Cops posing as teenage girls on the internet.

[Tmy]

Now what if they pose as a girl in their pedophile hunt, but they end up cathing an underaged boy who was posing as an old man. Are the cops then charged for underaged molestation or somthing like that? Are they then open to lawsuits from the boy or his parents?

[kedo1981]

The little Ohio town I live in has a squad that does nothing but that. We are treated to these creeps faces on the news once or twice a week.

[BobK]

Originally posted by kedo1981
The little Ohio town I live in has a squad that does nothing but that. We are treated to these creeps faces on the news once or twice a week.

Why would a local police dept. be allocating resources for something like this?

Do they just try to catch local internet pedophiles?

If so, are there enough locals to justify a squad working at it?:confused:

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by kedo1981
The little Ohio town I live in has a squad that does nothing but that. We are treated to these creeps faces on the news once or twice a week.
Ya know kedo, it amazes me how many guys they arrest. Haven't they nabbed 30+ in the last year or so? You'd think that the word would be out among the pedophiles -- "Don't agree to meet an underage girl in Xenia, Ohio".

It just boggles the mind.

[zakur]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Ya know kedo, it amazes me how many guys they arrest. Haven't they nabbed 30+ in the last year or so? You'd think that the word would be out among the pedophiles -- "Don't agree to meet an underage girl in Xenia, Ohio".

It just boggles the mind. It seems like every other day I hear about the Xenia cops nabbing another pervert, and I think the same thing. [quick news search] Ah ha! ...here (http://www.whiotv.com/news/2288489/detail.html) is their latest arrest ,just this past weekend: 40-year-old former corrections officer from the Sandusky area. Thought he was going to meet a 13-year-old girl he's been chatting with since April, but met the Xenia police instead.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by zakur
It seems like every other day I hear about the Xenia cops nabbing another pervert, and I think the same thing. [quick news search] Ah ha! ...here (http://www.whiotv.com/news/2288489/detail.html) is their latest arrest ,just this past weekend: 40-year-old former corrections officer from the Sandusky area. Thought he was going to meet a 13-year-old girl he's been chatting with since April, but met the Xenia police instead.

What did he do that was illegal? Was he going to meet "her" for the purpose of sex? Or just to meet?

[zakur]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
What did he do that was illegal? Was he going to meet "her" for the purpose of sex? Or just to meet? According to the police, and based on his chatting sessions, the purpose of meeting the "girl" was to have sex. In Ohio, that particular action — an adult soliciting sex from a minor using a telecommunications device like a computer — is called "importuning," a crime that carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Some attorneys are challenging the legality of Ohio's importuning law, saying that there can be no crime if there is no victim. That is, since no actual teenage girls were propositioned (only middle-aged, male police detectives), there really is no crime committed. More here (http://www.cincypost.com/2003/05/19/impor051903.html).

[Genghis Pwn]

Does this kind of thing -- five years for showing up at a meeting place -- smack of entrapment at all? I mean, should they maybe have a fake teen there and catch him sweet-talking her or something? It's almost like a mental crime.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Does this kind of thing -- five years for showing up at a meeting place -- smack of entrapment at all? I mean, should they maybe have a fake teen there and catch him sweet-talking her or something? It's almost like a mental crime.
It might "smack" of entrapment, but as I understand it, these guys have made it clear that they desire to have sex with someone they believe is underage. Many of them send nude photos, etc. to the underage girl (cop). I also think that they allow the alleged pedophile to make the first move on the message boards, so they shouldn't be accused of enticing the guy.

I'm glad they are doing something to get these guys. Apparently, the court system in Ohio doesn't feel it's entrapment. I'll go with their findings.

[Genghis Pwn]

I'm also glad they are doing something about it, but creating cases seems kind of like entrapment. Better if they could somehow just catch the guy. Like maybe use these tactics to identify pedos, then wiretap them and catch them in an actual incident.

[Dancing David]

Doesn't every body on the net pretend to be a young teen age girl?

I think that it is one thing to investigate but trying to create a situation.

