MoronLogic

United States

#89 Oct 5, 2012
Protect the Kids Correctl wrote:
<quoted text>
The prosecutors still have to show predisposition that this person would commit the crime. With it being on an adult site, there is no way to prove it. Now as far as continuing the conversation... there are some that are not even predators that just have trouble shutting it off and saying no, because they are already on sexually charged website. It is psychological.... the police are playing into this psychology to induce someone that would not normally behave this way
What in the hell are you talking about-LOL??? Predisposition? Prosecutors only have to prove that the defendant violated a crime(having sexual conversation with minor) within a reasonable doubt. They certainly do not have to prove a predisposition to commit any crime. Using your flawed and simple minded logic, if a priest steals meat from a grocery store but is a vegetarian, they are innocent because they are not predisposed to
either steal or eat meat. Listen carefully you idiot- PREDISPOSTION IS IRRELEVANT.

You are really stupid, aren't you? Your ridiculous psychological excuse is beyond moronic-LOL!!
So using your feeble minded explanation, the person is not a predator if he is sexed up.........it's the evil police that are inducing him to continue the conversation. They can't "shut it off" as you say because they are sexually charged and the police are taking advantage of their psychological state.

How about this-when a person realizes that they are doing something illegal-STOP! Having a raging hard on does not give one immunity to the law, fool!

Do you hold people to any accountability for their actions? If you honestly believe this tripe, you are a blithering pinhead.Regardless of your limited intellect, If you have children I hope that they are never abused by someone who might have been stopped by one of these stings. You can put your head back up your ass now, assclown
talknstang

Pensacola, FL

#90 Oct 5, 2012
predisposition is shown in relation to any inducement by law enforcement, but you are partly correct. What i mean is if the accused initiated any sexual conversation regarding a minor prior to any inducement, then he can be considered predisposed to commit that crime. There is not any related predisposition to commit the crime just because they are on an adult site. And you are definitely right about continuing the conversation, especially if they are having one with whom they believe is an adult. The problem is that they are not determining who is or isnt a pedophile as i stated before. As far as they are concerned, if someone carries on a conversation, they are fair game. Its sad but true. The reason i brought in the financial aspect of these stings is because they are getting grant money to do these stings for no reason. There is an online article saying that they are performing stings for no reason at all, which is wrong in the first place (see Lusby vs. State). Now if they are receiving 400000$ for a sting and these stings cost 75000$ on the high end for a week long operation, where is the rest of the money? so can that be considered some kind of financial reward/incentive? If so, that too is illegal.
Protect the Kids Correctl

Mobile, AL

#91 Oct 5, 2012
talknstang wrote:
predisposition is shown in relation to any inducement by law enforcement, but you are partly correct. What i mean is if the accused initiated any sexual conversation regarding a minor prior to any inducement, then he can be considered predisposed to commit that crime. There is not any related predisposition to commit the crime just because they are on an adult site. And you are definitely right about continuing the conversation, especially if they are having one with whom they believe is an adult. The problem is that they are not determining who is or isnt a pedophile as i stated before. As far as they are concerned, if someone carries on a conversation, they are fair game. Its sad but true. The reason i brought in the financial aspect of these stings is because they are getting grant money to do these stings for no reason. There is an online article saying that they are performing stings for no reason at all, which is wrong in the first place (see Lusby vs. State). Now if they are receiving 400000$ for a sting and these stings cost 75000$ on the high end for a week long operation, where is the rest of the money? so can that be considered some kind of financial reward/incentive? If so, that too is illegal.
Listen, there is no need for name calling.... Trying being a little more mature when speaking to people. I have not called you a single name or belittled you at all. It seems that name calling is a last resort for you and I don't appreciate it and neither do any of the other viewers.
Law enforcement has to provide a reason why they are targeting a specific group (in this case MEN on craigslist) and also have to have to give reasoning why they went after specific person. There is no logical predisposition trapping people on an ADULT WEBSITE.
Answer me this question: Why would a "pedophile" be searching on and ADULT website for children. It makes absolutely no sense. One of my favorite qutes that I have seen used a couple times says: ITS LIKE TAKING A VEGAN TO STEAKHOUSE AND AND MAKING HIM EAT A STEAK SALAD BECAUSE IT HAD THE WORD SALAD IN IT.
Law enforcement and the prosecuting attorneys have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person was specifically on that ADULT website to look for children to prey on.
If this sting was done correctly, law enforcement would hang out on sites where children hang out. The predators are there. Those are the people that deserve to rot in a prison and not a guy on an ADULT website who got a rogue itch in his pants.
Protect the Kids Correctl

