I have a few issues with this show and the concept behind it.

1) there's no reason for the cops to be gang tackling these fat old men from a 10mph sprint. It's not like the bearded guy is going to outrun you, so stop taking your aggression out on him. Keep your emotions in check and act like the professional adult you claim to be.

2) putting the "transmission of explicit photo" charges aside for a moment, there has been no crime technically commited by these people. The view has been expressed on the show that "as soon as you decided to step out your front door with the intent to come to this house a crime was commited". That is incorrect in my mind.

Let's say I post on the forum that I have decided to rob my local bank. Let's say that I later walk out my front door with the intent, in my mind, to actually go rob the bank. I get in my car and I drive to the bank. Let's say that I actually bring along a ski mask in my jacket pocket...perhaps I put it there for this special occasion, or perhaps I always carry a ski mask with me for those cold winter nights in case my car leaves me stranded.

So I walk into the bank lobby with the intent in my mind to rob the bank, and I even have a ski mask in my pocket. At that point, should I be arrested and charged with "attempted bank robbery"?

What is to say that I might get there, in the lobby, look around at the armed guard and the cameras, get scared and walk out the door not having done anything? I might get in my car and go back home and decide it was a dumbfuck idea, all without any outside intervention. No crime was committed if this was actually the case.

How is my example different from what goes on in this show?

Bottom line, you cannot predict what "would have happened had I not been here" nor should you be able to charge someone with a crime they have not yet committed.

3) These people on the show act like NO ONE carries condoms around with them on a daily basis. WTF? In today's world of STD's and such, it is taught...no, it is PREACHED to us on a daily basis to 'wrap it up every time" and "always use protection", so of course lots of men carry condoms on their person "just in case". How can possession of a condom be used as evidence of intent to have sex with a minor?

I suppose next, any sportscar owner will be charged with speeding before they ever leave their driveway, and any gun owner can be charged with attempted murder without ever firing a shot, because those are the only possible uses of those items as well.

4) I feel that it would be ideal if there were laws or amendments in place, taking entrapment policies a step further, that basically said something along the lines of "the police should never create the possibility of a crime where none would otherwise exist". That would go a long way in eliminating bullshit like this. For instance...police could not set up "bait cars" to catch car thieves, because without the "bait car" in place, those thieves may not have stolen anything that day. No more undercover prostitution stings or drug buys...I think it is wrong for them go to out and create crimes, when there is plenty of other crime that happens all by itself!

I got angry when a kid that was like 18 got tackled and he was freaking out and shit...Clearly we all know 18 year old's hook up with the younger crowd and i think its wrong for the host to stand there like he's never thought of screwing an underage girl and scare the shit outta of this kid.

Also i agree with what you said about assuming you would commit a crime...but i do think that if they could they would throw you in jail if they known what you were thinking.

Personally, I don't think old guys who fuck kids should have a trial, a jury, due process of law, or not be hurt by anybody that sees them.

I DON'T agree however that an 18 yr old banging a 15 yr old should be a Class A Felony, or a crime at all.

Personally, I don't think old guys who fuck kids should have a trial, a jury, due process of law, or not be hurt by anybody that sees them.

So you're up for hurting people who haven't even been proven guilty?

I'm glad we don't have people like you in law enforcement.



. . . Crap.

No, it's better to catch them before they do it.

If they clearly did it Tofuball, then kick their ass. You know how ped's make out in Prison when an inmate finds out they like little kids? They make out dead with a broom stick entering the anus exiting the mouth.

I love how everyone misses the point, if you have children, break their fingers so they cant use the internet. I was on the internet, when all the sickos were on and there wasn't anything to block porn, pedophiles, or even a pop up ad. For some reason I knew I didn't want a 40 year old man to have my address. I think the show is retarded and plays into parent's fears about their children's safety.

it is but it isn't..

the "predators" are step-up by NBC, not the local police.

