It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Victory For Pedophiles... Network Cancels Show?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   


Sorry, just saw this and had to post it.
Inappropriate? Sure. But worth it!

[edit on 27-6-2008 by no name needed]




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zepherian
While I accept that the show might have done some good, there is a very negative side to it, as it is basically entrapment and they probably do lead on some very on the fence and sick people.


So will they start letting car theives go, because it would then also be entrapment for online shows like BaitCar?

I disagree. To go to the lengths of entering the house where you think a child is for the idea that you will have sex with them... throw the book at them.



Plus how do they know where to hunt for these pedophiles? There is something about that show that dosen't sit right with me.


Chat rooms... ?? IRC for instance. It's not hard. Sadly, weirdos are everywhere...



I am happy to see it gone, while pedophilia is a huge problem, network television is not the place to deal with it. Think of this scenario... what if there was a missunderstanding and the guy caught in the trap didn't realise he was talking to a (supposed) minor? What if for ratings they decided to just go with it? A show like that could easily ruin someone's life.

At the end of the day I guess I just don't trust the dumbasses at TV networks to deal with issues that should belong to the justice system.


I think there should be more of it, and if the scumbags keep killing themselves, then great. One more less scumbag to worry about.




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
While I do agree with the concept of the show in that it does take some dangerous and otherwise sick individuals off the streets. The methidology used by perverted justice makes me sick.
I am sorry but the FACT remeins that these perverts did not talk to an underage person on the internet. (in this instance) they are talking with an adult. There is no child at the home. So in reality no crime is commited.

Sorry for a crime to actually be commited there would have to actually be an underage person typing on the keyboard across the internet.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Doesn't pedophile mean a man who likes young girls/boys, pre teen???

I thought catch a predator they targeted teenagers? Or am I wrong?

Also doesn't pedophile simply mean a person who likes pre teen boys or girls?
which of course is a sickness which most probably around 95% don't act out on because they know it's wrong, liking young children and abusing is two different things.

So shouldn't the title be more like 'victory for predators"

LOL just saying!


Edit: I never liked the show anyway, there is always two sides to a story, and lets be honest both sides are not innocent.

It's like a married woman offering herself to you, and when you go around to her house her husband is there saying "why don't you take a seat over there" hahaha



[edit on 28-6-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Did anyone see the episode where they caught the guy TWICE in a row?
Two consecutive days? That just goes to show that these people need to be prosecuted because they keep doing this crap. I'm with you on this one elevatedone.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
This was one of the funniest shows on the TV, I can't believe they are canceling because someone wants "justice" for peado dad.

His victims (if any) should now sue the family for allowing him to harbor his peadophilic tendencies within their family group.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by spitefulgod
 


Well they can't...because they guy is dead. Which the whole reason the family sued Dateline...



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
While I do agree with the concept of the show in that it does take some dangerous and otherwise sick individuals off the streets. The methidology used by perverted justice makes me sick.
I am sorry but the FACT remeins that these perverts did not talk to an underage person on the internet. (in this instance) they are talking with an adult. There is no child at the home. So in reality no crime is commited.

Sorry for a crime to actually be commited there would have to actually be an underage person typing on the keyboard across the internet.


Hey everybody this guys right, maybe we need some "volunteers" so the would be criminals can actually sodomise them before the arrest
, would that shut you up then whatukno?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mad_Hatter
 


So why would that stop them from suing the family?



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Sorry for a crime to actually be commited there would have to actually be an underage person typing on the keyboard across the internet.


Sorry but they believe they are talking to an underage person and go to meet them, that to me shows intent to commit the real crime. There is no cut off for these men, they believe they are talking with a child, they often bring condoms, "toys" and other things to cmmit the act.

Whilst it may not be a real child, the fact remains that if these men had contacted a real 12 year old, they would have groomed them and had sex with them. Perverted Justice seem to do some good work as far as i can tell. The only problem i would have with them is if they started the sexual talk or lead the man into it. From what i have read of their work though, they wait for the sex talk to be initiated by the man and then just play along.

This is what happens with many real children online, read up on grooming and you'll find it's true. These predators establish a relationship of trust, making themselves the person that the child can talk to without fear, then they abuse that trust, they send naked pictures, information on sexual acts, tell the child sex is the best thing since sliced bread. Then they have sex with the child.

These men and sometimes women are predators, they have an attracion to children which is against societal norms, against the law and is often very harmful to the child involved. Therefore i have absolutely no problem with "To Catch A Predator" or Perverted Justice. Catch as many as they can and throw them in prison for the rest of their lives, because once they decide to cross that line of commiting the act, they are emboldened and will do so again, possibly with an even younger child.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by spitefulgod
Hey everybody this guys right, maybe we need some "volunteers" so the would be criminals can actually sodomise them before the arrest
, would that shut you up then whatukno?