I think it would be okay to say that you are the YTAG and then wiat for them to try to have sex, but not if you lead them on, IE "I am so lonley and can't wait to hold you on my arms', then there would be a clear case that it was the perpetrator persuing the teen.
Still it smacks of arresting for a non commited crime.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Doesn't every body on the net pretend to be a young teen age girl?

I think that it is one thing to investigate but trying to create a situation.

I think it would be okay to say that you are the YTAG and then wiat for them to try to have sex, but not if you lead them on, IE "I am so lonley and can't wait to hold you on my arms', then there would be a clear case that it was the perpetrator persuing the teen.
Still it smacks of arresting for a non commited crime.

Non-committed crime issue aside, I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for people who agree to meet with YTAG for the purpose of having sex. If someone who you think is 13 yo says "I'm so lonely an can't wait to hold you in my arms," the proper response for an adult is "Um, sorry, you are only 13. If you are having lots of problems, I can give you the name of a counselor who may be able to help you."

OTOH, if the officer is pretending to be a 13 year old girl who is pretending to be 18, then it is a real setup.

Now, the charge is a different issue. However, I don't see why "Attempted Rape" might not work, although I can see potential problems with it.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
I'm also glad they are doing something about it, but creating cases seems kind of like entrapment. Better if they could somehow just catch the guy. Like maybe use these tactics to identify pedos, then wiretap them and catch them in an actual incident.
I don't know about Xenia specifically, but other police departments have recorded telephone conversations between suspects and officers pretending to be underage children. They also tape record the conversations at the meeting site.

This is an interesting subject though. I suppose as long as the initial propositions re: sex are made by the suspect and not the police, I'm OK with it.

Maybe AS could toss in his two cents regarding the legal stuff.

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

I don't know about Xenia specifically, but other police departments have recorded telephone conversations between suspects and officers pretending to be underage children. They also tape record the conversations at the meeting site.


At the meeting site? Who is having the conversation? :confused:

[DanishDynamite]

zakur:. In Ohio, that particular action — an adult soliciting sex from a minor using a telecommunications device like a computer — is called "importuning," a crime that carries a maximum prison sentence of five years. What an utterly ridiculous law. Is it also illegal to directly ask a minor if he/she wants to have sex? I mean, is the question itself a crime?

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn


At the meeting site? Who is having the conversation? :confused:
In the police video's I've seen, they had a young looking female police officer hold the phone conversations with the suspect, then she'd show up at the meeting site wearing a microphone.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
zakur: What an utterly ridiculous law. Is it also illegal to directly ask a minor if he/she wants to have sex? I mean, is the question itself a crime?
I'm guessing that it's only considered a crime if you believe that the person you are asking hasn't reached the legal age of consent.

I don't think it's meant to apply some guy cruising down the street who yells "Hey baby, let's do it" out his window at some 17 year old girl. The "sting" is aimed at guys that cruise the internet looking for vulnerable 13 year olds.

Just my opinion.....I'll need to read the whole law and look at a few cases to discuss it intelligently.

[DanishDynamite]

Mr. Skinny:I'm guessing that it's only considered a crime if you believe that the person you are asking hasn't reached the legal age of consent.That is IMO still totally ridiculous. There is no threat, no violence, no coersion, no "taking advantage", no victim. All there is, is a question.

Does it matter if the minor says "Sod off, old geezer"? Or, if the minor says "Sure" and the adult reprimands him/her for having this attitude?

I never thought the asking of a question could be made illegal.

[WildCat]

Sometimes the cops really do want underaged girls (and boys!) (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/25/explorers.abuse.ap/index.html) :eek:

[ImpyTimpy]

I don't believe it is the question which is illegal but the intent to carry on through after posing the question. You need to understand that these are adults (predators is a better word) who specifically look for teenagers or young children. The internet gives them the perfect playground - they're anonymous until they meet the person. Why would you ask a teenager/child to meet you and have sex with you, then actually turn up if you did not have the intent to follow through???????

As a parent, I'm very glad someone out there is reducing the threat.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mr. Skinny:That is IMO still totally ridiculous. There is no threat, no violence, no coersion, no "taking advantage", no victim. All there is, is a question.

Does it matter if the minor says "Sod off, old geezer"? Or, if the minor says "Sure" and the adult reprimands him/her for having this attitude?