Sounds like the OP got busted....
:D

In your bank example... You didn't see the armed guards until you were in the vault looking at the cash...

The dudes didn't sit down in the kitchen when they heard the voice of the "minor"...



Nobody should carry condoms around in their wallet or pocket. The heat is bad for them and they fall apart. I personally buy them as needed... Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't buy too many and I do realize that people do still keep them in their pockets, but it should not be evidence of a conviction unless the guy just bought those for this occasion.

This is not entrapment by any sense.

1--no one forces one of these freaks to enter a chat room that is filled with minors. They do it all by themselves.

2--the decoys do not initiate contact with the suspects. The suspects start the chatting themselves. Now, you might have a case if someone pretended to be a minor and went around a chat room searching out an adult to flirt with, but that just doesnt happen in this case. They commit the act all by themselves, and whether anyone here likes it or not, having an x-rated discussion with a minor is a crime all by itself.

That kills your theory about the bank robbery bit, because it is not illegal by any stretch to possess a ski mask, or to go to the bank. But by the time they set up a meet with a suspect, he has already broken at least one law. Big difference.

3--watch the videos. When the suspect arrives at the sting house, the intent is 100% clear when he talks to the decoy. They often talk about bringing alcohol, or condoms, and some of them even start taking their clothes off. It is blatantly obvious what would happen in these cases if no one else were there.

4--You mention intent. Intent is everything in a case like this. In order to secure a conviction, the prosecutor in a criminal case needs to show motive, opportuinty, and intent. You use the bank scenario as an example, well, you are incorrect there. you see, if you so much as plan a robbery, even if you dont carry it out, you have just broken a law right there, there is a thing called "conspiracy to commit". That is a criminal charge.

Tell you what, let's make this real for you. Suppose your 13 year old daughter has been chatting online with a 36 year old guy who lives three hours away. They have been chatting about very inapprpriate and explicit sexual topics. The guy then asks if he could drive out next week to meet your daughter at your house. WHAT OTHER INTENT CAN THERE BE? Or, better yet, if this were your daughter, how willing would you be to wait and see what happens when he gets there before stepping in to handle the issue? Would you be comfortable allowing a grown man to drive three hours to come to your house when only your daughter is home, after those conversations? Do you need to wait until he starts taking her clothes off to know what would happen? What other legitimate good reason would this man have, a complete stranger, for driving those three hours to meet a minor, home all alone? Is he coming over for milk and cookies? Maybe to watch a movie, and then go home? Thats where your theories fall short, it is perfectly legal to own a sports car or to go into a bank and possess a ski mask. It is NOT legal to initiate this contact the way these people do. Big difference.

Sounds like the OP got busted....
:D

http://www.rotaryresurrection.com/klinternetfiles/forum/bigughh3.gif

So we have to rely on police to protect our kids on the internet? Thats a fucking joke, they cant even protect me from getting stabbed in the face 3 times, four 911 calls and 16 minutes later they show up. Its a TV show designed to get ratings, and I hope all those associated with perverted justice DIAF.

I think you miss the point, tjgo, I think the point is not to rely on the police. I think the point is to illustrate to parents what happens online. That way, the parents can take responsibility and protect their kids. Believe it or not a lot of people dont see the risk with the internet. This isnt about leaving it to the cops, it is about educating people so they can act accordingly. And while some of you may think this is about ratings, the simple sad fact is that the shock value is needed in a lot of cases for people to realize whats really happening out there. Ratings? If the show causes even one person to wake up and change the way they allow their child on the web then its worth it.

So we have to rely on police to protect our kids on the internet? Thats a fucking joke, they cant even protect me from getting stabbed in the face 3 times, four 911 calls and 16 minutes later they show up. Its a TV show designed to get ratings, and I hope all those associated with perverted justice DIAF.

it's your job as a father to protect your OWN kids.

