To Catch A Predator: freaky stuff...

KERPAL · 03-06-2008 12:39PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

The show is disgusting and it is completely unethical to humiliate people the way they do.

Just realised what your saying. wtf

PREDATOR ALERT, PREDATOR ALERT.

Sir Molle · 03-06-2008 12:40PM

KERPAL wrote: »

Just realised what your saying. wtf

PREDATOR ALERT, PREDATOR ALERT.

Well done, your inability to reason and engage in reasonable discussion has landed you on my ignore list.

03-06-2008 12:48PM

This post has been deleted.

KERPAL · 03-06-2008 12:49PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMPHJFLDN8

Wow what a freak, this guy should be shot imo.

Borneo Fnctn · 03-06-2008 01:27PM

KERPAL wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMPHJFLDN8

Wow what a freak, this guy should be shot imo.

That's the guy. He's like a child getting caught doing something wrong. He's another one of these asswholes who plays the psychiatrist card to get sympathy. He's also a total spa for going online again with the same username.

Ste.phen · 03-06-2008 02:01PM

Why don't you all just have a seat over there.

SimpleSam06 · 03-06-2008 03:19PM

KERPAL wrote: »

i think the amount of people convicted from this show is 117 out of 200.

So roughly half of those caught on this very popular internationally broadcast coast to coast show were not convicted of any crime.

The Scientist wrote: »

Sicko deserves to be humiliated.

No, not when they have a conviction ratio of just over half, out of hundreds. Make no mistake, if you're caught on this you will be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. You wife will divorce you, your boss will fire you, your neighbours and family will disown you, and you might have a very hard time ever finding employment again. You are done, game over, and its 50-50 that you never commited a crime at all.

What these people are doing is wrong, make no mistake, but they don't deserve an automatic death sentence over it (most of them).

kovski · 03-06-2008 03:35PM

David Spade did a good spoof of this show. He accuses the child of being the predator. It's on youtube I think.

Cuddlesworth · 03-06-2008 03:39PM

What kind of 13-14 year old girl wants to have some guy come over with a whip and toys? Personally I would be less worried about why the guys are doing this and more worried about why kids are so baldy screwed up and misinformed that guys like this can operate freely. Congrats for avoiding the real issues.

03-06-2008 03:40PM

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister · 03-06-2008 03:50PM

The Scientist wrote: »

Come off it.
Conviction or not its quite clear what these wierdos are up to.
Whether or not they commit the actual crime of statutory rape, the intention to do so is enough in my eyes for these people to burn in the pit of public opinion.

Look at the link provided above. Even the DA says that they may fake some of it, and that they can't use it in court.

Kernel32 · 03-06-2008 03:50PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

So they are being convicted of meeting up with a woman pretending to be an early teenage girl for sexual activities? The girl isn't even a kid... Even if any of them ****ed her, how would that be a crime? The fact that he thinks it is a child may be disgusting, but since when is it a crime to pork an adult who looks like a kid?

Entertainment Television has absolutly no place in any justice system unless they are there for observational purposes only.

Child predators are disgusting, but publicly humiliation and trial by media is not justice. This show is ridiculous.

I have seen bits and pieces of this show before. It is disturbing from both the predator aspect and the cashing in by the media.

I do disagree with your first point though. An illegal act does not have to be commited to break the law if there is intent. Most legal systems will try and convict purely based on intent. This could be someone who hires someone else to kill their spouse or intends to have sex with a minor. If the intention is there, they take steps to make it happen and they are aware of what they are doing then they are breaking the law.

Sir Molle · 03-06-2008 03:53PM

The Scientist wrote: »

Come off it.
Conviction or not its quite clear what these wierdos are up to.
Whether or not they commit the actual crime of statutory rape, the intention to do so is enough in my eyes for these people to burn in the pit of public opinion.

Imagine if it was someone close to you? You wouldn't be too long calling for their head then.

The US Justice system is obviously flawed if these people aren't going down.

Yeah, you're right. To hell with the justice system. We should abandon the assumption of innocent until proven guilty because the TV man says the guy is guilty. If the man on TV isn't qualified to make a conclusion like that, then who is? Hell, they should just castrate anyone who has appeared on that show because they're definatly guilty. It doesn't matter what their side of the story is or even if they make a defence or not, they probably just didn't see the show.

JJ6000 · 03-06-2008 03:54PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

So they are being convicted of meeting up with a woman pretending to be an early teenage girl for sexual activities? The girl isn't even a kid... Even if any of them ****ed her, how would that be a crime? The fact that he thinks it is a child may be disgusting, but since when is it a crime to pork an adult who looks like a kid?

