T1B

Getting caught three times makes you a sex offender and a sick piece of shit, not a victim.

Mace wrote:Getting caught three times makes you a sex offender and a sick piece of shit, not a victim.

Agreed, but this is a nation of laws and you're only guilty of what the prosecution can prove. I'd love to hear how they proved he was guilty of "unlawful contact with a minor", since the cop was over 18.

As an example, everyone knew Al Capone was guilty of murder 27 different ways, but all they could prove was tax evasion. So that's what he did time for.

All this jury did was give Ritter grounds for an appeal.

OCmike wrote:this is a nation of laws and you're only guilty of what the prosecution can prove. I'd love to hear how they proved he was guilty of "unlawful contact with a minor", since the cop was over 18.

The legal profession is one of words and their very specific meanings. I agree with you & Dins on that specific charge. If a defendant is charged with unlawful contact with a minor, there should indeed be an actual minor with whom the defendant had contact, even if that contact was not physical. But there are other underage sex-related charges that probably differ from state to state for which a suspect could be charged and successfully prosecuted that do not require the decoy to be an actual minor, such as intent to have sex with someone under the age of 14, seeking sexual relations with a minor, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation, the last two being among those of which Ritter was convicted. As worded, those charges could be proven if the defendant said or did enough to incriminate himself with a decoy who was actually an adult. One could argue about the validity or righteousness of there even being such laws on the books, since words like intent and seeking smack of being in the domain of Dinsdale's detested "thought police." But given that they are laws, they are enforceable through sting operations in which adults pose as minors.

Get caught in separate stings three times, sorry that's entrapment, he was encouraged, he was a target. He's got a proclivity but that's ridiculous.
The Townsend arrest is important because he didn't do anything wrong, dozens of innocent people actually killed themselves because of the charges leveled against them, that was a massive (and perverted in itself) operation.

Smackie Chan wrote:...such as intent to have sex with someone under the age of 14, seeking sexual relations with a minor, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation, the last two being among those of which Ritter was convicted.

Agreed, and I have no problem with Ritter being found guilty of those charges.

BTW, I love that his defense was, "No, no, no...I only like to beat off and pretend to fuck 10th grade girls."

Smackie Chan wrote: The legal profession is one of words and their very specific meanings. I agree with you & Dins on that specific charge. If a defendant is charged with unlawful contact with a minor, there should indeed be an actual minor with whom the defendant had contact, even if that contact was not physical. But there are other underage sex-related charges that probably differ from state to state for which a suspect could be charged and successfully prosecuted that do not require the decoy to be an actual minor, such as intent to have sex with someone under the age of 14, seeking sexual relations with a minor, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation, the last two being among those of which Ritter was convicted. As worded, those charges could be proven if the defendant said or did enough to incriminate himself with a decoy who was actually an adult. One could argue about the validity or righteousness of there even being such laws on the books, since words like intent and seeking smack of being in the domain of Dinsdale's detested "thought police." But given that they are laws, they are enforceable through sting operations in which adults pose as minors.

So, after all that, you're going to finish off by agreeing with me?

Asshole.

Dinsdale wrote:So, after all that, you're going to finish off by agreeing with me?

Only on that particular charge, on which I hadn't disagreed with you or even addressed in my previous posts. I never claimed I disagreed with everything you posted. I was quite specific regarding the issues about which I had questions. Your contention of "no victim, no crime" is still pure horseshit, and I'd still like to see answers to the questions I asked you, which I'll paraphrase to make it easy for you:

1. Should law enforcement wait until a child is victimized rather than prevent the physical contact from happening and protect the child? If so, what means should be considered legal for them to do so, and what tactics currently being used constitute police overreach?
2. Do sting operations, in general, constitute police overreach and/or entrapment?
3. Should there be laws against such "thoughts" as intent, seeking, and attempt?
4. In the Ritter case, are you bent over the fact that he was caught in a sting operation? Or because the "victim" was purely fictitious? Or maybe because simply slapping around his junk in front of a webcam when there's an underage person (real or not) on the other end shouldn't be a crime? What specifically has you riled up here?
5. If the 9/11 terrorists had been arrested prior to commission of the attacks, who at that point were the victims?
6. Are you claiming that target and victim are synonyms?
7. Where is the line drawn between legitimate law enforcement and thought police?
8. Are there times when actions of "thought police" are justified and others when they constitute overreach, or should they never be tolerated?
9. If "unlawful contact with a minor" was not among the crimes with which Ritter was charged, would you be ok with an adult posing as a minor to catch and prosecute him on other underage sex-related charges?