2--the decoys do not initiate contact with the suspects. The suspects start the chatting themselves.
There have been a few instances that the transcripts they show on the show prove otherwise. Your not supposed to see it because its not what they are highlighting, and they zoom into the highlighted section pretty quick. If you pause the show you can clearly see in more than one occasion the "suspect" attempted to break communication but the "decoy" continued to pursue the "suspect". Go back and watch some more of these shows and you will see it.

The show should be called "To entrap a pedo" And have the Pedobear as the logo. Heck it would be a riot is they edited out Chris Hansen and put the cartoon pedobear in his place.

What I don't get is that people keep falling into the trap. If your a pedo and you're in these sorta chatrooms and you've seen that show, you should be able to put 2 and 2 together. Heck, I believe a couple that have been caught were watchers of the show. LoL! How dumb they must have felt...

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4082/chansenqf2.jpg
^You gotta admit, my idea would add a HILARIOUS twist to the show!

it's your job as a father to protect your OWN kids.


First, I have no desire to procreate. Second, I said that a few posts ago.

I understand but it's the overall thought

Political seperation. Us social conservatives say fuck the pedos, yet the social libs say let the pedos fuck my kids.

Wouldn't a conservative be for less government? This seems to be forcing a larger government, or is it possible that you have taken the term conservative and perverted it into what you want it to be.

Conservatives believe in kicking the shit out of pedophiles. Don't try to make conservatives look like pussies.

...

Dude you make me want to commit ritual suicide.

Hari Kari FTW?

I love how everyone misses the point, if you have children, break their fingers so they cant use the internet. I was on the internet, when all the sickos were on and there wasn't anything to block porn, pedophiles, or even a pop up ad. For some reason I knew I didn't want a 40 year old man to have my address. I think the show is retarded and plays into parent's fears about their children's safety.

Exactly.

However, most of those girls have daddy issues, or were touched by Uncle Chuck, or whatever. No sane 13 year old opens her legs, period. I was 13 once, nobody put out.

I think they really go for the guys that, as you put it RotaryRes, are going to rob the bank. They've got the motive, they've got the tools, and they are there. I think it's a little overboard at times, but it makes great TV.

I DON'T agree however that an 18 yr old banging a 15 yr old should be a Class A Felony, or a crime at all.

How about a 20 year old and a 17 year old? You know, that's bullshit. I could go to jail for dating my GF of 2 years, if I had sex with her.

Ya nowadays you have to be real carefull!

Could you imagine going to jail and having to register as a sex offender just becuase your 18 and banged a 16 year old!

Now dont get me wrong most people who are sex offenders i would hope comitted the crime to wear that title but i know there are stipulation's.

No sane 13 year old opens her legs, period. I was 13 once, nobody put out.

sounds like you went to the wrong schools.

I went to school in NC where everyone thought jesus was the answer, when I was coming up with things like, wouldn't life be easier if everyone had an open relationship since everyone is fucking around anyways? All the god damn hoops i had to jump thru just to get laid in high school, kids now a days have no clue how tough it was. this girl had to think i loved her, and i don't love anything.

I went to catholic schools..

Oh well they all like to fuck kids.

not all but quite a few

Kevin Landers


Nice FC. :)

This is not entrapment by any sense.

1--no one forces one of these freaks to enter a chat room that is filled with minors. They do it all by themselves.

2--the decoys do not initiate contact with the suspects. The suspects start the chatting themselves. Now, you might have a case if someone pretended to be a minor and went around a chat room searching out an adult to flirt with, but that just doesnt happen in this case. They commit the act all by themselves, and whether anyone here likes it or not, having an x-rated discussion with a minor is a crime all by itself.

That kills your theory about the bank robbery bit, because it is not illegal by any stretch to possess a ski mask, or to go to the bank. But by the time they set up a meet with a suspect, he has already broken at least one law. Big difference.

3--watch the videos. When the suspect arrives at the sting house, the intent is 100% clear when he talks to the decoy. They often talk about bringing alcohol, or condoms, and some of them even start taking their clothes off. It is blatantly obvious what would happen in these cases if no one else were there.

