quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Who knows what else will be found.

Oh, we don't yet know, but maybe they will find something.

Man, think about what you are saying- "let's keep looking until we find something."

Sound familiar?

quote:

Man, think about what you are saying- "let's keep looking until we find something."

They already found something. He was attempting to meet an underage girl for sex. Likely not his first time, hence what further investigation will discover.

But like I said earlier, older guys hitting on 16 year olds doesn’t really bother me much. It’s the 13 and younger group that does.

Ellie Mae Clampett shoulda been married off by 13!

So, it's all relative, so to speak.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I think 'intent' should be a two way street. Stating (under oath, of course) "I didn't mean to kill him and I didn't mean to get caught" should be sufficient to get any murderer declared 'Not Guilty by reason of good intentions'.

Well really it is. Intent is a necessary element in most any criminal prosecution. General intent crimes merely require proving that the act was intentional while specific intent require proving the desired result, so to speak. Intent is the difference in many cases between murder and manslaughter.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
If the college boy was actually a 19yo girl who told him she was 16...and they met and had sex, then he got arrested. He'd still be charged with this "attempt" statute under CA law, but not statutory rape or anything for the actual act.

I guess I don't have a problem with it because after he was informed of the 16yo age, he kept making overt acts towards who he believed to be a minor to arrange to have sex with a minor.

Are you insane?!?!

She was 19! Legal! How is this a crime?

(Sorry about the "insane" slight. )

What I'm saying is had she been a 19yo girl and they met and had sex...it would really get interesting. No crime at all for the actual sex act...but still (in CA) the crime of soliciting someone he "believed" was underage for sex.

It will come down to exactly what he said in those texts of course. On the face of it, he didn't start out looking for an underage girl because the Tinder app he chose to use does not allow underage accounts and he initially contacted who he believed to be a 19yo girl.

And again...what about this uber-creepy college boy who uses an app to make his face into a girl and sets up a 19yo female profile on Tinder?? Then out of the blue says I'm 16?

quote:

... and the police have no business enticing people to commit crimes and then arresting them for their efforts.

It is just plain wrong.

You’re right, and that’s not what happens. At least, that’s not what happens when the police follow the law. It’s an important concept that we’ve been careful of that has shaped how we approach things, very specifically.

Entrapment is a concern. As is ensuring all elements of a crime are present. For instance: some time ago we were doing a human trafficking sting that necessitated doing a double way prostitution sting... meaning we had officers acting as prostitutes to attract buyers as well as officers acting as buyers to attract prostitutes (neither the buyer nor the prostitution being our actual target). In one case we had to let a buyer walk because of he was smart and our decoy was new. She made a deal for a massage. That’s all he ever asked for, all he confirmed. Our decoy failed to ensure she had all elements of the crime so once he showed up we reviewed the conversation and let him walk even though everybody, buyer included, knew he INTENDED to have sex with a prostitute (based upon the items with him), but the elements of the crime weren’t there. He never said it. Never made the overt act to complete an illegal offense, only an overt act to pay for a massage: not illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
And again...what about this uber-creepy college boy who uses an app to make his face into a girl and sets up a 19yo female profile on Tinder?? Then out of the blue says I'm 16?

Wait until you see him in his Nancy Drew outfit.

The bigger concern is he’s a 40 year old cop which leads me to believe he’s been in the gig a while. And was told multiple times the person was 16. Everybody in CA knows age of consent in the state is 18 with wiggle room for the participants within 2-3 years of that ( example a guy who turns 18 probly isn’t in that much trouble for continuing to bang his 17 year old girlfriend) And the cop should be well aware of the age of consent and aware the 16/40 ratio is no good or he’s too stupid to be a cop. The second this guy said he was 16 that cop should have ran away. Even if it was a 16 year old girl and she led him to believer she was 19 and he showed up, I’d let him go. Right up to the point he learns she’s 16. Either way in CA he’s toast. Chris Hansen made a career of busting these people on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by ElToro:
The bigger concern is he’s a 40 year old cop which leads me to believe he’s been in the gig a while. And was told multiple times the person was 16. Everybody in CA knows age of consent in the state is 18 with wiggle room for the participants within 2-3 years of that ( example a guy who turns 18 probly isn’t in that much trouble for continuing to bang his 17 year old girlfriend) And the cop should be well aware of the age of consent and aware the 16/40 ratio is no good or he’s too stupid to be a cop. The second this guy said he was 16 that cop should have ran away. Even if it was a 16 year old girl and she led him to believer she was 19 and he showed up, I’d let him go. Right up to the point he learns she’s 16. Either way in CA he’s toast. Chris Hansen made a career of busting these people on TV.

As a retired LEO myself, I'd like to see this offender get burned as badly as possible. More than most people and certainly more than many here, the guy knew what the laws regarding underage minors and such solicitations are. As cop he's got an even higher duty to obey the law than regular citizens, who haven't been sworn to uphold it. Knowing that he'll probably be prosecuted in addition to losing his job provides some comfort. It wasn't just a stupid thing he tried to do, it was a serious felony.

I watched the Chris Hansen episodes on Dateline and while entertaining and being informative, I think people need to keep in mind that there's a difference between what the media does for its audience and what the criminal justice system is supposed to do for the community. One provides a very short term bit of reward for viewers and the other is expected to address acts that (when one is convicted of having committed them) result in long term consequences.

Yes, by God, let's let moral outrage rule the day.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
^^^^

Not a valid analogy IMO, taking the overt acts of research and purchase of a robot (no matter what it looks like) only shows intent to do something with a robot...

Well, yeah. But this is a thread based upon intent. What keeps someone from deciding that the lolita robot owner is a latent pedophile and by extension infers (if not implies) a willingness to seek kids? It sounds on its face illogical to make such a leap, but the "where there's smoke, there's fire" is at the root of intent.

I remember watching some episodes of Dateline NBC 's 'To Catch a Predator'. The premise came off as noble, but there was a phoniness about it that bothered me. Recently I read a criticism by someone who thoroughly researched the show and the Perverted-Justice organization. While they helped nab a lot of obviously unrepentent pedos, they also helped put away a lot of guys who, for lack of better words, were on the fence about it all.

Many - if not most - of the chats were initiated in adult chat rooms. In other words, the predators started out looking to connect w/ other adults. The Perverted-Justice decoys/bait would build a rapport w/ the guy, then reveal, "Actually, I'm only 13/14/15."

Often the subject of sex was intiated by the decoy, not in the sense of, "You're turning me on. I'd totally have sex w/ you if we met up," but maybe they'd be discussing current movies out and the decoy derailed the convo w/ an interjection like, "I luv Twilight!!! Sometimes it makes me feel soo horny, teehee! Sorry but sometimes I can't help myself LOL!"

Once the subject turned sexual, it was all downhill from there, even if the predator tried to steer the convo back to innocent topics.

quote:

The decoys would beg and plead for them to come. And it was clear they needed bodies. They were on a schedule and the whole production was burning money unless guys showed up. And the decoys were part of an organization that had been been paid an ENORMOUS amount of money to bring these guys in.

A lot of the predators were below average intelligence, easily suggestible, easy to manipulate - IOW, the type of guys who would fall for the Jedi mind trick. While legally, it may not have been entrapment, there were clearly questionably ethical methods used to catch some of the predators.

The quote above was taken from:
https://qr.ae/TWhHcY