I never thought the asking of a question could be made illegal.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
zakur: What an utterly ridiculous law. Is it also illegal to directly ask a minor if he/she wants to have sex? I mean, is the question itself a crime?

yes that is solicitation of a minor!

[Temporal Renegade]

About a year ago in Michigan, a similar operation was going on. Ususally, the police say, it takes up to a month or sometimes more for the arrest to take place, as they have to wait until the man makes a move on the 'girl'. However, this time, this guy sets something up IN THE FIRST CHAT, right after first meeting 'her'. The cops are taken by surprise by this and have to rush to get things together, and nail him. Seems he was just 'in the mood', and couldn't wait.

And, by the way... I've found this out by asking some cops I know: if you approach a 'working girl', and ask if they're a cop (to avoid entrapment), it seems that they do NOT have to say, Yes. In fact, if they're undercover, it seems that they can even say No, and not be guilty of entrapment, because You approached THEM first.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
And, by the way... I've found this out by asking some cops I know: if you approach a 'working girl', and ask if they're a cop (to avoid entrapment), it seems that they do NOT have to say, Yes. In fact, if they're undercover, it seems that they can even say No, and not be guilty of entrapment, because You approached THEM first.

Do people still go around saying that undercover police have to admit it when asked?!

I heard that as an urban legend from a friend some 8-10 years ago -- he couldn't explain how -any- undercover operations would ever work if the cops had to answer truthfully. The first question in every drug deal would be "Are you a cop?" After, that, they can't be arrested?! Are people still spreading this one around?

NA

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Do people still go around saying that undercover police have to admit it when asked?!

I heard that as an urban legend from a friend some 8-10 years ago -- he couldn't explain how -any- undercover operations would ever work if the cops had to answer truthfully. The first question in every drug deal would be "Are you a cop?" After, that, they can't be arrested?! Are people still spreading this one around?

NA

Oh yes. You'd be surprised. Especially when they say things like, "The reason I was asking is because I was going to report them to the real police, if they weren't a cop!" Some people..:)
(and, NO, I'm not reporting this from personal experiance!)

As to the Internet stings, you'd think that, with at least one arrest making the news every day over this, that people would wise up and not do it anymore.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny

It might "smack" of entrapment, but as I understand it, these guys have made it clear that they desire to have sex with someone they believe is underage.



I find this interesting.

Suppose I decide I hate someone enough that I want to kill them, grab a hammer from the wall of my home, then head over to them. Before I actually commit the act, I think twice about it and decide against it, going home.

Should I be charged with a crime?



I'm glad they are doing something to get these guys. Apparently, the court system in Ohio doesn't feel it's entrapment. I'll go with their findings.

I agree that it's a good thing to catch these guys, but the methods used send chills up my spine for some reason...

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Valmorian



I find this interesting.

Suppose I decide I hate someone enough that I want to kill them, grab a hammer from the wall of my home, then head over to them. Before I actually commit the act, I think twice about it and decide against it, going home.

Should I be charged with a crime?[/B]

"Should" is one question -- but you can be.

In order to qualify for attempted murder or assault (-very- roughly speaking), you need the intent, plus a substantive action made to act on that intent.

Getting a weapon and moving toward the person would qualify if your intent and the facts could be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If you got fairly close to the person, there would not even be an attempt -- you would have committed assault if the person rightly feared that you were going to cause them immediate harm.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


"Should" is one question -- but you can be.

In order to qualify for attempted murder or assault (-very- roughly speaking), you need the intent, plus a substantive action made to act on that intent.

Getting a weapon and moving toward the person would qualify if your intent and the facts could be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If you got fairly close to the person, there would not even be an attempt -- you would have committed assault if the person rightly feared that you were going to cause them immediate harm.

How about if I wanted to kill someone and arranged a meeting with them intending to kill them there, and they didn't show up? Could I be charged with anything having to do with murder?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


How about if I wanted to kill someone and arranged a meeting with them intending to kill them there, and they didn't show up? Could I be charged with anything having to do with murder?

Probably - Proving it is another matter, of course.

