T1B

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:it's illegal to buy pot from anyone, anytime, anywhere (withing US borders and save the whole mendicinal thing). so intent is very easy to prove. it's not illegal to talk nasty to a cop even if you thought you were getting some little girl. not trying to spin it in circles, just saying this tactic is prolly one step too far. it's no different than two people online role playing. it's sick, depraved, but not illegal.

It is damn easy to prove intent. That's what chat logs are for.

which would look identical to some of the other chat logs between two adults.

Not to pass judgement, but goddamn titlover you are a fucking moron.

Ok. Let's do it this way.

Scenarion #1

- 40 yr old cop poses as 25yr old woman.
- 40yrs old cop waits and has some interperv IM him
- 40yr old cop is asked "how old are you"?
- 40yr old cop says "25".
- interperv suggests a meeting with supposed 25yr old girl.
- No crime here as the age of the supposed victim is 25, of leagal age.

Scenario #2
- play out the same thing, only this time, 40yr old cop is 13yr old girl.
- there is a crime because of the age of the victim (lets forget about how it all came about...its the age thats the factor here).


Have you ever heard of a charge called attempted murder? Or better yet, so we keep the terminology consistent, have you ever heard of the charge "possession with INTENT to sell or distribute"? Intent is the ky and it is very much a crime to intend to do something criminalistic (depending on how far the intent goes).

I honestly think you are being deliberately dense on the matter if you still don't get it.

Roofer wrote:Not to pass judgement, but goddamn titlover you are a fucking moron.

Ok. Let's do it this way.

Scenarion #1

- 40 yr old cop poses as 25yr old woman.
- 40yrs old cop waits and has some interperv IM him
- 40yr old cop is asked "how old are you"?
- 40yr old cop says "25".
- interperv suggests a meeting with supposed 25yr old girl.
- No crime here as the age of the supposed victim is 25, of leagal age.

Scenario #2
- play out the same thing, only this time, 40yr old cop is 13yr old girl.
- there is a crime because of the age of the victim (lets forget about how it all came about...its the age thats the factor here).


Have you ever heard of a charge called attempted murder? Or better yet, so we keep the terminology consistent, have you ever heard of the charge "possession with INTENT to sell or distribute"? Intent is the ky and it is very much a crime to intend to do something criminalistic (depending on how far the intent goes).

I honestly think you are being deliberately dense on the matter if you still don't get it.

there is no victim. it's imaginary. attempted murder involves real people.

titlover wrote:

Roofer wrote:Not to pass judgement, but goddamn titlover you are a fucking moron.

Ok. Let's do it this way.

Scenarion #1

- 40 yr old cop poses as 25yr old woman.
- 40yrs old cop waits and has some interperv IM him
- 40yr old cop is asked "how old are you"?
- 40yr old cop says "25".
- interperv suggests a meeting with supposed 25yr old girl.
- No crime here as the age of the supposed victim is 25, of leagal age.

Scenario #2
- play out the same thing, only this time, 40yr old cop is 13yr old girl.
- there is a crime because of the age of the victim (lets forget about how it all came about...its the age thats the factor here).


Have you ever heard of a charge called attempted murder? Or better yet, so we keep the terminology consistent, have you ever heard of the charge "possession with INTENT to sell or distribute"? Intent is the ky and it is very much a crime to intend to do something criminalistic (depending on how far the intent goes).

I honestly think you are being deliberately dense on the matter if you still don't get it.

there is no victim. it's imaginary. attempted murder involves real people.

In the "possession with intent to distribute" example I gave, who is the victim?

Roofer wrote:

titlover wrote:

Roofer wrote:Not to pass judgement, but goddamn titlover you are a fucking moron.

Ok. Let's do it this way.

Scenarion #1

- 40 yr old cop poses as 25yr old woman.
- 40yrs old cop waits and has some interperv IM him
- 40yr old cop is asked "how old are you"?
- 40yr old cop says "25".
- interperv suggests a meeting with supposed 25yr old girl.
- No crime here as the age of the supposed victim is 25, of leagal age.

Scenario #2
- play out the same thing, only this time, 40yr old cop is 13yr old girl.
- there is a crime because of the age of the victim (lets forget about how it all came about...its the age thats the factor here).