Mobile, AL

#92 Oct 5, 2012
MoronLogic wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the hell are you talking about-LOL??? Predisposition? Prosecutors only have to prove that the defendant violated a crime(having sexual conversation with minor) within a reasonable doubt. They certainly do not have to prove a predisposition to commit any crime. Using your flawed and simple minded logic, if a priest steals meat from a grocery store but is a vegetarian, they are innocent because they are not predisposed to
either steal or eat meat. Listen carefully you idiot- PREDISPOSTION IS IRRELEVANT.
You are really stupid, aren't you? Your ridiculous psychological excuse is beyond moronic-LOL!!
So using your feeble minded explanation, the person is not a predator if he is sexed up.........it's the evil police that are inducing him to continue the conversation. They can't "shut it off" as you say because they are sexually charged and the police are taking advantage of their psychological state.
How about this-when a person realizes that they are doing something illegal-STOP! Having a raging hard on does not give one immunity to the law, fool!
Do you hold people to any accountability for their actions? If you honestly believe this tripe, you are a blithering pinhead.Regardless of your limited intellect, If you have children I hope that they are never abused by someone who might have been stopped by one of these stings. You can put your head back up your ass now, assclown
Listen, there is no need for name calling.... Trying being a little more mature when speaking to people. I have not called you a single name or belittled you at all. It seems that name calling is a last resort for you and I don't appreciate it and neither do any of the other viewers.
Law enforcement has to provide a reason why they are targeting a specific group (in this case MEN on craigslist) and also have to have to give reasoning why they went after specific person. There is no logical predisposition trapping people on an ADULT WEBSITE.
Answer me this question: Why would a "pedophile" be searching on and ADULT website for children. It makes absolutely no sense. One of my favorite qutes that I have seen used a couple times says: ITS LIKE TAKING A VEGAN TO STEAKHOUSE AND AND MAKING HIM EAT A STEAK SALAD BECAUSE IT HAD THE WORD SALAD IN IT.
Law enforcement and the prosecuting attorneys have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that person was specifically on that ADULT website to look for children to prey on.
If this sting was done correctly, law enforcement would hang out on sites where children hang out. The predators are there. Those are the people that deserve to rot in a prison and not a guy on an ADULT website who got a rogue itch in his pants.
Protect the Kids Correctl

Mobile, AL

#93 Oct 5, 2012
sorry talkinstang... I replied to the wrong one
talknstang

Pensacola, FL

#94 Oct 5, 2012
oh i know, lol.....you are correct once again. Obviously there are laws against these types of cimes, but there are no laws that govern how police conduct themselves during sting operations, so they push the boundaries of what they can and cannot do. They have taken it too far in Florida and people are speaking out finally. Here is a link to the radio show we did last weekend titled "internet sex stings: fact or fiction". i think we might be having a second show coming about how to stop them at some point. i know i will be doing another article titled "Florida sex stings: Crime does pay"

http://www.registrationx.net/
talknstang

Pensacola, FL

#95 Oct 5, 2012
it is obvious that Moronlogic has no clue about subjective and objective entrapment. It is obvious as well that he is not familiar with any of the related case law. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no hard feelings here.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#96 Oct 6, 2012
Will everyone please stop arguing with "MoronLogic" because his name says it all: "Moron Logic". People like "him" are exactly why these stings are so successful. This is why law enforcement can blatantly lie to the public and they believe it. OMG! These men showed up to have sex with a minor! Big deal! That does not make entrapment any more legal.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#97 Oct 6, 2012
MoronLogic I humbly suggest that in the future you refrain from arguing about legal matters in any way, shape or form. When you do so you demonstrate an exceedingly severe lack of knowledge.

