Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To catch a Predator

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BroncoFanNC
    replied
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/324059...redator_spoof/

    I thought we were talking about the Predator's from the movie....

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by Brancos View Post
    But were those cases involved with the show? That is what I am talking about.

    If someone was not willing to commit the crime they would not drive there and show up in the first place.
    I'm not sure about the show. When you start talking about the show's involvement it gets awful sticky. For example, one of their own members is suing the PJ site and NBC for using his son's image on the Internet (and apparently some morally questionable pictures of his son) to entice people.

    Further, there seems to be some drama involving members of the PJ site where one of them says he was targeted by other members of the PJ team in an attempt to portray him as a predator.

    And then you have NBC in the mix, and there's apparently some allegations from NBC that the PJ team engaged in some hokery that NBC sued them over, but since they have an army of lawyers and it's a civil matter (not criminal) it gets pretty foggy pretty quickly, with a lot of fancy words and hidden stuff going on.

    So... "Damned if I know."

    Whatever's going on, it appears to be a train wreck within the drama queen hive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brancos
    replied
    Originally posted by Alastor View Post
    Some of them got dropped, not all, and the PJ site and its members have indeed been sued for going after people they shouldn't have.
    But were those cases involved with the show? That is what I am talking about.

    If someone was not willing to commit the crime they would not drive there and show up in the first place.
    Last edited by Brancos; 11-23-2010, 04:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andyy_47
    replied
    Regardless of the legality of the convictions, it makes for good television I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals View Post
    Here's my question: What would be a better solution to what is obviously a problem with serious social and legal implications? Sexual abuse is a self-perpetuating problem because victims who go without treatment can become abusers later in life. Do we simply react? Or do we get proactive and hunt would-be abusers?

    I'm for hunting. With that, yes, there can be things that go wrong. The stakes are just too high, though, to be reactive when so much can slip through the cracks.
    How about investing in education for children so that they don't become victims? Education of adults so that they don't victimize, or rehabilitation for those that have been either a perpetrator or a victim to try to break the cycle?

    All this group is after is punishment - and their own accolades.

    If they really wanted to help with this social issue they could do so far more effectively than they are. They're not being productive though, they're being sensational.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Alastor View Post
    I'm surprised to hear this from you, Whodey. I would think that even if they caught 300 predators, doing damage - amazing and irreversible damage at that - to 10 innocent people would say "There's a better way to do this, and they're hurting people."

    Additionally there's the other damage they do:

    Predators that can't be prosecuted because the evidence was not collected credibly or by appropriate people.

    The education and increased awareness of predators as a result of this group's tactics.

    It may also serve to inspire other types of vigilantism that are destructive.

    Nah, if they really wanted to help keep kids safe, they'd educate the kids or create safe places on the Internet for them to express themselves with other kids. Perhaps they might even band together to help find ways to prevent or treat pedophilia in the first place.

    They don't do any of that however. They instead, seek the thrill of "Catching someone. Busting someone. Humiliating someone."

    They're not trying to protect children. They're trying to punish people.


    Very different motives, and thus, very different results.
    I hear what you're saying, and I think that members of the group who have used less-than-by-the-book tactics should be kicked out of the group and exposed to civil liability. That's fine.

    I think that you're painting the group with a broad brush. That's all.

    When partnered with law enforcement, the techniques and tactics used are extremely effective. And as for educating predators and essentially evolving a better mouse in response to the new trap? They're finding new marks all the time.

    Here's a list of convictions: http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=full

    That's a LOT of people that have gone down for attempting to solicit minors online, and a LOT of courts that agreed the tactics held up.

    As for educating kids, that's what parents are for. If you don't want your child exposed to potential threats online, it's best to educate your children, install software to limit the child's browsing experience and monitor activity.

    Here's my question: What would be a better solution to what is obviously a problem with serious social and legal implications? Sexual abuse is a self-perpetuating problem because victims who go without treatment can become abusers later in life. Do we simply react? Or do we get proactive and hunt would-be abusers?

    I'm for hunting. With that, yes, there can be things that go wrong. The stakes are just too high, though, to be reactive when so much can slip through the cracks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by WhoDeyBengals View Post
    That may be true, but PJ is a community, with a large and varied list of personalities behind it. While there may have been a few overzealous busts in the past, there have also been a lot of good things. I don't know that you can throw out the baby with the bathwater here.
    I'm surprised to hear this from you, Whodey. I would think that even if they caught 300 predators, doing damage - amazing and irreversible damage at that - to 10 innocent people would say "There's a better way to do this, and they're hurting people."

    Additionally there's the other damage they do:

    Predators that can't be prosecuted because the evidence was not collected credibly or by appropriate people.

