Maui Democrat says online sting creat...

Maui Democrat says online sting creates sex crime - News

There are 134 comments on the Honolulu Star-Bulletin story from Apr 3, 2009, titled Maui Democrat says online sting creates sex crime - News. In it, Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports that:

WAILUKU>> State Rep. Joe Bertram has argued a friend caught in an Internet predator sting should not be sent to prison for an "imaginary crime." Bertram spoke yesterday in support of Mark Marcantonio, 52, of Maui, who had pleaded no contest to second-degree electronic enticement of a child.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Honolulu Star-Bulletin.


Kaneohe, HI

#117 Apr 5, 2009
I realize that I cannot convince you or anyone that has their mind made up, maybe has children, or just don't like predators and all the above. However, I believe this closes the mind on injustices to others. I am not for the bad guy, but against a bad law. While you admit that there are thousands of predators out there, the police do not go after and intercept them. They manufacture their own. They set up a site and do their own enticing. When you say it's OK for a "law" agency to lie and deceive, or any Govt. agency, you've lost me. A law built on lies should not stand. Yes, our courts, judges, and prosecutors all give it their stamp of approval. This naturally boggles my (limited) mind. How can something so wrong be right.
Wake Up

Princeville, HI

#118 Apr 5, 2009
Wake up!!! The people being caught by the "manufacture" police ARE the predators. Those ARE the guys the police are "going after" and "intercepting." NO sites are being set up....The only sites being used are the one already available and being currently used by the self same church-going, family-oriented, law-abiding PEDOPHILES!!!

It's ok for a law agency to lie and decieve because they are doing it to pedophiles like the 50-year-old child molestor who is doing the same thing to procure his juvenile victims!!! It's called fighting fire with fire......

Honolulu, HI

#119 Apr 6, 2009
It's ok for a law agency to lie and decieve because they are doing it to pedophiles like the 50-year-old child molestor who is doing the same thing to procure his juvenile victims!!! It's called fighting fire with fire......

"fishing" for crimes is unconstitutional in every state of the union, supreme court rulings on the matter make it abudantly clear. Strange that fishing for crimes is suddenly okay if the cop is on a computer and not on the sidewalk. BTW, if the cops can manufacture the situation, whose to prove they don't manufacture the offense?
The Truth

Pearl City, HI

#120 Apr 6, 2009
Listen people, in order to have a civil conversation we can't keep arguing about different issues.

No one is arguing that the seriousness of abuse isn't real. The discussion centers around the conduct of police and whether they are allowed to do "whatever it takes" to get an arrest.

The discussion has evolved into more than just whether or not these crimes are happening. It is not in dispute that far more heinous crimes are occurring. In the time we have debated this issue for the past several days, even more headlines have been made in the arrest of adult men talking to juvenile women. This has got to stop.

If your desire is to truly see these types of crimes stopped and the perpetrators put in jail, where are the REAL criminals? Why are there no headlines about them? I don't think any of you could answer that question honestly without giving up your position.

The moment you disregard the rule of law, tyranny is the end result. It does not matter the cause, or the intent, the end NEVER justifies the means.

You cannot do a wrong thing to get a result that's "right". If you truly want to see these crimes curbed, re-direct funding to intercepting communications from known (or suspected) predators. Stop wasting tax payer money trapping a total imbecile (because that's what you are if you are arrested for talking to a police officer) when he is not your problem.

Re-write the law to exclude law enforcement from trolling for "prospects" and force law enforcement to go after real criminals. The technology is there to achieve this, the crime is definitely occurring out there, and the public outcry is definitely interested in seeing this curbed. None of this can be accomplished with the way the law is written and how the enforcement programs are being run.

Case rests.

Honolulu, HI

#121 Apr 6, 2009
I want the police to use everything at their disposal to set up, catch, and expose pedophiles. Our problem is that the judges are too lenient on these creeps. If someone tells you they are thirteen years old and you as an adult continue the discussion, then I want the cops to do everything they can to bury you. Not treat you, not counsel you, but put you in a little cage for the rest of your sick life. The judges let us down every day.

Honolulu, HI

#122 Apr 6, 2009
stumpy makes sense here
Da real Truth

Honolulu, HI

#123 Apr 6, 2009
How can the cops "intercept" the communications from pedophiles that work under the cover of anonymity??? THAT is the reason for the cops using the same anonymity to catch these creeps. Who are the "known or suspected" predators???

The "manufacture" police STILL follow strict rules when doing these cases. Your idea that cops do "what ever it takes" is totally false.

Your idea that the suspects in these cases (law-abiding, church-going, family-oriented) are "total imbeciles" is also false. These guys are accountants, college professors, military officers, religious leaders, lawyers....the list of very intelligent, driven, high functioning "imbeciles" goes on and on.

It IS this person who IS our problem...

