How the frick was this not entrapment?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
How the frick was this not entrapment?
How the frick was this not entrapment?
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
because it wasn't.
True - entrapment requires an actual crime to have been committed.
Transmitting sexual content to, and meeting up with somebody you believe to be a minor is a crime. Nobody forced or coerced them, therefore it's not entrapment. have a nice day, degenerate pedo sympathizer.
>and meeting up
why do you always try to act like going to the house is a crime?
>why is saying "I'm going to come over to your house while your parents aren't home and pound your eleven year old dicky" then actually showing up with a pack of Mike's Hard Lemonade a crime?
NTA, but how do you think sting operations should work?
see
if "showing up" had any legal relevance, it would be entrapment.
aight look ima tells you what
i likes ya
and i want ya
now we can do this the easy way or we can do it the hard way
the choice is yours
It was and those who argued that in court managed to e
scape unscathed.
Not it wasn't and the only ones who got off were the ones that were caught after the assistant DA killed himself so the DA let everyone off to save face
because the pedos thought they were underaged and still came
>premeditating a crime against an imaginary minor is a crime
Yes
Nil
holy reddit
>coming to house to have sex with a minor
NOOOOO I NEED THE MINOR TO EXIST!!!! Ok so we put one in a van on property, happy now?
Yes.
Also many of the guys they caught copped to having done this before with real minors or had a rap sheet of previous offenses related to sex with minors.
>I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
Underrated post
Criminal prosecutions require an actus reus (an act) and mens rea (mental state of mind). Attempt crimes require specific intent (mens rea) - or the intent to cause a result that a law purposefully criminalizes, and a substantial step toward completing the act (actus reus) - here, they drove and entered into the minors house with the specific intent to have sex with a minor. The substantial step (actus reus) was driving and entering the home. They entered the home with the specific intent to have sex with a minor (mens rea). Therefore, they can be held liable for attempted statutory rape
If they were to actually have sex with the minor - it would be strict liability where no mens rea is required, and only the actus reus of having sex with the minor is required.
>Criminal prosecutions require an actus reus (an act) and mens rea (mental state of mind). Attempt crimes require specific intent (mens rea) - or the intent to cause a result that a law purposefully criminalizes, and a substantial step toward completing the act (actus reus) - here, they drove and entered into the minors house with the specific intent to have sex with a minor. The substantial step (actus reus) was driving and entering the home. They entered the home with the specific intent to have sex with a minor (mens rea). Therefore, they can be held liable for attempted statutory rape
In all the legal rambling you said, you forgot to take into account that police officers walked with him at every path creating the means and encouraging the encounter.
All you said it's true, but that's not why it's or isn't entrapment.
The defense of entrapment would certainly be raised at trial. Entrapment defense is much more successful in cases involving conspiracy
but it is a valid defense for other crimes. Entrapment essentially negates the mens rea of a crime, showing that you didn't actually form the specific intent due to the influence and coercion of law enforcement. Additionally, as specific intent is the hardest type of mens rea to prove, it would generally be more successful than crimes involving malice or general intent. The law has developed over time from a but for test (but for the police involvement - would the defendant still had the requisite mens rea, which is very defendant favored) to more of a totality of the circumstances test. Ultimately, it's up for the jury to decide. Though since everyone hates pedos, it's unlikely that a juror would find in favor of the defendant, much less a unanimous verdict from the jury
>I paid a guy to kill my wife but he wasn't actually a hitman, he was a cop, so I'm innocent
Yes.
Under the common law, you would only be guilty of solicitation and not conspiracy as the common law requires a meeting of the minds that cannot occur when a co-conspirator is a police officer
Nobody gives a shit about any of that, you are guilty and should be executed.
>meeting of the minds that cannot occur when a co-conspirator is a police officer
unless he knows her
There's nothing to suggest they'd have access to a 'hitman' or that 'hitmen' exist. Same for the case of these pedos. Would they have access to minor and would an able minor actually exist? This kind of boils down to whether or not you follow the scientific method. These entrapments come up with a conclusion without having the necessary evidence to convict. I'm not even saying it's wrong to do these entrapments, but it just shows how disjointed things are in society. Do you want base things on promotion, or do you want to determine something based on physical reality?
BETTER CALL SAUL
>okay what we dealing with here? "attempted child rape." Couldn't just whacked off at home like the rest of us haha
Almost everyone they caught was a multiple offender. Stay mad, kidfricker.
What's it like being mentally challenged? Be honest with me.
I dunno, ask the producers of these shows, they're the ones that tend to prey on mental incompetents for the sake of ratings.
>agreeing to sell someone $12,000 of coke when it's really more like 3,000 and a lot of baking powder is a crime
Yep.
>i tried to frick a kid but it didn’t work out, so I didn’t do anything wrong
Ok moron
a kid that never existed in the first place
but if the kid existed, the crime would have been committed
No because police officers and Chris Hansen were there to stop it.
And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. You lot are straying into dangerous lefty territory where reality doesn't matter.
>ahhhhh if yo aunt was a man she wourd not be yo aunt! If yo uncre had barrs he no die in Vietnam!
I don’t get it, does this insult make more sense in Chinese? Is it a translation issue?
I'm sorry, my ESL friend. What it means is that of course something would be the case, IF it was the case, but it isn't, so it isn't. It's not an insult. Take care with your language lessons!
>it wourd be true but it’s not true so there whyboi
I don’t get it, does this insult make more sense in Chinese? Is it a translation issue?
Unfortunately, I can't translate into Chinese for you to understand, but trust me when I say it makes perfect sense in English.
