Police place personal ads then change age and charge with sex crimes

For those who are having problems with the video on Break:

a reply to: DestroyDestroyDestroy

And again, at that point you quit talking to them. Block them (and report them to the dating site) and move on. It'll be a hard push in court that you're a predator after you actually block someone the moment they claim to be under 18.

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: 8675309jenny

While I get what you're saying, there's an easy solution: Don't chat with underage girls or boys! I don't see why that is so difficult. I agree that the police shouldn't be trying to lure people into committing crimes, but c'mon. If a fourteen year old jailbait chick contacts you, what does and adult do? "Thanks for contacting me, but I'm looking for an adult". Block them and move on. No jail time.

Unfortunately a lot of 13/14/15 year old girls look to be in their late teens because of how they dress, wear make up and generally how much older they are behaving. Yes I think men should behave a little more cautiously (if at least to protect themselves from later accusations) however I also think if a girl is stating that shes say 18 and is posting pictures of herself looking like the average 18 year old, other than ask for identification, whats a guy to do?

I'm not suggesting something shouldn't be done. I'm suggesting that when you make a random guy out to be sexual predator for doing nothing wrong other than chatting to a pretty girl online, there are often repercussions for that individual. Perhaps checks could be put into place when joining these sites, such as adult verification.

a reply to: Jakal26

Conditioning.

Human beings are conditioned. You, Jakal26, are conditioned to have the visceral reaction that you are having to the events you are choosing to describe.

Now, what I've found in talking to people myself is that the things you describe aren't as black/white as we want (need) them to be. For a grandfather to do that, I have to wonder what happened to him at a young age. Maybe you don't care, but you should. If you want the world to change you have to really understand the inter-connectivity of the human existence.

It's true some people are born with psychopathic brains/intentions, however, the environment an individual is raised in can make things much worse (or better). People that a person is exposed to can make things worse. Humans are pattern recognition machines, and if the patterns are malicious/destructive then they can be repeated.

Sorry if you believe I'm trying to explain things away, I am not. The truth is the truth whether or not you or I like it. The greatest issue I take with a large number of human beings is how quickly they are to condemn rather than understand.

a reply to: WCmutant

The old liberal lie. There is evil in the world, and raping a child is def. crossing over to that side.

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

On a diff. note. For about 6 weeks I've been getting all kinds of sexual liaison invitations in my email. The number is 6-8 a day. I don't trust them and don't respond to any of them.

originally posted by: MarkJS
a reply to: WCmutant

The old liberal lie. There is evil in the world, and raping a child is def. crossing over to that side.

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

On a diff. note. For about 6 weeks I've been getting all kinds of sexual liaison invitations in my email. The number is 6-8 a day. I don't trust them and don't respond to any of them.

Reading is fundamental. Human beings don't develop in a vacuum. I don't think I ever said it was okay. I merely pointed out the way in which humans develop and that if a grandfather was willing to do what he did then I can't imagine what he possible went through or was exposed to.

Consider this - history is written by the winners and the winners were the ones that conquered, raped, and pillaged. Therefore it's very likely your ancestors are conquerors, rapers, and pillagers. Yet we expect human beings today to be something more than conquerors, rapers, and pillagers.

...I believe Einstein already defined insanity.

a reply to: demondonna
Fake ID is easy to get. You can do time for picking up an underager at the bar, even though they had a fake ID. People gotta be really careful these days.

a reply to: WCmutant

Nice to see you have such a hold on the entirety of my thoughts on the issue. (sarcasm strongly implied)

Human beings are conditioned. You, Jakal26, are conditioned to have the visceral reaction that you are having to the events you are choosing to describe.

Glad you figured that out for yourself. (again, sarcasm)
My thoughts on the issue go far beyond the visceral, but I am not even sure this conversation is worth having with someone that comes at me with a post like this on an internet forum where we are all anonymous...but I guess I'll bite.

I don't "need" things to be one way or another. I am quite comfortable thinking inside the "gray" area. I realize that things are never that black and white and you are actually right when you say that abuse breed abuse. In this case, that was indeed the case. However, this is where we differ.

Maybe you don't care, but you should.

Again, you are right....I don't care.

If you want the world to change you have to really understand the inter-connectivity of the human existence.

