Mistaken Identity

Thought police...since this guy acted upon his fantasies & made arrangements & was following through on those arrangements, with what he believed & hoped was an underage child, he went from thinking to attempting to do. His actions would have been carried out had he his way. Enough evidence to convict for actions beyond thought.
 
So we go from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty before a crime has even been committed." I see where you stand. :shrug: This guy is scum, but that's not enough to send someone to jail.
 
Guilty...since I'm not on the jury, sure, yea, why not.

A crime was being perpetrated...since it was a sting operation, a young girl did not have to be molested. Similar to prostitution stings. Bodily fluids need not be exchanged to charge & let a jury hear the case.

Your & Winkys point is not missed. In fact, in every aspect I agree except with child molesters. There is an absolute pattern, with incredibly little deviance, to their MO. Had this guy hit on a, let's say mature looking, 14year old...in person, I'd be less pissy about it. He did, however, know up front, she was 14. That lends creedence to intent.
 
Gonz said:
In fact, in every aspect I agree except with child molesters.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I just think it's a bad idea to start making such distinctions. Talk about your slippery slope...
 
My questions is how did the citizens of Germany know
when they'd reach the bottom of the slope?

Surely not when Dresden was torched?

Some folks knew long before? Mebbe when the gentle
winds blew in from Auschwitz?
 
Most of 'em knew long before that, but most people will accept any change that they're convinced will make them and theirs safer.
 
Anyone who read the original snippet of the story posted here would know that he actually DID commit a crime. Let's take another look:

Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested at his residence in Maryland on charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor. The charges were issued out of Polk County, Fla.

Doyle, of Silver Spring, Md., had a sexually explicit conversation with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl whose profile he saw on the Internet on March 14, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.

The girl was really an undercover Polk County Sheriff's Computer Crimes detective, the sheriff's office said.

Doyle sent pornographic movie clips and had sexually explicit conversations via the Internet, the statement said.

During other online conversations, Doyle revealed his name, that he worked for the Homeland Security Department, and offered his office and government issued cell phone numbers, the sheriff's office said.
Click to expand...

See that part about sending porno clips to the "kid"? That's illegal too. No matter whether you think he's a victim of the "thought police" for maybe intending to meet her and fuck her, they do have a valid charge to hold him on with the sending porn to the kid thing.
 
Inkara1 said:
See that part about sending porno clips to the "kid"? That's illegal too. No matter whether you think he's a victim of the "thought police" for maybe intending to meet her and fuck her, they do have a valid charge to hold him on with the sending porn to the kid thing.
Click to expand...

Which "kid" was that. He sent porn to an adult. Again, you're deciding what he believed and ignoring what actually happened. Thought police.
 
Winky said:
there

was

no

'her'
Click to expand...

He knows that now. But at the time he sent the porn, as far as he knew, the person on the other end of the line was a 14-year-old girl. That means he intended to send porn to a 14-year-old girl.
 
chcr said:
Which "kid" was that. He sent porn to an adult. Again, you're deciding what he believed and ignoring what actually happened. Thought police.
Click to expand...

He knows now that he sent porn to an adult. When he sent it, to the best of his knowledge he was sending it to a 14-year-old girl. That means he had the criminal intent to send porn to a minor. You're ignoring the criminal intent. In fact, if you ask me, sending porn to an adult thinking it's a kid is a lot worse than sending it to a kid that said he or she was 18, because when you're sending it you're intending for it to go to someone who is legally able to view it in that case.
 
Oh yes pixels are the devil Jeebus

in the final analysis this guy didn’t harm anyone

these 'cops' should be out trying to stop
the scum that actually harm children
not playing around on IM pretending to be teenagers

Sheesh

no wait why bother, even when they catch the guys that
have already actually harmed kids they just released ‘em into
Esse and Pee’s care to re-commit their crimes

I guess it is just as well the coppers sit around on IM
watching pr0n and pretending to be pubescent instead Zzzzzzzzzz
 
I'm sort of on the fence here, seeing valid points on both sides. However, he's in contact with an individual who claims to be a 14 year old female, and he takes an interest in this individual. Those who bring up "thought police", is there any reason why this man should suspect the individual he was in contact with was NOT a 14 year old girl?

What if he had infact been in contact with a kid, who claimed to be 19, and had sent porn to her, would (or do you think he should) he then be arrested for it?

Ayway, I think they should have arranged for this bloke to actually meet up with the "girl" with plans for a "good time". Let him get a little surprise when "Sheryl" or "Annie" turns out to be a bit tall and hairy for her age. If that's not criminal intent..
 
Starya said:
I'm sort of on the fence here, seeing valid points on both sides. However, he's in contact with an individual who claims to be a 14 year old female, and he takes an interest in this individual. Those who bring up "thought police", is there any reason why this man should suspect the individual he was in contact with was NOT a 14 year old girl?
Click to expand...
What he thinks is not germaine. You're not supposed to be able to be convicted of a crime that was not committed. If a female cop pretends to be a prostitute and offers to blow you for 50 bucks, that's entrapment. So's this.

Starya said:
What if he had infact been in contact with a kid, who claimed to be 19, and had sent porn to her, would (or do you think he should) he then be arrested for it?
Click to expand...
Again, what he thinks is not germaine. He sent porn to a minor, his ass is grass.

Starya said:
Ayway, I think they should have arranged for this bloke to actually meet up with the "girl" with plans for a "good time". Let him get a little surprise when "Sheryl" or "Annie" turns out to be a bit tall and hairy for her age. If that's not criminal intent..
Click to expand...
I don't know Starya. They'd still be accusing him of a crime where the victim doesn't even exist. This guy is scum, no question. Being scum is not agains the law.

Hysteria reigns, doesn't it?
 
The more victimless crimes we solve, the better off we'll all be. I'm sure we all wish 9/11 had been a victimless crime.
 
chcr said:
What he thinks is not germaine. You're not supposed to be able to be convicted of a crime that was not committed. If a female cop pretends to be a prostitute and offers to blow you for 50 bucks, that's entrapment.
Click to expand...

If he offes $25. for a blowjob & none is given, he is arrested, even though no crime was committed. Intent is usually enough.
 
chcr said:
What he thinks is not germaine. You're not supposed to be able to be convicted of a crime that was not committed. If a female cop pretends to be a prostitute and offers to blow you for 50 bucks, that's entrapment. So's this.


Again, what he thinks is not germaine. He sent porn to a minor, his ass is grass.


I don't know Starya. They'd still be accusing him of a crime where the victim doesn't even exist. This guy is scum, no question. Being scum is not agains the law.

Hysteria reigns, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Unless he sent it on a government computer. Then it's a federal crime, regardless of intent. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top