quote:

but it seems like there's enough real crime and human trafficking to go after and make arrests

And this is one of the ways the police lure the perpetrators of those crimes into a jail cell.

Gotta catch those thought-criminals.

I see it as he broke the law, because he thought (knew) he was communicating with an underage girl (breaking the law).

Would the same reasoning apply if the cops set up a sting where they left a doll (disguised as a baby) in a stroller unattended & someone came by & snatched the baby (doll). They would still be guilty of kidnapping IMO, they thought it was a child, even if it was a doll.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:

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.

Nonsense. If you had to rely on real prostitutes (even minors) or pimps to make your cases, you'd never convict anyone. They won't cooperate.

Stings, with bait (not real) prostitutes or underage girls are perfectly legal and legally accepted tactics. The criminal intended to commit an actual crime (having sex with minors) and his mistake of fact (that the person wasn't an actual minor) is not enough to evade liability for the crimes of either attempt to have sex with minors or of soliciting a minor for sex.

Tk13 and pulicords are right on these points.

quote:

Originally posted by maximus_flavius:
Would the same reasoning apply if the cops set up a sting where they left a doll (disguised as a baby) in a stroller unattended & someone came by & snatched the baby (doll). They would still be guilty of kidnapping IMO, they thought it was a child, even if it was a doll.

That person would be guilty of theft of property.

And oh, hiring a hit man?

"Ma'am, I'm not a hit man. I'm Officer Youalmostfuckedupbadly of the Thought Crimes Division, and we have informed your husband that you're lookin' to have a cap busted in his ass, so, if I were you, I would probably, you know, not go home tonight- or ever.
Oh, and here's your ten thousand dollars back. You're gonna need that for your divorce attorney."

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?

No, I'd be more for the police not attempting to entrap people into crimes not committed. Radical thinking, I know, huh?

No charges for the “concerned citizen” who “just wanted to get someone” by pretending to be a teen? Why, because he knew he was talking to an older man by faking to be a minor? Seems insane. More like, found out he was talking to a cop and reported it to avert suspicion from himself in his weird behavior?? Smells fishy.

Very defer-guilt vigilante type suspicious bullshit. I know there’s organizations who do this shit to “catch predators”, which is also weird to me, but this just seems like an ass-backward story alltogether

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
No, I'd be more for the police not attempting to entrap people into crimes not committed. Radical thinking, I know, huh?

Just to clarify, had it been an actual 16 year old girl (even not in police employ), he would have actually broken the law & should be subject to charges?

I wasn't aware that what appears to be a significant portion of our legal and dysfunctional system of justice hinges on coercion and entrapment

thats good to know

I guess I should be in jail or something because I thought about how to break into Ft. Knox and steal the gold...

I had a co-worker who was fired and arressted.

He was having conversations with a minor on his cell phone and in person. Never really sexual I don't think. Friend of his daughter. At some point the parent of this girl finds out and gets upset - calls the cops. the cops take over the girls phone and text account. The tone of the conversations suddenly changed, but the co-worker was too dumb to get a clue and so he continued the text chat.

At some point "she" (the cops) asked to meet him. He went (during work hours) to meet her and got busted.

He was guilty of something I guess, but the police were the ones who turned it into a sexual event. He was just being supportive and maybe creepy.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I guess I should be in jail or something because I thought about how to break into Ft. Knox and steal the gold...

Not a valid analogy. Only thinking of a crime is not committing one. Action must be taken. In this specific case, questionable action was taken after the girl (he thought) informed him she was under age.

A more apt analogy to this specific case would be you walked into a building you thought was Ft Knox, & tried to take what you thought was gold (but was lead painted yellow).

Then, you are guilty of stealing painted lead.

Also, you'd be guilty of abject stupidity, because you can't miss Fort Knox. The GSD chomping on your balls would mean that you were getting close to it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

And oh, hiring a hit man?

"Ma'am, I'm not a hit man. I'm Officer Youalmostfuckedupbadly of the Thought Crimes Division, and we have informed your husband that you're lookin' to have a cap busted in his ass, so, if I were you, I would probably, you know, not go home tonight- or ever.
Oh, and here's your ten thousand dollars back. You're gonna need that for your divorce attorney."

Well, that's sure going to deter those intent on hiring someone to kill whoever happens to be pissing them off.

Your concern about "thought crime police" is really out of touch with the fact that in order to prosecute any of these crimes, The People need to prove not only intent, but overt acts that were done to commit the principal offense. Look at it this way: Some guy intends to take a girl off the street, drive her to a secluded area, rape her, kill her, and bury the body. To accomplish his crime(s), the offender replaces the license plate of his car with a paper plate from a local dealership. He then acquires duct tape, petroleum jelly, pepper spray, a shovel, and makes a garrotte. He goes out looking for his victim, sees a target walking down the street, and approaches her with pepper spray in hand. The girl sees this guy before he gets in range with the pepper spray and runs. The police are called and stop the suspect leaving the area.

