|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| conrad2 wrote: |
| If Scott Ritter was searching online for fifteen year old girls, and there were not any to be found, then he never would have had the chance to masturbate with a webcam. |
This is so weak. The objective entrapment defense requires that the gov't have had impelled a normally law-abiding citizen to commit a crime.
Ritter has already been caught for this kind of behavior twice. |
Past crimes are usally inadmissable in determining innocence or guilt of a current charge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more response, Conrad2:
| conrad2 wrote: |
| The cops put themselves out there in cyberspace specifically to find these guys. |
Absolutely. And I, for one, wholly approve of it and hope they not only continue this, but also increase their presence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Id rather have responsible parents who watch their children and teach their 15 year old daughters thats its not ok to meet old guys for sex ( along with many other things they need to be teaching their children.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if the cops are three for three on this. Or, how many tweens had this guy banged and got away with? What was he doing while on official business in developing states? It's really quite gross to think of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| conrad2 wrote: |
| If Scott Ritter was searching online for fifteen year old girls, and there were not any to be found, then he never would have had the chance to masturbate with a webcam. |
This is so weak. The objective entrapment defense requires that the gov't have had impelled a normally law-abiding citizen to commit a crime.
Ritter has already been caught for this kind of behavior twice. |
Past crimes are usally inadmissable in determining innocence or guilt of a current charge. |
Are they inadmissible in rebutting the entrapment defense? I really don't know. I'll send out an email to somebody on this.
But I found this. You're right, past crimes are usually inadmissible. But since entrapment is a defense which depends on lack of predisposition to the crime, it seems the prosecution can rebut it with evidence of past crimes of a similar nature. I don't know if this is uniform across all jurisdictions.
| Quote: |
| Both in statutory form and in judicial practice, predisposition is the more difficult element. The government has to persuade the trier of fact that, even though it induced the defendant to act, the defendant was inclined to commit this sort of crime prior to such government contact. The proof problems regarding predisposition can be especially thorny, for the jury is being asked to evaluate an individual's state of mind before any crime was committed. The prosecution is given wide discretion in offering evidence of the defendant's predisposition. Similar crimes committed previously by a defendant are normally not allowed in evidence in a criminal prosecution to prove that person's guilt. The concern here is that the limited probative value of such earlier crimes will be outweighed by the undue weight jurors will attach to such prejudicial evidence. If, however, the defendant raises an entrapment defense, these prior acts generally are admissible. The defendant has challenged the government's proof as to her mental state, so the prior crimes help to indicate that the individual was predisposed to act unlawfully. Such prior crimes may include the purchase or sale of drugs, the ordering of obscene materials, or the commission of financial crimes. |
Read more: Entrapment - The Two Approaches To Entrapment http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html#ixzz0cpvKxFxg
Anyway, I just don't think Ritter has a strong case. He'll get his day in court, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When a cop dresses like a hooker and catches a John, thats fine because soliciting prostitution is illegal whether from a real or fake prostitute.
Same goes with buying drugs from a undercover narc. Buying drugs is illegal. Period.
Masturbating online to someone of legal age is not a crime. That is exactly what happened here. The cop was of age and willing.
We all know Ritter is a scumbag and of course he thought it was a fifteen year old girl. But to my mind thats not enough. There was no underage victim, so hence no crime. However, to me he has a very solid defense but he probably wont beat the charges with the current state of affairs in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
When a cop dresses like a hooker and catches a John, thats fine because soliciting prostitution is illegal whether from a real or fake prostitute.
Same goes with buying drugs from a undercover narc. Buying drugs is illegal. Period.
Masturbating online to someone of legal age is not a crime. That is exactly what happened here. The cop was of age and willing.
|
Hey, along these same lines, I always wondered where there was any real crime committed in the Senator Larry Craig scandal. Ok, I am not naive, and it's pretty clear he was cruising, and apparently this bathroom had been known for this activity. But how is it a crime to tap someone's foot? And even if it was for a gay hookup, as long as they went somewhere else to do it, where is the crime?
From the New York Times:
| Quote: |
According to a police report obtained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, which disclosed the episode and the guilty plea Monday, a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of sexual activity in the bathroom arrested the senator on June 11 after what the officer described as sexual advances made by Mr. Craig from an adjoining stall.