Have you ever heard of a charge called attempted murder? Or better yet, so we keep the terminology consistent, have you ever heard of the charge "possession with INTENT to sell or distribute"? Intent is the ky and it is very much a crime to intend to do something criminalistic (depending on how far the intent goes).

I honestly think you are being deliberately dense on the matter if you still don't get it.

there is no victim. it's imaginary. attempted murder involves real people.

In the "possession with intent to distribute" example I gave, who is the victim?

it's on shakier ground when it's just dirty talk between two adults.

You're right....if it remained as just dirty talk, nothing would come about it. However, it was taken further by the perpvert arranging a meeting with the intent to commit a sex act with the 13yr old girl (or in this case, 40yr old cop posing as a 13yr old girl).

If the chat log shows the arranged meeting was because the perpvert wanted to play Chutes and Ladders (the real game), NBC wouldn't be there and the cops couldn't bust him. It's because there is explicit language that indicates the intent of the meeting is to engage in a criminalistic activity.

How do you feel about an undercover cop posing as a hitman to carry out an arranged murder? The person soliciting the alleged hitman has intent to have someone murdered, therefore they get busted.

No matter how you slice it, this is on the up and up. The better question was the one posed about how NBC gets the authority to show their faces. I'm sure they are within their legal right or all this would have gone away long time ago.

Roofer wrote:You're right....if it remained as just dirty talk, nothing would come about it. However, it was taken further by the perpvert arranging a meeting with the intent to commit a sex act with the 13yr old girl (or in this case, 40yr old cop posing as a 13yr old girl).

If the chat log shows the arranged meeting was because the perpvert wanted to play Chutes and Ladders (the real game), NBC wouldn't be there and the cops couldn't bust him. It's because there is explicit language that indicates the intent of the meeting is to engage in a criminalistic activity.

How do you feel about an undercover cop posing as a hitman to carry out an arranged murder? The person soliciting the alleged hitman has intent to have someone murdered, therefore they get busted.

No matter how you slice it, this is on the up and up. The better question was the one posed about how NBC gets the authority to show their faces. I'm sure they are within their legal right or all this would have gone away long time ago.

I want these perv's castrated/executed just as much as anyone. the thing that doesn't really jive is the intent to commit murder involves a real person that is to be killed. in the perv's case, there is no little girl. sure, he intended to get funky, but there was no little girl/boy. it's shakey, like I said from the beginning.

When the perp makes arrangements for the meeting, he does so because he believes he is talking to a 13 yr old girl.

When an undercover cop is solicited as a hitman, technically speaking, he doesn't know if the alleged victim is real or not. In fact, it doesn't matter. Conspiring or having intent to commit an act of crime is the charge. If the act is carried out on a real victim, then additional charges apply.

Quite simply, it is against the law to have intent to engage in sex acts with minors. If it wasn't against the law to have intent, everyone of these clowns would walk out a free man.

RACK the Roof.

Rip City

TL still sees no victim.

Go back to the example of the Cop posing as a prostitute. John comes up offers to pay for sex and gets popped. This holds up even though there was no prostitute and no action. John is popped for solicitation. That is exactly what these sick fucks are doing, except they are soliciting minors.

I can see both sides of the argument.

It really comes down to tv ratings... and the tards that get off watching about peds. Which may say more about the viewer as well as the subject matter.

If there wasn't a 40 year old pretending to be a 13 year old... there would never be a 13 year to go after.

Sure, there may be a 13 year old somewhere out there that would invite a ped over to her house, but that would be a hypothetical scenerio.

Roofer wrote:When the perp makes arrangements for the meeting, he does so because he believes he is talking to a 13 yr old girl.

When an undercover cop is solicited as a hitman, technically speaking, he doesn't know if the alleged victim is real or not. In fact, it doesn't matter. Conspiring or having intent to commit an act of crime is the charge. If the act is carried out on a real victim, then additional charges apply.

Quite simply, it is against the law to have intent to engage in sex acts with minors. If it wasn't against the law to have intent, everyone of these clowns would walk out a free man.

in the murder scenario the cop and victim are seperate, in the perv scenario they are the same person. that's where the breakdown is.

m2 wrote:I
If there wasn't a 40 year old pretending to be a 13 year old... there would never be a 13 year to go after.

