quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Looks like California Penal Code 288.3
And it reads that if you just communicate with minor for various related juvenile felony crimes, it is a violation.
Communication alone is sufficient to be charged.

But, he did not communicate with a minor for anything, because there never was a minor involved.

Hayzoos Kristo, this is silly.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
This means it's illegal to just arrange a meeting with a minor for the purpose of engaging in lewd behavior.

Yeah, didn't happen.

Did

Not

Happen

this raises a good question

I've always wondered why the police could use a sting to entice someone to commit a crime and then arrest them for it

seems to me it should work the other way as well

'intent' doesn't know you're wearing a badge, and the fact that you have one doesn't make you a saint

For me the big thing here is the person posing as a minor is not connected with law enforcement in any way. Is that what we need, people running around the internet trying to trap others in illegal activity?

People get arrested and criminally charged all of the time for these things because the crime is the intent as well as the act.

Hire a hitman that’s really an undercover cop and you get charged with solicitation of murder.

Place a fake bomb that was provided by a Fed pretending to be a fellow terrorist, and you’re charged with committing terrorism.

Fake prostitutes, fake drug dealers, fake fences, and all other sorts of fakes get people charged criminally every day. I suppose they figure that somebody who’s willing to engage with a fake is also engaging with others who are not.

What about people here that have made threats against government officials that resulted in you hearing from the Feds? Same premise.

quote:

Is that what we need, people running around the internet trying to trap others in illegal activity?

I don’t have a problem with people devoting time to these things, but I do think this particular case is a bit of BS. 16 is the age of consent in several states, and is close enough to “legal” to not flip my interested meter.

I would be more interested in those going after younger targets.

You'll spend two weeks in your first year law school criminal law class on mistake of fact and mistake of law, another three weeks on intent, and then two weeks on attempt liability, so this is a more complicated topic than it might appear to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
For me the big thing here is the person posing as a minor is not connected with law enforcement in any way. Is that what we need, people running around the internet trying to trap others in illegal activity?

I was thinking the same thing. He's clearly more than a witness to a crime or a crime victim.

It would seem at some point this guy has to show up and testify to his "evidence" and get cross checked, and it seems the defense would be all over his background and slaughter him at any tiny thing he's done that points to not trusting him. He might even get sued if he did something out of the ordinary with the evidence. (and he should).

I have an old X-Band radar unit and a camera, but I don't go out and issue photo traffic citations. It just wouldn't work.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
People get arrested and criminally charged all of the time for these things because the crime is the intent as well as the act.

This is Para's point, I believe. What about someone who decides to rob a store, but then decides against it at the last minute? Is he still guilty of robbery?

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
People get arrested and criminally charged all of the time for these things because the crime is the intent as well as the act.

This is Para's point, I believe. What about someone who decides to rob a store, but then decides against it at the last minute? Is he still guilty of robbery?

Or in this case, what if the building turns out to not even be a store.

quote:

What about someone who decides to rob a store, but then decides against it at the last minute? Is he still guilty of robbery?

I get that. I know in many of these stings the person charged actually shows up in person.

Let’s say somebody decides to talk dirty, ask for nude photos, or sends nude photos to a person they believe to be a minor. In your robbery example they have the same choice. They can stop before talking and/or sending photos.

What if in your robbery example they demand the money, get the money, but then change their mind. They don’t even touch it, but will still face a number of criminal charges.

Chris Hansen has been doing To Catch A Predator shows for many years. I know at some point there were some concerns involving entrapment.

Remember Anthony Weiner

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...935/m/8200064424/p/1

State statutes vary from state to state, ranging from misdemeanor to felony.

There's information within this link that has federal statutes.

https://www.justice.gov/crimin...ederal-law-obscenity

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
People get arrested and criminally charged all of the time for these things because the crime is the intent as well as the act.

This is Para's point, I believe. What about someone who decides to rob a store, but then decides against it at the last minute? Is he still guilty of robbery?

Or in this case, what if the building turns out to not even be a store.

Bingo.

Just curious.....

Any of you guys OK with the police hiring real 13 year old girls to talk dirty to old men in order to make the charges really legitimate?

