413
after reading crashtest comic's hilarious comment pertaining to my last post, i read an entry on his blog regarding dateline's ongoing "to catch a predator" series.
hes a decent writer with colorful and frequently passionate argumentation skills; unfortunately, he uses his creative abilities to share misguided ideas.
crashtest comic wrote:
"What is going on here is another, very subtle example, of THOUGHT POLICE at work. Let me explain, before you accuse me of raping the young.
First of all, the person that the Perv was chatting with was never a child, but an undercover police officer. This is Entrapment, and it is illegal for police to do this."
quite a few things occur in an episode of "to catch a predator."
entrapment isnt one of them.
ill preface the following by reminding my readers that i possess a degree in law enforcement; i actually studied both state and federal law, took a myriad of proficiency exams and finished with a perfect grade point average. i was also raised by a man who was a judge for more than a quarter of a century.
dont fuck with knowledge, boy.
entrapment occurs when law enforcement officials persuade a bystander or other individual who otherwise harbored no intention of committing a crime to engage in criminal activity.
the major distinction between crashtest comic's absolutely incorrect conception of entrapment and bona fide entrapment is that all the men in dateline's series initiated contact with individuals who they believed to be underage boys and girls. this is called solicitation of a minor and its classified as a felony in many states.
had the police sent messages to people who were minding their own business on the internet and somehow persuaded them to engage in inappropriate behavior the defendant might have a case for entrapment.
the difference, however, remains obvious.
furthermore -- and this is what pisses me off about the dissemination of completely inaccurate information -- the people who fielded the solicitations from men were employees of a watchdog group called perverted justice. perverted justice is staffed by civilians and does not work either at the behest of or under the tutelage of any law enforcement agency.
why does this matter?
just as the rules underlying search and seizure actitivies do not apply to civilians so too is the concept of entrapment limited to those acting in an official, law enforcement capacity. the people working for perverted justice could have told the men they were the second coming of christ and nothing illegal would have transpired.
oh, and by the way.
the idea of "thought police" is absurd. nobody in the universe can police your thoughts because nobody knows what they are. although freedom of speech has limitations freedom of thought has been, is and always will be absolute.
i think your post made me fart.
hes a decent writer with colorful and frequently passionate argumentation skills; unfortunately, he uses his creative abilities to share misguided ideas.
crashtest comic wrote:
"What is going on here is another, very subtle example, of THOUGHT POLICE at work. Let me explain, before you accuse me of raping the young.
First of all, the person that the Perv was chatting with was never a child, but an undercover police officer. This is Entrapment, and it is illegal for police to do this."
quite a few things occur in an episode of "to catch a predator."
entrapment isnt one of them.
ill preface the following by reminding my readers that i possess a degree in law enforcement; i actually studied both state and federal law, took a myriad of proficiency exams and finished with a perfect grade point average. i was also raised by a man who was a judge for more than a quarter of a century.
dont fuck with knowledge, boy.
entrapment occurs when law enforcement officials persuade a bystander or other individual who otherwise harbored no intention of committing a crime to engage in criminal activity.
the major distinction between crashtest comic's absolutely incorrect conception of entrapment and bona fide entrapment is that all the men in dateline's series initiated contact with individuals who they believed to be underage boys and girls. this is called solicitation of a minor and its classified as a felony in many states.
had the police sent messages to people who were minding their own business on the internet and somehow persuaded them to engage in inappropriate behavior the defendant might have a case for entrapment.
the difference, however, remains obvious.
furthermore -- and this is what pisses me off about the dissemination of completely inaccurate information -- the people who fielded the solicitations from men were employees of a watchdog group called perverted justice. perverted justice is staffed by civilians and does not work either at the behest of or under the tutelage of any law enforcement agency.
why does this matter?
just as the rules underlying search and seizure actitivies do not apply to civilians so too is the concept of entrapment limited to those acting in an official, law enforcement capacity. the people working for perverted justice could have told the men they were the second coming of christ and nothing illegal would have transpired.
oh, and by the way.
the idea of "thought police" is absurd. nobody in the universe can police your thoughts because nobody knows what they are. although freedom of speech has limitations freedom of thought has been, is and always will be absolute.
i think your post made me fart.
posted by megaton at 3:25 AM
7 Comments:
i liked what this guy said to say on his comments:
rubbish
said idiot
is arrested not
for thinking, but for going beyond fantasy to communicating said idiot desires, and that is against the law
entrapment involves more than pretending or we're all guilty
...freedom of thought has been, is and always will be absolute."
