Man accused of driving to Georgia for sex with 14-year-old

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Doris Taylor - News Channel 3


http://i.imgur.com/ZS2iaNa.jpg

Newport News, Va. – A 36-year-old Newport News man was arrested in Augusta, Ga. after officials say he drove to the state to meet and have sex with who he believed to be a 14-year-old girl.

Investigators were chatting undercover with the Virginia man accused, John Tysarczyk, Jr.

He was arrested on Thursday for criminal attempt aggravated child molestation and is now being held in the Richmond County Jail.

[RBP]

So he never actually spoke with a 14 year old. These entrapments should stop.

[deebakes]

he didn't this time :shrug:

[RBP]

he didn't this time :shrug:

I didn't kill anyone this weekend. Maybe you should charge me with murder.

[Goofy]

I didn't kill anyone this weekend. Maybe you should charge me with murder.

Did you intend to kill someone then find out they were Police in disguise? :-k

[RBP]

Did you intend to kill someone then find out they were Police in disguise? :-k

It's not illegal to drive to drive to Georgia to fuck a police officer.

[deebakes]

I didn't kill anyone this weekend. Maybe you should charge me with murder.

but what about last weekend? :-k

[DemonGeminiX]

It's not illegal to drive to drive to Georgia to fuck a police officer.

:lol:

I know police officers in Georgia. It should be a crime to let them fuck anyone or anything.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

:hand: He looks harmless

[Hal-9000]

"...have sex with who he believed to be a 14-year-old girl."

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me

[RBP]

"...have sex with who he believed to be a 14-year-old girl."

Sounds like an admission of guilt to me

Guilt of what? Talking dirty to a cop?

[Hal-9000]

Guilt of what? Talking dirty to a cop?

It's against the law to have sex with a minor. He was aware that the potential hook up was 14 and still carried through trying to meet her.

= pervo with intent to bang a minor


One day it may be your daughter this guy is attempting to fuck, maybe that would change your attitude about cops tagging these guys?

[RBP]

It's against the law to have sex with a minor. He was aware that the potential hook up was 14 and still carried through trying to meet her.

= pervo with intent to bang a minor


One day it may be your daughter this guy is attempting to fuck, maybe that would change your attitude about cops tagging these guys?


But the potential hookup was not 14. If she was, I'd have no problem with it. He can have all the sick depraved fantasies he wants, but until he solicits an actual child, what crime did he commit?

[DemonGeminiX]

Intent. Mens Rea. They bust people for trying to hire hit men, calling it attempted murder, without actually trying to kill the target.

[RBP]

Intent. They bust people for trying to hire hit men, calling it attempted murder, without actually trying to kill the target.

The difference is there is an actual intended victim in that case. And I don't think the legal standard is intent, it's conspiracy. Actual actions towards an actual victim. I'm pretty sure I could legally hire someone to kill the tooth fairy.

[DemonGeminiX]

Nah, conspiracy is the planning between two or more people to commit a crime. Person A tells person B and C to go rob a bank and they go do it while person A is at home on his couch eating chips and watching TV. Person A is guilty of conspiracy.

I believe as the law is written child sexual abuse just requires the intent of the perpetrator, regardless of the outcome. The fact that he drove all the way down to Georgia expecting to hook up with a child, regardless whether or not the child exists, proves that he was willing to commit the illegal act.

[Hal-9000]

But the potential hookup was not 14. If she was, I'd have no problem with it. He can have all the sick depraved fantasies he wants, but until he solicits an actual child, what crime did he commit?

Ok mon frere how about this..

A guy is online trying to get bomb schematics. The FBI pose as fellow bombers and send him a few harmless diagrams. When they bust down his door they notice he has all of the tools to create a bomb. Also he has emails, diagrams, correspondence that imply he's going to do something.

Yet he doesn't have fertilizer, C4 or a bomb built in any form. He hasn't broken any laws yet has all the intent in the world...it appears, to make a bomb and leave it somewhere.


Do they arrest him?

[Hal-9000]

Nah, conspiracy is the planning between two or more people to commit a crime. Person A tells person B and C to go rob a bank and they go do it while person A is at home on his couch eating chips and watching TV. Person A is guilty of conspiracy.

