To Catch a Predator

[Gunny]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).

[Missileman]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).

Whoa! Deja Vu

[ConHog]

First off, I think Chris Hanson is one of the smarmiest, self-sanctimonious asshats I've ever seen. Second, apparently, because I offended one certain chump who participates in the entrapment activities that he chose to destroy a message board in his unbridled hatred of my opposition. How's THAT for having power over someone?

For those not in the know, the premise of the show is that an internet group pretends to be 13-15 years olds and lures grown men to a specific address where they are exposed on camera (for later use by MSNBC), then hammered by cops once they try to leave.

Let's see if we can differentiate between Gunny's opinion here:

1. I'd as soon shoot a child molester as look at one. Matter of fact, I'd rather kick their asses ... more painful than a shooting.

2. However, I believe going onto the internet and posing as an under-age person and luring someone into a trap where they are arrested is entrapment. Originally, the police were not involved and the person(s) were just exposed. No problem.

However, I believe once you involve law enforcement, you cross the legal (not moral) line.

Tell me where I'm wrong (and not YOU ConHog -- you don't know shit).

Wanted or nor im going to give you conjoga facts. Ever see the show Bait Caar?

Serjously, the last time you started this thread i posted the three elements required for sometging to be police entraoment and showed that this show does meet the legal standards to not be entrapment.

Youre of course rntitled to your opinion but it means nothing in the face of court decisions that differ.

[Gunny]

Whoa! Deja Vu

How so?

[Gunny]

Wanted or nor im going to give you conjoga facts. Ever see the show Bait Caar?

Serjously, the last time you started this thread i posted the three elements required for sometging to be police entraoment and showed that this show does meet the legal standards to not be entrapment.

Youre of course rntitled to your opinion but it means nothing in the face of court decisions that differ.

My opinion seems to exceed your typing skills. Last time I posted this thread was on another board. I didn't agree with you then, nor do I agree with that reasoning now.

[Missileman]

How so?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...088#post516088

[ConHog]

My opinion seems to exceed your typing skills. Last time I posted this thread was on another board. I didn't agree with you then, nor do I agree with that reasoning now.

Sorry, was on my Droid, hard to edit on that.

And, no we discussed it on THIS board, as per the link MissileMan posted and in THAT thread I proved that it isn't police entrapment.

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...088#post516088

Okay, well just pretend I'm a noob and started an abortion thread.

I'll see if I can't combine the two.

[Gunny]

Sorry, was on my Droid, hard to edit on that.

And, no we discussed it on THIS board, as per the link MissileMan posted and in THAT thread I proved that it isn't police entrapment.

Damn. Too bad for you. That means you were wrong on USMB and twice here.

When you want to stop regurgitating the current misinterpretation and misuse of the law and address the misinterpreted INTENT of the law. let me know.

[ConHog]

Damn. Too bad for you. That means you were wrong on USMB and twice here.

When you want to stop regurgitating the current misinterpretation and misuse of the law and address the misinterpreted INTENT of the law. let me know.

I honestly have no recollection of discussing this topic on USMB, but you had me thinking I was crazy when you posted that you hadn't debated it on THIS board.

That being said, I posted the LEGAL standard for police entrapment, that show doesn't meet those standards. Now if you want to argue that the standards should be changed, well then by all means, argue that.

[SassyLady]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

[Noir]

For every predator that was ''entrapped'' whether legal or not, is one less predator preying on our children.

That there is a silly-slop sentence...

[SassyLady]

That there is a silly-slop sentence...

yep...sometimes I get lazy and don't correct myself, especially when not using computer.

[logroller]

Okay, well just pretend I'm a noob and started an abortion thread.

I'll see if I can't combine the two.

Hmmmm. How bout a TV show that entices a pregnant 16 year old to get an abortion, and doesn't want her gay married dads to find out because they don't approve of having children out of wedlock? Maury Povich hosts.

[Gunny]

I honestly have no recollection of discussing this topic on USMB, but you had me thinking I was crazy when you posted that you hadn't debated it on THIS board.

That being said, I posted the LEGAL standard for police entrapment, that show doesn't meet those standards. Now if you want to argue that the standards should be changed, well then by all means, argue that.

Really. I thought the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution was the "legal standard". Your "legal standard" also does not jive with what used to be the "legal standard". So when did it change? What made it okay for law enforcement to engage in entrapping people?