Dad uses Facebook to expose online predators

I've got less problem with private citizens doing it than with police doing it, but they're taking their lives in their hands.
 
You have a problem with the police trying to stop preds and peds?
 
D23 said:
You have a problem with the police trying to stop preds and peds?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with police manufacturing situations and then charging people for being in those manufactured situations. It's like having a plain clothes cop in an unmarked unit challenge you to a race, then slapping the cuffs on.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I have a problem with police manufacturing situations and then charging people for being in those manufactured situations. It's like having a plain clothes cop in an unmarked unit challenge you to a race, then slapping the cuffs on.
Click to expand...

being caught in the act is being caught in the act.

if the plain clothed cop challanges you and drives off and you get booked by a regular cop waiting in the bushes, you're guilty...
the plain clothes cop/ or stranger didn't make you or put you in the situation
 
Wow Rob....

It's ****ing abhorrent and degenerate predatory acts against children.

Not you being mad because you can't take it to the track and let your ego get the better of you.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
It's a principle. I think that child abusers should be castrated, but I don't like entrapment.
Click to expand...

Entrapment is actively encouraging someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily be inclined to do. That's a whole lot different than simply hanging out passive bait and waiting for the predator to strike.
 
turbodish said:
Entrapment is actively encouraging someone to do something that they wouldn't ordinarily be inclined to do. That's a whole lot different than simply hanging out passive bait and waiting for the predator to strike.
Click to expand...

Actually it's actively encouraging people to do something that they MIGHT not otherwise do. It taints the entire enterprise. They don't just set out passive bait anymore.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Actually it's actively encouraging people to do something that they MIGHT not otherwise do. It taints the entire enterprise. They don't just set out passive bait anymore.
Click to expand...

Would YOU troll for kids on the internet? Would YOU take the bait if it was dangled in front of you? Would YOU be out on child and preteen-oriented chat and social web sites trying to strike up conversations with the young ones? That's who is being targeted by these sting operations - the ones who troll there in hopes of picking up some kid. They're already there acting on their proclivities even before they strike up that conversation with a kid (or a cop dangling bait).
 
Entrapment, dude these guys are trying to pick up little kids man. First of all who cares let these sick b@$$t^rl)s burn in hell. There's nothing wrong with taking these people off the streets. You would prob sing a different tune if a predator got a hold of your kids.
 
turbodish said:
Would YOU troll for kids on the internet? Would YOU take the bait if it was dangled in front of you? Would YOU be out on child and preteen-oriented chat and social web sites trying to strike up conversations with the young ones? That's who is being targeted by these sting operations - the ones who troll there in hopes of picking up some kid. They're already there acting on their proclivities even before they strike up that conversation with a kid (or a cop dangling bait).
Click to expand...

I believe that I have already stated my feelings on that matter. Personalizing the issue is meaningless and a very poor debating tactic.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Personalizing the issue is meaningless and a very poor debating tactic.
Click to expand...

So is comparing it to a bait race.

You would rather have the act occur and then have the victim go through the court process rather than preventing it.

That's ****ed up dude.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I have a problem with police manufacturing situations and then charging people for being in those manufactured situations. It's like having a plain clothes cop in an unmarked unit challenge you to a race, then slapping the cuffs on.
Click to expand...

apples and oranges.

most red blooded males (and quite a few females) get a thrill out of a little red light drag race. quite understandable, as is the sting of getting caught, but guilty nonetheless.


in contrast, NO ONE i know gets turned on by the thought of diddling some pre-teen boy or girl, no matter how "enticing" the proposition may appear.


these sting operations are not actively encouraging otherwise reluctant pedophiles to meet up with under-aged kids. the peodophiles in question are out actively seeking such meetings. it's no different than street prostitution sweeps or drug busts. it's hardly "entrapment" to catch people who would be otherwise committing the crime anyways.
 
I don't expect anyone to agree with me and nor do I care. To me, entrapment is entrapment and, if it's permitted to occur for any perceived reason, it can happen for all. You can't say that the crime would have occurred anyway, if the whole process is tainted.
 
The problem Rob is eluding to is that technically, it's not against the law for a pedo to offer to meet someone who in reality is an of age person (cop) who's "role playing". Ironically, the same people who complain of Minority Report tactics and use the phrase "think of the children!" sarcastically in other cop tactic threads are in this one promoting said tactics, and screaming "think of the children!". You can't have it both ways.


And then there's turbo. He's think of the children across the board, but I digress.
 
BusaBob said:
NO ONE i know gets turned on by the thought of diddling some pre-teen boy or girl, no matter how "enticing" the proposition may appear.
Click to expand...

I see where Rob is coming from. I sort of agree and sort of disagree.
And Bob the big problem is your sentance should read "no one that I know of" These bastards hide in the dark
 
FullMotoJacket said:
The problem Rob is eluding to is that technically, it's not against the law for a pedo to offer to meet someone who in reality is an of age person (cop) who's "role playing". Ironically, the same people who complain of Minority Report tactics and use the phrase "think of the children!" sarcastically in other cop tactic threads are in this one promoting said tactics, and screaming "think of the children!". You can't have it both ways.

And then there's turbo. He's think of the children across the board, but I digress.
Click to expand...

At least I'm consistent ;)

I frequently feel that there has been too much of a tendency to rush to judgment, where children are concerned. For example over the years I have been introduced to two fathers who were on the sex offender registry, because ex-wives made false claims of child sexual abuse during the divorce proceedings. In both cases the falsity was eventually admitted to, in court in one case, but the registry is easy to get onto, and almost impossible to get off of.

The idea of creating a false situation, in order to invent a crime that someone can then be charged with, rankles at my Blackstone sensibilities. If you want to use it to generate reasonable suspicion in order to obtain a search order, then so be it, but prosecuting non crimes is ridiculous, to me.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
At least I'm consistent ;)

I frequently feel that there has been too much of a tendency to rush to judgment, where children are concerned. For example over the years I have been introduced to two fathers who were on the sex offender registry, because ex-wives made false claims of child sexual abuse during the divorce proceedings. In both cases the falsity was eventually admitted to, in court in one case, but the registry is easy to get onto, and almost impossible to get off of.

The idea of creating a false situation, in order to invent a crime that someone can then be charged with, rankles at my Blackstone sensibilities. If you want to use it to generate reasonable suspicion in order to obtain a search order, then so be it, but prosecuting non crimes is ridiculous, to me.
Click to expand...

Prosecuting "non-crimes"? The law states that it is llegal for an adult to lure a child for the purposes of sex, or to for an adult to invite a child to sexual touching or other sexual activity, or to expose themselves to a child. Court rulings have affirmed that an adult who does so with someone they believe to be a child (but who actually turns out to be a police officer at the other end of the line) is still guilty of a crime.

Without this, the only way to prosecute these predators would be to wait until they have committed the crime against an actual child, and clearly this is not acceptable.

This has nothing to do with a vindictive ex pointing the finger of accusation at an ex-spouse with no backing evidence. This has everything to do with a pedophile outing himself through his or her own words and actions with someone they believe to be a child.
 
The thing is alot of the time they don't start out saying they are 14 or whatever.
The BC guys said they are 18 then chat and during the chat after making sexual passes at the guys they mention they are 14.
It gets the guys thinking with the wrong head in which I agree with Rob that it might get guys to do something they usually wouldn't do.
If they came straight out saying they are underage before they start chatting and let the guy message them first then all the power to the police or vigilantes.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom