HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Man Convicted In Child Predator Sting With Virtual Girl
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Uuugh, I shouldn't have read that article. That's so disgusting! 
I haven't read the article quite yet. I know call me crazy, but if the quote'd article summary is accurate, wouldn't having child abuse porn on his computer be a real crime?
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
I dunno how I feel about this. On the one hand, people with an affinity for children should be rehabilitated without issues, if they never act on these tendencies.
But this is a classic case of entrapment IMHO. Warrants to search the mans computer were based off no real crime being committed. Can we have LEO selling rocks of street salt as crack cocaine, then arresting the buyers on a charge of "attempting to purchase illegal narcotics?"
On the other hand, he did send nudes to someone. Were it a real, living, little girl... The guy'so all sorts of messed up.
But this is a classic case of entrapment IMHO. Warrants to search the mans computer were based off no real crime being committed. Can we have LEO selling rocks of street salt as crack cocaine, then arresting the buyers on a charge of "attempting to purchase illegal narcotics?"
On the other hand, he did send nudes to someone. Were it a real, living, little girl... The guy'so all sorts of messed up.
Right, missed that.
Legalize virtual child porn and be done with it already. I don't have a lot of pity for these guys but I don't see how throwing them into prison after these extremely questionable TV-based games actually deals with the problem of pedophilia. Give them something to tide them over so that they DON'T go looking on the internet for children.
This shit is, quite frankly, entrapment, and always has been. Considering the current state of law enforcement, other options need to be tried.
This shit is, quite frankly, entrapment, and always has been. Considering the current state of law enforcement, other options need to be tried.
The CP should be what he's busted for, and forget about the "pre-crime" unit and leave that to Tom Cruise.
To chime in my thoughts:
1) SEXUAL DEVIANCY/DISORDERS
Other sexual deviancy like guys believing they are women or being homosexual we say isn't a choice, they were BORN that way and its just how their brain is wired. Like having sex with a 17 year old, some in our society believe its morally wrong, but either way the homosexuals can only choose to ACT on this impulse or not, not whether or not to have the attraction... we preach that over and over and over. Why doesn't the same logic apply to other sexual development disorders like pedophilia? Why is virtual CP (cartoons and what not) a problem, when if anything this provides a harmless outlet for attractions that according to society they have no control over having in the first place? If guys/girls attracted to sub-18 year olds (which I contest isn't abnormal as everyone doesn't hit sexual maturity at age 18) can suppress or retrain their brains to "sexual normalcy", so can homosexuals. You can't have it both ways.
2) ENTRAPMENT
Some of these "pre-crime" stings are nonsense as its either a 45 year old male police officer pretending to be a female or a virtual girl or other nonsense, and the retard you see in front of Chris Hansen and the like are usually so fat and ugly that there is absolutely ZERO risk that a teenage girl would consensually engage in sex with them, and they were just there for consensual sex not forced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQAC2pPVu88 <- in the chat he not only says he's old and fat but when she asks him for sex she says sure but that he has a sexual disorder and has difficultly achieving an erection... cmon, there NEVER would have been a crime.
How is this different from putting an ice cream sandwich on the table at a fat camp, and then prosecuting the kid that steals the sandwich or sacks of $50,000 at the door of a bank and waiting for someone to walk off with it... cmon.
To chime in my thoughts:
1) SEXUAL DEVIANCY/DISORDERS
Other sexual deviancy like guys believing they are women or being homosexual we say isn't a choice, they were BORN that way and its just how their brain is wired. Like having sex with a 17 year old, some in our society believe its morally wrong, but either way the homosexuals can only choose to ACT on this impulse or not, not whether or not to have the attraction... we preach that over and over and over. Why doesn't the same logic apply to other sexual development disorders like pedophilia? Why is virtual CP (cartoons and what not) a problem, when if anything this provides a harmless outlet for attractions that according to society they have no control over having in the first place? If guys/girls attracted to sub-18 year olds (which I contest isn't abnormal as everyone doesn't hit sexual maturity at age 18) can suppress or retrain their brains to "sexual normalcy", so can homosexuals. You can't have it both ways.
