Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture

[Prrkitty]

OK... this guy doesn't deserve a trial. Just get him off the face of the earth.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291218,00.html

Nope! No trial needed... just fry the bastard!

[erm2003]

Holy shit. I completely agree. I can't believe someone would think like this and want to put the life of a child in that much harm. He needs to be locked up, away from everyone.

[The_Amaster]

Lock em up and throw away da key! It's sick people like this who give the human race a bad name. This is just disturbing by far.

[Beldaran]

[from the article] "I just like watching the bubbles."

ha

Another perv off the street.

[Glenn the Great]

I don't even have to read the article to know what happened before I'm able to disagree with Prrkitty.

Everyone deserves a fair trial.

[biggiy05]

I don't even have to read the article to know what happened before I'm able to disagree with Prrkitty.

Everyone deserves a fair trial.

You have some fucked up views in life. Your opinion doesn't count.

People get off on some freaky stuff and this isn't one of the worst things I've heard about but it's messed up.

[Beldaran]

You have some fucked up views in life.


If by "fucked up" you mean "constitutionally based" then yes, I agree.

[phattonez]

Wtf? Couldn't he just get some bondage movies on a free porn site?

[rock_nog]

Fair trial, then shoot him. I know what he did is fucking sick, but our society is based on due process, so he deserves a trial (it's either that or no one does). I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of any other course of action. A sick bastard like this can't be rehabilitated, he's only a threat to society, so I think the best course of action is just to guarantee that he doesn't have the chance to harm anyone.

[biggiy05]

If by "fucked up" you mean "constitutionally based" then yes, I agree.

Thanks, couldn't think of the word I wanted to use so I just used something else.

[Aegix Drakan]

This guy...is just fucking sick...

They oughta dunk him and see how he likes it. I hope he gets locked away for life with Big Brutus as his cell mate. I'm against the death penalty and all, but if the inmates decide to take matters into their own hands...I won't mind one bit. Heck, I won't even mind if they decide to kill him straight out.

I can't believe someone would actually do this...you just can't DUNK a kid, and think that taking them out unconsious will do anything good. If you fall unconsious underwater like that, odd are your lungs are full of water, and you are fucked.

It's just...SICK!

>_> I apologize if I seem to be using the F-bomb more frequentlyt than I usually do, but...this guy needs to be removed from society, one way or another.

[Modus Ponens]

A sick bastard like this can't be rehabilitated

I think it's pretty unfair to say this. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you've never met this guy, and that you have no evidence to suggest that he's made any attempt at rehabilitation that could call into question his ability to be rehabilitated at all.

Yes, he seems to be a sicko, but sickos are people, and people can change for the better.

[Beldaran]

Riverman makes good points. Also, I think it's disrespectful of murder victims to say a murderer can be rehabilitated because his crime is not as bad as a child sexual fetish thing. If a murderer can be rehabilitated, as liberal minded people would have us believe, they must apply the same standard to other deviations from societal norms.

I think it's sad that we just sort of glaze over when we hear about theft and murder, but we get all indignant when someone has a sexual disorder.

[Prrkitty]

But but... he thought he was actually going to go meet up with someone that would let him do his "sick dirty deeds" with her children. He's TOO stupid for humanity... and definately should NOT be allowed to breed and propagate.

He should be held accountable for his intentions and receive more then just a slap on the wrist and a few days in jail.

[Beldaran]

He should be held accountable for his intentions and receive more then just a slap on the wrist and a few days in jail.

I completely agree. 100%. I'm just pointing out that I wish the same vehemence was held towards other crimes.

[Brasel]

I think it's sad that we just sort of glaze over when we hear about theft and murder, but we get all indignant when someone has a sexual disorder.


I'll be honest. I can't stand murder. It pisses me off just as much as rape does. But even as I can't stand murder, I can't stand the death penalty, even if the person more than well deserves it. No one has the right to end a human life. I don't care what religion or belief you follow, its not right by my book. Lock the guy up and let him rot for the rest of his life in isolation, but no one has the right to say that his life should be forfeit.

Funny coming from someone trained to kill huh? I don't quite get it myself.

[rock_nog]

Riverman makes good points. Also, I think it's disrespectful of murder victims to say a murderer can be rehabilitated because his crime is not as bad as a child sexual fetish thing. If a murderer can be rehabilitated, as liberal minded people would have us believe, they must apply the same standard to other deviations from societal norms.

I think it's sad that we just sort of glaze over when we hear about theft and murder, but we get all indignant when someone has a sexual disorder.
Um, who says murderers can be rehabilitated? If that's the case, why do we give 'em life sentences? Obviously, depending on circumstances, there are murderers who aren't given life sentences, but my point is, I would say the same thing about a murderer facing a possible life sentence. And besides, a prison is no place for rehabilitation, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the concept of rehabilitation. It's just that's not what prison is, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. It's a place people go to be punished. Very few people come out of prison better off than they were when they were sent there. Seriously, our current penal system is a joke. We don't even really have a consensus on what we think it should be used for. One way or the other, I think we should really decide, because right now, I can't see how it serves any potential purpose, other than keeping dangerous life-sentence criminals away from the public.

EDIT: Oh, and how is locking someone away forever any different than killing them? It's the same result, ultimately. Their life is, in fact, forfeit, as far as I can tell.

[phattonez]

Even if they are rehabilitated, do you want to take the chance to put them back into society?

[Beldaran]

EDIT: Oh, and how is locking someone away forever any different than killing them? It's the same result, ultimately. Their life is, in fact, forfeit, as far as I can tell.

I have often made this point to anti-death penalty people and they just glaze over. Too much logic.

[Brasel]

That is a good point that I had not really taken into consideration myself. I guess by living life in prison, you just don't get anything out of life and you might as well be dead. It is something to think over I guess.

We could always section off a city with a bad crime rate, say New York or L.A. and just send all rapists and murderers there. I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, the president wouldn't crash land there if he flew over it or anything.

[phattonez]

Don't send murderers and rapists to my city. LA and NY have some of the lowest crime rates in the nation for big cities.

I've heard that life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty because it requires less court cases.

[Beldaran]

Also, if you mistakenly convict someone, you can let them out of jail when new evidence surfaces. If you kill them, well, then damage done.

[phattonez]

That's why Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty. They found that a good percentage of people had been put to death who were innocent.

[Brasel]

Don't send murderers and rapists to my city. LA and NY have some of the lowest crime rates in the nation for big cities.

I've heard that life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty because it requires less court cases.

