Video of man caught trying to meet 15 year old for sex

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:12pm

Downlinz wrote: »

It's always funny how much society pleads for understanding and acceptance for psychological disorders like alcoholism, but for another disorder like pedophilia even if someone never acted upon it they are treated like the scourge of the earth. I can't imagine what it's like to have that disorder and those urges, it must be a very desolate and lonely place.

I agree to an extent but because of the danger they pose its better that we "play it safe". Its not like we have to lynch every one of them, prison is a very safe place to keep them.
Alcoholism is treatable, paedophiles will always reoffend.

Grumpypants · 18-02-2013 2:13pm

gallag wrote: »

Why should society care if a child rapist gets attacked? **** him.

Should society care if his car which is clearly shown gets attacked with his grand daughter inside?

We have a trained police force to deal with this not a bunch of idiots with a camera and ambition to one day work for the daily mail.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:13pm

gallag wrote: »

It was a ****ing 61 yo man going to have sex with a child, the law defines that as rape as the child would be easly coerced, you would not let a child make complicated financial deals that could affect the rest of it life. Cant believe people actually have compassion for this scum bag.

We're not defending him at all.
We're defending the fact that two idiots (which one of them is 40 odd from the video) decided to play internet detective to get some views on YouTube.

Wait that came out wrong I mean, it's basically two idiots and people are jumping the gun

Grayson · 18-02-2013 2:13pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If you have sex with someone below the age of consent it is non-consensual.

Do you understand the meaning of the word consent? Is english your first language?

gallag · 18-02-2013 2:13pm

Grayson wrote: »

The verb "To rape" From dictionary.com

to force to have sexual intercourse.

to plunder (a place); despoil.

to seize, take, or carry off by force

So, you're saying he went there to force someone. As in hold them down, possibly beat them etc..

Having sex with someone under the age of consent is rape, that is fact.

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:14pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Most people would agree that statutory rape isn't the same as forced sex.

It doesn't need to be forced to be rape. What if a girl is in a coma or has been drugged?

1ZRed · 18-02-2013 2:14pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think it's still 12 in the Vatican City and some parts of North/South America, no? And I think there's only a handful of countries where it's 13.

Oh dear

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:15pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It doesn't need to be forced to be rape. What if a girl is in a coma or has been drugged?

That would still fall under the law as rape and would not be considered statutory rape.

I think you're mixing someone up with being raped and someone that is too young to give consent but does so anyway (assuming they're not actually kids).

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:16pm

Okay, f**k the idiot who made the video.

He's a journalist and all he does is catch people who try to have sex with 14 year olds (or in this man's case), 15 year olds.

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:17pm

Grayson wrote: »

Do you understand the meaning of the word consent? Is english your first language?

Of course I do. It means to give permission. A 15 year old is not considered old enough by law to consent to sex. What don't you get?

msg11 · 18-02-2013 2:20pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It doesn't need to be forced to be rape. What if a girl is in a coma or has been drugged?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#sec2

(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.

Downlinz · 18-02-2013 2:20pm

On the video, it seems the creators were just playing a fairly commonly played game we did in school. Pretend to be a kid in a seedy chatroom and see how long it takes for someone to look for a meetup or to get you on webcam. (Then pretend to be their dad about to call the police and watch them grovel)

Alarmingly it only took minutes although children actively looking for contact and being poached are very different things.

cloud493 · 18-02-2013 2:20pm

There's a show that does this in the US, to catch a predator I think its called.

Snake Pliisken · 18-02-2013 2:20pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjsufO9hZwo

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:22pm

msg11 wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0010/sec0002.html#sec2

Yes, and its still rape despite not being physically forced. So there are several types of rape.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:23pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Yes, and its still rape despite not being physically forced. So there are several types of rape.

Yes and in this case, using the term "rape" is unfair.
It's like calling the man a pedophile.

It's unfair to rape victims and it's unfair to victims of child abuse.

msg11 · 18-02-2013 2:24pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Yes, and its still rape despite not being physically forced. So there are several types of rape.

Agreed, just thought you asked where the law was about it !

The Barefoot Pizza Thief · 18-02-2013 2:24pm

twinQuins wrote: »

I think the point is that outside of a sufficient investigation we've only these guys' word to go on - what happens when an innocent person is injured or killed because they got it wrong?