Entertainment Television has absolutly no place in any justice system unless they are there for observational purposes only.

Child predators are disgusting, but publicly humiliation and trial by media is not justice. This show is ridiculous.

It IS a crime.

They charge is soliciting a minor for sex (knowingly)

Even if the decoy they use isnt a minor....even they had sex with the girl it would not be sex with a minor because the decoy is overage. However, regardless of the age of the decoy,the charge of solicitation is still satisfied if you BELIEVE the person to be underage.

With a solicitation charge, there does not have to be an identifiable victim at the end of it....so it does not matter what age the decoy ACTUALLY is.

The reason they get them to bring whips, lube etc over is that it demonstrates intent and makes it easier to get a prosecution in court.

I myself think it's tragic to watch this on TV as you can only imagine the families behind the scenes which have been wrecked by the actions of their father, brother, son etc.....but I have absolutley no sympathy for the predators themselves and I cant believe how anybody possibly could!

I just feel sorry for the families of these guys who have to walk down the street with everyione in their town knowing their father is on the sex offenders register.

JJ6000 · 03-06-2008 03:58PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. To hell with the justice system. We should abandon the assumption of innocent until proven guilty because the TV man says the guy is guilty. If the man on TV isn't qualified to make a conclusion like that, then who is? Hell, they should just castrate anyone who has appeared on that show because they're definatly guilty. It doesn't matter what their side of the story is or even if they make a defence or not, they probably just didn't see the show.

I am presuming that everyone on the show has already been convicted??

I could be wrong....but I would be very surprised if they had not already been convicted prior to airing.

JJ6000 · 03-06-2008 04:00PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So roughly half of those caught on this very popular internationally broadcast coast to coast show were not convicted of any crime.

No, not when they have a conviction ratio of just over half, out of hundreds. Make no mistake, if you're caught on this you will be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. You wife will divorce you, your boss will fire you, your neighbours and family will disown you, and you might have a very hard time ever finding employment again. You are done, game over, and its 50-50 that you never commited a crime at all.

What these people are doing is wrong, make no mistake, but they don't deserve an automatic death sentence over it (most of them).

But did they air the ones who were not convicted?

SimpleSam06 · 03-06-2008 04:03PM

The Scientist wrote: »

Whether or not they commit the actual crime of statutory rape, the intention to do so is enough in my eyes for these people to burn in the pit of public opinion.

I see what you're saying, but at the end of the day, people who are not convicted of crimes are being completely destroyed for the cynical profits of some TV executive and a gang of vigilantes. This cannot be supported.

The Scientist wrote: »

Imagine if it was someone close to you? You wouldn't be too long calling for their head then.

I'd have hard words to say to the parents of the child as well.

03-06-2008 04:06PM

This post has been deleted.

03-06-2008 04:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 03-06-2008 04:13PM

The Scientist wrote: »

So when you see cctv footage of a guy holding up a petrol station and he's caught red handed (like the guy in the above video), you're going to assume he's 'innocent' until the man in the courtroom tells him he's not.

I for one am glad these rodents are dealt with the way they are.

Question is, how would you feel if they went free (or got a lesser sentence)because of a tenchicallity? Look at the recent Joe Duffy scandal...

03-06-2008 04:16PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 03-06-2008 04:23PM

Sir Molle wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. To hell with the justice system. We should abandon the assumption of innocent until proven guilty because the TV man says the guy is guilty. If the man on TV isn't qualified to make a conclusion like that, then who is? Hell, they should just castrate anyone who has appeared on that show because they're definatly guilty. It doesn't matter what their side of the story is or even if they make a defence or not, they probably just didn't see the show.

its funny because you think America still respects habeus corpus.

JJ6000 wrote:

But did they air the ones who were not convicted?

to my knowledge no and i used to watch it a lot.

Sir Molle · 03-06-2008 04:26PM

The Scientist wrote: »

So when you see cctv footage of a guy holding up a petrol station and he's caught red handed (like the guy in the above video), you're going to assume he's 'innocent' until the man in the courtroom tells him he's not.

I for one am glad these rodents are dealt with the way they are.

There is a big difference between raw unedited CCTV footage, and an edited TV show which has manipulated certain facts and exadurated things to try and make it fit more in to good vs. evil plot.

El Weirdo · 03-06-2008 04:40PM

The Scientist wrote: »

So when you see cctv footage of a guy holding up a petrol station and he's caught red handed (like the guy in the above video), you're going to assume he's 'innocent' until the man in the courtroom tells him he's not.

I for one am glad these rodents are dealt with the way they are.

