# Dateline -- Fri, Sep 24



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

Dateline -- Fri, Sep 24

Did anybody catch this last night here in the States? It was called "Dangerous Web", and what they did was had investigators (of sorts) go to a Suburban house somewhere in the east, posing as a 14 year old girl online in chatrooms, and see how many adult males came over for sex. In 2 days some 18 guys came over. It was all filmed, quite awkward. One was a 23 year old schizophrenic, who had just gotten out of a mental institution, saying he was lonely and how he just wanted a girlfriend, just trying to get his Life together -- it was bullshit, he said, how they were doing this to him. Another was a 34 year old with 2 kids, he walked out when they told him it was going to be on TV. Another was this very slick (verbally) guy, whom, when he walked in, before seeing the girl, said (she was "in the other room"): you're 19, right? "No, I'm 14, like I told you.".... He replied "But as far as "I" know, you're 19, right?" He was trying to get out of any legal trouble, very very bad... You know he's a repeat offender.

When they all saw the Dateline host instead of a little girl they were shocked, almost all of them came up with excuses. Nearly all said it was their first time doing this. The guy described above with all the smooth talk said he was a TV reporter. The youngest guy was probably the schizo and an even younger looking guy. One, a NYC fire dept worker, sent an image of him jerking off online, and then came to the house, but called it off when he saw a cop car next door to the house. He was later confronted whilst leaving his job, totally screwed, and (they said) later arrested.

It was interesting. Oddly enough all I could think of throughout a lot of it was how this one mistake was going to ruin so many Lives, a few inparticular that got all the screen time. But I mean, they're the offenders... It's a cruel world. I then just kept thinking how this cruel society probably screwed them up, now they're paying the consequences, like most criminals. Oh my fatalistic worldview gets the best of me.

All in all, though, it was interesting.


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

Dateline -- Fri, Sep 24

Did anybody catch this last night here in the States? It was called "Dangerous Web", and what they did was had investigators (of sorts) go to a Suburban house somewhere in the east, posing as a 14 year old girl online in chatrooms, and see how many adult males came over for sex. In 2 days some 18 guys came over. It was all filmed, quite awkward. One was a 23 year old schizophrenic, who had just gotten out of a mental institution, saying he was lonely and how he just wanted a girlfriend, just trying to get his Life together -- it was bullshit, he said, how they were doing this to him. Another was a 34 year old with 2 kids, he walked out when they told him it was going to be on TV. Another was this very slick (verbally) guy, whom, when he walked in, before seeing the girl, said (she was "in the other room"): you're 19, right? "No, I'm 14, like I told you.".... He replied "But as far as "I" know, you're 19, right?" He was trying to get out of any legal trouble, very very bad... You know he's a repeat offender.

When they all saw the Dateline host instead of a little girl they were shocked, almost all of them came up with excuses. Nearly all said it was their first time doing this. The guy described above with all the smooth talk said he was a TV reporter. The youngest guy was probably the schizo and an even younger looking guy. One, a NYC fire dept worker, sent an image of him jerking off online, and then came to the house, but called it off when he saw a cop car next door to the house. He was later confronted whilst leaving his job, totally screwed, and (they said) later arrested.

It was interesting. Oddly enough all I could think of throughout a lot of it was how this one mistake was going to ruin so many Lives, a few inparticular that got all the screen time. But I mean, they're the offenders... It's a cruel world. I then just kept thinking how this cruel society probably screwed them up, now they're paying the consequences, like most criminals. Oh my fatalistic worldview gets the best of me.

