ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

National

Popular YouTuber caught by ‘Predator Poachers’ allegedly trying to meet with 13-year-old girl

[dailydot.com – 4/22/21]

When asked if he deserves to go to jail, YouTuber EDP445 responds, ‘If I’m being honest with you, I think so.’

A popular 30-year-old YouTuber is being accused of pedophilia after he was caught on camera allegedly trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl.

EatDatPussy445, or Bryant _______, with more than 2 million subscribers on YouTube, is known for being an avid Philadelphia Eagles fan and for his vulgar, funny vlogs. He is receiving backlash after footage of him meeting up with a minor in Bakersfield, California, was posted by YouTuber Chet Goldstein.

Goldstein is part of an activist group called Predator Poaches, which catches alleged predators who prey on underaged children online.

Goldstein and a team created a fake online profile under the name “Sophie” with her age clearly stated in her profile. “Sophie” messaged Bryant _______ first, and then he double-texted her after she didn’t respond for nine hours, according to screenshots of the messages.

According to the screenshots, the texts eventually became sexual, even after Bryant _______ allegedly became aware that Sophie is 13.

When he goes to allegedly meet Sophie in person, he finds three men with a camera instead.

In the video, Bryant _______ says he came out to pick up a cupcake from Sophie and was going to go back home right after. “There was nothing that was going to be sexual involved,” he says in the video. “I’m not like that.”

The men ask Bryant _______  if he thinks he deserves to go to jail, to which he responds, “If I’m being honest with you, I think so.”

Read the full article

 

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

None of these people know the fire they are playing with. At the very minimum some of the messages between the YouTuber and the fake 13 year old raise to the level of extremely poor choice of words from all participants. The YouTuber certainly is not subtle, but the people behind the fake girl go much further along than they should too.

The poachers I’m sure have been warned by law enforcement to stop doing what they are doing. Let’s just say all it takes is messing with one wrong person and it is not possible to know in advance enough 100% of the time if someone is such a person. More importantly just like poachers can create fake profiles so can groups of others with ill intent and that’s even worse than dealing with an individual.

So they contacted the Youtuber first, they set him up, they made the scenario, they enticed him, and they are celebrating destroying his Youtube career and his life even though as far as we know the Youtuber NEVER touched anybody. Seems these creepy poachers are the deviant ones. Who would do that? You and your friends set up phony profiles online trying to lure people in and then ruin their lives. That is more messed up than what the Youtuber did.

Also, the authorities hate these sorts of vigilante stings. Sometimes they ruin potential prosecutions. Cops who actually do that work are trained in how to skirt around the legal nuances of entrapment. These morons are not.

The end of the article pointed out that this Goldstein guy is not without blemishes. “However, even Goldstein has since been embroiled in his own controversy after saying on video, “I provide her with plenty of D, just not the vitamin part” when referring to a 3-year-old. The @Predatorpoacherschet Instagram account has also been removed.”

Veritas.

How is that different from when it’s done by LE? Who exactly is “protected and served” then?

The setup is BS and shouldn’t be allowed. But to dismiss the actions of EDP445 is ridiculous. I don’t care how much temptation is put out there, in his mind, he was carrying on with a 13 year old. 13! 13 isn’t just some minor who happens to be physically mature/look older so therefore you’re attracted to her. At 13, most girls are still not developed or at the very least, not fully developed. That’s just sick. That’s the true definition of pedophilia. A normal person, under the same circumstances, is not going to reciprocate. And while those guys that are doing the setup are a-holes, their actions are not more messed up than a 31 year old attempting to get with a 13 year old.

Does this looks like a prepubescent little girl? That irks me too. She could be one of the “young-looking enticing adults” that the San Joaquin stings use. She could be labeled as “cute” in an adult porn site, which means she is at least 18. So what does he believe, the picture or her words? No, 13-year-olds are not surfing the internet for sex and that should become obvious to everyone eventually, but even LEO and others that should know better are tricked and fall for it occasionally. Like the DA that killed himself. It takes a lot of searching to find a pic of the decoy because everyone is jumping on the guilty trial-by-media bandwagon. Maybe EDP445 is guilty. Or maybe there are hidden chat logs, like when Xavier Von Erck of “Perverted Justice” “lost” his hard drive. Again, a guilty person does not prove the government is perfect and flawless. That is important as well. In some ways, more important.

