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

msg11

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

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

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

Snake Pliisken

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

fasttalkerchat

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!

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

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

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

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

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!

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

seamus

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

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!

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

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

krudler wrote: »

wonder what happens if they cross those streams

And imagine a Stay Puft Marshmallow Jimmy Saville!

john_cappa

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

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!

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

Brutal Deluxe

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!

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

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.