To Catch a Predator

[Gunny]

I have a question. Or several.

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden. Moving on from there ....

I've watched this show more than twice, and even managed to get some holier than thou piece of trash on another message board who couldn't find logic with both hands and a friend helping all hating on me. The question is simple:

Does the end justify the means? Chris Hanson and his entourage from MSNBC basically entrap these idiots. They get online and lure some child molester to an address. Kind of in the same boat, you can watch Cops and invariably they will have prostitution stings to catch the johns soliciting prostitution. Or the buyers of drugs.

Did someone wipe the entrapment laws off the books without telling ME? We always justify our behavior, even to the point of allowing obvious criminals to walk, on points of the law. What's legal about baiting people? The fact is, the situation for which the person is busted would not exist without the entrapment.

Just wondering what every-and/or-anyone thinks about this.

[Jess]

If you want to look at it from a religious standpoint - we were told in school (small, independent Christian school) and church that "It's never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right."

Definition: The people on Predator are purposefully lying/deceiving and setting people up for something that is entirely untrue ... in order to catch people who have a desire to break the law in regards to sexual contact/communication with people who are underage.

Is their purpose "righteous", if you will? It seems to be. But is it right? I dunno.

[darin]

I agree, I think. The show set up opportunity - creating the vehicle for the crime. Entrapment hands-down.


http://static.lolstream.com/images/153_CMMYaJW.gif


http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/banana-chris-hansen.gif

[Gunny]

I agree, I think. The show set up opportunity - creating the vehicle for the crime. Entrapment hands-down.


http://static.lolstream.com/images/153_CMMYaJW.gif

Agreed. It's a lose/lose deal. There's the part of me that says pedophile = target. The other side says that from a legal, Constitutional standpoint, the ends don't justify the means.

More importantly, who is it that decides which laws we can just overlook in the name of "right", and which ones we don't? I hate the show Cops. And yu can count on one hand the times you've seen me invoke the "hate" word. However, when you have 4-6 cops taking down a dude in possession of a whole quarter bag of weed, there's a problem, IMO. Or some dude blowing point 009.

Chris Hanson is a self-righteous SOB and grates on my nerves. I'd like to see one of these scumbags just knock his ass out. WTF. He's set them up and they're going to jail anyway. Knocking that puss out would be a freebee. I'm wondering what's next. "To Catch an Addict"? Dangle some crack in front of a homeless crack addict then bust him when he tries to smoke it?

[Jess]

I agree, I think. The show set up opportunity - creating the vehicle for the crime. Entrapment hands-down.


http://static.lolstream.com/images/153_CMMYaJW.gif


http://movieboozer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/banana-chris-hansen.gif

We can't even bait/entrap deer around here ...

[ConHog]

I have a question. Or several.

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden. Moving on from there ....

I've watched this show more than twice, and even managed to get some holier than thou piece of trash on another message board who couldn't find logic with both hands and a friend helping all hating on me. The question is simple:

Does the end justify the means? Chris Hanson and his entourage from MSNBC basically entrap these idiots. They get online and lure some child molester to an address. Kind of in the same boat, you can watch Cops and invariably they will have prostitution stings to catch the johns soliciting prostitution. Or the buyers of drugs.

Did someone wipe the entrapment laws off the books without telling ME? We always justify our behavior, even to the point of allowing obvious criminals to walk, on points of the law. What's legal about baiting people? The fact is, the situation for which the person is busted would not exist without the entrapment.

Just wondering what every-and/or-anyone thinks about this.



I DO think a lot of things the police do are entrapment GUnny, but this isn't one of them, and here's why.

The show is only targeting guys who are on message boards looking for that sort of thing to begin with. It's not like they're putting a 12 y/o girl on the sidewalk outside their home. These guys are making the first move by going to websites that cater to these freaks.


The show just takes advantage of that to catch them.

[fj1200]

I DO think a lot of things the police do are entrapment GUnny, but this isn't one of them, and here's why.

The show is only targeting guys who are on message boards looking for that sort of thing to begin with. It's not like they're putting a 12 y/o girl on the sidewalk outside their home. These guys are making the first move by going to websites that cater to these freaks.


The show just takes advantage of that to catch them.

Full disclosure: I've never watched the show and likely will never.

How is this different than some police stings that have been run?

[DragonStryk72]

I have a question. Or several.

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden. Moving on from there ....

I've watched this show more than twice, and even managed to get some holier than thou piece of trash on another message board who couldn't find logic with both hands and a friend helping all hating on me. The question is simple:

Does the end justify the means? Chris Hanson and his entourage from MSNBC basically entrap these idiots. They get online and lure some child molester to an address. Kind of in the same boat, you can watch Cops and invariably they will have prostitution stings to catch the johns soliciting prostitution. Or the buyers of drugs.

Did someone wipe the entrapment laws off the books without telling ME? We always justify our behavior, even to the point of allowing obvious criminals to walk, on points of the law. What's legal about baiting people? The fact is, the situation for which the person is busted would not exist without the entrapment.

Just wondering what every-and/or-anyone thinks about this.

I have two problems with this show. One is the problem of entrapment, which this most certainly is. It creates an atmosphere where it's possible that those who are truly guilty end up going free because they were entrapped into committing a crime.

Point two is the effect this show, and other like it, have, convincing people that this is happening all the time. Pedophilia is a problem I'll grant, but people see these stories on the tv, and they people in general become convinced it's happening everywhere, when it isn't, creating the "stranger danger" that plagues our society.

We report pretty much every child crime that happens anywhere in the world, and unfortunately, that leads us to panic. As an example, I saw an article a couple years back where a mom was trying to board the DC Metro, when the doors closed, leaving her on the outside, and her baby inside. The passengers around the stroller immediately formed a protective ring around the child, keeping it calm, and getting off at the next stop to bring the child to security and make sure that that the kid was brought back to the mom.

What gets me is the interview in the paper with one of the people who said that it was the "worst possible place to lose a child". Really? That's the worst place? A place where half a dozen people who have no connection to the child will immediately jump into action to protect it, and make certain the baby gets back to the mother? I don't know, in my book, that's sort of a best case scenario. I want to live in the sort of place that people act in this manner. In my mind, the worst place would be a warzone, or some other area with high mortality rate.

[ConHog]

I have two problems with this show. One is the problem of entrapment, which this most certainly is. It creates an atmosphere where it's possible that those who are truly guilty end up going free because they were entrapped into committing a crime.

Point two is the effect this show, and other like it, have, convincing people that this is happening all the time. Pedophilia is a problem I'll grant, but people see these stories on the tv, and they people in general become convinced it's happening everywhere, when it isn't, creating the "stranger danger" that plagues our society.

We report pretty much every child crime that happens anywhere in the world, and unfortunately, that leads us to panic. As an example, I saw an article a couple years back where a mom was trying to board the DC Metro, when the doors closed, leaving her on the outside, and her baby inside. The passengers around the stroller immediately formed a protective ring around the child, keeping it calm, and getting off at the next stop to bring the child to security and make sure that that the kid was brought back to the mom.

What gets me is the interview in the paper with one of the people who said that it was the "worst possible place to lose a child". Really? That's the worst place? A place where half a dozen people who have no connection to the child will immediately jump into action to protect it, and make certain the baby gets back to the mother? I don't know, in my book, that's sort of a best case scenario. I want to live in the sort of place that people act in this manner. In my mind, the worst place would be a warzone, or some other area with high mortality rate.




How do you figure it most certainly is entrapment?

As for people they catch getting off, I don't think they do. I mean the show has been running for like 8 years now. I think they would have stopped if they weren't getting convictions.

[Jess]

How do you figure it most certainly is entrapment?

As for people they catch getting off, I don't think they do. I mean the show has been running for like 8 years now. I think they would have stopped if they weren't getting convictions.

The proof is in the sentencing- most of the one we saw a week or so ago ended up getting three days in jail or something like that.

With the exeption of the guy who showed up at the house, having been to court the day before in connection with being caught by the same show previously. He did have major mental issues as I recall. For real - a brain injury that messed him up pretty good.

Point is, if this show was completely fair/legal/kosher/whatever, wouldn't you expect to see much harsher sentencing than three days jail time?

There is a good purpose to it but the way they're going about it is questionable at least.

[ConHog]

The proof is in the sentencing- most of the one we saw a week or so ago ended up getting three days in jail or something like that.

With the exeption of the guy who showed up at the house, having been to court the day before in connection with being caught by the same show previously. He did have major mental issues as I recall. For real - a brain injury that messed him up pretty good.

Point is, if this show was completely fair/legal/kosher/whatever, wouldn't you expect to see much harsher sentencing than three days jail time?

There is a good purpose to it but the way they're going about it is questionable at least.

If the show wasn't kosher as far as entrapment goes you would see NO sentence because the evidence obtained would be inadmissible in court. Instead what you are seeing is that courts are so backed up that DAs are instructed to make plea deals on all but the most heinous of crimes. Showing up naked at a supposed teenagers house with a can of kool whip in one hand and a cat in the other is disgusting, but pretty benign as far as crime goes and so deals are made.

