To Catch a Predator, Revisited

[goodsamaritan]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dc7_1181708491

For the show that took place outside of Dallas, 24 arrests were made, but not one person was ultimately prosecuted. 23 cases were dropped and one dude killed himself. They don't do a good job of explaining exactly why the cases were dropped, but interesting none the less. At the end of the piece they show the video of 10 cops with shotguns getting ready to storm the house of the guy who then kills himself.

[bobman0330]

If the NBC crews were working with the police from the beginning there might be entrapment problems. Also the credibility of any NBC witnesses or materials would be pretty terrible, given the sleaziness of the program and their incentive to sensationalize things.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
If the NBC crews were working with the police from the beginning there might be entrapment problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entrapment is a very difficult defense to raise successfully. The defendant must show that he was otherwise unwilling to commit the crime but for the inducement by police officers or their agents. A police officer simply presenting the opportunity to commit a crime is not enough. The officer needs to essentially coerce or scare the defendant into committing the crime.

For example:
- Officer: Wanna buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!
Is not entrapment

Similarly:
- 13 y.o. girl: Wanna have sex?
- Defendant: Yes!
Is also not entrapment

But an officer badgering a defendant repeatedly until he buys the crack because he's scared would be entrapment.


In almost all of these To Catch a Predator cases, its pretty clear that the defendants were not unwilling to have sex with underage kids.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
In almost all of these To Catch a Predator cases, its pretty clear that the defendants were not unwilling to have sex with underage kids.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know any of the facts, so I can't really comment. But the credibility issue is relevant here. How reliable is NBC's testimony about what was said (or worse, their pervert-hunter subcontractor's)?

Or maybe the DA just found the whole thing very distasteful and didn't feel like prosecuting. The fact that all but one of the cases was dropped suggests that there has to be either a systemic flaw in the evidence or a general unwillingness to go forward.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
If the NBC crews were working with the police from the beginning there might be entrapment problems. Also the credibility of any NBC witnesses or materials would be pretty terrible, given the sleaziness of the program and their incentive to sensationalize things.

[/ QUOTE ]


As opposed to the sleaziness of 30-40 year old ministers, priests, army personel, business execs, teachers who are trying to sleep with 13 year olds............

Every single one of these guys should be put away for life... and if 23 of 24 got off without punishment then someone should make it a point to avert the justice system and punish them.

Whether you like the show or not the ONLY point that matters is that 40 year olds are trying to hook up with 13 year olds online. And most of the people doing it are people you THINK are to be respected in society like the ministers and priests.

[AJackson]

I don't have any info beyond the video, but it would seem that Perverted Justice was largely working on their own which makes all the info they gathered legally questionable. No way the DA could be sure that the evidence was properly obtained or even legit.

I don't like the idea of groups like PJ out there trolling (if that is what they are doing), but this type of crime is just too over the line. It takes a twisted individual to have that sort of conversation with a someone that young. They can claim roll playing all they want, but once they come to meet them I don't give that claim much weight. If it's as easy as it seems to snare these guys the police and DA should be taking an active roll and making sure they can take these guys to court.

At least their predalections are now known and I'm sure they suffered significant personal and professional damage.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]

For example:
- Officer: Wanna buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!
Is not entrapment

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this? Because I know if the conversation goes:

- Officer: Can I buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!

That does count as entrapment and it cannot be used to gain a conviction. Basically, I think the only justification they have is that an outside group is contacting the men and not the police, but overall I think the whole thing's on real shaky ground.

Honestly, I think they should just discontinue the whole thing. The men never committed any real crime since they were actually talking to adults the whole time and I think at least some of them were just bored lonely guys who would have never actually done anything like this if they hadn't been aggressively approached by these Perverted Justice people.

Besides, ultimately locking these guys up does nothing. If there's a slutty 13 yr. old out there that's looking for an older guy to bring home and have sex with, she's going to find one eventually, and if there's not, then there won't be anything to worry about.

[goodsamaritan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example:
- Officer: Wanna buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!
Is not entrapment

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this? Because I know if the conversation goes:

- Officer: Can I buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!

That does count as entrapment and it cannot be used to gain a conviction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your wrong about that. In fact, that scenario is an even worse fact pattern for entrapment because the defendant was already in possession of an illegal substance, and probably had the intent to sell it anyway. But even if the defendant had the crack for merely personally use and decided to sell it once the officer suggested, that would still not be entrapment. In order for there to be entrapment, the defendant must have been unwilling to commit the crime but for the inducement of the police officer. There must be something more than just a mere suggestion or invitation to commit the crime by the police officer.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For example:
- Officer: Wanna buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!
Is not entrapment

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure about this? Because I know if the conversation goes:

- Officer: Can I buy some crack?
- Defendant: Sure!

That does count as entrapment and it cannot be used to gain a conviction. Basically, I think the only justification they have is that an outside group is contacting the men and not the police, but overall I think the whole thing's on real shaky ground.

Honestly, I think they should just discontinue the whole thing. The men never committed any real crime since they were actually talking to adults the whole time and I think at least some of them were just bored lonely guys who would have never actually done anything like this if they hadn't been aggressively approached by these Perverted Justice people.

Besides, ultimately locking these guys up does nothing. If there's a slutty 13 yr. old out there that's looking for an older guy to bring home and have sex with, she's going to find one eventually, and if there's not, then there won't be anything to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of people who think like you people like this are allowed to do what they do

To think this clown actually posted his 500k bail and is walking the street scares me.

Getting one of these scumbags off the street whether by vigilantie, groups like PJ, or just good old police work should make you feel proud that your children are a bit safer.

It's funny parents are more afraid of their kids smoking, playing poker, riding their bike without a helmet than of scumbags like this.

You can ban me delete me whatever you want. People like this deserve the death penalty or at the very least should have their genitals removed. This kind of thing is inexcusable. And anyone lobbying for their cause by removing shows like "To catch a predator" need a wake up call.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting one of these scumbags off the street whether by vigilantie, groups like PJ, or just good old police work should make you feel proud that your children are a bit safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a bit dangerous and arbitrary doesn't it. "No equal protection and rights under the law for X cause it's awful".

Cody