Luring men into falsehood. Like catching trans transitioning or something. What if the person just shows a picture of themselves (no nude) and she her and they just meet but do nothing sexual? What if the chat wsn't sexual in nature as well? What if the person knew it was a sting but went with it to warn her that there are predators out there? Will they still be charged a arrested? Feels like pre-crime before any crime.
shareWhy would you want to me someone more than 1/2 your age you interact with online knowing, let's say, you're in your 60's and this individual is 15 or 16?? At what point when you reach your destination to meet said individual do you realize that something is just not right?? You telling me that these men that were lured into falsehood didn't have the Spidey senses tingling that this might be a sting operation??? I have 0 sympathy for any of these idiots and neither do the folks in prison..
shareI remember when this show was in full swing and a lot of people, including myself, were on the old IMDB board talking about it.. We had quite a few debates on whether or not it's entrapment. Personally, I think any decent lawyer could make a pretty strong case that it's entrapment. We would often compare it to something similar like, leaving counterfeit money laying around in a bank and see if someone tries to pull a grab and run then arrest them if they do. You'd get a few people doing this too.
But then again, no one really feels sorry for the men they arrested on this show. I mean, you have the gall to go into a stranger's house to have sex with a 13 or 14 year old?? Who does this?
That said, I honestly didn't like what they did on this show. I mean, yeah, they're dickheads for doing this but dangle a cherry in front of enough people and you're going to get some bites. Older guys have always been attracted to younger girls. And it's been like this for thousands of years. Older guys trying to bed young girls is nothing new.
I am not real crazy about the idea of setting up stings for people that are experimenting around with sexual stuff. Seems kind of odd to do this to people. And I am not in favor of creating fake crimes. Seems unconstitutional in my opinion.
That said, I honestly didn't like what they did on this show. I mean, yeah, they're dickheads for doing this but dangle a cherry in front of enough people and you're going to get some bites. Older guys have always been attracted to younger girls. And it's been like this for thousands of years. Older guys trying to bed young girls is nothing new.
>>Why are you making excuses for for these child predators?<<<
Not really making excuses robo, as I stated, no one feels sorry for them.
I just don't like the idea of setting up stings for something as normal as sexuality. We all have at least one odd sexual fetish tucked away in the closet. And whether you think its wrong or right, older/younger relations has been the subject of our literature, films, art etc.. for decades. I don't agree with it myself, but not surprised by it either.
>>>Being attracted to younger girls is not the same as having sex with teenagers.<<<
And that makes stings okay?
>>You are a sick individual.<<
lol.. whatever..
The problem is that they may have enticed these guys to commit a crime, when no crime would have ever happened if a "teenage" girl hadn't flirted with an adult male online.
If you've watched this show, many of these guys seem like repressed shut-ins. It's entrapment because the undercover cops began the inappropriate conversations themselves online over days and weeks of online chatting.
No cop. No online flirting. No perp would have ever gone to the child's house. That's textbook entrapment.
I do remember a few cases of them chatting it up with men multiple times, and bringing up the topic of sex first, which usually kills any case they have against the "predator". However, it's hard to get out of the charges when the guys bring up sex first.
Although, I do agree, no decoy pretending to be a teenager, no alleged crime happens. So, again, that could be used as an entrapment argument in a lot of these cases. Bottom line, I really hate seeing the government create fake crimes rather than using that time to catch people that have committed real crimes, seems like a waste of resources and time. But still, it's very difficult to feel sorry for any of the idiots they caught doing this.
Plus, I always thought it was highly unethical for a 'watch dog group' to make money off of alleged crimes. Perverted-Justice was the group that was behind the scenes for this show and they were getting $100k per case which means, they were getting rich off of doing this to people.
At any rate, I always thought a show called 'To Catch A Cougar' would have been better. But most of the people in here would be defending the women that get caught. lol. Although most women wouldn't be lame enough to do this. I don't think they ever caught a woman though... it would have been kind of funny if they did.
That’s not how it happens. They typically setup profiles and wait for someone to message them first. Then they make it clear that they are underaged. Everything that is said or happens after that is their own fault because they knew, and they continued anyway.
If you message someone, and they tell you that they are 13, that should be the end of the conversation. Why would that be enticing to you?
Uh, I'm not saying the men are not attracted to underage girls. I'm saying they are virgin shut-ins who would never approach an underage girl if an adult cop posing as an underage girl hadn't flirted with them online. There's a reason this show was taken off the air. You're buying their bullshit defense for this entrapment charade.