[Jess]

If the show wasn't kosher as far as entrapment goes you would see NO sentence because the evidence obtained would be inadmissible in court. Instead what you are seeing is that courts are so backed up that DAs are instructed to make plea deals on all but the most heinous of crimes. Showing up naked at a supposed teenagers house with a can of kool whip in one hand and a cat in the other is disgusting, but pretty benign as far as crime goes and so deals are made.

I dunno, CH.

Wait, what? Cool whip and a cat?

[ConHog]

I dunno, CH.

Wait, what? Cool whip and a cat?

LOL you didnt see that episode?


Dude is wandering around naked with a cat in one hand and cool whip in the other and in pops Hansen " You want to tell me what's going on here?"

"Umm I ummm, " and then came the classic Predator response " No see, I would never do anything like that, I just came to make sure she's safe and to tell her that she needs to be careful b/c there are predators out there" LOL EVERY one of them try that line. As if one of these times the cops are going to respond with "Oh good job man, here why don't you your way with her as your reward."

[DragonStryk72]

The problem is that shows are not cops. They're not trying to get a conviction on these shows, CH, they're trying to play to the base fear in us all. As long as they get a ratings grabbing story, they don't much care about the aftermath.

[Gunny]

I DO think a lot of things the police do are entrapment GUnny, but this isn't one of them, and here's why.

The show is only targeting guys who are on message boards looking for that sort of thing to begin with. It's not like they're putting a 12 y/o girl on the sidewalk outside their home. These guys are making the first move by going to websites that cater to these freaks.


The show just takes advantage of that to catch them.

They ARE putting that person on the "virtual sidewalk".


Full disclosure: I've never watched the show and likely will never.

How is this different than some police stings that have been run?

If you read my first two posts, it's about the same. "We've done it before in other areas" isn't the answer. From a legal standpoint, I want to know if law enforcement is just ignoring the law for "the greater good". In my mind, regardless the intent, they violate entrapment laws.


How do you figure it most certainly is entrapment?

As for people they catch getting off, I don't think they do. I mean the show has been running for like 8 years now. I think they would have stopped if they weren't getting convictions.

Easy. If these people were not putting out the bait, the so-called predator wouldn't have anything to bite.

[ConHog]

The problem is that shows are not cops. They're not trying to get a conviction on these shows, CH, they're trying to play to the base fear in us all. As long as they get a ratings grabbing story, they don't much care about the aftermath.

Partially , that IS true. But they ARE doing it in a way that allows the police to use any evidence they might gather because they are acting in conjunction with the police and therefor considered to acting as agents of the police and are held to the same standards.


As an example. Imagine one of these freaks got a hold of your daughter and you did what any father would do , you beat the shit out of him. Now imagine you decide to record the beating and force him to confess. If you are acting on your own, the recorded confession WOULD be admissible in court, and of course would probably be used against you in your own trial; but if you're acting in cooperation with the police, that confession would never see the inside of a court room.

I think Predator DOES care about getting convictions against the freaks they have on there.


Easy. If these people were not putting out the bait, the so-called predator wouldn't have anything to bite.

so without their "bait" underage girls who are willing to have sex with men they meet online don't exist?

[Gunny]

If the show wasn't kosher as far as entrapment goes you would see NO sentence because the evidence obtained would be inadmissible in court. Instead what you are seeing is that courts are so backed up that DAs are instructed to make plea deals on all but the most heinous of crimes. Showing up naked at a supposed teenagers house with a can of kool whip in one hand and a cat in the other is disgusting, but pretty benign as far as crime goes and so deals are made.

I disagree. Watch an episode of Cops. It doesn't take 6 cops and a taser in the small of the back of some 140 pound drug addict to bring him down. You ARE the perfect example of why I started this thread. Just because it's accepted doen't make it right, nor legal.


LOL you didnt see that episode?


Dude is wandering around naked with a cat in one hand and cool whip in the other and in pops Hansen " You want to tell me what's going on here?"

"Umm I ummm, " and then came the classic Predator response " No see, I would never do anything like that, I just came to make sure she's safe and to tell her that she needs to be careful b/c there are predators out there" LOL EVERY one of them try that line. As if one of these times the cops are going to respond with "Oh good job man, here why don't you your way with her as your reward."

That may very well be. I'm not trying to justify the behavior itself. I'm questioning the tactics used to entrap these people.

[ConHog]

I disagree. Watch an episode of Cops. It doesn't take 6 cops and a taser in the small of the back of some 140 pound drug addict to bring him down. You ARE the perfect example of why I started this thread. Just because it's accepted doen't make it right, nor legal.

On the first matter, speaking as someone who HAS went toe to toe with drug users. You'd be surprised about what a 140 dude jacked up on meth can do. But yes, most of those cops on COPS are way overboard gungho for the TV.

As to the second point, it's not entrapment by the legal definition. Therefor it's legal, now whether it's right or not could be debated.


That may very well be. I'm not trying to justify the behavior itself. I'm questioning the tactics used to entrap these people.

I don't think anyone here believes you are trying to justify the behavior of any pedophiles. Just want that clear.

[pegwinn]

I have a question. Or several.

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden. Moving on from there ....



Agreed. First they need to be beaten by someone with skill and dedication. Then shot in the head. Hang a sign on them that reads "failed human being" and toss out with the garbage. Repeat as needed.

It is entrapment. The bad part is that it isn't a sting operation conducted by Cops with the intent of warehousing the pervs. It's trash tv. I have no problem trolling for actual predators of the violent type. I do have a problem trolling for the addicts and hookers who are not actually harming anyone. Waste of resources in my view.

[Missileman]

I don't consider this entrapmant anymore than a bait car. These pedophiles lurk on chat sites trying to find their next victim. The poster posing as a kid isn't initiating the contact, but responding to an advance by the perv. The truly sad part is there are likely more that make contact with real kids than get caught in a sting.

[logroller]

LOL you didnt see that episode?


Dude is wandering around naked with a cat in one hand and cool whip in the other and in pops Hansen " You want to tell me what's going on here?"

"Umm I ummm, " and then came the classic Predator response " No see, I would never do anything like that, I just came to make sure she's safe and to tell her that she needs to be careful b/c there are predators out there" LOL EVERY one of them try that line. As if one of these times the cops are going to respond with "Oh good job man, here why don't you your way with her as your reward."
That would definitely be entrapment.

[gabosaurus]

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden.

Interesting. I feel the same way about repeat drunk drivers. I think they should get life without parole on their third conviction.



Does the end justify the means? Chris Hanson and his entourage from MSNBC basically entrap these idiots. They get online and lure some child molester to an address. Kind of in the same boat, you can watch Cops and invariably they will have prostitution stings to catch the johns soliciting prostitution. Or the buyers of drugs.

Did someone wipe the entrapment laws off the books without telling ME? We always justify our behavior, even to the point of allowing obvious criminals to walk, on points of the law. What's legal about baiting people? The fact is, the situation for which the person is busted would not exist without the entrapment..

It IS entrapment in many cases. And was proven as such in a case in Texas. As a recall, the show was almost cancelled as a result of the embarrassment that ensued.
I think it is pretty sad that someone has built an entertainment program around something as seriously sick as pedophilia. But then, I feel the same way about the "Teen Mom" show.

[logroller]

As i understand it, entrapment is when the actions of officials lead to someone breaking the law who would be otherwise unwilling or unable to break the law. Merely presenting an opportunity is not entrapment; some coercion needs to take place.

With respect to the show, an otherwise law-abiding person would not have shown up. There's a difference between the trap which ensnares an unwary innocent and a trap of an unwary criminal. I believe the latter prevails in the case of the show.

[SassyLady]

I have a question. Or several.

Let's start out with as far as I'm concerned, pedophiles should be summarily dispatched via one, .45 ACP jacket hollowpoint to the head and buried in the garden. Moving on from there ....

Agreed.



I've watched this show more than twice, and even managed to get some holier than thou piece of trash on another message board who couldn't find logic with both hands and a friend helping all hating on me. The question is simple:

Does the end justify the means? Chris Hanson and his entourage from MSNBC basically entrap these idiots. They get online and lure some child molester to an address. Kind of in the same boat, you can watch Cops and invariably they will have prostitution stings to catch the johns soliciting prostitution. Or the buyers of drugs.

Did someone wipe the entrapment laws off the books without telling ME? We always justify our behavior, even to the point of allowing obvious criminals to walk, on points of the law. What's legal about baiting people? The fact is, the situation for which the person is busted would not exist without the entrapment.

Just wondering what every-and/or-anyone thinks about this.

Perhaps the show isn't about putting the predators in jail ... it's about exposing them so all their friends, families and neighbors know what they are.

As for entrapment .... a long straight road that has just been paved is more than I can resist sometimes, especially with the new Hemi. I got the 300 up to 112 mph the other day .... if I had been pulled over for speeding (breaking the law) by a CHP that was sitting there with a radar gun ... could I have claimed entrapment because that road was just too nice to resist?