I am wondering about the motives of the "Concerned Citizen". I always hated kids who had this personality dynamic.

I think the UCMJ has it right:

"Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
Just curious.....

Any of you guys OK with the police hiring real 13 year old girls to talk dirty to old men in order to make the charges really legitimate?

I'm no expert at detective work, but it seems like there's enough real crime and human trafficking to go after and make arrests, without having to make-up fake events.

Maybe the experts can correct me if I'm wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by tk13:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
tell me which law(s) this man actually broke.

Most states have a category of offenses known as inchoate, or incomplete, offenses. They range from attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, solicitation, and facilitation. Most inchoate offenses carry a penalty that is lower than the penalty for the actual crime if it had been committed.

In this case, it appears that at most he should be charged with attempt. The following is from a defense attorney website, not an official California source:

In California, attempt law is defined in Penal Code sections 21a, 663 and 664. Attempt to commit a crime consists of basically two elements:

Specific intent to commit the crime, and
A direct but ineffective step towards its commission.

A direct step is one that goes beyond planning or preparation and shows that a person is putting his or her plan into action. A direct step demonstrates a definite and clear intent to commit the crime. It is a direct movement towards the commission of the crime if preparations are made. Mere preparation or discussion is not a direct step. The direct step must come close to completion of the crime; it must be a "substantial step."

For example, a direct step toward committing murder would be the defendant buying a gun or bullets shortly after telling the victim, "I am going to shoot you when I see you next time." In an attempted murder case, the prosecutor could introduce this evidence to prove the defendant's intent to commit murder. Shooting at (but missing) a person while yelling out "I'll kill you," would also be considered a substantial step.

This (PC Section 664) is what’s used to prosecute cases like this. Offenders need to commit an “Overt Act” and it goes way beyond just thinking about committing the actual offense. The same laws and tactics are used to investigate such things as soliciting to commit murder. Just because the “hitman” who meets up with the person proposing the “contract” is really an undercover police officer who’d never consider committing murder poses as one, doesn’t mean a crime hasn’t been committed or an entrapment defense would be effective.

A few years back, I was at a homicide conference at the FBI HQ in Quantico. An sex crimes investigator did a live, on-line demonstration on how quickly predators would jump on the bait in these kinds of stings. Within ten minutes, one of these guys was trying to set something up the “12 year old girl” the UC represented himself as. Note that kids ARE frequently victimized by these offenders. They’re talked into posing naked on-line and the pics or videos are then traded among pedophiles, worldwide. It’s not uncommon for many to meet expecting a non sexual encounter, but it turns into something else.

I’ve arrested and charged offenders with many crimes that never went beyond the “Attempt” stage and the prosecutions were successful. The intent was there, the overt acts were committed, and the only thing missing was a “successful” conclusion to the crime. Would you prefer that officers allow a group of armed bank robbers to commit the crime, terrorizing innocent victims as well as exposing them to death or great bodily injury, or stopping them as they drove to the location with masks, guns, duct tape, etc..., and (having obtained corroborating admissions) charge them with Attempted Robbery and Conspiracy to Commit Robbery instead?

If I go to buy weed and a guy sells me oregano instead can I be charged with buying drugs? Can he be charged with selling drugs?

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Remember Anthony Weiner

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...935/m/8200064424/p/1

State statutes vary from state to state, ranging from misdemeanor to felony.

There's information within this link that has federal statutes.

https://www.justice.gov/crimin...ederal-law-obscenity

The difference is ol' Carlos Dangerous communicated to a female who actually was 15 years old.

I'm with Para... if no minor was involved, how can the charge of communication with a minor stand?

No minor is no minor. I'd make the case the defendant knew all along there wasn't a minor involved and that any indication a minor was involved was simply furtherance of two adults engaging in a sexual fantasy.

A 50 year old woman can claim she's under 15, but if you have sex with her have you committed statutory rape?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
You'll spend two weeks in your first year law school criminal law class on mistake of fact and mistake of law, another three weeks on intent, and then two weeks on attempt liability, so this is a more complicated topic than it might appear to be.

Dang sure is, especially if you have a law degree.

This seems like vigilante type stuff to me...