I was making a really bad Snake Plisskin joke.

[Beldaran]

hehe those movies were crazy.

[Glenn the Great]

I noticed that no one has addressed the fact that this person wasn't actually going to dunk any kids. The kids didn't exist. The man was TRICKED by the same people who are now going to sentence him.

It's unlikely this crime would have ever occurred, as I find it highly unlikely that one would happen across a mother who would willingly sell her children to be drowned. Only an undercover agent dealing with imaginary children would do such a thing.

Nowadays, it's like INTENT is just as bad as the actual ACTION. It reminds me of Minority Report, where you don't have to do anything to be prosecuted, you just have to be "going to do something".

This man wasn't going to drown any kids. Don't any of you dare tell me that he was. There were no kids to drown, so he wasn't going to. This was a fantasy situation, and shouldn't be carried over to real life.

Undercover agents should be ashamed. They just troll chatrooms trying to trick people so they can jail them. It's so malicious.

[Beldaran]

let's be honest, who hasn't wanted to drown some kids?

[erm2003]

We could always section off a city with a bad crime rate, say New York or L.A. and just send all rapists and murderers there. I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean, the president wouldn't crash land there if he flew over it or anything.

Did anyone else besides me thing of George Carlin's State Prison Camps routine?

[Modus Ponens]

let's be honest, who hasn't wanted to drown some kids?

Well, gee, Bel, now that you mention it, yeah, I've always wanted to drwait a second! You sneaky undercover bastard.

[moocow]

If someone asked to buy my child so he could drown them and get off on it...

I'd go to jail for murder, because I'd hunt the sick son-of-a-bitch down and shoot him in the face. No questions asked.

Sorry, I loathe those who prey on innocent children.

[Trevelyan_06]

I noticed that no one has addressed the fact that this person wasn't actually going to dunk any kids. The kids didn't exist. The man was TRICKED by the same people who are now going to sentence him.

It's unlikely this crime would have ever occurred, as I find it highly unlikely that one would happen across a mother who would willingly sell her children to be drowned. Only an undercover agent dealing with imaginary children would do such a thing.

Nowadays, it's like INTENT is just as bad as the actual ACTION. It reminds me of Minority Report, where you don't have to do anything to be prosecuted, you just have to be "going to do something".

This man wasn't going to drown any kids. Don't any of you dare tell me that he was. There were no kids to drown, so he wasn't going to. This was a fantasy situation, and shouldn't be carried over to real life.

Undercover agents should be ashamed. They just troll chatrooms trying to trick people so they can jail them. It's so malicious.

It's nothing like Minority Report. In that movies pre-cogs were able to see a murder before it happened. That was the only thing they could see too.

You did, however, get one thing right. It was a fantasy situation, right up until he attempted to solicit the sale of underage children for sex. That right there is his crime. If he would have keep it to himself, nothing would have happened to him. Instead this guy friggin flew to Florida in order to purchase these two girls. He set up a transaction with someone he thought was a mother to the effect that he'd pay her $550 to let him dunk her two girls. He wasn't tricked by law enforcement, he was caught.

[Glenn the Great]

He wasn't tricked by law enforcement, he was caught.

The law against solicitation is a load of bullshit.

The responsibility should lie on the solicitee to ignore the solicitor.

I like how you pointed out that...


If he would have keep it to himself, nothing would have happened to him.

So, if he kept this to himself, nothing happens to him. If he didn't keep it to himself (which is what happened), and law enforcement didn't dick around like this, nothing would have happened to anyone.

And the police wonder why people are so distrusting of the authorities.

This is nothing but a malicious and unethical act by the police.

I think if anything, the undercover agent should be tried as an accomplice to this "crime".

[rock_nog]

So what you're saying is, let's say that this was real and the authorities somehow found out about the transaction (fairly plausible - there's a pretty damn big underground slave market, I'm sure he could buy a couple of children if he knew where to look - thank God he didn't). Should the authorities then wait until the children are already harmed to intervene? According to you, there's nothing wrong with soliciting, but I would think you would want to step in before anything bad actually happens.

[AtmaWeapon]

Glenn you need to stick to trolling and kind of stay away from debate because you only seem to excel in one.

Proven intent to perform an illegal action is, in general, as sinister as actually performing the action. I'm sure you can contrive a situation where intent is innocent but I'm going to share an analogous maxim concerning whether a sexual desire is something you should be ashamed of or not:
Fact: If you have to spend hours in photoshop creating porn for your fetish because none exists, you have something wrong with you.The analogy suggests that the longer you have to think to come up with a counterpoint to the statement "Proven intent to commit a crime should be as punishable as committing the crime", the less likely your point is correct.

Now, I forsee the counterpoint being something along the lines of a slippery slope fallacy: "Oh, so I should go to jail for murder if I tell you I want to strangle you?" This is, in fact, not really a fallacy because I haven't defined the specific scope of the phrase "intent" in my argument.

Among rational individuals, certain threats carry no teeth. When I do something that causes someone trouble and they say they wish they could strangle me, most people are able to understand this is a usage of hyperbole to express the concept "I am very frustrated with you right now!". When I say "proven intent to commit a crime" I do not speak of this situation at all. I mean to imply a situation where the person has made preparations and taken actions indicative of a meaningful desire to follow through with a criminal act.

When police set up a sting operation to catch drug offenders, intent is proven. The suspect initiates the transaction and it is clarified that their intent is to exchange money for drugs. At this point, the suspect has the capability to say "Ha ha just kidding" and walk away, and the police have no right to arrest him. It is only after the suspect agrees he wishes to exhange money for drugs then produces money that he is placed under arrest. There is a miniscule chance that he was still playing around at this point, but most people would understand it's not a good idea to walk up to a known drug dealer, offer money for drugs, then produce said money and take it away at the last minute.

For another example let's consider a successful sting I saw on a special about contract killers. The man was a pharmacist and had contacted an undercover policeman expressing interest in the murder of his wife. At this point he was a suspect and the police had no charges they could bring against him. A meeting was arranged, and he showed up to discuss details of the hit and provide payment. At this point, the police had excellent grounds for reasonable suspicious but still had no charges they could bring against him. The men discussed the details, and it was agreed that the pharmacist would provide a large amount of prescription narcotics in return for the crime. Even at this point, the police had no grounds for charges and the man could have walked out of the room innocent (but still creepy). Finally, the man produced a small bottle of narcotics for the down payment and handed it to the undercover policeman. They shook hands and said their parting words, in which the policeman included his code word for "come make the arrest". The man was completely innocent until he actually provided payment for the crime, at which point there is no possible way to refute the claim that he provided payment for a contract on another's life.

