That's the problem, these people doing the stings aren't children. Yes, actual underage teens should be used, and the crime is committed when the suspect propositions the teen for sex, plain and simple. If there are no actual children involved, there is no crime.

Well, that's what the laws say, at least.

Uh, yeah. Duh. Just like when the police do those cigarette busts on stores that sell to minors.

They have to use actual minors, not just people who look like minors.

Therein lies the problem, and brings us back to the point I was making. You're arresting people based on what they think. That's not supposed to be how the legal system works, and I would never ever do that on the job myself, regardless of what the "law" might say about it.

It's kinda like those sting cars they use against car thieves. Sure, the cops set the car up as a dummy for someone to try and take, but as far as the thief knows, it's a random car that's primed for the taking. Why should they be let off the hook because their plan backfired?

Given the fact that these stings have been used for years, are still being used, and that the arrests made haven't been overturned, it stands to reason that the courts say otherwise.

Well I'm glad I don't work with people who think like you! It is thought crime because it's not based on truth! No child, no crime!

The only reason it isn't entrapment is because the police aren't the ones doing the trapping. They go online, pretending to be underage, and actually go about luring these people into traps. While I'm sure some of these creeps deserve to go to prison, I can't say for sure that all of them do, especially given my own experience in the matter with my friend I spoke of earlier.

Better to let a hundred guilty go free than to put away even one innocent . . . Who's to say that they would have ever propositioned a child if they weren't tempted to do so? The fact that it would have been entrapment if the police had done it themselves should be reason enough for concern.

Besides, whether you agree with me or not (and I htink while most of America would agree with you, most of the world would probably agree with me), that's no excuse for a lurker spouting off his bigotry at me and his insults and such.

I know that. The system has flaws, that's obvious. I still refuse to go after people based on thought, especially since I'm against most "age of consent" laws to begin with. (That's a big deal to me, I think the age of consent is far too high in most places, and I believe that based on experience.)

Still no excuse for a lurker to hurl flames at me.

Stings wherein female police officers are used to lure johns are highly publicised; I'd be shocked if the news stories haven't penetrated your thick nignog skull. If they were illegal, wouldn't they have been challenged by now?

The solution is that you love child porn.

Last time I watched one of those Dateline/60 Minutes/whatever shows regarding their sting operation to catch predators, like three out of four of the guys who showed up at the "meeting" were convicted sex offenders. Maybe anyone who is against these stings should THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

I'm gonna answer your points in reverse here.

Use a real child during the internet stings. It ain't rocket science. You aren't (usually) exposing them to anything they don't already know (for the most part). Why? A lot of teenagers have sex, that's why.

So why not use actual children? As soon as the suspect propositions for sex, it's time for the bust.

Like I said, I don't like the current age of consent laws to begin with. While I never had sex with anyone older when I was underage, I did lose my virginity at 16, and I have no regrets whatsoever. Sexually speaking, I've turned out fine, and I would venture to guess that most kids do. If a kid knows what he or she is doing when having sex with another minor, I don't see why it's so different if the partner is older. Makes no sense to me. As I said, my friend was the "predator" when she propositioned and seduced older guys; quite often she knew what she was doing more than the older men did! I know because I was there from the time we were 16, and she was very intelligent. She was just a free spirit, that's all.

Making blanket laws to "protect" groups of people that don't always need protecting just doesn't sit well with me.

If you knew anything about the law, you'd know that these things have been challenged based on the circumstances. If the female officer is asked directly if she is a police officer, she has to answer honestly or else the evidence is inadmissable. In addition to that, she can't be the one to make the proposition, the suspect does. If these two thigns aren't followed, it constitutes entrapment.

Like I said, I'm sure some of them deserve it, but these sex offenders should have never gotten out of prison to begin with! The exact crime, however, would also matter, and since you rarely get that specific information on these news programs, it's hard telling whether they're in one group or the other.

Listen, asshole, I've had just about enough of your mouth and your offensive behavior. I'm gonna warn you to cease your bullshit right now.

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

Double Post:
You are the dumbest nigger in Harlem.

Filth? Like I said, I turned out fine, and so do most kids. I'm not talking about using 11-year-olds here! I'm talking about using older teens that are at least 15 or 16 and are already sexually active!


You honestly think I'm the only one? At my high school, I think a majority of students were active by 16 or 17. Can't give you exact data or anything, but from being there, I can say it's a safe bet.

No, I'm serious. It shows that the "child" isn't always a victim. I would think that makes a big difference.

"Children" that are 15 or 16 that are already sexually active aren't being "exposed" to anything.

Okay, so I was wrong about the specifics of entrapment. Sue me. I already said long ago that I'm not a police officer, just that I work in law enforcement. Contrary to popular belief, we don't all know everything about everything (that and I've only been doing my job for about a year). My area of work has nothing to do with busting hookers or arresting child molestors.