4--You mention intent. Intent is everything in a case like this. In order to secure a conviction, the prosecutor in a criminal case needs to show motive, opportuinty, and intent. You use the bank scenario as an example, well, you are incorrect there. you see, if you so much as plan a robbery, even if you dont carry it out, you have just broken a law right there, there is a thing called "conspiracy to commit". That is a criminal charge.

Tell you what, let's make this real for you. Suppose your 13 year old daughter has been chatting online with a 36 year old guy who lives three hours away. They have been chatting about very inapprpriate and explicit sexual topics. The guy then asks if he could drive out next week to meet your daughter at your house. WHAT OTHER INTENT CAN THERE BE? Or, better yet, if this were your daughter, how willing would you be to wait and see what happens when he gets there before stepping in to handle the issue? Would you be comfortable allowing a grown man to drive three hours to come to your house when only your daughter is home, after those conversations? Do you need to wait until he starts taking her clothes off to know what would happen? What other legitimate good reason would this man have, a complete stranger, for driving those three hours to meet a minor, home all alone? Is he coming over for milk and cookies? Maybe to watch a movie, and then go home? Thats where your theories fall short, it is perfectly legal to own a sports car or to go into a bank and possess a ski mask. It is NOT legal to initiate this contact the way these people do. Big difference.

So now we are going to try and convict people based on their "intent", or more accurately, our best guesses at their thoughts? ISn't that really slippery ground we're on at that point?

So, based on this, those of us with big single turbos and lots of mods on our high hp rx7s that we take out onto the public highways should automatically be convicted of street racing, because that's the only possible thing we need that for. Even if we aren't caught doing it, we have the means and we did enter a public highway, so that's enough in the eyes of your "intent", right? I mean, what other possible reason could we have for taking such a vehicle out on the public roads? If we were doing things legally, we'd be trailering them to the track, right?

Your statements above about "what reason does this man have coming to this girl's house?" are no different. Some of the mods on our cars may be illegal by emissions and/or safety standards. Contacting underage girls about sexual conversations is illegal. Getting pulled over driving a heavily modded car in some areas can get you in trouble, for having the mods. Getting caught having a sexual conversation with an underage girl can get you in trouble for that reason.

Getting tried and convicted of sexual assault on a minor (or similar) when no minor was present, or before you even laid a hand on the "minor", is about equivalent to getting arrested for street racing because you were driving a car with illegal mods on it, and there were no other cars around you to race. The law is making a lot of big assumptions about what exactly is going to happen based on circumstances alone.

The guys that come in naked and walk around the house, I can see the use of "intent" because that is very graphic. But they are also stopping and arresting people THAT DRIVE BY THE HOUSE ON THE NEXT STREET. Some of these guys drive nearby, think better of it, and leave, never even slowing down or getting out. Where is your intent now?

You want to charge these people with illegal transmission of sexual material or text to minors? I have no problem with that, because it can be easily proven that they DID it. IN my original post, I noted this, and asked that this be "set aside" for the moment so we could examine the bigger picture.

Stretching the laws to include their "intent" is absolute bullshit to me, because

1) no one can truly know what was going to happen
2) the suspect never even touched the person, much less attempted to sexually assault them
3) there was no minor present to assault, nor was there a minor present when the sexual material/text was transmitted.

Oh, and based on a lot of what I have read elsewhere, many of the decoy convo's with the suspects actually indicate that the decoys bait and hound the suspects even if they want to leave the conversation.

They fess up in the end, I s'pose. A good lawyer could probably undo it.

So now we are going to try and convict people based on their "intent", or more accurately, our best guesses at their thoughts? ISn't that really slippery ground we're on at that point?

So, based on this, those of us with big single turbos and lots of mods on our high hp rx7s that we take out onto the public highways should automatically be convicted of street racing, because that's the only possible thing we need that for. Even if we aren't caught doing it, we have the means and we did enter a public highway, so that's enough in the eyes of your "intent", right? I mean, what other possible reason could we have for taking such a vehicle out on the public roads? If we were doing things legally, we'd be trailering them to the track, right?