Trust a chink? No way lmao
I'm English, dumbass. Your obsession with the Chinese is weird and irrelevant. Try learning basic English instead, you'll understand what's said better.
>I’m English dumbass
Lmao no you aren’t, why are chinks so ashamed of just admitting they’re Chinese?
Okay, I'm 100% certain this is some moronic bot, now.
I just received word that your ancestors have been kicked out of Chinese heaven! The reason? Because you did your job so shamefully. You have disappointed and humiliated your entire lineage.
Because they know being chinese is shameful.
If you try to buy a nuclear warhead to blow up the capitol, but the arms dealer is a cop and the nuke never existed, it's still a crime you fricking moron.
But he literally didn't. Obectively, in reality, he never attempted to do that. The object of the action didn't exist, so it can't be said that any attempt to act towards that object was actually made. It's like "I tried to kill a florboklakz". There is no florboklakz, it's not a real thing, and therefor you can't have tried to kill it. This is basic logic and reasoning.
>Obectively, in reality, he never attempted to do that.
He did by showing up to a house where he believed an underage kid was.
>This is basic logic and reasoning.
Which you clearly lack.
>literally no response to the actual logical point here, simply reasserting the argument that the point refutes
Yeah. This is where these threads always wind up. People who can't separate the fact that trying to have sexual interaction with a kid is wrong, but that the people featured in these investigations technically never did that because there never was a kid. What they believe in their heads isn't real. You're dealing in the imaginary and I'm talking about reality. In actual reality, they never attempted to do anything with a kid because at literally no point was a kid involved.
It's like saying "I tried to put on a shoe" when your smack your foot with a hammer. You objectively did not try to put on a shoe. If you're moronic and think that a hammer is a shoe then maybe you believed you tried to put on a shoe, but in objective reality you did not.
Why this is so hard to grasp for so many anons will always baffle me.
>simply reasserting the argument that the point refutes
It's almost like you're too moronic to understand the original point. It's amazing. Most of these pedos do time for this shit and/or have to register as a sex offender, yet you conveniently ignore that the courts see it the same way the anons do that you're arguing with. I fricking hope this is bait I'm replying to. There's no way someone can be this fricking moronic.
Frick you homosexual
Not me mum
Goddammit
This is a 12iq post my man
all evidence points towards the pedos trying to rape a kid, but failing because the kid never existed
they buy condoms and drive hour to a house they think a kid is at
Wew lad wrong side of the bell curve.
You're right. It would be like getting arrested for stealing what you thought was a car but was actually a cardboard box nobody wanted. The intent was to steal a car which never existed in the first place.
All anons disagreeing with this are failing to see the bigger picture....
In the not so distant future, The Police will be able to put you in a simulation designed to tempt you into commiting crimes. What's going to happen? You are going to commit a crime in the virtual world, and be arrested and sent to the off-world popcorn mines in the real world.
Stop watching Black Mirror.
take your meds please
samegay
you also should take your meds by the looks of things
>NOOOOOOOO you can’t just notice me samegayging and curating the thread!
Deal with it Black person
are you also the autist calling people the slur for Asians? you really should touch grass, anonkun
Literally what?
>ahhhh you use srur? You badmouth China? You bad man! Find grass whyboi!!
Why are chinks like this?
Show proofs, suka.
Exactly, they haven't actually done anything wrong at that point. But since they're paedos and usually have molested someone before, I won't die on that hill.
>usually have molested someone before
Usually they didn't. That's why they were free and had no past records of it.
They're not Biden's sons that can frick children and can get away with it when it goes public.
solicitation of a minor is a crime in every State in the US. if you agree to set up a meetup for the purpose of sex with someone who is apparently a minor you are committing a crime even if you never actually meet them, the "they weren't actually a minor" defense has been tried but doesn't hold up because the intent was there.
wtf there are sex scenes in that show? did they hire young looking prostitutes for that or something?
I would've came too if you know what I mean.
the decoy is usually playing a 14yo so it's actually hebephilia
no one knows what that word means except pedophiles
No one cares pedo
If you don't think there are clear-cut degrees of moral ambiguity between a guy pursuing 8 year olds versus 15 year olds, you're deluded. By lumping the two together you're simply lessening the abhorrent implications of the word, and kid frickers should never get the benefit of the doubt that they're on the upper end of that age range.
>If you don't think there are clear-cut degrees of moral ambiguity between a guy pursuing 8 year olds versus 15 year olds, you're deluded.
rather that than be a pedo
Most countries have have different charges for different age ranges. It could be a more severe charge if the victim was under 12 or 14 or whatever.
>thought they were underaged
Goo goo ga ga
kys pedo
youre right, pedos should be physically and publicly castrated
I just think using a balding decoy (who’s also a former marine I think) is fricking hilarious, no defending the nonces.
Hey bro this is your FBI agent here. Just to let you know spamming all these threads with how much you hate pedos isn’t gonna affect your charges you’re wasting your time and it’s boring us
Hey...uh....so am I still in trouble for all those n word and antisemitic posts? Cause like....we can just pretend those never happened.
Why doesnt MY fbi agent ever say hi.
I'm just waiting to say hello to you in person. We'll meet soon, don't worry.
What kind of sick frick tricks men into loving them only to savagely break their hearts right after
that's called all women on earth
they werent instigated
I thought she was wantin' to be shaved down there
Funny to see that this crippled dude is the one still fricking up by violating parole and not moving forward in his pedo classes or whatever.
Never would have guessed it lmao
Everyone involved in every single one of these stings were adults. No children were writing messages or physically at the the house. NOTHING illegal happened. Yet they arrested people for... what they might do in the future? Is this Minority Report or some shit
Kys pedo
Why are you so mad, pedo?