I don’t know what she looked like…and I don’t even know if they used any pictures to act as her. I do know that being interested in a 13 year old as a 30 year old is wrong in every possible way.

There are videos of a decoy reading the chat but evidently I can’t post the link here. A search of youtube will find it with some effort. There are a few fallacies in your reply. Bottom line, she is not 13 and doesn’t look 13. That, obviously, does not mean if she was an “enticing” 13 it would be ok to message her. Of course not and no one is saying it would be.

Youtube hint: EDP445 Gets Exposed, Decoy Reads His Messages He Sent To A 13-Year-Old

Search youtube

EDP445 Gets Exposed, Decoy Reads His Messages He Sent To A 13-Year-Old

LOL, wait a minute…if you’re referring to the big readheaded guy as the decoy, then I don’t think you understand what a decoy is. A decoy would be the made up fake person…so, someone who they’re trying to make appear to be 13, if they even used any pictures to lure him. In any case, it doesn’t matter. The penal code is specific in that if he believes he’s speaking with an underage person and carries out the elements to it, then regardless of it being a real person or not, he’s committed the crime.

Why are all of you focusing on it being a fake person instead of how sick and perverted this guy is for speaking sexually, sending d*ck pics, and attempting to meet up with what he believed to be a 13 year old? Do you not see how bad that is?

“Do you not see how bad that is?”

Yes, of course, it is a given and thousands of youtubers are pointing out the obvious. That does not mean he will be convicted.

It is possible to think of more than just his guilt. Like due process. What if no pictures of adults were used? Would it still be possible to sting?

Why ignore the decoy reading the chat? Did you even try to see her video? A search of youtube finds many copies now.

My comment on the video got a like from the channel owner and also got pinned lol

“No, 13-year-olds are not surfing the internet for sex and that should become obvious to everyone eventually…”

Yes they are. A LOT.

How do you know that? I’ve never seen it and don’t want to. Wouldn’t there be A LOT of real life cases if true? Now if you mean teens chatting up teens, then yes, that is the most common and it is not usually clarified when debating the deluge of online “predators.”

After delving more into this story it has surfaced that some of these ‘PREDATOR POACHERS’ are just capitalizing this for monetary gain and that some of these individuals are real POS racists trolling BLM and the like. They are just as despicable as the people they chase.

I wonder if these keyboard warriors pretending to be minors are also against Cat Fishing scams. What will happen when they entice the wrong person or a cop? Will Goldstein saying he puts d in a 3 year old be looked at? Seems like he has more issues than the You Tuber.

How long you think before the feds arest this dude it’s been 4 or 5 days now I cant believe how bold this dude was just casually walking up to meet a 13 year old girl that was strange and abit creepy.
When it comes to these type of cases it’s the text messages for me this weird as dude literally tryd to threatened a 13 year old girl so I have no sympathy for this guy he’s worried about going to prison lilittle does he know prison is just beginning of ride.I hope law enforcement helps him get the treatment he needs.
Now far as these 3 lame az dudes the POACHERS man they pick and choose who to harass and set up I’ll bet a million dollars these guys ain’t running up on a 6ft 250 pound dude who works out everyday they would’ve got beat down and all the evidence and camera footage taken.
Thats why they picked a insecure fat dude who couldn’t even run let alone fight back their lucky he didn’t go to his car and grab a gun and start shooting like that dude from Florida who shot those 2 FBI agents after approaching his home to investigate CP allegation they better be careful.