Your statements above about "what reason does this man have coming to this girl's house?" are no different. Some of the mods on our cars may be illegal by emissions and/or safety standards. Contacting underage girls about sexual conversations is illegal. Getting pulled over driving a heavily modded car in some areas can get you in trouble, for having the mods. Getting caught having a sexual conversation with an underage girl can get you in trouble for that reason.

Getting tried and convicted of sexual assault on a minor (or similar) when no minor was present, or before you even laid a hand on the "minor", is about equivalent to getting arrested for street racing because you were driving a car with illegal mods on it, and there were no other cars around you to race. The law is making a lot of big assumptions about what exactly is going to happen based on circumstances alone.

The guys that come in naked and walk around the house, I can see the use of "intent" because that is very graphic. But they are also stopping and arresting people THAT DRIVE BY THE HOUSE ON THE NEXT STREET. Some of these guys drive nearby, think better of it, and leave, never even slowing down or getting out. Where is your intent now?

You want to charge these people with illegal transmission of sexual material or text to minors? I have no problem with that, because it can be easily proven that they DID it. IN my original post, I noted this, and asked that this be "set aside" for the moment so we could examine the bigger picture.

Stretching the laws to include their "intent" is absolute bullshit to me, because

1) no one can truly know what was going to happen
2) the suspect never even touched the person, much less attempted to sexually assault them
3) there was no minor present to assault, nor was there a minor present when the sexual material/text was transmitted.

Oh, and based on a lot of what I have read elsewhere, many of the decoy convo's with the suspects actually indicate that the decoys bait and hound the suspects even if they want to leave the conversation.


Ever seen "Minority Report" with their pre-crime deal? We aren't too far off from that now.

They've had 221 convictions since 2005. They are as worthless as the DEA only less corrupt.

there's nothing wrong with charging people based on intent as long as they have made some forward moving step towards completing their illegal goal. just look at the list of crimes that start with the word "attempted."

how much of a "step" is required is usually where the debate is (as it is here).

if i try to shoot you in the head and my gun jams, i don't think anyone will have a problem with me being charged with attempted murder. certainly nobody is going to raise the counterargument that i shouldn't be charged just because the gun didn't go off. at that point i had done everything physically and mentally necessary to complete a murder; luck and circumstance prevented you from dying. now take it a few steps back. what if i scribbled out a plan to kill you and do nothing more? what if i then go to a gun store and buy a gun and ammunition? what if i then drive to your house and get out of my car? when is it enough of a step to charge me with attempted murder?

these sex crimes with minors is much harder because society is more consciously protective of children. therefore, you'd want to stop them as early as possible, so the "step" that is required is much less. is it enough that a pervert is checking out your daughter's online profile? what about them chatting it up? making lewd advances online? naked in the house? naked with your daughter? penis on the point of insertion?

remember the law is useless if you look at it as a form of punishment only. society benefits more from deterrance than from punishment.

with the USA's high prison population, and capital punishment in place - yet still with a high crime rate - it doesn't seem deterrance is working

In California if there is less than a 3 year difference and the younger of the 2 is something like 14 or greater than it's a misdemeanor, not felony.

www.ageofconsent.com

For Wisconsin: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a child who is not the defendant's spouse and who has attained the age of 16 years is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

I'm in the clear! It's not a felony, and hasn't been, either.

But anyway, that's why they pose as like a 13 year old, somebody obviously not "of age."

Even if this is entrapment, what these guys are saying to a possible 12-15 year old is illegal in most states. Even if they do not show up they can still be charged. knowing that they believe they are chatting with an underage person online. I watched one last night where they guy never even came to the house and they put him in jail just based on his online chat. It just makes it easier to prosecute when they actually show up

I think 14 is legal in canada

i also think they chose the age 13 because if i remember right(which i might not) punishment for sexual crimes if 12 or younger is much more harsh

So now we are going to try and convict people based on their "intent", or more accurately, our best guesses at their thoughts? ISn't that really slippery ground we're on at that point?