And what makes you think I don't understand such? Because I didn't spend an entire evening writing out the sum of my thoughts on the issue?

People that a person is exposed to can make things worse.

What is this garbage? Some flimsy justification? It sure as hell sounds like it.
Let's see, what type of people was this worthless pos exposed to? Oh, that's right, he hid himself within a pentecostal church....as a deacon (who often preached btw) for many many years. He knew very well what he was doing.

Sorry if you believe I'm trying to explain things away, I am not.

And this is where I believe you are lying, or you just don't know that is exactly what you are doing with such a post.

The greatest issue I take with a large number of human beings is how quickly they are to condemn rather than understand.

So take issue, I don't care. It won't change my views on the thing one bit. Been there, done that. (rationalizing sick s#it, like you are trying to do...it never quite added up.

The truth is the truth whether or not you or I like it.

Here is some "truth" for you. There is a "human predator". Call it what you will, but I don't care to elaborate on what I am saying all that much because it would be impossible to sum up years of my thoughts on such a thing on a board where I am just not willing to get into that much detail (I'm in a bad mood and don't feel like debating it atm...in case you didn't notice)....

This "human predator" exists in the hearts' and minds' of men (mankind)....it "feeds" on our negativity, quite the same as you or I feed on the food that we consume. I care not if you believe this. It is quite evident to any who choose to see.

There are many things I can rationalize, even when I cannot justify them. Molesting children, rape, and the like....is NOT one of them. I refuse to. This "normalization" of pedophilia in our society, at this current time, is absolutely repulsive. There is no treatment for such a thing. The only cure is death, which for some means about two to the back of the head or some good rope. Harsh? Again, I don't care. Visceral reaction? LOL, believe what you may.

..........
I had a long reply typed out....gave it a bit of thought and thought better of it. So I just chopped up your comment and this is what you get....
P.S. I cut myself off there somewhere at the end, so if it makes no sense why I stopped there...now it does.

Have a good day.

a reply to: WCmutant

Human beings don't develop in a vacuum.

Yeah...and they don't exist inside one either. Which means that at 60+ years old, societal norms and simple "right" from "wrong" when applied to what we are speaking of, should be well established within the mind. The old bastard didn't live with abusers till a ripe old age, now did he? No.

Yeah, kinda my point.

a reply to: demondonna

And again, if they say they're underage you say "thanks but no thanks", block and move on. The article says they disclose their "real age" after they contact the person in which I would recommend anyone to ignore them. It's common sense. Doesn't matter if an underage girl came onto you first or not, they're underage. (For all intents and purposes of this discussion.)

a reply to: Auricom

In a way, I kind of agree with what you are saying. I do get it.
But these guys getting caught up in these type of stings weren't searching for underage girls. The profiles they view and the people they initially contact claim to be of age. Then suddenly, mid conversation, they change it to "I'm 16" or whatever.

I say it's dirty, just dirty. But I still get what you are saying.
Though, I will stick by my other posts....real police work would take much more effort. Getting at "those behind closed door" (see my other posts for context) is what really needs to be addressed. THAT is where the majority of molestation, rape, and the like is occurring. Though, I imagine that with more and more online that the numbers are ever growing in regards to crimes committed via online translating into "real world".

The whole disgusting tactic of the american police to bait people into doing crimes is ridiculous and not allowed in other countries except america!
its a corporate service to the prison industry i guess

a reply to: Jakal26

While I absolutely agree that the method they're doing it is straight bait and switch (and illegal to boot), I must reiterate that using your common sense would get you out of any problems associated with this.

If I started chatting with a drop dead beautiful girl, we get into a heavy discussion about sex and she lands a bombshell on me like she's underage, I'm outta there. I'd also report the user.

And here's another thing, while I agree that how the police are doing it is wrong, who is more wrong in the situation? A guy hitting up on a person he perceives as a sixteen year old or the cop? Any normal person would stop chatting with them!

Again, common sense. Use it people.

originally posted by: longy9999
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Its a sticky subject, on the one hand its a great way to get sex offenders off our streets but on the other its entrapment as you said. The problem with this is when completely innocent people start to get caught in the crossfire, its only a matter of time before someone misreads a message or something similar and gets banged up for doing nothing wrong.

