sex chat space, chatting about sex with someone claiming to be a teenager, is EVERY indication of the intent to commit the crime of corruption with a minor. Adding on a plan to meet them for sex is every indication of an intent to meet them and have sex.
I’ll be honest anyway–from a moral standpoint? If you talk about sex to someone claiming to be a teenager, and you go to their house with condoms and beer? You are an evil scumbag. I don’t care if you’ve been legally “entrapped” into doing it. Non-scumbag adults don’t chat up underage people, and they don’t go to their house when the parents aren’t home to have sex. Period. End of discussion.
“…just wanted to take a girl to a party with him.” ?
For anyone following this thread, please watch a few seconds of the chatwhich preceded the meeting with a person the 21 year old believed to be a 14 year old girl.
ModernPrimate isn’t just minimizing the online interactions, but also claiming to have some insight into the 21 year old’s actual intentions which differ greatly from what he proposes in chat.
Also, the men collared in TCAP had the same opportunity to prove their innocence as any other person charged with a crime in the US. Either they plead guilty to forgo a trial, or they sat in front of a jury of their peers with a defense attorney who undoubtedly did a better job of attempting to convince others of the accused’s innocence than you have thus far. You can be sure each accused had ample opportunity to claim entrapment or innocence. Since most served time, you can rest assured that not one, but several people agreed that the persons profiled on TCAP were in fact a danger to society.