|
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 11:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
Unless there were no other willing 15 year old sex chatters online at that moment. And what was his crime exactly? Masturbating online in front of a willing adult police woman who liked to pose as a teenage girl to relive her own high school fantasy?
Anyway I dont think this is even an issue of entrapment. Entrapment means there was a crime, and there was no crime here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One time when I was doing the webcam cybersex thing with an FBI agent, I was a little bit worried. She said she was 28 and we turned our webcams on and she was definitely down with watching a dickshow. But at the same time, I was wondering how or why this was all happening. One one hand, I thought surely it had to be legal since we were consentual adults, but at the same time I was wondering if there was some law I was being set up on, perhaps some obscure interstate porn law since she was in Virginia and I was in Tennessee. It just didn't make any damn sense for her to be there at her cubicle, with FBI credentials visibly clipped on her and people walking around. But nothing ever happened. No men in black skimasks and jackboots ever came crashing through my door. But it was one of the strangest webcam encounters I've had.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
In my opinion, how the police handled the situation is this news article is a proper use of tax dollars. http://greenevillesun.com/story/304107 A concerned citizen informed the police about a man who had sent her child porn, so the police set up a sting operation and arrested the guy who thought he was meeting someone at a motel to have sex with an 8 year old.
While I certainly don't condone people [Mod Edit-masturbating] on webcam while a 15 year old watches, I really don't think it works within city, state, or federal budgets to pay people to sit around all day to chat in chatrooms. If a concerned citizen gives the police a tip about someone, that makes sense, but not to just sit around all day online chatting up people at random. There are so many existing crimes that police are having difficulty solving without putting these unsolved crimes on the back burner in order to chat with random citizens all day, most of whom are law abiding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
Except no crime would have been created if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice.
Also the postal inspectors didn't produce kiddy porn. What they did is send a catalog and order form to people. Had the people not responded everything would have been fine. They choose to break the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
Except no crime would have been created if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice.
Also the postal inspectors didn't produce kiddy porn. What they did is send a catalog and order form to people. Had the people not responded everything would have been fine. They choose to break the law. |
All they did is send a catalog of kiddy porn? What if these people had no idea where to find kiddy porn (and would hence have never been able to buy it) until the government put it right in front of their faces? What if one of these guys was trying hard to fight his problems with kiddy porn, and was doing fine until he got that catalog and then he could no longer resist. Deplorable behavior on the governments part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would be really upset if the government was mailing stuff like that to my house, making me look like a pedophile. I was a little bit pissed when I started receiving AIPAC packets in the mail after I donated to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. As much as I hate AIPAC, I would be much more pissed to receive kiddy porn order forms. That's way over the top.
What about all of these men who didn't make the news who are totally innocent, whose wives and mothers opened the letters, found kiddy porn order forms, and started wondering what kind of skeletons were in their husbands' and sons' closets? Why should it be their tax dollars that pays for this stuff to be mailed to them and embarrass the Hell out of them?
I'm all for the prosecution of those who exploit and abuse children, but there's a right way and a wrong way for law enforcement to handle the situation. Keeping people who have been convicted of sexually abusing children locked up would be a good start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items.
Which makes most of the those "what ifs" totally irrelevant.
All I can say that if I had young children, I wouldn't be alarmed at pedophiles being exposed and jailed.
Once again, no one held a gun to their heads and made them sign up. If their willpower was so weak that the mere sight of a mailing list made them willing to sign...do you think it would restrain them when they see an opportunity with a real live child? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
Except no crime would have been created if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice.
Also the postal inspectors didn't produce kiddy porn. What they did is send a catalog and order form to people. Had the people not responded everything would have been fine. They choose to break the law. |
The sort of sex-crime hysteria that's been growing worse and worse in the United States has created an atmosphere where even being caught with a "kiddie porn catalogue" might well be enough to seriously damage your reputation, and maybe even cause you some legal problems. Even if you weren't eventually convicted, it's entirely possible a stigma will follow you. That's exactly why this kind of thing is totally unacceptable.
In a totally reasonable, rational society, I agree there would be little problem with "testing" people for crimes. We don't live in a totally reasonable, rational society though. We live in a society of hysterics and over-reactions. As a result, the government shouldn't be doing this.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Well at this point you've all ready pretty much convicted these individuals in your head, and are now simply trying to find enough evidence to convict them in fact as well. And of course this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You assume that because they received these catalogues, there must be a reason. You're literally demonstrating exactly why the government shouldn't be doing such things: the common citizen is far too likely to behave exactly as you are in this thread. Even knowing the catalogues aren't real you've all ready labelled the recipients as individuals with a hankering for child porn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
I don't know, bacasper. The gov't actions you describe sound like they're probably over the line. But they don't help Ritter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| 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. |
When the subject is targeted because of the alleged predisposition. He had never committed a crime before, and would not have committed the instant crime if not for inducement of government agents. This may not be so in Ritter's case, but others have been so entrapped, as in Operation Looking Glass.
In that sting, postal inspectors themselves violated multiple sections of 18 USC 2252 when they produced, reproduced, advertised, offered for sale, and sent through the US mail child pornography in order to entrap targets with a clean record but who were tagged with the "predisposition" label. Do we really want to be paying our public servants to be making and selling kiddy porn and creating crime where there would not otherwise be any? |
Except no crime would have been created if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice.
Also the postal inspectors didn't produce kiddy porn. What they did is send a catalog and order form to people. Had the people not responded everything would have been fine. They choose to break the law. |
The sort of sex-crime hysteria that's been growing worse and worse in the United States has created an atmosphere where even being caught with a "kiddie porn catalogue" might well be enough to seriously damage your reputation, and maybe even cause you some legal problems. Even if you weren't eventually convicted, it's entirely possible a stigma will follow you. That's exactly why this kind of thing is totally unacceptable.