All in all, though, it was interesting.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2004)

And people wonder why im cautious about giving info out over the internet. Of course i don't go into chat rooms and try to meet girls, but its just the principle that when you are online, a good portion of the time you really don't know who you are talking to. You do bring up a good point though, and i think alot of people who are sex offenders, were actually abused themselves as kids but never got help or treatment. That doesn't make it right but still.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2004)

And people wonder why im cautious about giving info out over the internet. Of course i don't go into chat rooms and try to meet girls, but its just the principle that when you are online, a good portion of the time you really don't know who you are talking to. You do bring up a good point though, and i think alot of people who are sex offenders, were actually abused themselves as kids but never got help or treatment. That doesn't make it right but still.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Jason, interesting. I was almost going to watch that, but was on the phone. But re: your comment:



> It was interesting. Oddly enough all I could think of throughout a lot of it was how this one mistake was going to ruin so many Lives, a few inparticular that got all the screen time. But I mean, they're the offenders... It's a cruel world. I then just kept thinking how this cruel society probably screwed them up, now they're paying the consequences, like most criminals. Oh my fatalistic worldview gets the best of me.


I feel it is not society's fault. Society is made of individuals, and more important, families. Everyone of these men had a choice ... maybe I'll give the schizophrenic guy the benefit of his illness, but I didn't see the show. I'm glad they got nailed.

This type of program has been done before, and there is also a book about a serial killer who used the internet to find his victims. John Douglas, famous FBI profiler wrote about this.

I realize that society keeps throwing us curveballs, or rather throws curveballs at families who are trying to raise their kids to be safe from such things. Regardless of what anyone says, I feel very strongly it is up to parents to keep tabs on internet use.

No, I'm not a parent. I've taken care of kids for my friends a lot over the years. I know parenting is not easy. But families have the responsibility to teach their kids about all the dangers in the world, even unprotected sex, or driving without a seatbelt.

But these icky dudes. They knew what they were doing. Let 'em rot.

I have to say though, in defense of the internet, and perhaps in re: JC's question as to why people aren't more careful. I actually flew to London in 1999 to meet Hannah C., Andy (he never showed up), Martin (he broke his wrist, LOL), Cavan C., Ramon, and Nicole, whom I'd already met here in the U.S.

I also got more groups together in Los Angeles. Always best to meet at a very neutral, public location. But I never had a problem. Ultimately there were meetings at one person's Mom's house! And she joined in the conversation as she was concerned for her son!

We have to use caution re: everything in life. I agree. And we have to protect our kids, and take responsibility for ourselves. Also, I wouldn't meet someone I barely knew for sex ... that's rather dicey.

It's all a matter of being told how to protect ourselves, our boundaries as children, by our parents. And to be given healthy boundaries re: the ineternet, TV, dating, etc., etc., etc.

And even then, shit happens.

"Sad world, mad world."
Best,
D :shock: 
Waiting for rice to cook. ACH. LOL.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Jason, interesting. I was almost going to watch that, but was on the phone. But re: your comment:



> It was interesting. Oddly enough all I could think of throughout a lot of it was how this one mistake was going to ruin so many Lives, a few inparticular that got all the screen time. But I mean, they're the offenders... It's a cruel world. I then just kept thinking how this cruel society probably screwed them up, now they're paying the consequences, like most criminals. Oh my fatalistic worldview gets the best of me.


I feel it is not society's fault. Society is made of individuals, and more important, families. Everyone of these men had a choice ... maybe I'll give the schizophrenic guy the benefit of his illness, but I didn't see the show. I'm glad they got nailed.

This type of program has been done before, and there is also a book about a serial killer who used the internet to find his victims. John Douglas, famous FBI profiler wrote about this.

I realize that society keeps throwing us curveballs, or rather throws curveballs at families who are trying to raise their kids to be safe from such things. Regardless of what anyone says, I feel very strongly it is up to parents to keep tabs on internet use.

No, I'm not a parent. I've taken care of kids for my friends a lot over the years. I know parenting is not easy. But families have the responsibility to teach their kids about all the dangers in the world, even unprotected sex, or driving without a seatbelt.

But these icky dudes. They knew what they were doing. Let 'em rot.

I have to say though, in defense of the internet, and perhaps in re: JC's question as to why people aren't more careful. I actually flew to London in 1999 to meet Hannah C., Andy (he never showed up), Martin (he broke his wrist, LOL), Cavan C., Ramon, and Nicole, whom I'd already met here in the U.S.

