Perverted Justice uses decoys aged 10-15, and uses childish pictures- girls in treehouses and the like, not sexy bikini shots of 17 year olds.
They only respond to people who IM them first. They do not initiate contact. They hang out in local area chatrooms, not adult chatrooms. They do no initiate sexual discussion, and generally respond to sexual comments in the way that a child would react- with a lot of “I don’t know what that means” and “I guess so.”
Again, a girl in a chatroom is not more “entrapment” as a girl hanging around at the park. Simply existing in space as an underage female is not “entrapment” or dangling anything. All the decoys do is give these guys enough rope to hang themselves with, no stringing up needed.
Then how do you explain the comments that some alleged “predators” had that they thought they were being set up because of the insistence that they come? To Catch A Predator even shows footage of them clearly attempting to get them to come, asking them on the phone and elsewhere to please come over.
Guys can get desperate for sex. If there were hot 18+ year old girls begging them to come over most of them would be vastly more willing to come over. But there aren’t any, there is only this one girl who is 15. Also… 15 year old girls and some a lot younger are physically able to have sex and do so all the time. Just like how most 14 year olds could probably drive a car and be safe with it, it’s just that there would be a fraction who wouldn’t.
This is so disgusting. Why do these people keep coming to this board??
ModernPrimate, what is it about this subject that so fascinates you? You are talking about a show that (apparently) airs in a different country from you, and hasn’t been on in years. Why? Why do you have such endless sympathy for child predators?
Yes, guys can get desperate for sex. But guys must conform their conduct to the law, no matter their desperation. And while it’s true that 15 years olds and some a lot younger have sex, that’s not a defense to the crime.
Perhaps you wish to argue that the laws concerning age of consent be changed somehow. That’s a perfectly legitimate argument to make – a few centuries ago, the marriage of fourteen year olds was common. But if that’s your argument, make it – don’t complain about the police and the show catching people who are breaking the law as it stands.
It’s come on the Crime channel on Sky and is on every night and I’ve taken to watching it. It used to be on FX or something, but was on at an odd time. I didn’t realize the show had since ceased production. I was just taken aback by what I saw last night.
I don’t have “such endless sympathy for child predators”, I have sympathy for people who are literally hit over the head and get 21 months in prison for being a “underage teenage girl predator”.
You may not cherish the freedom of individuals and the rights of people as much as I do. I never like to see people getting very harsh penalties or being treated unfairly. I think these people are being hustled into spending years in jail.
If they got a harsh slap on the wrist, like the original intention seemed to be, were in jail for a few days, I would be fine with that. However they even retroactively went back and jailed people for a long time that had “got off” the first time.
Don’t you have to obtain a release to show someone’s face on a TV program? Not just TCAP, but Cops, etc…
Suppose some TV crew filmed me coming out of my building for a new show **‘Doofus in Your Neighborhood’ **(ABC Tuesday!) They don’t need a release? They can use my ugly mug to make a buck and I cannot stop them?
Funny, I can’t think of any situation that might tempt me to go to a 13-year old kid’s home for sex. Only someone who’s actually interested in sex w/ a 13-yo can be tempted by this sort of thing.
Tempt me into smoking some weed? Sure. Tempt me into stealing something? Maybe if I’m reasonably assured I won’t get caught. Tempt me into banging a 13 year old girl? Not going to happen. You have to be a perv, first, before it’s at all tempting.
I’m trying to find this out. According to the law people should have a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy However what is a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? I have also heard of a “public person” vs a “private person”, like a public person would be for example Rihanna who can be photographed at all times no matter what.
According to the following article (which does allow for exceptions), it is possible to video or take a picture someone on public property whether they like it or not:
However, for your example, I believe they could not as it would amount to slander and also it would be using your imagery and likeness for purposes of entertainment and for creating a profit.
Also you are filming something that could damage the person you’re filming, you really should not be doing it. It’s like how you’re not allowed to follow a person for something like more than 20 metres or keep them under surveillance without their knowledge - which is in fact another thing that To Catch a Predator would do… they videotaped without their knowledge initially and then told them.