In the end, I believe the problem is actually that you are confusing "intent to commit a crime" with "going well out of your way to perform all of the actions characteristic of committing a crime, including agreeing upon payment and providing said payment". I am too lazy to go edit my post to reflect this conclusion, but perhaps this will prove a good test of reading comprehension for several of AGN's more developmentally challenged readers.

I highly doubt they arrested him as he boarded the plane to leave for Miami. He wasn't arrested after he left the plane. He wasn't arrested as soon as he reached the appointed place. Here, the article is scant on details, but it is clear he discussed fully his intent to submerge the children until they lost consciousness. My belief is that after payment was agreed upon and money changed hands, he found his face pressed against the table and handcuffs on his hands.

You cannot convince me you believe anyone in their right mind would initiate a conversation for such a thing, then book a flight, then describe in great detail his intents and produce money all as an elaborate prank. Anyone who thinks that's a good idea needs to spend some time reevaluating their sense of humor anyway.

*edit* That aside I do agree he deserves a fair trial as much as anyone else; even in the presence of abundant evidence the trial should never be forgone.

[Glenn the Great]

So what you're saying is, let's say that this was real and the authorities somehow found out about the transaction (fairly plausible - there's a pretty damn big underground slave market, I'm sure he could buy a couple of children if he knew where to look - thank God he didn't). Should the authorities then wait until the children are already harmed to intervene? According to you, there's nothing wrong with soliciting, but I would think you would want to step in before anything bad actually happens.

The police didn't need to step in here because nothing bad was going to happen.

If this man had made a contract with a real, legitimate dealer of children, then yes, it would have been very heroic for the police to step in before the transfer of the children took place.

I think that you guys don't appreciate the fact that during the interaction of the suspect and the undercover police officer, it isn't as simple as the suspect pushing toward committing the offence. There is this dynamic of being pulled into the crime coming from the police officer's end.

You've seen this sort of thing where the undercover officer talks to the suspect like everything is cool, putting the suspect at ease, making him comfortable, getting him in the mood to commit a crime.

Transactions of any kind are never one-way. There is always a back and forth interaction between the supplier and the consumer.

Alright... let me ask you this:

Let's say that right this moment, I agreed to sell you some dope. I don't have any in real life, but I tell you I do, and we make an agreement, and you come to get my drugs.

Could I be prosecuted for drug dealing, considering that I had neither actual nor constructive possession?

Yes.

The precedent has been that Crime of sale is independent from the seller actually possessing the good to be sold in any manner.

The undercover officer has committed an Offence of Sale. He didn't possess the children, he didn't intend to possess them, nor was he in the process of obtaining them. He wasn't even acting as an intermediary in the sale of children. But none of this matters according to precedent.

The undercover officer has committed a crime, and should be tried for it, just like any other citizen.

What we have here is a case of an undercover officer being above the law. I'm not creating a new controversy here. It is commonplace and controversial for undercover cops to be allowed to commit crimes in their line of work. It causes there to be inequity in the law, and that is why I am having a problem with this.

[Mitsukara]

I have to say Glenn has a good point here. The crime he's being punished for was never committed, and the man was lured into a falsified situation as a trap prior to commiting any crime.

Now, given his actions (as Trev pointed, he flew to Florida and such), it certainly does look like he had intent to go ahead with it. Does that guarantee he would've really gone through with it? No. Does that mean he's just as guilty as if he had already committed the full act? Hell no. Does it mean he's guilty of something? Yes; intent to commit a hostile act. Instead of punishing him as though he committed the whole crime and sending him to kangaroo court to be convicted with no hope of any reasonable treatment, he should be watched, guarded, possibly given a fair, real sort of reeducation program treatment to help him change- not sent to prison after a bullshit trial/executed/whatever.

America's view of "justice" is... disturbing. A word that comes to mind is sociopathic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath).

Yes, I do understand this guy is dangerous. No, I don't support his actions, and yes, I think response is necessary and, while I don't much like the methodology, I do think it's good that he was caught in advance in case he did do something. But what they're doing/going to do with that information disgusts me.

[biggiy05]

How is this any different than police going into online chat rooms and posing as 13-16 year old girls? They hook a guy who thinks it's a girl and he goes to meet said girl only to be arrested. That's legit and the guy trying to have sex with a minor needs to be put in jail.

Also. Glenn shut up.

[AtmaWeapon]

If this man had made a contract with a real, legitimate dealer of children, then yes, it would have been very heroic for the police to step in before the transfer of the children took place.Right but I'm sure that though many dealers of children are honest and above-board what if he manages to get in contact with one that isn't licensed and therefore doesn't file the appropriate paperwork with the Bureau of Missing Children so they know which ones to investigate and which to ignore?

Or even worse, what if he encounters a black-market dealer of children who has no records at all and doesn't use sanctioned kidnappers to obtain his wares?


I think that you guys don't appreciate the fact that during the interaction of the suspect and the undercover police officer, it isn't as simple as the suspect pushing toward committing the offence. There is this dynamic of being pulled into the crime coming from the police officer's end.

You've seen this sort of thing where the undercover officer talks to the suspect like everything is cool, putting the suspect at ease, making him comfortable, getting him in the mood to commit a crime.It is my belief that at the point where you initiate the transaction you have already exhibited behavior worth putting you under investigation. Reasonable suspicion increases the powers granted to investigators. I do not claim this is never abused, but one cannot claim a system is wrong in circumstances influenced by corruption. It is the corruption itself that is wrong, not the system in which it occurs. Should we reason that because some apples contain insects, all apples are repulsive?


Transactions of any kind are never one-way. There is always a back and forth interaction between the supplier and the consumer.Correct. Consumer expresses intent. Supplier responds to request. Payment agreement is reached. Consumer upholds contract, supplier upholds contract. I will further explore this below.


Alright... let me ask you this:

Let's say that right this moment, I agreed to sell you some dope. I don't have any in real life, but I tell you I do, and we make an agreement, and you come to get my drugs.

Could I be prosecuted for drug dealing, considering that I had neither actual nor constructive possession?

Yes.

The precedent has been that Crime of sale is independent from the seller actually possessing the good to be sold in any manner.

The undercover officer has committed an Offence of Sale. He didn't possess the children, he didn't intend to possess them, nor was he in the process of obtaining them. He wasn't even acting as an intermediary in the sale of children. But none of this matters according to precedent.