So, based on this, those of us with big single turbos and lots of mods on our high hp rx7s that we take out onto the public highways should automatically be convicted of street racing, because that's the only possible thing we need that for. Even if we aren't caught doing it, we have the means and we did enter a public highway, so that's enough in the eyes of your "intent", right? I mean, what other possible reason could we have for taking such a vehicle out on the public roads? If we were doing things legally, we'd be trailering them to the track, right?

Your statements above about "what reason does this man have coming to this girl's house?" are no different. Some of the mods on our cars may be illegal by emissions and/or safety standards. Contacting underage girls about sexual conversations is illegal. Getting pulled over driving a heavily modded car in some areas can get you in trouble, for having the mods. Getting caught having a sexual conversation with an underage girl can get you in trouble for that reason.

Getting tried and convicted of sexual assault on a minor (or similar) when no minor was present, or before you even laid a hand on the "minor", is about equivalent to getting arrested for street racing because you were driving a car with illegal mods on it, and there were no other cars around you to race. The law is making a lot of big assumptions about what exactly is going to happen based on circumstances alone.

The guys that come in naked and walk around the house, I can see the use of "intent" because that is very graphic. But they are also stopping and arresting people THAT DRIVE BY THE HOUSE ON THE NEXT STREET. Some of these guys drive nearby, think better of it, and leave, never even slowing down or getting out. Where is your intent now?

Oh, and based on a lot of what I have read elsewhere, many of the decoy convo's with the suspects actually indicate that the decoys bait and hound the suspects even if they want to leave the conversation.

well, ok, you are back to using examples that quite frankly make no sense.

Your modified car analogy, let's start there. If you live in a place where it is illegal to modify your car and you do it anyways, sorry, but thats the chance you take. Thats honestly how I feel about it. Having moved across country myself in my life, I can honestly tell you this--you are free to move to any state you wish, which would allow you to modify your car legally all you wish. Let's face it, if you can afford to own a highly modified sports car, you cannot cry poverty when it comes to the possibility of moving.

I think it flat out sucks that california is run like a nazi state when it comes to this issue. Perhaps that is why I choose not to live there. I live in a place where I can take a car, put anything I want on it, remove any stock equipment I choose, and not break any state laws as long as it will be safe to operate on the roads. Dont want to keep a cat? Fine, dont, no one looks under your car to give you a ticket or worse. Because of this, your analogy falls flat. There are a ton of places you can legally go in this country where modifying your car is legal, but there are no places where a 40 year old man can legally get online and chat up 12 year olds about what he wants to do to them when mommy and daddy are not home.

Modifying your car can be illegal based strictly on what nazis make the laws in your state, and I dont think that anyone can actually put together a viable argument that states that people with modified cars are exhibiting a severe moral defficiency because of it. You cannot compare modifying a car to being an attempted child molestor, its that simple.

OK, now, where have you seen people two streets away getting arrested for this? I have not seen this. They set up cameras at the sting house in order to document the events that happen there. Where in the world have you seen them documenting whole neighborhoods? I have not heard of one case of that. On the dateline episodes, they show you what happens when the car arrives at the house--they dont have gangs of cameramen covering all exits out of the neighborhood, and I have never heard of them stopping cars in the vicinity like you claimed. Perhaps you are exagerrating this a bit, or maybe you have heard of a specific incident, but what you are saying has not appeared in any of these episodes that I have ever seen or heard of.

As for the conviction, again, you are not correct. You fail to realize that these people are not, repeat, NOT being convicted of sexual assault. The most common crime falls under the general description of "lewd conduct with a minor". This is not some communist prison we are talking about--they still need to prove their case to a jury to get that conviction. These people are not being convicted of rape because they have not commited one at that point. In order for you to be correct on this point, then our entire jury system would have to be in on it with these people. Not likely.

