Judge Approves "Big Brother" lawsuit against NBC's Predator

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A $100 million lawsuit claiming that NBC prompted the suicide of a former Texas prosecutor who was caught up in its popular sting series "To Catch a Predator" is moving ahead after a ruling by a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday.
Yahoo news link
New York Post
ATS thread prior to the lawsuit

Though this has been going on for awhile it is now proceeding to trial and I hope NBC gets put back in its place for its big brother vigilante show. A corporation hiring vigilante's and putting people in jail for made up thought crimes.

I know this is a touchy subject, but I've watched about a half dozen episodes of this show and all I could think of, this is one step too far. As far as I'm concerned "To Catch a Predator" is just creating something out of nothing in order to sell their product, while in the process destroying lives. I really doubt they have saved any children.

The producers & their comrades are doing things that are probably illegal for police to do, but then police are there waiting until they seemingly have the legal means to step in and make arrests.

If you've seen the show, you'd know that most of the guys they catch couldn't pick up a woman or even a 13-16 year old if there lives depended on it. The ones they catch are mostly weak socially inept people being taken advantage of for the most part, in order that NBC has a show & the local court system has client. Not only that they have teams of people acting as one against each potential target chatting to many different guys online trying to get enough of them to take the bait and thereby break the law and make a show.

This has very little to do with taking bad guys off the street & saving children. Its nothing but BIG Brother gone to the extreme and NBC using its resources to become "BIG BROTHER" - cop, jury, judge & executioner. How dare they - 100 million is not enough.

As far as I'm concerned NBC is the predator not their targets. Nothing illegal ever happened because it is nothing but a script where all the players are above age - thus a real crime never occurred only a thought crime.

How many games, tricks or scenarios are we going to play on people to get them to break the law - so we can indoctrinate them as criminals for the non-existent crimes we persuaded them to perform?


[edit on 27-2-2008 by verylowfrequency]




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by verylowfrequency
 



Here! Here!

Common sense is not so common, and the networks are only interested in ratings and money. People tend to be much more interested in the garish and outrageous that happens on television than they are in what is happening in their own realities. I watched one episode of that show a year or so back and decided that it wasn't useful for anything other than getting gawkers to gawk and chicken littles to yell about the sky falling.

Welcome to an "advanced" civilization.

A star to you, my friend.


+14 more 
posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
So all these respectable people who send pictures of thier private parts to someone they think is very young is an acceptable behavior?

Showing up at someones house they think is 12 or 13 with alcohol and condoms is ok?

What a warped sense of right you have....

So some pedophile killed himself cause he was outted on T.V. anyone who abuses a child should get nothing less than put to death!

[edit on 27-2-2008 by ATruGod]



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 


good job dude....you are the typical argument manipulator. NO ONE said that behavior was acceptable. the point here is that two wrongs dont make a right....but only one wrong is backed by the LAW. HA!
Laws are supposed to back the people (dont come back with some snide remark saying that i beleive pedophilia should be backed by law) and our laws back money and the pursuit thereof. Sure....society has its deviants but that behavior would not exist if the controllers had agendas that matched that of the people and their well being. We attack problems at the end of the machine that makes them when we really should be replacing the damn ignition key.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod


So some pedophile killed himself cause he was outted on T.V. anyone who abuses a child should get nothing less than put to death!

[edit on 27-2-2008 by ATruGod]


I think everyone will agree...this isnt the point.
There are three parts to a crime and only ONE has been met in all of these situations. do you know what entrapment is? the only cases they actually have are for the repeat offenders and if they are violent repeat offenders then yes....they should have their balls cut off. PErverts exist everywhere....human emotions are so skewed that we dont even understand our own desires. We truly are a product of the environment but prison and persecution is not the answer. Again....let me reiterate that i DO agree about child abusers. I hope you get my point here.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod
So all these respectable people who send pictures of thier private parts to someone they think is very young is an acceptable behavior?

Showing up at someones house they think is 12 or 13 with alcohol and condoms is ok?

What a warped sense of right you have....

So some pedophile killed himself cause he was outted on T.V. anyone who abuses a child should get nothing less than put to death!

[edit on 27-2-2008 by ATruGod]


And so it begins. Without enquiry into what anyone posted, you make some assumptions, jump in and start making all kinds of silly accusations.

Where, oh where is the quality of thought? I suspect it might be better to jump in with intelligent communication and enlighten each other than to jump in with ill formed concepts, wild-eyed accusations, and general insipidity.