Using your analogy of needing the completed crime(s) to charge someone under these circumstances, the only actual violation you have is driving down the street without the issued license plate on the guy's car! If the guy admits under questioning what he'd intended to do and committed the following overt acts to accomplish:
1) Bought pepper spray
2) Bought duct tape
3) Bought shovel
4) Bought petroleum jelly
5) Removed license plate and replaced with paper plate
6) Made the garrote
7) Drove his car to the area specifically for finding a victim
8) Stopped his car and approached victim with pepper spray in hand for....

You'd have sufficient elements of the crimes of attempted kidnapping for the purpose of rape, attempted murder, attempted rape.

A "Thought Crime", or an actual crime(s) that was/were attempted and punishable under the penal code as an "Attempted _________"?

Bottom line: You can think about any damn thing you want to think about, but at a certain point, if you've committed enough overt act(s) towards that end there's a criminal violation(s).

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.

^^^^^
This. FWIW, in my experience, arrests typically occur when the suspect shows up at the meeting place. Typically, they also bring gifts of some sort that the undercover officer asks for. Dr. Pepper and Mt. Dew being favorites. Most of the time there is very explicit language from the suspect regardingvwhat he will do and soliciting approval for the actions. It's also common for the suspect to sext pictures of themself to the undercover officer too.

I can speak to some of this with a small measure of authority on the enforcement side, particularly in CA.

The relevant laws, in this state, allow for a non-minor to pose as a minor, as long as a few key boxes are checked. This is necessary to obtain a successful prosecution, in some cases. We can’t avtuslly have a minor do these things, of course.

A somewhat specific scenario to ponder: a real minor comes to a police officer and reports that this dude is trying to get minor females to come to his house with the states purpose of producing pornographic material. The agency can then take over communications from minor, posing as her, and say something like “I’m not interested but maybe this person is, contact them” and gives a number. Violator, who has already committed felonies per CA PC, contacts what he believes is another minor and he makes his proposition. Of course it’s not 14 year old Jessica, it’s actually 38 year old Officer Smith and 27 year old Detective Thomas. A deal is reached and a warrant is issued, properly signed by a judge.

Violator is arrested at the meet where he legitimately attempted to meet what he believed was a minor, and that is totally allowed, and intended, in CA law.

We can debate if it’s a good law or not, but it is a law.

A more general example... all LE has to do is create a social media account that clearly and publicly identifies themselves as a minor and they will be inundated by private messages. A good percentage of those will have the other party sending dick pics (felony if they believe they are sending to a minor) and trying to arrange for sex within a few messages. That person has, according to CA PC, committed the crime because the PC was written, with purpose, to not require the act to actually occur or the victim to even be real, because these people are predators. I promise you, most people would be absolutely shocked should they have the opportunity to see what type of UNSOLITICED messages are received, and with the staggering frequency. We pursue a very small amount due to fine and resource constraints, and the ones who are pursued are the ones who make actual attempts to complete the act. They show up, from near and far. We’ve arrested a lot of bad dudes running these types of cases.

And to the point of “entrapment”, it’s a non-issue because the agency doesn’t suggest anything, they merely exist. The offending party must be the one who makes the offer. If that doesn’t occur, no crime has occurred. It’s not a crime, even if they intended to have sex with what they believe was a minor, until they’ve done something tangible to make it actually occur. They show up at the train station to pick her up. They send money for an Uber. They invite the victim over to take pictures and provide the address, time, and date. That is when the line has been crossed.

I guess I just do not like sneaky ass shit. Must be something about growing up with guys who did not tolerate that stuff. My peer group reinforced that throughout high school and college. I wonder if I did time in prison in a previous life to feel that way.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Well, that's sure going to deter those intent on hiring someone to kill whoever happens to be pissing them off.

You bet your ass it would be a deterrent. The one soliciting the crime knows that the intended victim has been tipped off, and they also know that the police are fully aware of what they were doing.

In what universe would those things not deter some amateur looking to bump off their spouse or the like? What are the chances that the one who wants the killing done would follow through under those circumstance?

Call me crazy, but I believe a crime needs to be committed. I know. Radical shit. Thinking outside the box and all that.

quote:

Originally posted by thumperfbc:
The relevant laws, in this state, allow for a non-minor to pose as a minor, as long as a few key boxes are checked. This is necessary to obtain a successful prosecution, in some cases. We can’t actually have a minor do these things, of course.

Yeah, that's what's known as a "clue".

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I guess I just do not like sneaky ass shit. Must be something about growing up with guys who did not tolerate that stuff. My peer group reinforced that throughout high school and college. I wonder if I did time in prison in a previous life to feel that way.

I guess if we, as a society, want to catch a higher percentage (significantly so) of the people who make these types of things a habit (and by catch I mean within the guidelines of our criminal justice system to effect prosecution) then we have to accept some “sneaky stuff”. We wouldn’t catch most of the ones we do if we weren’t somewhat sneaky, and by extension, we wouldn’t prevent a lot of additional victims being created.

Oh, yeah. Catch 'em before they commit a crime- and charge them anyway!

I guess since the police mean well...

Oh, there are those pesky intentions again.