Who cares, as long as he isn't a high earning partner of a company with deep pockets.

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:26pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Yes and in this case, using the term "rape" is unfair.
It's like calling the man a pedophile.

It's unfair to rape victims and it's unfair to victims of child abuse.

I'm giving my opinion, just the legal term.

Personally I think that rape is overused. Someone being coerced into giving a handjob is very different from full rape but is given the same name. Its totally wrong and is sexual assault but to call it rape belittles the crime.

gallag · 18-02-2013 2:27pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Yes and in this case, using the term "rape" is unfair.
It's like calling the man a pedophile.

It's unfair to rape victims and it's unfair to victims of child abuse.

Unfair? ??? I cant believe you are defending a 61 yo man who thought he was hooking up with a 15yo girl. ****ing disgusting.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:27pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I'm giving my opinion, just the legal term.

Personally I think that rape is overused. Someone being coerced into giving a handjob is very different from full rape but is given the same name. Its totally wrong and is sexual assault but to call it rape belittles the crime.

I'm very sorry.

I thought you posted something else earlier about statutory rape being the same as raping someone.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 2:29pm

gallag wrote: »

Unfair? ??? I cant believe you are defending a 61 yo man who thought he was hooking up with a 15yo girl. ****ing disgusting.

No, I'm saying using those terms is unfair. Not to him but to people that were abused or raped.

Look, someone that was raped as a kid and sees "61 year old pedophile tried to rape 15 year old" and in reality it was "61 year old creep tried hooking up with a 15 year old" is going to annoy them a bit. It makes light of what happened to that person.

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:29pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm very sorry.
I thought you posted something else earlier about statutory rape being the same as raping someone.

Sorry for the confusion, I meant that legally both are rape. (For right or wrong.)

Grayson · 18-02-2013 2:32pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Of course I do. It means to give permission. A 15 year old is not considered old enough by law to consent to sex. What don't you get?

So, a 15 can give permission. But not legally. So does that permission exist? Is it an imaginary permission. is it a pretend permission. Does it mean they say yes, when they actually mean no?

See, you said

If you have sex with someone below the age of consent it is non-consensual.

personally, I think that younger people may not know what they are doing. But I believe they can. Legally this is still a crime, but it doesn't mean that the 15 year cannot consent to it because they legally can't.

fasttalkerchat · 18-02-2013 2:40pm

Grayson wrote: »

So, a 15 can give permission. But not legally. So does that permission exist? Is it an imaginary permission. is it a pretend permission. Does it mean they say yes, when they actually mean no?

See, you said

personally, I think that younger people may not know what they are doing. But I believe they can. Legally this is still a crime, but it doesn't mean that the 15 year cannot consent to it because they legally can't.

Legally: 15 = Below age of consent = no consent = rape (a type of rape)
Morally: 15 = teenagers can make decisions = consent = no issue other than a poor choice of partner.

When I say morally I mean with minimum moral standards.

J_E · 18-02-2013 2:49pm

Downlinz wrote: »

It's always funny how much society pleads for understanding and acceptance for psychological disorders like alcoholism, but for another disorder like pedophilia even if someone never acted upon it they are treated like the scourge of the earth. I can't imagine what it's like to have that disorder and those urges, it must be a very desolate and lonely place.

Have you seen The Woodsman? It covers this in a very delicate way.

Chuck Stone · 18-02-2013 2:52pm

I think these things are better left to the pros. The pitch-fork people will inevitably hurt the wrong person at some point.

This is why justice is not left in the hands of individuals or groups.

Grayson · 18-02-2013 2:53pm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Legally: 15 = Below age of consent = no consent = rape (a type of rape)
Morally: 15 = teenagers can make decisions = consent = no issue other than a poor choice of partner.

When I say morally I mean with minimum moral standards.

the moral thing is hazy. For hundreds of thousands of years 15 yaer olds had sex. But i will agree that 15 years olds (the vast majority) of them are to immature to know what they're doing. But that doesn't mean no consent exists. Loads of people consent to things without realising the consequences (negative equity anyone?). It's just that below a certain age we absolve them from responsability.