I also got more groups together in Los Angeles. Always best to meet at a very neutral, public location. But I never had a problem. Ultimately there were meetings at one person's Mom's house! And she joined in the conversation as she was concerned for her son!

We have to use caution re: everything in life. I agree. And we have to protect our kids, and take responsibility for ourselves. Also, I wouldn't meet someone I barely knew for sex ... that's rather dicey.

It's all a matter of being told how to protect ourselves, our boundaries as children, by our parents. And to be given healthy boundaries re: the ineternet, TV, dating, etc., etc., etc.

And even then, shit happens.

"Sad world, mad world."
Best,
D :shock: 
Waiting for rice to cook. ACH. LOL.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ooops, met Simon, too, who had us over to his Mum's house! It was amazing. I was just there 4 days. But I knew there would be unconditional acceptance, and I trusted all the people. Hannah, Nicole, Ramon and I stayed at Hannah's apartment, along with her roommates. It was wonderful.

And wow, we went to a pub in Cambridge together. We talked, we cried, we laughed. And Hannah took me to Cambridge... my Lord is that beautiful.

I love Europe. The next "state" over is another country! Cavan is from Scotland, Ramon from The Netherlands. It was a wonderful international DP convention! Did get to talk w/Andy on the phone.

Shame on Martin to have missed the thing! 
Next time Martin! Absolutely.
L,
D :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Ooops, met Simon, too, who had us over to his Mum's house! It was amazing. I was just there 4 days. But I knew there would be unconditional acceptance, and I trusted all the people. Hannah, Nicole, Ramon and I stayed at Hannah's apartment, along with her roommates. It was wonderful.

And wow, we went to a pub in Cambridge together. We talked, we cried, we laughed. And Hannah took me to Cambridge... my Lord is that beautiful.

I love Europe. The next "state" over is another country! Cavan is from Scotland, Ramon from The Netherlands. It was a wonderful international DP convention! Did get to talk w/Andy on the phone.

Shame on Martin to have missed the thing! 
Next time Martin! Absolutely.
L,
D :shock:


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2004)

Its just such a fucked up world we live in. I mean people like the ones who were caught on Dateline, are the way they are for a reason. Its not like they were born perverts or rapists or whatever. There is a reason as to why they are how they are and i think that if more people could get help & could be guided in the right direction, there would be less people like this. Everyone is born innocent, its your environment that can corrupt you and i know this from seeing it on a first hand basis.

True story, this kid used to live up the street from me, He wasn't a bad kid i don't think, but his father sold drugs, his older brother sold drugs, even his mom sold drugs. And he was exposed to that life at an early age so when he got older what do you think he got involved with??? The last i heard of him, was that he's locked up as an accesory to homicide or something like that. Imagine if from an early age he was pointed in the right direction by someone?? If all you see is negativity, thats how your going to end up living.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2004)

Its just such a fucked up world we live in. I mean people like the ones who were caught on Dateline, are the way they are for a reason. Its not like they were born perverts or rapists or whatever. There is a reason as to why they are how they are and i think that if more people could get help & could be guided in the right direction, there would be less people like this. Everyone is born innocent, its your environment that can corrupt you and i know this from seeing it on a first hand basis.

True story, this kid used to live up the street from me, He wasn't a bad kid i don't think, but his father sold drugs, his older brother sold drugs, even his mom sold drugs. And he was exposed to that life at an early age so when he got older what do you think he got involved with??? The last i heard of him, was that he's locked up as an accesory to homicide or something like that. Imagine if from an early age he was pointed in the right direction by someone?? If all you see is negativity, thats how your going to end up living.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

http://perverted-justice.com/


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

http://perverted-justice.com/


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Holy Moly, 
Yes I saw that. That was creepy beyond belief. I was over my friend's house when I saw it, and it was disgusting. That fireman was lying through his teeth, too- you could tell.

Exponentially,
Grant with an "errrr?"