The undercover officer has committed a crime, and should be tried for it, just like any other citizen.

What we have here is a case of an undercover officer being above the law. I'm not creating a new controversy here. It is commonplace and controversial for undercover cops to be allowed to commit crimes in their line of work. It causes there to be inequity in the law, and that is why I am having a problem with this.First, if you offered to sell me dope I'd probably tell you to eat a dick, and depending on complicated utilitarian analysis of the contempt I feel for you, the level of sarcasm I interpret, and the risks I felt were involved I might inform the authorities.

Second, let's discuss an undercover officer's responsibilities and powers a scenario-based perspective. I shall use 3 actors:

Bob is a man who wishes to purchase some Crystal Methamphetamine with full knowledge of the laws that render acquisition and usage illegal.

Alice is an undercover police officer who wishes to encounter people who wish to obtain controlled substances and arrest them.

Mike is a man who wants to eat hamburgers and browse the internet without the interference of pants.

Alice drops cards at a party that contains information that describes a process to contact a dealer of Crystal Meth. Both Bob and Mike find a card and take it home.

Bob follows the instructions and arranges a meeting with Alice via a middleman. During the establishment of the meeting, he clearly expresses his intent to purchase illegal drugs. At this point there is reasonable suspicion that he is involved in drug transactions, and law enforcement's powers over him are increased. He arrives at the designated location and Alice verifies the quantity he wishes to purchase and the amount of payment expected. Bob produces the money and oh dear, Alice breaks the contract by arresting him!

Mike gets home and remembers he has the card. He's pretty certain this must be a joke so he calls the numbers for kicks. When the call is answered and it's not someone's grandmother or a pizza parlor, he is somewhat creeped out and hangs up after mumbling something about a wrong number. Mike has done nothing more sinister than calling a phone number, and law enforcement has no additional powers over him.

I see no issues with the situation described above. The point you make is valid; Alice is performing an act that would result in the arrest of a civilian, but she is only allowed to perform the action under the direct supervision of law enforcement to individuals that have already established reasonable suspicion.

There is a thing called "due process" and so long as it is followed I refuse to believe undercover operations are wrong.

I feel this is very separate from the "only criminals should be afraid of law enforcement monitoring them" argument, because in this case we are actually arguing whether the maxim "People should be free to enter illegal transactions without fear of law enforcement; only after the transaction is completed should they fear." is correct and I think the point argues itself.

Brandishing a weapon is a crime in all states as far as I know. The idea is when you have taken verbal threats and threat of physical harm to the point at which you feel it necessary to hold a weapon and make threats with that, you have overstepped the bounds of rational behavior and should be punished. I fail to see why any individual who will enter a transaction with full knowledge of its illegality should be considered rational and above investigation.

[Glenn the Great]

Alice is an undercover police officer who wishes to encounter people who wish to obtain controlled substances and arrest them.

So, she's trying to arrest people who have a wish.

Sounds like a thought crime to me.

Before Bob attempted to buy Meth, he wasn't a criminal. At the time Alice dropped her cards, she had no idea who Bob was. He was just an ordinary citizen, just like anyone else.

Bob was a potential criminal, just like we all are. Alice was scheming to arrest a potential criminal, or in other words, she laid a trap hoping to catch not just Bob, but also you, me, and every other person.

Alice and the Police just wanted to snatch an ordinary citizen, and criminalize him or her.

I don't take well to the thought of the police, who are supposed to be there to protect me, actively trying to lay traps to ensnare me. I wouldn't think you'd like that either.

The right course of action is for the police to focus on suppliers. Only so many people have the goods and can supply. Everyone could be a consumer.

Let's look at what this story might look like if the police followed this method...

A woman is trying to sell her kids on the Internet. The undercover agent agrees to buy the kids, and arranges a meeting place. The undercover agent meets her, hands her the money, and receives the children. At this point, the woman is put under arrest, and the children are told that everything will be fine, and then are put in a good home.

That sounds like a heroic story to me. Not this dishonorable trash we are discussing.

[AtmaWeapon]

Bob is not a potential criminal, he is a person that called a person advertised as a drug dealer expressing interest in a transaction involving illegal drugs. There is no potential here, there is action.

It is entrapment and illegal if, while I'm sipping lemonade on the porch, an undercover police officer approaches me and offers to sell me drugs. In this case, the law reckons that the absurdity of the situation could have made me uncomfortable enough to perform the transaction unwillingly in an attempt to avoid a threatening situation.

When the situation is reversed, the police officer is passive. I make the action by initiating the transaction. In the law's eyes, this places me in the dominant position and is reasonable enough proof for conviction.

"Thoughtcrime" is arresting people for having the intent to commit a crime before they obtain the means to commit it. A good example of thoughtcrime arrests today are foreign citizens arrested under suspicion of terrorism due to paranoid racist neighbors rather than evidence. The horse is of a different color if, say, the police are notified by a farm supply company that the family has placed a large order for ammonium nitrate fertilizer though they barely own an acre of land. This could lead the police to investigate the purchases the family has made and could turn up enough evidence to lead to surveillance.

In all of my examples I have taken care to show that I fully support the arrest of someone who has made an illegal action. While I haven't specified it I believe the initiator of action is the party responsible; in entrapment cases the police initiate action and therefore it is not allowable.

What are these traps and snares the police lay out for you? Sometimes cops set up radar traps on the road; these traps only lead to my prosecution if I speed (breaking the law). Undercover police accepting offers for assassination contracts are arresting people who have exchanged some form of payment in return for the murder of another person (breaking the law). Undercover police that set up drug stings are arresting persons who have paid money for illegal substances (breaking the law). This case concerns a man who traveled halfway across the country to "purchase" children so he could halfway drown them for his own sexual gratification (breaking the law).

In all of these instances, the only people caught by the snare are people who express an intent to break the law then follow through with their expression. If you were to approach an undercover officer and ask if they had any weed, then act shocked and walk away when they name a price, you'd never hear any more of it because until you make a payment and accept the drugs you can build a reasonable defense implying that you were just joking around and somehow accidentally stumbled upon the wrong person. (Of course, this case gets shakier if you had to contact a middleman and set up an appointment; remember you aren't convincing the judge but a jury of your peers and if they think you are too stupid to forgive you are going to get busted.)