Sorry but I completely disagree when you say it is a great way to get sex offenders off the street.

That statement would hold true if the ad placed was an underaged female, but that is not the case here. The Ad being placed is a legal aged female. That means the people replying to that Ad are expecting a female who is of a legal age, so how exactly is that getting sex offenders off the street? These are people who are not looking for underaged girls- which is exactly what a predator looks for. A true predator seeks out it's prey, in this case that prey is a young girl or boy. These men are not seeking young girls/boys. They are seeking out legal aged women and men. So this design is not even meant to attract predators. So there is no possible way you are "getting sex offenders off the street". In reality it is creating new sex offenders.

What makes this even worse is that these are men who are using legal dating sites where the people they speak to have to already be of a legal age. It is part of the terms and conditions of use on these type of sites. So the expectation of these "sex offenders" is not in any way an effort to meet a child. You can not even select an age under 18 on a site like Plenty of Fish, which is one of the sites shown in the video.

Now the example given in the video has me a bit confused. The man responded to an Ad of a 26 year old women on craigslist, which is a site anyone can post on no matter what age, but the report says the decoy later went back and changed the age to 13. It does not explain how this change was made. Did the decoy admit in conversation to be 13? Or did the decoy go back and edit the Ad later to say she was 13? If it is the latter, that is the equivalent of planting evidence or at the least tampering with evidence. If done in conversation, it is certainly a gray area. However in this case, the man claims he simply did not believe her and agreed to meet. I can see how a man, originally thinking he was speaking to a 26 year old over a period of time, would think she was lying or kidding and joking and still agree to meet them. Even if it is for no other reason than to find out for sure if the person is 13, and what if it was really a 13 year old? You dont know what his intentions are or what he would actually do. I can honestly say if this happened to me, and I did meet the person and she was 13. I would take her home, tell her parents, and if she refused to tell me where she lived I'd call the cops. Knowing that is what I would do, would I deserve to be labeled a sex offender because I agreed to meet someone who originally told me they were 26?

This does not shock me though. Police have been doing this for some time. It is a common practice from organizations like Perverted Justice who go into chat rooms where you are required to be over 18 to be in. I have a friend who was caught up in a thing like this. He is now a registered sex offender. He believed he was speaking to a women, not a girl. The profile was actually blank when they first messaged each other. At some point, it was changed to reflect a 14 year old. He never went back to look at the profile after it had been changed. So he only believed what he was first told- thinking it was a women and not a 14 year old girl. This women messaged him for months offering to perform oral sex on him. Eventually, after months of her pursuing him, he agreed. He was then arrested and charged. The State actually dropped the case. Based on the evidence the State felt the police were wrong- but the Feds refused to drop the case. He was ultimately convicted on Federal charges. The part I found the most odd about his case was that he was basically convicted of an act involving a minor- yet at no point in time was there any minor involved in his case. He never spoke to a 14 year old girl.

The practice is wrong. It does not get Predators off the street. It is putting more people into the for profit prison system who otherwise would not be there. It is creating "sex offenders" out of people who have not actually committed a crime against a child. And do I even need to mention how much money the State can bring in from all the "rehabilitative services" that a "sex offender" must go through at his/her own expense? And please do not even get me started on the actual sex offender registry. That's a whole different discussion

originally posted by: Auricom
a reply to: demondonna

And again, if they say they're underage you say "thanks but no thanks", block and move on. The article says they disclose their "real age" after they contact the person in which I would recommend anyone to ignore them. It's common sense. Doesn't matter if an underage girl came onto you first or not, they're underage. (For all intents and purposes of this discussion.)

The question one has to ask is what constitutes "disclosure"? Is it disclosure to change information AFTER the fact and make no verbal mention of being underaged? As in the case of the man I know... there was never any talk of being underaged. The cop changed the profile AFTER the fact and the man never even knew until AFTER his arrest.

The whole point of the sec offender registry and our sec offender laws is to punish predators. People who go after children. People who are not seeking children, have no intention of having any form of sexual contact with a child, are the ones being punished as if they had.

a reply to: Jakal26

The fact that you are reacting the way you are to my post means something. I merely expressed my view and what I said was far from an attack on you.