[Nukeman]

best South Park and I think quite appropriate for the conversation..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsB6ppFf94k

[ConHog]

Interesting. I feel the same way about repeat drunk drivers. I think they should get life without parole on their third conviction.



It IS entrapment in many cases. And was proven as such in a case in Texas. As a recall, the show was almost cancelled as a result of the embarrassment that ensued.
I think it is pretty sad that someone has built an entertainment program around something as seriously sick as pedophilia. But then, I feel the same way about the "Teen Mom" show.

I'm not quite that harsh on DWI. A first offense should be a thousand dollar fine, no jail time, no suspended DL. shit happens and people make mistakes that shouldn't affect their entire lives. Second offense however and it's not a mistake, it's carelessness. Five thousand dollar fine , one year in jail, 5 years suspended DL with NO waivers for work, tough shit if you can't get to work, THIRD offense and you've proven you just don't care. confiscation of vehicle, ten thousand dollar fine, 10 year PRISON sentence, lifetime driving ban. Fourth offense and you're incorrigible . Death by lethal injection.

All of the above assuming no accidents , injuries, or deaths related to the DWIs.

[pegwinn]

I'm not quite that harsh on DWI. A first offense should be a thousand dollar fine, no jail time, no suspended DL. shit happens and people make mistakes that shouldn't affect their entire lives. Second offense however and it's not a mistake, it's carelessness. Five thousand dollar fine , one year in jail, 5 years suspended DL with NO waivers for work, tough shit if you can't get to work, THIRD offense and you've proven you just don't care. confiscation of vehicle, ten thousand dollar fine, 10 year PRISON sentence, lifetime driving ban. Fourth offense and you're incorrigible . Death by lethal injection.

All of the above assuming no accidents , injuries, or deaths related to the DWIs.

I average out in the middle on DUI/DWI.

On the left, I have no issue with you driving drunk. It's your life and property to risk as you see fit.

On the right, I feel that if you cause an injury while driving drunk then you need to go to prison and a big guy named bubba needs to make you his bitch. If you cause a death while driving drunk, you should be put to death.

[ConHog]

I average out in the middle on DUI/DWI.

On the left, I have no issue with you driving drunk. It's your life and property to risk as you see fit.

On the right, I feel that if you cause an injury while driving drunk then you need to go to prison and a big guy named bubba needs to make you his bitch. If you cause a death while driving drunk, you should be put to death.

So if you just get lucky and don't cause any accidents, no harm no foul?

[pegwinn]

So if you just get lucky and don't cause any accidents, no harm no foul?

Yep. Key on the words NO HARM and NO FOUL.

It's your life to live or throw away. But, as soon as you impact on someone elses right to do the same, someone has to step in. Note that my stance on punishment is far harsher than the law allows.

I'm sure I have pissed someone off. So, I will placidly await the flames....... :lol:

[ConHog]

Yep. Key on the words NO HARM and NO FOUL.

It's your life to live or throw away. But, as soon as you impact on someone elses right to do the same, someone has to step in. Note that my stance on punishment is far harsher than the law allows.

I'm sure I have pissed someone off. So, I will placidly await the flames....... :lol:


The foul IS driving drunk, not causing an accident.

And if you're not pissing people off, you're not giving very many opinions.

[pegwinn]

The foul IS driving drunk, not causing an accident.

And if you're not pissing people off, you're not giving very many opinions.

Why is merely driving drunk a foul? I agree that it is stupid, risky, etc. But in an of itself I don't think it is something to involve the law in.

Once something bad happens, drunk driving becomes an aggravating factor of course. And, anyone with common sense wants the drunk driver crucified.

[ConHog]

Why is merely driving drunk a foul? I agree that it is stupid, risky, etc. But in an of itself I don't think it is something to involve the law in.

Once something bad happens, drunk driving becomes an aggravating factor of course. And, anyone with common sense wants the drunk driver crucified.

Why let it get to that, when we have indisputable proof that drunk drivers are dangerous and can't safely operate a vehicle? I mean other than a few idiots who claim they can drive better drunk than sober, does anyone really dispute that drunk drivers are a danger?

No different than if we said "okay you can text and drive, but if you get in an accident while texting, we'll get you" thats not how it works.

[logroller]

Why let it get to that, when we have indisputable proof that drunk drivers are dangerous and can't safely operate a vehicle? I mean other than a few idiots who claim they can drive better drunk than sober, does anyone really dispute that drunk drivers are a danger?

No different than if we said "okay you can text and drive, but if you get in an accident while texting, we'll get you" thats not how it works.

Oh I wouldn't say that, but I would say I drive better drunk than a lot of other idiots drive sober.:laugh:


Derailment ahead...

I've never understood why we let kids drive before we let them drink. Seems backwards to me. :dunno:

[ConHog]

Oh I wouldn't say that, but I would say I drive better drunk than a lot of other idiots drive sober.:laugh:


Derailment ahead...

I've never understood why we let kids drive before we let them drink. Seems backwards to me. :dunno:

Funny story along those lines.

When I was 16 we got a german exchange student. He was pretty cool, a year older than me. Anyway after being here about a month we were talking and he was amazed that my cousin and I (same age 16) both had vehicles but that we couldn't legally drink. he though it was stupid and backwards. I pointed out to him that I could drive anywhere I wanted and knew plenty of places to get beer but noway could he drive at home, so who was the stupid backwards one. He laughed and told me he got the point.

That fucker never did learn how to drive very well while he was here.

[pegwinn]

Why let it get to that, when we have indisputable proof that drunk drivers are dangerous and can't safely operate a vehicle? I mean other than a few idiots who claim they can drive better drunk than sober, does anyone really dispute that drunk drivers are a danger?

No different than if we said "okay you can text and drive, but if you get in an accident while texting, we'll get you" thats not how it works.

Because this is a country where you are supposed to be free.

To me that means I can do anything I please as long as I don't infringe on your rights. I agree that if you drink and drive and hurt someone you should pay. But, since stupid is not against the law we should leave people alone to be stupid if they don't harm anyone but themselves.

We obviously disagree on how to make law. You and others apparently feel it is ok to abrogate my freedom by passing restrictive laws. I feel that we should punish only those who've actually done harm.

[ConHog]

Because this is a country where you are supposed to be free.

To me that means I can do anything I please as long as I don't infringe on your rights. I agree that if you drink and drive and hurt someone you should pay. But, since stupid is not against the law we should leave people alone to be stupid if they don't harm anyone but themselves.

We obviously disagree on how to make law. You and others apparently feel it is ok to abrogate my freedom by passing restrictive laws. I feel that we should punish only those who've actually done harm.

I have a right to a drunk free highway. You do NOT have the right to drive drunk.

[Gunny]

If the show wasn't kosher as far as entrapment goes you would see NO sentence because the evidence obtained would be inadmissible in court. Instead what you are seeing is that courts are so backed up that DAs are instructed to make plea deals on all but the most heinous of crimes. Showing up naked at a supposed teenagers house with a can of kool whip in one hand and a cat in the other is disgusting, but pretty benign as far as crime goes and so deals are made.

Wrong. The law breaks as many or more laws than criminals do.


As i understand it, entrapment is when the actions of officials lead to someone breaking the law who would be otherwise unwilling or unable to break the law. Merely presenting an opportunity is not entrapment; some coercion needs to take place.

With respect to the show, an otherwise law-abiding person would not have shown up. There's a difference between the trap which ensnares an unwary innocent and a trap of an unwary criminal. I believe the latter prevails in the case of the show.

I disagree. Entrapment is law enforcement presenting an opportunity that would otherwise not be available.


So if you just get lucky and don't cause any accidents, no harm no foul?

If you get lucky and cause no accidents. then who knows? If a tree a fall in the forest .....


Because this is a country where you are supposed to be free.

To me that means I can do anything I please as long as I don't infringe on your rights. I agree that if you drink and drive and hurt someone you should pay. But, since stupid is not against the law we should leave people alone to be stupid if they don't harm anyone but themselves.

We obviously disagree on how to make law. You and others apparently feel it is ok to abrogate my freedom by passing restrictive laws. I feel that we should punish only those who've actually done harm.

Agreed.

[ConHog]

I disagree. Entrapment is law enforcement presenting an opportunity that would otherwise not be available.

Thanks, so unless you suppose that websites with little girls willing to meet with older guys wouldn't exist without programs like Predator, you have to admit that the show is NOT providing an opportunity that wouldn't otherwise be there.


Do you know what a controlled buy is Gunny?


If you get lucky and cause no accidents. then who knows? If a tree a fall in the forest .....

So let's say a guy writes letters to Jess telling her he wants to rape and kill her. Do you not look at that as illegal, or do you wait until he's actually caused harm? I mean that's just the logical conclusion of your way of thinking.

[Gunny]

Thanks, so unless you suppose that websites with little girls willing to meet with older guys wouldn't exist without programs like Predator, you have to admit that the show is NOT providing an opportunity that wouldn't otherwise be there.


Do you know what a controlled buy is Gunny?

Trying to appeal to my emotion isn't going to cut it. My question concerns the legality, period.

