• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Should Dateline be allowed to continue 'catch a predator'?

Also, the fact that this show has lead people in this very thread to the following conclusions:

1. That sexual predators preying on children in chat rooms is an endemic or widespread problem
2. That this show has had any effect on curbing the activity of online sexual predators

is highly irresponsible.
 
wow, that von erck is quite a character. I don't know who would find pleasure in doing what he does.. Still, catching and exposing child predators is fine with me.
 
What, to you, might be an "obvious" distinction between busting people for real crimes with real victims, and harassing people for stupid crimes, might not be so obvious to the rest of society. After all, RICO laws were enacted to go after major organized crime syndicates that were doing some pretty scary stuff. Nowadays they're used mostly to bust small-time narcotics traffickers. This is what we call "the slippery slope" - out here, in the messy world of reality, it's not uncommon to find.
Click to expand...

Dully noted, I'll reflect on this. Good debate! :)
 
Pander Bear said:
Oh, did that ever happen on this show you don't seem to watch?

no, because there was no girl, and there was no crime.
Click to expand...

showing up with condoms and liquor is somewhat of a clear intent, no?
 
Edited ~spork

Mehm: you know I share your views on cannabis. There are many avenues by which one might become distracted; cannabis brings truth, pain relief, enlightenment, and I don't know anyone who was harmed by the good herb save for the government's interference. I removed the word "intent" from my argument, but yeah, showing up at a minor's residence (even an imaginary minor as in the PeeJ debate) with liquor and condoms in the trunk of one's car is creepy. It's not enough to convict in and of itself, and the PeeJ folks are concentrating on evidence that does not meet standards for a criminal convictions... and doing so on TV. Creepy, unfortunately, doesn't in and of itself mean guilty.

Fausty: win, place, and show -- and I never thought I'd say that to you or about you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
one dog can't win, place, and show! You need to bet in three dogs for that. Its called the trifecta!


PB went to see a dog race last weekend in florida, so he's schooled in the finer points . ;)
 
Pander Bear said:
one dog can't win, place, and show! You need to bet in three dogs for that. Its called the trifecta!

PB went to see a dog race last weekend in florida, so he's schooled in the finer points . ;)
Click to expand...

I was referring to the equines, not the canines... but point taken. :)
 
spaceyourbass said:
More important issues? Do you support child molestation?
Click to expand...

I find this response very insulting. My statement had nothing to do with my support or condemnation of pedophiles. I was just saying, perhaps dateline has more important issues to cover. And that it doesn't seem to do much good anyway.

I think that instead of throwing people in jail for something that is obviously a mental issue, that perhaps these people should receive counseling.
 
Benefit said:
Also, the fact that this show has lead people in this very thread to the following conclusions:

1. That sexual predators preying on children in chat rooms is an endemic or widespread problem
2. That this show has had any effect on curbing the activity of online sexual predators

is highly irresponsible.
Click to expand...


1. It's not a fucking endemic but it happens A LOT. Child molestation, that is.
2. You are IMO assuming that online child sexual predators only look for child sex online. You think some of these guys have never touched a little kid they met elsewhere?

You think some of these guys didn't ENTRAP little kids into some form of sex, scarring the kids for fucking life?

Hell no, these people do NOT only operate online. The internet is only one of their tools to get child sex. Other tools? Their own children, sadly.

The point of the show is to put child molestors in jail. They can't prey on children in prison, and I hear that the prisoners love to have their way with child molesters. That's right, even in prison they look down on child molesters. They fuck the sickos in the ass proper.

----------------
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

------------------------


The show does not entrap people from how I understand it. The guys are always the first ones to bring up sex. If a guy was entrapped, he has the option to sue. He should have never drove his crusty ass all the way to a little girl's house for sex if he didn't want to be on TV for it, though. This is a risk they are all willing to take. This is how far they will go for child sex. You think they won't touch their own kids? You think they won't touch their kids' friends? You're damn right, they will!