If you had asked, I would have been more than happy to have explained what I meant, but apparently it is easier to perceive that you can read our minds and go from there.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I dont see what the problem is. All these guys were there for one reason...to have sex with a minor. It doesnt matter that the actual people they were talking to were over 18, the point is they went out of there way, sometimes driving hundreds of miles to engage in sexual acts with, who they thought was a child. And if you think that it is ok for someone to go out pursue that, then you seriously got a screw loose.

All peadophiles should be castrated



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A $100 million lawsuit claiming that NBC prompted the suicide of a former Texas prosecutor who was caught up in its popular sting series "To Catch a Predator" is moving ahead after a ruling by a U.S. federal judge on Tuesday.
Yahoo news link
New York Post
ATS thread prior to the lawsuit

Though this has been going on for awhile it is now proceeding to trial and I hope NBC gets put back in its place for its big brother vigilante show. A corporation hiring vigilante's and putting people in jail for made up thought crimes.


"Made up thought crimes"?!?!?!?!? These people did not just "think" about have sex with other people young kids, they tried to. They sent underage kids nude and sexually provocative pictures of themselves and then traveled (sometimes very long distances) with the intent to have sex with children. There is a big difference between those actions and just "thought".


I know this is a touchy subject, but I've watched about a half dozen episodes of this show and all I could think of, this is one step too far. As far as I'm concerned "To Catch a Predator" is just creating something out of nothing in order to sell their product, while in the process destroying lives. I really doubt they have saved any children.


"Something out of nothing"?!?!?!!? So, you think 40 and 50 year old people having sex with 12 year olds is "nothing"? I think you are failing to see that if these people didn't go to the "Dateline" house, they would have gone to YOURS to have sex with YOUR kid. Some of these people have been caught doing this same thing 4 or 5 times, not by Dateline, so how are they causing it?


The producers & their comrades are doing things that are probably illegal for police to do, but then police are there waiting until they seemingly have the legal means to step in and make arrests.


Wow, just wow. The producers and their "comrades" (nice commie innuendo, bet you thought that went unnoticed) are doing things that are perfectly legal, and in full cooperation with the police. If they were doing illegal things there would be NO convictions and there would be billions of dollars in lawsuits.


If you've seen the show, you'd know that most of the guys they catch couldn't pick up a woman or even a 13-16 year old if there lives depended on it. The ones they catch are mostly weak socially inept people being taken advantage of for the most part, in order that NBC has a show & the local court system has client. Not only that they have teams of people acting as one against each potential target chatting to many different guys online trying to get enough of them to take the bait and thereby break the law and make a show.


So, because you think some of these people are ugly or annoying, its ok to let them come on to your 12 year old son , because your son is to vain to bang an ugly guy? Is that what you are saying here? The undercovers do not just start talking to random guys inviting everyone they see to come and have sex with them. They sit in a chat-room using an underage profile and wait fro these creeps to satrt talking to them.


This has very little to do with taking bad guys off the street & saving children. Its nothing but BIG Brother gone to the extreme and NBC using its resources to become "BIG BROTHER" - cop, jury, judge & executioner. How dare they - 100 million is not enough.


So, even though they copperate with the police and courts by turning over all info and letting the courts deal with them, NBC still decides their fate before, during and after the trial?


As far as I'm concerned NBC is the predator not their targets. Nothing illegal ever happened because it is nothing but a script where all the players are above age - thus a real crime never occurred only a thought crime.


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Every single one of the guys that was profiled on the show brokle the law by sending naked pictures of themselves and\or sending sexually explicit material (words, pictures, other) to MINORS, AND THEN DROVE HALFWAY ACCROSS THE COUNTRY IN SOME CASES TO HAVE SEX WITH THEM.


How many games, tricks or scenarios are we going to play on people to get them to break the law - so we can indoctrinate them as criminals for the non-existent crimes we persuaded them to perform?





Little boy: Yaay, I figured out how to join a chat room even though Im only 8 .
Big man: Congradulations little boy, want to see a picture of my dong? maybe after that I can come over there and show you how it works.

No trick there, just a creepy guy who needs to be outed.


P.S. He didnt shoot himself becasue NBC "set him up". as a prosecuter, he would have known the best way to defend himself and may have even gotten away with it.
He killed himself becasue he knew the entire world was going to find out what a sick freak he was for wanting to poke little kids and sending them sexually explicit material featuring himself.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by Lotiki]



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sigung86
 


I like how you take this personally like I insulted you. Since when do I have to gets someones/anyones opinion before I can post my thoughts?