I do agree with your final point. The users form the bottom of the pyramid and are numerous enough that it is difficult to arrest enough of them to have an effect on the suppliers. The problem with attacking the suppliers is there are multiple tiers of operation. The lower tiers comprise the majority of street dealers and are the easiest to arrest, but their numbers make individual arrests have little effect. Sometimes they can lead to arrests of people higher up the tree, but the people at the upper levels of the organization are wealthy men in foreign countries; it is very difficult to arrest them.

The same goes with any other black market that has been around for a significant amount of time; it's a big pyramid scheme where the effect of an arrest increases significantly with the difficulty of the arrest; unfortunately difficulty increases quite quickly.

It's not really worth arguing further; I think you have an incorrect interpretation but it's in line with a lot of other political policies you believe that I believe are wrong as well. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that a man who said he wanted to abuse children, flew halfway across the country to meet a woman who agreed to supply the children, explained in detail the abuse he wanted to perform and why he wanted to do it, then produced the money and expected the children in return has any chance of being innocent or is a victim of a snare that could have caught any normal, law-abiding citizen. Apparently you feel differently and that's cool, perhaps in your state transactions involving children as currency are more common than in mine. :shrug:

[Aegix Drakan]

I don't take well to the thought of the police, who are supposed to be there to protect me, actively trying to lay traps to ensnare me. I wouldn't think you'd like that either.

Well, as Atma said, as long as you're not intending to commit the crime, then you shouldn't have a problem...


The right course of action is for the police to focus on suppliers. Only so many people have the goods and can supply. Everyone could be a consumer.

Very good point. However...busting the head guy arranging for all the supplying is usually..."untouchable". IE, they have very good friends in powerful positions, and are able to evade any attempts to bust them.

Now, If these people WEREN'T untouchable...then it would be perfect.

[The_Amaster]

See, but the only way to make them not "untouchable" on a consistent basis would be to make the police accountable to no one, so that the perps friends can't help him. But that opens up a whole new can of worms...

[Glenn the Great]

Well, as Atma said, as long as you're not intending to commit the crime, then you shouldn't have a problem...

Wow, what a cliche statement.

It's used so many times when the prospect of spying and invasion of privacy are brought up.

Everytime a government wants to spy on it's people, the people don't want their privacy invaded.

Then the government responds by saying, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

[rock_nog]

I think there's a little bit of a difference between being spied on and the government catching you attempting to commit a crime. I mean, in this case, if you weren't attempting to commit a crime, the government would never even know anything about you.

[Glenn the Great]

I think there's a little bit of a difference between being spied on and the government catching you attempting to commit a crime. I mean, in this case, if you weren't attempting to commit a crime, the government would never even know anything about you.

We all have the desire and intent to commit crimes. I know I do, and if you are honest with yourself, you do too.

The government is actively trying to physically manifest that which is only in our minds.

Analogy and metaphor time!!!

There is a lake with fish in it.

What is underneath of the lake is what is only in our minds.

What is in our minds is private.

What is under the lake is private.

The fish represent our desire to commit crimes.

Our desires are private.

The undercover officer is a fisherman.

He baits a hook and puts it in the pond.

The fish willingly takes the bait, but is unwillingly pulled out of the water.

Our private desire is forcefully pulled out of the water and into the air, where it suffocates in jail.

If it weren't for the fisherman, the fish would be safe underwater.

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

If the undercover officer in the original poster's article did not do what he did, this is what would be happening right now:

The suspect would be having no problems with the law, he would be going about his business with his private thoughts, and perhaps would not be acting on them.

He may have been able to keep his thoughts from moving out into the real world a little longer, and perhaps no child would be abused.

Now we are in danger of paying more tax money to have another individual in jail, who never caused any harm to the society.

[AtmaWeapon]

When I grow up I want to be,
One of the harvesters of the sea.
I think before my days are done,
I want to be a fisherman.

[rock_nog]

Wait, so you're saying that the fact that he was willing to take the bait doesn't prove he's a danger to society? Look, I agree that thoughts are private, and that we should have a right to our thoughts, but when it comes to the point where you become willing to turn those thoughts into actions, that's when thoughts get dangerous. The police didn't make him willing to turn his thoughts into actions, he did that on his own.

If the police had simply gotten him to admit "The hypothetical concept of torturing and molesting children appeals to me," and then arrested him, I could see your point. Having those feelings isn't a crime. However, that's not what happened. He made it clear that not only did he have those feelings, but that he also had every intention of satisfying those feelings. There is a huge difference between committing a thoughtcrime and committing conspiracy.

[The_Amaster]

There is a huge difference between committing a thoughtcrime and committing conspiracy.


...unless you live in the world of "1984". Which is quite honestly, what I'm kind of scared of. Oh, not the specifics, but the general concept is there and real.

[Trevelyan_06]

If the undercover officer in the original poster's article did not do what he did, this is what would be happening right now:

The suspect would be having no problems with the law, he would be going about his business with his private thoughts, and perhaps would not be acting on them.

He may have been able to keep his thoughts from moving out into the real world a little longer, and perhaps no child would be abused.

Now we are in danger of paying more tax money to have another individual in jail, who never caused any harm to the society.

Or, if the guy had never gotten in contact with the undercover agent, he would have gotten in contact with a person who was really selling two children. Then he would have flown to wherever those children were, proceeded to dunk and half drown them, gotten off and then flown home. He would have been safe from those damned police that were trying to entrap him and hey, the two kids wouldn't be dead, just messed up for the rest of their life.

Glenn I really hope that you are just playing the devil's advocate and you don't really believe that this man was innocent.

[Prrkitty]

Even after reading all the posts between my initial one until this one... I *STILL* stand by the fact that this guy is a menace to society, maybe he *does* deserve a fair trial... BUT... once found guilty he needs to be put away from society for the rest of his life.

He literally ACTED on his thoughts. That's guilt enough for me.

[AtmaWeapon]

If the police had simply gotten him to admit "The hypothetical concept of torturing and molesting children appeals to me," and then arrested him, I could see your point. Having those feelings isn't a crime. haha what

At least admit it's a little creepy...

[Glenn the Great]

Most good crime and violence prevention measures involve the reduction of the opportunity for crime.

The police deliberately and methodically create more opportunity for crime.

They are instigating, plain and simple. They should not get away scot-free with a pat on the back after successfully luring someone into a sting.

[biggiy05]

Most good crime and violence prevention measures involve the reduction of the opportunity for crime.

The police deliberately and methodically create more opportunity for crime.

They are instigating, plain and simple. They should not get away scot-free with a pat on the back after successfully luring someone into a sting.

Then maybe the people being lured into the sting shouldn't be such idiots like you.

