Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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?
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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!!
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Glenn the Great
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
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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*
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.
Re: Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture
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.