I read the OP and made my statements based on that. Which I stand by 100%.

Children need to be protected so "To Catch A Predator" has stood up where no one else will/can because thier hands are tied.

Last time I checked lying about your age in a conversation wasnt illegal (which is really the big crime from NBC) but pursuing someone you believe is under age to get them liquored up and have sex with them is.


reply to post by OzWeatherman
 



I'm glad I'm not the only one who has this point of view.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Sure....society has its deviants but that behavior would not exist if the controllers had agendas that matched that of the people and their well being.


Do you even know what your saying here?

The controllers agendas have nothing to do with the deviants especially when they dont know they exist until of course the deviant is outted on National TV.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2
reply to post by ATruGod
 


good job dude....you are the typical argument manipulator. NO ONE said that behavior was acceptable. the point here is that two wrongs dont make a right....but only one wrong is backed by the LAW. HA!


Actually, the OP said that behavior was acceptable.......


Nothing illegal ever happened because it is nothing but a script where all the players are above age - thus a real crime never occurred only a thought crime.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
If you've seen the show, you'd know that most of the guys they catch couldn't pick up a woman or even a 13-16 year old if there lives depended on it. The ones they catch are mostly weak socially inept people being taken advantage of for the most part,


Where did you get that idea?

They have caught a teacher with 20 years experience, a lawyer, a well known doctor, countless men with stable jobs, spouses and even children of their own. If anything the socially inept stereotype is the minority



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GUICE2


I think everyone will agree...this isnt the point.
There are three parts to a crime and only ONE has been met in all of these situations. do you know what entrapment is?


Do you know what entrapment is? Judging by your post, you dont.

Entrapment is when an officer persuades you to break a law that you wouldn't break normally. There are specific rules that have to be met if you are going to claim entrapment. These men contacted what they thought were underage kids with the sole intention of having sex with them. Not entrapment.

If the cops said ," Hey guys , I'm an underage kid and want some greasy 50 year old court worker to sweat all over me while getting his rocks off." that would be entrapment. Since the criminal sickos contacted the undercovers first and offered sex first, it is not entrapment.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I really believe this is entrapment and if it wasnt so obvious that these people are most likely active pedophiles, they make statements like, "I have a problem" then I might have more of a problem with it.
Its also obvious that whoever plays the part of the child online actively pursues an individual, even after being told to go away several times.
This is also evident by statements that are made during the show.
Is it disgusting for the dirtbags to send nude pics to someone that they THINK is a child, yes but are they ACTUALLY doing it? No theyre not, theyre sending a photo to an adult, not a child, so where is the crime?
You know the term "conspiracy to commit ____ "(fill in the blank) is getting WAY over used and abused.
I know of two other activities where there are questionable tactics used to bring charges against someone, buying or wanting to buy an illegal weapon and buying or wanting to buy drugs.
I was just thinking the other day about how the jails are filling up with non violent offenders, it seems like things that you would either get let go for or get a fine or probation for a few years ago is landing people in jail now.
Are people being targeted for an idea now, a thought?

Back to the OP. Im still conflicted. These are obviously scum but I think that theres still a gray area that the cops are getting into here.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
wow i thought you were going to provide more insight....that is not simply entrapment because it specifically has to do with the intent of the individual because the determination of entraptment is weighted heavily upon whether or not the individual is PREDISPOSED to committing the crime or not. This is why i made the statement regarding the repeat offenders.....there are some perverted freaks out there with FANTASIES that actually do NOT have the intent of hurting a child. Creating a situation where ALL these deviants are treated as if they had the SAME INTENT is definately a situation for entrapment. Do you know the three parts to a crime? Just asking since it takes time to post and get a respons....you know mens rea, actus reus and a resultant harm. Where is the rusltant harm here?



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I really believe this is entrapment and if it wasnt so obvious that these people are most likely active pedophiles, they make statements like, "I have a problem" then I might have more of a problem with it.
Its also obvious that whoever plays the part of the child online actively pursues an individual, even after being told to go away several times.
This is also evident by statements that are made during the show.
Is it disgusting for the dirtbags to send nude pics to someone that they THINK is a child, yes but are they ACTUALLY doing it? No theyre not, theyre sending a photo to an adult, not a child, so where is the crime?
You know the term "conspiracy to commit ____ "(fill in the blank) is getting WAY over used and abused.
I know of two other activities where there are questionable tactics used to bring charges against someone, buying or wanting to buy an illegal weapon and buying or wanting to buy drugs.
I was just thinking the other day about how the jails are filling up with non violent offenders, it seems like things that you would either get let go for or get a fine or probation for a few years ago is landing people in jail now.
Are people being targeted for an idea now, a thought?