I don't believe that no consent could exist because of their age. I do beleive that a 60yo bloke shouldn't be trying to chat one up either way. And I also think a trial is needed before punishment is given.

seamus · 18-02-2013 2:56pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I think these things are better left to the pros. The pitch-fork people will inevitably hurt the wrong person at some point.

This is why justice is not left in the hands of individuals or groups.

Well the obvious progression is that they will target someone online, find that he's not biting with the 15-year-old line and so rather than leave him alone they will push it up to an 18-year-old and justify it on the basis that the guy is in his sixties so he's still scum.

Then they go to meet him and film him/beat the crap out him, even though the guy has done nothing wrong.

There's also the very good chance that if this kind of video outing of predators becomes a "thing", that at least once the predator will turn up armed, and people will die.

18-02-2013 2:57pm

seamus wrote: »

Very dangerous to post such a video without solid logs of the steps leading up to it and a legal expert to give their opinion on it.

"Entrapment" and "defamation" are the first two words that spring to mind.

This. Was just about to say the exact same.

People should not attempt this, unless they've received special training to do so, have proper documentation, or at least have police backing.

With this video, we don't know if the person pretending the 15 year old girl didn't initiate it. As wrong as it is, and it is, and as disgusting as it is, and it is, unbelievably so, it's not as bad as if the gent was the one doing the grooming.

Somebody posted this definition of rape previously -

Meaning of “rape”.

2.—(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.

Is it me or is that wording particularly unfair? I mean, that act doesn't seem to cover if a woman rapes a man or if a man rapes a man or if a woman rapes a woman. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding it..?

Morag · 18-02-2013 3:01pm

harney wrote: »

It is not legal rape if that is the age of consent, although that doesn't make it any less disgusting.

According to Wikipedia the age of consent in Europe ranges from 13 to 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

But most of those countries have 'sweetheart' clauses that is the age of consent may be 14 if they are are with someone thier age or 2/3 years older but an adult having sex with a 14 year old can still be in trouble legally.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 3:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

With this video, we don't know if the person pretending the 15 year old girl didn't initiate it. As wrong as it is, and it is, and as disgusting as it is, and it is, unbelievably so, it's not as bad as if the gent was the one doing the grooming.

That's worries me a lot.
I mean sure, some creeps out there will target the kids and will try to coerce them. But a lot of the time (in cases like this, where someone is pretending to be the child and is not law enforcement or whatever), it's the "child" that advances it to sex.

And what makes it worse is that because pedophiles (yes I know, wrong word for adults that like teens but let's go with it for ease), are treated as lepers or something, they're going to take the bait and what happens is that one day it won't just be some idiot like the "journalist" looking for publicity or the regular "vigilante on the internet", it'll be some psychopath who got the idea from that video and is waiting to kill the pedophile.

Anyway, yeah I think the article doesn't strictly consider male on male rape as rape and I think it might be under some sort of sexual assault or perhaps buggery? Have no clue about females raping males at all though.

Madam_X · 18-02-2013 3:40pm

gallag wrote: »

Unfair? ??? I cant believe you are defending a 61 yo man who thought he was hooking up with a 15yo girl. ****ing disgusting.

They're not defending him, no matter how much you'd like them to be. They're just using thought rather than a jerked knee.

Kylo Ren · 18-02-2013 3:42pm

krudler wrote: »

wonder what happens if they cross those streams

And imagine a Stay Puft Marshmallow Jimmy Saville!

john_cappa · 18-02-2013 3:49pm

Grayson wrote: »

the moral thing is hazy. For hundreds of thousands of years 15 yaer olds had sex.

Indeed. Given that 10,000 (ish) years ago life expectancy was 20-30 I would say having children as soon as the female body was capable was common. A matter of survival I suppose.

As we have evolved of course and life expectancy has changed the issue of "morals" evolved.

I always lolled at Chris Hansons "too catch a predator" series! "why dont you take a seat over there"! Epic

gallag · 18-02-2013 3:50pm

Madam_X wrote: »

They're not defending him, no matter how much you'd like them to be. They're just using thought rather than a jerked knee.

