How is this not entrapment?
that nigger never sent me my kickstarter mug
>>64715700
I've studied Law (as part of a Journalism degree) part of it included learning about Entrapment and the media.
2 defences exist. "Subjective" and "Objective".
To use the subjective defence the perp must prove they wouldn't have done the crime without my encouragement.
To use the objective test the court would have to decide if my behaviour would have forced the normal law abiding citizen to commit the crime.
I don't think anyone on this show would pass the objective test. The subjective test maybe, providing they turned down initial advances and only gave in after being almost harassed by the honeypots.
>>64715700
Depending on some states, just chatting with a minor is an offense, and sending nudes or pornography can be an offense. Showing up to the house with condoms and etc shows intent. So they are being arrested for those crimes. The Chris Hansen part is just for the show. They were already in trouble before they arrived.
>yfw most of the guys that got caught are not only free but also made some money law sueing the show
>>64716172
>funding kickstarter shit
>>64716778
I'd assume they'd only publish the episodes after a conviction right? If not they deserve it because this is asking for a meaty defamation lawsuit.
>>64715700
because if they had not been the police, the criminal would have committed the crime with no reservations. Check your definition of entrapment and stop posting this shitty bait thread you pedophile.
>>64715700
Even if it is the perps are annihilated because of exposure.
That's the entire point, you might hide behind the letter of the law but having your deeds out in the open like that makes you (and everyone around you) know what kind of disgusting creep you are.
>>64716878
No. The credits tell you what the people are being charged with, I think. They follow it up with "They are presumed innocent until proven guilty".
>>64715700
It often is, which is why these pedos keep getting off. If the cops initiate anything ever, they can cry entrapment and probably get it.
Cops could easily get a warrant and search these guys though, if they were smart, and probably find CP and such. Too bad we never hear about that stuff.
>>64716562
But there's no minor
>>64715700
It was entrapment. That's why nearly everyone on that show got off scott free. You can google the conviction rates from TCAP and most of them got off with the help of a free public defender.
>>64717347
Doesn't matter, Criminal law is a crime against society not against a person. Civil law concerns crimes against individuals.
Entrapment includes being caught in a set-up, illegal situation in which you wouldn't normally participate.
The men on the show willingly showed up to meet the underage kids and suffered the consequences even if it was a set-up
>>64717347
In legal terms this is called a Factual impossibility. This refers to impossibility due to the fact that the illegal act cannot physically be accomplished. However, factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of attempt. Factual impossibility exists when a person's intended end constitutes a crime, but she fails to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to her or beyond her control. Examples of factual impossibility are:
a pickpocket putting her hand in the victim's empty pocket;
an abortionist beginning the surgical procedure on a nonpregnant woman;
an impotent male trying to have nonconsensual sexual intercourse;
an assailant shooting into an empty bed where the intended victim customarily sleeps, or pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun aimed at a person who is present.
Factual impossibility occurs when the actions intended by a defendant are proscribed by the criminal law, but a circumstance or fact unknown to the defendant prevents him/her from bringing about the intended result. Traditional analysis recognizes legal impossibility as a valid defense but refuses to recognize factual impossibility.
>>64717513
another example is to let's say strap yourself with a bomb that is improperly set up so it can't detonate, walking into a crowded area and attempting to detonate it
>>64715700
because no one gives a dry fuck about the rights of pedos
The decoys never mention sex in the online chat. The pedo always mentions it first.
>>64717513
Thanks for this, I always wondered about the whole non-existent minor angle
>>64715700
Not as much as when your mother wrapped her fat legs around me to trap me in when I was ready to cum.
>>64717347
Do you think johns who solicit undercover female officers because they think they're prostitutes also aren't charged with solicitation?
I don't follow this train of thought.
>>64717513
So what if your defense is that you know there was no minor?
>people who still don't understand entrapment think it's entrapment
I really wish this meme would end.
>Undercover cop: Hey man, can you sell me some drugs?
>Drug dealer: OKAY!
>Cop: You're under arrest for selling drugs
>Drug dealer: What? That's entrapment!
>Cop: lol no
Just because a cop is pretending to be somebody else doesn't make it entrapment.
>>64715700
Because the undercover cops posing as children don't actively seek out men in chatrooms, they go into chatrooms with young looking sn's and the pervs are the ones striking up conversations with the undercover cops.
If you get caught stealing a candy bar, is it the store's or candy bar company's fault for you stealing?
educate yourselves pedos/libertarians
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=633