----------



## grant_r (Aug 25, 2004)

Holy Moly, 
Yes I saw that. That was creepy beyond belief. I was over my friend's house when I saw it, and it was disgusting. That fireman was lying through his teeth, too- you could tell.

Exponentially,
Grant with an "errrr?"


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2004)

> Holy Moly,


 :roll:


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2004)

> Holy Moly,


 :roll:


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

In canada where incidentally, the legal age is 14 (i could be wrong...i haven't actually verified this, but this is what i've been told), we have something called "entrapment". The concept of this is that the very people who would have committed the crime, wouldn't have done so had they not been induced to do so by the po-lice. This is most probably a fallacious argument, as these people would have found some other avenue to fulfill their lustful desires, but there is something to this and how it hinges on that fundamental principle of western jurisprudence which bases everything on the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. I used caps there because i feel it has to be shouted sometimes.

Now, i didn't see the show, and so i don't know whether the issue became a legal one or whether it was just to show the dangers of the internet by that harbinger of investigative journalism, Frontline (love the show...love PBS). But if these people were arrested, it sounds like entrapment to me, and i don't think it's right.

I also feel that a lot of people are quick to villify others for thinking of teenagers as sexual objects, when not so long ago 12 year olds were entering into wedlock, and much older men were concubining with much younger girls. i don't mean to suggest that i think it's ok for older men to try to seduce or coerce younger girls into bed or anything, but others shouldn't be so quick to lump these people in the same group as child molestors and the like. I mean, biologically speaking, teenagers are as viable sexually as anyone over the current legal age. The reason society makes the distinction is based on an emotional underdevelopment...and the propensity for teenagers to enter into things in a not-so lucid state of mind.

I just felt that something had to be said to attain balance before this thread turned into a lynching.

s.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

OH BOIIII. :?

sebastian. im not going to get into a debate with you about this. but alot of the things you just said are all the justifications that pedophiles use to guise their intentions. i really dont get on here enough to debate this topic so i would suggest you log onto perverted justice and check out the PJ forums. you can debate this all you want in there.

http://www.perverted-justice.com/

thinking like this is dangerous. not just for the kids.. but for the ones who think this way in the first place. best to be informed.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

well SB,

it's a shame you don't want to debate this on here because i would quite like to.

Again, i didn't see the program so i don't know the specifics. Did the officer actually initiate the whole thing or was it the person who was trying to procure sex from the girl? If it was the man who sought out and suggested it, then i have no problem with it and i think the cops did a good job...but if it was the cop who initiated it...that's entrapment, and i strongly disagree with it.

It's funny because i watched Law & Order last night and it touched on this issue briefly, but in the context of arms dealing. I don't know...call me old fashioned, but i really don't like to see the police having the power to go out and "create" criminals.

anyway...i think this is an interesting topic. i think i'll check out that site you suggested.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Sebastian,
I saw the Law and Order myself last night! Yes a good example. I have no problem with it. Yes, in a court of law here, one can argue "entrapment" and I believe people can be acquitted by using that defense.

However, the reason police use such "sting" operations is that these people who are "forced" to commit crimes have frequently already committed similar crimes. And it is pretty much agreed upon (don't quote me) that pedophilia in particular has a huge recidivism rate... how the heck do you spell that.

Anyway, playing the other side of this, if you were selling black-market guns and someone approached you to buy some, you'd be selling them anyway. If the cops catch you in the act, you're nailed. There really is no other direct way to connect such a crime to an individual, they have to be caught in the act. Better use the cops than civilians to pose as buyers, no?

I find pedophiles and sex offenders particularly vile, and crime in general ... well obviously I'm against it, LOL.

Here's a question then. Taking the "Law and Order" episode as an example. By law, how can we control black market gun sales by not using sting operations? I'm sure there are other ways, but I'm just asking you, as :twisted: avdocate to propoose a plan.

Like selling drugs to minors. Using 8 year old children as "lookouts" in drug deals.... how do you control this. Also, you can't capture a burglar unless s/he is caught in the act or if enough circumstantial evidence is presented.