ALL investigations and arrests are above board...the proof is in the pudding...look at ALL the convictions.

The technology is "there" but it is illegal to arbitrarily use it. THAT would be an abuse of law enforcement power.

Again NO trolling is stated in the story...the guy approached the "girl." No "fishing" is done...because unlike real fish, this 50 year old perv could have "unhooked" himeself at ANY point in the numerous chats or prior to traveling to meet the "girl."

AND... YOU have no way of knowing that this crime is "not being curbed." It can easily be inferred that there are MANY a-scared pedophile out there, afraid to "hookup" on-line for fear of going to prison as a Child Molestor and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.
Da real Truth

Honolulu, HI

#124 Apr 6, 2009
The real truth is.....this law is GREAT and it IS working. The cops ARE catching "REAL criminals." There are no imagined civil rights or "tyranny" issues. The pedophiles ARE being caught and the others ARE scared....
Da real Truth

Honolulu, HI

#125 Apr 6, 2009
"Case rests"
The Truth

Pearl City, HI

#126 Apr 6, 2009
Lets take your last minute arguments point by point, since you make at least an honest attempt to argue your points.
1. Intercepting communications is very simple for the task force investigators. Once a suspected predator has been uncovered, simply reach out to Yahoo, MSN, or AOL for permission to turn over records. Almost ALL of these companies will certainly turn over records without a subpoena or court order. A court order is not required for these companies to monitor communications on their own network. Sufficient case law exists to support this. The "anonymity" argument you make is very flawed and elementary since you don't understand even basic Internet concepts. Suffice it to say that it is VERY difficult to remain anonymous on the Internet when law enforcement makes a few phone calls.
2. Law enforcement have gone above and beyond in some cases reported recently. One case had the investigators communicating for 7 MONTHS with a person before he agreed to meet. What were they talking about for 7 months? Why did the law enforcement spend so much time and effort on one person? If this person was so much of a sexual deviant, why did they not meet much much sooner than this? The answers to these questions lie in the "pudding" as you call it.
3. They may be educated imbeciles but any grown man who agrees to meet with a minor over the internet (whether sex is the intent or not) is in fact, an imbecile.
4. You cite the overwhelming number of convictions over the years as evidence of impeccable and "above-board" investigations, yet very few (if any) of these cases ever went to trial. Meaning that the "above board" investigation was never entered into public record. You cannot, and you sound very foolish in assuming so, say with ANY certainty what the content of the investigation was in these cases. Nor can you begin to even remotely judge that they were done "above board". How can you possibly look at the smear campaign that one such person receives after being arrested and say that there is any fairness at all? Guilty until proven innocent is the prevailing law in these kinds of cases. Today's bloodlust and "catch a predator" prime time phenomenon GUARANTEES that *anyone* charged with electronic enticement is tried, and convicted by the media long before they ever step foot in a courtroom. So don't be naive and say that these were all above-board and that the only reason they plead guilty was because the police did such a good job. NOBODY wants their name constantly dragged in the mud, what kind of circus would the media make out of an actual TRIAL? It would be a sick joke of justice, if there ever was one.
The Truth

Pearl City, HI

#127 Apr 6, 2009
5. The technology is there, and can be wielded without a violation of privacy or right to search and seizure. Your 4th amendment understanding is limited at best, since you are not familiar with case law dealing with privacy and computer networks. It has been ruled that the data flowing through a data network is NOT protected by the same privacy laws that govern your letters, or your telephone calls. ISP's and other service providers have a right (and some believe a duty) to monitor and cooperate with law enforcement (with or without subpoena, wiretap, or search warrant orders).
6. If there is no "trolling" being done, then how else would you explain not one but several investigations that lasted nearly a year? Or are you saying that a person would NEVER yield despite months and months of nagging, persuasion, and coercion? I'm sorry but every person has their limits, and if a police officer has to spend more than a few hours/days with a subject, they are clearly not as "ready" to commit the crime as you indicate them to be.
7. Finally, regarding the effectiveness of the investigations please tell me how a real hardcore pedophile is affected by "average joes" being arrested for victimless crime? While someone else goes into the slammer for a victimless crime, they are still free to abuse, rape and troll for new victims. Do you really call that effective? If it was such a great deterrent then where are the headlines and the statistical data to show the enforcement efforts?
You really can't expect people to buy your over-broad and hyper-realisitc generalizations. The emotion in your post overshadows any logic you present, and therefore disqualify your claims. Good luck next time.

Waipahu, HI

#129 Apr 6, 2009
1. How is the perp "uncovered?" You make it sound so easy....It is even MORE obvious that YOU do not understand basic internet and law enforcemewnt concepts. When you contact Yahoo or other servers, they are required to let the subject of said subpeona to know of that fact!!! Thus WARNING them!!! AND the information provided by Yahoo, etc. is only the I.P. address. A group of numbers. It does NOT give the identity of the perp behind the computer doing the actual chatting. The I.P. address is to a location, a house that is filled with people. Usually the family members of law-abiding, church-goers. WHO was doing the chatting??? Thus it IS very easy to be anonymous.