In a totally reasonable, rational society, I agree there would be little problem with "testing" people for crimes. We don't live in a totally reasonable, rational society though. We live in a society of hysterics and over-reactions. As a result, the government shouldn't be doing this.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Well at this point you've all ready pretty much convicted these individuals in your head, and are now simply trying to find enough evidence to convict them in fact as well. And of course this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. You assume that because they received these catalogues, there must be a reason. You're literally demonstrating exactly why the government shouldn't be doing such things: the common citizen is far too likely to behave exactly as you are in this thread. Even knowing the catalogues aren't real you've all ready labelled the recipients as individuals with a hankering for child porn. |
No, only those who responded. Like I said "Except no crime would have be committed if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice"
And then just under that I also wrote "Had the people not responded EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE". How you equate that with judging them as consumers of kiddie porn is quite beyond me.
(Capitals are for emphasis since it apparently didn't sink in the first time around) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
No, only those who responded. Like I said "Except no crime would have be committed if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice"
And then just under that I also wrote "Had the people not responded EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE". How you equate that with judging them as consumers of kiddie porn is quite beyond me. |
You said this:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Right there, totally independent of everything else you've said, you've made a blanket judgment against anyone who received those packets. Anyone who received them had "a hankering for such items." That's what the word only means, TUM. And there's nothing stopping other people from making the exact same judgment. A totally innocent man who receives a catalogue in the mail could suffer substantial harm to his reputation if said catalogue were discovered by someone else, even if he ordered nothing from it.
The world is filled with plenty of people who leap to hasty, harsh judgment, just like you did here. "He received a kiddie-porn catalogue. Such catalogues are only sent to people with a hankering for such items. Ergo, he must have a hankering." Even in the absence of guilt, reputations can be damaged by this sort of thing. I understand you don't care about things like that, but many people do, and the government risking people's reputations on this sort of nonsense is inexcusable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
No, only those who responded. Like I said "Except no crime would have be committed if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice"
And then just under that I also wrote "Had the people not responded EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE". How you equate that with judging them as consumers of kiddie porn is quite beyond me. |
You said this:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Right there, totally independent of everything else you've said, you've made a blanket judgment against anyone who received those packets.
. |
Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. And those were the persons I meant. People who didn't respond are excluded. I understand this is Dave's where one is supposed to parse everything and every word...but I like to think there are some intelligent people who can actually read between the lines.
But I'll rephrase it just for you. "They were only sent to certain people's house. Those who responded obviously had a hankering for such items."
Don't expect such clarifications in the future. I've already told you what I meant and that should be that. If you keep on being so deliberately obtuse, I'll just ignore you and keep posting as if you never responded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
No, only those who responded. Like I said "Except no crime would have be committed if these "targets" didn't buy the products. Simply because government agents or others induce you to break the law, doesn't necessarily force you to break the law. You always have a choice"
And then just under that I also wrote "Had the people not responded EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE". How you equate that with judging them as consumers of kiddie porn is quite beyond me. |
You said this:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
Right there, totally independent of everything else you've said, you've made a blanket judgment against anyone who received those packets.
. |
Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. And those were the persons I meant. People who didn't respond are excluded. I understand this is Dave's where one is supposed to parse everything and every word...but I like to think there are some intelligent people who can actually read between the lines.
But I'll rephrase it just for you. "They were only sent to certain people's house. Those who responded obviously had a hankering for such items."
Don't expect such clarifications in the future. I've already told you what I meant and that should be that. If you keep on being so deliberately obtuse, I'll just ignore you and keep posting as if you never responded. |
So you wouldnt mind if I sent kiddy porn catalogs, White supremecist literature, High Times, Piss Drinkers Magazine to your home for your wife, girlfriend, neighbors, mailman to see. Its ok as long as you dont have a "hankerin" for those things? "Gee mom, I dont know why they sent me that issue of Scat Quarterly. Really I dont." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Only it's not totally independent of everything else. I specifically said those who responded. |
You said some things specifically about those who responded, then you said something else about everyone who was mailed to. I'll repeat the quote again for you:
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First off those packets weren't sent out en masse. They were only sent to certain people's houses...those with a hankering for such items. |
This can only mean one thing: if you received a packet, then you have a hankering for such items. That's what only means. There's no way this sentence can merely apply to those who responded, because it's about the people who the packets were mailed to. Try to squirm all you like, it won't avail you. Your sentence couldn't have been clearer, and it couldn't possibly be limited to "only those who responded" based on the words and grammar involved. You said packets were only sent to those with a hankering for such items. This means -- in your judgment -- that 100% of the people who received a packet had a hankering for child porn.
With regards to your "clarification", it's not a clarification at all, it's an alteration. It completely changes the meaning of the sentence. Make or don't make whatever "clarifications" you want, but don't think anyone's fooled by them. We all know what you said, and you got called on it because it's symptomatic of the inane bullshit that's the cause of many social problems in our country.
Maybe it's time for you to stop making smart ass comments about the quality of the poster's on Daves, and start considering whether or not your modus operani of posting inane, knee-jerk conservative replies to everything and then trying to defend them with transparent sophistry really leaves you in a position to make such comments without hypocrisy. I'm sorry to make a personal statement of such a nature, but if you're going to be sassy, incorrect, and supportive of unethical governmental practices simultaneously, then it needs to be said.
Last edited by Fox on Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