Jerked knee? 61yo goes to meet 15yo for sex, thats clear cut disgusting.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 3:53pm

gallag wrote: »

Jerked knee? 61yo goes to meet 15yo for sex, thats clear cut disgusting.

I hate to be this person but:

gallag wrote: »

Fantastic work, things like this happening surely plays in the back of pedophiles minds and saves many children being raped.

Here you're comparing the guy to someone that's attracted to kids who haven't reached puberty.

gallag wrote: »

Is that true about age of consent being 12 in the Vatican? And 13 in Spain? Thats disgusting, legal rape.

Here you're claim "legal rape"? Rape isn't legal and saying that you can consent to sex is the same as rape is pretty disgusting to victims of rape.

gallag wrote: »

Why should society care if a child rapist gets attacked? **** him.

This is my favourite. You're decided that someone like the guy in the video is a rapist that attacks children.

These are all knee-jerk reactions and do nothing other than promote a culture where "shoot first and ask questions later" is a good idea

18-02-2013 4:03pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In some European countries, the legal age is 14 so... how is this going to work?

You're scum in these countries but are perfectly normal in these other countries?

I take your point, it can only work if the legal age is consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

However a 61 year old man looking to have sex with a 14 year old kid is someone I'll always consider scum, regardless of the legalities. Morally its all about the power balance, not the law.

Comparing it to older societies doesn't really cut it.

We stopped sending six year old boys up chimneys, stopped enslaving children in sweatshops and paying a pittance to their parents for their labour, stopped (in the West) marrying off girls at age eight. Obviously to further protect a modern concept of childhood, the age of consent was raised to further allow kids room to grow up at their own pace.

It seems these strides to protect modern childhood are now taking a step backwards in terms of the sexualisation of younger tweens and teens, something I hold advertising and clothing companies largely responsible for.

Edited to add: I'm always uncomfortable with people acting as agent provocateur, many times more so if its self appointed guardians of the public morals.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 4:06pm

Candie wrote: »

I take your point, it can only work if the legal age is consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

You're right. I wouldn't call him scum. I'd call him creepy but I suppose the idea is still the same.
If you did watch the video (not saying you didn't or anything), then you probably heard one of the camera men say he's a journalist that films men (like the 61 year old) that shows up looking for sex from kids.

Which was why I said that comment in the first place. People like the cameraman don't care about law. Only what works.
That's what if the age was 18 and the girl 17, they'd still post it on YouTube. Just like if the girl was 12 and the legal age 13, they'd still have done it.

Grayson · 18-02-2013 4:23pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Which was why I said that comment in the first place. People like the cameraman don't care about law. Only what works.
That's what if the age was 18 and the girl 17, they'd still post it on YouTube. Just like if the girl was 12 and the legal age 13, they'd still have done it.

lets face it, that cameraman enjoys going online and pretending to be a 15 year old girl.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 4:24pm

Grayson wrote: »

lets face it, that cameraman enjoys going online and pretending to be a 15 year old girl.

That's libel!
Sometimes it's a 14 year old girl. :pac:

tan11ie · 18-02-2013 4:37pm

Downlinz wrote: »

It's always funny how much society pleads for understanding and acceptance for psychological disorders like alcoholism, but for another disorder like pedophilia even if someone never acted upon it they are treated like the scourge of the earth. I can't imagine what it's like to have that disorder and those urges, it must be a very desolate and lonely place.

Who cares? They are the scourge of the Earth.

Catari Jaguar · 18-02-2013 4:37pm

About time To Catch a Predator idea caught on globally.

Tombi! · 18-02-2013 4:41pm

tan11ie wrote: »

Who cares? They are the scourge of the Earth.

How are they the scourge of the Earth?

Catari Jaguar · 18-02-2013 4:49pm

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

How are they the scourge of the Earth?

Yea, a paedophile isn't the same thing as a child molestor.

Imagine just being a normal guy going about your daily life but being attracted to children through no fault of your own. I would probably castrate myself or worse.

I was watching a human sexuality doc where they did tests on the brain patterns of convicted paedophiles/ ephebophiles (attraction to teen boys) and it showed that the sexual attraction they felt towards explicit pictures of women was the same as they felt towards a picture of a landscape.