Good luck 😬👌

I regularly watch a couple (of what’s actually an enormous amount of these “vigilante” Groups on You-Tube) sometimes, and am just amazed by the interactions, etc.
But what really spikes my hatred towards these Groups is the fact they only partake their scenarios towards sex-related matters (as opposed to other potential crimes).
Why? Because the ill-informed public Loves watching these videos ; which in turn, generates Money for them (because of the “Likes’ / ‘Subscribers” / amount of views, etc. Along with them asking for financial support to continue their mission. It’s a money- making thing. THEN……. plus the ones who advertise and sell Merchandise with their Group insignia, etc.

Easy Money

PS: And theirs always more to the conversations and interactions, such as making the individual “feel ashamed” if they don’t wanna meet (such as making comments referring to suicide, etc if the individual don’t want to come). So they sometimes “shame” the person into showing up.

Theirs always 2 sides to every story

After watching more of these vigilante videos I really understand that their mission to get these “perpetrators” is to only generate money and maybe – just maybe -get them arrested. Because the way Predator Poachers handle this like they did with EDP445 in this “sting” was that it was not done in cooperation with local PD during this filming – and delaying release of the video almost a week later until it was fully monetize – gave their mark plenty of time to destroy the evidence in his devices and move out of local PD’s jurisdiction…That is if EDP445 was smart enough to do so.

Either way the haphazard approach by Predator Poachers to catch their mark without PD involved and delayed release of the video tells me that stopping EDP445 was not their highest priority. These guys are bonafide bottom feeders pretending to be crusaders.

East Bay DA files human trafficking charges after child-sex sting; Concord man pleads guilty in case where cop posed as boy Prosecutors cite 2020 CA Supreme Court case in Orange County in adding stronger charge
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2021/04/19/east-bay-da-is-filing-human-trafficking-charges-when-adults-offer-money-for-sex-to-kids-concord-man-pleads-guilty-in-case-where-cop-posed-as-boy/

The guy doesn’t deserve to be in jail. He deserves to be getting real therapy so if he is attracted to minors he know what to do to avoid getting in these situations. By saying he deserves to be in jail he admits to knowing what he wanted to do is wrong and he feels ashamed of it. Going to prison and winding up on the registry isn’t going to lessen that shame, nor is the group therapy he’d get as a registrant.

But we don’t provide decent therapy for people who are attracted to minors so they don’t act on their impulses.

The vitamin D guy–that’s sick.

So, a 30 year old, who sends d*ck pics and talks sexual with a 13 year old, doesn’t deserve to be in jail? That’s not even considering him attempting to meet up with her. (yes, I know, there was no real 13 year old girl) I understand nobody agrees with stings and being setup, but that’s just plain wrong and shame on him…if she was real, he would’ve likely had sex with her. There’s just no excuse…

Seeing as no actual crime was committed, how does he belong in jail? Obviously, he has desires that he needs help with. But there is no excuse for locking up people who have not committed a crime. I can’t believe you honestly believe we should lock up people who haven’t committed a crime. That’s why what he needs is therapy so that he won’t commit a crime. I can’t even.

It’s pretty funny how adamant you are when you’re wrong on the law. I don’t agree with this type of baiting, but you’re wrong. A crime was committed. Refer to 288.4 PC. It specifically states, “Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, arranges a meeting with a minor or a person he or she believes to be a minor for the purpose of exposing his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or engaging in lewd or lascivious is guilty under this code section.”

You can say it wasn’t a crime all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Your argument should be that those types of crimes shouldn’t actually be crimes, if anything. But, it was 100% a crime.

288.4 PC specifically states

“Every person who, motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in children, arranges a meeting with a minor or a person he or she believes to be a minor for the purpose of exposing his or her genitals or pubic or rectal area, or engaging in lewd or lascivious is guilty under this code section.”

… and describes pretty much every high school student in this country. It should not be so difficult to write good legal language. Until then, lock’em all up. It’s the law.

No he belongs in jail

I don’t know about the therapy (although better than prison) but I’d say that these entrapment schemes are wrong and must stop. There were no victims, only pretend victims and these stings come perilously close to being the instantiation of “thought crimes.”

Yep. Vigilante groups certainly should never being doing this. With respect to LE doing it, the thing that gets me is that is there not enough real crime? Has LE solved all actual crimes or are working to prevent real crimes and not crimes that they are creating? It never ceases to amaze me when I’ve seen LE agencies that have active missing children cases but yet they have plenty of time to harass PFRs. That seems to be quite common.