Hey groomer, you're lucky it was the police, and not someone with the room covered in plastic, a pistol, and a saws-all, and the basement with a furnace.
>Everyone involved in every single one of these stings were adults. No children were writing messages or physically at the the house
This is accurate
>NOTHING illegal happened
This is inaccurate and suggests a lack of understanding of not only how these particular laws work, but also how basic logic works. These men were not charged with having sex with a child, they were charged with attempting to have sex with a child. There are certain crimes society deems heinous enough that the simple attempt is enough to warrant legal action. Child molestation is one such crime. These men believed they were talking to a child and made plans to have sex with a child. Whether or not they succeeded is wholly irrelevant. The law does not say that it is illegal to attempt to have sex with a specific child, it says that it is illegal to attempt to have sex with any child. And, from their perspective, these men were attempting to have sex with a child.
You're getting hung up on the fact that the child in question didn't actually exist, but that's irrelevant. The message that these men sent to the law was that they were interested in sex with children and were willing to engage in it to such a degree that they made an actual attempt. Think of it a slightly different way; what if instead of a decoy, they had been speaking to an actual 12 year old. They made the same plans, took the same course of action and drove over to the house, but on their trip there, unbeknownst to the predator, the kid suddenly drop dead of heart failure. By the time the person got there, would they still be guilty of a crime? I mean, the kid doesn't exist. No sex happened. Is it not illegal anymore?
You make a good point, and all, but please learn the difference between a semicolon and a colon.
The colon is where the poop comes from
I think a better analogy would be toward something like attempted murder. Let's say you're angry at someone, and someone else hands you a replica gun but they tell you it's real. If you then attempt to fire the gun at the object of your anger, would you be guilty of attempted murder? The law would say yes. Whether or not the gun was authentic, if you believed it was, you still tried killing somebody.
The better analogy would be the person not being real not the gun not being real. The act is committed in full and is criminalized, it is the "victim" that is not real. And it sounds more ridiculous because it is ridiculous
>The better analogy would be the person not being real not the gun not being real
That still wouldn't matter. If you believe the person to be real and you attempt to murder them, the message you send is that you are willing to murder a person. That is what society is being protected from.
Yeah except that isnt illegal because its impossible, but it doesnt involve a child so people arent moronic about it
>the message you send
Oh so the issue is just motive or intent now?
>Yeah except that isnt illegal because its impossible
Yes it is. If they had told the decoy they were coming to the house to murder them instead of have sex with them, do you think they would walk?
In this analogy there isnt a person there, otherwise youre talking about another crime that isnt murder moron
>its irrelevant
No, its very relevant. You can criminalize any conduct, that doesnt make it constitutional or morally right. The real issue here is the moral hazard of an unsympathetic defendant
>You can criminalize any conduct, that doesnt make it constitutional or morally right.
I suppose you could, but that's not the discussion we are having. We are not talking about "any conduct", we are talking about an extremely specific conduct, which is to say child molestation. That is something that society almost universally agrees is not only immoral, but egregiously so.
No we arent talking about molestation, youre being imprecise on purpose in response to my point about specific acts
See my other post
>No we arent talking about molestation, youre being imprecise on purpose in response to my point about specific acts
No, I most certainly am not. As I made clear before, they are not being charged with molestation, they are being charged with attempted molestation. If they had been charged with having sex with a minor and not attempting to have sex with a minor, then that would be a different story. That is not what happened.
Well then that isnt even a response to my post, which is that criminalizing conduct that is ultimately not happening is not actually morally right
online solicitation of a minor style statutes are criminalizing sexually harassing young girls/boys over the internet.
Not quite, because it apparently includes police acting as them as well. The actual statute might
>Not quite
yes quite. go read the statutes, get out of this moronic headspace about imaginary people. the stings exploit how the laws are written around what a perpetrator believes in a certain moment. they think they're sending dickpics and talking about sex with a minor, the statutes make this a crime.
there is no debate.
>yes quite
I just listed a class of actions the statute also happens to criminalize, so no, you're not speaking precisely on purpose
>there is no debate
Yes there is, it's just not relevant because nobody wants to defend pedophiles in person
>Yes there is, it's just not relevant because nobody wants to defend pedophiles in person
That is precisely why there is no debate. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that child molestation is heinous enough to warrant preemptive action when possible.
Youre doing it again lmao
>dude anything can be justified if you just slap child molestation as a possibility on it
Disgusting mentality. We are talking about something specific and when your ats get worked into a corner, rather than question something you return to start and talk about the intent of the law as if thats relevant to whether or not its legally sound
your problem is you're trying to question something in a way that isn't relevant to it. the laws are specifically written so there is zero wiggle room for sexually harassing what you believe to be a minor over the internet.
No, youre just arguing what the law is and pretending like thats all there is to it. I can do what youre doing better than you can
because what the law is, is all there is to it.
Nobody claimed otherwise moron
>hurr the law says x so it must be right
>youre debating me? What are you stoopid? it says right here in this here ol book o statutes its illegal
>so it must be right
strawman. the law is neither right nor wrong, it simply is.
We are talking about something specific, you are quite right. The problem is that instead of realizing that other people have a different opinion of this specific thing, you are somehow convinced that you have some non-existent philosophical checkmate.