You don't need a manifesto to explain your thoughts. In my post I not only explained that it was a terrible thing but to not learn to understand this phenomenon is a failure on our part as a society that CLAIMS they want change. To change people you have to change the way they are raised and what they are exposed to - I suppose this is where letting the state/government take over child rearing is for the best, right? It's perhaps the only option to (hopefully) ensure homogenization of the human species. (yes, that was sarcasm)

As my second post points out that we are the offspring/survivors of the winners. Conditioning to be outraged is a part of keeping the populace in line - it doesn't matter if it's the story you told or a journalist being beheaded. The desired outcome by TPTB is for the populace to be outraged.

Human beings are easily manipulated when we allow our decisions to be made in a heightened state of emotions - I would suggest to anyone to read You Can Be Happy No Matter What, by Richard Carlson. He states quite clearly that we think the worst thoughts when we are upset and can often make rash decisions. Learning to recognize negative mind-states allows us to refrain from making rash decisions while in those negative states. It's a perfect example how creating a visceral reaction among the populace allows TPTB push us the direction they want.

Ideally, there are only universal truths that can and should be applied to all humans regardless of race, religion, or socio-economic status. But as I know (and I hope others to do) the laws in America are written to protect the rich from the poor. Laws evolve and they are not always good or correct laws. A perfect example is this entrapment situation.

If we want to speak directly to age of consent laws, it's easy to find wild ranges of age of marriage/consent over the last several hundred years in "civilized" societies. The fact that these laws have never remained a constant suggests one thing - not exactly a universal truth. Laws go away when countries and civilizations crumble. But I digress...

Auricom has great advice, but for a young male that has grown up in the digital age (like the 22 year old in the video) it may be as definitive to the 22 yr old as it is to Auricom. And unfortunately for the 22 year old in the video it appears that his mind-state was that of horny (guessing). Men throughout history have never make bad decisions when they are horny (sarc.). I would also argue that with the way many kids/teens are being raised these days that there is a severe lack of cognitive reasoning - better said, street smarts.

a reply to: TKDRL

I couldn't agree more, the point still stands though. There is only so much that can be done isn't there? A system should be in place which makes at least, much less likely that underage girls and in some cases boys cannot gain access to these sites. I do understand that the number victims of internet predators is huge and that the damage it does is truely awful, however there will now be other victims, people who will be labelled as sexual predators and a lot of the time this sort of label will stay with them forever. Can you imagine if the people where you lived all heard rumours that you were grooming children/teenagers? Even if this was later proved to be untrue, you would always get small minded individuals who will not let it slide.

Again I am not disputing that first priority should be protecting young people from harm. Just that maybe a slightly different approach. Teach parents how to monitor what their kids are doing when using the internet. Set age restrictions. Sounds simple but until a couple of years ago I wouldn't have had a clue how to check the history on my PC until I was shown. Schools should educate better in this department. I know this wont fix the problem but there are things that can be done to stop this(in at least a few cases I'm sure) before it starts.

a reply to: MrWendal

MrW... to me the true predators are in this situation are law enforcement. The corporate prison system needs fodder thrown into so it can suck at the teet of the government contracts they hold.

It's quite obvious if anyone looks at the declining crime rates over the years and the increases in these type of policing tactics that as hopenotfeariswhatweneed said on page 1, that the LEOs are doing their best to justify their existence. An existence that seems to be increasingly predatory and over-reactionary simply to meet quotas and increase department revenue/budget.

a reply to: demondonna
That is the huge problem, how many parents give their kids ipads, iphones and computers, and don't supervise the use at all? A lot. Back in the day, the family PC was in the livingroom, so my parents could look over our shoulder now and again and see what we are up to.

There are lots of kids broadcasting to the internet live on video feeds these days for example. Dangerous stuff.

Did you guys ever read about the young pretty officer that went to a highschool and talked a boy who had never smoked pot into getting her some. He had a crush on her and though he never bought or used it he got her some after she begged him, then he refused her money, he gave it to her as a gift and that was a hiccup in their plan.

Eventually they busted him. I made a thread on it, but the mention of drugs (absurd since that was the news story) got it deleted. Imagine, they entrapped him and crushed him as he was young and in love, and possibly ruined his trust in women for the rest of his life.

Cops are scum.