The other thing is that in a LOT of these cases I would bet that not only is there no actual child and no actual victim, but also that the target does not believe that there is either. So there is no child and not one person thinks there is. But a “crime” has been committed. Who gets into chats on the Internet with someone they don’t know and believes everything the person is telling them? Even if someone tells me they are a female, I’d think it was a guy. Until I had concrete proof otherwise.

Lastly, don’t we already have thought crimes? You can think about CP but if you write it down on paper, that is a crime, right? I’m not very knowledgeable of that area but I think that it is (drawn pictures certainly are). So, is that not a thought crime? Because how is that different or more harmful than being in your brain? I suppose the fact that someone else might read it. But still just thoughts. You’ve put thoughts into their brains.

I agree with you in that vigilante groups shouldn’t be doing this. They’re not law enforcement officers and shouldn’t be allowed to act as such.

However, you lost me at the part where you say that in a lot of those cases, the target doesn’t even believe there’s a real girl on the other end. How do you explain them actually trying to meet up with the girls or sending sexual images, etc…? I just can’t imagine someone would carry out the charade if they actually didn’t think the person on the other end was real.

Sexual offenders are a target…an easy target at that. Society is going to continue going after them, as they’re the low hanging fruit. People need to stop falling into the traps and making it easy for them to say, “see, I told you so.!”

Another fly in your ointment. How many people popped in these stupid stings were registrants already? I’m not saying there were none, but I don’t recall any. Not a very high number, regardless – statistically negligible in all likelihood. Accordingly, they’re not targeting registrants, they’re creating them.

It’s bad enough to prosecute thought crimes. But in these cases, the thoughts are induced by the stingers, be it LE or these clowns. It’s no different than a cop dropping an 8-ball in someone’s car and popping them for possession. And they overlook the simplest fact – actual child predators would not be on adult platforms hoping to run into minors any more than they would try to find one in a bar.

If such conversations originated on child platforms, there might be something to it. But they don’t. Maybe someone tried that before and got nothing, but I doubt it. The prevalence of these stupid stings show it’s 1000 times easier to set someone up than to catch someone actually doing it.

No fly in my ointment. I never once mentioned registrants. I mentioned sexual offenders, which can be a registrant or otherwise. Society is so hell bent on this notion that offenders are everywhere and these stings are meant to weed those offenders out.

It’s humorous, how many of you are dismissing the guys actions. I’m not really sure why some of you keep referring to this as a “thought” crime. His actions were the crime. If he simply lusted after the girl (thoughts), but made no gestures towards her to carry it out, there’d be no crime. The crime occurred because of his actions. He setup a meeting with her and actually drove to the location to meet her. He exchanged sexual words with the person. He sent a d*ck pic. All of which are crimes and based on actions. The only “thought” that plays a role here is him thinking he was speaking with a 13 year old. Everything else is his actions. How are you ignoring all of those actions?

From what I understand, she contacted him through Instagram. Since when has that been considered an adult platform? Regardless, adult or child platform, once he found out her supposed age of 13, he should’ve ended it right there.

Nonsense! This is nothing like a cop dropping drugs into your vehicle and then arresting you for it. A cop dropping drugs into your vehicle and you then deciding to use them would be the equivalent.

Setting someone up is BS, as I’ve already stated, however, the setup has nothing to do with the actions that follow. The guy fell for it, hook line and sinker. A crime was committed, now he’s likely going to have to answer for it. Blame the setup all you want, but if he simply cut her off once he found out her age, as he should’ve, all would’ve been ok.

You know, when I said “a LOT of these cases”, I’m actually talking about a lot of cases and not this specific case. I would guess/expect that the vast majority of these cases never proceed anywhere nearly to the point of people trying to meet each other.