>pretending you have a checkmate
Im open to be proven wrong but once we got to the murder analogy you guys pulled back and starting talking about the intent of the law, as ive now said twice
You can't be proven wrong. You are stating an opinion which you believe to be objective fact. And you're not talking about the law, you're talking about ethics. Those are not the same thing. If you don't think the laws are just, that's fine. But unless you can find an actual legal mechanism which invalidates them, it doesn't fricking matter. I could believe it's "wrong" that I am not legally entitled to six blow jobs from your mother every wednesday, that doesn't mean dick.
>provide a legal mechanism for what the law should be as opposed to what it currently is
Bottomlessly stupid
>cant be proven wrong
Im not asserting my opinion when i put forth the murder analogy dummy, i put forth principles which have yet to have holes poked into them.
>arguing im being morally relativistic when your entire argument is relativist
>thats relevant to whether or not its legally sound
It IS legally sound. If it was not legally sound, these stings would be challenged and thrown out. Whether or not that makes it morally sound is a completely different argument. And it's also not one that you're making terribly well.
>otherwise it would have been thrown out
>this is what normies believe
There is so much garbage on the books you have no idea. A perfect example that literally everyone can agree with is roe v. Wade. Either youre for it and garbage law is on the books now, or youre against it and garbage law was on the books for 50 years. Except pedophile issues are way more one sided than abortion so that would in theory never be reasonably challenged. e-girl may even go away in our lifetimes under the same moronic reasoning, theyve been chipping away around it
>e-girl may even go away in our lifetimes under the same moronic reasoning, theyve been chipping away around it
That may be so. But a shitty law is still a law. Again, you seem to be unable to differentiate between law and ethics. Those are two different things. A shitty law is still a law. You can fight it, you can work to change it, but that doesn't mean you get to decide whether or not it's fricking real
again, you're thinking about the laws in a way that isn't correct. and refuse to let go of this moronic mindset no matter how many times the correct mindset is told to you.
the laws being written out of moral panic and being thought crimes are points that can be made. but imaginary people isn't. as like was said, the laws don't require a victim.
>youre thinking about laws in a way that isnt correct
No, youre treating what is and what ought to be as the same thing. Im legally trained im aware how the law works dipshit
>laws dont require a victim
No shit, and its wrong. Refer to the first post i made, strict liability and victimless crimes are not legitimate just because people think the ends justify the means. The government will be doing more and more illicit shit under this justification going forward
>youre treating what is and what ought to be as the same thing
go read the fricking statutes you moronic piece of shit. i'm treating what is, as it fricking is. there is no debate.
Amazing, you're too stupid to separate what is law with what law should. Nobody is debating what the law is moron
"should" is meaningless.
the point is you're trying to debate the law on grounds not relevant to it.
>Im legally trained im aware how the law works dipshit
I remain unconvinced. You sound "legally trained" in the way that "sovereign citizens" believe themselves to be legally trained. The way the law works and the way you think the law ought to work are two entirely different things. The 3/5s law was "legally sound" during its time. That doesn't mean it was ethically sound, and that was entirely irrelevant.
>which is that criminalizing conduct that is ultimately not happening is not actually morally right
Alright, fine I guess? I'm not sure how you even ended up replying to me in the first place though, because that wasn't an argument I was engaging with. It's one I disagree with, but I did not specifically engage it, so...
But now that we're on the topic. Do you think it is morally unjustifiable for charging someone with attempted homicide if they try to hire a hitman who isn't actually a hit man? Because that happens relatively frequently.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deanna-marie-stinson-murder-scheme-dark-web-hitman-tampa-florida/
No, because a real person is at the end of the line of causality that can be victimized
then what, in your opinion, is the actual spirit of these laws? Who are the laws meant to protect? I would say children in general. If these men are willing to attempt to have sex with a decoy, do you have any way of proving they wouldn't be willing to do the same with an actual child? Many of the men on TCAP have engaged in this activity before with actual children
the objective spirit of the laws is
I agree. And I don't see how these stings violate said spirt. In fact, I really don't see another way to effectively find these men without waiting for kids to be victimized.
The spirit of the law isnt relevant
>who are these laws meant to protect
Irrelevant
Its much easier to understand my point of view if you take it out of the realm of children and hate the government
Don't know, don't care. They should have kicked the shit out of the pedos after the cameras stopped rolling lol.
Because you don't understand the definition of entrapment.
This is like when an autistic man awkwardly tells a young women in an elevator she has a nice dress only to be accused of almost raping her.
Yeah this is exactly like that situation, spot-on my guy.
yes, its totally like that. But only if the autistic man is in the elevator to have sex with a minor.
It's not though. I'm starting to think you were the autistic man in the elevator.
Because that's not what entrapment is. Even if the conditions for the crime are set up by the police, it's not entrapment if you willingly choose to engage in it.
I think it's only entrapment if it's a crime that wouldn't have been committed otherwise.
Like how cops dress up as prostitutes and then they bust the guy when he agrees to pay for sex. Not entrapment because his intention was to proposition a prostitute. It would be entrapment if like he was driving in a neighbourhood where they don't have prostitutes and like a cop hits his car and then says let me blow you instead of getting insurance involved, that would be entrapment.
The cop has to encourage you to commit the crime to be entrapment. If it can reasonably be asserted you were going to commit the crime anyway, an undercover cop can be a participant in the transaction then arrest you. Even then they have to be careful, making the mark the one who needs to actually commit a crime.
yes, good example would the FBI going undercover in a political group and starts recruit people for terror plots where they provide all the weapons and the knowhow to execute it. Its actually kind of hilarious how many times that has happened.
Many such cases. Pretty much all of them, in fact.
Of course they never show the encounters where the dude that shows up is handsome and the decoys take them home while Chris cheers them on.