Sure, there may be a 13 year old somewhere out there that would invite a ped over to her house, but that would be a hypothetical scenerio.

Yeah- except for this:

The statistics are shocking

1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

TL- Mtard is on your side- I would abandon your argument right now.

BBMarley wrote:
1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.
Nearly 70% of all reported sexual assaults (including assaults on adults) occur to children ages 17 and under.
An estimated 39 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse exist in America today.

TL- Mtard is on your side- I would abandon your argument right now.

You're not a smart guy BB, so I'll let that slide since you don't have the ability to comprehend what's been posted.

It looks like most of the sexual abuse has occurred not on the internet... but somewhere else.

I would think that most of this kind of sexual abuse may have been perpetrated by a family member or someone that is close to the family that the child may know. Not some stranger on the internet.

m2 wrote: You're not a smart guy BB, so I'll let that slide since you don't have the ability to comprehend what's been posted.

It looks like most of the sexual abuse has occurred not on the internet... but somewhere else.

I would think that most of this kind of sexual abuse may have been perpetrated by a family member or someone that is close to the family that the child may know. Not some stranger on the internet.

God you're a fuckin moron. 1 in 5 children is solicited for sex while on the internet and you don't think this is a real problem? As long its just solictiation- its not sexual abuse? Yes it is... any way you want to cut it. These predators prey on weak children (either self esteem issues, social rejects, etc..) whom they fool into thinking its a love thing... That's why the kids agree to meet them.. and it turns into something else from there. It is all part and parcel of the same sick, twisted world.

For the record, the use of the word "is" in the example given is correct. The "is" is describing the "1", and therefore the singular form of the word is correct. You wouldn't say "1 child are on the playgorund".

Just sayin.....

BBMarley wrote:

m2 wrote: You're not a smart guy BB, so I'll let that slide since you don't have the ability to comprehend what's been posted.

It looks like most of the sexual abuse has occurred not on the internet... but somewhere else.

I would think that most of this kind of sexual abuse may have been perpetrated by a family member or someone that is close to the family that the child may know. Not some stranger on the internet.

God you're a fuckin moron. 1 in 5 children are solicited for sex while on the internet and you don't think this is a real problem? As long its just solictiation- its not sexual abuse? Yes it is... any way you want to cut it. These predators prey on weak children (either self esteem issues, social rejects, etc..) whom they fool into thinking its a love thing... That's why the kids agree to meet them.. and it turns into something else from there. It is all part and parcel of the same sick, twisted world.

Shit for brains... the idiot is you!

You can't tell the difference between solicited and actual sexual abuse??? You really are a dumbfuck!

Look again shit for brains!

BBMarley wrote:1 in 4 girls is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 6 boys is sexually abused before the age of 18.
1 in 5 children are solicited sexually while on the internet.

The real problem isn't occurring on "the internet" it's happening somewhere else!

Since you're are one of the freaks that love the show on peds... which I find bizzare, since I have no interest what so ever in guys that prey on children.

BBMarley wrote:Love the show

One of the places where this sick behavior maybe occurring... is in a home like your's!!!

Why do you have an interest in watching a show about grown men preying on little kids???

Do you think by watching this you maybe able to stop it, Mr. at home policeman in the living room?

Or do you get off on it you sick fuck!!!

My guess is that he likes to see bad people get whats coming to them. It's why Cops is one of if not the longest running show on television. The Simpsons is right up there too.....

Neely8 wrote:My guess is that he likes to see bad people get whats coming to them. It's why Cops is one of if not the longest running show on television. The Simpsons is right up there too.....

I think Cops is/was popular, because it's funny watching white trash stumbling around. That, and some folks can see what their family members are up to... when they see them on tv.

anybody that wants to hump on a 13 yr old kid deserves to have their ass incarcerated as well as the shit beat out of them.
just sayin

m2 wrote:
Shit for brains... the idiot is you!

You can't tell the difference between solicited and actual sexual abuse??? You really are a dumbfuck!

Trying to get a young child to have sex with you is just as bad as actually doing it... and if you don't think that then you really a bigger douche than I ever thought you were.

m2 wrote: The real problem isn't occurring on "the internet" it's happening somewhere else!