As far as the show not decreasing online molestation, I disagree. The show damn sure isn't increasing the amount of online predators. This is obvious, no? The show helps police put online predators in jail. In jail, they can't be online predators. The show decreases the amount of online predators, if only for the time that the guys are in jail (hopefully a long, ass pounding with no lube amount of time). This is basic logic.


What of the wives of the guys who got caught? Do they not have the right to know that their husbands are actively trying to have sex with little kids?

What about the neighbors of the guys? If your neighbor was on To Catch a Predator, would you let your child go over to his house to play with his child? Hell no. See, this is where I disagree with a lot of people. The public has the right to know about child predators. If a stupid TV show is the only way to reach the public, that's sad but by God at least we have that.


I am very liberal in many ways. Gay marriage, I'm all for it. Weed? Legalize it, don't criticize it. But I'm from Georgia and have lived in South Carolina for most of my life. Around here, a piece of shit child molester might not get the God damn privilege of a TV show or a trial.


Anyone defending child molestation in any way is NOT putting the CHILDREN first. You are more worried about the child molesters being embarassed on TV. Boo-fucking-hoo.
 
Last edited:
Mariposa said:
. It's not enough to convict in and of itself, and the PeeJ folks are concentrating on evidence that does not meet standards for a criminal convictions... and doing so on TV. Creepy, unfortunately, doesn't in and of itself mean guilty.
Click to expand...

No, they would not be guilty of having sex with a minor, but most states have laws making it illegal to solicitate a minor for sex which these guys are clearly guilty of (through their chat logs, the fact that they showed up to the houses when they thought the parents of the child weren't home with condoms/liquor, and often their interviews with Hansen). If the fact that these laws exist bothers you, you have a problem with the state not NBC.
 
spaceyourbass said:
I am very liberal in many ways. Gay marriage, I'm all for it. Weed? Legalize it, don't criticize it. But I'm from Georgia and have lived in South Carolina for most of my life. Around here, a piece of shit child molester might not get the God damn privilege of a TV show or a trial.
Click to expand...

Try not to slander where I live by draging it into your vindictive, absolutist worldview.
 
spaceyourbass said:
Anyone defending child molestation in any way is NOT putting the CHILDREN first.
Click to expand...
simply trying to discuss the issue form a different angle is not "defending child molestation" and your attempt to characterize it thus polarizes and trivializes an important discussion.

if that's truly how you feel, you should be dead against 'tcap' because it's a tv show which puts ratings first. putting ratings first is not putting the children first - they can't both be first.

there are many things in this country which like to be seen top be putting children first but actually are not. and they know it. and they love it because, if you attempt to discuss the issue from any angle other than pro-them, they immediately accuse you of "not putting the children first", claim the moral high ground and end the discussion.

it's always been clear to me - and, i believe, to any reasonable observer - that describing such cynical nonsense as "putting the children first" does a huge disservice to the very thing it claims to protect.

:\

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
simply trying to discuss the issue form a different angle is not "defending child molestation" and your attempt to characterize it thus polarizes and trivializes an important discussion.

if that's truly how you feel, you should be dead against 'tcap' because it's a tv show which puts ratings first. putting ratings first is not putting the children first - they can't both be first.

there are many things in this country which like to be seen top be putting children first but actually are not. and they know it. and they love it because, if you attempt to discuss the issue from any angle other than pro-them, they immediately accuse you of "not putting the children first", claim the moral high ground and end the discussion.

it's always been clear to me - and, i believe, to any reasonable observer - that describing such cynical nonsense as "putting the children first" does a huge disservice to the very thing it claims to protect.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I am sure the biggest reason NBC does this show is for ratings. In fact there was a marathon of it on MSNBC over the last few days. But of course they are a buisines and try to get as many people to view as possible.

However, it doesn't change the fact that they helped to catch hundreds of sexual predators and who knows how many more were detered because they don't want to end up talking to Chris Hansen.

If you don't want to get caught in a To Catch a Predator type sting, do not solictate 13 year olds for sex over the internet. It is that simple.
 
or 29 year old production assistants posing as 13 year old girls, anyway. 8(.

Somehow, I imagine that real predator, the seasoned child molester, isn't going to expose himself to a scenario that is so obviously a sting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top