Lexington Man Arrested in Internet Pr...

Lexington Man Arrested in Internet Predator Sting

There are 33 comments on the WLTX Columbia story from Jul 27, 2007, titled Lexington Man Arrested in Internet Predator Sting. In it, WLTX Columbia reports that:

The Attorney General's Office announced Thursday that a 22-year-old man was arrested in an undercover internet sting conducted by the Lexington County Sheriff's Department.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WLTX Columbia.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Bill Joel

Quitman, AR

#1 Jul 28, 2007
This is a messed up case just like the one in spartanburg. The police got the information in an illegal way. Therefore, they should be prosecuted.
biker

Kuwait

#3 Jul 30, 2007
chuck in lex sc wrote:
<quoted text> ok billy i dont mean to take thier side but wtf is the diff man this stupid asshat thought he was talking to a 13 yr old i dont care how they got him if you showin ya stuff and talkin sex to my 13 yr old you better hope that its the police that get you and not me or my friends
Amen brother. The cops would be his best choice if it came down to facing me or the cops. Pull it out and I'll tie it to my bike and let it rip.
biker

Kuwait

#4 Jul 30, 2007
Just let the other inmates that have little girls know what he did and they will take care of his azz. Let him get a fathers justice. He will never have anything to ever show again. Sick azz people.

BWG

“Cogito ergo sum”

Since: May 07

Irmo

#6 Jul 30, 2007
Gee, your're concerned about the rights of a pervert. How noble of you. I'm sure the ACLU loves people like you. It's illegal to send someone you think is a teenager pictures of yourself performing sexual acts. Teenagers who are minors are being protected from these predators by law enforcement officers who pose as potential victims. The accused gets a lawyer and a trial. If the conducts cops conducted their investigation in an illegal manner, the case gets tossed out.
If you have a problem with busting pervs, before they arrange a meeting with some teenager, then I suggest you get some mental health care.
Judgment Day

Sheridan, AR

#7 Aug 4, 2007
To whom did he do this too?? I think what he did was wrong, no question, but what was the supposed 13 year old doing in an adult chat room in the first place?? Where were the parents?? Filter your computers so they can't go into the chat rooms..Accountability in both cases. If this guy set up a meeting to see the gal I'd say there might be something there. I don't think he did. Or did he??
Have you ever surfed the net and see what pops up on your screen?? Mis-spell one word and I asure you you will see sometimes worse things than this clown ever did. Filter your computers.
Judgment Day

Sheridan, AR

#8 Aug 4, 2007
Bill Joel wrote:
This is a messed up case just like the one in spartanburg. The police got the information in an illegal way. Therefore, they should be prosecuted.
I agree with you. If some of these folks had they're way we wouldn't need a justice system of any kind. Just hang everyone that is accused of anything. IE: The Duke fella's...
DSS Negligence

Greenville, SC

#10 Aug 12, 2007
We are disappointed that DSS wasn't responsible enough to take this little girl out of this abusive environment. Sometimes just turning custody over to the grandparents is just a front and the child remains in the same threatening environment.
LexUSC

Swansea, SC

#11 Aug 12, 2007
Know what the difference between an adult and a 13 year old child? The adult knows better! What can be so sexually appealing about a 13 year old girl that would make a man want to continually talk explicitly on the internet? This entrapment excuse is BS. I think all these people who want to say the kids are doing this on purpose are guilty of the same dirty little things they are trying to defend. If any man or woman ever did this to my kids, they would not get a chance to live to regret it!!!
LexUSC

Swansea, SC

#12 Aug 12, 2007
Judgment Day wrote:
To whom did he do this too?? I think what he did was wrong, no question, but what was the supposed 13 year old doing in an adult chat room in the first place?? Where were the parents?? Filter your computers so they can't go into the chat rooms..Accountability in both cases. If this guy set up a meeting to see the gal I'd say there might be something there. I don't think he did. Or did he??
Have you ever surfed the net and see what pops up on your screen?? Mis-spell one word and I asure you you will see sometimes worse things than this clown ever did. Filter your computers.
you must not have any children to be defending these pervs. You cannot always monitor your kids especially if they're at someone else's house. Besides wasn't the "13 year old" an undercover cop? So if the guy knew this "kid" was underage why was he still talking to her? Obvioulsy, he had some devious intent if he kept it up--pardon the pun.
Lonewolf

Batesburg, SC

#13 Aug 12, 2007
Bill Joel wrote:
This is a messed up case just like the one in spartanburg. The police got the information in an illegal way. Therefore, they should be prosecuted.
The police have just resorted to fighting fire with fire that's all.Doesn't matter how they got the info,this guy would have eventually assaulted a child,it's good they stopped him in time.If they have to resort to illegal tactics to stop these low-lifes,so be it.
B Clark

