# Online pedophiles & their expectations of success when setting up meetings with kids **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897 "2006-05-08T15:34:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/61 "2006-05-11T18:45:35Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > If the neighborhood watch volunteers saw a guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street, jumped out from behind the bushes and started bashing him over the head with a lead pipe, yeah, that’s vigilantism. If the college service dressed up as women, walked through campus at night, had people stealthily following to use a taser on any man who came within ten feet of “her,” yeah, that’s vigilantism. Ye gods, you need to be restrained from every using analogy. In your hands it is a dangerous weapon for confusion. If the watch volunteers “…saw a guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street…” and, without more, attacked him, that would be bad. But that’s not a valid analogy to what’s going on here. The PJ volunteers have much more solid evidence against the people they target. The “…guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street…” has done nothing wrong. Who have the PJ people targeted that have done nothing wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/62 "2006-05-11T18:50:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ye gods, you need to be restrained from every using analogy. In your hands it is a dangerous weapon for confusion. > > If the watch volunteers “…saw a guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street…” and, without more, attacked him, that would be bad. But that’s not a valid analogy to what’s going on here. The PJ volunteers have much more solid evidence against the people they target. The “…guy dressed in black carrying a crowbar walking down the street…” has done nothing wrong. Who have the PJ people targeted that have done nothing wrong? “Wrong” in the legal or in the moral sense? ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/63 "2006-05-11T18:51:32Z")
And, lest anyone leap to click “Report This Post”, I will reiterate most clearly: \*\* I am not in any way shape or form supporting or advocating the idea of targeting any member of SDMB or anyone else on the Internet with this kind of misplaced accusation. The instance I used was just that - an example made up out of whole cloth and not meant as an incitement or encouragement.\*\*. And, what **catsix** said. WOOT. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/64 "2006-05-11T18:52:24Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > It’s a disgusting vigilante group that thrives on circling a victim like a wolf pack. I have to disagree with this. There are no _victims_ here. They highlight people who actively solicit sex with underage kids. That’s not a victim, that’s a perpetrator. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/65 "2006-05-11T18:52:43Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > It is way beyond disingenuous to tell the Dopers reading this that of course, their legal recourse if wrongly accused it to sue for defamation of character. You know full well the tone of our country, the posts in this thread alone confirm it. Defamation of character? We won’t have a public character left to defend, if someone really decided to put the screws to one of us- using wholly ficticious materials. > > And you know it. Think about what you just wrote. Think carefully. You’re saying that someone could fake a chat log, and with NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, utterly destroy your life, and you’d have no recourse at all? I’m sorry. I don’t buy it. And in these cases, there isn’t an allegation that the logs are faked… just the concern that they COULD have been faked. Again - for the reasons above, I don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/66 "2006-05-11T18:54:42Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > “Wrong” in the legal or in the moral sense? In EITHER sense. The PJ targets have done something wrong in the moral sense. And they have actually, factually, done something wrong in the legal sense. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/67 "2006-05-11T18:54:33Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I have to disagree with this. There are no _victims_ here. They highlight people who actively solicit sex with underage kids. That’s not a victim, that’s a perpetrator. And you’d be guilty of libel. Good job. Accused perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator. “Charged with” whatever (except that most of them don’t get charged with anything). “Held in connection with” whatever (ditto). But not “perpetrator.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/68 "2006-05-11T18:56:41Z")
> [@Garfield226](#): > > And you’d be guilty of libel. Good job. > > Accused perpetrator. Alleged perpetrator. “Charged with” whatever (except that most of them don’t get charged with anything). “Held in connection with” whatever (ditto). > > But not “perpetrator.” No. Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of libel. Unless you’re contending that one of them actuallt, factually, didn’t participate in the chat? ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/69 "2006-05-11T19:10:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Think about what you just wrote. > Think carefully. > You’re saying that someone could fake a chat log, and with NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, utterly destroy your life, and you’d have no recourse at all? > I’m sorry. I don’t buy it. > And in these cases, there isn’t an allegation that the logs are faked… just the concern that they COULD have been faked. Again - for the reasons above, I don’t buy it. \<—Smiling. Ahhh, **Bricker**. Yes, thank you EVER so much. I actually DID think carefully. You might want to read again, everything I wrote in that post. What I SAID was that being able to sue for defamation is meaningless- and it’s disingenuous for you to say it’s not- because the accusation made is so heinous, and in the environment and mood of the US at this time, proving yourself innocent a few years down the line at the end of a defamation lawsuit will do you ( the group you, of course ) exactly no good. What would one do? Stand in the courtroom, alone and still villified, pumping one’s hand in the air and proclaiming loudly, See? By god I didn’t try to lure a 12 year old girl( Detective In Hiding ) into a face to face sexual encounter !!. You are an attorney, yes? You have presented yourself here as one. You are going to sit there and insist to all