Society says pedastry is only a crime if you're ugly.
handsome guys don't have to proposition girls online. They just go bang 'em IRL.
who was the big guy in the cowboy hat again
you
Vincent ambrosia
Big Tex
the old "i was concerned about what she was saying online, so i came over here to tell her not to talk to strangers!" excuse is so dumb, why do they all use it?
I’m surprised no one ever wore a TCAP T shirt or something. Would be incredible plausible deniability to just say you were doing it to get on the show if Chris does happen to be there
This is literally the basis of a joke I thought of. Chris steps out and you freak about about being so psyched to meet him.
The punchline being when Chris asks you what you would do if this was a set up would be "oh I was gonna frick that kid."
These are 30-40 year old dudes that drove like 4 hours to meet an underaged girl at her house, because they talked to her online via text. They aren't the brightest.
They also use the old "I knew this was a sting the whole time", which I never got
i used to seethe at these threads the first 10 times but i see now. its free bait. it just works (tm)
d-did I just watch a kid die?
you're on Cinemaphile take a guess
is leaving a bike on your porch and filming brown people trying to steal it entrapment?
it was 100% entrapment
why did none of the kids react to the door being shut on him
because its the 2nd brother they killed that week
It looks to me like they closed the door on him on purpose and held it shut to mess with him.
did they not know the elevator was going to move and crush him wtf
bug people, anon
Chris already debunked this 'entrapment' nonsense
>Dude you were gonna frick a minor. You brought alcohol and condoms.
>"Well the minor didn't really exist so no harm no foul haha."
Not how that works, pedo.
Why do the predators keep sending nudes and dick pics to the decoys? It's not like she can suck your dick through the screen whats the motive? And sending nudes to minors is illegal so it only builds a case against them.
They're horny af.
Most people enjoy sending nude pics and being desired. These guys are delusional enough to think an overhead shot of their fat hairy gut with a microdick sticking out is going to turn on a 13 year old.
Do you think they collect the dick pics like pokemon cards?
even if it was entrapment, why are you so concerned for pedos being exposed?
HANSON, WHERE ARE YA
tbh I feel a bit bad for non-offenders. I hope you guys get help, and if it doesn't work, a stimulus for short sex dolls and custom VR porn.
Fricksake this is the worst thing ive ever seen on here.
you better leave then cause that one was pretty tame compared to most gore/death videos
Oh ive seen cartel shit this is just so much worse
No it isn't
Videos of 3rd world kids getting killed in an elevator are like ten a penny. Pretty tame video.
Yeah, no, nothing about this tops guys getting their faces or wieners cut off or being eaten off by a dog.
I actually agree with him, look at how the kid's bones get crunched. His legs are squished from the top down and shattered into dust, then his head popped between concrete while the elevator shakes around. That's worse than a face or dick being cut off for me.
The kid literally has his arms ripped off and then it pulls in his chest and legs and his head POPS rocking the elevator. Way worse that face and dick chopping. The kid fricking gets squeezed through a couple inch gap.
Cheers anon
another summergay reveals itself
the funniest part of all of these is that the fugly old pedos thought a girl would want to frick them
it's really weird none of them thought "I'm fat, old, and moronic, why would a cute little girl want me" and then realized it was a setup
But he knew it was a setup the while time anon. That's why he bought the beer and condoms and drove 4 hours and...oh....ohhh...
Don’t forget the other gift
What? You never drink beer while driving and then pee into a condom to save time on pit stops?
Wtf, no, i piss into one of my empty beer bottles and end up accidently drinking part of it later when im shit faced, driving still looking to keep the buzz going and forget id pissed in it, like a NORMAL person.
There was a recent case about entrapment and this article explained it pretty well, if you can be bothered to read it
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/05/washington-s-ct-reverses-attempted-child-rape-conviction-remands-for-retrial-with-entrapment-instruction/
>ITT: Pedophile Cinemaphile users getting nervous
>entrapment
Its not like they're forcing the guy to solicit sex from minors also if i was a pedophile id carry a say no to cyber sex pamphlet with me so i can tell Chris Hansen i only went there to warn her the dangers of the internet
Good idea but not good enough. Most of the predators send nudes to the decoys.
Some guy did something similar to this before he went to her house he wrote a note saying if he gets in trouble for meeting her his intentions were to warn her about meeting people online and not to have sex with her. Don't remember if it worked or not.
Maybe, unless he was sending dick pics its pretty hard to prove intent
Some say he's still posting on Cinemaphile to this day.
>Don't remember if it worked or not.
I remember that one, I remember the cop saying him writing that note somehow made it worse kek
>me
>my mommy
>my daddy
>mfw reading the filename
Try this one on for size
fricking kekked
keep saying it
> tfw the decoy is older than you
Imagine driving all the way to frick with what you assume is an underage boy, only to get a 30-year old military veteran posing as a kid.
Like it's not even the same as the girl decoys where they have a good 5-10 minutes of ignorant bliss of "yes, I am gonna get an underage girl/boy" before reality sets in.
The dream is destroyed almost immediately.
whats funny is he was relieved when he realized it was just chris hansen, and not a fraternity about to beat him half to death.
Why do israelites always look like this in their late 20s? Reminds me of that israeli streamer who killed himself.
dunno if is entrapment but police is fricked up for setting up people to arrest, thats ilegal in lots of countries
pushing people to do crimes and then arresting them is illegal, that's what entrapment actually is
but there's a difference between entrapment, and laying a trap
>no no I was PUSHED into going to that little girl's house with the intention of fricking her
Frick off nonce
>this thread
>No reference to this old decoy dude
“Goo goo ga ga mommy daddy”
>this is pre-teen I was telling you about
>me, my mommy and my daddy
I'm glad this edit is still floating around, kek
>Weird question but do you have your ID on you?