Lexington, SC

#14 Aug 12, 2007
Gross- he was from Gilbert! This is getting too close for me.
Centaur

Gilbert, SC

#15 Aug 13, 2007
What does anyone see in a 13 yr old that would get them sexually aroused.
This guy should be a charter member of Pervert-R-Us. Fifty cents worth of lead projected at 1500feet per second placed in the groin area should take care of this perv.
Privacy Law Violated

Evans, GA

#16 Aug 17, 2007
Ruling could threaten S.C. predator cases
By The Associated Press
SPARTANBURG — A judge’s ruling throwing out some evidence in a case of a man accused of trying to solicit sex from a 13-year-old over the Internet could threaten more than two dozen online predator cases statewide, officials said.
Circuit Judge Mark Hayes ruled Tuesday that investigators incorrectly used a federal law to get the identity of a suspect accused of trying to solicit sex from an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.
The attorney general’s office is appealing the ruling. Spokesman Mark Plowden said the judge’s decision is a blow — but not a fatal one — to the agency’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which has combined with 34 law enforcement agencies across the state to arrest at least 84 people.
“It is a valuable tool that we use, but it’s not the only tool available to us,” Plowden said.
The judge’s ruling also delays a trial for 33-year-old former prosecutor Anthony Clark Odom, who was charged with criminal solicitation of a minor after authorities said he used the Internet to try to entice what he thought was a 13-year-old girl to have sex with him.
Hayes ruled the federal law authorities used to get subscriber information from Odom’s phone company and Internet provider was not supported by South Carolina law, and he wouldn’t allow the information to be used at Odom’s trial.
Prosecutors said they need the information to link Odom to the online chats.
The federal law only requires a judge to sign a document. Hayes ruled state law requires a higher standard, including probable cause and submitting a sworn oath, to obtain similar evidence.
The attorney general’s office has used similar tactics in previous investigations. Of the 84 arrests by the task force, 24 have resulted in guilty pleas, and two defendants have been found guilty at trial, Plowden said.
If the ruling stands, it is more likely to affect cases in which the suspects were arrested before trying to meet the person they were chatting with than cases in which a suspect arranged and traveled to a meeting, Plowden said.
B Clark

Lexington, SC

#17 Aug 19, 2007
Privacy Law Violated wrote:
Ruling could threaten S.C. predator cases
By The Associated Press
SPARTANBURG — A judge’s ruling throwing out some evidence in a case of a man accused of trying to solicit sex from a 13-year-old over the Internet could threaten more than two dozen online predator cases statewide, officials said.
Circuit Judge Mark Hayes ruled Tuesday that investigators incorrectly used a federal law to get the identity of a suspect accused of trying to solicit sex from an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.
The attorney general’s office is appealing the ruling. Spokesman Mark Plowden said the judge’s decision is a blow — but not a fatal one — to the agency’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, which has combined with 34 law enforcement agencies across the state to arrest at least 84 people.
“It is a valuable tool that we use, but it’s not the only tool available to us,” Plowden said.
The judge’s ruling also delays a trial for 33-year-old former prosecutor Anthony Clark Odom, who was charged with criminal solicitation of a minor after authorities said he used the Internet to try to entice what he thought was a 13-year-old girl to have sex with him.
Hayes ruled the federal law authorities used to get subscriber information from Odom’s phone company and Internet provider was not supported by South Carolina law, and he wouldn’t allow the information to be used at Odom’s trial.
Prosecutors said they need the information to link Odom to the online chats.
The federal law only requires a judge to sign a document. Hayes ruled state law requires a higher standard, including probable cause and submitting a sworn oath, to obtain similar evidence.
The attorney general’s office has used similar tactics in previous investigations. Of the 84 arrests by the task force, 24 have resulted in guilty pleas, and two defendants have been found guilty at trial, Plowden said.
If the ruling stands, it is more likely to affect cases in which the suspects were arrested before trying to meet the person they were chatting with than cases in which a suspect arranged and traveled to a meeting, Plowden said.
STFU!!! Quit plastering your support for Odom and other pervs everywhere. You : A) must be Odom or B) must be guilty of doing the same thing. I wish there was a delete button for people like you!!!
George

India

#19 Aug 22, 2007
My experience with online chat:

