Legal Catfishophile

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Izzi

This reminds me of a story. Most people have probably heard of those police that will try and arrest pedo's by talking to them online and pretend to be young girls. And when they pretend to meet up they arrest them. I think that is extremely wrong of the police cause its arresting someone for something they didn't do. Kind of like minority report but thats just a movie.

You misunderstand how the police act in these situations. Those posing as young girls only make responses to those who talk with them; they never start a conversation themselves. The person on the other side is always the one to suggest they meet up, and the fake girl agrees. It's always the other person who starts anything (the conversation, meeting up, etc.). The police are specifically told not to do it, because that's called "entrapment." Essentially, "entrapment" is when the police entice someone to commit a crime in the hopes of arresting them for it, but in this case, the police are only going along with what the other person suggests, and therefore it is not entrapment.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

You misunderstand how the police act in these situations. Those posing as young girls only make responses to those who talk with them; they never start a conversation themselves. The person on the other side is always the one to suggest they meet up, and the fake girl agrees. It's always the other person who starts anything (the conversation, meeting up, etc.). The police are specifically told not to do it, because that's called "entrapment." Essentially, "entrapment" is when the police entice someone to commit a crime in the hopes of arresting them for it, but in this case, the police are only going along with what the other person suggests, and therefore it is not entrapment.

There's an exception if someone has been rightfully accused of molesting children. When the whole "Fake girl" ploy was first introduced to the police, that's basically what it was used for. Evidently, they overdo it these days.

[devonin]

Well, entrapment (As pictured in the movie 'Entrapment') is in most countries illegal for the police to take part in. And if you can prove entrapment, are automatically acquitted of all charges to do with that entrapment. Besides, anyone who has ever gone into any online chat ever is aware that almost nobody talks to anybody else without asking "a/s/l" first, because if you lie about that, and its logged, if you later go "A-ha! caught you!" you can't actually do anything with your evidence.

[OrganisM]

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody looking at my child with hungry eyes.

It seems like harassment, even if not legally so.

[devonin]

Well, then you ask them to leave, or you take your kid and leave. Both of those are a far cry from "24 hour survaillance or prison"

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody looking at my child with hungry eyes.

It seems like harassment, even if not legally so.

That's the thing. There will always be people who do things that make people uncomfortable. Should we go about arresting people just because we don't like what they do or think about? Should a Jew be allowed to press charges against an Arab simply because Arabs stereotypically are anti-Semitic and technically "a threat" to Jews (or vice versa). Should Black people not be allowed to own guns because stereotypically, all black people are gangsta thugs and a threat to everyone around them? Should gays be kicked out of America simply because seeing two men kiss in public makes me uncomfortable?

F*ck no.

America was founded on the concept of Freedom, especially freedom from persecution, and as long the man isn't breaking any laws, the government has no right to act.

That said, I think the mothers in this article have every right to do what they are doing, as long as they don't violate any laws or rights of the pedophile in the process...because wouldn't it be hilarious if the man got a restraining order against the very same mothers who want him out of their neighborhood?

[Kilgamayan]

You know, it occurs to me that this guy is helping the parents of the community by publicly describing where and how he trolls for kids. Instead of trying to run the guy out of town, the mothers should be using his information to plan protection for their kids. If they pay enough attention they could stop actual child molesters, whereas if they sensed no immediate dangers they run the risk of leaving their kid open.

[khknowitall]

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

I think what he's doing is perfectly fine. There's plenty of people who are turned on to the youthfulness of children, though I don't have a statistic and won't make an attempt at one, cause I don't have a source. We hear about only the perverts who make their move on the children, because those are the ones who are caught (most of the time).

wow so wat your saying is that if you had a source for children you would go after them lol nah im not bagging or anyting i hate pedos' and anyone interacting with children like that its disgusting i mean if i lived near him i would first kick his ass then move away...to a galaxy far far away lol

[MarisaKirisame]

So how do you know you won't have an uncontrollable sexual desire for kids when you're 30/40, Mr. khknowitall?

Hell, even 20, around when a person is started to be considered a pedo, even if the people they like are only several years younger than them?

Really, you should consider everything to be possible. I've had a lot of weird sexuality changes come and go in my life.

[purebloodtexan]

Also, "Mr. Know-it-all", realize that until the police have a warrant for his arrest, consider the fact that you're beating up an innocent man.

Also consider the fact that you type horribly. Read the CT rules.