The dude literally wanted to see his ID so he could make sure he was fricking someone underage.
>Gets majority of cases thrown out in court
If you're gonna go on a crusade about this shit, get a fricking lawyer on board before hand you fricking morons. Those fricking Youtuber groups are even worse
I think most TCAP pedos were successfully convicted, weren't they? The few that got away were able to do so because the TCAP people accidentally deleted some of their chatlogs to do with certain pedos
>I think most TCAP pedos were successfully convicted, weren't they?
Looking it up says its about 50% conviction (Doesn't specify exactly what they get them on), majority of those being dumbass pedos that start blabbing of their own accord. The DA in Murphy refused to pursue any of the cases done there. The City manager that okayed the operation in Murphy was shitcanned as well. Pedos can get the rope but its fishy when Perverted Justice claims they're run on a volunteer basis and yet NBC was paying them 100k+ per sting in "consulting fees". It starts creating a financial incentive instead of a desire for justice, which always creates problems down the road
Source? The wiki says it was extremelt rare for people to get off
https://to-catch-a-predator.fandom.com/wiki/Michael_Wilusz
>His case would be one of the few cases outside of the Murphy, Texas debacle where an arrested predator ended up either not being charged or acquitted of his crimes. His lawyer, a public defender who was also representing suspected predators Thomas Moffitt and Brian Gosselin, attacked Perverted Justice's methods of gathering evidence and requested the chatlogs direct from their hard drives. Perverted Justice refused to hand them over and after a court order for them to turn the hard drives over, PJ founder Xavier von Erck said the drives had crashed and were destroyed. Due to this, the three defendants walked. This was a tremendous stroke of good luck for Wilusz because he had confessed his intentions to the police before retaining a lawyer. He also showed a penis pic that he identified as his own. The supposed crash also eliminated chatlogs of other notable suspected predators such as James "Hambubger" Wiles, which has since resurfaced online. PJ would also use this excuse as to why they couldn’t produce the chatlog for Petaluma suspect Maurice Wolin, yet his chatlog was available for view on PJ’s site until it went down.
So why did they destroy those drives? Maybe the full chatlogs paint a less compelling picture
Michael Wilusz was unfairly arrested for trying to get to the beach. I’m glad he was acquitted. It’s every American’s right to go to the beach and eat home-baked cookies.
>youtuber groups
you talkin about the wannabe pedo hunters?
Yeah. I can't remember any of their fricking names but I do recall one group going to jail for cheese pizza lmao
>one group going to jail for cheese pizza
wtf? were they using to honeypot pedos or something? Also yeah I hate those youtube channels most of them are just doing it to sell their shitty redbuble merch I remember seeing one trying to sell his mixtape lol
the people with most cp are people trying to catch pedos, unironically
maybe it was maybe it wasn't, but the morons never shut up and talked to Chris AND the cops, so they dug themselves into a hole.
most of the few dozen predators that beat the case all lawyered up and kept their mouth shut
It's not even entrapment because no crime was going to be committed anyway. It's like minority report pre-crime
Reminder: Sunscreen is NOT a meme
Part of me thinks she intentionally sun aged herself after dealing with those people.
For me? It's Gay Romano.
The real question is why did the mark never go out guns blazing? I thought Americans were armed 24/7
The decoys would take precautions with the gun nut predators.
>law enforcement talks you into killing a fictional character like Captain Crunch
>arrests you for plotting a crime against a fictional character
Is this really how America works? I thought you were the land of the free? Can you be arrested for killing fictional characters in video games too?
They point out numerous times that they never approach a pedo first, it was always the pedo making first contact and even after learning of the age and bein informed it was illegal numerous times still continuing
Except in the show and the chat logs they literally do, the decoys also initiate sexual conversations first too. But you as the adult are suppose to be the responsible one and not respond to the underage person and especially not be making inappropriate conversation. It literally doesn't legally matter if they initiate or don't for that reason and it's why Perverted Justice (lel) were comfortable initiating.
That's true except that if the supposed minor is a cop, it turns into the definition of entrapment.
It does legally matter if they initiate (although it would not in the case of an actual child), and the context of the chat and how they came to start speaking sexually legally matters, too. A significant amount of the pedos were actually deemed entrapped and let off, and the police ultimately stopped working with Perverted Justice over it.
almost none of the guys who they "caught" on that show served any jail time.
not too long ago there was an "kidnapping plot" against a state governor here. turned out it was a bunch of feds who planned the whole thing and talked a couple morons into carrying it out. so far two of them have been acquitted and two more had mistrials due to hung juries. one pussied out and pled guilty the testified against the others and is sitting in prison for 6 years for it.
>almost none of the guys who they "caught" on that show served any jail time.
why do you morons keep saying this when most of these pedos do and also have to get placed on the sex offender registry?
Entrapment is finding a guy and convincing him to seek out and frick willing kids, and requires a great deal of involvement in the act (showing the man where to find said kids, encouraging him to make sexual advances, basically pushing him INTO pedarasty)
Enticement is dangling bait and letting the pedo bite. Nobody forces them to hit on what they think is a kid on the internet.
Has anyone ever actually once walked in and legitimately tried the "long falk" they always sharp about?
Like some dide walks in with a bible and sits the decoy down to discuss their behavior?
I'm suspicious of anyone that cares about pedos being "entrapped"
>How the frick was this not entrapment?