I'd shoot a fucking ped so fast he wouldn't know what happened. Not the point. The point is, this self-agrandizing show with that megalomaniacal SOB Chris Hanson is entrapment, and a vioaltion of the law.

[ConHog]

Trying to appeal to my emotion isn't going to cut it. My question concerns the legality, period.

I'd shoot a fucking ped so fast he wouldn't know what happened. Not the point. The point is, this self-agrandizing show with that megalomaniacal SOB Chris Hanson is entrapment, and a vioaltion of the law.

I'll ask you again. Do you know what a controlled buy is?

[Gunny]

I'll ask you again. Do you know what a controlled buy is?

I'll ask you again. Do you know what entrapment is? It isn't okay just because it suits your fancy.

[pegwinn]

I have a right to a drunk free highway. You do NOT have the right to drive drunk.

I am a free citizen of these United States. I have a right to get drunk, drive my car, or do both at my discretion. I do not have the right to cause you harm or infringe on your rights while doing so though. So, your safety on the "drunk free highway" is a concern of mine as well. But, so long as I don't harm you, you really don't have a case.

[ConHog]

I am a free citizen of these United States. I have a right to get drunk, drive my car, or do both at my discretion. I do not have the right to cause you harm or infringe on your rights while doing so though. So, your safety on the "drunk free highway" is a concern of mine as well. But, so long as I don't harm you, you really don't have a case.

Obviously the law is on my side, good luck in your efforts to change that.


I'll ask you again. Do you know what entrapment is? It isn't okay just because it suits your fancy.

Neither is something entrapment just because you wish it were so.

Since you don't know. I'll tell you. A controlled buy is when a LEO pretends to be a drug dealer and sells to users in order to make an arrest. Most of the time it is actually used to secure cooperation in arresting someone higher up the chain, but the point stands.

[pegwinn]

Obviously the law is on my side, good luck in your efforts to change that.

The law is wrong. Those who agree with repressive law are wrong as well.

Simply because you have the authority to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing.

Guess we will agree to not agree?

[Gunny]

Neither is something entrapment just because you wish it were so.

Since you don't know. I'll tell you. A controlled buy is when a LEO pretends to be a drug dealer and sells to users in order to make an arrest. Most of the time it is actually used to secure cooperation in arresting someone higher up the chain, but the point stands.

It's entrapment. Plain and simple. It's no less so just because you think the end justifies the means.

[ConHog]

The law is wrong. Those who agree with repressive law are wrong as well.

Simply because you have the authority to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing.

Guess we will agree to not agree?

I always agree that you have the right to be wrong and that i can otherwise get along with you. :laugh2:


It's entrapment. Plain and simple. It's no less so just because you think the end justifies the means.

It's not entrapment because courts across the country have said it is not.

[Gunny]

It's not entrapment because courts across the country have said it is not.

Funny how that works when it's politically correct, huh?

[ConHog]

Funny how that works when it's politically correct, huh?

Nope, from a legal standpoint it is ALWAYS correct. Even when I don't like it, ex: 1964 Equal Rights Act, my opinion doesn't mean squat in the face of the legal rulings.

[Gunny]

Nope, from a legal standpoint it is ALWAYS correct. Even when I don't like it, ex: 1964 Equal Rights Act, my opinion doesn't mean squat in the face of the legal rulings.

Wrong. Entrapment violates the 5th. That simple.

[ConHog]

Wrong. Entrapment violates the 5th. That simple.

Oh bullcrap,

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

That doesn't even BEGIN to address the issue of entrapment, and even IF it did, as we have discussed before the COTUS ONLY protects your rights from being violated by the government. It simply doesn't apply to anyone else. For instance, Jimmy could goad a member into posting something they shouldn't have posted and then use that as "evidence" to ban them. The COTUS apply there? Neither does it apply to Predator.

As far as the GOVERNMENT is concerned, there has to be THREE conditions met to meet the legal standard of entrapment

1. The idea of committing the crime had to come from the government agent, not the suspect
2. The agent(s) must have talked the suspect into committing the crime. Not just said "hey let's do this" but actually talked them into it

and

3. The suspect must not have been thinking about committing the crime before interacting with the agent.

So, no it's not entrapment.

You are dead flat wrong on this one Gunny. I know I've never actually seen you admit to it before, and maybe you're just not capable; but this isn't even a debate. You're wrong. This show is NOT entrapment PERIOD.

I'm done discussing this topic because I have proven CONCLUSIVELY that you're wrong. Be a man and admit it, and move on.

[Gunny]

I always agree that you have the right to be wrong and that i can otherwise get along with you. :laugh2:

You're the one's that wrong. You're just okay with PC so long as it suits what you want. The fact is, fags, peds and whatnots are as entitled to COnstitutional Rights as you are.

[ConHog]

You're the one's that wrong. You're just okay with PC so long as it suits what you want. The fact is, fags, peds and whatnots are as entitled to COnstitutional Rights as you are.

Of course they are, but you can't just make up rights LOL

[Gunny]

Of course they are, but you can't just make up rights LOL

LO-fucking Loud. I didn't make up the 5th Amendment. Last I checked, it was part of the Bill of Rights.

[pegwinn]

I always agree that you have the right to be wrong and that i can otherwise get along with you. :laugh2:

Wow. Two mistakes on top of the rest. But, hey, as long as we get along you may yet prove to be trainable. :beer:


Of course they are, but you can't just make up rights LOL

Sure you can. The 9th Amendment takes care of those not enumerated.

Of course if that fails, we can count on the 9th..... wait for it............. circuit.

[ConHog]

LO-fucking Loud. I didn't make up the 5th Amendment. Last I checked, it was part of the Bill of Rights.

I told you, I'm done discussing this topic with you. I don't know why you can't just be a man and admit you were wrong when it's PROVEN to you that you are mistaken.

This isn't a matter of opinion it is a matter of FACTS. Those facts being that the legal conditions are NOT met for Predator to be entrapment.

Never mind the stupidity of claiming the fifth says ANYTHING about entrapment when it does not.


Wow. Two mistakes on top of the rest. But, hey, as long as we get along you may yet prove to be trainable. :beer:



Sure you can. The 9th Amendment takes care of those not enumerated.

Of course if that fails, we can count on the 9th..... wait for it............. circuit.

Sure the 9th takes care of those not enumerated, but only an insane person would try to claim that an enumerated right includes the right not to have a television show trap you into meeting what you think is an underage girl.

As for the 9th Circuit, they would probably be more likely to be on your side than mine given how liberal they often are, not to mention how wrong. :laugh:



Gunny claims its a fifth amendment violation, now you claim it's a ninth amendment violation. The truth is the courts have set conditions for what is and what is NOT entrapment and this show does NOT meet those standards PERIOD.

[Gunny]

You're not right, fuckwit. Not today, yesterday, not tomorrow. You're full of shit. Try a nice soothing douche, huh?

You KNOW better than to try and play shit with me, and you damned well know you couldn't flame with me on your best day and my worse. Now shut the fuck up. You and your "I wish I knew what the fuck was going on bullshit".

Yopu're all about violating the Constitution because you think the end justifies the means. It doesn't. Period. Now go harass some chicks. You ain't doing anything but pissing me off talking shit because you ain't got a fucking clue.

[ConHog]

You're not right, fuckwit. Not today, yesterday, not tomorrow. You're full of shit. Try a nice soothing douche, huh?

You KNOW better than to try and play shit with me, and you damned well know you couldn't flame with me on your best day and my worse. Now shut the fuck up. You and your "I wish I knew what the fuck was going on bullshit".

Yopu're all about violating the Constitution because you think the end justifies the means. It doesn't. Period. Now go harass some chicks. You ain't doing anything but pissing me off talking shit because you ain't got a fucking clue.

Wow, didn't take much to get you flaming. The above post is the FIRST flaming post in this thread, Done by YOU not me, so not sure why you are accusing me of flaming. And where the stupid statement about harrasing women came from I haven't a clue.

You're just mad b/c I have proven you wrong on this subject CONCLUSIVELY. I have posted both the text of the fifth amendment and the conditions which must be met for something to be entrapment. Your response was to name call and attempt to flame. Neither of which change the FACT that you're wrong. Hey it happens, even the great Gunny can be wrong once in awhile. The mere fact that you've never admitted it in a thread (to my knowledge) even though no one is obviously right all the time lends even more credence to my suspicions about why you flamed me.

[logroller]

I disagree. Entrapment is law enforcement presenting an opportunity that would otherwise not be available.

True. But it seems plausible that an under-aged person has in fact met in person with someone they met online; so the opportunity exists rather or not govt does so.

[ConHog]

True. But it seems plausible that an under-aged person has in fact met in person with someone they met online; so the opportunity exists rather or not govt does so.

Gunny is COMPLETELY wrong on his definition of entrapment. If you read my above post I posted the actual legal definition of it, there are three conditions that must be met, anything less is not entrapment, he seems unwilling to acknowledge that fact.

[Gunny]

True. But it seems plausible that an under-aged person has in fact met in person with someone they met online; so the opportunity exists rather or not govt does so.