I believe as the law is written child sexual abuse just requires the intent of the perpetrator, regardless of the outcome. The fact that he drove all the way down to Georgia expecting to hook up with a child, regardless whether or not the child exists, proves that he was willing to commit the illegal act.

This is the way I understood it. He doesn't have to commit the crime to be held on intent.

[RBP]

Nah, conspiracy is the planning between two or more people to commit a crime. Person A tells person B and C to go rob a bank and they go do it while person A is at home on his couch eating chips and watching TV. Person A is guilty of conspiracy.

I believe as the law is written child sexual abuse just requires the intent of the perpetrator, regardless of the outcome. The fact that he drove all the way down to Georgia expecting to hook up with a child, regardless whether or not the child exists, proves that he was willing to commit the illegal act.

And that's precisely what I disagree with. I said conspiracy, but in thinking about it, it's criminal solicitation. Guys offer a cop $50 for a blowjob. Guilty. Guy asks someone to kill his wife for $10,000. Guilty. The only case I can think of where you can be arrested for soliciting someone who isn't covered by the law is these child stings. The crime is the solicitation of a child, but in the stings no child is ever solicited. By your definition, if some is asked the question, "given the chance, would you fuck a 15 year old cheerleader?" and they say "yes" they can go to jail? That's a thought crime.

I found this definition, which does speak to your comments on intent.



A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission. It is immaterial that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such a communication.

The crime of criminal solicitation is the actual soliciting, or seeking to engage another to commit a crime, not the subsequent commission of a crime. Therefore, a defendant can be convicted of soliciting, even though the person refuses and the solicited crime is never perpetrated, as long as the intent that that crime be committed is present.

I can read it both ways, and I do understand how it's applied. I just happen to disagree with the application in that particular instance.

[RBP]

Ok mon frere how about this..

A guy is online trying to get bomb schematics. The FBI pose as fellow bombers and send him a few harmless diagrams. When they bust down his door they notice he has all of the tools to create a bomb. Also he has emails, diagrams, correspondence that imply he's going to do something.

Yet he doesn't have fertilizer, C4 or a bomb built in any form. He hasn't broken any laws yet has all the intent in the world...it appears, to make a bomb and leave it somewhere.


Do they arrest him?


Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act? Sure.

[RBP]

So this is from Minnesota:


609.352 SOLICITATION OF CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section:

(a) "child" means a person 15 years of age or younger;

(b) "sexual conduct" means sexual contact of the individual's primary genital area, sexual penetration as defined in section 609.341, or sexual performance as defined in section 617.246; and (c) "solicit" means commanding, entreating, or attempting to persuade a specific person in person, by telephone, by letter, or by computerized or other electronic means.

Subd. 2. Prohibited act. A person 18 years of age or older who solicits a child or someone the person reasonably believes is a child to engage in sexual conduct with intent to engage in sexual conduct is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

Subd. 3. Defenses. Mistake as to age is not a defense to a prosecution under this section.


The added part to specifically state "someone the person reasonably believes is a child" is proof to me that it is not otherwise a crime.

[DemonGeminiX]

And that's precisely what I disagree with. I said conspiracy, but in thinking about it, it's criminal solicitation. Guys offer a cop $50 for a blowjob. Guilty. Guy asks someone to kill his wife for $10,000. Guilty. The only case I can think of where you can be arrested for soliciting someone who isn't covered by the law is these child stings. The crime is the solicitation of a child, but in the stings no child is ever solicited. By your definition, if some is asked the question, "given the chance, would you fuck a 15 year old cheerleader?" and they say "yes" they can go to jail? That's a thought crime.

I found this definition, which does speak to your comments on intent.



I can read it both ways, and I do understand how it's applied. I just happen to disagree with the application in that particular instance.

Prostitution stings are similar. Cops get Jolene, a newbie from Vice, to do herself up as a hooker and put her on a street corner while they hang out incognito. Joe Shmoe comes along and says, "Hey baby, how much for a party?" Cops swoop in and arrest him. He's guilty of solicitation. Jolene's not a prostitute, but it doesn't matter. It's the same concept with the cop pretending to be a child online, it's just a different medium.