Entrapment requires that the police Target and individual --- that the have foreknowledge of that individual's weakness or circumstance -- that they tailor the sting for that person.
John Delorian's ( the Car Maker ) drug bust was entrapment. -- the police knew that he was in financial trouble -- they tailored the sting to entrap him saying that he would triple his money and be able to save his company.
Hanging underaged Poontang out on the internet and seeing who bites is not entrapping someone.
>>Not how the girl has zero empathy for other people in her smile.
The whitmer gayop was an other obvious case of entrapment.
Doesn't matter.
Those people wrote to what they believed to be an underage girl or boy about how they want to frick them good and also sent them genitals, then showed up at their place of residence.
They're guilty 100% and it being a trap set up by civilians/adults holds little relevance.
To not punish those people would be evil.
>To not punish those people would be evil.
law doesnt work like that
But they are punished like that so it dies.
Did you even watch the show or did you research the aftermath?
Also Divine law works like that and God will reward you for what you wanted to do but couldn't but also punish you for the same.
>18+ chat
>agree to see each other
>grown adult womanadult man, that claims she was the one he chatted with, meets "the predator" in the house
What's the crime even?
Posts aren’t showing up properly, glowies are messing with the thread.
can i rape you anally
>Some poor lonely socially awkward frick shows up for an apparently horny girl on IRC
>gets his reputation permanently ruined on national television for the entertainment of the plebs
>be part of an international operation of child trafficking, prostituting kids to elite members of society
>minimum possible coverage, quietly swept under the rug; no names, no public humiliations, no massacring of people's reputations, no prison sentences for child rapists.
Thanks US law enforcement!
>Some poor lonely socially awkward frick shows up
>some poor pedophile
do americans
REALLY?
If the "decoy" in the chat contacted the man first, then it would be entrapment. It is because the predator initiates the conversation with the "decoy" that it is not entrapment.
Most of the predators who were smart enough to keep their mouth closed and lawyer up got off with a slap on the wrist. Anyone who talked to Chris and/or the cops openly usually got a big sentence.
>creeps want to go hang out with cute girls
>decoy chatters fish around asking "isn't there more you'd like to do..?"
>they keep pushing the guys buttons and getting him hornier and hornier because there is no show if they can't get any one
They're creating crimes out of thin air since no human girl would act like the decoys in chat. It's just for entertainment, humiliating morons.
A lot of guys would take the chance of they thought they could get away with it, every guy in the TCAP team, every politician, but not me. Society functions even though everyone is one step away from being a criminal.
so when did you get out?
>constantly write "Wow! Nothing gets me hotter than a LEGAL ADULT pretending to be a minor! This roleplay is SO HOT!" in the chat
>ask to come over because its your sexual fantasy to have sex with a legal adult who's pretending to be a minor ("ageplay" I think its called)
>arrive at the house on a very small moped
>ride through the door into the house
>"Here I am, ready to have sex with a legal adult who's pretending to be a minor!"
>grab some cookies and ice tea
>Chris Hansen appears
>"Would you like to ha-" BRUUUUUMMM-BRUM-BRUM-BRUUUUMMM
>interrupt Chris Hansen every time he tries to speak by loudly revving the engine
>when he's finished ride my moped out of the house and do donuts in the yeard
>don't even get charged because I said I knew I was talking to a legal adult
They only follow leads from the dumbest guys and immediately stop talking to sneaky fellows like you.
this, it's no coincidence that the people who show up are often actual mentally handicapped people
She has an evil look about her
>bring a bag of m&m's and come eat my dicky
>pedo brings m&m's
That's clear intent and you can't "i was larping" anymore
Why is this allowed but littering your lawn with bicycles and hiding in the bushes with a shotgun is not?
I'm pretty sure it's one of the reasons why the series was shut down as people were successfully arguing entrapment.
It shut down because Chris Hansen is a self absorbed butthole. He thinks he's some badass for catching literal moronic people. Nowadays he skips his bill payments and is the same butthole and total loser he always was, its just blatant. He's just like all those other bigshot TV guys like Colbert, they think they're better than everyone
>Have everything in the world
>Start fricking around with your coworker
>Lose it all in a few years
How hard is it to stay humble, frick your wife on a mountain of pedo tear money, and pay things on time?
It's shut down because it's immoral.
>Muh pedos deserved it
Then arrest them without making a TV show out of it. Anyone who pretends this is a documentary is fooling themselves. This is meant as entertainment and nothing else.
Why do you think news stations air car chases and shootings despite the police telling them that it only makes them more common and more dangerous? TV homosexuals don't give a shit about anything but money, does anyone seriously think Chris Hansen gives a shit about pedos? lol
She was so cute I wish I could have dated her she would probably have some funny stories.
You can find them attractive, just keep it to yourself.
IMAGINE HAVING TO USE AN EXTENSION LIKE e-girl--P.ISS LMAO. 4KEKS ARE PATHETIC.
4cuck is trash compared to 8ch (or any altchan). 1 image, low file size, no sound, no vpns or tor, can only post images/videos, run by glowies, no custom boards, no nsfw on boards people use, no lgs, /b/ is just transvestite and homosexual porno. Hiromoot needs to NECK himself, he is letting the site die.
>lg board
every chan that have this board get sinked after two years, 155 8ch etc
me my mommy and my daddy
>hey anon want to have sex?
>btw I'm totally an underaged minor child
what do you do?
go for it, because at that point it can't be a police officer.
That's a teenager. Not a 12 year old. Anyone over 16 is legal, and that's a logical number. If she is 15, you should keep your dick under control even if she looks like that.