By Roll Call�s account, the officer said Mr. Craig had tapped his foot, in what the officer called a known signal to engage in lewd conduct, and had also brushed his foot against the investigator�s and waved his hand under the stall divider several times before the officer showed him his badge. After the arrest the senator denied any sexual intent, and in a statement issued Monday afternoon he attributed the matter to a misunderstanding. |
He pleaded guilty so I guess for him that rendered the point moot, but still..............? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ...an online sting by New York police that he blamed on his criticism of the war. Charges were later dropped. |
Nice red herring.
Marine or not, I have zero sympathy for people who abuse children. |
Except that Ritter abused exactly ZERO children, even if a 15-year-old were a child which (s)he almost always is not.
[[. |
Oh well, that makes it okay then.  |
If abusing ZERO children is not okay with you, then please tell us what number would be. |
So you know for a fact that throughout his whole adult life that he has never abused a single child, despite showing a extremly strong propensity to do so, since he was arrested three times for attempting this?
Abusing zero children is okay with me. ATTEMPTING to abuse zero children is also fine. And don't dance around with semetics. Under U.S law a 15 year is a minor. The fact that she might not be considered a child in OTHER places has no bearing on this whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I wonder if the cops are three for three on this. Or, how many tweens had this guy banged and got away with? What was he doing while on official business in developing states? It's really quite gross to think of. |
Right.
Without revealing too much. I worked in casino surveillance once-upon-a-time. And we used to run sting operations all the time. I am very familiar with them, their methods, and their results.
A minor example: not something sensitive, or especially exciting from the casino floor or any of the nightclubs, but rather room theft in the hotel -- a chronic problem for casino operators. All maids have access to the guests' rooms; some of them steal from the guests. Casinos provide safes. But not everyone use them. Thus opportunities arise; and when one maid gets an entire wing of a floor, she will likely have several opportunities everyday. In surveillance we received copies of the dept. of security's reports on room theft. We also had full access to the maids' specific electronic room keys, schedules, etc., so that we could see, in any given period, six weeks, three months, etc., which maids happened to be working in which areas when said areas experienced a large number of thefts. Thus we directed our attention to specific maids and set them up with opportunities in the rooms they were assigned to clean.
We wired the room, took up position in the adjacent room, and left gold jewelry, a diamond ring, some cash, whatever, in plain view. What would the maid do with it when she saw it? Would she leave it there, show her supervisor, or take it? If she took it, we entered the room immediately and detained her, in view of some of the other maids, who would gossip about it with yet even more maids later. This had the effect of intimidating them and reminding them that we were aware of theft and capable of watching them at all times. Finally, management almost always gave these maids the opportunity to resign rather than get fired. And that was that. In casinos where such sting opperations occur, room theft occurs far less often than those where such operations do not occur. It is the same with predators on the net, Mises.
Generally, sting operations only catch those who are quite active in whatever it is that searchers are looking for. So, as you rightly suspect, Scott Ritter almost certainly has done much more, and probably far worse, with minor girls than we know (or likely will know). But law enforcement most often prosecutes perpetrators for what they can, like Al Capone and tax-evasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have no sympathy for Scott Ritter if he propositioned an imaginary 15 year old. The government has to protect the citizens of the country from people who may harm young people.
I read that he masturbated and then found out she was 15. He, then, turned off his webcam, but, later, he put it back on saying she could see him finish. I believe entrapment has to do with making someone commit a crime they would have no intention of committing.
Last edited by Adventurer on Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
You know, as an aside...if every large police department set aside a few officers to pose as underage children on the Internet on an ongoing baseis to solicit potential pedophiles into chatting with them...they would probably be doing a public service. Even if the chatters are never arrested.
After all, the pedophiles would be getting what they want, and the police would be doing a public service by distracting the pedophile population from going after the real thing. Everybody wins. |
I'm with you on that idea! Actually, I'm for ALL police to be assigned to the Pedophile Chat Unit. That way, the cops and pedos keep each other preoccupied and normal citizens can go about their lives and not get harrassed by cops or pedos.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
| Id rather have responsible parents who watch their children and teach their 15 year old daughters thats its not ok to meet old guys for sex ( along with many other things they need to be teaching their children.) |
I would too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
You know, as an aside...if every large police department set aside a few officers to pose as underage children on the Internet on an ongoing baseis to solicit potential pedophiles into chatting with them...they would probably be doing a public service. Even if the chatters are never arrested.