Spitefulgod,

Whatukno has a point and is entitled to it. And his point is actually a very good one, all morals aside. Lets break this down. Here are the facts:

1. Perverted Justice holds conversations between would be pedophiles and their workers and lures them into a scene through text conversations online or on the phone, in association with Dateline NBC to:

"Intended to root out and bring to light those who would use the Internet as a way to sexually abuse and prey upon children." - Taken from their own website.

2. Then, once they convince the pedophile to come to a specified location, they proceed to question them on camera to a nationwide audience, then arrest them.

3. The legal cases for these pedophiles have been thrown out as specified by elevatedone in a previous post.

Now, lets define entrapment. Webster defines entrapment as:

a defense that claims the defendant would not have broken the law if not tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials

Now according to what perverted justice does, and what the definition of entrapment is, one could conclude that what they are doing falls right under entrapment.

Now, is Entrapment illegal?

Stason.org says yes:



1.14: Is Entrapment Legal?


Certainly not morally proper, if not clearly illegal!

Entrapment, also called sting operations, are crimes
where the law enforcement officals themselves create the
circumstances of the crime. The police place ads in Soldier of Fortune
magazine claiming to be assasains for hire. They pose as drug dealers,
and drug buyers; as prostitutes and "johns"; they pose as 14 year old girls
in Internet chat rooms, each trying to lure someone into the crime of
*asking* someone to do something nasty.

Note that these "crimes" *may not have occured* had not the
police created the circumstances of the crime, set the bait,
played the part of the snake in the garden and used tempatation
to cause the sin. These "crimes" CERTAINLY would not have occured
in the same way.


Source: stason.org...

So, while the issue of whether or not what these pedophiles did is wrong, which IMO it is, there is certainly no question as to whether or not the methods used are in fact illegal which is why the show was shut down and cases were thrown out.

However, I do enjoy the usual "Why don't you have a seat....sir...what are you doing here?" Followed by the usual answer of "Awww...just bein stupid I guess" from some hick pedophile.


[edit on 6/28/2008 by Mad_Hatter]

[edit on 6/28/2008 by Mad_Hatter]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by Mad_Hatter
 


So why would that stop them from suing the family?


Well because he can't "harbor his peadophilic tendencies within their family group" as you put it if he is dead.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatuknoSorry for a crime to actually be commited there would have to actually be an underage person typing on the keyboard across the internet.


Yes I see your point but on the otherhand if someone is trying to hire a hitman and ends up talking to an fbi agent, does that means they should not be prosecuted?

Though I do believe the Dateline episodes have raised awareness a lot. For years I was a moderator in an adult oriented chat room with associated websites (sort of a specialty nitch). While the rules were always 18+ they did become stricter thanks to shows like dateline, and if people claimed to be underage it didn't take long before someone would complain to the mods (even though in reality I am quite sure most of the individuals were 45 year old men).

I frequently used to say "Remember we don't want to end up on Dateline". While the average age was very adult, over the years we did have prominent underage members that ran websites and were quite active. LOL...in one case I corresponded with a webmaster of a very large site for about 5 years thinking he was very much an adult, and then one day he asked if he could crash at my house for a couple of days while traveling across country.

When he showed up 5 years after our first contact he was 20 years old...lol. Yeah that was a bit of a shock. and he did an amazing job covering his age for a very long time. Of course at that point he was very legal.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mad_Hatter

Originally posted by spitefulgod
reply to post by Mad_Hatter
 


So why would that stop them from suing the family?


Well because he can't "harbor his peadophilic tendencies within their family group" as you put it if he is dead.


They allowed him to become what he is, that's just as valid a case as "you caused his death because you discovered he was a child rapist"

You can say all you want and agree to disagree making it harder to detain criminals with all the little loopholes you can find, yes they may be valid points and save the odd one or two innocents but eventually they are used to get real criminals off the hook and in such end up doing more harm than good.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Sorry but they believe they are talking to an underage person and go to meet them, that to me shows intent to commit the real crime. There is no cut off for these men, they believe they are talking with a child, they often bring condoms, "toys" and other things to commit the act.


I do understand and agree that these are indeed sick individuals. However they weren't talking to children. The actual fact of the matter is they were talking with an adult. The adult in fact is committing an act of fraud by fraudulently portraying themselves as a child. When IN FACT (now please remember this part) WHEN IN FACT, THEY ARE AN ADULT. Therefore no true crime has been committed. You should not be charged with a crime that you have not committed.

These two consenting adults are talking to each other in a consensual manner. It does not matter that a person THINKS the other one is a minor. The fact remains is that they are not minors they are talking to but adults.