Personally, if I were chatting with a person online sexually, I would guess that it was a guy, even if the person told me, “I’m a hot 13 yo.” Maybe I just trust people less than others do? Or I’m super cynical? It also would not shock me in the slightest if there are plenty of people who are talking to such people but actually think it is some old, fat guy and they still send explicit pictures. People do and are into all kinds of things, obviously. It also wouldn’t surprise me if people had these long conversations, still thought it was a guy (or even multiple guys!), and they agreed to meet with them in hopes of beating their ass(es) just for fun and for messing with them. Maybe even rob the person. That would not suprise me at all. People are crazy.

So, I’m not going to assume people intentions or what they are thinking or believing at any specific time. I’ll require proof. Regarding this specific case, I haven’t read the details and don’t really care.

You said, “Sexual offenders are a target…an easy target at that.” Of course that’s not true. Surely you’ve heard that the vast majority of cases are not even reported, let alone prosecuted, let alone convicted. I’d say it is not an easy target at all.

I don’t get why people keep falling for these online stings. I guess if I were doing such a thing I’d keep repeating over and over something like “I can’t talk to you unless you are of legal age.” If you said that 50 times, that ought to destroy the credibility of any sting. The ironic thing is if you were talking to actual child that said they were 19 and they sent you illegal pictures, you’d probably still be liable! That would require the old “she said she was over 18” defense. I find it interesting that big government will use “she said she was 13” against a person (even when there is no real 13 yo) and yet “she said she was 18” is irrelevant and can’t be used. The age of a fake, non-existent person is fact but the stated age of a real person is not. In that case, you can’t even trust government IDs to verify age and are expected to radiocarbon-date the person.

Lastly, I just have to say if I were trying to do something like this, I would not be messing around online. I know plenty of places where and how it could be done in person. That would seem to be much better. Further, the Hit Lists would promote and encourage that behavior for numerous reasons, one being simply to prove that they are useless and another being that they deserve retaliation.

I find it interesting that big government will use “she said she was 13” against a person (even when there is no real 13 yo) and yet “she said she was 18” is irrelevant and can’t be used. “

Completely agree with the above! I’m not really seeing the other stuff, but no worries…we all have opinions. I’m just shocked at all of the defending in this thread when the crime is pretty clearly written and the young age of the supposed girl.

The set up was B.S. , and the people that did it are scum. But bottom line is this guy is a dip shit for even answering the text. Who chases a 13 yr old over the internet? Only an idiot.

Agreed…those setups are BS. And I’m surprised anyone here would actually take to his defense. Anyone willing to engage in sexual talk with what they believe to be a 13 year old, send them lewd pictures, and even attempt to meet up with, has a real issue. 13, in a lot of instances, is still pre-pubescent. To find a girl that young to be attractive is sick. Sucks for him that he was trapped in a setup, but he should’ve known better.

I don’t completely agree with your statement. 13 yr old models are presented as mature all the time, and can be quite striking in appearance. And no, it is not pre pubescent. You are just spouting crap there. The difference here is he evidently knew the age and continued. That is where he crossed the line in my opinion.

Good point about appearance. And he should not have agreed to meet her in public or any place else. It’s wrong and not a smart thing to do.

So what would have possessed him to do something he knew was wrong? Is it possible that he knew it was a trap, and he wanted to get caught?

I find it disappointing that people are so quick to rush to judgment.

By the way, I read the article but didn’t see where he sent lewd pictures. If he did and the other YouTubers did not report it to the authorities, they were in possession of CP, right? They were pretending to be a “13” year old and asked for the images. When police do that as part of a sting, it’s as part of a lawful court order or warrant.

Finally, didn’t the head of the sting “YouTuber” say something about giving a 3 year old some D, but not the Vitamin kind. Seems like there should be more outrage about that.

Spouting crap because I said in a lot of instances, 13 is still pre pubescent? Have you taken a look at some 13 year olds? Some are still just starting to develop at that age. But, you missed my point, entirely. 13 year olds, whether you want to call them pre pubescent or not, are not yet fully developed and for a man to be attractive to that, is just wrong any way you spin it. But sure, call it crap even though the point still stands correct.