While I agree with you, it behooves one to be safe rather than sorry.
Megaton:
Thanx for stopping by my Blog and sharing with us your flatulent wisdom.
I don’t profess to be an expert on law or law enforcement, other than the studies I’ve done on serial killers, which is a little hobby of mine.
Be that as it may, I’d like to point out that the purpose of my post was not to find a legal loophole through which these Pervs could easily, greasily slide; but to point out a disturbing trend which you very conveniently grazed upon in your last paragraph:
That is the idea of a THOUGHT POLICE, which you flippantly blow off by saying:
“nobody in the universe can police your thoughts because nobody knows what they are.”
That’s a gross over-simplification of a disturbing trend of Media acting as Judge & Jury over the citizenry, using television "News" as a bully-pilpit.
That was the point of my post.
And whether or not I can read
one’s mind, I know human nature which is the second best thing.
I know men will follow their pricks into hell. I know that if the Police want to entrap someone, they can find a way to work through/or in conjunction with a “citizen group,” so that while it may not “legally” be entrapment, the end result is the same.
I also know that in the wake of 9/11, and with the Government suspending rights & privacy at an alarming rate, that we as law abiding citizens have to be ever vigilant of ANY encroachment upon the Constitution.
I may not be a prophet, but my apocalyptic revelation for the future is this:
When (not if) the THOUGHT POLICE does come, they will come in the guise of protecting us from Evil, an Evil that they themselves are silently perpetrating on the American people.
They are already here.
(i mean "pulpit." thank you. mispellings make me fart.)
If you know any good YO MAMA jokes, please feel free to bring them over to my blog.
i understood the take home message of your post; my concern rests upon the foundation you use to build your argument rather than the actual content of your ideas. when you decide to take a serious stance on an important issue you inherit a responsibility to buttress your arguments with factual information. dont just assume; research and profess accordingly.
moreover, i fail to find anything more than tangential relevance between your concept of "thought police" and the media acting as judge and jury. we all act as judges and jurors in everyday life. sometimes our physical safety depends on our ability to assess situations and act accordingly.
if you defend the constitution then you defend the right of the people including the media to share their views. i agree that shows like dateline frequently use their "bully-pulpit" airtime irresponsibly; in the case of child molesters, however, i think they are absolutely justified in their assistance to both law enforcement personnel and parents of young children. dont argue that you think any of the men on the show arrived at the victim's house to play monopoly. driving to a minor's home transcends thought and enters the realm of action.
should the media incorrectly accuse someone of a crime its called slander. slander carries severe criminal penalties and civil liabilities and has caused more than a few media personnel to resign.
additionally, innocent citizens arent being shepherded to mass, defamatory slaughter as you would have your readership believe. i think you would be hard pressed to name one citizen whose life was directly ruined by the contextual substance of a media broadcast or periodical. youre using hyperbole to a fault.
furthermore, the media cant act as judge and jury because they dont have the power to charge or convict anyone of a crime. i understand that youre using the phrase "judge and jury" in a figurative sense; then again, arent you breaching your own professed ethical coda by acting as judge and jury of the media? in any event, no such thing as objective news reporting exists.
i do agree that the bush administration has ignored and is ignoring various protections afforded by the constitution. however, i dont believe that the united states is on the brink of 1984 and i certainly dont believe that youre actually worried about your phone being wiretapped or the government looking into your library records.
by the way, if the police either implicitly or explicitly instruct any civilian or watchdog group to perform the duty of a sworn officer the evidence will be rendered inadmissible in court and the case will almost unilaterally be dismissed. law enforcement cant circumvent the constitution by proxy.
i may not agree with your conceptualizations but i appreciate and welcome your counter-arguments. dont be offended by my course language; im always open to alternate viewpoints as long as theyre conscientious.
you might be interested to know that i grew up several miles from john gacy's des plaines home. one of my criminal law classes was taught by illinois state's attorney robert egan.
egan was at gacy's home the day five search warrants were served in 1978 and he was present sixteen years later when gacy was executed.
i love the instruction page for assembling the afdb, otis.
"make sure the outside of the cone has a shiny side of the foil; this is VERY important."
the reference to scotch tape sealed the deal for me.
if thought police did in fact exist, mindy, we would all be fucked by either religious mandates or statutory codes.
good thing i dont believe in dog.
Post a Comment
<< Home