    The education and increased awareness of predators as a result of this group's tactics.

    It may also serve to inspire other types of vigilantism that are destructive.

    Nah, if they really wanted to help keep kids safe, they'd educate the kids or create safe places on the Internet for them to express themselves with other kids. Perhaps they might even band together to help find ways to prevent or treat pedophilia in the first place.

    They don't do any of that however. They instead, seek the thrill of "Catching someone. Busting someone. Humiliating someone."

    They're not trying to protect children. They're trying to punish people.


    Very different motives, and thus, very different results.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    Originally posted by Alastor View Post
    Some of them got dropped, not all, and the PJ site and its members have indeed been sued for going after people they shouldn't have.
    That may be true, but PJ is a community, with a large and varied list of personalities behind it. While there may have been a few overzealous busts in the past, there have also been a lot of good things. I don't know that you can throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by Brancos View Post
    Entrapment claims have been brought up and later dropped. If they were not willing to do the act they would not show up at the house. The fact that they do show up at the persons house shows that they are willing to commit the crime.

    Of course I am not defending the show or anyone/anything.
    Some of them got dropped, not all, and the PJ site and its members have indeed been sued for going after people they shouldn't have.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brancos
    replied
    Originally posted by Alastor View Post
    Perverted justice has been nailed a couple of different times for their antics.





    Russ went on to say:




    The site has indeed nailed innocent people in the past as well, and they've been sued. In many cases, "evidence" they claimed they had simply wasn't produced - when asked for a hard drive that contained a copy of transcripts in one case for example, the group couldn't produce the hard drive, which was the entirety of evidence against someone that claimed they had made it all up.



    Is that really ethical? These are people that not only probably wouldn't have engaged in the act if left to their own devices, but that actually tried to walk away before entering the house with the child despite the enticement. They thought it over, changed their mind and wanted to leave. They had to be enticed back in.

    In some cases they had to be tricked into getting there in the first place.

    In fact, the leader of this group (despite claims to the contrary) does initiate the conversations, and he got sued for it in 2006. The leader of Perverted Justice initiated a conversation with a male. While pretending to be a female the vigilante leader asked the man several times to come to "her" house and have sex with her.

    The result was that the man filed suit claiming Von Erck tried to solicit the commission of a felony. The judge agreed with the filing, but said that since no actual child was involved and thus no crime had been possible, the court wouldn't hear the case.

    And sometimes, they're just plain full of crap, despite that they don't mind smearing people and going after their careers, families, and friends:



    Not all that glitters is gold.
    Entrapment claims have been brought up and later dropped. If they were not willing to do the act they would not show up at the house. The fact that they do show up at the persons house shows that they are willing to commit the crime.

    Of course I am not defending the show or anyone/anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frankenpost
    replied
    Originally posted by CHARGER$ View Post
    They might serve a Little bit of time, but man, the embarrassment of being on that show will be with them for a long, long time.
    Did'nt i see you before? You go by the name "Charger$" correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by jetrazor74 View Post
    All great examples of stings done improperly.

    But done correctly by those with proper training and knowledge of the laws, these stings are perfectly legal.
    True. The problem is that the nature of vigilantism is such that things like targeting the wrong people or "fudging" things is more apt to occur.

    Leave a comment:


  • jetrazor74
    replied
    Originally posted by Alastor View Post
    Perverted justice has been nailed a couple of different times for their antics.





    Russ went on to say:




    The site has indeed nailed innocent people in the past as well, and they've been sued. In many cases, "evidence" they claimed they had simply wasn't produced - when asked for a hard drive that contained a copy of transcripts in one case for example, the group couldn't produce the hard drive, which was the entirety of evidence against someone that claimed they had made it all up.



    Is that really ethical? These are people that not only probably wouldn't have engaged in the act if left to their own devices, but that actually tried to walk away before entering the house with the child despite the enticement. They thought it over, changed their mind and wanted to leave. They had to be enticed back in.

    In some cases they had to be tricked into getting there in the first place.

    In fact, the leader of this group (despite claims to the contrary) does initiate the conversations, and he got sued for it in 2006. The leader of Perverted Justice initiated a conversation with a male. While pretending to be a female the vigilante leader asked the man several times to come to "her" house and have sex with her.

    The result was that the man filed suit claiming Von Erck tried to solicit the commission of a felony. The judge agreed with the filing, but said that since no actual child was involved and thus no crime had been possible, the court wouldn't hear the case.

    And sometimes, they're just plain full of crap, despite that they don't mind smearing people and going after their careers, families, and friends:



    Not all that glitters is gold.
    All great examples of stings done improperly.