The law, in theory is indeed meant to promote Innocent Until Proven Guilty. In theory that works pretty well (especially now that we have genetic tesing for rapes, etc.). Even someone arrested for a crime can go to trial and be found innocent (even if they're not).

And the worst case scenario, which gets my goat, is O.J. Simpson walking the streets. I KNOW he murdered 2 people. I watched the entire trial on TV (going through a rather bad depression). He was also found guilty in CIVIL court... owes money to both victims' families.

Curious though. If you had a 12 year old daughter (I didn't see that special either) who was "chatting" with a rapist disguised as a 13 year old boyfriend (internet anonymity), whose true identity is a 25 year old rapist or pedophile, how would you react if your daughter was abducted and raped? How could it have been prevented in this new age of technology.

True, in the past, humans lived to be 30 and married at 12. That doesn't happen today. It's a different world. I needn't go into all that.

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Hmmm, perhaps this is the key to the sting operation. It acts essentially and hopefully as a deterrent. sp! I can't spell anymore.

Criminals KNOW there are cops out there posing as criminals, and there are very specific transactions that need to take place and be witnessed for the criminal to be indicted.

The knowledge that they could get caught in a transaction is hopefully one way to cut down on illegal activities.

Crime will always exist, but if we don't have "Law and Order", how do we keep law abiding civilians protected.

One thing though. I think prostitution (involving legal adults) should be legalized. As in The Netherlands. Who gives a hoot about that, just don't spread AIDS and STDs for goodness sake.

Also, innocent people don't commit crimes "by accident". There's something odd about that concept. Really, if one knows the law, one doesn't engage in criminal behavior without consequences. Everyone knows that, unless one is legally incompetent/insane, etc.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

d,

you know, i actually seem to be completely unable to muster any viable defence to my argument in this case and so, concede defeat.

I just find the idea of far reaching police powers unnerving, and i find the idea of entrapment quite sickening. But i suppose, given the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence and all that...as long as we stick with these rights i don't have a problem with it. I mean...you're quite right. if anyone were to abduct my daughter, i'd most likely find the person, torture him for about a year with a very dull pencil, before i killed him, and then urinate on his grave; so it does seem a little hypocritical for me to be castigating the law for taking itself one step further.

i suppose i'd feel more comfortable if the cops were using a younger age as the "undercover bait". i feel quite justified in loathing anyone who wishes to do anything sexual with a child. but when you get into the teenage years, that loathing isn't quite as pronounced for me personally.

i don't know...i hate it when i try to make a point and i reread it and even i think it sounds flawed. to be honest, i actually did agree with what the cops did in that Law & Order episode. it was all a very half-hearted argument on my part to begin with. i'll blame it on the dp.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> i suppose i'd feel more comfortable if the cops were using a younger age as the "undercover bait". i feel quite justified in loathing anyone who wishes to do anything sexual with a child. but when you get into the teenage years, that loathing isn't quite as pronounced for me personally.
> 
> i don't know...i hate it when i try to make a point and i reread it and even i think it sounds flawed. to be honest, i actually did agree with what the cops did in that Law & Order episode. it was all a very half-hearted argument on my part to begin with. i'll blame it on the dp.


Don't worry about what you wrote, I can't type anymore because of the DP, LOL. I swear I type the completely wrong word, every THIRD word.

They do use young "undercover bait" sometimes in underage drinking stings, and there aren't always happy endings. I don't know the law on this, but how is this different? The younger individual is in essense "deputized" by the authorities, so if a bartender sells liquor to an underaged "undercover" individual, in a sense you could still call it entrapment. But the bartender either didn't care, was careless, wasn't paying attention, BUT you must ask for proof of age when selling alcohol. It is the LAW.

If you watch enough Law and Order, and read about forensics, which I love  you'll see stories "ripped from the headlines" wherein young undercover kids are killed or worse in the "the line of duty."