You have a point. If some people weren't so busy trying to be right, there may have been a decent conversation here. I actually don't know. It IS entrapment. I also can see the end. From a legal standpoint though, I think the law is being ignored in favor of what's so-called "right".

If that's the case, change the law.

[ConHog]

You have a point. If some people weren't so busy trying to be right, there may have been a decent conversation here. I actually don't know. It IS entrapment. I also can see the end. From a legal standpoint though, I think the law is being ignored in favor of what's so-called "right".

If that's the case, change the law.

The law is NOT being ignored. I posted the conditions the government must meet to avoid entrapment. YOu chose to flame rather than admitting that my points were dead on and this show doesn't meet those standards.

[Gunny]

The law is NOT being ignored. I posted the conditions the government must meet to avoid entrapment. YOu chose to flame rather than admitting that my points were dead on and this show doesn't meet those standards.

Wrong. Entrapment laws are being ignored for the sake of PC. There's no flame there. You just got your PC ass lit up by facts. Flaming you is a waste of time. Fell free to report my post to me.

[ConHog]

Wrong. Entrapment laws are being ignored for the sake of PC. There's no flame there. You just got your PC ass lit up by facts. Flaming you is a waste of time. Fell free to report my post to me.

Gunny, read my post, you know the one you've ignored, where I posted EXACTLY what conditions must be met for something to be entrapment, there is only three so if they have been met by this show, feel free to tell me how.

Oh and while you're at it, I also posted the text of the 5th Amendment, feel free to show me where entrapment is even mentioned.

As for flaming, not a single person in this thread doesn't see that you flamed me first. Why bother trying to deny it? I have no intention of reporting it, but why you would deny you even did it is just beyond me.

[Gunny]

Gunny, read my post, you know the one you've ignored, where I posted EXACTLY what conditions must be met for something to be entrapment, there is only three so if they have been met by this show, feel free to tell me how.

Oh and while you're at it, I also posted the text of the 5th Amendment, feel free to show me where entrapment is even mentioned.

As for flaming, not a single person in this thread doesn't see that you flamed me first. Why bother trying to deny it? I have no intention of reporting it, but why you would deny you even did it is just beyond me.

I read your post.

Now go away. You're wrong. Period. End of story.

[pegwinn]

Sure the 9th takes care of those not enumerated, but only an insane person would try to claim that an enumerated right includes the right not to have a television show trap you into meeting what you think is an underage girl.

As for the 9th Circuit, they would probably be more likely to be on your side than mine given how liberal they often are, not to mention how wrong. :laugh:



Gunny claims its a fifth amendment violation, now you claim it's a ninth amendment violation. The truth is the courts have set conditions for what is and what is NOT entrapment and this show does NOT meet those standards PERIOD.

You are mistaken. I didn't claim that the perv show was protected under the 9th.

We also discussed drunk driving which IMO is my right, and I will assert it under the 9th Amendment. As long as I don't hurt anyone yadablahetc.

[ConHog]

I read your post.

Now go away. You're wrong. Period. End of story.

Just saying "me Gunny you wrong" doesn't make a person wrong gunny.

here, I'll list the conditions that the SCOTUS has set out to define entrapment once again.

1. The idea of committing the crime had to come from the government agent, not the suspect
2. The agent(s) must have talked the suspect into committing the crime. Not just said "hey let's do this" but actually talked them into it

and

3. The suspect must not have been thinking about committing the crime before interacting with the agent.

First of all, you would have to show that Predator was acting as an agent of the government for this to even apply. But I do think a reasonable argument could be made that they are in fact acting as an agent of the government.

Then you would have to show that each and every of those conditions are met for it to be entrapment. If even one is missing, it isn't entrapment.

So, at this point you have 3 choices

1. Admit you're wrong - The wisest choice
2. Show where those conditions aren't met - a tough proposition, but ........
3. Flame and tell me to go away - the most likely from you.

Your move.


You are mistaken. I didn't claim that the perv show was protected under the 9th.

We also discussed drunk driving which IMO is my right, and I will assert it under the 9th Amendment. As long as I don't hurt anyone yadablahetc.


Unlike Gunny I have no problem when admitting I'm wrong. I thought you were referring to the Predator part of the discussion when discussing the 9th.

However to that point. IF that were the case then every person who was stopped for speeding could argue that under the 9th Amendment they have the right to drive 200 MPH if they want to as long as no one is hurt, and that the government doesn't have the right to enforce SAFETY on the highways. Good luck with that.

[Gunny]

Just saying "me Gunny you wrong" doesn't make a person wrong gunny.

here, I'll list the conditions that the SCOTUS has set out to define entrapment once again.

1. The idea of committing the crime had to come from the government agent, not the suspect
2. The agent(s) must have talked the suspect into committing the crime. Not just said "hey let's do this" but actually talked them into it

and

3. The suspect must not have been thinking about committing the crime before interacting with the agent.

First of all, you would have to show that Predator was acting as an agent of the government for this to even apply. But I do think a reasonable argument could be made that they are in fact acting as an agent of the government.

Then you would have to show that each and every of those conditions are met for it to be entrapment. If even one is missing, it isn't entrapment.

So, at this point you have 3 choices

1. Admit you're wrong - The wisest choice
2. Show where those conditions aren't met - a tough proposition, but ........
3. Flame and tell me to go away - the most likely from you.

Your move.

Whn you get done flapping your gums. let me know. Entrapment laws are covered by the 10th.

[ConHog]

Whn you get done flapping your gums. let me know. Entrapment laws are covered by the 10th.

I thought it was the fifth?

Ok here's the tenth

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Says NOTHING about entrapment. NOTHING

I have posted the legal conditions for entrapment. Why do you REFUSE to address them?

[Gunny]

I thought it was the fifth?

Ok here's the tenth

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Says NOTHING about entrapment. NOTHING

I have posted the legal conditions for entrapment. Why do you REFUSE to address them?

No, you don't think. You're so busy being right you couldn't understand the Bill of Rights if it jumped out of your shitter and slapped you in the face.

[ConHog]

No, you don't think. You're so busy being right you couldn't understand the Bill of Rights if it jumped out of your shitter and slapped you in the face.

How about you actually discuss the thread rather than just throw out silly flames?

YOU claimed entrapment violated the fifth, then YOU changed and said it violated the tenth. the actual FACT is it violates NEITHER. In fact it wasn't until Sorrells v. United States in 1932 that police entrapment was actually defined and made illegal in this country. Well AFTER the COTUS was written.

You can argue a lot of things with me and be right Gunny, but American history isn't one of them, and when the lawyer is sitting next to me law isn't one either.

You are absolutely, positively wrong on this one, police entrapment does NOT violate ANY constitutional amendments and what this show DOES do does NOT rise to entrapment as defined by the SCOTUS since 1932.

Go ahead and stamp your feet some more claiming that I can't stand being wrong, when it is YOU who is wrong,and I have proven it CONCLUSIVELY while all you have done is throw a little tantrum and post flames because you can't simply say "okay I was wrong that show is not entrapment"

[Gunny]

Are you done yet? You're still wrong.

[ConHog]

Are you done yet? You're still wrong.

If I'm wrong show me how I'm wrong Gunny.

you haven't posted one thing of substance in this thread since I completely obliterated your silly argument. You haven't shown where EITHER amendment you said were violated by entrapment even mention entrapment. You haven't shown where the three conditions which the SCOTUS has set for something to be entrapment have been met, and you haven't shown that I am wrong about police entrapment becoming a a legal definition 150 years AFTER the COTUS was written.

In short, if this thread were a fist fight, you'd be in a hospital recovering from your wounds screaming that I lost as I went to the club with the playboy model on my arm.


I'm actually embarrassed for you that you are claiming victory in this thread.

[pegwinn]

Just saying "me Gunny you wrong" doesn't make a person wrong gunny.


Sure as hell did from PVT to SSGT.
Sure as hell did while I was a Gunny.
Sure as hell did as a MSgt too. If you got sideways with one of my GySgt's I would bar the door so you couldn't exit the room until they said so.

:coffee: <<<<<<<<<< That's the coffee cup that MSgt Gwinn stalked around with.


Unlike Gunny I have no problem when admitting I'm wrong. I thought you were referring to the Predator part of the discussion when discussing the 9th.

However to that point. IF that were the case then every person who was stopped for speeding could argue that under the 9th Amendment they have the right to drive 200 MPH if they want to as long as no one is hurt, and that the government doesn't have the right to enforce SAFETY on the highways. Good luck with that.

Heh. Tell it to Montana. (http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox)

[ConHog]

Sure as hell did from PVT to SSGT.
Sure as hell did while I was a Gunny.
Sure as hell did as a MSgt too. If you got sideways with one of my GySgt's I would bar the door so you couldn't exit the room until they said so.

:coffee: <<<<<<<<<< That's the coffee cup that MSgt Gwinn stalked around with.


This isn't the Marines, and I'm not one of Gunny's subordinates. He damn well knows the way message boards work. You state your opinion and back it up with facts. I completely did with my opinion. All he had was "you're a poopy head and I win"





Heh. Tell it to Montana. (http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox)

You see that that's no longer the law, and in fact in European countries that have long had no speeding limit the trend is being reversed.