Let’s keep in mind that TCAP filmed no one coming out of his own home, or indeed on public property. They filmed people on private property that TCAP owned (or at least controlled at the time).
And the TCAP use certainly doesn’t anount to slander (or defamation) because truth is a defense to defamation. The people in question actually did what TCAP portrays them as having done.
And you keep claiming these people are tempted somehow … “literally hit over the head.”
But despite being asked numerous times for specific examples of that, you have declined to provide them.
Each and every chat log from the TCAP aired show can be found on line. Which predator, by name, do you believe was lured unfairly by the show’s volunteers?
So lets say you are tempted into stealing something, which ends you up doing hard time plus destroys your chance of ever getting a decent job. Your life as you known it is now over. In the past they used to cut off the hand of a thief. Besides the handicap, imagine trying to get anyone to trust you enough to hire you ever again if you had your hand cut off.
My point is there is weaknesses we all have that if exploited 1: is beyond our control to resist, and 2: could cause a prison sentence and a life long stigma.
We all have them and we are all vulnerable.
That pedophile may never ever be tempted into stealing and may have very strong feelings against theft, may think it is the lowest crime someone can commit and MAY be sitting on the jury for your trial for theft - heck he may be the judge.
How far does this go? I mean, men explode if they don’t have sex, right? So if there are no willing women available, is it okay for them to have sex with someone who is unwilling? I mean, lots of women have sex, how bad can it possibly be for them to have sex with one more guy?
Sex isn’t a right. You don’t get sex if the only way you can get it is hurting people or breaking the law.
Yes, I did post a reply to that specifically. Of particular note from that:
This shows the root of the issue, a societal problem and a family problem that goes way before this predator issue. In this case (which represents many such real cases) her family basically trained her to be submissive and left her alone in a place with known predators around.
Her family (again this represents many people in this situation) basically cause her to fall into this, if not by this guy, by another.
But for the images to be used for broadcast for profit? I would think they would have to use that ‘obscure’ tool so the face cannot be seen. We see that in Cops a lot. I assume it was people who did not sign a release.
These guys weren’t entrapped. Read the transcripts–its right there. Show us the entrapment if you think there was any of it happening. Or if you’re not arguing entrapment, what are you arguing? How were these guys treated unfairly? Can you point to a specific instance of unfairness so we’ll know what kind of thing you’re talking about?
Yes, and they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private residence. This in my view makes it worse than public property. Earlier in the thread I gave the example of someone going to another person’s house to have sex and being filmed there. If a person strips naked in public then they have no expectation of privacy, this is what they allowed the public and so it can typically be captured on film. However if they strip in what they believe to be a private residence it can’t be broadcast or made a profit of… imagine if a small clothes shop that was close to shutting down started broadcasting images of women in their changing rooms.
You are right that truth is a defence to defamation. However the defamation is not them saying this person did transmit these sexually explicit material to a child. The defamation would be more like making them look like a fool on camera aside from that issue. I didn’t really argue that TCAP did that.
When I said “literally”, I literally meant “literally”. If you read my example earlier.
I can’t find the ones I saw last night, but try this one:
Also have a look at the one with the guy with cystic fibrosis who came in with a cane.
The fat guy I saw was bald, looked like a nice guy, he was in the area anyway because of his job and he just thought he’d stop by for a visit. He claimed that he always kep condoms in his car also and that she initiated the chat.
The guy that said the reason he knew something was up was because of the insistence was black, he didn’t say much, he didn’t seem to have done too much wrong.
Every show there are specific examples. You can often see the girl on the phone saying: “hey come on, let’s do it, I’m lonely, can you please come over?”. You know if she says online: “come over please just to chat with me”, then that’s not explicit but that’s showing that she just wants him over anyway.
How do you know but that the guy was interested more from his parental instincts or his friendship instincts and their mention of sex was just them being confused themselves over what they wanted? And would not have done anything.