I was once talking online and came across a person. I started talking and the person by saying hi and how are you, we talked for few minutes about general things and i said i am 30 and old. The person told me that she is very attracted to older guys and she literally said she had sex with guys way older than me and i am perfect for her age and then she said she is 12 years old. I doubted the way the she was behaving and chatting, then i looked at that person's profile and the age says 115 years (One hundred and fifteen). Then immediately i only one thing came to my mind that either that person is a cop or dateline guy acting as a 14 year old. I thought i would chat for few more minutes as i was curiuos to know after seeing so much drama on Dateline NBC (I was not 100% sure at this time). So i started talking in a very friendly and completely non sexual manner as a new tenant, i was asking about the school and home work and family. This person suddenly started talking about sex and i was then 100% sure that it was a fake person. I still prolonged talking and avoided the other person's sexual referrings. At one point this person seriously tells me that i don't like her and i am stupid to ignore sexual referrings. I still ignored the sexual chat and suddenly this the fake person adds my yahoo id with out my consent. After a long chat, They way the person chat and behaves, It was very clear that they do start the sexual referrings and make some percentage of people to think in their line.
A smart person would make it out that a 12 - 14 year girl can never talk that way and actually encourage a 30/40/50/60 year old guy to talk about sex and meeting for sex . A confused or absent minded person may slip his tongue/fingers and fall in line or trap or watever you smart people call it. A Serious pedophile would persue the opportunity pro-actively.
It is a very thin line to judge, atleast for me an average person.
karenc

Encino, CA

#22 Oct 5, 2007
the way these stings are happening i believe we are going to have many innocent men in prison. You get more time for talking to a minor than you do for molesting a child. Who pays for the cost, the taxpayers. I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF CLEANING THE WORLD OF PERVERTS, but I can still see a lot od inocent people getting 10 yrs. or more.Is this justice?
SC C

Sumter, SC

#23 Jan 30, 2008
I agree. The way they are going after these men for sex is wrong. Because if a teenager wants sex with an adult, they are going to say they are at least 18 yr of age. If chat lines are so bad, why are parents allowing kids to chat on line.
nonconformist

Chesterfield, MO

#24 Feb 8, 2008
he believed that this "chatter" was a 13year old girl. He wanted to meet this "13 year old girl"
I'm gald this "girl" was realy a cop. If it had been a real 13yo girl that would have been a tragedy. We need more officers in these chatrooms acting like little boys and girls so we can get more of these people off the streets. I have been in chatrooms and as soon as i see that the chatter is under 18 i end all posts no matter the nature of the convo. What business does an adult have chatting with a teenager
nonconformist

Chesterfield, MO

#25 Feb 8, 2008
karenc wrote:
the way these stings are happening i believe we are going to have many innocent men in prison. You get more time for talking to a minor than you do for molesting a child. Who pays for the cost, the taxpayers. I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF CLEANING THE WORLD OF PERVERTS, but I can still see a lot od inocent people getting 10 yrs. or more.Is this justice?
These "victims" of these stings are actively trying to get with minors, plain and simple. These cops posing online as minors to catch these pedophiles before they molest a child. These "innocent men" are trying to solicit sex from a minor. they believe they are talking to a child and they say that its not fair for the police to decieve people like that. i say more police are needed online in this way
unlawful

Hayward, CA

#26 Apr 8, 2008


THERE IS NO VICTIMS, AND THEY HAVE TO STAY ON THE REGISTRY FOR LIFE, THAT IS JUSTICE, PLEASE.SOME OF THESE MEN ARE SOLDIERS , ALONE, AFTER COMING HOME AND MISS THERE FAMILY ,AFTER THEY HAVE WENT TO WAR FOR US FOR OUR FREEDOM AND THIS IS WHAT THEY DO TO THEM .NOT ALL OF THEM ARE
SEX OFFENDER,THIS IS NOT A COMPLETED CRIME NO VICTIM.I BELIEVE THAT THE PREDATOR SHOULD PAY FOR THERE CRIMES , BUT THE POLICE IS LURKING THEM TO BREAK THE LAW . THAT ISNT RIGHT AND FOR SURE NOT JUSTICE. IT IS ENTRAPMENT.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gilbert Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Behind the Illegal Alien Invasion of 2014 Sat Vote For Trump 14
Vote For Donald Trump Fri Vote For Trump 7
Rev Jerry Falwell Endorses Trump Fri Vote For Trump 2
Rev Franklin Graham Sides With Trump Fri Vote For Trump 7
News Severe weather threatens tornadoes, floods alon... Feb 4 Gena 1
Review: Custom Vibrations (Nov '12) Jan 26 Micheal 3
News Holderman resettles in Lexington residence (Jul '06) Jan '16 justbeingme 33
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gilbert Mortgages