Smackie, it's Sunday morning. Right about now dude can't even count to nine, much less answer nine questions requiring coherent thought and/or the ability to locate and identify his keyboard.

Van wrote:Smackie, it's Sunday morning. Right about now dude can't even count to nine, much less answer nine questions requiring coherent thought and/or the ability to locate and identify his keyboard.

He had sufficiently cleared whatever cobwebs there might've been to read what I posted and call me an asshole, so I figure he's fair game. And as we established Fri night in chat, I can be an asshole.

He probably thought you were his 'date'...or a coat rack.

I'm in the mood for brevity... enjoy it while it lasts.

Smackie Chan wrote:I'd still like to see answers to the questions I asked you, which I'll paraphrase to make it easy for you:

1. Should law enforcement wait until a child is victimized rather than prevent the physical contact from happening and protect the child? If so, what means should be considered legal for them to do so, and what tactics currently being used constitute police overreach?

Obviously not.

The second question is a whole buncha grey area.

2. Do sting operations, in general, constitute police overreach and/or entrapment?

In general? No.

But everything is a case-by-case issue.

3. Should there be laws against such "thoughts" as intent, seeking, and attempt?

"Intent" is difficult to prove, and is a tool of extreme police overreach.

"Seeking" is vague.

"Attempt" can certainly be a criminal act, depending on individual circumstance.

4. In the Ritter case, are you bent over the fact that he was caught in a sting operation? Or because the "victim" was purely fictitious? Or maybe because simply slapping around his junk in front of a webcam when there's an underage person (real or not) on the other end shouldn't be a crime? What specifically has you riled up here?

In order:
No
Yes
No
I stated it earlier -- him being charged for "contact with a minor" when there was none.

5. If the 9/11 terrorists had been arrested prior to commission of the attacks, who at that point were the victims?

The owners of the airplanes, the owners of the WTC, and several others.

6. Are you claiming that target and victim are synonyms?

When it comes to conspiracy, and other preemptive charges, the for all intensive purposes, yes. A person doesn't necessarily have to suffer physical or financial damage to be a "victim," if there's a plot against them.

But this is sillybugger semantics.

7. Where is the line drawn between legitimate law enforcement and thought police?

When law enforcement starts making arbitrary judgements about "intent," with no tangible evidence to that conclusion.

8. Are there times when actions of "thought police" are justified and others when they constitute overreach, or should they never be tolerated?

Too vague to address.

9. If "unlawful contact with a minor" was not among the crimes with which Ritter was charged, would you be ok with an adult posing as a minor to catch and prosecute him on other underage sex-related charges?

No. If he didn't have contact with any minor along the way, he can't be guilty of underage sex-related charges.


There's a simple solution I mentioned earlier, which has been employed plenty over the years -- the police hires minors to aid in their investigations. The problem of the legal grey-area is solved, and some really bad people are put away without compromising the justice system.

Your solution is for the police to hire minors—who, by law, are forbidden from being exposed to lewd and lascivious behavior from adults—and pay them to be...exposed to lewd and lascivious behavior from adults?

Fight crime by committing crime, using minors as your bait?

Van wrote:Your solution is for the police to hire minors—who, by law, are forbidden from being exposed to lewd and lascivious behavior from adults—and pay them to be...exposed to lewd and lascivious behavior from adults?

Fight crime by committing crime, using minors as your bait?

Been done before.