I'd rather have an undercover detective who has been trained as a police officer to do these stings. And these things have to be done by the book, just as it was on that L&O episode. The guys recording the transaction in the van have to hear certain words exchanged or there is no basis for an arrest, and the police put themselves in danger every time they do this.

Bottom line, if you're going to do something illegal, expect some consequences, no matter how you're "caught."

A very sad, but powerful character study, about a man who embezzles millions for his gambling addiction is "Owning Mahowney." It is based on a true story -- happened in Canada. The authorities had to follow this guy for quite some time before they caught him. It's worth a rent. Good acting and you'll see another sting in action. You have to ask yourself, how else do you catch such a person.

I like what you said re: if a child of yours was attacked by an internet predator. Again, how could a child entrap someone with the intelligence of a detective? Why put a child through that? The scary thing is, on the internet, we can be whoever we wish.

The Law has to keep up with the times, strange days as these are.

I love forensics and crime. I'll discuss this anytime Sebastian. Feel better soon.

Best,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Also, just another thought. How in the world could someone "use" a 13 year old to catch an internet predator. That would be horrifying. How many parents would allow their child to do such a thing, and again, how would a child know how to play to the psychology of the predator?

Also, would anyone dare set up a meeting with a predator and a 13 year old. THAT is illegal, even for the cops to do. It's compeltely unnacceptable to the best of my knowledge. I'm ceratin there are stories where young kids recognized they've been bamboozled and tell their parents and a sting is set up that way, but with so much police back-up it would virually guarantee the child's safety, which could then tip off the predator.

Bottom line. Commit a crime, do the time. Even so, I think overall the US Justice system is as fair as it can be, flaws and all. Every criminal is given an attorney, court-appointed if he/she can't pay for one. And I'm certain one can argue "entrapment". Didn't John DeLorean get acquitted of a cocaine sting? He was guilty as sin.

In theory, justice bends over backwards to protect the innocent. Granted no system is perfect. But again, I have no problem using a sting operation where it is suspected that an individual has committed the crime before. Witnesses are not reliable, and many witnesses to drug/gun deals, gang murders, have their lives threatened.

We have a police force to protect us. And firement who go into burning buildings. The idea behind it is these individuals KNOW the cost of their risk, know they could die, but they've signed up for it. And a criminal knows what s/he's doing.

If I've said anything stupid, someone correct me 

Best,
D


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2004)

Not stupid, but just not all the facts.

They didn't use a real 13 yr old....that WOULD be horrible! They had people posing as teens, logging into chat rooms, establishing relationships, etc....like me pretending to know rap and street talk, lol...

the operatives were lying, and the people all getting to know one another, and they can't see each other except if they send photos, so they send a photo of a teen model and say they're all made up and look older than they are, etc... then when the guy agreed to meet the "kid" they were lured into the sting.

Peace,
J


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> They didn't use a real 13 yr old....that WOULD be horrible!


No agreed, that would be awful, but Sebastian was arguing that a real victim SHOULD be used. And I think Sebastian feels there is too much "Big Brother" policing. Not sure.

The only time I think I heard of a young girl actually invovled in capturing her own predator, was on Dateline or something. The girl was bright enough to be suspicious (I forget all the details) and God Bless 'er, told her Mom and/or Dad that a "boy" she was chatting with on the net wanted to meet.

Subsequently there was a sting operation she participated in with her parents' consent. She merely showed up,and the predator was caught. I believe she CHOSE to do this though the police weren't too thrilled. I think she only was dropped off at a mall (in plain view of the cops who were hidden), the guy showed up, and the cops nailed him.

The danger of that Sebastian is young girls, even young boys, can be snapped up in an instant, in broad daylight, in front of witnesses. Again, a criminal deserves to be caught. And I'd gather if the guy shows up that indicates "intent" to commit the crime.

In the Law and Order episode I believe the crime was committed? Money exchanged hands and the exchange was recorded on tape.

Oooo, I love crime drama 
L,
D :shock:


----------