[devonin]

Also, his response shows a complete lack of comprehending the statement he was responding to, so lets all just ignore him and move on:

Actually...is there much to discuss? We all agree that he is creepy and that people should be allowed to be nervous aruond him, but that he's done nothing wrong and is protected by the law...

[omgwtfToph]

Originally Posted by Wlfwnd91

One of the officers quoted, "Has he acted on it? I can't say. But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one [a pedophile] who has not."

maybe because if the pedo hasn't "acted on it," we have no way of knowing!

I saw this **** on CNN today and I thought I was watching Fox. what the ****ing christ, people openly expressed that they wanted this guy locked up EVEN THOUGH (AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS) HE HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.

Sweet. Let's throw people away for their thoughts. That hot coworker you want to bone? Oops, you're a rapist! That asshole you'd beat the **** out of if you had the chance? Oops, you're guilty of assault!

It's such a ****ing hazy line anyway. Legally, anything under 18 is "pedophilia" and by the legal definition (which is what matters) The Beatles were all pedophiles for singing "well she was just seventeen, if you know what I mean." Yeah some people are attracted to people of different ages. People have weirder fetishes than being attracted to kids. This is all completely irrelevant anyway, the main issue is that you can't throw a guy away because of what he hasn't done.

I read a great book about this once by George Orwell. The ****ing end.

[purebloodtexan]

Originally Posted by omgwtfToph

maybe because if the pedo hasn't "acted on it," we have no way of knowing!

I saw this **** on CNN today and I thought I was watching Fox. what the ****ing christ, people openly expressed that they wanted this guy locked up EVEN THOUGH (AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS) HE HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.

Sweet. Let's throw people away for their thoughts. That hot coworker you want to bone? Oops, you're a rapist! That asshole you'd beat the **** out of if you had the chance? Oops, you're guilty of assault!

It's such a ****ing hazy line anyway. Legally, anything under 18 is "pedophilia" and by the legal definition (which is what matters) The Beatles were all pedophiles for singing "well she was just seventeen, if you know what I mean." Yeah some people are attracted to people of different ages. People have weirder fetishes than being attracted to kids. This is all completely irrelevant anyway, the main issue is that you can't throw a guy away because of what he hasn't done.

I read a great book about this once by George Orwell. The ****ing end.

Well said, but avoid the cussing.

[DarkProdigy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/03....ap/index.html

A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.

In Santa Monica, a mother saw McClellan in a restaurant and called police, who arrived in time to talk with him and ask if they could take his picture.

He agreed, saying he thought it would allow them to quickly clear him of any sex crimes in their city. But he was unhappy when they posted it on the Internet along with his driver's license photo and a warning to parents to call them if they see him.

[devonin]

They've officially violated his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

He claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing, his legal status shows that he has never been convicted of committing any crime, possibly (I'm not positve) never having even been -accused- of a crime, and now he's being displayed to the public as a threat? That's a gross misuse of legal power.

[purebloodtexan]

Evidently, they're not 100% true to the right of free speech IMO.

edit:

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights, first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Relambrien]

I expect a well-publicized legal battle to ensue as the result of that ruling. I also expect McClellan to win the battle, as he has done nothing illegal and therefore restricting his rights by initiating a restraining order against him towards all minors is legally unfounded.

Keep your eyes on the news, folks.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by Relambrian

I'm going to get into a fight about the synonyms of one specific word which, when put back into the context of the debate, makes no real difference.

I can't quite comprehend how anybody could believe he's not a threat to children. He's done nothing illegal, he cannot be legally arrested or fined, but that does not mean that what he does is right. I don't mean to get into another argument here, but it's like handing marijuana, paper, and a lighter to somebody and walking away while saying, "Don't do anything bad now."

Perhaps the analogy blows things out of proportion a bit, but it gets the point across. Providing pictures of children to the public, even if they are not child porn, does indeed encourage pedophiles, and could mean a possible increase in sexual acts committed by other pedophiles.

But as Toph said, even though we made different points, the debate is moot. Nothing can be done unless the man acts on his thoughts, so whether or not what he is doing is right does not matter.

[purebloodtexan]

He probably knows that he's not a threat to children, but can't be touched by law enforcement agencies due to the fact that he's done nothing wrong. As long as he does nothing wrong, he's in God's hands.

There's the first and fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights for you.

[devonin]

Providing pictures of children to the public, even if they are not child porn, does indeed encourage pedophiles

Okay, so every single instance of pictures of children everywhere on earth encourages pedophiles and is wrong... do I really have to point out the folly of this statement?