Once again, you show that you do not understand what entrapment means.
See this:
**Quote:**The act of government agents or officials that induces a person to commit a crime he or she is not previously disposed to commit.
**Quote:**The rationale underlying the defense is to deter law enforcement officers from engaging in reprehensible conduct by inducing persons not disposed to commit crimes to engage in criminal activity. In their efforts to obtain evidence and combat crime, however, officers are permitted to use some deception. For example, an officer may pretend to be a drug addict in order to apprehend a person suspected of selling drugs. On the other hand, an officer cannot use chicanery or Fraud to lure a person to commit a crime the person is not previously willing to commit. Generally, the defense is not available if the officer merely created an opportunity for the commission of the crime by a person already planning or willing to commit it.
**Bricker **has stated that this accurately reflects the laws in the U.S.
So, this not entrapment because these people’s planning and willingness to commit this crime is literally spelled out in their transcripts. Their willingness is also demonstrated by the fact that went out of their way to show up at house for a sexual encounter with a person they have every reason to believe is a minor.
If they were going to edit it at all, they would do so before they sent it to anyone. I’m not talking about a mass conspiracy, one person could do it, most likely the decoy him/herself.
CH isn’t going to read out sexually alluring stuff the decoy reads out anyway. His intention isn’t to make the show look bad.
Hahahaha! We banned specific breeds of dog just because of media hysteria! There were lots of reasons to ban guns, but it was media hysteria over a terrible shooting that lead to it. We have a direct equivalent to Megan’s Law due to public pressure. Tony Blair made a Commons statement about how a TV character should be freed!
Note to everyone else: the UK isn’t soft on paedophiles. Paedophilia is not an example of ‘what goes on in the UK would never be tolerate in the US.’
It depends on if yahoo chat histories are encrypted and it’s almost impossible to break the encryption. If they’re not encrypted (or the encryption is easily broken) then it would be exceptionally hard for the predator to prove that he didn’t just write in some stuff afterwards. Police do not obtain the perpetrator’s computer immediately after the arrest.
You’ve been asked repeatedly for something other than your cynical hunches that this is what TCAP or PJ or doing. Do you have anything? A successfull defence case?
CH asks the suspect directly (showing him the chat logs) if he actually said “x”, and all of the suspects admit to the language in the logs. Does this not hold any weight with you?
Even if an actual thirteen year old girl sent me photos of her genitals, and begged me to come over to lick it, it does NOT mean I can legally do so. Period. I have to be the adult, show some adult restraint and judgement.
What’s sad is that reality TV now includes watching men destroy their own lives for realz, but that’s another thread. (I assume CH thinks he’s alerting parents to the real potential for danger that teens online might inadvertantly stumble into.)
Wow. Devolving into conspiracy theories now. Not only does a computer note the time and IP address of information is transmitted/saved Yahoo keeps a record of chats for 45-60 days. (Here is your cite)
So if the defendent’s computer is introduced as evidence, and the content matches TCAP’s *and *Yahoo’s, annnd the defendent admits typing the words… will that satisfy your requirement for evidence?
For the record, a defendent claiming entrapment and evidence tampering would absolutely insist that his defense includes records from his own computer.
That is amusing considering how many assertions you have made that have turned out not to be true because you did not know what you were talking about.
So having a picture on a social media site means they are on display? And when do the decoys get on the webcam, before our after the perps have asked for sex? Is she begging for sex in the web cam? Is she naked? Is the fact that she visible enough to be a temptation?
If you read the extended exchange, in this very thread between Bricker and IamError403, you will see why that probably won’t work.
For the sake of the truth (and since wiki is not actually a valid source, here are some newspaper reports from the countries listed above detailing sting operations.
In The Netherlands the police left out bait bicycles with GPS units to tracks thieves.
In Sweden the police set up a blackmail operation without apparently telling either party.