2) ENTRAPMENT
Some of these "pre-crime" stings are nonsense as its either a 45 year old male police officer pretending to be a female or a virtual girl or other nonsense, and the retard you see in front of Chris Hansen and the like are usually so fat and ugly that there is absolutely ZERO risk that a teenage girl would consensually engage in sex with them, and they were just there for consensual sex not forced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQAC2pPVu88 <- in the chat he not only says he's old and fat but when she asks him for sex she says sure but that he has a sexual disorder and has difficultly achieving an erection... cmon, there NEVER would have been a crime.
How is this different from putting an ice cream sandwich on the table at a fat camp, and then prosecuting the kid that steals the sandwich or sacks of $50,000 at the door of a bank and waiting for someone to walk off with it... cmon.
Can you really though? We tell the Christians that their "gay camps" are not just a matter of being wrong because "its OK to be gay" but that they are an entirely pointless exercise as it is 100% impossible to force someone to be attracted to the sexual-normalcy for a male of being attracted to a 18+ year old female. It simply cannot be done, and if he loves sausage and meatballs, he will never ever be convinced to be happy about Taco Tuesdays. So why is it that we accept you can't make one sexually deviant male be attracted to 18+ year old females, while another man with a sexual deviancy can be?
Not to put words in your mouth though if you think both can be "reprogrammed", but society's consensus seems to be that its only possible to change the sexual attraction of those that are socially unaccepted at present (remember, it was totally cool for the prophet Mohammed, a guy now worshiped, to bang 14 year olds back in the day but if he touched a boy they would have chopped his hand off).
QwertyJuan
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2000
- Messages
- 11,285
So we're saying that if they would have seized the man's computer and he would have had no trace of child porn he wouldn't have been charged?
They're different in that assuming the fat camp rules state no eating of fattening foods, the kid is breaking the rules. It would be comparable if it were say a frozen broccoli sandwich inside a chocolate ice cream wrapper and the kid ate it but was then still punished for eating an ice cream sandwich. Bank wise, assuming the bag of money is clearly labeled as bank property and premises, you're stealing an actual bag of money from the bank. It would be comparable if inside the bag was old news paper but the "thief" was still punished for stealing 50k.
Good Riddance.
There is no difference in this than a prostitution sting or FBI pretending to be hitmen in classified ads. As long a the pervert or would be murder-for-hire customer contacts the po-po and solicits/conducts an illegal act it not entrapment.
Entrapment is when the police prod or drag a person into an illegal act, say an undercover cop planning a bank heist and sells the plan to the target and talking him into it. In this case they "pretended" to be a kid and the pervert contacted them and committed the crime.
There is no difference in this than a prostitution sting or FBI pretending to be hitmen in classified ads. As long a the pervert or would be murder-for-hire customer contacts the po-po and solicits/conducts an illegal act it not entrapment.
Entrapment is when the police prod or drag a person into an illegal act, say an undercover cop planning a bank heist and sells the plan to the target and talking him into it. In this case they "pretended" to be a kid and the pervert contacted them and committed the crime.
Very true, and I see what you're saying that this is even worse, as in that in this case its not even real property.
My point though is that its entrapment because you are creating conditions for a crime that are unrealistic so that someone that otherwise likely would have gone their whole life not tempted to rob a bank, would pick up the money bags that are sitting there unprotected even if he knows its wrong.
Basically its setting unrealistic bait encouraging a crime to be committed where one most likely wouldn't have otherwise ever occurred without law enforcement's encouragement.
Those are entrapment too. They can hire a ridiculously beautiful supermodel to approach guys in their work parking garage that would offer a quick BJ for $5 rubbing his chest and licking her lips and making herself irresistible, until some guy about to burst from his zipper gives in to temptation.
