Don't get me wrong, it's better that these people get put away before victimizing an actual child, but I just can't help but feel like there's something off with the whole situation. They're getting arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, but there were no actual minors involved, just people pretending to be minors. They're getting sent to jail for a crime committed against what is essentially a fictional character. Like imagine getting arrested for attempted murder for saying you were going to kill Bugs Bunny.
They go there with the intent to frick a real child. If you tell me your name is John Buttman and you're 45 years old and I've made it very clear in messages and over the phone recordings that I intend to kill you, I'm not off the hook if that's not your name and you're 24.
threatening to kill somebody over the phone is only a crime if the threats are credible. You'd have to show up physically like these guys or some other indication that it's a credible threat rather than some bullshit.
right but the idea is that if there was a child there, do you have any doubt that the person would have sex with the child? if I say I'm going to buy drugs from a person (who is an undercover cop), and show up with cash and ask about buying drugs, they would arrest me for attempting to buy drugs even though there were no drugs involved. iirc most people on the show were charged with solicitation of sex or attempted sex with a minor, not actual rape of a child.
Eh, that's fair I guess. I suppose my issue is with police sting operations in general. A lot of them really toe the line between catching criminals and manufacturing criminals. Like not that long ago there was that whole "Domestic terror plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer" that turned out to be planned, funded, and equipped almost entirely by federal agents, without whom the extent of the crimes of the supposed domestic terrorists would have been some off-color, edgy posts on social media.
Imagine if someone came up to you and said >hey wanna buy some weed?
Uhh, sure >HA I'm actually an undercover cop and you're going to jail for attempting to buy drugs!
Is it unreasonable to say that you wouldn't have bought weed unless someone walked up to you and offered it? Is it unreasonable to say that the only reason you agreed to commit this crime is because law enforcement carefully orchestrated the circumstances that led you to it? I mean they could argue that you would have bought drugs from an actual criminal, but at that point you're getting arrested for a crime that you might hypothetically commit under the right circumstances, but to me that's verging on "thought crime" territory.
That and I think these kind of operations catch only the dumbest, least effective, least dangerous, lowest hanging of fruit criminals out there while the actually dangerous ones slip by. You've seen the kind of people TCAP catches. Most of them are borderline literally mentally handicapped. A lot of them I seriously doubt would or could have arranged a meeting with an actual child. They catch the kind of guy who will say yes if an undercover cop comes up to them and says "I am a minor and willing to have sex with you," meanwhile there's probably some middle school gym teacher or daycare worker out there who's molested a thousand kids and continues to get away with it.
right but the idea is that if there was a child there, do you have any doubt that the person would have sex with the child? if I say I'm going to buy drugs from a person (who is an undercover cop), and show up with cash and ask about buying drugs, they would arrest me for attempting to buy drugs even though there were no drugs involved. iirc most people on the show were charged with solicitation of sex or attempted sex with a minor, not actual rape of a child.
So? That doesn't really preclude you from doing anything except maybe working for some large globohomosexual corporation that researches everything about you before hiring you. And you can request to have search results removed from Google anyway.
I'd imagine everyone you ever knew would disown you. The shame and disgrace would be all encompassing. I'm not sure thinking of the tuxedo pepe would be enough to suppress that.
Every single line would work on a 14yo if >she already listens to you >you are interesting (for a 14yo, so the bar is low) and fun to be around >you deliver it with a modicum of charisma
Why do you think there are laws in place to keep the general populace from diddling them?!
If they were legal it would be like shooting fish in a barrel to those with access to them and there is a very non-neglible chance of adults using and abusing this will frick them in the head. >muh rosties be jelly
Yeah, nah. No one cares what they say. The above is the reason >it was a-ok in the past
Because no one gave a shit about the well-being of youths.
I am no advocate for pedophilia but I can't help but feel bad for those people sometimes
At least he didn’t get caught trying to bang an underaged boy.
ikwym but at the same time I'm glad these dudes are getting caught and being put away.
>inb4 entrapment
Don't get me wrong, it's better that these people get put away before victimizing an actual child, but I just can't help but feel like there's something off with the whole situation. They're getting arrested for soliciting sex from a minor, but there were no actual minors involved, just people pretending to be minors. They're getting sent to jail for a crime committed against what is essentially a fictional character. Like imagine getting arrested for attempted murder for saying you were going to kill Bugs Bunny.