The internet is the gateway for alot of this shit now.. they prey on the kids on the internet. They are befriended there, build up their trust- then meet them in person...

m2 wrote: Why do you have an interest in watching a show about grown men preying on little kids???

Do you think by watching this you maybe able to stop it, Mr. at home policeman in the living room?

Or do you get off on it you sick fuck!!!

Becasue as Neely said- these people disgust me and I enjoy watching them get their comeuppance. People think they can hurt anyone they want and I love seeing their asses get busted for it. The bad people in this country get away with entirely too much and I like seeing people who abuse children cry like little bitches. I would much prefer to see them castrated and thrown into a cell with a 350 lb black guy named Bubba who wants to make them his bitch.. but I'll settle for the police busting their ass. Abuse of women & children are two things I don't stand for any level. People who do that are lower than filth and deserve to be buried under the prison.

m2 wrote:I can see both sides of the argument.

You shoulda' just stopped right there. I agree, to an extent.

It really comes down to tv ratings... and the tards that get off watching about peds. Which may say more about the viewer as well as the subject matter.

No. What it really comes down to that there are sick fucks out there trying to prey on children via the internet. Sure, it may be entrapment, but who gives a shit? If it assists in preventing these jerkoffs from molesting kids, then it's a worthwhile effort.

I believe NBC does these sting operations in conjunction with local law enforcement. The cops are not only rounding up some perps, but sending a message nationwide to "Don't try this shit, you stupid motherfuckers!" All on NBCs dime. Talk about a win-win situation.

If there wasn't a 40 year old pretending to be a 13 year old... there would never be a 13 year to go after.

Wrong. There would still be 13 year olds to go after. Just real one's, instead.

Sure, there may be a 13 year old somewhere out there that would invite a ped over to her house, but that would be a hypothetical scenerio.

It's not hypothetical. It happens all the damn time. Rack the folks going after these sickos and trying to at least put a dent in this epidemic.

But you know what concerns me? They're only catching the extremely stupid and naive real and/or potential child molesters with these operations.

The ones with half a brain aren't going to fall for such a simple trap. Believe it or not, I'm sure plenty of 'em don't even use the internet period for stalking their prey.

These bother me much more than the simple twerps Dateline manages to expose.

War Wagon wrote:The one's with half a brain aren't going to fall for such a simple trap. Believe it or not, I'm sure plenty of 'em don't even use the internet period for stalking their prey.

These are the one's who bother me much more than the simple twerps Dateline manages to expose.

Granted- they all don't- but the Internet is making it so much easier... and not just PC's- apparently XBox Live as well.


Xbox Live

BBMarley wrote: Granted- they all don't- but the Internet is making it so much easier...

Yes, and now that sting operations like Datelines are taking place, it's also much easier to catch them (the stoopid ones, that is) before they complete the offense they intended to commit.

Somebody asked earlier in the thread how could NBC show their picture.

I'm thinking it's maybe because they have no priors, and copped a deal with the DA for a lighter sentence should they agree to let their mugs be shown on national TV. Much like a guy convicted of DUI or some such is made to stand on a street corner wearing a sign, or sporting a bumper sticker that says "I'm a Loser".

titlover wrote:

Roofer wrote:
In the "possession with intent to distribute" example I gave, who is the victim?

it's on shakier ground when it's just dirty talk between two adults.

There is a defense called 'factual impossibility'. Most courts don't recognize it any more but titlover is right that there is an argument too be made that it is not illegal.

Whatever happened to just assuming that everybody on the internets is LYING about everything?

diT wrote:anybody that wants to hump on a 13 yr old kid deserves to have their ass incarcerated as well as the shit beat out of them.
just sayin

You bring the shotguns and rifles, I'll bring the handguns. :twisted:

Cuda wrote:Whatever happened to just assuming that everybody on the internets is LYING about everything?

who says I'm not lying about this whole argument?

titlover wrote:it's illegal to buy pot from anyone, anytime, anywhere (withing US borders and save the whole mendicinal thing). so intent is very easy to prove. it's not illegal to talk nasty to a cop even if you thought you were getting some little girl. not trying to spin it in circles, just saying this tactic is prolly one step too far. it's no different than two people online role playing. it's sick, depraved, but not illegal.

It's not illegal to buy oregano, just like it is not illegal for someone to talk dirty to a 40 year old cop.