Prosecutors have to prove far more than a defendant violated a statute especially when the charges stem from a police sting investigation. The first thing they have to prove is criminal "Intent", one of the pillars of the criminal justice system. Without "Intent", there is no crime. Proving "Intent" in a sting operation is problematic because the prosecution has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have committed the alleged crime with or without police involvement. In other words the prosecution has to prove the defendant was "Predisposed" to commit the crime and would have found or created the means necessary to do so absent police involvement.

Without "Predisposition" to support "Intent" then we are talking about a criminal act that would not have occurred without police involvement and the focus shifts to the actions of the police. Did the police do anything to coerce illegal behavior? If they did then that is called "Inducement" and "Inducement" leads to "Entrapment".

Intent
Predisposition
Inducement
Entrapment

If you still feel the need to argue the law please remember that Google is your friend and that you should consult your friend before posting. Doing so will aid in keeping you from making an a$$ of yourself.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#98 Oct 6, 2012
Smack me daddy! Yes! I'm a bad girl!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#99 Oct 6, 2012
THIS IS PROBABLY A REAL PEDOPHILE AT WORK!!!!! GOD I HOPE NOT!!!!!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/06/14...

YOU PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE THE HECK UP!!!! While these three ring circuses continue, real flesh and blood children are being abducted!!!! Not imaginary ones that are wanting someone to screw their brains out!!!!

IDIOTS!!!!!! Every last one of you!!!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#100 Oct 6, 2012
I will tell everyone what is going to happen. Law enforcement are going to be doing a sting one day and a child is going to get victimized right under their noses while they are shacked up in a house, playing on the internet, and jerking each other off to their own scenarios.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#101 Oct 6, 2012
Yeah I said it! Now what!?
talknstang

Pensacola, FL

#102 Oct 6, 2012
calm down dueprocess, lmao.....and you are absolutely correct Maintaining. Its good to know there are others that actually understand entrapment. The problem with these Florida stings are that the courts seem afraid to recognize and apply the entrapment defense. I have not heard of 1 successful entrapment hearing out of all these arrests in Florida but i have heard many stories and read several chats which are definitely entrapment. Law enforcement officials are lying to the communities making themselves look so good in the process.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#103 Oct 7, 2012
Yeah! That's a bad little girl! Daddy like that! Yummy!

IDIOTS!!!

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#104 Oct 7, 2012
That's right people, here it is "right in your face"! The death of freedom of speech!
MoronLogic

United States

#106 Oct 9, 2012
Maintaining wrote:
MoronLogic I humbly suggest that in the future you refrain from arguing about legal matters in any way, shape or form. When you do so you demonstrate an exceedingly severe lack of knowledge.
Prosecutors have to prove far more than a defendant violated a statute especially when the charges stem from a police sting investigation. The first thing they have to prove is criminal "Intent", one of the pillars of the criminal justice system. Without "Intent", there is no crime. Proving "Intent" in a sting operation is problematic because the prosecution has to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have committed the alleged crime with or without police involvement. In other words the prosecution has to prove the defendant was "Predisposed" to commit the crime and would have found or created the means necessary to do so absent police involvement.
Without "Predisposition" to support "Intent" then we are talking about a criminal act that would not have occurred without police involvement and the focus shifts to the actions of the police. Did the police do anything to coerce illegal behavior? If they did then that is called "Inducement" and "Inducement" leads to "Entrapment".
Intent
Predisposition
Inducement
Entrapment
If you still feel the need to argue the law please remember that Google is your friend and that you should consult your friend before posting. Doing so will aid in keeping you from making an a$$ of yourself.
You obviously considerable knowledge in the realm of legal definitions and process. I admit that I am less knowledgable in this area than you are. I dug around a bit in a bit of autodidactic curiosity. I still don't understand how if someone has a credible defense involving entrapment or lack of intent, they do not take this to trial and let a jury make the decision. Almost all of the 95% of successful pedophile prosecutions plead before trial.