>If she is 15, you should keep your dick under control even if she looks like that.
nah
I only follow the laws set in place by el Caudillo (pbuh) and that means 12 and above.
if im rich just use mi yacht to international waters or just another south american country, otherwise turn around and walk away, in jail my ass will be worse than liberace's
my yacht named the implication
is that britney spearsß
Have you guys seen this shit? Probably fricking worse than what Chris was doing. Kek apparently the cops pay no attention to the shit she submits to them though.
I've watched like 5 mins.
Its basically some postwall, almost menopausal woman being all "hey look, I look 13 hihi"
it looks all about her AND it looks fake
reminder: the "entrapment" debate is completely irrelevant as the contestants are being arrested for crimes committed before being invited to the sting house. going to the house isn't a crime. every "attempted sexual assault" style statute requires an actual victim
the statute in play in the stings is "online solicitation of minor." which doesn't require an actual minor, just the assertion of what a perpetrator believes, as according to law enforcement. which exploits a basic loophole in the US legal system where everything a cop says is considered testimony, but a defendant trying to speak to his own mental state is considered hearsay.
furthermore, since actual pedophiles know never to mention sex until alone with a ripe piece of frickmeat, the show/stings are only targeting hopeless morons who'd never get within a mile of a minor.
ROLE PLAYING
The girls on TCAP told them they were 10-14 not 17.
Your straw man is pointless
lowest they went was 12
You’re not helping his case.
12 is breeding age
nonces mad
We need some more TCAP kino
what's with the pedophobes meltdown itt?
>that was just shawk jawk tawlk, this is just taken out of context, quit sneak dissin dood, like awnestly
So many pedo defenders itt.
Well most pedoes are self-aware and don't commit shit while being substantial amount of populace.
Normal drunks and abusive shits rape vast majority of children. Well except rich homosexuals of course, because they never get trialed.
yeah, I think it's time we head back to our subreddit sisters
Who else /MeatRocket/ here?
>Let’s convince some lonely isolated loser that, for the first time in his life, a woman is actually interested in him
>Then we’ll humiliate him on national TV and send him to prison for decades!
Uh… okay?
>100+ years ago child labor, prostitution and brides were legal
>serfs and slaves fricked their entire families for ages
>suddenly enforce new moral where being sexually attracted to children are illegal with harsh punishments
>perfectly normal evolutionary gained sexual attraction is now illegal
>ban any outlet normal human beings with sexual attraction to children had
>tons of men has to suppress their natural desire and feel guilty about experiencing it when their eyes dart to children without any outlet
I find it kinda funny. It's like some kind of cruel human experimentation. At least give people some way of dealing with it.
Why does this chink keep replying to literally everyone in the thread? Is he a pedo?
cast xim
Hunter Schafer
Did they ever catch an underaged male who lied about being older than he was?
Nope. Closest they got to something like that were these two fricktards.
I'm just a tag along
Because entrapment involves coercively forcing a target to do something they would not conceivably do without being coerced. If the cops told the predators to engage with and send sexual material to a person they reasonably believed to be a child under penalty of duress or compelled them to do so for money or something, that would be entrapment. That did not occur. They willfully engaged a person they reasonably believed to be a child completely of their own volition.
>chink trying to explain the US legal system
I’m laughing so hard over here bro’s
Young pussy has no monetary value?
>are you also the autist calling people the slur for Asians? you really should touch grass, anonkun
>muh mens rea actus reus
>attempted rape with a woman who wants it
>attempted theft of something that is free
>attempted murder of somebody that doesnt exist
>attempted tax evasion while unknowingly paying the right amount
>attempted dui while sober
>attempted fraud despite the other party not believing you
>attempted defamation where you actually tell the truth or nobody heard it
Strict liability is unconstitutional and victimless crimes are as well. If the state has nobody to represent the crime doesnt real
Pedos deserve the rope but then so does the government and people who defend it because of unsympathetic defendants
>the crime doesn’t real
Holy frick lol the chinkiest post so far
Frick off to where you came from newbie
If you actually practiced your English you’d do a better job Chang.
You're embarrassing yourself newbie-kun, "doesn't real" is an ancient meme
I'm not even the schizophrenic delusion you were previouslt arguing with either. Do you have an argument against what i said at all?
>I'm not even the schizophrenic delusion you were previouslt arguing with either
Ok chang
(You)
So how many years did the fat cowboy get ?
stinky chinkies pls go
>are you also the autist calling people the slur for Asians? you really should touch grass, anonkun
Because they don't arrest them for going to the house. They arrest them for all the shit they said prior to that.
There are a few exceptions where the guy brings alcohol and he gets an extra slap on the wrist for "intention to distribute alcohol to a minor" (depends on the state)
Any other pedo killing kino?
Are the chinks in the room with you right now, bot?
Shame they never caught Trump on their show.
Guy is a well known ephebophile, likes em pretty young
An entrapment version of TCAP would be
>set up 13-year-old profile, decoy
>decoy reaches out to men
>wanna come have sex
>sure
>man shows up
>gotcha! I was a decoy! You're going to jail.
Decoys never, ever reach out first. That would be entrapment. Predators reaching out to frick who they believe is underage first is a crime, for sure. As it should be. Cops/TCAP just set up profiles and pervs seek them out and latch on.
>words words words, the thread
they can consent, simple as
>two morons trying to debate law
every thread. you're both wrong.
Are you the moron confusing what the law is with what it ought to be? Nobody here thinks it isnt per se illegal
i dont give a shit whether or not it was entrapment
every single person on the show is a pedo
every single pedophile should be publicly executed, no exceptions