Stuck
There is a difference thinking about a 13 year old and committing a crime. Hopefully, we haven’t gotten to putting people in prison for their thoughts. It’s their actions that should have consequences. (There was no legal entrapment since their entrapment was not done by law enforcement under a court order or other legal mechanism.)

If it is “sick” for a 30 year to be thinking of a teenager, then prison time is not the way to get him to be “unsick.” Therapy would be the way to go. And if he wants to continue to be thinking about 13 year olds, how does that hurt you?

Somebody REALLY needs to do a for-honest study into the psychology of the freakishly obsessive anti-pedo vigilantes who now permeate society. I would put money on the study concluding that we are witnessing, on a truly massive scale, the phenomenon of reaction formation, the tendency of a repressed wish or feeling to be expressed at a conscious level in a contrasting form. Throw in a massive dose of self-hatred and you got yourself a shrieking hell-banshee who coalesces with others to spread their terror.

This has been done before, of course, in the case of gays as targets of fag-bashers. The evidence was clear: the overwhelmingly common factor in attacks upon gays was that their attackers were deeply repressed homosexuals.

Now tell me that this isn’t the same.

I agree, Notorious. The idea that people think it is okay to throw a person in jail for their thoughts is disgusting. Reprehensible even. Seriously. The guy has a problem. He needs to learn not to act on his thoughts. End of story. If we start throwing every person in jail for their thoughts, where will that end? I want to murder my neighbor for playing loud music. Do I wind up in jail? And what if I buy a gun and lure him someplace to shoot him and then change my mind and go home? Should I be arrested.
While I’m at it–the “girl” should also be arrested. She enticed him with the intention of having sex. Underage kids have wound up on the registry for having sex with one another. Put her on the registry also.
Finally, I don’t care what the law says–he did not act on his impulses. Let’s not even go down the road of laws that should not exist or are unjust or not enforced or are on the books to force someone to take a lower plea.
And maybe he’s a kind of vigilante himself–trying to lure young girls into places to tell them how dangerous it is. Probably not likely, but possible.
I started this thread by pointing out that he needs therapy, plain and simple. If we throw him in prison, he will get therapy, but in most cases it won’t do any good because court mandated therapy has no expectation of privacy.
And the therapy will be on the taxpayer’s dime, along with the costs involved in keeping him in prison and then on the registry.
Seriously, to lock people up because of their thoughts instead of getting the help they need. I don’t even know what else to say, Notorious. We could go into a discussion on reaction formation, but then we would have to ask these trolls why they are so hell bent on sending a man who found an underage person attractive to prison when he doesn’t have the common sense to realize a 13-year-old girl is not going to be interested in him.
There, I feel better, Notorious. Don’t expect me to respond to any comments on this matter–I have a life and cannot fill it with trolls, hatred, or additional vitriol.

Steve as some have pointed out in earlier posts, no one can be jailed for thought crimes. Only actions can be criminal. Stop and ponder that for just a moment. In your example, thinking about killing your neighbor is not a crime. But the action of luring someone with the intent of killing them could be written as a crime whether or not a trigger was pulled. There are actions in that just as there are actions in arranging a meeting with a fictional 13-year old..

Your are mistaking what you believe the law should be with what the law is. If a person believes a law is unjust or the consequences inappropriate, then there is the option to advocate at the legislature for changes. In some cases (ala MLK or Rosa Parks), civil disobedience or mass demonstrations are viable options. However with either of those options, one must be willing to accept consequences of one’s actions.

The bottom line is that until a law can be changed, one must be willing to accept the consequences associated with acting against that law. This case involved a sting operation. Many here believe that such stings should not be allowed for LE, and certainly not for vigilante morons. If so, begin advocating for change at the places where changes can be made. Perhaps start with getting vigilante stings made unlawful. Just a thought (irony intended).

Veritas.

True, but it is not murder or attempted murder unless the trigger gets pulled.