If a drug dealer walks into the sting then it's his own stupidity and he deserves to go down.

[rock_nog]

haha what

At least admit it's a little creepy...
Hehe, sorry, that didn't come out the way I had intended... Yes creepy... Creepy, but legal, as far as I know.

And Glenn, you act as though these people have no free will. I'm sorry, but we're talking about offers to molest young children here. There is no reason in the world that man should say yes, no matter who's behind it. Maybe it's a trap, but it's a pretty damn easy trap to avoid. There's really no excuse whatsoever, and the risks are far too great. What, we don't try to catch these guys and just wait for a real child peddler to come along?

[Glenn the Great]

And Glenn, you act as though these people have no free will.

Well of course they don't!


Then maybe the people being lured into the sting shouldn't be such idiots like you.

Biggiy, please cease the flames. I'm getting fed up with it, and I'm getting close to going to War Lord. Act your job, alright?

[Glitch]

Biggiy, please cease the flames. I'm getting fed up with it, and I'm getting close to going to War Lord. Act your job, alright?

lol. What part of "no-flame rule doesn't apply to you" don't you understand?

Actually, scratch that. Go ahead and talk to War Lord.....let me give you his phone number.....

[Kamaria]

Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?

[rock_nog]

Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?
This can't possibly be going anywhere good.

[Glitch]

Hey Glenn, did you say people don't have free will? I seriously contest that. Do you mind explaining why you would say such a thing?

Don't get him started, this thread will get way too sidetracked. If you seriously want to know ask him in another thread in think tank or something.

[phattonez]

How do you catch someone who is buying drugs? Sting operation. No one contests that. How do you catch someone who wants to buy kids? Sting operation. Why should that be contested?

[Glenn the Great]

How do you catch someone who is buying drugs? Sting operation. No one contests that. How do you catch someone who wants to buy kids? Sting operation. Why should that be contested?


Please compare the bolded words.
One of these implies realized damage, and the other doesn't.

It truly confuses and disturbs me that you can't realize this.

To be perfectly honest, I think that your mind is somehow broken/undeveloped/corrupt. Please don't take personal offense to this, as it isn't intended to be an attack against you as a person, phatt. I experience this towards a large number of conservatives, and it makes me truly fearful to live in a world where people with your ideology hold sway.

[rock_nog]

Bloody hell... Okay, it was a poor choice of words. Glenn, you're missing the point that this man was actually trying to purchase kids. This wasn't some hypothetical "what if" situation. The fact that no actual kids were involved does not change his actions. So they lied to him about having actual kids to sell, big deal. It doesn't change the fact that he was in the market to buy a couple of kids to nearly drown and then molest.

[Prrkitty]

And then there's this guy... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291630,00.html

... who publically admits he's attracted to young girls aged 3-11. Admits PUBLICALLY... and has run web sites on where to find young girls. SO far he's not been arrested/charged with anything and he's said (paraphrased)... ONLY because it's not legal is why he's not acted on it yet.

I'd keep close track of this guy also!!

[Glenn the Great]

Care to remind me why the cops weren't arrested?

They were soliciting an illegal trade.

The most I will concede is that both parties did something they shouldn't have, and are each equally at fault. I cannot agree to only the suspect being at fault.

I also feel that both parties should receive either a misdemeanor or lesser felony, but the punishment towards both should be equal, as market transactions are designed to be an equivitocal dynamic.

Children shouldn't even be brought into this issue, as they weren't harmed. They are not a party to this incident.

The party of the Agents have definitely committed the crime of Solicitation of Minors.

[biggiy05]

A drug dealer is going to break the law whether the police do a sting operation. He's selling drugs to people which is illegal and he's selling them to police which is illegal. He walked into the trap by choice.

Glenn you will never make it into politics.

[rock_nog]

And if you're speeding, the cops have to speed, too, in order to catch up with you. Maybe you should make that argument the next time you get a speeding ticket.

[AtmaWeapon]

Please compare the bolded words.
One of these implies realized damage, and the other doesn't.

It truly confuses and disturbs me that you can't realize this.

To be perfectly honest, I think that your mind is somehow broken/undeveloped/corrupt. Please don't take personal offense to this, as it isn't intended to be an attack against you as a person, phatt. I experience this towards a large number of conservatives, and it makes me truly fearful to live in a world where people with your ideology hold sway.Glenn I disagree firmly with the point you are trying to make but that was an excellent example of the kind of thing I don't see other people here doing.

o/\o

[Mitsukara]

I worded things a bit unclearly the first time I think, so I'll rehash my opinion in short form.

Having bad intentions should not be a punishable crime. However, people like this guy should most certainly be watched and while I don't agree with the underhanded methods the police tend to use, I think it is good to find such people in advance. Once you've determined- clearly, not like "omg he has underage porn" insomuch as real, legitimate indications he'll act- that he does seriously have a major possibility of negative action, watch, and by watch I mean like spy on him continuously and get a standing search warrant, and see if he actually does something; then if he's clearly in the process of something (as in he goes to purchase kids on his own, or attempts a kidnapping, or somesuch), without unfair interference- such as this solicitation- by the police, then arrest his ass and carry out punishment then. Otherwise it's unfair manipulation and he's being punished for something there was no guarantee he was ever going to do.

Unless I misunderstand (I haven't paid full attention to the debate), I think this is what Glenn means- all the anghsty argument and social difficulties aside- hence why I said earlier that I agreed with him. The way they handled this sounds unfair to me, like he was manipulated into committing a falsified crime and punished for it when he might never have done anything on his own.

Incidentally: given more recent conversations with Glenn in regards to his beliefs versus what he used to say, was that bit about people not having free will sarcasm (this question being directed at Glenn himself, not someone else's opinion)?

Damn, that wasn't short at all. Sorry.

To really put it in short terms: there is a huge difference between thinking about doing something, wanting to do something, doing something, and being offered/encouraged into doing something.

Suppose you're on a diet: you have money and the grocery store is nearby, where they have huge, savory, high quality steaks on a cheap sale, and you're really hungry. You want that steak, you think about eating it. You might hold off on that though.

Now suppose someone walks up to your door announcing they've got a free steak dinner and promises not to tell anybody. Would you still refuse? Can you really say that giving in to that is "just as bad", and moreover can you even really support the argument that you "obviously would've done it anyway" without such provocation?

I think the main reasoning most people are using here is "But this is different! It's children! What a sicko!" And thus the logic is chopped down a notch by powerful (understandable and noble as the sentiment may be) emotional bias. It's blinding because you have a strong idea of what should be right and it's a delicate subject, so you go more easily for the throat without stopping to think about the whole circumstance.