Then the police roll in, acting like they have done society a great service, when the guy otherwise likely would have just driven home, grabbed a sandwich at Krogers, and watched an episode of Friends and that would have been that. Its creating criminals where none exist.
Same thing, has there ever ACTUALLY been a hitman that ever advertised himself in a classified ad? Seems like its preying on the mentally retarded.
HardUp4HardWare
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 4,274
Ah, try NINE. As for the second part of that the issue of Man-Boy ickkiness amoungst muzzies is out there.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
Were this the US, I'd go for entrapment. Don't know about the other countries. I hate scum like that, but rights are for everyone or no one. You can't pick and choose who they apply to... Even people like that.
I don't know about if legalized virtual child porn would work. From the little I've seen and read on things, they aren't doing it just to get their rocks off. Some of them do it for power or control or whatever.
Just because the (would be) crime appears easy and simple does not mean it is not a crime.
And in the case of the prostitution sting they (typically) are not allowed to "sell" services, but have to wait for the offer. They do hang out and dress the part, does not make it entrapment.
I understand the "no real child/prostitute/hitman involved no real child rape/paid sex/murder would have/could have happened" argument. But the solicitation of those crimes are a crime themselves, despite the inability to take it to the next level. No matter how easy.
Cops can open the door, the criminal has to walk through it so to speak.
While many of them are certainly dangerous, I'm not willing to accept that every pedophile is a rapist any more than any other demographic. Most people have some kind of urge they don't indulge for whatever reason and I'm sure pedophilia is just one of those. I see no problem with letting them have cartoon porn or cgi porn or whatever as long as it doesn't involve actual kids.
I remember several years ago seeing some big court case sending a guy to prison over a picture of the Simpsons kids going at it...and calling that child porn. Um, I'm pretty sure Bart and Lisa don't exist, and even if they did, they'd be well over legal age by now. It's a stupid notion that should be stopped before it starts expanding out to even more forms of expression. Chances are if the simulated stuff is available anyway, there'd be less of a demand for the real thing.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
Good luck getting this to hold up. These are people who are obviously have a mental illness and even though from a legal perspective it's not entrapment. You have someone in a chatroom saying "Hi... I'm 9 years old" you're going to get some bites from that. It's the same way as having someone say "I have crack " around a drug addict, they're going to bite too.
Not sure, but the item (salt or whatever) doesn't matter for a non-LEO, all that matters is what you are "selling it as" You can't even PTBarnum people anymore.
Sell salt as crack, go to jail for intent to sell crack.
Sell oregano as ganja, go to jail for intent to sell marijuana.
Sell X (completely legal inert item) as Y (any illegal item), go to prison for intent to sell Y, and if they want to be assholes, "intent to defraud" as well since you are misrepresenting item Y.
The law is all sorts of fucked, until you look at it from a competitive drug dealer's POV, like the CIA (who wants zero competition lul)
if these kinds of stings (along with drug user stings) resulted in treatment for the offender then I'd have less of a problem. as it is, though, Racheakt is correct on the legalities of such stings but doesn't make it right as a few others have posted
Mental Defect is an affirmative defense for being on trial for a crime, the defendant needs to show that they are indeed too stupid to know that trying to buy crack or trying diddling a 9-year was a crime, or to defective to know that is what they were doing.
Speaking of Catch a Predator - I think Arrested Development highlighted the things wrong with those stings the best. Check out episode "A New Start".
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
There was a big discussion on reddit about pedophilia. There are many people that are attracted to <18, but never act on it. So, they may have that attraction, but they aren't child molesters. For those, cgi/animated stuff would be fine. For actual offenders that committed a crime against a child - no way.
For the majority of people, though, the thought of pedophiles and distributing even cartoon child porn seems pretty fucked up. But, so does a lot of German and Japanese porn....
I think for me, it'd be a "I don't like it, but I'm not saying you can't have it.". It's not harming anyone (not real people in the videos).
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,823
I would be looking at this guy's parents and why they sheltered him his whole life to the point that even though he is 48 years old he seems to have the mentality of a 10 year old
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,823
Also there was no reason for the cop to throw him down like that, he had his hands up and he was not a threat.....
