Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Bad dog! |
It looks to me like they set a rat trap and they caught a rat. What I mean is that there is no difference-- in character -- between this guy and the guy who would actually meet a minor for sex. So, I don't feel too bad about it. I feel bad when they set a rat trap and catch a puppy, which happens. Guys who are in their twenties get busted for meeting up with girls who presented themselves online as 18 or 19. They sent nude pics of themselves, and they looked 18 or 19. The guy, maybe 25 or 26, shows up at the rendezvous and is arrested because it turns out that she is actually 14, and her parents read her phone, etc. There were some local cases just like this. But I do get Para's point, and I would put an end to sting operations if it were up to me. There is a very fine-- and shifting-- line between catching someone for wanting to commit a crime, and enticing someone who would otherwise not commit the crime. Doing research for a book ten years ago, I learned that it is very common for law enforcement to go to sex chat rooms and present themselves as underage girls or boys. For sure they nab some real perverts, but it is a huge net and I have no doubt they also pull in some horny, over-stimulated guys who would not in other circumstances proposition a minor.This message has been edited. Last edited by: justjoe, ______________________________________________________ "You get much farther with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone." | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower  |
If being an asshole is a crime... Come on. | |||
|
| Team Apathy |
By definition the crime has occurred. The problem you have is with the penal code, I suppose. What I understand you to be implying is that you’re ok with a person setting a meeting to pick up what they believe to be a runaway 14 year old with th stated purpose of having sex, so long as the 14 year old isn’t actually a 14 year old. I get that, I just don’t agree. At this time, I think society is more ok with it than you are, and that’s fine too. In any case? I think we all have problems with CA Penal Code in some ways, I know I do. I suspect lost states have similar codes. And finally, hopefully none of that comes across as argumentative, it is meant as conversational. | |||
|
| Member |
Another problem with sneaky stuff is we do not catch the smart crooks. I do not see many guys busted with Mensa cards in their back pockets. We are thinning out the dumb predators so the smart ones can continue to breed and prosper. | |||
|
Member |
The definition of a crime is any act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it....that results (upon conviction) certain proscribed punishments. You're raising the bar by suggesting that just because the police, someone else, or something else occurs before the most serious crime is committed, a lesser (included) offense can't be charged. If someone shoots a gun at a victim after stating "I'm going to kill you!", a miss doesn't mean the offender walks. He/she can and usually is charged with the crime of Attempted Murder or Assault with intent to Commit Murder. Solicitation of Murder, just like solicitation of prostitution, and attempting to get an underage minor to commit a sex act are all crimes. The scenario I provided regarding the subject who attempted to kidnap, rape, and murder a woman who happened to escape before being physically assaulted should (by any reasonable definition) be prosecutable as an crime (ie: Attempted Kidnapping for purposes of rape, murder, etc...). I don't think you're crazy, but I think you fail to understand that an unsuccessful attempt to commit crime "A" might still be prosecutable as a violation of crime "B." Under CA Penal Code Section 664, an (unsuccessful) attempt to commit robbery would be charged as a 664-211 PC. For example: If an offender pulled a gun on a victim, demanded cash and learned that the victim had none, and fled without getting any property. A robbery in California is when a subject uses force or fear to take the property of another from their person or immediate presence. If the intended victim doesn't have any money and nothing is taken, does that mean no crime has occurred? Not in California or any other state I'm familiar with. The crime of "Attempted Robbery", would be charged. "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken." | |||
|
| Member |
Blind enforcement and deference to the law is the best defense against liberty when those that write the laws have no care for the rights of the people who suffer under those laws. All people are created equal, some are more equal. How long until questioning the political views of a person from a protected class is considered a "Hate crime". How long until expressing dissent is considered soliciting treason? We would all like to think that our police and military would not enforce such laws if enacted, or that our courts would strike them down, I guess we will see won't we. | |||
|
Member |
The legal definition (bolded) of "entrapment" was posted by chellim1. Take the time to read it. Originally posted by chellim1: In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a criminal offense that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent." Police conduct rising to the level of entrapment is broadly discouraged and thus, in many jurisdictions, is available as a defense against criminal liability. Sting operations, through which police officers or agents engage in deception to try to catch persons who are committing crimes, raise concerns about possible entrapment. If people would mind their own damn business this country would be better off. I owe no one an explanation or an apology for my personal opinion. | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Yes. The accused is not charged with statutory rape in these stings. He is charged with attempted statutory rape, solicitation of a minor, or something similar. And entrapment is still a defense, if it was, indeed entrapment. It isn't usually, though, because those guys are falling all over themselves to try to have sex with 15 year olds. You don't have to trap them - they are more than willing to commit the crime. The police merely provide an opportunity. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