Whilst it may not be a real child, the fact remains that if these men had contacted a real 12 year old, they would have groomed them and had sex with them.


If that happens then the sick individual should go to jail for a good long time. However ifs and mays aren't actualities they are hypothetical.


Perverted Justice seem to do some good work as far as i can tell. The only problem i would have with them is if they started the sexual talk or lead the man into it. From what i have read of their work though, they wait for the sex talk to be initiated by the man and then just play along.


That is the way it is explained, however is that the way it actually happens?

Say I were to work for perverted justice, I go into an underage chat room and start talking to others. I say for argument sake that I am a 14/f/AL That tells you my age, my gender and my location. Which can be construed as an open invite to some sick person in Alabama to initiate conversation. The person commits fraud by telling the would be offender that they are an underage child and not an adult working with a vigilante group.

Now please don't take me the wrong way these men are indeed sick individuals and do deserve to spend time behind bars for even thinking this is an acceptable idea. However we should not rely on vigilante groups to carry out justice for us instead we should rely on law enforcement officers to conduct thorough investigations, collect evidence, and prosecute criminals in accordance with the letter and will of the law.

Perhaps other vigilante groups should start up, perhaps a group can work on my space or face book getting groups of people together at a party, the people go there expecting that alcohol be served. Then when the individuals get there by their own transportation the person should be arrested for intending to drive home under the influence of alcohol.

Or we could go further with this perverted justice idea, lets set up a group to monitor for people that like to street race, we will pretend we have awesome cars and know of a great place to race, we give the person the address and they show up just to be arrested for intent to speed.

Can you see where I am going with this?


[edit] replying to both Sonya610 & ImaginaryReality1984

[edit on 6/28/2008 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I see your point. Plus as stated before, some of these conversations go on for days or even weeks, then the TV show pulls up a few lines to prove their point. The men are being manipulated by adults, and quite honestly I have to wonder if most of those guys would actually end up trying to meet REAL 13 year olds that did not overtly encourage the behavior.

The episodes I saw rarely if ever said that the guy had a criminal record for sex with minors, or was convicted for child porn or any of that. If they had caught individuals that had a history of targeting kids they would surely have made a HUGE big deal out of it.

Edit -- I would guess once they arrest the guys they probably do get a warrant to search the guys home computer etc... Seriously if these guys were true pedophiles (people that only target children) it seems more of that would be coming out.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Sonya610]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
In a court of law, Entrapment only applies to Law Enforcement. Private Citizens can try to entrap you into doing something illegal all they want.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by sardion2000]

[edit on 28-6-2008 by sardion2000]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Vigilante groups is a little dramatic, in my opinion.

I view this group as an organization taking a pro-active role in dealing with online predators preying on young children who don't know better. Oh but they do know better. No, they don't. Most adults don't know better. Mommy and Daddy will chastise little Suzy for talking to grown men on the computer, but it will be Mommy handing over the credit card digits to the nice man who asked, or because she was the one millionth visitor to a site.

We don't know better, that's the point and that is why we need to be pro-active in dealing with this.

Vigilante? No, the predators come to them.

The predators initiate the conversation and they initiate the sex talk.

They are the ones who drive hundreds of miles in order to meet the young child.

Oh but the young child is actually an adult!

What is the determination of what is and is not a crime? In my opinion, culpability.

If I am at the grocery store and forget to grab a basket, and because my hands are full I drop a small item in my pocket just to get it to the check-out, then forget to pay for it.. I'm not a criminal. I'm a little stunned and I made an honest mistake. No culpability behind the action, no crime.

These individuals are culpable for their behaviour, hence there is a crime taking place.

I can not find anything at the moment, but I was under the impression that if the adult in question genuinely believes that the person they are talking with is a minor, and continues to discuss sexually expletive content with the assumed minor, then regardless of that person's actual age, the adult is guilty of a crime. Can anyone respond to this?

If it isn't, it should be.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by chissler]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by chisslerI can not find anything at the moment, but I was under the impression that if the adult in question genuinely believes that the person they are talking with is a minor, and continues to discuss sexually expletive content with the assumed minor, then regardless of that person's actual age, the adult is guilty of a crime. Can anyone respond to this?


I believe that is true in some states (not sure if it applies to all states), if they state they are underage then it is a crime to engage in sexually explicit conversation.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by chissler
 


Agreed.

The intent to cmmit a crime is still a crime, well at least in the UK it is if you can prove it. Conspiracy has been a crime here for years, not sure about the states.

If i post online say that i intend to kill someone, i will be arrested and rightly so! I believe fully in free speech, but not being able to make a threat. That's what these men did, they believed it was a child, they showed they are capable of meeting and abusing a child.

I must ask whatukno, if this program took an offender off the street, and stopped just one child being abused, do you think it would be worth it? Personally i do.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join