The only argument I can see is if the cops cross the line where it becomes entrapment: where they try to coerce the person in question into committing the crime in question. Jolene says nothing, Joe's screwed... Joe agrees after Jolene propositions Joe for half an hour, promising Joe all sorts of physical pleasures without Joe asking for a damn thing... that's entrapment. Same thing with Cop Adam pretending to be Teeny Tina on a webchat where Creepo Carl is trying to get Teeny Tina to agree to fuck his brains out. If Cop Adam promises all this stuff and says "Come on down and we'll have a grand ol' time", blah blah blah, without Carl saying anything of that nature, that's entrapment. If Creepo Carl propositions Adam-as Teeny Tina without Adam-as-Teeny Tina explicitly saying anything of that nature, and they make a date and Creepo Carl comes looking for Teeny Tina, he's guilty.

It seems to me that you really have a problem with the idea that police are using deception as a tactic, but that's perfectly legal and they've been doing it for years, with prostitution stings, hit man stings, drug busts, white collar crime busts, etc etc. Keep in mind that cops don't have to tell you they're cops when you're talking to them, regardless of the medium used to have the conversation. Also, money doesn't have to change hands, no one has to die, no child has to exist. It's the same deal with Cop Jolene the fake prostitute, Cop Davey the fake hit man, and Cop Adam-as-Teeny Tina. All they need to happen is reasonable certainty that the perp wants to follow through with the illegal act. If the dude that wants to kill his wife doesn't show up for the meeting and doesn't say "I want to kill my wife and I'm gonna pay you", game over. If Joe doesn't proposition Jolene, game over. If Creepo Carl doesn't get in the car and go looking for Teeny Tina, game over.

This dude got in his car, crossed state lines, and showed up at a predetermined meeting location fully intending to score underage pussy. Guilty.

[RBP]

Prostitution stings are similar. Cops get Jolene, a newbie from Vice, to do herself up as a hooker and put her on a street corner while they hang out incognito. Joe Shmoe comes along and says, "Hey baby, how much for a party?" Cops swoop in and arrest him. He's guilty of solicitation. Jolene's not a prostitute, but it doesn't matter. It's the same concept with the cop pretending to be a child online, it's just a different medium.

The only argument I can see is if the cops cross the line where it becomes entrapment: where they try to coerce the person in question into committing the crime in question. Jolene says nothing, Joe's screwed... Joe agrees after Jolene propositions Joe for half an hour, promising Joe all sorts of physical pleasures without Joe asking for a damn thing... that's entrapment. Same thing with Cop Adam pretending to be Teeny Tina on a webchat where Creepo Carl is trying to get Teeny Tina to agree to fuck his brains out. If Cop Adam promises all this stuff and says "Come on down and we'll have a grand ol' time", blah blah blah, without Carl saying anything of that nature, that's entrapment. If Creepo Carl propositions Adam-as Teeny Tina without Adam-as-Teeny Tina explicitly saying anything of that nature, and they make a date and Creepo Carl comes looking for Teeny Tina, he's guilty.

It seems to me that you really have a problem with the idea that police are using deception as a tactic, but that's perfectly legal and they've been doing it for years, with prostitution stings, hit man stings, drug busts, white collar crime busts, etc etc. Keep in mind that cops don't have to tell you they're cops when you're talking to them, regardless of the medium used to have the conversation. Also, money doesn't have to change hands, no one has to die, no child has to exist. It's the same deal with Cop Jolene the fake prostitute, Cop Davey the fake hit man, and Cop Adam-as-Teeny Tina. All they need to happen is reasonable certainty that the perp wants to follow through with the illegal act. If the dude that wants to kill his wife doesn't show up for the meeting and doesn't say "I want to kill my wife and I'm gonna pay you", game over. If Joe doesn't proposition Jolene, game over. If Creepo Carl doesn't get in the car and go looking for Teeny Tina, game over.

This dude got in his car, crossed state lines, and showed up at a predetermined meeting location fully intending to score underage pussy. Guilty.

I only disagree with the child scenario. With the hooker, he solicited someone for sex for money. Hit man, he actually solicited someone to kill someone else. Drug busts usually involve attempting to sell real drugs. In everyone one of those other scenarios, they are making an illegal solicitation. The solicitation laws are based on what crime would happen if not stopped. The sentences are based on that also. The only case where is there is no crime that could result is a fake child solicitation. No other crime is like that. There is no victim or even a potential victim, making it essentially a thought crime.