They did another test that showed areas in the brain that activate when normal gay/hetero people see a baby or infant. In most "normal" brains the care giving, nurturing, protective receptors instinctively light up but in paedophiles the brain areas associated with sex light up instead. The hardwiring is very conflicting.

18-02-2013 5:02pm

Catari Jaguar wrote: »

I was watching a human sexuality doc where they did tests on the brain patterns of convicted paedophiles/ ephebophiles (attraction to teen boys) and it showed that the sexual attraction they felt towards explicit pictures of women was the same as they felt towards a picture of a landscape.

They did another test that showed areas in the brain that activate when normal gay/hetero people see a baby or infant. In most "normal" brains the care giving, nurturing, protective receptors instinctively light up but in paedophiles the brain areas associated with sex light up instead. The hardwiring is very conflicting.

That sounds like a special kind of hell, but plenty of people with no paraphilias go a lifetime without acting on their sexual urges, difficult as that might be, and it doesn't cause them to sexually offend.

Convicted child sex offenders have a surprisingly low reoffending rate. I mean that in a comparative sense of course.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misunderstood-crimes

First, the notion that recidivism (repeat offending) is inevitable needs a second look. Recently sex crimes researcher Jill Levenson of Lynn University in Florida and her colleagues found that the average member of the general public believes that 75 percent of sex offenders will reoffend. This perception is consistent with media portrayals in such television programs as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, in which sex offenders are almost always portrayed as chronic repeaters.

The evidence suggests otherwise. Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The figures are clearly out of alignment with the public’s more dire expectations.

My own thinking was in line with the public perception, I would have guessed a recidivism rate of 60+ %.

What I'm finding harder to discover is any kind of conclusion on how treatment affects reoffending rates, or what kinds of treatment options there are other than chemical castration or ongoing psychotherapy.

Not that I think being a 14 -24 + percent risk to children (there may be many crimes not detected or admitted to) are great odds to think about when releasing convicted offenders.

Catari Jaguar · 18-02-2013 5:09pm

Candie wrote: »

That sounds like a special kind of hell, but plenty of people with no paraphilias go a lifetime without acting on their sexual urges, difficult as that might be, and it doesn't cause them to sexually offend.

Oh yea I know that, I am always surprised that people just assume that paedophiles are the same thing as actually child abusers/molestors.

Grayson · 18-02-2013 5:29pm

Candie wrote: »

What I'm finding harder to discover is any kind of conclusion on how treatment affects reoffending rates, or what kinds of treatment options there are other than chemical castration or ongoing psychotherapy.

Not that I think being a 14 -24 + percent risk to children (there may be many crimes not detected or admitted to) are great odds to think about when releasing convicted offenders.

I don't know if it can be treated. I view it as a sexual preference like being gay. The people affected have no control over wether or not they actually feel these things. The difference for gay people is that they are attracted to adults.

I also remember reading a report about serial child abusers. A lot weren't actually paedophiles. As in they didn't have a generic sexual attraction to kids. That makes sense because people who are abused are more likely to be abusers. So you could have a straight guy who is a child abuser.

And it would mean that although therre is some crossover, A does not always imply B.

Bordet · 18-02-2013 5:40pm

Sort of off-topic, but relevant to a bunch of the posts above:

Louis Theroux did a documentary on a mandatory "mental hospital" in the US where they give "treatment" to some convicted child rapists after they've finished serving their sentence in prison. The idea is that when the patients are cured, they can be released.

But the thing is that the treatment never works. So paedophilia seems to be as natural and permanent for some people as homosexuality [or heterosexuality] is for others.

And obviously those guys shouldn't be released if they are a risk to others.

I also find it strange when people say "convicted paedophile" as if paedophilia were a crime.

m.j.w · 18-02-2013 8:22pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiCpyGDCY

Just watched this video, have no sympathy for the men getting caught but the two lads doing this seem to be arseholes!

The man arranged to meet a 14 year old girl in a posh hotel and brought aload of drink, the two lads tell him that if he lets them stay in the room and leaves them the drink they will blur out his image and distort his voice (which they dont do). Is this not some form of blackmail and is that illegal?

I dont know wether they are right or wrong to do this but they are not going about it the right way!

Video of man caught trying to meet 15 year old for sex

Comments