Mistaken Identity

Winky said:
but he DID nothing!

and there wasn't any Kid involved!

This is right inline with guys going to jail longer
than murderers for having pixels on their computers.
Click to expand...


Is this an isolated case? If he was doing it this once it is possible he had been doing it to others that are not being made public.
The bigest problem with pedaphiles are not only are they going after children but there are usualy more then one...
 
Streetman I don't think you get it.

As far as we know this guy has NEVER ever even
so much as touched a kid in his life.

Now he's probably looking at being branded
a sexual predator and a life sentence?

Nope this is out of control.

There was no crime

There was no victim

There's no reason to prosecute
 
"charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor"

WTF is that?
 
and on top of that there was no 'child'

there was no 'minor'

Tell these cops to quit yoinkin' off
and go out and catch some violent criminals fer Christ's sakes
 
Winky said:
and on top of that there was no 'child'

there was no 'minor'

Tell these cops to quit yoinkin' off
and go out and catch some violent criminals fer Christ's sakes
Click to expand...
No time, Wink. Gotta pay lip service to the cause celebre and arrest people for crimes they might commit.
 
chcr said:
arrest people for crimes they might commit.
Click to expand...

but but but is that not against what is written on
some piece of paper they taught about in social studies class
lo these many years ago?
 
Winky said:
but but but is that not against what is written on
some piece of paper they taught about in social studies class
lo these many years ago?
Click to expand...
"Just a goddamn piece of paper," evidently.
 
This may be the only situation that branding someone a criminal for actions not taken isn't such a bad idea.

He preyed on what he believed to be a child, with intent to gain sexual gratification from a child, knowing full well this was a child.

The difficulty in catching sexual predators of children allows this line to be crossed. They also arrest & prosecute "murder for hire" criminals-before the (f)act as well as sting operations on all kinds of things...

His intent was to harm, in some manner, a child. Given opportunity, he would have done so. He was on the computer when teh cops nabbed him.

That and he was so fucking stupid he gave his name, ID, phone numbers & job info to a complete stranger. If nothing else kill him for being e dumbest Homeland Insecurity official in history.
 
"This may be the only situation that branding someone a criminal for actions not taken isn't such a bad idea."

So when would it be a bad idea?

"He preyed on what he believed to be a child, with intent to gain sexual gratification from a child, knowing full well this was a child."

Oh really? By the way there was no child and no in person
interaction took place with this mythical child.


"The difficulty in catching sexual predators of children allows this line to be crossed."

Yes you just keep on listening to Coast to Coast there buddy...

"His intent was to harm, in some manner(???), a child(?). Given opportunity,(ha ha ha) he would have done so. (and you know this how?) He was on the computer when teh cops nabbed him.(then we are all guilty!)"

"That and he was so fucking stupid he gave his name, ID, phone numbers & job info to a complete stranger."

Again many people on this board are guilty of this crime(?)

C'Mon Gonz get a grip!
 
In America, you used to have actual rights regardless of what a creep you are. What crime (other than a fantasy one) did this guy commit?
 
The same one that folks who get convicted of Conspiracy to Commit __________ are guilty of.

If anyone on this board honestly believes that sex offenders are caught the first time they commit a crime, lemme sell you a bridge or three.

The man was trying to solicit what he thought was a kid. If it were your kid, you'd be singing a different tune. I don't care whose kid it was. Throw his sorry filthy child molesting ass in prison and let's move on to the next one. If you think this somehow "violates your rights", then don't go online to a chatroom and type about how much you want to screw kids or try and get a 10 year old to send you a picture. You'll likely not be investigated for shit like this.

We USED to have a concept in this country called personal liability and responsibility too. Seems it dies right about the time all these losers started hollerin' about their rights being violated.

Sex offenders have no rights.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
If anyone on this board honestly believes that sex offenders are caught the first time they commit a crime, lemme sell you a bridge or three.
Click to expand...
Of course I don't believe that. I'm just saying that you can't arrest someone because he might commit a crime. Now, if he had actually made arrangements to meet an actual 14 year old girl, you'd have conspiracy. There was no 14 year old girl, so now you're basing your theory on what he believed. Can you say "thought police?" I knew that you could.
 
chcr said:
Of course I don't believe that. I'm just saying that you can't arrest someone because he might commit a crime. Now, if he had actually made arrangements to meet an actual 14 year old girl, you'd have conspiracy. There was no 14 year old girl, so now you're basing your theory on what he believed. Can you say "thought police?" I knew that you could.
Click to expand...
The problem is... at which point does it become a crime. Does the police wait until he's got the 14yr old at his house? Do they wait until he touches her? Do they wait until he's actually raping her?

..and what do they tell the parents of the girl?

"Well, ma'am...we knew that he'd been trying to seduce her for months and sent her porn. We knew about the meetup. We were there when he picked her up in his car..but we couldn't do anything until he had his hand up her shirt. Sorry"
 
hey winky then maybe we should let zacarias moussaoui go, too? as far as i recall he never really DID anything other than spout off at the mouth... he didn't fly a plane into anything, he maybe just talked about it, with some other guys, but maybe not... should we really punish him for being the "left out" nerd benchwarmer on the all-star bad guy team?
 
ch, I can also say Criminal Intent.

We have a man here who, for all he knows, IS talking to a kid. His actions/words are directed to a kid. It's the same as selling dope to an undercover cop...or to a confidential informant. A defense of "It wasn't a cop I sold it to, just a CI" don't hold water.

Conspiracy to commit certain felony crimes is in and of itself a crime.
 
OK, maybe I'm taking all of this a little too personally, seeing as how it is the RW, but I have to side w/ SnP on this. Having two little girls, and an almost-step-daughter, all of whom spend time on the computer (especially Marlowe the prodigy), I can give quite a bit of credence to the conspiracy argument. Also, as SnP mentioned, seeing these pieces of shit in person will always make you think twice...I come from a family full of cops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top