@ Ed C
Some time ago I remember an article on this board on a man “jailed for a thought crime”. I don’t remember specifics (probably a probation issue). I do know probation and parole rules for sex offenders are very broad and general. In a weekly meeting with your PO tell them you fantasized and sexualized an underaged child and see where that goes. Throw in polygraphs and you could be easily jailed. Most discussion with a PO and pre-polygraph interrogation (as well as SO Therapy) is centered around thoughts and “what may happen if…”.
In my area the sex offender therapist has group discussions concerning why a parolee “failed” a polygraph, and if it was what they were “thinking”
I agree that someone with a clean record would not be jailed for thoughts; but those on paper are different.

The distinction there is that being tossed back in jail by a PO does not require a new crime. POs have an awful lot (perhaps too much) discretion and can often justify detention by merely expressing a “concern” about a client and public safety. Don’t think for a minute that all one needs to do is to comply with the court’s written conditions of release.

The lesson is don’t piss off your PO. He can make your life really uncomfortable in many ways short of jail. Remember that in any disagreement while on supervision you will be considered wrong until proven wrong.

My earlier point was only that a legislature can only make an action, not a thought, unlawful. Every statute must specify both prohibited actions and the punishment for those actions. Coercion is an action (a verb), whether it is to lure (verb) someone to an isolated location with the intent to murder, or to persuade (verb) a minor into having sex. Merely thinking about coercing someone can not be a crime. It may warrant therapy, but it is not a crime. Let’s stop using the term “thought crime.” It is simply not correct.

Veritas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dZlaCfVoh0

Link to a thought crime / verbal threats
I wonder if the Judge would give any of the millions of US citizens who hate us and wish “our brains splattered in front of our kids”.
We’re probably worth a slap on the wrist, or maybe a pat on the back. Surely not 12 years in prison.

Typing one’s thoughts on a keyboard with a phantom “child” comes pretty goddamned perilously close to committing a thought crime, Ed. Sure, don’t do it but it seems to still happen a lot to the point that we can see these entrapment schemes and their subsequent destruction of lives as a penalty for loquacious stupidity, a big mouth or just simple naïveté. That’s the point of calling this a “thought crime” and I challenge those pushing hard against calling it that as servilely carrying water for the hysteria movement which has abandoned speech as a cause worth defending.

Notorious,
As we continue talking about the hysteria movement, these people should realize this was not a legitimate, court-ordered sting. The more I think about it, the more I realize the YouTuber caught in the sting can not be arrested without the other YouTubers, since they solicited or received CP (a “13 year old” who doesn’t report inappropriate pictures he or she has received is in possession of CP, right?)

And the YouTuber who said he gave a 3 year old Vitamin D (one of the ones behind the sting)? That’s truly disgusting.

Sometimes people who are in his situation almost want to get caught. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had an inkling it was a set-up. Getting caught was the only way he could figure out how to stop what he felt was wrong–thinking about underage girls.

How much you want to bet someone is going to say it is wrong to think about underage children?

I’ve already forgotten the original story and its specifics but I’m fine speaking about Pretend Crimes and Thought Crimes, generally.

To my earlier argument regarding the legitimacy of calling these cases “thought crimes,” it should be remembered that “words” represent “thoughts.” Thus, getting put in a cage for typing away in the aether is, indeed, a “thought-crime.” The expression of those words in any form expresses the thoughts of that person. For the moment, we don’t have a way to peer directly into the brain to retrieve and interrogate thoughts but we do have language to give full expression to those thoughts.

Indeed, “thought crime” as a concept requires the utility of language to investigate and prosecute it. Otherwise, there is no “thought crime.”

So, if we’re not thought-criminals, no one is. 🙂

It was not a legal sting operation. That is probably why he wasn’t arrested (I’m guessing) because if he’s arrested, then so would the other YouTubers who set up the “sting.” That’s because they received pictures pretending to be a teen, which would probably lead to a charge of receiving or asking for CP. Police who get a legal warrant or court order can receive CP without breaking the law.

As to changing the law–let’s start with this conversation thread. I made a case that this man deserved therapy and that comment was immediately put down without any real justification beside he needs to be put in jail. The only mass demonstrations that will occur are vigilantes, like the guy who deliberately shot and murdered a registrant. Changes will most likely occur through the courts. Voting for harsher penalties for registrants is an easy vote.

