Well, I get you are trying to state that MAGA people are pedofiles, and I am not here to stop you from that. But you also assume they catch actual pedofiles. However, there are cases where they have contacted people with an intellectual disability, and then you cannot be really sure the person really is sexually in to children, since with enough pushing you can get such persons to agree to a meeting anyway… just because you pushed. Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
I remember looking up the people To Catch A Predator worked with and reading some of their chat logs. The decoy was always very upfront in giving an age unambiguously below the age of consent in their jurisdiction, and never initiated conversation about sex or suggested meeting in person.
Of course, the decoy would always agree to do so if the offender asked, but the criminal conduct was unambiguously criminal, and unambiguously the offender’s idea. What we see in this article appears to abandon that sort of rigor to manufacture more opportunities to confront someone.
Yes, though legally that’s a bit of a grey area. It’s only really entrapment if law enforcement or informants entice the offender to commit a crime they weren’t predisposed to commit. I imagine it would be an uphill battle to convince a judge or jury of that when it comes to meeting minors for sex.
The decoys were careful so that it would never even be a question.
Like, they claimed one guy (18) was there to meet a minor (17). When the reporter reviewed the logs it was clear that he was there to meet an 18 year old.
Getting views is more important than catching a bad guy
Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
Speak for yourself.
MAGA would deport you for having the wrong color skin regardless of your citizenship. I’m find with ruining their lives regardless of any crimes committed. This wouldn’t have been the case a couple years ago- but things have changed.
The word pedophile is so weirdly used. If an older man or lady meets a 16 year old… their technically not one, but in this day of age… they would be consider one to society…but they would be consider a Sex Offender. Depending on Level 1 or 2… all depends on what they did and if their state will think they will re-offend or not. Most Level 1’s do not.
It’s not weirdly used. Society always determines what is appropriate. We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18. And any sex without consent is rape.
That said, what is weird is that we conflate pedo and child rapist. You’re describing child rapists.
We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18.
Older criminal laws were based on that idea, usually called “statutory rape”. Modern laws about sexual abuse of children usually ignore the concept of consent entirely to allow for more nuance.
One example of nuance is exceptions for people close in age so that non-abusive relationships between teenagers don’t suddenly become crimes when someone has a birthday. Another is that consent is often a factor in the severity of the penalty.
And I think we’d all agree a sophomore dating a college student would be pretty imbalanced.
I was a college student at 17, but I think you had a larger age difference in mind. I do think we can all agree there should be laws against adults sexually exploiting teenagers.
“We know who they are. We don’t really need due process. I’m not one of those people so nothing bad could ever happen to me so I don’t care”
Seriously, the amount of times I see violations of civil/human rights being acceptable because they’re “the enemy” is really sad. Do you have no self awareness? That’s EXACTLY what they’re doing to you. Stop being a pot of crabs pulling us back in. Be better.
Let’s be real- we know who they’re catching. I’m fine with this. Keep on doing whatever to MAGA trash.
Well, I get you are trying to state that MAGA people are pedofiles, and I am not here to stop you from that. But you also assume they catch actual pedofiles. However, there are cases where they have contacted people with an intellectual disability, and then you cannot be really sure the person really is sexually in to children, since with enough pushing you can get such persons to agree to a meeting anyway… just because you pushed. Regardless of how awful the crime is, we cannot accept vigilantes.
I remember looking up the people To Catch A Predator worked with and reading some of their chat logs. The decoy was always very upfront in giving an age unambiguously below the age of consent in their jurisdiction, and never initiated conversation about sex or suggested meeting in person.
Of course, the decoy would always agree to do so if the offender asked, but the criminal conduct was unambiguously criminal, and unambiguously the offender’s idea. What we see in this article appears to abandon that sort of rigor to manufacture more opportunities to confront someone.
Aka entrapment.
Yes, though legally that’s a bit of a grey area. It’s only really entrapment if law enforcement or informants entice the offender to commit a crime they weren’t predisposed to commit. I imagine it would be an uphill battle to convince a judge or jury of that when it comes to meeting minors for sex.
The decoys were careful so that it would never even be a question.
The article says that they would just lie too.
Like, they claimed one guy (18) was there to meet a minor (17). When the reporter reviewed the logs it was clear that he was there to meet an 18 year old.
Getting views is more important than catching a bad guy
It is not technically entrapment because they aren’t police, but they are cosplaying as cops so the label gets the point across.
Speak for yourself.
MAGA would deport you for having the wrong color skin regardless of your citizenship. I’m find with ruining their lives regardless of any crimes committed. This wouldn’t have been the case a couple years ago- but things have changed.
The word pedophile is so weirdly used. If an older man or lady meets a 16 year old… their technically not one, but in this day of age… they would be consider one to society…but they would be consider a Sex Offender. Depending on Level 1 or 2… all depends on what they did and if their state will think they will re-offend or not. Most Level 1’s do not.
It’s not weirdly used. Society always determines what is appropriate. We’ve decided, as a society, that humans cannot consent until 18. And any sex without consent is rape.
That said, what is weird is that we conflate pedo and child rapist. You’re describing child rapists.
Older criminal laws were based on that idea, usually called “statutory rape”. Modern laws about sexual abuse of children usually ignore the concept of consent entirely to allow for more nuance.
One example of nuance is exceptions for people close in age so that non-abusive relationships between teenagers don’t suddenly become crimes when someone has a birthday. Another is that consent is often a factor in the severity of the penalty.
Yes and that’s completely fair. It’s about the imbalance of power. An 18 y.o. and one day, is exactly the same as they were two days prior.
But the cutoff has to be somewhere, and the guy I was replying to was talking about proper adults and 16 y.o.
That’s a highschool sophomore. And I think we’d all agree a sophomore dating a college student would be pretty imbalanced.
I was a college student at 17, but I think you had a larger age difference in mind. I do think we can all agree there should be laws against adults sexually exploiting teenagers.
Get the fuck out, man.
Teenagers fuck each other all the time, consensually.
So there goes your argument about people younger than 18 being incapable of giving consent.
For the record, I’m in my 40s and I wouldn’t go out with anyone below the age of 30, before someone accuses me of anything I ain’t.
I hate predators as much as the next person, but let’s not go over to the other extreme.
Children can’t consent. Teenagers fucking is without consent. Their brains, on the average, are not capable of making that level of decision.
But that doesn’t make it illegal.
Somebody should tell society their laws need to catch up with that decision!
Found the Libertarian
No. No you do not.
“We know who they are. We don’t really need due process. I’m not one of those people so nothing bad could ever happen to me so I don’t care”
Seriously, the amount of times I see violations of civil/human rights being acceptable because they’re “the enemy” is really sad. Do you have no self awareness? That’s EXACTLY what they’re doing to you. Stop being a pot of crabs pulling us back in. Be better.
You think they are going after Maga? Most of them aren’t even going after pedofiles!
Sounds like an opportunity, then
How old are you?