reading this thread that an accusation- _ **this kind** _ of accusation- is easily brushed aside once made? One needs no corroborating evidence to wreck a person’s personal, family and business life. One only needs a single loudly proclaimed accusation. One needs evidence to prosecute and convict in a court of law, but we are not only discussing a court of law. The public court of moral opinion won’t turn on defamation suits. It will (sadly) turn on, " Oh, that guy- always so nice to the kids on the block. Makes a big deal about Halloween, and all. Never see him with a girlfriend, though. No kids either. Hmmm…" :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/70 "2006-05-11T19:14:00Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > There is no meaningful opportunity for the PJ person to falsify that record – unless you’re claiming that the Dateline people ALSO are involved in the conspiracy. Considering that they paid perverted justice to put on the show, I have no reason to believe it was anything other than ‘We’re paying you, so get us some good ratings by putting on a good show.’ It has lost any claim to being credible when it became paid entertainment. > [@](#): > > For that matter, what possible motive would the PJ people have to lie? Their entire reason for existence is targeting peodphiles. Do they have some sort of secret vendetta against ALL people cruising sex chat rooms? Read their forums. Most of them were sexually abused or raped as children and they now believe they have a personal mission to be the masked vigilante bat-men who go out and protect the public. They also get jollies out of calling the person into a chat room and shredding the hell out of them. While they’re doing that in one chat room, there’s another where they congratulate each other and throw around virtual high-fives cheering each other on when a particularly good dig is made. When asked about how they’d feel if one of their targets committed suicide, for example, they pretty much said ‘good.’ Don’t believe me? Join and watch for yourself. > [@](#): > > Some are simply willing to bend over backwards for reasons completely unclear to me – witness catsix’s impassioned defense of these people here. Another perverted justice tactic. Call your opponents fans of pedophiles in order to discredit them. > [@](#): > > But suffice to say that another reason is that our system affords these people protections even without the collaborators. So now I am a collaborator with pedophiles because I oppse perverted justice and find its tactics disgusting? > [@](#): > > **Dob** said: > Does anyone have evidence of a nuisance lawsuit of some kind being brought against PJ? A police complaint of harassment? Anything? Besides Catsix’s vauge descriptions of being “invovled” with them? Same recommendation I make to everyone else: join, lurk, read. If it doesn’t open your eyes, then nothing will. > [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > My statement is correct - one of the reasons that molestors have it easier is the fact that they can hide behind worthy principles and compel people like catsix to defend the principle. I rely on those principles to protect me too, **Bricker**. In my opinion, they should not be set aside when it comes to scum because every time we do abandon our principles for a piece of scum, it becomes that much easier abandon them for the next ‘piece of scum’ and the next, and the next, and the next until they mean nothing. Larry Flynt said that if the First Amendment protects a smut peddler like him, then it protects all the rest of us too. I hate his magazine, and agree with his point 100%. > [@](#): > > **Clothahump** said: > I have to disagree with this. There are no _victims_ here. They highlight people who actively solicit sex with underage kids. That’s not a victim, that’s a perpetrator. When the person becomes the target of threats of violence, harassment and stalking, they become a victim. If we won’t stand up for the rights of the lowest, who will stand up for ours? > [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > You’re saying that someone could fake a chat log, and with NO OTHER CORROBORATING EVIDENCE, utterly destroy your life, and you’d have no recourse at all? Money can’t get your life back. It can’t stop the people who see you in the grocery store and the post office from remembering nothing other than the word ‘pedophile’. It can’t get back your career, or the respect of your colleagues. Money cannot fix the damage that can be done by these accusations. That stigma, that stain, never goes away no matter how innocent you are. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/71 "2006-05-11T19:24:20Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Money can’t get your life back. It can’t stop the people who see you in the grocery store and the post office from remembering nothing other than the word ‘pedophile’. It can’t get back your career, or the respect of your colleagues. Money cannot fix the damage that can be done by these accusations. That stigma, that stain, never goes away no matter how innocent you are. WHO ARE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE ACCUSED BY PJ? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/72 "2006-05-11T19:26:39Z")
[QUOTE=CartooniverseWhat I SAID was that being able to sue for defamation is meaningless- and it’s disingenuous for you to say it’s not- because the accusation made is so heinous, and in the environment and mood of the US at this time, proving yourself innocent a few years down the line at the end of a defamation lawsuit will do you ( the group you, of course ) exactly no good. [/quote] I don’t agree. I think that winning such a suit would go a long way towards rehabilitating your image. The public is not a bunch of brain-dead sheep, repeating the last accusation they heard over and over again and immune to any new information. They are well aware that false charges can be made, and disproven, and that a lawsuit is the way to go about doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/73 "2006-05-11T19:30:27Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Considering that they paid perverted justice to put on the show, I have no reason to believe it was anything other than ‘We’re paying you, so get us some good ratings by putting on a good show.’ It has lost any claim to being credible when it became paid entertainment. So your claim now is: 1. Perverted-Justice people lie, falsify their logs to create the appearance that men who were really seeking adult sexual partners are pedophiles, and 2. NBC Dateline, because they paid PJ to help conduct these stings, ALSO sanctioned this falsification of the logs. And the police that arrested each of these men? You suppose they’re in on it, too? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/74 "2006-05-11T19:33:14Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > WHO ARE THE INNOCENT PEOPLE ACCUSED BY PJ? You ought to know that unless they have been convicted they are presumed to be legally innocent. I don’t give a damn whether PJ or _you_ think they aren’t. The yelling is hardly necessary. Calm down. > [@](#): > > So your claim now is: No. It’s that their credibility after having paid for good ratings is in the shitter. And I’m not going to waste bandwidth trying to explain it to you again. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/75 "2006-05-11T19:37:50Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > You ought to know that unless they have been convicted they are presumed to be legally innocent. I don’t give a damn whether PJ or _you_ think they aren’t. Yes. But that presumption refers to who has the burden of proof in a courtroom, at a criminal trial. It does not mean that if I witness someone commit a crime, I cannot tell the whole world that the guy is a criminal. > [@](#): > > The yelling is hardly necessary. Calm down. OK, yelling isn’t necessary. So what method would you suggest will work to teach you what “presumed legally innocent” means? I explained it once, above, and it didn’t seem to make any mark on your understanding, since you trotted out the phrase again and used it incorrectly. So tell me – how can I explain to you what “presumed legally innocent” means - and, more importantly, what it does not mean? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/76 "2006-05-11T19:51:37Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > OK, yelling isn’t necessary. So what method would you suggest will work to teach you what “presumed legally innocent” means? I explained it once, above, and it didn’t seem to make any mark on your understanding, since you trotted out the phrase again and used it incorrectly. I understand what it means. You have a different opinion as to the tactics of perverted justice, and you’re not going to be able to sway me to your opinion that their tactics of harassment, stalking and threats are anything but morally repugnant. I do have another question for you, though. Why would these people go to such lengths to hide their real identities, including the leader going by an alias (Xavier von Erck) in all their dealings, and spend so much time on their site discussing how to make it more difficult to find out who they really are if not out of a reasonable belief that what they’re doing is something they could face legal repercussions for? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/77 "2006-05-11T19:52:52Z")
Maybe this will help. Joe Stevens is accosted in an alleyway by a man with a gun. The man points the gun at Joe and demands his wallet. Joe complies. The man takes the wallet and flees. Joe reports the crime to the police, and goes home. The next day, visiting a friend, Joe sees the man that mugged him. Joe calls the police, and they respond and arrest the man, one Carl Simmons. Question: is there any legal principle or prudent practice that requires Joe to refer to Carl as his “alleged” mugger? Must Joe give Carl some sort of “presumption of innocence?” Question: is there any sort of legal principle or prudent practice that requires the newspaper writer who reports the story to refer to Carl as an “alleged” mugger? And finally, question: is there any sort of legal principle that the court trying Carl for the armed robbery of Joe must apply regarding Carl’s presumption of innocence? I think the answers to these questions will help expose the disconnect we seem to have here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/78 "2006-05-11T19:55:15Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I understand what it means. You have a different opinion as to the tactics of perverted justice, and you’re not going to be able to sway me to your opinion that their tactics of harassment, stalking and threats are anything but morally repugnant. No. What you’ve said has nothing to do with the phrase “presumed innocent.” I think the questions I asked above will help clarify this, though. > [@](#): > > I do have another question for you, though. Why would these people go to such lengths to hide their real identities, including the leader going by an alias (Xavier von Erck) in all their dealings, and spend so much time on their site discussing how to make it more difficult to find out who they really are if not out of a reasonable belief that what they’re doing is something they could face legal repercussions for? I imagine they are frightened of _extra_-legal consequences. Pedophiles exposed by their tactics may well decide to exact revenge on them without recourse to the law. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/79 "2006-05-11T20:04:40Z")
> [@](#): > > **Bricker** said: > No. What you’ve said has nothing to do with the phrase “presumed innocent.” > > I think the questions I asked above will help clarify this, though. I actually have no interest in your quiz because it doesn’t relate to what the people from perverted justice do. > [@](#): > > I imagine they are frightened of extra-legal consequences. Pedophiles exposed by their tactics may well decide to exact revenge on them without recourse to the law. So they’re trying to aviod being treated in exactly the same manner as they treat others? Also, why are they so specific about telling their members to refer to the target or ‘bust’ as they call it as a ‘wanna be pedo’? That is something that I noticed very often - an admonishment to call the ‘bust’ a ‘wanna be pedo’. You might as well save your effort if you’re trying to make me think that what they do is acceptable, or hoping that someone finally has the balls and information to take Phillip Eide (aka Xavier Von Erck) for all he’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897/80 "2006-05-11T20:12:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. > > I think that winning such a suit would go a long way towards rehabilitating your image. The public is not a bunch of brain-dead sheep, repeating the last accusation they heard over and over again and immune to any new information. They are well aware that false charges can be made, and disproven, and that a lawsuit is the way to go about doing that. Fatty Arbuckle. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/online-pedophiles-their-expectations-of-success-when-setting-up-meetings-with-kids/355897.md?page=5)