    But done correctly by those with proper training and knowledge of the laws, these stings are perfectly legal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alastor
    replied
    Originally posted by Brancos View Post
    That was a different situation. In that case the government constantly tried to get the person to do an action. They didn't really let him make his own decision like they do on this show. The person in that court case wasn't going to do anything until government began to constantly mail him things that basically set him up and persuaded him to commit the crime. On this show they don't make the person commit the crime and the person was willing to do it before the show/police talked to them (they were willing to do it before or else they would not be looking online). There isn't really any case to be made.
    Perverted justice has been nailed a couple of different times for their antics.

    Some law-enforcement experts have also stated that, while they appreciate the site's mission, they do not agree with some of the operators' and volunteers' practices.
    In a December 2004 article in the New York Sun, Bradley Russ, the training director for the federal Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce (which has trained about 200 law enforcement agents nationwide) said that the tactics of Perverted-Justice sometimes run counter to the task force's standards. For instance, Russ said, by accepting child pornography from their "busts" to bolster a potential legal case, the volunteers are themselves in possession of unlawful images. He said federal authorities have begun considering whether to seize Perverted-Justice contributors' computers.
    Russ went on to say:

    "It's a noble effort gone too far," Russ told the newspaper. He also said the site's tactics can make it more difficult for law enforcement to prosecute cases they present because those cases can be considered tainted by entrapment claims.

    The site has indeed nailed innocent people in the past as well, and they've been sued. In many cases, "evidence" they claimed they had simply wasn't produced - when asked for a hard drive that contained a copy of transcripts in one case for example, the group couldn't produce the hard drive, which was the entirety of evidence against someone that claimed they had made it all up.

    In May 2007, Perverted-Justice was criticized in a now-dismissed employment lawsuit brought by former Dateline producer Marsha Bartel. In the filing, Bartel alleges that NBC provides financial incentives to the group to use trickery and to humiliate targets to "enhance the comedic effect of the[ir] public exposure." According to Bartel, some of the men caught in the Predator sting operations have reported that the decoys begged them to come to the sting houses, even after they had decided to walk away.
    Is that really ethical? These are people that not only probably wouldn't have engaged in the act if left to their own devices, but that actually tried to walk away before entering the house with the child despite the enticement. They thought it over, changed their mind and wanted to leave. They had to be enticed back in.

    In some cases they had to be tricked into getting there in the first place.

    In fact, the leader of this group (despite claims to the contrary) does initiate the conversations, and he got sued for it in 2006. The leader of Perverted Justice initiated a conversation with a male. While pretending to be a female the vigilante leader asked the man several times to come to "her" house and have sex with her.

    The result was that the man filed suit claiming Von Erck tried to solicit the commission of a felony. The judge agreed with the filing, but said that since no actual child was involved and thus no crime had been possible, the court wouldn't hear the case.

    And sometimes, they're just plain full of crap, despite that they don't mind smearing people and going after their careers, families, and friends:

    In June 2007, Perverted-Justice was criticized following a sting operation in Collin County, Texas that resulted in the charges against 23 suspected online sex predators being dropped. Collin County Assistant District Attorney Greg Davis said the cases were dropped after Perverted-Justice failed to provide enough usable evidence. "In many cases, we could not prosecute because Perverted Justice refused to answer our questions, refused to participate as witnesses, or refused to turn over potential evidence."
    Not all that glitters is gold.

    Leave a comment:


  • WhoDeyBengals
    replied
    When I was a reporter with my college newspaper, a member of the university staff was caught in a dragnet similar to the ones seen on To Catch A Predator, run by the same crew of people that helped bring in the scumbags on the show. It was a very interesting conversation, learning how this whole thing started and how complex their process can be in some situations.

    The site is www.perverted-justice.com, and I was familiar with them before I wrote the story because I actually helped a bit on a sting a few years prior. I stumbled across the site on an aggregator (gotta love FARK.com), and I was immediately disgusted by the stuff they have to endure. But then I got to reading through the theads where you can see how the investigation took place and whatnot. Incredible. It was like watching Jason Bourn track down a bomb. I like that these people are out there.

    The thing is, the guys that get targeted by perverted justice and appear on these shows have largely been successfully convicted by these chats, so long as law enforcement is involved, in most cases. So long as the target initiates the conversation and takes it to a criminal level, it doesn't matter whether it's a real child or a law-enforcement official on the other end. This is a segment of crime that law enforcement simply doesn't have the budget to fight, in a lot of cases, and how would we catch these predators otherwise? I think this is the type of crime that has to be proactively approached, because the consequences of failure are too damn high.

    I hate stupid criminals, and it seems like child molestation attracts a large number of absolute morons. I mean, mental illness aside, you have to be freaking dumb to think that you could involve yourself in this kind of activity with any hope of not getting caught eventually. I love watching stupidity punished.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X