Several episodes the producers of the show are stupid and cocky enough to show transcripts. Sorry, it's classic entrapment and that's why NBC yanked it. It was a huge lawsuit waiting to happen.
Im saying men are not attracted to underaged children. You can’t entire someone who isn’t a predator by having a 13 year old throw themselves at them. The bait was a not enticing.
But you are still mischaracterizing the decoys. They don’t go online and cold message a bunch of men, they create a profile and wait to be messaged. The guys that get caught are the ones looking for it.
They aren’t all shut ins, then men caught on the show came from all different background. The shut in losers were on there, but so were successful men, and men with families.
The show ultimately ended because they caught someone who chose to shoot himself rather get arrested, so his sister sued NBC, not for entrapment, but for wrongful death. But that was NBC that didn’t want to continue, the idea of it lives on to this day.
Wrongful death due to entrapment.
Look. Obviously they're gonna catch some real predators. But there's no reason to believe most these guys would have acted on their perversion if not given this "golden" opportunity of a girl throwing herself at them.
It's just lazy police work to create a crime so you can arrest someone. Do the real work and catch the real threat who commit real crimes. not THOUGHTCRIME.
It’s not ‘thought crime’ if they show up at a child’s house after a sexually charged chat. Also, it’s a crime to show an underage child pornography and most of these losers send them photos of their tackle.
I can’t believe that someone is defending the predators, Jesus Christ.
Lol. It's a thoughtcrime if they 'think' about it in their home and never intend to act on it. It's entrapment if the cops lure them somewhere where they're told they can commit the crime. That applies to any crime. It's basic law.
If they send child porn then charge them with that crime. Problem solved.
No dear, it is not the job of police or NBC to create a crime where there was none before.
There's a reason this salacious show was yanked off the air. You'll have to get your jollies somewhere else.
There’s nothing lol about this.
They are going to these houses to rape children.
Because they don’t know that the child they plan to rape is a cop doesn’t make it entrapment.
It’s taking these men who would take advantage of a neglectful parent in order to rape a child off the streets! Good riddance.
They are being lured by cops to rape children. Do you not see how that makes the cop culpable in a crime? It's disgusting activity on the part of my government and I don't want my tax dollars going to this nonsense. If a guy rapes a child, beat the crap outta him and send him to prison for life. But don't set up a rape because you're too lazy to go out and stop the real rapists.
"Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute."share
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-645-entrapment-elements#:~:text=Entrapment%20is%20a%20complete%20defense,may%20prosecute.%22%20Jacobson%20v.
either you've never seen or understood the show, or you should be on a list..
shareYou're obviously too stupid to follow the discussion here.
sharedecoy waits in certain chatrooms, men start a conversation with decoy...
decoy has to tell the man how old she is and can't flirt with the man.
she can only play along and go with it. so how is that entrapment?
like i said, either you don't understand the show or you're defending these pedophiles.
Lol. I posted online when I was a teen. I was never approached by any adult for sex.
The "decoys" are behaving in a manner designed to lure men to commit a crime. That's entrapment. They're not posting about softball. No decoy. No crime will be committed. Understand now?
It's lazy cop work.
Go find the real predators instead of trying to turn shut-in perverts into rapists.
you really are a dummy arent ya? these people send sick messages to kids, they know how old they are and they go to meet them.
so if a muslim terrorist takes a bomb to a train station, but it doesn't go off, has a crime been commited? because its the same logic.
no bomb went off, no crime commited, right?
To me, and I hate pedophiles, it's not entrapment.
It's no crime at all.
Don't they get stopped before they do anything?
DID THEY "ENTRAP" YOU YET?
shareFrom the predators perspective they are going to to meet a minor for various sexual reasons. It doesn’t matter that the minor doesn’t actually exist, they think they do, so their intentions what they are.
Feels like pre-crime before any crime.
Thoughtcrime is only real crime in Orwell's book. You don't understand the American legal system.
shareIt’s no longer just a thought when you are conversing online and when you eventually show up at their house. Many of them bring condoms, weed alcohol and other things. The intent is pretty clear at that point.
How far do you need it go before you think a crime is committed? I prefer to cut it off before a child is actually victimized, because criminals will always push the boundaries of what is acceptable.
As I stated in a previous post, I do somewhat agree with Onan. To some extent, I do think it's a thought crime. They "think" they're going there to have sex with some hot teenage girl, when in reality, they're not. There are so many other situations that could be used to make arrests in this way but no one would watch it. They also did that show "to catch a smuggler" but the ratings were really low for it.