Listen, I understand why they do it, but I don't think it's right. So a guy who has never touched a child gets roped in by the sting and does hard time where is he likely abused. His life is over, he's on the list, and he's never had a sexual conversation with a child nor touched one. That is a real possibility.

[DemonGeminiX]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with this one, because I think it's the same.

To me calling it a thought crime because it's a fake child solicitation when there's no child, when you can say the same thing about a fake prostitute solicitation (where's the prostitute? It isn't Jolene from Vice), or a fake hit man solicitation (Where's the hit man? It isn't Dave), or a fake drug purchase (where's the buyers? They aren't the cops posing as buyers), it just doesn't gel to me. If you're telling me the difference with the other three is the perp can see the people he's soliciting and Creepo Carl can't, well then we're back on the whole medium thing. Is it really the act of soliciting a live person that you can see, touch, smell, and speak to you... the fact that it's a person in your presence that makes the difference? Are you assuming that people haven't been busted for trying to solicit a prostitute online? For setting up a drug transaction online? For trying to hire a hit man online? Does illegal solicitation have to have a physical or visual requirement? I say no. And so does the legal system.

[RBP]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with this one, because I think it's the same.

To me calling it a thought crime because it's a fake child solicitation when there's no child, when you can say the same thing about a fake prostitute solicitation (where's the prostitute? It isn't Jolene from Vice), or a fake hit man solicitation (Where's the hit man? It isn't Dave), or a fake drug purchase (where's the buyers? They aren't the cops posing as buyers), it just doesn't gel to me. If you're telling me the difference with the other three is the perp can see the people he's soliciting and Creepo Carl can't, well then we're back on the whole medium thing. Is it really the act of soliciting a live person that you can see, touch, smell, and speak to you... the fact that it's a person in your presence that makes the difference? Are you assuming that people haven't been busted for trying to solicit a prostitute online? For setting up a drug transaction online? For trying to hire a hit man online? Does illegal solicitation have to have a physical or visual requirement? I say no. And so does the legal system.

That's not what I am saying at all. You can't offer to pay for sex, cop or otherwise. You can't sell drugs, cop or otherwise. You can't offer to pay someone to kill, cop or otherwise. You can't suggest that you meet up and fuck... oh wait, yes you can, because that's not illegal. The medium has nothing to do with it. Solicitation of a minor is unique in that that only thing that makes it illegal is that there is a minor at the other end of the communication. No minor, no crime.

[Hal-9000]

Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act? Sure.


But then wouldn't they both be crimes of intent? Blowing people up is against the law and so is having sex with a minor.

Since the cops in both cases lied (one with the promise of bomb schematics, one pretending to be a child) how is it different? As you say, no laws have been broken with the of-age cop pretending to be a young girl, because the cop is legal age...as opposed to a cop not bringing real bomb info to meet with the guy.

[Hal-9000]

I read that if an officer fills a bag with a large amount of a harmless white powder and the buyer is under the impression that it's illegal narcotics, the buyer can be charged with intent to traffic and/or possession after money exchanges hands.

In reality, one person has just sold 112 grams of flour to another person for 10000 bucks, which is not against the law.

[redred]

One less would be pedo on the streets = result

[DemonGeminiX]

That's not what I am saying at all. You can't offer to pay for sex, cop or otherwise. You can't sell drugs, cop or otherwise. You can't offer to pay someone to kill, cop or otherwise. You can't suggest that you meet up and fuck... oh wait, yes you can, because that's not illegal. The medium has nothing to do with it. Solicitation of a minor is unique in that that only thing that makes it illegal is that there is a minor at the other end of the communication. No minor, no crime.

You can't solicit a prostitute for sex, cop or otherwise.
You can't sell drugs, cop or otherwise.
You can't hire a hit man, cop or otherwise.
You, as an adult, can't fuck a minor, cop or otherwise. It's illegal.

No minor on the other end, no crime? By that reasoning, no prostitute, no crime; no legitimate drug buyer, no crime; no real hit man, no crime... but there's one problem, they are all crimes. They're defined as crimes in legislation. I'm certain they've all gone to appeal using the previously mentioned logic and I'm sure the convictions have all been held up on appeal. Because the Mens Rea and Actus Rea is still there, even in the case of the decoy 'minor'. The intent exists and they acted on it in such a way that the crime would come to pass if there was a minor, if there was a prostitute, if there was a drug buyer, if there was a hit man.