I had been wrongly accused for a misdemeanor domestic issue several years ago. I defended myself through the legal system without legal aid and pleaded not guilty. I knew in my heart that I was innocent and I had faith that the system would vindicate me. The prosectution bluffed me to the very end by making offers and presenting deals. I stood my ground because I was INNOCENT-PERIOD. I would rather go to trial and lose than plea out and indicate that I MIGHT be guilty.

I took it to jury trial and was found innocent. That is how it is done. No plea bargains, no dropped charges in exchange for keeping others, MAKE DEALS!!

But that is what the majority of the accused pedophiles do-plea bargain. With that much at stake-if they are innocent as you state-why not take it to trial-every time? If they meet all of these legal tests as you state-why do they plea out? I will tell you why- they are guilty-they know they are guilty, and their attorney knows that they legal defenses that you claim are viable are not viable at all.

If I had one ounce of defense and I was innocent-I would be sitting in front of a jury trail.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#108 Oct 14, 2012
The reason why most of these men don't take it to trial is because the issue of innocence does not rest on the fact that the defendant did not do anything. The "evidence" strongly suggests that the men were doing something wrong but not illegal and good luck convincing a jury of that since they are being lied to in the first place. The issue of innocence rests on the fact that the police should not be manufacturing "crime" and using sex or the implied promise thereof simply to arrest men for it. These are not issues for the jury because they are matters of law and these cases should never make it to a jury trial but the courts are shirking their responsibilities because the general public has already made them guilty and they want to get reelected.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#109 Oct 14, 2012
Judges take an oath to uphold the constitution no matter what but that is not happening with these cases. These men are being convicted as soon as they get arrested so who would risk twenty years in prison at trial if the judge is not upholding his/her oath? The statistics prove that not too many men would.
MoronLogic

United States

#110 Oct 15, 2012
DueProcessIsDue wrote:
The reason why most of these men don't take it to trial is because the issue of innocence does not rest on the fact that the defendant did not do anything. The "evidence" strongly suggests that the men were doing something wrong but not illegal and good luck convincing a jury of that since they are being lied to in the first place. The issue of innocence rests on the fact that the police should not be manufacturing "crime" and using sex or the implied promise thereof simply to arrest men for it. These are not issues for the jury because they are matters of law and these cases should never make it to a jury trial but the courts are shirking their responsibilities because the general public has already made them guilty and they want to get reelected.
The jury is an independant entity. That is the beauty of our judicial system-with all it's flaws. If a law is unjust or if the jury feels that the state has overstepped it's bounds-in addition to the letter of the law, there is jury nullification. This is the last line of defense for the PEOPLE to stop injustice. You still did not explain why these men are not taking this to trial. No one can MAKE them plea out. No one can force them to make a deal. They and they alone, have the final decision on their course of action. Most of them chose to plea out-WHY? Because they are guilty-period. I would not EVER plea to something that I did not do. With the stakes so high and the spectre of being labeled a sex criminal for the rest of their life-it makes absolutely NO sense to plea out.Our justice system is far from perfect-but I would trust a jury over a plea bargain any time.

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.

Pensacola Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
FL August 23 Florida Primary Election: Will you vote? (Aug '10) 3 hr VET 2,481
casey cannell (Jun '11) Sun Amazing7517 3
What area of Pensacola has newer homes and is a... (Mar '11) Sun Kelly 23
9-11 never forget!! Sep 11 BackatCha 1
Sandy Sansing employs felons (Sep '10) Sep 10 ky horses 24
County stays the course on backyard chicken ban Sep 10 James 8
Man accused of getting into driver's seat of ve... Sep 9 My opinion 1
•••
•••
•••

Pensacola Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Pensacola People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pensacola News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pensacola
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••