They go there with the intent to frick a real child. If you tell me your name is John Buttman and you're 45 years old and I've made it very clear in messages and over the phone recordings that I intend to kill you, I'm not off the hook if that's not your name and you're 24.
threatening to kill somebody over the phone is only a crime if the threats are credible. You'd have to show up physically like these guys or some other indication that it's a credible threat rather than some bullshit.
Eh, that's fair I guess. I suppose my issue is with police sting operations in general. A lot of them really toe the line between catching criminals and manufacturing criminals. Like not that long ago there was that whole "Domestic terror plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer" that turned out to be planned, funded, and equipped almost entirely by federal agents, without whom the extent of the crimes of the supposed domestic terrorists would have been some off-color, edgy posts on social media.
Imagine if someone came up to you and said
>hey wanna buy some weed?
Uhh, sure
>HA I'm actually an undercover cop and you're going to jail for attempting to buy drugs!
Is it unreasonable to say that you wouldn't have bought weed unless someone walked up to you and offered it? Is it unreasonable to say that the only reason you agreed to commit this crime is because law enforcement carefully orchestrated the circumstances that led you to it? I mean they could argue that you would have bought drugs from an actual criminal, but at that point you're getting arrested for a crime that you might hypothetically commit under the right circumstances, but to me that's verging on "thought crime" territory.
That and I think these kind of operations catch only the dumbest, least effective, least dangerous, lowest hanging of fruit criminals out there while the actually dangerous ones slip by. You've seen the kind of people TCAP catches. Most of them are borderline literally mentally handicapped. A lot of them I seriously doubt would or could have arranged a meeting with an actual child. They catch the kind of guy who will say yes if an undercover cop comes up to them and says "I am a minor and willing to have sex with you," meanwhile there's probably some middle school gym teacher or daycare worker out there who's molested a thousand kids and continues to get away with it.
right but the idea is that if there was a child there, do you have any doubt that the person would have sex with the child? if I say I'm going to buy drugs from a person (who is an undercover cop), and show up with cash and ask about buying drugs, they would arrest me for attempting to buy drugs even though there were no drugs involved. iirc most people on the show were charged with solicitation of sex or attempted sex with a minor, not actual rape of a child.
What about their victims?
What victims? Is there any evidence that a single one of these guys caught on the show has ever gone anywhere near a real child?
What?! No way!
Lorne is not one you should feel bad for. He's psychotic. TCAP mostly only caught complete morons, not sadistic pedophiles.
>JPW IS KING OF TCAP KINO
His head was awl fawked awp
What if he really had a friend named Jimmy Penis?
What a lame line
like 75% of the dudes on TCAP where mentally or physicaly impared.
Same with DAP
Did anyone ever pull out a gun on this show?
One guy pulled a gun on himself and used it to complete a sudoku in that morning's newspaper.
>my life is over
I never understood this mentality. Unless he got a life sentence in jail, why would his life be over?
when people look you up, that will be the first thing that comes up every time.
So? That doesn't really preclude you from doing anything except maybe working for some large globohomosexual corporation that researches everything about you before hiring you. And you can request to have search results removed from Google anyway.
I'd imagine everyone you ever knew would disown you. The shame and disgrace would be all encompassing. I'm not sure thinking of the tuxedo pepe would be enough to suppress that.
Enjoy prison.
Why did Chris Chan do any of the stuff he did? He was autistic and desperate and dumb enough to get persuaded.
would this line work on a real 14 year old girl (asking for a friend)
Every single line would work on a 14yo if
>she already listens to you
>you are interesting (for a 14yo, so the bar is low) and fun to be around
>you deliver it with a modicum of charisma
Why do you think there are laws in place to keep the general populace from diddling them?!
If they were legal it would be like shooting fish in a barrel to those with access to them and there is a very non-neglible chance of adults using and abusing this will frick them in the head.
>muh rosties be jelly
Yeah, nah. No one cares what they say. The above is the reason
>it was a-ok in the past
Because no one gave a shit about the well-being of youths.
bait
Just built different.
isnt this show basically entrapment?
basically, sure. But (importantly) technically and actually, no