Ok, the problem isn't the medium, but I still think you're having a problem with accepting the idea that cops are allowed to pull one over on the perpetrators, but again, it's perfectly legal for them to do so. There's no prostitute, yet the perp gets arrested for soliciting a prostitute, so on and so forth (I'm really getting tired of typing all that shit out). It would be the same exact case if a dude solicited a prostitute online, they set up a date, and he went to the agreed upon location and got busted in a sting operation. He would still be convicted. Regardless whether the dupe is out on the street corner or behind a computer screen, it's still soliciting a prostitute. She's still fake, there is no real prostitute, and he's still going to jail.

Look, I'm sure there have already been cases in appellate courts giving the argument that you're giving, yet the laws still exist and no cases are being thrown out unless entrapment exists, so obviously there's a common logical thread that's been agreed upon. I don't know how else to explain it.

Long story short, if the guy in question doesn't want to get his name on the lifetime sexual predators list, if he doesn't want his name and mugshot in the local paper, if he doesn't want to have to report his whereabouts to local law enforcement for the rest of his life, if he doesn't want to go to jail labeled as a child molester, if he doesn't want his life to end, then he shouldn't go looking to have sex with a minor. Period.

[RBP]

But then wouldn't they both be crimes of intent? Blowing people up is against the law and so is having sex with a minor.

Since the cops in both cases lied (one with the promise of bomb schematics, one pretending to be a child) how is it different? As you say, no laws have been broken with the of-age cop pretending to be a young girl, because the cop is legal age...as opposed to a cop not bringing real bomb info to meet with the guy.

idk, the bomb thing is a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, I see that one differently.


I read that if an officer fills a bag with a large amount of a harmless white powder and the buyer is under the impression that it's illegal narcotics, the buyer can be charged with intent to traffic and/or possession after money exchanges hands.

In reality, one person has just sold 112 grams of flour to another person for 10000 bucks, which is not against the law.

If that's true, that may be comparable.


One less would be pedo on the streets = result

One less pedo? He's never actually touched or talked dirty to a child.


You can't solicit a prostitute for sex, cop or otherwise.
You can't sell drugs, cop or otherwise.
You can't hire a hit man, cop or otherwise.
You, as an adult, can't fuck a minor, cop or otherwise. It's illegal.

No minor on the other end, no crime? By that reasoning, no prostitute, no crime; no legitimate drug buyer, no crime; no real hit man, no crime... but there's one problem, they are all crimes. They're defined as crimes in legislation. I'm certain they've all gone to appeal using the previously mentioned logic and I'm sure the convictions have all been held up on appeal. Because the Mens Rea and Actus Rea is still there, even in the case of the decoy 'minor'. The intent exists and they acted on it in such a way that the crime would come to pass if there was a minor, if there was a prostitute, if there was a drug buyer, if there was a hit man.

Ok, the problem isn't the medium, but I still think you're having a problem with accepting the idea that cops are allowed to pull one over on the perpetrators, but again, it's perfectly legal for them to do so. There's no prostitute, yet the perp gets arrested for soliciting a prostitute, so on and so forth (I'm really getting tired of typing all that shit out). It would be the same exact case if a dude solicited a prostitute online, they set up a date, and he went to the agreed upon location and got busted in a sting operation. He would still be convicted. Regardless whether the dupe is out on the street corner or behind a computer screen, it's still soliciting a prostitute. She's still fake, there is no real prostitute, and he's still going to jail.

Look, I'm sure there have already been cases in appellate courts giving the argument that you're giving, yet the laws still exist and no cases are being thrown out unless entrapment exists, so obviously there's a common logical thread that's been agreed upon. I don't know how else to explain it.

Long story short, if the guy in question doesn't want to get his name on the lifetime sexual predators list, if he doesn't want his name and mugshot in the local paper, if he doesn't want to have to report his whereabouts to local law enforcement for the rest of his life, if he doesn't want to go to jail labeled as a child molester, if he doesn't want his life to end, then he shouldn't go looking to have sex with a minor. Period.