The nature of this type of crime brings up a lot of moral and ethical questions and NBC used this to create a sensationalized look at criminal activity 'FOR PROFIT'. Which I do think is against the law, in and of itself. You can't make money off of other people's crimes, especially if those crimes aren't even real.
Why the government not only let this show continue but actually participated in it is a mystery. Perhaps we live in a police state right now and this is the type of thing that happens when it gets to this point. Either way, the show was dropped because it just raised too many questions about the legal side on the way they were conducting these stings.
It ceases to be just a thought crime when you actually show up to have sex with “the hot teenager”. Who is only 13-15 years old btw. You seem to think that because the teenager doesn’t exist, it doesn’t count. The predators think they do, and that is what matters.
Not sure what you are talking about, you can make money off of other peoples crimes, they are ones that aren’t supposed to profit off of it. The crimes are real, all of those people went through the legal system.
I already answered why the show was dropped, and it had nothing to do with the legality. It’s not illegal, lots of copy cat programs popped up to replace it, including Chris Hansens own Hansen vs Predator. There are dozens more on social media.
>>>The predators think they do<<<
lol, you just said they "think" they do.... thought crime. For the most part, that's all stings and entrapment are, they're thought crimes when the 3rd party actually creates an environment where a crime can take place.
It may be legal to arrest people doing this, because the government holds the trump card when it comes to this topic but no crime would have actually happened without a decoy pretending to be a teen girl.
Seems like I've read a few laws that state, 3rd parties can't make money off of crimes. I don't know, it's been a while since I've read up on it.
The evening news or crime shows are not actually creating crimes, which is why they can do stories on them. Perverted Justice was actually getting paid to create investigations, and that's one reason why the show ended from what I recall about it. But who knows? There's not much information on the net in regards to why the show ended.
I haven't seen Hansen vs Predator, are they using a 3rd party to set up these fake crimes?
Personally, in my opinion, I don't think it's a good idea to do this to American citizens for any reason other than maybe counter-terrorism and white collar crimes. It's like soviet style policing. But if you're okay with it, that's fine. It's not like anyone really cares about dudes that go to someone's house with the intent to have sex with a teenager. Most of them deserve some jail time anyways.
That isn’t what thought crime means. A thought crime would be if they were prosecuted for saying that a 13 is sexually attractive. Most people would find this socially unacceptable, and morally wrong, but it is covered by free speech.
Entrapment likewise is more than just a setup, they have to be some how enticed to commit a crime that they wouldn’t normally commit. Which is why the decoys don’t message first, and always make their age known. It’s also why one of the most common excuses is that they didn’t know their age.
I disagree that no crime would’ve taken place without the sting, because the men have to message first, and they are told the age immediately. They are out there looking for it, and of they had found and actually 13 year old, they would be at their house committing statutory rape.
The show ended because of this. Everyone that was caught during that investigation was let go, and nbc shut it down due to the wrongful death lawsuit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Bill_Conradt
I’ve only seen a few episodes, but they typically take place in a hotel room. The one episode I saw that did bother me, and even Chris seemed to question it is when he busted an 18 old for meeting up with a 15 year older old. I believe in sweet heart laws, and it shouldn’t be a crime to meet up with someone that can be in the same school. That’s not a predator, that’s just a peer.
https://youtu.be/aA30cz88eWE?si=Z3lk5xRC4IzlL5HN
I would hope that the fact that these things exist hopefully acts as a deterrent for some people, but we agree that no one cares about them. There is a TikTok prankster out there meeting up with pedophiles and smacking them, and then daring them to call the police. No one is really outraged, and they probably wouldn’t be of something much worse happened to them.
>>>Which is why the decoys don’t message first,<<<
I don't think that was made clear in some cases. They don't show the full transcripts, just excerpts from them. And I do remember that one case where they repeatedly sent messages to someone until they finally showed up.
And aren't they somewhat enticed?? They're led to believe that someone is "willing, and at home alone". Basically, they provide a meeting place and a willing partner. Without this, an alleged crime doesn't take place.
I just find it to be a slippery slope when doing this, if 3rd parties can get away with this, why stop there? Why not have a show designed to catch gay men in the act?? They could call it "to catch a sodomite". Sodomy is still illegal in 13 states. Same situation, have a decoy pretend to be gay in a chatroom and chat it up with some gay men then pretend to be in a "hotel room willing and alone". Of course, there would be outrage over this. lol... gays are more or less a protected class now days. But if it's in the name of "protecting children" then no one bats an eye over it.
I mean, there's a long list of shows/stings you could do with sexual themes.
Which is funny because when I was in high school, I knew several girls that we're sleeping with older guys. Of course, that was a different time in history. People didn't care as much about older/younger relations back then. It's really not that unusual for younger girls to be attracted to older guys too.