Don't see how comrade Dins is wrong to introduce a political element to his arrest, when Ritter was saying politically inconvenient things - his history was thrown out to discredit him and stifle any meaningful discussion. It's not unreasonable to say that he may have been the target of a personal, politically motivated gripe.

And that relates to terrorism, politics skewing police work. There's a long pattern of mental deficients being coerced and manipulated into committing acts they would normally have nothing to do with.
Not so much tinfoil hat, but when a police/intelligence force is tasked with something, they'll see to it that they succeed, whether the ends justify the means or not. And that has a direct relationship with policy.

Dinsdale wrote:I'm in the mood for brevity... enjoy it while it lasts.

Smackie Chan wrote:I'd still like to see answers to the questions I asked you, which I'll paraphrase to make it easy for you:

1. Should law enforcement wait until a child is victimized rather than prevent the physical contact from happening and protect the child? If so, what means should be considered legal for them to do so, and what tactics currently being used constitute police overreach?

Obviously not.

That's assuming the authorities have ever actually prevented such a thing in the first place. Of course they'll claim they do it all the time, but they also lie all the time and always portray themselves as 100% heroic all the time. Besides, they never stop any other types of crimes before they occur. Why would anybody think they actually do that in this kind of crime?

Dr_Phibes wrote:Get caught in separate stings three times, sorry that's entrapment, he was encouraged, he was a target.

Either that or he's a mentally deranged pervert with absolutely no impulse control who was so stupid or so far gone that he fell for the same lame trick three fucking times.

How many times did he did he get away with it? Or are you dumb enough to believe that he just happened to get caught on the only three times he succumbed to temptation?

Dr_Phibes wrote:when Ritter was saying politically inconvenient things - his history was thrown out to discredit him and stifle any meaningful discussion.

Of course it discredits him. He had two directly contradictory sets of statements and his perversion makes him an ideal target for blackmail. There is no way to determine whether or not he had been compromised, so the only thing you can do is disregard everything he ever said.

Theoretically open to blackmail but unlikely, it was in line with his peers and they all weren't jerking off on wank sites as far as I know. He's not the brightest person around but he might have actually stumbled through life without it turning into a disaster with the aid of police indulging him.

mvscal wrote:...so the only thing you can do is disregard everything he ever said.

The IAEA says Iran isn't building a bomb and as far as I know, they haven't been caught with 'lolita porn'.

ipso facto = Iran isn't building a bomb

...but they should.

...build a bomb...not look at 'lolita porn'.

Is Phibes Dinsdale's roommate?

Dins is a man of the people and I saw the lynch mob, I've got him covered.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Dins is a man of the people petite-bourgouis reactionary and I saw the lynch mob, I've got him covered.

ftfy

His heart's in the right place comrade, he just needs to focus his thoughts, he could be a powerful weapon for the working class

Dr_Phibes wrote:Dins is a man of the people and I saw the lynch mob, I've got him covered.

That's cool, but if I'm in town and need a place to stay, do not make me stay in the square headed deck screwed Josef Fritzl sex dungeon you're renting for $75 a month with nothing but a Deschutes-stained afghan.

Ritter violated a statue?

That's fucking sick.

Smackie Chan wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote: After all, the accused were just thinking about committing the crimes, had the intent to commit them, and/or were making preparations to carry out the actions, but no one was physically harmed.

Close, care to try again?

What I wrote was close enough to the legal definition of conspiracy (an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement) to make my point.

So do you see the difference between what you wrote the first time and what you wrote the second time?

Yes, pedophiles typically act alone and therefore don't usually conspire to commit their deeds. My point was aimed at the righteousness of having laws in place to punish those who plan or intend to commit unlawful acts (either alone or in a conspiracy), given sufficient legal evidence to prove such planning or intent, to protect citizens from the acts prior to their commission rather than having to wait until an unlawful act is performed before there is a crime, as Dinsdale seems to favor.

Mmmm No. Planning AND intent. Not planning OR intent. EVERY crime requires and actus rea of some sort. I think the jackboots have gone too far in many areas but there does still have to be SOME act.