The point I made earlier, if you bothered to even read the posts, was that I disagreed with arresting people based on what they thought they were doing, when based upon lies in and of themselves. That and, even though you were right about "asking the cop", you still haven't managed to dispute what I said about the action having to actually be a crime. I don't see how propositioning an adault pretending to be a minor could be a crime, and if it is, it's a "thought-based" crime.

Oh, and your offensive language is really starting to piss me off, you arrogant piece of shit.

HELLO, it isn't like these stings are catching fine, upstanding good Americans. They're catching people who are INTERESTED IN SLEEPING WITH MINORS. If they go to a meeting setup by law enforcement, then that tells me with 100% certainty that given the opportunity, they would meet with an actual minor. I'm sorry but could you please go back to ffshrine.

Except pedophiles. Additionally, what about children that are younger than that? Children cannot legally consent to these sorts of things, so they need permission slips from their parents. If no parents in the area are willing to allow their children to do this - how do you even advertise a need for this? - do you want the police to go without? What happens if the pedo in question wants to strike back against the child?

You haven't thought this out very far past your friend.


But I thought you knew about law. I guess I showed you.

You can be arrested for attempted murder. This is attempted statutory rape, among other things. Tell me the difference.

You kiss your mammy with this mouth?

Double Post:
oh christ

You honestly believe sixteen year olds, frequently enough to be worth changing laws over, know more than 26 year olds.

What sort of bizarro world do you live in lady?

Well when those convicted sex offenders could be 26-year-olds who got caught with 16-year-olds, then yeah, I'll defend them. I don't think it's right to make that a crime. Now a 40-year-old with a 10-year-old, that is a crime.

As for encouraging or discouraging sex, it's not that I think teens should be encouraged to have lots of sex, I just don't see any reason to discourage it, and I'm certainly against criminalizing it when we're talking about the 15-17 range.

As for your stats, here you go:

http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/uplo...Fact-Sheet.pdf

So it turns out that the number is actually 47% (just short of a majority) as of 2003, but when I entered high school in 1995, it was a majority. 47% is still pretty damn close to a majority, though, don't you think? This at least proves my point that there are plenty of sexually active teenagers.

I don't see any reason to discourage sexual activity. Instead, I think a bigger effort should be made to encourage safe sex.

Like I said, I disagree with the age of consent laws. In fact, stats disagree with each other! States range from 15 all the way up to 18 for the age of consent; in addition, some states give different ages to boys and girls, and different ages to heterosexual relations and homosexual relations!

So you may see people interested in sleeping with minors, but there's a big difference between wanting to sleep with a 16-year-old minor versus wanting to sleep with a 10-year-old minor.

Just ask local parents or whatever. The identity of the child in question need never be revealed, so backlash is a moot point.

Like all law enforcement, I know certain laws better than others. Specifically, those I deal with daily I tend to know better than those that are outside my jurisdiction.

Gladly. You can't be arrested for "thinking" you want to murder someone, nor can you be arrested for "killing" a fictional character that doesn't exist. Just the same, how can you be punished for planning to have sex with a child that doesn't exist?

Honestly, I'd like to know the exact ages that are being portrayed. If we're talking 10-13, then fine, I would just drop it, but the thing is, the law in many states consider even 16 (and sometimes 17) to be too young, and I have a big problem with that.

It's called the real world. Not that they know more, just that they know just as much.

But it's not up to you to determine what's a crime. The law is very clear about it, and in this case you arguing that no crime was comitted is mistaken.

The rest of us are arguing that it is right, just and proper for pedophiles who proposition children on the internet are busted in hilarious Candid Camera-type scenarios, and you are getting defensive because you touched a peener when you were sixteen. These are different things. That you can't understand this is your problem.

No, I get defensive because I have heard of cases where a guy of 19 or 20 gets sent to prison for a decade for having sex with his girlfriend of 17! It happens, and it isn't right.

STDs and pregnancy happen just as much after 18 as it does before. As for alcohol, I am in favor of lowering the age to probably 18 if not 16; if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink. I do believe in life sentences for drinking and driving, though.

As for smoking, I don't like that at any age, and second-hand smoke is a killer, so I love seeing cities that ban smoking in public. That's a much better use of resources.

Now you need to post statistics. Who's to say the older one is manipulating the younger one in all these cases? Or even most of them?

What does that have to do with predator-trolling on the internet?

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

Why should they have to wait, if they both want it? Better to change the law to something a little more practical and logical.



I'm not saying we should let 30-year-olds mess around with 13-year-olds, I'm saying we need to be more practical and logical in lawmaking. It all boils down to the ridiculous statutory rape laws, which vary from state to state even (which in and of itself is wrong in my opinion, as someone used to one age of consent could be arrested for not knowing the age of consent upon moving, and most normal people wouldn't). My problem is with blanket laws that will hit the 30/13 difference as hard as it will hit the 21/17 difference. How do we know the subjects of these stings are in the former group and not the latter?