*goes back to hiding*

[phattonez]

When somebody has a gun and is shooting people, is it wrong for a cop to shoot them?

A sting operation proves that you are in the market for buying drugs and because you were going to purchase them gets you arrested. This is no different in this case. It's not thought crime, it's the only way to catch someone who is doing this kind of crime without spying.

[rock_nog]

Okay, how about this scenario? I think it's a tad more analogous. I'm a recovering alcoholic. There's a liquor store a block from my house, and there's a bar a block in the other direction. Now, I can resist going to the liquor store or the bar and purchasing alcohol. But let's say I'm in a situation where someone who doesn't realize I'm an alcoholic offers to buy me a drink. If I give in, am I somehow less responsible than if I had purchased the alcohol myself? I think not. Even if they have a beer in their hand, I'm still responsible for my own actions. If I take that beer, it's my choice. You can't blame the person with the beer for my faults.

[phattonez]

Glenn will once again find a way to call me stupid/ignorant/dangerous because I am conservative and think that this guy should go to jail.

[AtmaWeapon]

WORDSHey remember when I said something about entrapment and how it's illegal? Your hypothetical situation is not analogous to sting operations because when your friend seeks you out and offers you steak you are under temptation and pressure to respond.

Here is the true analogous situation:

A recent argument with a friend has left you in a tight spot. You make a bet with your bird-nest-eating tree-hugging hippy of a friend that if you can go a week without eating meat he will have to take a bath. If you lose, you have to let him put your hair in dreadlocks. (ANALOGY: there are compelling reasons to avoid meat, and consequences for partaking of it)

Now, the grocery store is right down the street and you know it has plenty of meat. However, being a person in a hypothetical situation, you ignore the grocery store. (ANALOGY: Seriously there are no supermarkets for drugs or children it shouldn't have been part of the situation.)

Your friend shows up at your house and offers to take you to a free steak dinner. You explain the details of your bet to him and he agrees that it'd be worth it to see if the hippy melts when the soap hits his body. He apologizes and reveals the hippy gave him 5 bucks to offer you the steak and you introduce him face-first to the curb for attempting to entrap you. (ANALOGY: When police pull entrapment they end up embarrassed as a criminal gets his charges dismissed.)

Later in the week, you are tired of not eating meat. You call a third friend and, after some casual conversation, you start to carefully ask if he has any meat. It turns out he has a fresh salami that is uncut, and you begin to yearn for the long sausage. You tell him you'll be right over. Soon, you have your lips wrapped around the warm salami when out of nowhere the hippy appears and goes "AHA! I CAUGHT YOU!". He puts your hair in dreadlocks and everyone loses their respect for you; 10 years later you are a hippy and homeless.

Whose fault was it that you ate the meat? You initiated the call with the intent to arrange an appointment to chew on salami. You motivated yourself to travel to your friend's house. You made the move that caused the situation to happen.

In the first (entrapment) case, someone else forced the meat upon you. A bet is a poor analogy to the law in this case but had this been a police officer attempting to sell you drugs you could smoke your weed in peace since your charges would be dropped for entrapment.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I think that the undercover cop tries their best to get them into doing it.

What i'm trying to say is, if the guy buying the children had a REAL person selling children instead of the undercover cop, he may not have done it. Why? Because the REAL person that was selling children probably would not have cared as much to make a sale as the undercover cop. Some might debate that. But I see it as, there's more people that would illegally buy a child than there are undercover cops that spend time trying to bust people with sting operations.

And of course, it is good the cop would try more to make a sale. They're trying to rid the country of those horrible people. And that's good. But you know what? Sometimes it can encourage it, and get people into doing it. The cops have more reason to do the sale so they'd try harder. And, this may be the breaking point for somebody to change their THOUGHT into a real CRIME. Simple as that in my eyes.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with what everybody else said. EXCEPT what I said above.

[Glenn the Great]

I follow a lot of what Zelda Warrior says here.

I did research on entrapment earlier today, and I am relieved that provisions exist for pleading entrapment.

However what I also did read, is that current anti-entrapment measures are not good enough.

When a defendant wishes to plead innocent by reason of entrapment, the burden of proof is on him to show that the undercover officer was trying to push the crime.

Unfortunately, the undercover officers are highly knowledgeable on the ways people defend against entrapment, and they have learned how to manage and manipulate their stings in a way that both maximizes the chance that the target will fall into the trap, and at the same time, be unable to get out of the trap by being unable to sufficiently prove it.

When it comes down to it, it is usually the officer's say against the defendant's say.

I'd be interested to know how exactly this sting went down. Like, who said what first. I'd like to know the exact dialogue between the two. If you notice from reading the article, the information is taken from police reports. The news article is inherently biased to begin with.

There is a definite possibility that this man should be able to get free of this situation by pleading entrapment. However, judging by the average populace's hastiness to "fry" and "shoot" the defendant, without even a trial..... I don't think he has such high hopes for the defense to succeed.

Jenny made a great point in that the sensationalism of the accusation is generating emotional bias. The last thing I'd want is for a precedent to be set based on such a bias.

I'd be happy to go into my thoughts on the issue of free will, and may do so elsewhere in a while, so that this particular thread doesn't get derailed.

[Prrkitty]

It doesn't matter that there was an undercover cop responding to this guy's desire. SO what! He shouldn't have responded to the offer nor should he have traveled ALL the way to (Florida I think it was) to fulfill his fantasy.

Just because someone offered him the chance to fulfill his fantasy... he should have RAN in the other direction AWAY from the offer as fast as his legs would have carried him. Instead... he went TOWARD the offer and was willing to make the payment for the opportunity to satisfy his fantasy.

He had free will to *NOT* go... but he did anyway. It's not entrapment. He could have just stayed home but he didn't.

[Dechipher]

I follow a lot of what Zelda Warrior says here.

I did research on entrapment earlier today, and I am relieved that provisions exist for pleading entrapment.

However what I also did read, is that current anti-entrapment measures are not good enough.

When a defendant wishes to plead innocent by reason of entrapment, the burden of proof is on him to show that the undercover officer was trying to push the crime.

Unfortunately, the undercover officers are highly knowledgeable on the ways people defend against entrapment, and they have learned how to manage and manipulate their stings in a way that both maximizes the chance that the target will fall into the trap, and at the same time, be unable to get out of the trap by being unable to sufficiently prove it.

When it comes down to it, it is usually the officer's say against the defendant's say.