If you can show actual intent, the call to lure the victim to the location is probably enough by itself to show attempted murder. Under your facts, it would hard to prove anything in real life, but if it could be established that you attempted to lure a person to a specific place in order to kill them, it should suffice. If you actually showed up at the spot and waited, it would be even clearer.

The policy justification is that we don't want to have to wait until someone actually takes a shot at someone before being able to step in and stop a murder.

[Segnosaur]

I have two thoughts on this:

- I'm suprised many people would really believe that the 'young girl' they are chatting with really is a 'young girl' looking to meet.

- Although I think someone trying to score with 'jail bait' is wrong, I do wonder if this is the 'best' use of police resources. How many 'hours' do the cops have to put into arresting one guy? Wouldn't the cops be better off trying to investigate and arrest crimes that have already happened? (For example, how many sexual assaults go unsolved?) If the guy wasn't arrested, would he ever REALLY have any chance of meeting a 'young girl'?

[Suddenly]

Suppose I decide I hate someone enough that I want to kill them, grab a hammer from the wall of my home, then head over to them. Before I actually commit the act, I think twice about it and decide against it, going home.


Not as such. The difference in the Ohio case is that it is the actual request that is the relevent illegal conduct, not the requested act itself. The suspect's presence at the proposed meeting is done to make a conviction easier. It avoids a lot of possible jurisdictional hurdles, and is useful to prove identity as well as intent. Otherwise, the suspect could have a pretty good "someone else on my computer" or a "I thought the whole thing was a joke" defense. By the time the suspect leaves to meet the "victim", the crime has been committed, the "meeting" is for evidentiary purposes.

In the hammer case, if you were to phone the "victim" and tell him you were on your way over, the threat be a crime depending on the jurisdiction. There are also conspriacy and attempt issues, but your hypothetical gives no evidence of either.

[DavidJames]

"How many 'hours' do the cops have to put into arresting one guy? Wouldn't the cops be better off trying to investigate and arrest crimes that have already happened?"

Why must it be either or, why not both, but more importantly.

Would you prefer the cops stop the attack on your daughter or investigate after "the crimes have been committed?"

[Temporal Renegade]

Anyone who goes after kids, whether on-line or in real life, and gets caught and punished, deserves whatever is meted out to them. Period. Yes, even if the ones they go after are not really kids.
The intent is still the same; they believed they were after kids.

[kedo1981]

If you send someone an e-mail saying “I’m coming over right now to kill you, you c$%k s#@ker” that is an illegal act with out killing them.
You should see these guys, all very pathetic losers; almost all of them are willing to travel hundreds of miles (some on the bus “LOSER LOL”) to meet their lolita dream date, you think if they really met a young girl they would take no for an answer?
Very few are from closer than 50 miles.

[Temporal Renegade]

I think it's mainly about the power they would have over them, not so much the sex itself. Plus, unlike hiring a streetwalker to play the role of a youngster, all it costs them (excluding jail time, of course) is a stuffed animal and a hotel room.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Why must it be either or, why not both, but more importantly.


Because, unless we want to greatly increase taxes and hire thousands more police in the city, there will ALWAYS be decisions to be made on the allocation of resources. (Plus, tax money must also be allocated to the fire department, self defense, welfare, roads, etc.)

Originally posted by DavidJames

Would you prefer the cops stop the attack on your daughter or investigate after "the crimes have been committed?"

Investigating and arresting people involved in crimes that have already happened helps in several ways:
- The person who commits one crime is at a high risk to commit others. Arrest them after they have attacked one person, but before they can attack another
- People who commit crimes often think they can get away with it. Allocating more resources so that more criminals are arrested will have a deterrent effect.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by kedo1981

Very few are from closer than 50 miles.

I was just about to make a comment similar to David James regarding proactive law enforcement, when I saw kedo's comment above.

My question now is this: Is this activity good use of the taxpayers money in Xenia? If no one closer than 50 miles is being caught, it appears that many police organizations in the area would have to conduct similar operations in order for their "spheres of influence" (or is it lack of influence?) to overlap.

[rockoon]

It seems to me that an individual locality doing this sort of thing increases the risk in the locality. They are after all enticing would-be offenders into the area.