Ohio School Computer Technician accused of buying kids for sexual torture

[Dechipher]

I follow a lot of what Zelda Warrior says here.

I did research on entrapment earlier today, and I am relieved that provisions exist for pleading entrapment.

However what I also did read, is that current anti-entrapment measures are not good enough.

When a defendant wishes to plead innocent by reason of entrapment, the burden of proof is on him to show that the undercover officer was trying to push the crime.

Unfortunately, the undercover officers are highly knowledgeable on the ways people defend against entrapment, and they have learned how to manage and manipulate their stings in a way that both maximizes the chance that the target will fall into the trap, and at the same time, be unable to get out of the trap by being unable to sufficiently prove it.

When it comes down to it, it is usually the officer's say against the defendant's say.

I'd be interested to know how exactly this sting went down. Like, who said what first. I'd like to know the exact dialogue between the two. If you notice from reading the article, the information is taken from police reports. The news article is inherently biased to begin with.

There is a definite possibility that this man should be able to get free of this situation by pleading entrapment. However, judging by the average populace's hastiness to "fry" and "shoot" the defendant, without even a trial..... I don't think he has such high hopes for the defense to succeed.

Jenny made a great point in that the sensationalism of the accusation is generating emotional bias. The last thing I'd want is for a precedent to be set based on such a bias.

I'd be happy to go into my thoughts on the issue of free will, and may do so elsewhere in a while, so that this particular thread doesn't get derailed.

A guy goes into a bar and sits to have a drink. He's had a rough day, some shit went down at home and I think he lost his job. An undercover cop comes and solicits him to pay her for sex. He declines. She leaves, and returns a while later. She repeats her offer, he declines again. She leaves again and returns a final time, continuing to hound him. Just to get her to shut up, he asks "how much?" The cops come him and cuff him and the man is placed under arrest for attempting to pay someone for sex.
That came from a news article a teacher from high school showed me. That is entrapment. That is also nothing like the situation discussed above.

I worked at 7-11 this summer. I was shopped once. This includes a minor coming in and attempting to purchase alcohol or tobacco. If I fail to ask for identification, or receive it and sell anyway, the sheriff comes in and arrests me. This situation would not be unfair, because I know that I am not supposed to sell to minors, regardless of whether this person actually wanted what they were buying.
By the way, I passed.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I'd be happy to go into my thoughts on the issue of free will, and may do so elsewhere in a while, so that this particular thread doesn't get derailed.

Yes, that'd be a good idea...

What I posted dosen't apply to here. Sure,the guy may have done it, he may have not. Who knows? That article leaves out a lot of detail thats crucial to figuring out the whole story.

But theres other sting operations set up that don't get told anywhere but locally. Kinds that nobody really knows about... I am not saying that the cops are corrupt thoigh. (well, im sure some are but thats another story

Anyways, you don't know exactly what they said. Yeah, that guy's messed up in the head, but nobody other than the cop will really know what they did. (I'm pretty sure even the guy trying to get the children would know, because I'm sure he hasn't tried anything like it before. So, he dosen't know what to look for when finding somebody that is willing to do it, as in whether they are overly passive about it, try to get them into it, etc.)

[Prrkitty]

It doesn't matter that there was an undercover cop responding to this guy's desire. SO what! He shouldn't have responded to the offer nor should he have traveled ALL the way to (Florida I think it was) to fulfill his fantasy.

Just because someone offered him the chance to fulfill his fantasy... he should have RAN in the other direction AWAY from the offer as fast as his legs would have carried him. Instead... he went TOWARD the offer and was willing to make the payment for the opportunity to satisfy his fantasy.

He had free will to *NOT* go... but he did anyway. It's not entrapment. He could have just stayed home but he didn't.

[AtmaWeapon]

Guys guys guys


guys


we still seem unclear on a really important point here. A lot of you seem to be following some kind of invisible red herring and acting like this could have happened to anybody.

