Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Adam X]

I've heard about this but never watched since I assumed it would be mostly serious but from the reports here I'm seeing it has unintentional comedic value so I might tune in.

[The Great Ma Chao]

I understand, and this has crossed my mind several times. Legally, this can't really be right. From the impersonation, the luring with intent to arrest for something which NEVER occured---like when they are charged with sending "harmful material to a minor" even though a minor was NEVER on the receiving end of the chat---seems very...deceptive.

Then again, I feel better when they're unable to lure more children.

But it still seems shady.

And I keep watching. For those one liners. And how utterly rediculous the actor's renditions of the chat logs are. (When it says "LOL" the actors giggle awkwardly. I love it.)

I get stuck around what you just said. On one hand, it's entirely fucked up. On the other, what they're attacking is entirely fucked up. It's the unstoppable force and the immovable object colliding at a child's crotch; the question, to me, is does the setting make people view this as okay, or do they just find the greater good reasoning enough to forget the foundation of our judicial system?

Though, I have to admit. The prospect of something voice-acting a LOL is...well, funny.

[Rob]

I just watched a show about this show last night.  A lot of these cases did get thrown out of court, including all of them in the same Texas show where that prosecuter shot himself. 

That was the shadiest of all.  Most of these guys only get arrested because they showed intent by actually showing up to the house with specific items asked for by the decoy.  This guy never came to the house, so they went to his house to get him.  That's when he shot himself.  He showed no intent to actually commit any lewd act upon anyone according to the way the law reads.

And what Sgt. K.P.P said...I was discussing that with my wife.  If the other person is in fact an adult, how can they be arrested for sending harmful material.

I still can't help but watch the show...

[Valiero]

thank to this thread i'm now able to have some new perspective on french TV and justice
they're not so wicked finally

[spider jerusalem]

And what Sgt. K.P.P said...I was discussing that with my wife.  If the other person is in fact an adult, how can they be arrested for sending harmful material.

because, i think, they were going to do or doing such things thinking the decoy was a minor.

cheers

[Rob]

But the charge is, "sending harmful material to a minor over the internet."  No harmful material was ever sent to a minor, therefore, they are being charged with a crime that never occurred.

[spider jerusalem]

But the charge is, "sending harmful material to a minor over the internet."  No harmful material was ever sent to a minor, therefore, they are being charged with a crime that never occurred.

but it was intended to. but Im no a lawyer (short: imnal) .

[The Great Ma Chao]

But the charge is, "sending harmful material to a minor over the internet."  No harmful material was ever sent to a minor, therefore, they are being charged with a crime that never occurred.

but it was intended to. but Im no a lawyer (short: imnal) .

Which brings us back to entrapment, which gets cases thrown out of court.

[NefariousMaus]

This is definately a topic with a double edged sword. For all the good they are trying to do to make the public very in your face aware of the undeniable dangers, they are still going about it the wrong way. Lets face it, we are very aware that sexual predators exist both online and in the streets, but how often do we really consider just how common and real it really is. Most of us are at a safe age where this would not be a particular problem. True we are still at the mercy of other online dangers. Unless you actually know the person on the other end if the computer, you can't be 100% sure who you are talking to. For example sociopaths, and serial killers come in all shape sizes and ages and they target ages of all kinds. But not to get to off topic...As for these primetime show, I don't think its intent was to entertain, but many of us tune in and get our jollies at the expense of some guys intent to do bad things. That is where the fine line lies, "intent". The show's "Intent" was to inform and hopefuly make  aware to the public and other predators the serious nature of the crime. Unfortunately by using intrapment it gives cause to question the legal limits in which they can truely prosecute. The biggest thing that is being made clear is that these sickos are willingly seeking out and acting with criminal "intent" despite the fact that they don't know that the girl is really not a minor. They think she is and they are going for it. Maybe due to the factors of it being a set up and he actually did nothing wrong the guy goes free but hopefuly he will think twice before doing it again. Best case scenerio is that the guy learns a lesson and gets help for his problems and never does it again.  Another thing is that hopefuly parents will be more aware and take better action to supervise and inform their children of these online dangers. Both sides of the story stand to learn a serious lesson.

As for it being a public display of some guys total humiliation, I think he got what he deserves. Yeah its going to ruin his reputation, but had that been an actual kid, just think how it would have ruined her self image and psyche.

My opinion on whether or not it is entertaining is borderline. I don't think it was intended to be, but I believe entertainment is subject to perception.