And that case where the 18 year old got arrested is another reason why this sort of thing is messed up. The decoy said she was 15, that is only a 3 year difference. That's unjust..
I'll have to read up on that Conradt case later. But who is the tik-toker setting up meetings and smacking pedos? lol... I might watch some of that.
And aren't they somewhat enticed?? They're led to believe that someone is "willing, and at home alone". Basically, they provide a meeting place and a willing partner. Without this, an alleged crime doesn't take place.
For entrapment They have to be enticed to commit a crime that they wouldn’t normally commit
I think this is what a lot of the posters here are saying. If they didn't pose as kids willing to meet with the perpetrators, would the perps have ever gone to meet a child?
I also don't buy it. I think it's better to identify potential predators and be rid of them before they can act for real.
However, I do understand the viewpoint. For example, if you're presented an opportunity to rob a bank, laid out to you and you took the cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that you would have robbed a bank had someone not presented it to you. In that case, it's a crime of opportunity that you wouldn't have committed otherwise. If it's a true criminal act, then you're cooked. But if it's a third party, like the government, just trying to get you to participate so they can trap you, that's different. Especially if the bag you run off with doesn't have any actual cash, but just paper slips, and the bank wasn't a real bank.
That's the argument. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
>>> But children can’t consent, especially not with an adult.<<<
I have to disagree there. There are some stipulations when a teenager can actually consent to sex.
1. If they're the same age as their partner. I think some states do consider it a crime for two teens to have sex but from I understand, it is rarely enforced. I can't even think of the last case I heard of in which two teens got arrested for having sex or for doing something sexual.
2. If the teenager is married to the other teen or to someone that is "OVER 18". Yes, over 18 can legally marry someone that is underage in I believe, 14 states, and can have all the sex they want with the teen. However, the minor needs parental and/or judicial approval to do this but yeah, it's legal.
3. In some states, if the teen girl/boy claims to be 18, sex can happen and the alleged "predator" won't get prosecuted for it. An arrest might take place, but when it's revealed that he or she lied about their age, the charges are usually dropped. And they won't charge the teen for lying about their age either.
So yeah, there are some contradictions in the law. What's funny about this is we call teens "children" when it comes to sexuality but if that same "child" commits a serious crime like murder for example, they get charged as adults in court. hahahaha...
>>>And wouldn’t the decoy also be guilty? I don’t think this would work the same way. <<<
I don't think so, they do drug stings all the time and no specific info about the cop involved in the sting has to be a factor.
>>>Look up D.A.P Dads against predators.<<<
Holy crap!! I watched a few of these episodes. How in the world are they allowed to do this without law enforcement putting an end to it? They're basically assaulting the perps. I could have sworn vigilante justice was illegal in this country.
would you not arrest a terrorist for planting a bomb that didn't go off, "he just thought it would" ??
its the same logic although you'll say it's not
That's a really poor comparison.
Was the bomb real?
Was the location he took it to real?
Was he intending to kill 1000s of "real" people?
Was it planned months in advance?
Then there's the ethical/moral/biological question at play here too. I would say what a terrorist does when planning to kill 1000s is a lot worse than some jack-off idiot that thinks he's going to have kinky sex with a willing "hot to trot" teenage girl, that doesn't actually exist.
One of the things that bothers me probably more than the sex part is when the perps bring alcohol and drugs. That is pretty messed up. As I said before, these guys deserve some jail time for this but I do question the methods they use when conducting these operations. Case in point, as posted by a previous poster, that 18 year old getting arrested for meeting a 15 year old. That is total fucking BS to arrest that guy. But this happens when we give law enforcement this kind of power over something as normal as sexuality.
It wasn't that long ago when they were arresting gay people in similar stings, they don't do it anymore because being gay is not considered a moral/ethical question now days.
I read somewhere that it was hard to convict most of the people on this show because the decoy they used was actually above the age of consent. So pretty much they got off scot-free on a technicality. However, I don't see why it should matter because it's still intent.
shareKind of makes sense though. If I lied about a backpack having $10,000 in it, and you stole it - it's hard to logically claim you stole $10,000 even though it was your intent to do so. Somewhat similar to the fact that they were never actually communicating with a minor.
I have no idea what the technical legalities for this are, however.
That’s a pretty bad analogy. Stealing is still a crime.
Btw you can get arrested for soliciting a prostitute, if you proposition an uncover cop, even though she isn’t an actual prostitute. Your belief that she is, and your intent are what matters. Same thing here.