Intent--where did you get the idea that we were just now looking at intent in this manner? Intent has been a focus of criminal investigation for longer than I can remember.

the legal system does not work on having to know what a person is thinking. The standard we use is "reasonable interpretation". And it is the only thing that actually makes any sense. For example, lets say you log into a chat room for kids. You start talking with a minor. You spend three weeks or so chatting with this minor. You have been chatting all about sexual issues with her. You then begin chatting about meeting her so that you can have sex with her. you agree on a date, and you drive two hours to get there. WHAT WOULD A REASONABLE PERSON THINK YOUR MOTIVE FOR GOING THERE WOULD BE? Come on, this isnt rocket science. In my mind, middle aged men have no business whatsoever talking to 12 year old girls about sex online, asking to meet them so they can have sex, and then driving to a house where they think the 12 year old girl is home alone. WHAT OTHER GOOD REASON CAN YOU POSSIBLY COME UP WITH FOR SUCH A VISIT?

You forget that the intent is demonstrated when the guy says he wants to meet her and have sex with her. At that point, it is 100% clear that the suspect fully has the intention of having sex with this girl. We know this because he says so. How often do you ask a girl to sleep with you when you have no intention of having sex? Come on, let's be real here. A guy chats online, gets into sexual topics with someone he perceives to be a minor. HE INITIATES THE CONTACT AND THE SEXUAL DISCUSSIONS. He asks to meet her so he can have sex with her, and if you have seen these, some of these people are flat-out sick as shit. One suspect actually chatted with the "minor" asking her if she would let her CAT lick her while he watched!!! And you are whining about intent? That's disgusting and there is no excuse for it. And you compare these people to someone who puts a turbo on their car??

Perception is reality. It happens in courtrooms every day, that the perception of the defendant is investigated. The suspect in these cases believe that they are speaking with underage girls, am I right? They know the law, right? They choose to go forward anyways, right? THEN WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? If a suspect is demonstrating to this extent that he is willing to do all of this with someone he thinks is a minor, then it is clear as day that he is willing to do this with an actual minor--he doesnt know she isnt one! HE ALREADY THINKS HE IS GOING TO SEE A MINOR THAT HE HAS ASKED TO SLEEP WITH HIM. Who out there does not know that this is an illegal act?? Seriously??

Like anything else out there, if you know its illegal and you choose to do it anyways, thats your issue. I do not have sympathy for people who know they are breaking the law but continue to do so. If you know your actions could get you in trouble, then thats up to you to make your next move. I am not going to feel bad for someone who tries to have sex with little girls, no matter if the "minor" was actually a minor, because if the suspect thinks she is one, then that is a moot point completely. It isnt like he didnt know the claimed age of the "minor", when it is established early in the conversations.

As for the decoys, go to pervertedjustice.com and read the full conversations yourself. Again, a jury would have to go along with it too, so it isnt like these people are getting convicted of crimes just because a cop says so. The jury convicts people, not the cops or dateline. I have yet to see one case personally where the minor initiated contact with the suspect....where the minor initiated the lewd discussion....where the minor coerced the suspect to be there....where the minor forced the suspect to get in his car and drive to her house. And that's the point that you are forgetting here--even if a minor kept hounding you online, would you drive to her house when you know she is there alone? There are a ton of proper things you could do at that point, and agreeing to meet her for sex is NOT ONE OF THEM. So, even if a decoy were persistent, doesnt the adult have the OBLIGATION to be the adult? No one forces these people to get in their car and drive to the house. You cannot take that obligation to be the adult away and put this on the decoy--what adult SHOULDNT turn away from something like that no matter the circumstances? Thats why this is not entrapment. Entrapment happens in the moment, but the moment does not include you driving from your house intentionally to go to her house, when you think she's home alone.