After all, the pedophiles would be getting what they want, and the police would be doing a public service by distracting the pedophile population from going after the real thing. Everybody wins. |
I'm with you on that idea! Actually, I'm for ALL police to be assigned to the Pedophile Chat Unit. That way, the cops and pedos keep each other preoccupied and normal citizens can go about their lives and not get harrassed by cops or pedos. |
It's a mad, mad, mad, world...and oddly enough, in a weird way the idea makes sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| conrad2 wrote: |
| If Scott Ritter was searching online for fifteen year old girls, and there were not any to be found, then he never would have had the chance to masturbate with a webcam. |
This is so weak. The objective entrapment defense requires that the gov't have had impelled a normally law-abiding citizen to commit a crime. |
And when police began using "predisposition" to a crime to target and entrap people for the crime itself, that is exactly when it became thought crime.
| conrad2 wrote: |
| Scott Ritter knew the girl was of legal age and a police officer to boot. Prove otherwise. Hell he already knew the police did this sort of sting operation from his previous two arrests. |
Right. For all we know, Ritter's thing might be for police posing as 15-year-old decoys. At the end of the day, you have no real victim here and hence constitutionally no real crime, only a pretextual law to preferentially prosecute some and not others.
Anyway, the current child sex abuse witchhunt/hysteria has been used as a wedge to encroach upon civil liberties. These laws have been used not only to prosecute political enemies, but are disregarded when it comes to political friends.
As an example, the Franklin Credit Union scandal stretched all the way from Boys Town, NE to Bush's White House. Lawrence King was jailed for embezzlement, but not for all the counts of child prostitution.
| Quote: |
The "Washington Post", "New York Times", "Village Voice and "National Law Journal" covered the full range of accusations after the story broke in November of 1988. King's money machinations were also linked to the Iran-Contra affair, and some say that King provided the CIA with information garnered from his alleged activities as a "pimp" for the high and mighty.
"Pronto", the Barcelona-based, largest circulation weekly in Spain with 4.5 million readers, reported that the Lawrence E. King child prostitution scandal "appears to directly implicate politicos of the state of Nebraska and Washington, D.C. who are very close to the White House and George Bush himself."
The weekly stated that Roy Stephens, a private investigator who has worked on the case and heads the MISSING YOUTH FOUNDATION, "says there is reason to believe THAT THE CIA IS DIRECTLY IMPLICATED," and that the "FBI refuses to help in the investigation and has SABOTAGED any efforts" to get to the bottom of the story. Stephens says that "Paul Bonacci directly accused President Bush of being implicated" in the affair when he testified before the Franklin Committee. Bonacci, who had been one of the child prostitutes, is identified by leading child-abuse experts as a well-informed, credible witness.
Lawrence King was no stranger to President Bush. And Lawrence King was no stranger to Craig Spence. Several of the Omaha child prostitutes testified that they had traveled to Washington, D.C. with King in private planes to attend political events which were followed by [CHILD] SEX PARTIES. King and Spence had much in common. Not only were they both Republican Party activists but they had gone into business together procuring prostitutes for Washington's elite.
Bush's name had repeatedly surfaced in the Nebraska scandal. |
Read about it in more detail here or google "franklin credit union scandal."
Additional reading: "The Political Use and Abuse of the Pedophile," in Journal of Homosexuality, Sept. 2008.
Sexual Fascism in Progressive America |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| conrad2 wrote: |
| If Scott Ritter was searching online for fifteen year old girls, and there were not any to be found, then he never would have had the chance to masturbate with a webcam. |
This is so weak. The objective entrapment defense requires that the gov't have had impelled a normally law-abiding citizen to commit a crime. |
And when police began using "predisposition" to a crime to target and entrap people for the crime itself, that is exactly when it became thought crime. |
How? Predisposition isn't a crime, its how to rebut a defense. Remember, entrapment means the citizen committed a crime, but is excused because of the circumstances. If there was a predisposition, then there was no inducement by the police, i.e., without police presence the crime would have been committed anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