Also, I hope you are not somehow trying to imply that this means that we can't prove drunk drivers are a danger to everyone else.

[pegwinn]

You see that that's no longer the law, and in fact in European countries that have long had no speeding limit the trend is being reversed.

Also, I hope you are not somehow trying to imply that this means that we can't prove drunk drivers are a danger to everyone else.

Nope. You missed the point.

The legal change in Montana, according to the study, did not get the desired result. Apparently the contention that a speed limit was safer didn't pan out when a comparison of accidents or incidents spanning the pre and post speed limit were reviewed.

[ConHog]

Nope. You missed the point.

The legal change in Montana, according to the study, did not get the desired result. Apparently the contention that a speed limit was safer didn't pan out when a comparison of accidents or incidents spanning the pre and post speed limit were reviewed.

That may or may not be the case. What is true however is that speed limits are not a violation of your rights.

[pegwinn]

That may or may not be the case. What is true however is that speed limits are not a violation of your rights.

There is no may or may not involved. The study said what it said. Any prohibition on an adult must be considered an unwarranted intrusion.

[ConHog]

There is no may or may not involved. The study said what it said. Any prohibition on an adult must be considered an unwarranted intrusion.

Absolutely incorrect. Under That theory a man should be able to carry a bomb into the White House as long as he doesn't harm anyone with it.

What a ridiculous proposition.

[logroller]

You have a point. If some people weren't so busy trying to be right, there may have been a decent conversation here. I actually don't know. It IS entrapment. I also can see the end. From a legal standpoint though, I think the law is being ignored in favor of what's so-called "right".

If that's the case, change the law.


I don't know either gunny, and I see why you're suspect; as it could be entrapment, but not necessarily so. Absent the facts, like transcripts of the actual correspondence and what not, it is difficult to ascertain who suggested what and whether someone was coerced. I would assume, given the fact the show hasn't been shut down, that their techniques have survived legal scrutiny and it is not merely crazed media vigilantism.


I was confronted with this while on jury duty once, where i believed an officer had changed his report to better frame the context for grand theft. It was a weak case, and they only changed him with possession of stolen property. The defendants reasoning was he was at a party and smoked something he thought to be marijuana, but he blacked out (suggesting it must have been laced or something), and woke up at his house and realized he had someone else's car keys. So, he innocently decided to return the car to the place of the party. Presumed innocent, I'm willing to accept he was returning the car, until he stopped a mere block away from his house to buy cigarettes. Subjective call on my part, but it didn't make sense, that doesn't fit in with what an innocent person returning a car would do in my opinion.

I could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time, nor the last; but criminal justice isn't about being "right", just certain beyond a reasonable doubt; which is subjective. Subjectively, I can't reasonable believe that an innocent person would find themselves showing up on that show; can you?


Absolutely incorrect. Under That theory a man should be able to carry a bomb into the White House as long as he doesn't harm anyone with it.

What a ridiculous proposition.

You can't do that??? What the hell kinda freedom we have around here...:lame2::laugh:

[Gunny]

I don't know either gunny, and I see why you're suspect; as it could be entrapment, but not necessarily so. Absent the facts, like transcripts of the actual correspondence and what not, it is difficult to ascertain who suggested what and whether someone was coerced. I would assume, given the fact the show hasn't been shut down, that their techniques have survived legal scrutiny and it is not merely crazed media vigilantism.


I was confronted with this while on jury duty once, where i believed an officer had changed his report to better frame the context for grand theft. It was a weak case, and they only changed him with possession of stolen property. The defendants reasoning was he was at a party and smoked something he thought to be marijuana, but he blacked out (suggesting it must have been laced or something), and woke up at his house and realized he had someone else's car keys. So, he innocently decided to return the car to the place of the party. Presumed innocent, I'm willing to accept he was returning the car, until he stopped a mere block away from his house to buy cigarettes. Subjective call on my part, but it didn't make sense, that doesn't fit in with what an innocent person returning a car would do in my opinion.

I could be wrong though, wouldn't be the first time, nor the last; but criminal justice isn't about being "right", just certain beyond a reasonable doubt; which is subjective. Subjectively, I can't reasonable believe that an innocent person would find themselves showing up on that show; can you?

I'm suspect? Really, Midnight Marauder? I'm suspect because I point out the finer points of the law you don't want to hear because it suits your cause? Minus WHAT facts? The entire show is predicated on a watch group luring people to a specified place.

That their "techniques" are ignored by legal scrutiny is a fact. Same as it takes 6 cops dog-piling one, 140 lb druggie in order to "detain" him. Give me a fucking break.

Criminal justice is supposed to about being right. What other purpose is there to it? The fact that morons abuse the system doesn't negate THAT.

[jimnyc]

I don't know either gunny, and I see why you're suspect;


I'm suspect? Really, Midnight Marauder? I'm suspect because I point out

No beef in this battle myself... Just wanted to point out that I think Logroller saying "suspect" meant that Gunny questions the facts, and perhaps suspects it could be entrapment. Or so I think anyway. And reading it, I can see how one reading fast could interpret otherwise. I don't think Log meant his post as an insult. I'll let him clear up his own post later when he sees this, but thought I would toss out how I read it in the mean time. :coffee:

[Gunny]

No beef in this battle myself... Just wanted to point out that I think Logroller saying "suspect" meant that Gunny questions the facts, and perhaps suspects it could be entrapment. Or so I think anyway. And reading it, I can see how one reading fast could interpret otherwise. I don't think Log meant his post as an insult. I'll let him clear up his own post later when he sees this, but thought I would toss out how I read it in the mean time. :coffee:

I didn't take it as an insult. I actually read logroller's posts, unlike some others I just skim. I will say however, I thought I was responding to CH.:laugh:

[Missileman]

The entire show is predicated on a watch group luring people to a specified place.


That's a bit vague. It's actually luring a pedophile to what the pedophile believes is a child at home alone.

As for entrapment, it's not. It's no different than any other "bait" sting, whether it be a bait car, an undercover cop posing as a hooker, a deer decoy set out beside the road, a cop pretending to be a drug dealer or a drug buyer, etc. Dangling a carrot is not entrapment.

[jimnyc]

That's a bit vague. It's actually luring a pedophile to what the pedophile believes is a child at home alone.

As for entrapment, it's not. It's no different than any other "bait" sting, whether it be a bait car, an undercover cop posing as a hooker, a deer decoy set out beside the road, a cop pretending to be a drug dealer or a drug buyer, etc. Dangling a carrot is not entrapment.

The "bait cars" are hilarious. These retards in the ghetto just think someone happened to leave an Escalade in the ghetto, with the doors wide open, and the keys in the ignition. That was in the last episode I saw. Then when busted, of course they were only in the car because they were on their way to bring it to the police! LOL

[Gunny]

That's a bit vague. It's actually luring a pedophile to what the pedophile believes is a child at home alone.

As for entrapment, it's not. It's no different than any other "bait" sting, whether it be a bait car, an undercover cop posing as a hooker, a deer decoy set out beside the road, a cop pretending to be a drug dealer or a drug buyer, etc. Dangling a carrot is not entrapment.

It's a gray area question. I'm all for busting pedophiles. Just because they breathe. My question is about the legal side. I have the same questions about the rest of your scenarios. I don't agree with setting up prostitution stings t bust johns, not drug busts to bust buyers.

[Missileman]

I don't agree with setting up prostitution stings t bust johns, not drug busts to bust buyers.

Why not?

[Noir]

All i know of it is from Charlie Brookers ScreenWipe USA (comparing American and British TV) starts at 1:10

http://youtu.be/z3kjzjyaOeI

Totally bizarre imo =/

[ConHog]

The "bait cars" are hilarious. These retards in the ghetto just think someone happened to leave an Escalade in the ghetto, with the doors wide open, and the keys in the ignition. That was in the last episode I saw. Then when busted, of course they were only in the car because they were on their way to bring it to the police! LOL

Yep, standard dumb shit response right up there with "I'm not a predator, i Just came to warn her about the real predators" :laugh:

[ConHog]

I didn't take it as an insult. I actually read logroller's posts, unlike some others I just skim. I will say however, I thought I was responding to CH.:laugh:

I can only surmise from this that you think I'm a Midnight Marauder sock? :laugh2:

[ConHog]

It's a gray area question. I'm all for busting pedophiles. Just because they breathe. My question is about the legal side. I have the same questions about the rest of your scenarios. I don't agree with setting up prostitution stings t bust johns, not drug busts to bust buyers.

It's NOT a gray area. The COTUS does not address it, nor offer any protection. No matter how many times you screamed it last night.

Case law sets up VERY specific elements that must be met before something is entrapment.

You have steadfastly ignored every fact in this thread for one very simple reason. Every fact in this thread destroys your opinion.

[pegwinn]

There is no may or may not involved. The study said what it said. Any prohibition on an adult must be considered an unwarranted intrusion.


Absolutely incorrect. Under That theory a man should be able to carry a bomb into the White House as long as he doesn't harm anyone with it.