2. The ONLY reason that law enforcement waits so long is for the aforementioned reason....It takes old fashion leg work to uncover who this perv's not all sitting behind a coputer and making "phone calls." They need to be sure that it's not an 8-year-old they are chatting with. It may take many, many months or years.

3. You called the pervs imbeciles as a way to belittle law enforcement. When in fact these pervs are very smart. They get caught because (and I know you hate this) law enforcement is SMARTER.

4.They plead guily...because they ARE. By now, even YOU should know that I DO have 1st hand knowledge of these investigations. It is YOU who is foolish to think that I don't. At least 3 individuals HAVE gone to trial and have been CONVICTED!!! Not because of some dumb T.V. show. But because of GOOD evidence!!!

5.What data??? The best info you can get is an I.P. address. See above.

6. Again...I.D. of the perv....PLUS law enforcement gives the perv MANY chances to back out. MANY chances....THAT'S ALSO WHY IT TAKES SO LONG....The perv cannot help his desires and in effect, hangs himself. The length of the chats indicated the pervs strong desire. He never gives up. Duh.......

7. Like I said YOU have NO statistics. Period!!! How do YOU know that no hard core pedophiles have already been caught??? At least 6 of them in Hawaii were diagnosed by Doctors to by bonafide pedophiles. One scared the Doctor so much that she recomended to the court that he get the maximum sentence. He tortured small animals as a child, frequented Thai and Philipine brothels for juveniles, and showed up to the meet with a 14-year-old with a machete in his back seat!!!

You really can't expect people to buy your over-broad and hyper-realistic lies do you??? The lack of knowledge of the facts overshadows any illogic you spew forth and therefore disqualify your rants. God luck at trying to convince the people with your matter-of fact b.s.
Als Bar and Grill


#130 Apr 6, 2009
What if it was your daughter, Joe???????? Brilliant answer by a typical politician!!!!!!!! Who is this oaf????????

Honolulu, HI

#131 Apr 6, 2009
WorstJudgesin Nation wrote:
Another shining example of democrats offer to the public...
Yeah, bring back Galen Fox and Congressman Foley and Senator Craig and Brian Blundell and ...

Honolulu, HI

#132 Apr 6, 2009
Oh, wait a minute. They are all Republicans.

Honolulu, HI

#133 Apr 6, 2009
I was "approached" online by a thirteen year old girl, who said I had contacted her. I told her I hadn't and that I was a lot older than thirteen. She insisted on repeatedly messaging me and asking personal stuff, and I repeatedly told her to stop it or ignored it completely. Then one day a man contacted me and said he was her father and boy I was in trouble, blah, blah. I told him to P*ss Off or call the cops. I never heard anything about it again and wonder if it was a set-up for blackmail, a sting, or whatever.

Honolulu, HI

#134 Apr 7, 2009
I have no idea why men are still doing this.

Honolulu, HI

#135 Apr 8, 2009
Uhh...ok, "odling a girl or staring down a co-worker" is not illegal, until it becomes a constant, then it becomes sexual harassment or what some call stalking...get real
disagree wrote:
<quoted text>
YES- Imaginary-although repulsive there was no real crime commited. The "thought" police are the most dangereous!!!
How many times have you daydreamed of cheating on your partner or just wanting to punch out the idiot you work with. Ogling a girl or staring down a co-worker is not illegal. Up to that point it's only a thought, a fantasy unless you go through with it.
Just like these people who chat with others. There is no crime until something is commited. Just showing up is not a crime-yet. Up to that point it's still just a fantasy, dream or hope.
Careful how you respond to me or the "thought" police could be waiting for you too.

Honolulu, HI

#136 Apr 8, 2009
I think "informal" harassment is very common out here. I hear about it all the time.

Albuquerque, NM

#137 Apr 8, 2009
Check out the Hawaii GOP's radio ad....pretty powerful.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Kahului Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Joe Groomes (Mar '17) Aug '17 Nancy Groomes 2
Pukalani Music Selection (Sep '12) Jul '17 Musikologist 14
Kula Music Thread (Dec '14) Apr '17 Musikologist 6
Kihei/Wailea House Rental Sleep 8 // Dec 17- Ja... (Mar '17) Mar '17 sherrykate 1
Old town Paia (Jan '17) Jan '17 Fukmi 1
News Hawaiian Islands Weather Details & Aloha Paragr... (Feb '16) Feb '16 ben 1
News Hawaiian Islands Weather details & Aloha Paragr... (Jun '15) Jun '15 Treetop rider 2

Kahului Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Kahului Mortgages