I am sick or repeating myself too. The other crimes apply to all persons, the child solicitation applies only to minors. Big difference. Pretending to be a hooker still results in person being solicited for sex. Pretending to be a child does not result in a child being solicited. I don't disagree that it's against the law as they are written to specifically include fake minors. But that's the only reason.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

RBP, as much as I hate a lot of the things that cops and LEA's do, I think you are just flat wrong on this. The dude wasn't arrested for talking about having sex with a minor, he was arrested because he actually tried to go thru with it, and unless he was explicitly coerced by the cop, then he is guilty.

Cops don't arrest potential Johns for talking about sex to an undercover cop, but as soon as they make a deal to pay for it, then they are guilty. It's the same exact thing. In both instances the police are pretending to be something they aren't in a sting operation, and they cannot do anything to you until you cross that line. Talking about sexual stuff to a minor on the interwebz? Although creepy as fuck and sick as well, it's not a crime (AFAIK)....however, talk about sex with a minor (or what you believe to be a minor) and making a deal to meet and have sex and then following thru with that deal, that's intent and you have broken the law and you deserve to be in jail, because that guy in the OP fully expected to find a 14 year old girl at the designated meeting point. Just like when a potential John expects to find a prostitute when they are soliciting for sex.

If that guy didn't want to get arrested he should never have pursued it because had it just stopped with the conversation with the undercover cop, he would still be a free man. It wasn't a 'thought crime' as you try and describe it, it was intent to commit a felony and he is rightfully in jail for it.

[redred]

:tup:

[RBP]

RBP, as much as I hate a lot of the things that cops and LEA's do, I think you are just flat wrong on this. The dude wasn't arrested for talking about having sex with a minor, he was arrested because he actually tried to go thru with it, and unless he was explicitly coerced by the cop, then he is guilty.

Cops don't arrest potential Johns for talking about sex to an undercover cop, but as soon as they make a deal to pay for it, then they are guilty. It's the same exact thing. In both instances the police are pretending to be something they aren't in a sting operation, and they cannot do anything to you until you cross that line. Talking about sexual stuff to a minor on the interwebz? Although creepy as fuck and sick as well, it's not a crime (AFAIK)....however, talk about sex with a minor (or what you believe to be a minor) and making a deal to meet and have sex and then following thru with that deal, that's intent and you have broken the law and you deserve to be in jail, because that guy in the OP fully expected to find a 14 year old girl at the designated meeting point. Just like when a potential John expects to find a prostitute when they are soliciting for sex.

If that guy didn't want to get arrested he should never have pursued it because had it just stopped with the conversation with the undercover cop, he would still be a free man. It wasn't a 'thought crime' as you try and describe it, it was intent to commit a felony and he is rightfully in jail for it.


I understand your and everyone else point. I still think there's a difference. In this case, there was no way that the solicitation could have resulted in a crime being committed. That is the definition of solicitation. In the case of prostitution, someone was actually solicited and following through on it would be a crime. Following in through in the case of the OP would mean he had sex with an adult cop. Now if he solicited someone to find him a 14 year old girl to have sex with? Absolutely a crime because following through would result in an illegal act. The fact is they had to write special provisions into the law to make this illegal. Without that provision, they got nothing.

I remember watching to catch a predator, which is what sealed my opinion on this. Those guys were not hardcore child molesters, they were stupid, desperate idiots combing chat rooms when they happened upon this strangely willing minor. C'mon, does that ever really happen? Look at the guy in the OP. Do you really think a 14 year old girl is going to willingly meet him for sex? Most molestation happens by family members and friends. The real predators take months grooming their victims. Think of the movie "trust." Real 14 year olds don't meet hairy old men at parks for sex, only cops do. The point is, but for that cop in that chat room, would this scenario have ever some up? Are we really stopping something if it probably would have never happened anyway?

[DemonGeminiX]

If they're willing to have sex with a minor, they're a hardcore child molester. How do you know this guy is just a desperate idiot? How do you know he's not gonna graduate to something more heinous after he scores sex with a 13 year old on his belt? How do you know he's not going to take it to another level with that initial encounter? Who's to say what some of those guys would have done if To Catch A Predator hadn't caught them? Can you see inside their heads?