I'd be interested to know how exactly this sting went down. Like, who said what first. I'd like to know the exact dialogue between the two. If you notice from reading the article, the information is taken from police reports. The news article is inherently biased to begin with.

There is a definite possibility that this man should be able to get free of this situation by pleading entrapment. However, judging by the average populace's hastiness to "fry" and "shoot" the defendant, without even a trial..... I don't think he has such high hopes for the defense to succeed.

Jenny made a great point in that the sensationalism of the accusation is generating emotional bias. The last thing I'd want is for a precedent to be set based on such a bias.

I'd be happy to go into my thoughts on the issue of free will, and may do so elsewhere in a while, so that this particular thread doesn't get derailed.
A guy goes into a bar and sits to have a drink. He's had a rough day, some shit went down at home and I think he lost his job. An undercover cop comes and solicits him to pay her for sex. He declines. She leaves, and returns a while later. She repeats her offer, he declines again. She leaves again and returns a final time, continuing to hound him. Just to get her to shut up, he asks "how much?" The cops come him and cuff him and the man is placed under arrest for attempting to pay someone for sex.
That came from a news article a teacher from high school showed me. That is entrapment. That is also nothing like the situation discussed above.

I worked at 7-11 this summer. I was shopped once. This includes a minor coming in and attempting to purchase alcohol or tobacco. If I fail to ask for identification, or receive it and sell anyway, the sheriff comes in and arrests me. This situation would not be unfair, because I know that I am not supposed to sell to minors, regardless of whether this person actually wanted what they were buying.
By the way, I passed.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I'd be happy to go into my thoughts on the issue of free will, and may do so elsewhere in a while, so that this particular thread doesn't get derailed.Yes, that'd be a good idea...

What I posted dosen't apply to here. Sure,the guy may have done it, he may have not. Who knows? That article leaves out a lot of detail thats crucial to figuring out the whole story.

But theres other sting operations set up that don't get told anywhere but locally. Kinds that nobody really knows about... I am not saying that the cops are corrupt thoigh. (well, im sure some are but thats another story

Anyways, you don't know exactly what they said. Yeah, that guy's messed up in the head, but nobody other than the cop will really know what they did. (I'm pretty sure even the guy trying to get the children would know, because I'm sure he hasn't tried anything like it before. So, he dosen't know what to look for when finding somebody that is willing to do it, as in whether they are overly passive about it, try to get them into it, etc.)

[AtmaWeapon]

Guys guys guys


guys


we still seem unclear on a really important point here. A lot of you seem to be following some kind of invisible red herring and acting like this could have happened to anybody.

How many of you would accidentally stumble upon a person willing to rent their children to you? The internet is a nasty place so I'll go ahead and say it's likely if you were in the wrong place you'd bump into such a person. If the man were arrested for a conversation on the internet I would think he was a creepy old man but guilty of nothing punishable by law.

Now, suppose you bumped into this person on the internet. How many of you would write down their address, book a flight, then fly down there just to see if they were serious? I'm talking about taking days off of work and spending a few hundred dollars on plane tickets and hotel rooms to meet a person who, in your only contact, discussed an interest in an illegal transaction should you meet. At this point I believe the guy is a creepy old man who seems determined to actually pay money to half-drown children. Still no criminal act but I believe at this point monitoring is justifiable.

Now, let's say you were accidentally in the wrong place and intercepted this person, then on a lark invested a large amount of time and money into meeting them. When you meet their middleman, you discuss in great detail how you get off to watching children struggle under the water and confirm your intent to go through with this transaction. You produce the cash and before you can yell "SIKE!" you find yourself arrested.

I believe the odds of that many things being a joke are highly suspect.

There's a lot to be said about what you do here. There are dudes on "To Catch a Predator" that I often wonder if they ever get to court, because really the only thing they did was talk dirty then show up. It's creepy but not a crime. Then there's the guys that show up with condoms, lube, and dildos, or the winners that start removing clothing the instant they show up. Would you really question their intent at that point?

There is seriously a point at which I think you have to be willfully ignorant to believe a person had no intent to commit a crime. In the case of petty crime such as traffic violations then yes action is required; owning a sports car is not a reason to get a speeding ticket. However, in the case of crimes that permanently affect the well-being of others I agree with a more proactive than reactive approach to law enforcement.

I continue to stand behind my belief that no innocent man would arrange the the "rent" of a child, travel across several states, then present money.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I continue to stand behind my belief that no innocent man would arrange the the "rent" of a child, travel across several states, then present money.

Then again, what kind of person would do all that just to 'rent' some child? Even if you are messed up in the head, it still seems like a pain. :confused:

Well, let me rephrase that. You're saying that once he's there and it's obvious he's making the action, then the cop has a reasonable doubt to arrest them. Ok, fine. But it seems like a long ways to go just to rent a child... Which is agreeing with you on that point.

But what draws the line between what the cop does thats illegal and what isnt?

[Glenn the Great]

But what draws the line between what the cop does thats illegal and what isnt?

This is the question that my passion here really boils down to. I could care less about this news story... it is this concept that is so critical, and the news story just invokes the concept.

[AtmaWeapon]

I will use Glenn's argument against this point.

There were no children. The officer sold nothing.

Sarcasm aside, the reason the officer is "above the law" is because he is acting as an agent of the law. The man provided reasonable suspicion that he would participate in a criminal act; this grants law enforcement more power over this one specific person in an attempt to avoid a situation where he finds a real child broker.

It's pretty much social contract; we sacrifice rights in return for services from the government. Personally, I have no issues with granting the police the right to have heightened power over those who have proven intent.

[rock_nog]

Seriously, that does have to be taken into account. How did this guy end up in contact with these undercover cops in the first place? I seriously doubt that these cops just showed up in a random chatroom and said "Hey, anyone want to strangle my children for his sexual gratification?" I'm guessing this guy did something to attract the attention of these cops. Of course, that's just idle speculation, because we'll never know what went on, but I don't think the cops are in the habit of soliciting every person who enters a chatroom for sex with children.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I am sure if this was a real situation they would not go around saying 'hey want to strangle my children for sexual gratification?' rather, saying 'hey, ill let you take the children for sexual gratification whatsoever' And, i'm sure one or more undercover cops actually do go around chatrooms and find places where that type of person may hang out. It's like going to a bad part of town to look for crack dealers. Same deal. But, most people only accept the crack dealer situation, and dismiss the fact that cops also check chatrooms and other online enviornments to see if any potential illegal activity is going on.