Predation Or Entrapment?

BiBunny

Moon Queen & Wanderer
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Posts
12,223
Anybody seen this? I just finished reading it, slack-jawed. I'm curious as to what y'all's thoughts are on it.
 
I think an excellent point was made in the article about taking the "sting" an extra step further to ensure that he did actually intend to follow through. Even the officer admitted that she'd never busted a pedophile who didn't have child porn on his computer and yet this guy had none. That, to me, is telling.

Not saying he's pure and innocent, just that I think he may not have been what he was painted to be.

Did he need help? Yes. Did he cross a line by bringing supposedly real kids into the fantasy? In my opinion, very much so. Is he a pedophile? I'm not sure.
 
I read the whole article. I have talked to many, many horny married men on-line. So many are willing to say anything, make up any scenario for a little dirty frre dirty talk and a glimpse of real pussy.

My impression of this guy was that he was stupid. He had been playing the cybersex game long enough to know there are some hard and fast rules. Number one is NEVER ever mention underage children. There is no leeway, no excuse.

He may have had no interest in children, or he might have. Without any doubt he is guilty of being stupid.

The problem with this sort of thing is detective's can't use real children to try to catch possible predators. So a person gets convicted for talking dirty beyond what is acceptable.

I think it was entrapment.
 
I have a friend, who I met on an internet dating site, who sits on a state parole board. He has tremendous compassion for the guys who get caught trying to meet underaged teens, and perceives them as a whole different profile from the norm of either pedophiles or rapists. In his view, they got caught in the addictive nature of this cyber-chat sex world, and crossed lines they knew they shouldn't because they were swept away by the excitement of crossing lines they knew they shouldn't.

Maybe they will end up being treated like other addicts.

Maybe they should be.
 
Hmm, I see that my reaction to the article wasn't that different than y'all's then. I felt sorry for the guy.

Yeah, he was probably stupid. But I'm starting to wonder where the line is. I mean, it's almost like as soon as the word "children" becomes involved in anything, it's suddenly ok for law enforcement to do whatever and almost become Thought Police just because "ZOMG, kids!"

It creeps me out, really.

I know other people feel differently, but I, personally, don't have a problem with underage fantasies. I do them for work, and I think as long as it never goes beyond the realm of fantasy, then it's ok. Adults roleplaying (on the phone, in real life, cyber, whatever), stories, things that don't involve actual children are fine. It's when it crosses the line into reality that it becomes criminal.

Of course, the whole problem with this story is where it becomes criminal. Where is the line drawn? Like Keroin, I think the fact that there was no child porn on this guy's computer is telling. And I agree that they should've taken things a step farther to see if there was intent to follow through or not.

Things like this are relevant to me because of my job, my own ageplay fantasies, and such. I just felt sorry for the guy and mildly outraged at the actions of the police in that particular case.
 
Since he wasn't very choosy, I'm surprised he couldn't find a woman without the kid thing for sex.

I will say that I agree that the police didn't go far enough since she didn't wear the wire. People imagine a lot of things and once they get right up to doing it, they just can't.
 
Eh.

I only had to read up to where it said he was taking steroids and cheating on his wife.

After that, he got what he had coming to him.

I feel no sympathy for him. You reap what you sow.
 
Eh.

I only had to read up to where it said he was taking steroids and cheating on his wife.

After that, he got what he had coming to him.

I feel no sympathy for him. You reap what you sow.

He deserved to spend a year in prison and be labeled a sexual predator because he took steroids and cheated on his wife? Jesus Christ.
 
The law overreached on this case. This is where judgment comes in, and the evidence was against him being a predator.

All the same, it's the judicial equivalent of a Darwin award, and I have little sympathy.
 
He deserved to spend a year in prison and be labeled a sexual predator because he took steroids and cheated on his wife? Jesus Christ.

He was doing something illegal and immoral. Without either he does not end up in jail.

I have no sympathy for a man like that.
 
More than the absence of child porn on his computer, the man does not respond sexually to images of underage girls. The entire point of the sting is to weed out pedophiles, not adulterers, even fucked up ones.
 
What was illegal?

Wait, never mind, you said you didn't read the whole thing.

Well, I think the charge was solicitation of sex with a minor. But that's obviously the point of the article. Should this particular guy's behavior fall into that category.
 
Christ almighty. Some bitch says she wants you to fuck her daughters, and all you can think about is how to get her in bed?

I'll leave the law to the lawyers, but I don't pity this guy in the slightest. First time she offered up her kids, he should have contacted the FBI.
 
Steroids.

And I never said I didn't read the whole thing.

Really? It sounded like it.

Eh.

I only had to read up to where it said he was taking steroids and cheating on his wife.

After that, he got what he had coming to him.

I feel no sympathy for him. You reap what you sow.

Anyway, I'm with ITW. Steroids = jail time?

Well, I think the charge was solicitation of sex with a minor. But that's obviously the point of the article. Should this particular guy's behavior fall into that category.

Right. :)

Christ almighty. Some bitch says she wants you to fuck her daughters, and all you can think about is how to get her in bed?

I'll leave the law to the lawyers, but I don't pity this guy in the slightest. First time she offered up her kids, he should have contacted the FBI.

I didn't say he was smart or that he acted honorably. I just said I think the police were wrong in this particular case.
 
It's a good thing you don't go to jail for being immoral, or this board would be a quiet, boring place.
 
Christ almighty. Some bitch says she wants you to fuck her daughters, and all you can think about is how to get her in bed?

I'll leave the law to the lawyers, but I don't pity this guy in the slightest. First time she offered up her kids, he should have contacted the FBI.

That's my feeling on the issue, I just couldn't figure out how to put it.
 
Christ almighty. Some bitch says she wants you to fuck her daughters, and all you can think about is how to get her in bed?

I'll leave the law to the lawyers, but I don't pity this guy in the slightest. First time she offered up her kids, he should have contacted the FBI.

I think most people would agree that he's fucked up, but do we really want to be spending so much public money on these programs? I mean, how many predators are out there, really? I would like to see better numbers than whatever the To Catch a Predator host pulled out of his ass before continuing to spend so much money on this.
 
Christ almighty. Some bitch says she wants you to fuck her daughters, and all you can think about is how to get her in bed?

I'll leave the law to the lawyers, but I don't pity this guy in the slightest. First time she offered up her kids, he should have contacted the FBI.

This is not about pity, in my opinion. The man's morals stink, no question, but is he a pedophile and/or did the police prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
Back
Top