The fact of the matter is that if these people don't have the moral restraints to keep them from seeking to have sex with children, then they're lacking the moral restraints to keep them from doing far worse and that makes them seriously dangerous. This is a crime that needs to be stamped out, and the people that perpetrate this crime need to be put away. So be it if the police set up a sting and catch somebody wanting to have sex with a minor when there's no minor present. Damn the logic if it doesn't measure up to rigorous scrutiny. Life's not logical. It's for the greater good. There's no place for this crap in civil society and I'm all for these tactics that law enforcement carry out to catch these guys.

[RBP]

If they're willing to have sex with a minor, they're a hardcore child molester. How do you know this guy is just a desperate idiot? How do you know he's not gonna graduate to something more heinous after he scores sex with a 13 year old on his belt? How do you know he's not going to take it to another level with that initial encounter? Who's to say what some of those guys would have done if To Catch A Predator hadn't caught them? Can you see inside their heads?

The fact of the matter is that if these people don't have the moral restraints to keep them from seeking to have sex with children, then they're lacking the moral restraints to do far worse and that makes them seriously dangerous. This is a crime that needs to be stamped out, and the people that perpetrate this crime need to be put away. So be it if the police set up a sting and catch somebody wanting to have sex with a minor when there's no minor present. Damn the logic if it doesn't measure up to rigorous scrutiny. It's for the greater good. There's no place for this crap in civil society and I'm all for these tactics that law enforcement carry out to catch these guys.

Thank you. Finally someone admits that it's about stopping future actions. I can't see inside their heads and neither can you. Putting people away for their propensity to commit crimes is precisely what we should never do.

[DemonGeminiX]

No, actually, I believe wholeheartedly that it's just like the other scenarios I proposed earlier, but I can't keep throwing out the same arguments over and over again, it's driving me nuts. You say you understand but you keep rallying against the arguments. Lance and my points make perfect sense.

It's not just about stopping future acts, he's already proved that he's going to do it by showing up. Just like the other three scenarios that I'm not relisting again. We can't in good conscience dangle out an underage girl and wait for the fucker to actually have sex with her before arresting him, it defeats the purpose of the law. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

I can't believe your arguing against this. These people are fucking sick. Anyone who would think it's ok to fuck a child is fucking sick. Anyone who would want a perpetrator to follow through and actually fuck a child before allowing the police to arrest him is fucking sick. Intent, in this case, is plenty enough.

I'm done with this.

[Hal-9000]

I read that Bill Gates/Microsoft helped the FBI write an algorithm that trolled through chatroom lines. Not the Twitter or Facebook feeds which are somewhat organized, it monitored the interfaces that have 100000 characters facing you in one vertical column with multiple people adding to the infinity conversations.Apparently it's worked well in identifying potential pedophiles and led to arrests. I was amazed and uplifted reading the story, most of us know that computer filters are hit and miss.

I understand what you've been saying RBP about thought crimes of intent. If we do this, then why not that? Where does it stop?

I also believe in basic human rights, although it seems I'm a little more relaxed than some of you Americans when it comes to authorities wanting to exert their influence. That's not a slam, just an observation reading a few threads on different subjects here that involve the police or the government.

While it's admirable to fight and speak against personal rights being abused, the time will come when we've become so indignant and self righteous, that the police won't be able to do their job with any degree of effectiveness.

No I don't want an Orwellian police state, but I believe very strongly in a tactic that helps criminals get taken off the street. The guy who thinks about poking a minor a hundred times per day without acting on it hasn't committed a crime...yet, you are 100% correct. Like the other members mentioned though, if a police sting can get the pedophile to travel to a potential meeting place or agree to exchange pictures, then that guy is a criminal. It shouldn't matter that a cop baited him or her, his intent was clear. I see no difference than the cop/prostitute sting. In that instance the cop never does have sex with the john, but the john still gets charged.

And yes, the horse has been beaten to death here :lol:

But out of respect for us or me, can you maybe consider what allowing too many rights could cost a family?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I understand your and everyone else point. I still think there's a difference. In this case, there was no way that the solicitation could have resulted in a crime being committed. That is the definition of solicitation. In the case of prostitution, someone was actually solicited and following through on it would be a crime. Following in through in the case of the OP would mean he had sex with an adult cop. Now if he solicited someone to find him a 14 year old girl to have sex with? Absolutely a crime because following through would result in an illegal act. The fact is they had to write special provisions into the law to make this illegal. Without that provision, they got nothing.