You don't "assume" that he's innocent. He is innocent. That's the way our system of justice works.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be to happy if you were wrongly accused of a crime (any crime) and people automatically assumed you were guilty because of what they'd read in a newspaper or seen on television.

Also, as somebody has already said in an earlier post, you wouldn't be too happy if someone who had committed a crime against you or your family got away with it due to the actions of some egotistical journalist's attempt to boost his ratings/newspaper sales.

There is a system for a reason.

Overheal · 03-06-2008 04:50PM

Well, it appears that the Law already had its say: when the show was sued for $105 Million

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_M-Jpz1kO8

SimpleSam06 · 03-06-2008 04:55PM

JJ6000 wrote: »

But did they air the ones who were not convicted?

The Scientist wrote: »

I would doubt/hope that whoever was not convicted, was not shown on national television.

From wikipedia:

Facts from the aired 20 February 2007 episode of To Catch A Predator are being used as part of a $100 million lawsuit by Conradt's sister, Patricia Conradt, against NBC Universal Inc.

On 1 June 2007, all 23 cases brought up against those arrested on this installment of the show were declined to be prosecuted by the Collin County prosecutor's office due to insufficient evidence. The cases were not expected to be considered again. This marks the first segment in which local law enforcement has declined an invitation to prosecute suspects involved in the show.

...

In one case, two potential predators arrived within five minutes of each other, resulting in Hansen conducting the first dual interview of predators who had each made separate appointments for sex. This investigation aired on February 27 and March 6, 2007, and resulted in 21 guilty pleas.

One man arrested claimed to be a police officer in Indiana, although he was only a cadet and was fired before he graduated from the police academy. Kentucky police attempted to taser him when he ran, screaming, back into the house as police confronted him. Another arrestee was a man with cerebral palsy who walked with a cane. All men arrested face 5-10 years in prison if convicted.

Its hard to get a definete quote on it, but it looks like the almighty dollar wins out yet again.

KERPAL · 03-06-2008 05:00PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So roughly half of those caught on this very popular internationally broadcast coast to coast show were not convicted of any crime.

No, not when they have a conviction ratio of just over half, out of hundreds. Make no mistake, if you're caught on this you will be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. You wife will divorce you, your boss will fire you, your neighbours and family will disown you, and you might have a very hard time ever finding employment again. You are done, game over, and its 50-50 that you never commited a crime at all.

What these people are doing is wrong, make no mistake, but they don't deserve an automatic death sentence over it (most of them).

No, your wrong, 35 them are awaiting sentence, and 25 wernt convicted in a certain state through some loophole. Others probably just got away with it throught the skin of their teeth.

117 less perverts,35 awaiting trial, 25 getting away with it(but not really bcoz they were on national tv) and a few were found not guilty.
Not a bad result.

SimpleSam06 · 03-06-2008 05:07PM

KERPAL wrote: »

No, your wrong, 35 them are awaiting sentence, and 25 wernt convicted in a certain state through some loophole. Others probably just got away with it throught the skin of their teeth.

So what, that means a quarter of them were convicted by camera while not having committed any crime, and not to stop perverts, but to make huge rafts of cash. Its an ugly business on all sides. Are you sure those 25 were aired anyway, despite not being convicted?

Dinter · 03-06-2008 05:09PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, not when they have a conviction ratio of just over half, out of hundreds. Make no mistake, if you're caught on this you will be tried and executed in the court of public opinion. You wife will divorce you, your boss will fire you, your neighbours and family will disown you, and you might have a very hard time ever finding employment again. You are done, game over, and its 50-50 that you never commited a crime at all.

What these people are doing is wrong, make no mistake, but they don't deserve an automatic death sentence over it (most of them).

In all fairness, if a show was broadcast that called you a paedophile and had no evidence you'd be looking at a massive settlement for libel because of the reasons you've given above.

I haven't actually seen the show (I'm in work at the mo) but I'd say they're very aware of that too and would probably not broadcast stuff unless they were sure.

It just wouldn't make financial sense.

KERPAL · 03-06-2008 05:14PM

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So what, that means a quarter of them were convicted by camera while not having committed any crime, and not to stop perverts, but to make huge rafts of cash. Its an ugly business on all sides. Are you sure those 25 were aired anyway, despite not being convicted?

Im pretty sure they were aired, just revealing the transcripts which included men telling what they thought was a 12 year old boy/girl that they were gonna do so and so to them.
The charges in the other states would be trying to solicit a minor into having sex.

Imo opinion these guys are guilty until proven innocent.

To Catch A Predator: freaky stuff...

Comments