It is illegal to buy pot just as it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 13/14 year old kid.

Twatloser will understand how wrong it is to chat sex with 13 year-olds when he gets past that age himself.

War Wagon wrote:

BBMarley wrote: Granted- they all don't- but the Internet is making it so much easier...

Yes, and now that sting operations like Datelines are taking place, it's also much easier to catch them (the stoopid ones, that is) before they complete the offense they intended to commit.

Somebody asked earlier in the thread how could NBC show their picture.

I'm thinking it's maybe because they have no priors, and copped a deal with the DA for a lighter sentence should they agree to let their mugs be shown on national TV. Much like a guy convicted of DUI or some such is made to stand on a street corner wearing a sign, or sporting a bumper sticker that says "I'm a Loser".

those guys may all have been convicted on their charges and therefore are now sexual offenders thus making their offender status public record or some shit like that.

diT wrote: those guys may all have been convicted on their charges and therefore are now sexual offenders thus making their offender status public record or some shit like that.

I doubt that. The wheels of justice don't move that quickly.

These guys Dateline "captured" were novices...and whined like babies when it was thrust in their face just how wrong they were.

It's sensationalistic TV with a good purpose.

Here's hoping the "Johns" see the error of their ways and turn that around. Lord knows that their reputations have been ruined forever regardless.

Nishlord wrote:Twatloser will understand how wrong it is to chat sex with 13 year-olds when he gets past that age himself.

he's not chatting with a 13 year old, douche. how many times must this be pointed out.

it's kind of like that Tom Cruise movie where they arrest people BEFORE the crime is committed. get it, fucknuts?

titlover wrote:

Nishlord wrote:Twatloser will understand how wrong it is to chat sex with 13 year-olds when he gets past that age himself.

he's not chatting with a 13 year old, douche. how many times must this be pointed out.

it's kind of like that Tom Cruise movie where they arrest people BEFORE the crime is committed. get it, fucknuts?

No it isn't. You cannot draw a comparison between using psychic children as crime prevention tools and using actions and chat logs to convict attempted pedophiles.

Well, I guess you can. But you would be a complete fucking moron.

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:

Nishlord wrote:Twatloser will understand how wrong it is to chat sex with 13 year-olds when he gets past that age himself.

he's not chatting with a 13 year old, douche. how many times must this be pointed out.

it's kind of like that Tom Cruise movie where they arrest people BEFORE the crime is committed. get it, fucknuts?

No it isn't. You cannot draw a comparison between using psychic children as crime prevention tools and using actions and chat logs to convict attempted pedophiles.

Well, I guess you can. But you would be a complete fucking moron.

actions and chat logs w/ another adult. it's just dirty talk. now if he went up to an undercover cop and said 'hey, you know where I can have sex w/ underage little boyslaves?' that's different.

titlover wrote:actions and chat logs w/ another adult. it's just dirty talk. now if he went up to an undercover cop and said 'hey, you know where I can have sex w/ underage little boyslaves?' that's different.

What is it about this article that you don't get?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12728348/

If you don't se a crime here, then you are probably one of those freaks they're trying to bust.

BTW: I can't belive we didn't have a Frag reset from DiT. David, you're slipping.

BSmack wrote:

titlover wrote:actions and chat logs w/ another adult. it's just dirty talk. now if he went up to an undercover cop and said 'hey, you know where I can have sex w/ underage little boyslaves?' that's different.

What is it about this article that you don't get?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12728348/

If you don't se a crime here, then you are probably one of those freaks they're trying to bust.

BTW: I can't belive we didn't have a Frag reset from DiT. David, you're slipping.

did you read the Fl statute? it's illegal to solicite a minor for sex. he didn't solicite a minor! the reason this is different than the drug bust and the hooker bust is the age thing. it's illegal for you to ask to buy dope or sex from anyone, period. no matter if they're a drug dealer, old, young. like I've said, I'm not upset that they're busting these pervs, just that their criteria for arrest is on the edge. no matter what the crime, if the arrest is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

titlover wrote:did you read the Fl statute?

Which is why I specificly referenced the person attempting to buy oregano from a narc as being considered as guilty as if it had been real dope.

Ask one or two of the legal guys around here. This shit is settled law.

this week on When Freaks Attack.....