And that's where you are comparing two things completely differently to fit your definition. If a potential John is soliciting sex from an undercover cop, there is no way that the solicitation will follow thru to prostitution because there is no prostitute and the potential John will be arrested. Exactly the same way when if a potential child molester solicits to meet a minor for sex from an undercover cop, the solicitation cannot be followed thru to the crime of statutory rape because he or she will be arrested just like the potential John. And the opposite holds true which is where you are trying to compare these incidents separately. If a potential John solicits sex from a real prostitute, then yes, the solicitation will result in the crime of prostitution just as when a potential child molester solicits and meets a real minor for sex, it will result in the crime of statutory rape (or worse).

They are exactly the same yet you are trying to make them different, in both cases the suspect showed intent and they are guilty of solicitation, regardless of whom they thought they were in contact with. If you don't want to be arrested for soliciting a prostitute, don't go out looking for them. If you don't want to be arrested for solicitation of a minor, don't go trolling for them on the internet. End of.

[RBP]

And that's where you are comparing two things completely differently to fit your definition. If a potential John is soliciting sex from an undercover cop, there is no way that the solicitation will follow thru to prostitution because there is no prostitute and the potential John will be arrested. Exactly the same way when if a potential child molester solicits to meet a minor for sex from an undercover cop, the solicitation cannot be followed thru to the crime of statutory rape because he or she will be arrested just like the potential John. And the opposite holds true which is where you are trying to compare these incidents separately. If a potential John solicits sex from a real prostitute, then yes, the solicitation will result in the crime of prostitution just as when a potential child molester solicits and meets a real minor for sex, it will result in the crime of statutory rape (or worse).

They are exactly the same yet you are trying to make them different, in both cases the suspect showed intent and they are guilty of solicitation, regardless of whom they thought they were in contact with. If you don't want to be arrested for soliciting a prostitute, don't go out looking for them. If you don't want to be arrested for solicitation of a minor, don't go trolling for them on the internet. End of.


I'll try one more time. Meeting for paid sex with an adult is a crime. Meeting for unpaid sex with an adult is not a crime. And you can't see the difference?

In the OP he solicited an adult for unpaid sex. End of.

[RBP]

I read that Bill Gates/Microsoft helped the FBI write an algorithm that trolled through chatroom lines. Not the Twitter or Facebook feeds which are somewhat organized, it monitored the interfaces that have 100000 characters facing you in one vertical column with multiple people adding to the infinity conversations.Apparently it's worked well in identifying potential pedophiles and led to arrests. I was amazed and uplifted reading the story, most of us know that computer filters are hit and miss.

I understand what you've been saying RBP about thought crimes of intent. If we do this, then why not that? Where does it stop?

I also believe in basic human rights, although it seems I'm a little more relaxed than some of you Americans when it comes to authorities wanting to exert their influence. That's not a slam, just an observation reading a few threads on different subjects here that involve the police or the government.

While it's admirable to fight and speak against personal rights being abused, the time will come when we've become so indignant and self righteous, that the police won't be able to do their job with any degree of effectiveness.

No I don't want an Orwellian police state, but I believe very strongly in a tactic that helps criminals get taken off the street. The guy who thinks about poking a minor a hundred times per day without acting on it hasn't committed a crime...yet, you are 100% correct. Like the other members mentioned though, if a police sting can get the pedophile to travel to a potential meeting place or agree to exchange pictures, then that guy is a criminal. It shouldn't matter that a cop baited him or her, his intent was clear. I see no difference than the cop/prostitute sting. In that instance the cop never does have sex with the john, but the john still gets charged.

And yes, the horse has been beaten to death here :lol:

But out of respect for us or me, can you maybe consider what allowing too many rights could cost a family?

A family like a guy who gets separated from his family while never having ever talked to or touched a child? These internet stings do not have a great conviction rate but the men are put in the paper, their property seized, jobs lost. It's over for them and their family whether they ever get convicted or not. It's a real question as to whether men rounded up in these stings would have ever followed through on anything but for a cop who's job it is to entice him to go further.