The Unmanned Writer |
I do have kids (four of mine and two step type - five of which are female) and to be honest, I have also wondered the same thing. I also wonder why this is not considered entrapment or something a kin to it. Now if they had a bunch 16 and 17 year-old kids getting hit on by scum, game on. Crucify the scum (literally) but otherwise, when did intent become a crime? Well, he walked into my store with a gun, so his intent was to rob us. Hell, even the prostitute stings require a transfer of money before help barges into the room. Drug dealers need to accept money and/or transfer of drugs Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. "If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers The definition of the words we used, carry a meaning of their own... | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
The premise that Para is going with is that unless the final act of the crime is committed, there is no crime however the law books are full of laws that establish that the final act need not be completed for a crime charge to stick. An example that comes to mind is new stories where a perp is arrested for threatening a terrorist act but the person he buys his explosives from is LEO who sells an inert product. The perp doesn't get to walk because the final act wasn't complete. In his mind, the perp was engaged in and expected to complete the alleged criminal activity. | |||
|
| Member |
From the Googler, it is likely that he was charged under 288.3 PC. It is a crime under that statute to "attempt to contact a minor" with the intent to commit a felony. I guess I'm looking at it as similar to a conspiracy statute where you can do all the planning in the world do long as there is no "act in furtherance." If you read the transcripts on some of these cases, they're beyond horrifying. The level of manipulation, grooming and isolation these guys employ is awful. | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower |
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'.  | |||
|
Seeker of Clarity |
If he was trying to buy dirty bomb material, would he be innocent? This is the way ideal to prevent those who would, from actually hurting children. I'm in the string him up camp.  | |||
|
| Peace through superior firepower |
You got it, man. Trap 'em, stun 'em, kill 'em, dress 'em out, have 'em for cottdang dinner!! Eat their innards and hang their head on your wall!!  Because, hey, that's what due process is all about... ____________________________________________________ "I am your retribution." - Donald Trump, speech at CPAC, March 4, 2023 | |||
|
| Staring back from the abyss  |
Yes. Until such time that he was in possession of said "dirty bomb material". I have long had issue with these "conspiracy to commit" laws. Until an actual crime is committed a man should be able to walk, and the police have no business enticing people to commit crimes and then arresting them for their efforts. It is just plain wrong. ________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton. | |||
|
| Member |
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. It is illegal to solicit sex from who you "believe" to be a minor in CA. An easy way to avoid committing this crime is that if someone says they are under age, don't sext them or try to meet with them anymore. How about this analogy; someone sends you a PM, they see you are into guns and want to meet up and do some shooting and training. At some point they say they are affiliated with ISIS and want to train to fight the holy war. Do you continue to make overt acts to meet up with them now believing they are terrorists (whether they are or not?) Methinks those overt acts to meet and train with someone who told you they are a terrorist and plan on committing terrorist acts would be a crime. Easy one to avoid as well... At no point is what you are thinking the problem. It is the planning and communication you put out there in response and furtherance of the commission of a crime. “People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik Be harder to kill: https://preparefit.ck.page | |||
|
Member |
Very interesting discussion. I keep reading that fully realistic sex robots will be available in ten years. Under the laws cited in this thread, is it illegal to intend to have sex with a child-like robot? Or would you have to believe the robot was really a child? How does the law get inside one's head to make the distinction? At the end of the day, you would have banged a robot, not a child, so no crime, right? There's a lot of new ground to figure out in the future. I think I'm with Para on this one. It's the same reason I have a problem with hate crimes, where there are extra penalties for one's motivations. It does feel a little like Minority Report. Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus | |||
|
| Member |
^^^^ 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... “People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik Be harder to kill: https://preparefit.ck.page | |||
|
safe & sound |
This is also an active investigation. He was arrested for the acts specifically mentioned, and the police obtained warrants to search his home and electronics. Who knows what else will be found. | |||
|
| Staring back from the abyss |
Are you insane?!?! She was 19! Legal! How is this a crime? (Sorry about the "insane" slight.  )________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024