Bush is a crook.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Devo

The "in person" stings they typically use dwarves or people who "look" young. Are you saying we should subject children to talking with pedophiles just to catch them?

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

The fact of the matter is the predator thinks it's a child, and is commiting the act as if the person typing to them IS a child. That's grounds enough for an arrest.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

There is nothing Minority Report about it, there is no think crime, they are not entrapping the criminal. He commits the crime based on what he knows, whether what he knows is the truth, is not the issue. He knows it's a child, he commits a crime by propositioning the child, he should be punished. Whether or not the child is "real" is not a problem.

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.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I'm gonna answer your points in reverse here.

Originally Posted by Devo

If you keep using that logic NO STINGS at all would be admissable because the person doing the STING isn't in actuality what they're pretending to be.

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

I've already explained it's obviously not thought-crime when they're clearly messaging the "child" and acting as if the "child" exists. Just because it's not in actuality a minor, doesn't mean the predator will act differently based on his perceptions. The predator is still under the assumption what he's talking to is a child. If these stings mean less predators online, they're doing their job.

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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?

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.

Originally Posted by russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

The solution is that you love child porn.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Use a real child during the internet stings. It ain't rocket science.

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

You are the dumbest nigger in Harlem.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Devo

You're one sick and twisted individual you know that? If you seriously think a child should be subjected to such filth, you should lock yourself up and do us all a favor.

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!

Originally Posted by Devo

So you're using yourself as an example of why consent laws are unncessary, yeah that makes sense, one individual totally should set the example for all laws.

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

And you're using your sex hungry slut of a friend as an example of why the stings are subjective.

Are you kidding me?

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

You want to expose children to child molestors.

Do you understand ethics?

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

(article)

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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

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.

Quote:

Okay, so I was wrong about the specifics of entrapment. Sue me.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

You kiss your mammy with this mouth?

Double Post:
oh christ

Quote:

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

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Originally Posted by russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

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

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

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.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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?

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

No reason to discourage sexuality for minors? How about STDs, pregnancy, rape. Are you assuming minors should be exposed to this because a lot of them are anyway? What a shit reason. Lots of kids drink too, let's lower the alcohol age. And the smoking age.

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.

Originally Posted by Devo

Let's lower the consent age and encourage this behavior of adults going for younger and younger teens! Have at it pedos! Go ahead manipulate 16 year olds into giving you blow jobs, just for you!

Are you retarded?

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

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

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

Originally Posted by Devo

And yet this has nothing to do with online pedophiles, also if a guy knows his girlfriend's parents have a hate boner for him, he should wait until she hits 18.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Because it all boils down to statutory rape.

So they are related in that a child has sex with an adult, nevermind the child's intentions at the time or the adult's relationship with the child.

You are the dumbest nigger in South Africa.

I tried but you kept being so dumb.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

STDs and pregnancy happen just as much after 18 as it does before.

Yes but a 22 year old woman is a whole lot more prepared, both mentally and physically, to handle pregnancy, motherhood, and all of the responsibilities associated with this than a 15 year old. You can dispute this all you want, but you will be wasting your time, because it will be illogical.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

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.

No, you're saying that attempted child rape isn't really a crime because he only thought he'd get some tail that night. You are also saying you want children to work off the books for the police force in situations that may place them in very real danger.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

For someone who's supposedly involved in the law I'd think you'd know the difference between pedophilia (which is typically forced rape) and statutory rape.

Sadly, this also varies from state to state. Again, a problem in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Devo

Oh I don't know, because waiting doesn't make him a criminal.

Having sex with her shouldn't make him a criminal in the first place! Why enforce ridiculous laws instead of making the laws better?

Originally Posted by a lurker

You are the dumbest nigger in South Africa.

I tried but you kept being so dumb.

I'm done "discussing" things with you. Back the fuck off, asshole!

Originally Posted by russ

Yes but a 22 year old woman is a whole lot more prepared, both mentally and physically, to handle pregnancy, motherhood, and all of the responsibilities associated with this than a 15 year old. You can dispute this all you want, but you will be wasting your time, because it will be illogical.

Nope, I don't dispute that at all. I just think it's irrelevent. A rich person is more prepared to handle pregnancy than a poor person, too; should only the rich be allowed to have sex? Of course not! This is why I advocate safe sex.

EDIT: Why is it I'm being attacked and flamed for having the opinion that, basically, our society needs to be more open about sexuality?

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I'm done "discussing" things with you. Back the fuck off, asshole!

You haven't discussed anything with me because your points are bullshit at best and easily cut down. You feel that sixteen years old is a fine time for children to be allowed to do whatever they want to do. Furthermore, you feel that planning and being in the process of executing a crime is mere thought crime.

You have never grown out of being sixteen years old.

Double Post:

Quote:

EDIT: Why is it I'm being attacked and flamed for having the opinion that, basically, our society needs to be more open about sexuality?

Because you want to open an enormous can of ethical worms on a group of people in the misguided attempt to liberate them.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Nope, I don't dispute that at all. I just think it's irrelevent. A rich person is more prepared to handle pregnancy than a poor person, too; should only the rich be allowed to have sex? Of course not! This is why I advocate safe sex.

Oh right, the readily available methods of having safe sex have 100% success rates, yeah I forgot.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Also, you seem to think that you can argue whether a person comitted a crime or not, not based on any real law, but because you like the action and/or the person.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

You feel that sixteen years old is a fine time for children to be allowed to do whatever they want to do.

Thankfully, most of America still agrees with me on that.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Furthermore, you feel that planning and being in the process of executing a crime is mere thought crime.

No, I feel thinking you're doing one thing while actually doing another, and getting arrested for it, is thought crime.

Originally Posted by russ

Oh right, the readily available methods of having safe sex have 100% success rates, yeah I forgot.

There are no guarantees in life. That's no excuse to make sex illegal until 18 (as is the case in some states).

Originally Posted by a lurker

Also, you seem to think that you can argue whether a person comitted a crime or not, not based on any real law, but because you like the action and/or the person.

Do you have ADD or something? I said from the beginning that I'm against these laws because I feel they are punishing thought. That and I question the legality of the stings. Oh, and I'm morally against some aspects of these laws.

What you claim I've been doing and what I've been doing are two very different things.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.