In addition, a DA can choose whether to charge a crime or accept a plea for a lesser sentence, such as probation with therapy as one of the conditions.

I must admit that I don’t know the nuances of what makes a sting lawful for LE vs private vigilantes. There are certainly constitutional as well as statutory constraints on LE that don’t apply to vigilantes. I do know that vigilantes can’t receive or possess CP, so they themselves are risking prosecution.

Vigilantes pretending to be a 13-year old online to lure someone into an embarrassing situation might be lawful, no matter what anyone thinks about its propriety. The question is whether it is prosecutable.

Prosecutors need both sufficient evidence and to avoid entrapment. Although mere “textual-intercourse” with a minor, and certainly arranging a meeting can be statutorily unlawful, they may be subject to weak evidence, such as “I was only roleplaying.” That is one reason LE tries to get someone to an actual, though fictional, meeting. That helps to cement the evidence. That is also why LE despises these vigilante stings.

Actions are prosecutable. Thoughts are not. Thoughts may have therapeutic significance, but no criminal implications. As soon as a thought is translated into action, whether typing on a keyboard or dealing with CP, it can subject one to prosecution. This is particularly true for strict liability crimes.

My advice is to not translate thoughts into any actions. Even if one is not convicted because of some nuance in the law, mere prosecution is still a life changing event. Trying to tease apart those legal nuances is a very interesting intellectual exercise. Taking it beyond that to justify an action is extremely dangerous territory where an accused is at a distinct disadvantage. What one believes the law should be has no bearing on what the law is.

Veritas.

As far as I’m concerned, these police stings are nothing but entrapment because they are creating an opportunity for someone to commit a crime. Police are supposed to “serve and protect” and to uphold the law. I have no problem with police conducting the kind of stings that lure people with warrants making them think they won a prize, but to conduct a sting just for the sake of arresting someone who is not wanted goes too far.
I’m not going to even entertain the thought, but if I was talking to someone online who I believed was a minor, and we talked about meeting up for sex, and I made plans to meet her but then decided not to, what crime was committed? None. Its no different than me thinking about killing someone and thinking of how I would go about doing it, then having second thoughts and not going through with it. Would I be arrested? I think not because no crime was committed. People have thoughts all the time about doing things they shouldn’t but never act upon those thoughts. A thought is not a crime, and making plans to commit a crime but not going acting upon them should not be a crime either. The same goes for the guys who do go through with meeting up with a police decoy. There was no minor involved in the sting, so why should anyone be charged?
The police need to stop creating opportunities for people to commit crimes. That’s not their jobs.

I agree with what you are saying regarding the law is the law whether I like it or not.

But that wasn’t my point. The guy might have broken a law, but it doesn’t automatically mean he should go to prison. I said was he needs therapy, not jail. He needs to learn to deal with the shame of what he did and how to avoid doing it again. He won’t get either in prison.

But the immediate knee-jerk reaction from some is “send him to prison.” I understand some of these people are trolls, but they do represent many others. The lack of understanding about the role of therapy is disappointing in this day and age.

The lack of being able to see the humanity in a person obviously hurting is just as sad.

I agree. Just another aspect of the ignorance and BS surrounding sex offenses.

Veritas.

Show me another crime that’s defined on the books having the words “think” or “believe” playing key roles. No, prostitution stings / drug stings / hitman stings don’t count—it’s illegal to pay any other person (including cops) for any of those things regardless of what you think or believe.

As post-punishment punishments get harsher and harsher for sex offenders, these types of games become more and more dangerous. I wish law enforcement would try to stop this stuff before some pervert ends up becoming a murderer instead.

If this guy had been armed and knowing what the potential outcome for the rest of his life looked like, there could easily be three dead vigilantes and then a suicide.

He REALLY should not have answered the initial contact.

These vigilantes have taken their craft to Words with Friends chat now too, or there are real minors trying to get banged… but I have had to report two “children” for sending me sexually explicit messages.

56
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.