How many of you would accidentally stumble upon a person willing to rent their children to you? The internet is a nasty place so I'll go ahead and say it's likely if you were in the wrong place you'd bump into such a person. If the man were arrested for a conversation on the internet I would think he was a creepy old man but guilty of nothing punishable by law.

Now, suppose you bumped into this person on the internet. How many of you would write down their address, book a flight, then fly down there just to see if they were serious? I'm talking about taking days off of work and spending a few hundred dollars on plane tickets and hotel rooms to meet a person who, in your only contact, discussed an interest in an illegal transaction should you meet. At this point I believe the guy is a creepy old man who seems determined to actually pay money to half-drown children. Still no criminal act but I believe at this point monitoring is justifiable.

Now, let's say you were accidentally in the wrong place and intercepted this person, then on a lark invested a large amount of time and money into meeting them. When you meet their middleman, you discuss in great detail how you get off to watching children struggle under the water and confirm your intent to go through with this transaction. You produce the cash and before you can yell "SIKE!" you find yourself arrested.

I believe the odds of that many things being a joke are highly suspect.

There's a lot to be said about what you do here. There are dudes on "To Catch a Predator" that I often wonder if they ever get to court, because really the only thing they did was talk dirty then show up. It's creepy but not a crime. Then there's the guys that show up with condoms, lube, and dildos, or the winners that start removing clothing the instant they show up. Would you really question their intent at that point?

There is seriously a point at which I think you have to be willfully ignorant to believe a person had no intent to commit a crime. In the case of petty crime such as traffic violations then yes action is required; owning a sports car is not a reason to get a speeding ticket. However, in the case of crimes that permanently affect the well-being of others I agree with a more proactive than reactive approach to law enforcement.

I continue to stand behind my belief that no innocent man would arrange the the "rent" of a child, travel across several states, then present money.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I continue to stand behind my belief that no innocent man would arrange the the "rent" of a child, travel across several states, then present money.

Then again, what kind of person would do all that just to 'rent' some child? Even if you are messed up in the head, it still seems like a pain.

Well, let me rephrase that. You're saying that once he's there and it's obvious he's making the action, then the cop has a reasonable doubt to arrest them. Ok, fine. But it seems like a long ways to go just to rent a child... Which is agreeing with you on that point.

But what draws the line between what the cop does thats illegal and what isnt?

[Glenn the Great]

But what draws the line between what the cop does thats illegal and what isnt?

This is the question that my passion here really boils down to. I could care less about this news story... it is this concept that is so critical, and the news story just invokes the concept.

[AtmaWeapon]

I will use Glenn's argument against this point.

There were no children. The officer sold nothing.

Sarcasm aside, the reason the officer is "above the law" is because he is acting as an agent of the law. The man provided reasonable suspicion that he would participate in a criminal act; this grants law enforcement more power over this one specific person in an attempt to avoid a situation where he finds a real child broker.

It's pretty much social contract; we sacrifice rights in return for services from the government. Personally, I have no issues with granting the police the right to have heightened power over those who have proven intent.

[rock_nog]

Seriously, that does have to be taken into account. How did this guy end up in contact with these undercover cops in the first place? I seriously doubt that these cops just showed up in a random chatroom and said "Hey, anyone want to strangle my children for his sexual gratification?" I'm guessing this guy did something to attract the attention of these cops. Of course, that's just idle speculation, because we'll never know what went on, but I don't think the cops are in the habit of soliciting every person who enters a chatroom for sex with children.

[Zelda_Warrior]

I am sure if this was a real situation they would not go around saying 'hey want to strangle my children for sexual gratification?' rather, saying 'hey, ill let you take the children for sexual gratification whatsoever' And, i'm sure one or more undercover cops actually do go around chatrooms and find places where that type of person may hang out. It's like going to a bad part of town to look for crack dealers. Same deal. But, most people only accept the crack dealer situation, and dismiss the fact that cops also check chatrooms and other online enviornments to see if any potential illegal activity is going on.