What a ridiculous proposition.

Ok, I will give you that one since it was so poorly worded. If you are going to presume to tell me that I cannot do something you better start your justification with something more substantial than "you might....".

"Might" in this case certainly ≠ right.

[ConHog]

Ok, I will give you that one since it was so poorly worded. If you are going to presume to tell me that I cannot do something you better start your justification with something more substantial than "you might....".

"Might" in this case certainly ≠ right.

Now we are to a place we can agree. We agree that the government has to have a legitimate reason for telling a person they can't do something.

So, the only thing left to determine is does the government have a substantial claim that the likely hood of a drunk driver being more likely to get in an accident is high enough that steps should be taken to keep drunk drivers off the road? I think the answer is a clear yes, the preponderance of the evidence shows that drunk drivers are MUCH more likely to get in an accident than their sober counterparts. Do you disagree?

[pegwinn]

Now we are to a place we can agree. We agree that the government has to have a legitimate reason for telling a person they can't do something.

So, the only thing left to determine is does the government have a substantial claim that the likely hood of a drunk driver being more likely to get in an accident is high enough that steps should be taken to keep drunk drivers off the road? I think the answer is a clear yes, the preponderance of the evidence shows that drunk drivers are MUCH more likely to get in an accident than their sober counterparts. Do you disagree?

We agree in a very big picture way. I would bet that we would disagree on what constitutes legitimate reasons.

Take your drunk driving example. I've already stipulated that I agree drunk driving is stupid. I disagree that the risk of accident is enough to ban people from being stupid. Instead of banning the behavior I believe a better tactic is to punish severely the adverse results of bad behavior.

As stated earlier:


I average out in the middle on DUI/DWI.

On the left, I have no issue with you driving drunk. It's your life and property to risk as you see fit.

On the right, I feel that if you cause an injury while driving drunk then you need to go to prison and a big guy named bubba needs to make you his bitch. If you cause a death while driving drunk, you should be put to death.

Also, prohibition is better served specifically than generally. Speed limits for example on an interstate highway make no sense until you come within say a couple of miles of on and off ramps. Speed limits in town are far more logical than out of town on a country road. In town, lowered speed limits where known concentrations of pedestrians exist make even more sense.

To use your example of explosives. I oppose the law that says I cannot possess and make whatever I choose with explosive materials. But, putting a bit of specificity to it, I understand the law that says "thou shalt make no bomb and carry it into the white house ... ".

[ConHog]

We agree in a very big picture way. I would bet that we would disagree on what constitutes legitimate reasons.

Take your drunk driving example. I've already stipulated that I agree drunk driving is stupid. I disagree that the risk of accident is enough to ban people from being stupid. Instead of banning the behavior I believe a better tactic is to punish severely the adverse results of bad behavior.

As stated earlier:



Also, prohibition is better served specifically than generally. Speed limits for example on an interstate highway make no sense until you come within say a couple of miles of on and off ramps. Speed limits in town are far more logical than out of town on a country road. In town, lowered speed limits where known concentrations of pedestrians exist make even more sense.

To use your example of explosives. I oppose the law that says I cannot possess and make whatever I choose with explosive materials. But, putting a bit of specificity youto it, I understand the law that says "thou shalt make no bomb and carry it into the white house ... ".



In your specific complaint, I disagree. Multiple studies have shown that not just some, not even most, but ALL drivers are impaired by alcohol. Now, we could argue at what level are people impaired, but if you're going to set a limit, it has to be arbitrarily set somewhere.

The OVERWHELMING evidence suggests that a person driving while intoxicated is a danger to himself, and others. just by virtue of being behind the wheel. Your notion of them only being a danger to themselves up until they actually DO get in an accident is ludicrous. They are a danger to others the MOMENT they start driving.

AND as you well know, driving is a privilege not an absolute right, and ALL priveleges must be weighed against the greater good. The simple fact of the matter is that yes MOST people are probably ok to drive at .08 BCA , BUT most people are also idiots who have no idea how little it takes to have a .08 BCA. I've seen and heard stories, and I'm sure you have to, of idiots being so falling down drunk that they didn't even know their name, but oh they think they are okay to drive. That isn't a rare occurrence either, even WITH the DWI laws we have, imagine if the DWI laws were removed from the books. I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say that deaths caused by drunk drivers would double in the first year.

Nope, only a complete lunatic would actually consider making it legal to drive while intoxicated.

[pegwinn]

Nope, only a complete lunatic would actually consider making it legal to drive while intoxicated.

A visionary would make it legal while simultaneously imposing an over-the-top punishment if your drunk driving causes the mayhem you fear.

Drunk driving would likely fall after people started getting real sentences for the consequences of their actions. Today's courts provide no deterrent worth anything if you can get drunk, kill someone, and not be killed yourself by the law.

[fj1200]

I average out in the middle on DUI/DWI.

On the left, I have no issue with you driving drunk. It's your life and property to risk as you see fit.

On the right, I feel that if you cause an injury while driving drunk then you need to go to prison and a big guy named bubba needs to make you his bitch. If you cause a death while driving drunk, you should be put to death.

We already don't put people to death for anything but 1st degree murder and we certainly won't for manslaughter. You can't even argue that the death penalty as used in this country for murder is effective that you think it would have the correct effect on drunk driving.

[pegwinn]

We already don't put people to death for anything but 1st degree murder and we certainly won't for manslaughter. You can't even argue that the death penalty as used in this country for murder is effective that you think it would have the correct effect on drunk driving.

Are you expecting me to argue that you are wrong?

Sorry to disappoint you.

The death penalty is certainly not as effective as it could be due to procedural issues. It is also not used in an eye-for-an-eye manner like it should be.

[fj1200]

Are you expecting me to argue that you are wrong?

Sorry to disappoint you.

The death penalty is certainly not as effective as it could be due to procedural issues. It is also not used in an eye-for-an-eye manner like it should be.

Given what you followed up with, you could just agree that your position is unworkable. ;)

[pegwinn]

Given what you followed up with, you could just agree that your position is unworkable. ;)

It's not unworkable at all. It takes a judiciary with the will to impose sentence. It takes a public not willing to tolerate years of nonsense before just getting down to getting it done. Our society is too squeemish over such matters.

Not unworkable, just not likely. :coffee:

[ConHog]

It's not unworkable at all. It takes a judiciary with the will to impose sentence. It takes a public not willing to tolerate years of nonsense before just getting down to getting it done. Our society is too squeemish over such matters.

Not unworkable, just not likely. :coffee:

do you also believe a man should be able to fire shots into a crowd as long someone isn't harmed?

[pegwinn]

do you also believe a man should be able to fire shots into a crowd as long someone isn't harmed?

Now you are just being silly. That is attempted murder and he's just a lousy shot.

[fj1200]

Our society is too squeemish over such matters.

Or they just don't think manslaughter should be a capital crime. They rather prefer sensible laws that regulate the use of public way.


Now you are just being silly. That is attempted murder and he's just a lousy shot.

You presume he was trying to kill someone.

[pegwinn]

Or they just don't think manslaughter should be a capital crime. They rather prefer sensible laws that regulate the use of public way.

Then they are wrong. When it comes to crime the carrot should be a minimum of laws and a maximum of punishment for the breakage of the law.

If you take a dollar, you should pay back a dollar plus a hefty penalty to deter future theft.

If you hurt someone, you should in turn be hurt to a greater extent.

If you kill someone in the commission of a crime, any crime, you should die.

[fj1200]

^"Society" disagrees.

[ConHog]

Now you are just being silly. That is attempted murder and he's just a lousy shot.

A person COULD fire shots into a crowded room without intending to kill anyone. Just as drunk drivers don't MEAN to kill anyone when they drink and drive.

It's the same EXACT principle.

and I imagine Gunny thanks you for derailing this thread. His ass had to be quite sore after the beating I gave him on the original topic.

[pegwinn]

A person COULD fire shots into a crowded room without intending to kill anyone. Just as drunk drivers don't MEAN to kill anyone when they drink and drive.

It's the same EXACT principle.

and I imagine Gunny thanks you for derailing this thread. His ass had to be quite sore after the beating I gave him on the original topic.

Intention is irrelevant. Anyone who considers intention is a moral coward in my personal opinion.

Actions = responsibilities. Not intending to kill someone doesn't bring them back to life for a do over. Hence my intractibility on the topic.

It takes a minimum of two to derail a discussion board topic. If you wish to start a thread...... feel free.

[ConHog]

Intention is irrelevant. Anyone who considers intention is a moral coward in my personal opinion.

Actions = responsibilities. Not intending to kill someone doesn't bring them back to life for a do over. Hence my intractibility on the topic.

It takes a minimum of two to derail a discussion board topic. If you wish to start a thread...... feel free.

Intention is certainly NOT irrelevant to the law.

Possession with INTENT to distribute
Possessing a firearm with intent to kill

Just two examples of laws with the word intent written right into them.


Again, firing a gun into a crowd is NO different than drunk driving in that BOTH are actions that reasonable people can agree are more than likely going to lead to bad consequences. So we as a society have said "no, you can't do that."