Back to the OP. Im still conflicted. These are obviously scum but I think that theres still a gray area that the cops are getting into here.


So, if my wife wants to kill me and hires someone to do it, thats illegal. What if the person she hired is an undercover cop? Then she should be released without any charges because he wasn't "really" a a hit man and she just "thought" he was gonna kill me for money, right?



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
It is not entrapment at all, this is from a legal website



The legal definition of entrapment is: 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.


www.lectlaw.com...

According to this, these scumbags have clearly broken the law and are being ealt with appropriately. And what about the guys that were caught twice......complete and utter idiots



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Im not really interested in this thread to the point that Im going to argue points or go tit for tat with someone. Im not a legal specialist and it really wasnt the OP that caused me to make my post but I thought I should add my opinion on it so I wouldnt be totally off topic but I still stand by what I said.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Ill break it down, since you stand by it. Just so I can better understand.


Originally posted by Kr0n0s
I really believe this is entrapment

I dont care what you beleive. The law says it is NOT entrapment.

and if it wasnt so obvious that these people are most likely active pedophiles, they make statements like, "I have a problem" then I might have more of a problem with it.


Wait, are you saying you dont have a problem with it?


Its also obvious that whoever plays the part of the child online actively pursues an individual, even after being told to go away several times.


How can you just make stuff up and present it as fact like that? The transcripts are available online and in court records. The perverts initiated the conversations, and did NOT TELL THE UNDERCOVERS TO "GO AWAY", NOT EVEN ONCE.

This is also evident by statements that are made during the show.
Is it disgusting for the dirtbags to send nude pics to someone that they THINK is a child, yes but are they ACTUALLY doing it? No theyre not, theyre sending a photo to an adult, not a child, so where is the crime?


Again, according to you, if my wife hires a hitman to kill me,and it turns out that hitman is really an undercover cop, she should be released with no charges because she didn't "ACTUALLY" hire a hitman and just "THOUGHT" he was going to kill me for money.


You know the term "conspiracy to commit ____ "(fill in the blank) is getting WAY over used and abused.


You're right, from now on when the police have undeniable proof that someone is about to break the law, we should just wait until the murder/bank robbery/ child rape happens, just so you can feel better about how often a term is used. You should be happy that "conspiracy to commit blank" is used so much, it means we stopped them before the crime was committed.



I know of two other activities where there are questionable tactics used to bring charges against someone, buying or wanting to buy an illegal weapon and buying or wanting to buy drugs.
I was just thinking the other day about how the jails are filling up with non violent offenders, it seems like things that you would either get let go for or get a fine or probation for a few years ago is landing people in jail now.


Can you please show me one example of a crime that would have gotten you probation a few years ago now gets you prison time? Or are you just making things up again.



Are people being targeted for an idea now, a thought?


What the hell is wrong with you people? Can you not see the difference between "thought" and "intent"?, These people are being targeted because they are going waaaay out of their way in order to have sex with YOUR children. Why would you bring up "non-violent crime"? do you think child rape is non-violent?


Back to the OP. Im still conflicted. These are obviously scum but I think that theres still a gray area that the cops are getting into here.


How is "Lets catch these guys before they rape my child" a grey area? Do you really think we should wait until they have destroyed a kids life before we take action?





[edit on 27-2-2008 by Lotiki]



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


ANSWER ONE QUESTION:

do you beleive people should be punished for thought crimes?
This reasoning process is too large so im going to have to ask you to do it alone.
Law is heavily reliant upon language which is manipulated every step of the way to support certain interests. From the definition of a CRIME, there is none actually committed and therefore arrest and persecution is unconstitutional. Punishment is necessary but the way they go about it is completely wrong just like the individual. What are you having a problem with here....understanding intent or action? Which one? where is the resultant harm and the predisposition to cause it to actually constitute a crime? THERE ISNT ANY....there is thought for an action that excites someone sexually but that is all it is (until a repeat offender comes in the picture) the act in sending electronic words and pictures does not cause a harm because the person on the other end is not under the age of 18.

Do you want a world of precognitions and thought police?
AGAIN LET ME REITERATE THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT PEDOPHILIA OR CHILD ABUSE.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join