That's kind of the whole point of this conversation though isn't it - the line between a sting operation and entrapment, and whether "intent" can be considered a type of thought crime because no crime actually occurred. I'm not claiming I have all the answers.
The point of my analogy was the specific dollar amount stolen, and that it doesn't logically follow that the person stole that amount of money... because it never existed in the first place. I guess to make it more apt, I could say that the person spoke about stealing it, began to reach for the backpack, and that's when the cops stepped in.
Ok, I see where you are going
With that. You are saying under normal circumstances they may not do it, but idea of 10,000 dollars might be too tempting to pass up.
I just have trouble with the argument when it comes to tcap, or any other predator sting because the 10k in that case is a preteen child. That is only going to be too tempting to pass up if you are already a pedophile. Any normal person is going to shut that down before it even gets to that point.
Attempted murder is a thing, so I assume this would be no different.
shareWould it be entrapment if an undercover law enforcement officer solicited a hit man?
Legally speaking, I am not sure, but entrapment would probably be the legal defense.
I suppose so, but that's what an undercover cop is supposed to do. Maybe it needs to be approved in advance.
shareI don't have any legal experience, so all I can go by is the Date Lines I have watched, and it seems like what always goes down is that first someone (individual a) tells someone else (individual b) that they want to kill some other person (individual c). So it seems to often be that (b) has a real problem with that, so they report (a) to the applicable agency and the agency then introduces a fake hit man (individual d) to the situation.
(b) now introduces (d) to (a) and if I am not mistaken, (d) has to be careful of how he gets (a) to propose the contract, as if it is done incorrectly, entrapment will be the legal loophole that (a)'s defense team will use.
In the reply that you just replied to, what I typed above was not that scenario.
In other words, if undercover law enforcement approached a suspected hitman and said, "I'd like to pay you x amount of $ to kill someone for me," I think this might meet the criteria of entrapment.
That sounds about right from a legal standpoint. However, I find the concept of entrapment to be weird. If I was talking online to a cop who was posing as a 12-year-old girl and the cop asks if I would like to have sex, naturally my response (and hopefully everyone's response) would be "no". There should be no context where I should be agreeing with that unless someone was putting a gun to my head. It shouldn't matter that the cops instigated the conversation.
shareI am not totally clear on where entrapment begins from legal definition.
Getting away from solicitation of a minor
(and there may be different standards for that offense)
my understanding was an undercover officer would need someone to make an offer to sell the undercover officer drugs first--not the other way around.
I thought it was the same way with a LEO posing as a prostitute. To make a bust that was not going to be challenged by entrapment, the undercover LEO would need a customer to offer her money for sexual services first--not the other way around.
But I could be mistaken. I only have what I have seen on TV to base these opinions on.
And with those two examples above stated, I would think that if a predator first propositioned the decoy (versus the decoy first propositioning the predator) that this actually would NOT be entrapment.
I believe you are right, but I just don't like the law at all. If it wasn't done by force, or tricky wording, I don't see how it should be considered entrapment. They made the decision to agree to the decoys proposal. Once they find out their age and ask for sex, there's no reason for them to continue the conversation.
shareYes, I think if it was the predator who actually initiated the interaction, in other words made the initial solicitation, then it would NOT be entrapment.
I am not sure how it would go if an undercover LEO or decoy started the conversation and solicited the predator and while doing sop stated her age. If it was an illegal drug sale or a transaction between a LEO posing as a prostitute to bust a customer, I think that would be entrapment. But there may be a different standard involved once the predator knows that he is talking to a minor.
I am not sure of all the legal technicalities and ramifications involved in that case.
This is incorrect most of them were charged. There is a wiki that chronicles all of predators along with any updates about them.
The decoys were young looking adults, but the they weren’t the same as the photos used online. If you notice a lot of the predators say that they don’t look like they pics.
https://to-catch-a-predator.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Predators
Charged, but not convicted. The justice system is messed and I'm sure there are many loopholes. I wasn't aware of them changing the pictures from the real decoys though.
shareThe entity filming the show is not law enforcement nor a government agency. They are not bound by such restrictions regarding entrapment that law enforcement is.
There is a similar misconception regarding corporations and upholding the Freedom of Speech and other Constitutional Rights. Absent specific legislation targeting non government entities, they are under no such obligation to uphold such rights.
This seems to make sense.
shareThat is true, however if they want to the charges to stick, they still have to follow the law.
shareThe police would, yes. However, violating laws may result in separate consequences for a private company, such as that creating this show, but would have no relation or effect regarding a criminal complaint against a different party, such as a namesake "predator."
share