Incidentally, I have discovered that if you google a country along with “sting” and “police” you get a lot of concert information. I wonder why?
No it wouldn’t! It’s been explained to you, over and over again, by a US Attorney that this is not the way it works. It’s been explained how they know the chats aren’t edited, and it’s been explained to you why and how evidence is thrown out. You are just flat wrong here!
You continually make assertions that turn out to completely false, and even when this is shown to you repeatedly, you just continue on. You refuse to provide any sort of citations or proof for the things you claim. What is it going to take to make you realize that you don’t really understand what is going on in these cases, and that your outrage is unjustified?
It’s interesting, too, that ModernPrimate assumes that NBC/Dateline/PV are just rogue activists hellbent on pushing puritanical views on the entire viewing audience which apparently encompasses a sizable chunk of the globe.
NBC/Dateline/PV and the local police working with same are loaded with fact-checkers and lawyers who exist solely to ensure that each entity is following legal procedure and also making every effort to ensure the law is being followed so that NBC/Dateline/PV and local police cannot be sued by the persons profiled on the show.
You don’t need to take our word that each and every step of a process which takes place on the internet and on film is reliable, testable, provable evidence. You can also bet what you have seen on TCAP has been cleared by legal before it airs.
While I’m sure you’re right about the vast majority of teens, there remains a number of them that are susceptible to being lured from a chat room to a meeting – because it happens in real life.
Good heavens, no. Speaking for myself, I’ve seen enough predatory behavior in my career and in local media to disturb my dreams for the rest of my life, and this discussion alone has tweaked my radar more than I can stand. It’s a given that neglected and abused teens are susceptible to further abuse, and also that predators might have a knack for charm beyond their general appearance.
If I ask you for a specific country, you cannot respond with “every country,” because all I have to so to show you wrong is provide one counter-example.
In this case, though, I will treat your further suggestion of Netherlands and Sweden as the specific countries you’re suggesting.
This article claims that Swedes do use sting operations:
That’s a pretty low standard you’ve set for yourself, especially considering that the standard you had for your opponents was eight different chat transcripts where the decoy was not the first to bring up sex. But when it comes to you proving that the decoys “beg” the men to visit them during phone conversations, someone else agreeing with you is supposed to be compelling evidence? Oh, and if no one steps up then maybe you’ll find some actual cites, if you feel like it. Well, that’s not the way we do things around here.
Just repeating the same claim again and again is not the same thing as actually providing evidence.
FWIW I did see To Catch a Predator several times when it was on the air in the US, and I do not remember any of the decoys ever behaving in the way that you describe. Perhaps I missed the episodes where they did repeatedly beg the men to visit them, but if this happened frequently then I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to prove it.
No. The pictures are chosen to be NOT sexy – although I concede that if one is a pedophile or a hebophile, the pictures in question might well be honestly described as sexy by them. But the pictures used are not otherwise sexually suggestive at all.
And how would you explain your presence at the home?
And again: did you read my post about how the evidence code works? Why do you believe that all you have to do is claim that they edited the chats? What portion of the evidence code are you reading to make you believe that’s how a trial would work?
They have an off-site chat proxy server which records the chat and saves the file with a hashed value. They also make available to the police an additional proxy server with the same capability. The proxy server records chat in real time.
omg… I only created a topic. I didn’t mean to spend the rest of my life answering this stuff, much of it repeating itself. I will come back tomorrow and answer the replies. The workload is just too high.
I regret to say I am also done with reading transcripts or anything to do with TCAP except from possibly watching new episodes on the show at night. If I read one more thing about a 40 year old man fantasizing about stuffing his thing down a virgin 14 year old girl’s wet pussy and throat and licking her all over, cuddling her tits and caressing and rubbing his thing all over her warm nude wet body all night long when her parents are away I think I’ll barf.
Proxy server. Off-site. Inaccessible to decoy. Police offered opportunity to have second proxy server at their control. Chat logs stored with md5 hash.