Pretty sure he is legit mentally retarded, albeit "high functioning".
You know that John DeLorean was cleared of all charges and never was convicted of trafficking, right? Precisely because the judge noted that the Feds threatened DeLorean as if they were real criminals if he didn't go through with the crime they wanted him to commit?
I'm generally with you, but I don't think denying convicted felons that stuff is going to help them avoid re-offending. From a pragmatic perspective, we have to actually put forth some effort to prevent them from going out and doing what they've done before. That may mean putting up with some disgusting fiction to avert a horrifying reality.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
I don't know... I'd have to see some research first. I really have no idea how it would play out. Would they see it and crave the real thing more? Would it satisfy them enough to prevent them from acting out? I don't know those answers. If it helps them and it stops them from wanting to go play with kids, then sure, I'd go for it. If it just got them roaring and ready for more, then no.
Ya the actual offenders, most of the existing precautions we have in place are effective. Although I do think we need to raise the bar a little bit.
A pedophile guy that kidnaps rapes a 8 year old boy needs to be treated different and recognized differently from that ridiculously hot teacher that had "consensual" (I know legally can't consent in the US) sex with her 17 year old student. I saw them throwing venom at her as a pedophile, and its like cmon, the only harm to that "child" is that his hand might be raw from high fiving too much.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/2...-charged-after-confessing-to-sex-with-student
So our current sex-offender list is a joke and needs to have the bar raised on who is put on there so the community is aware. For example, someone convicted of prostitution or if the court are douches enough even a woman that flashes her tits at mardi gras can be thrown up on the sex offender registry, which is rucking fetarded. A girl that hooked five years ago or somebody who went streaking or flashing is not a threat to you.
A pedophile guy that kidnaps rapes a 8 year old boy needs to be treated different and recognized differently from that ridiculously hot teacher that had "consensual" (I know legally can't consent in the US) sex with her 17 year old student. I saw them throwing venom at her as a pedophile, and its like cmon, the only harm to that "child" is that his hand might be raw from high fiving too much.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/2...-charged-after-confessing-to-sex-with-student
So our current sex-offender list is a joke and needs to have the bar raised on who is put on there so the community is aware. For example, someone convicted of prostitution or if the court are douches enough even a woman that flashes her tits at mardi gras can be thrown up on the sex offender registry, which is rucking fetarded. A girl that hooked five years ago or somebody who went streaking or flashing is not a threat to you.
Not an easy situation, but law enforcement in this country, and in particular the penal system, need a serious adjustment. If we want to stop these guys, putting them through hell and then releasing them with nothing to live for is not the right way.
And it is the attitude you just expressed that perpetuates the very problem you are addressing.
Meh, if I had my way, age of consent would be 16, and teacher would have only maybe lost her job since it was inappropriate, but not illegal. Dude kidnaps a little boy or girl and legit rapes though, screw em. That's my opinion.
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
It is here in Ontario, Canada. And my god, highschool girls are super easy to impress.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 15,994
According to wiki in the US there are 32 states where the age of consent is 16, 9 states are 17, and 10 are 18.
That said, pedophilia is not being attracted to someone who is physically mature but happens to be a year or two under your age of consent laws, it's being attracted to those who have not yet gone through puberty. These people are the ones who need to be called pedophiles. Having a hard on for some cheerleader you saw walking to school wearing a tight shirt and yoga pants is perfectly normal, now wanting to hang out with a cheerleader is where the abnormal behavior begins (if you're too much older than her)
That said, pedophilia is not being attracted to someone who is physically mature but happens to be a year or two under your age of consent laws, it's being attracted to those who have not yet gone through puberty. These people are the ones who need to be called pedophiles. Having a hard on for some cheerleader you saw walking to school wearing a tight shirt and yoga pants is perfectly normal, now wanting to hang out with a cheerleader is where the abnormal behavior begins (if you're too much older than her)