In order to change that you would have to convince people that every person who gets behind the wheel while drunk is not a HUGE danger to anyone else on the road.

[pegwinn]

Intention is certainly NOT irrelevant to the law.

Possession with INTENT to distribute
Possessing a firearm with intent to kill

Just two examples of laws with the word intent written right into them.

Did you miss the part where I said intention isn't relevant? I am not arguing legal niceties. I am explaining my personal opinion of right and wrong. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. But, just to be clear, I could care less about the legal niceties in this regard.


Again, firing a gun into a crowd is NO different than drunk driving in that BOTH are actions that reasonable people can agree are more than likely going to lead to bad consequences. So we as a society have said "no, you can't do that."

In order to change that you would have to convince people that every person who gets behind the wheel while drunk is not a HUGE danger to anyone else on the road.

Firing a gun into a crowd is clearly an overt attempt to kill someone. In order to change that you have to fairly, firmly, and consistently sentence people to life without parole every time they attempt to kill someone.

[ConHog]

Did you miss the part where I said intention isn't relevant? I am not arguing legal niceties. I am explaining my personal opinion of right and wrong. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. But, just to be clear, I could care less about the legal niceties in this regard.



Firing a gun into a crowd is clearly an overt attempt to kill someone. In order to change that you have to fairly, firmly, and consistently sentence people to life without parole every time they attempt to kill someone.

You don't care about the law? That's odd.

As for your second paragraph. Drunk driving is a clear indication that the person doing so has NO regard for the safety of others. So fuck em, let em go to jail.

[pegwinn]

Did you miss the part where I said intention isn't relevant? I am not arguing legal niceties. I am explaining my personal opinion of right and wrong. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine. But, just to be clear, I could care less about the legal niceties in this regard.

Firing a gun into a crowd is clearly an overt attempt to kill someone. In order to change that you have to fairly, firmly, and consistently sentence people to life without parole every time they attempt to kill someone.


You don't care about the law? That's odd.

As for your second paragraph. Drunk driving is a clear indication that the person doing so has NO regard for the safety of others. So fuck em, let em go to jail.

I never said I don't care about the law. A thinking person would conclude that I care, a lot, and disagree with current law and/or societies thinking in that regard. I took the liberty to actually emphasize what I said as opposed to the erroneous conclusion you jumped to.

Your belief that drunk driving is "a clear indication that the person doing so has NO regard" is a fallacy unless you are a genuine mind reader. And, even if he has NO regard, what matters is whether he hurts or tries to hurt someone. Shooting a weapon is an overt act. Shooting into a crowd is an obvious attempt to kill.

I believe you are up sir...

:fighting0061:

[ConHog]

I never said I don't care about the law. A thinking person would conclude that I care, a lot, and disagree with current law and/or societies thinking in that regard. I took the liberty to actually emphasize what I said as opposed to the erroneous conclusion you jumped to.

Your belief that drunk driving is "a clear indication that the person doing so has NO regard" is a fallacy unless you are a genuine mind reader. And, even if he has NO regard, what matters is whether he hurts or tries to hurt someone. Shooting a weapon is an overt act. Shooting into a crowd is an obvious attempt to kill.

I believe you are up sir...

:fighting0061:

Drinking and driving is an overt act as well.You are CHOOSING to make someone else share the road with your drunk ass. My right to as much safety as possible trumps your "right" to drink and drive.

/thread

[pegwinn]

Drinking and driving is an overt act as well.You are CHOOSING to make someone else share the road with your drunk ass. My right to as much safety as possible trumps your "right" to drink and drive.

/thread

An overt act of what? I agree it is an overt act of stupidity. Beyond that is mere speculation.

Firing a gun into a crowd is obviously an act of attempted murder. Driving drunk doesn't mean you are making anyone do anything. Free will and random chaos is in play.

You wish to end the thread? Ok. Just don't go away mad. Message boards aint that important.

[ConHog]

An overt act of what? I agree it is an overt act of stupidity. Beyond that is mere speculation.

Firing a gun into a crowd is obviously an act of attempted murder. Driving drunk doesn't mean you are making anyone do anything. Free will and random chaos is in play.

You wish to end the thread? Ok. Just don't go away mad. Message boards aint that important.

It's an overt act of putting others in danger. You DO have a right to be stupid. You do NOT have a right to put others in danger with your stupidity.

I'm not mad either. You've been a very civil sparring partner.

[pegwinn]

It's an overt act of putting others in danger. You DO have a right to be stupid. You do NOT have a right to put others in danger with your stupidity.

I'm not mad either. You've been a very civil sparring partner.

If overt acts placing others in danger is the standard we will use for creating prohibitive laws; then owning a pittbull should be illegal.

Edited to fix a typo

[ConHog]

If overt acts placing others in danger is the standard we will use for creative prohibitive laws; then owning a pittbull should be illegal.

I happen to agree with you about pitbulls. And that IS the standard. IE no smoking in public ,etc etc.

[pegwinn]

I happen to agree with you about pitbulls. And that IS the standard. IE no smoking in public ,etc etc.

Actually I think owning pittbulls should not be prohibited. Unless and until the animal is a problem no action should be taken. But, there is enough anecdotal evidence to cause one to believe that a pittbull is inherently dangerous.

However, since you concur with the standard, any lack of a similar law must be concluded to incorporate a double standard. That alone, I believe (but don't know for a fact), should allow an appeal based on uneven application of law.

Do you see how screwed up things are and understand now why I really don't offer much respect to the niceties of law?

[ConHog]

Actually I think owning pittbulls should not be prohibited. Unless and until the animal is a problem no action should be taken. But, there is enough anecdotal evidence to cause one to believe that a pittbull is inherently dangerous.

However, since you concur with the standard, any lack of a similar law must be concluded to incorporate a double standard. That alone, I believe (but don't know for a fact), should allow an appeal based on uneven application of law.

Do you see how screwed up things are and understand now why I really don't offer much respect to the niceties of law?

no such double standard.... The law is clear .08 or over and you're over the limit. Smoke a cigarette in public and you're getting a ticket, etc etc.

As for pitbulls. I happen to think they are a breed that can never be trusted, but I'm iffy on telling people they can't have them in their own homes. I'm really only iffy if they have kids. If they don't have kids, and want a dog in their home which might kill them, so be it.

[pegwinn]

Smoke a cigarette in public and you're getting a ticket, etc etc.

Really? That's screwed up. I get and agree with limited smoking areas. My right to smoke stops at your nose. But an outright outdoor ban is so Californian. Glad I switched to electric cigs a couple years back.

[ConHog]

Really? That's screwed up. I get and agree with limited smoking areas. My right to smoke stops at your nose. But an outright outdoor ban is so Californian. Glad I switched to electric cigs a couple years back.


I'm not entirely sure I agree with a complete ban on outdoor smoking, but I do think there should be SOME limits.

[logroller]

I'm suspect? Really, Midnight Marauder? I'm suspect because I point out the finer points of the law you don't want to hear because it suits your cause? Minus WHAT facts? The entire show is predicated on a watch group luring people to a specified place.

That their "techniques" are ignored by legal scrutiny is a fact. Same as it takes 6 cops dog-piling one, 140 lb druggie in order to "detain" him. Give me a fucking break.

Criminal justice is supposed to about being right. What other purpose is there to it? The fact that morons abuse the system doesn't negate THAT.

Ooops, I'd meant I can understand why you are suspicious, in that the techniques used are suspect, not that you are. My apologizes Gunny.

So far as criminal justice being right-- Our justice system does make mistakes, as any creation of man is prone to error; therefore, it isn't 'right' in any absolute sense of the word. As to the purpose, I've always thought of justice, itself, being a purpose; realizing, of course, that is broad, thereby creating a need for prudent guidelines, like logical tests.

Where i think the problem develops, or at least gains traction, is the judge is the sole arbiter for admission of evidence; but one does have a right to jury, and I wish more people were aware of their rights and responsibilities when on a jury. As you said, sometimes laws themselves are outright wrong, or misapplied by officials, and the jury has the right to nullify a law they see has a unjust--but no court of law admonishes the jury of this ability, and forbids its suggestion by officers in the court.

[ConHog]

Ooops, I'd meant I can understand why you are suspicious, in that the techniques used are suspect, not that you are. My apologizes Gunny.

So far as criminal justice being right-- Our justice system does make mistakes, as any creation of man is prone to error; therefore, it isn't 'right' in any absolute sense of the word. As to the purpose, I've always thought of justice, itself, being a purpose; realizing, of course, that is broad, thereby creating a need for prudent guidelines, like logical tests.

Where i think the problem develops, or at least gains traction, is the judge is the sole arbiter for admission of evidence; but one does have a right to jury, and I wish more people were aware of their rights and responsibilities when on a jury. As you said, sometimes laws themselves are outright wrong, or misapplied by officials, and the jury has the right to nullify a law they see has a unjust--but no court of law admonishes the jury of this ability, and forbids its suggestion by officers in the court.

Jury nullification is legal but should be used VERY sparingly.