You know I did mention and include parents in at least one previous post here, and did assign some responsiblity to them.

But part of the the equation IS the kids peachy, sorry. Why is everyone so afraid to shed some light their way? If more kids were better aware and educated (and yes, MONITORED better by their parents) there would be less of a problem out there. It's pretty naive to think that kids play no part in this problem. They are the targets, and certainly the targets can learn to better protect themselves along with getting the parents to wake up. Why can't we have both?

If you had a 12 yr old daughter and caught her messing around with chat rooms and discovered there was sex talk and flirting going on, likely with older guys, you're saying you wouldn't raise the roof at her? I know I would. I'm sure any good parent would, so obvioiusly there should be some concern with what the kids are doing and what they are aware of. If you say yes, that you would raise the roof at her, then obviously enough of the problem rests with her, which means you and I agree.

I've said it before, to me this is a non-argument.

Ageed. I still can't believe the people defending this shit.

Yes, the "it's unconstitutional" argument is pure bunk.

And I'll say this... Anyone, any high-up official or legal entitity etc, who would make the move to bring a lawsuit with the aim of shutting the show down, those people leading such a move would aquire the label of supporting the predators.

I woudn't want that label, that stigma.

But it's been explained six ways to next week as to why the show and the process employed to catch the perps is NOT unconstitutional, and is not unlike the methods used to catch johns trolling for hookers etc. In my mind, the show serves to raise awareness out there, in parents, and in kids, which is a good thing.

To argue that the show should be cancelled and shut down, you are always going to have people saying you are supporting the pedos, that's just the way it is. People feel too strongly about this issue and are sick and tired of this shit going on. I'm betting a lot of people that watch the program for the first time are scared to death once they see just how rampant and widespread the problem is.

I'm not defending child molestation; I am defending the person's rights as a citizen of the United States. There is no reason for these people to be on national television. In my opinion, it is an affront on everyone's rights, and a disgrace to the criminal justice system.

If they want to do this... set up the house, have police there - charge the solicitors, and let them have their trials. Setting up this entire national television show and forcing them to save face on national TV (which makes them disregard their rights possibly) is a disgrace.

If they want to arrest these people, arrest them and take them to court; there really isn't any reason to be parading them in front of the nation for television ratings.

Another thing to mention that is bad about this show is the fact that they drag all of these people in to the town... Imagine if you lived on the street where this is filmed, and 50-200 sex solicitors were across the street from where you and your children lived; then would all of you defending this show hold the same position? I doubt it.

Ok, your argument is totally flawed in a million different ways which I will explain in my next post.

Sorry, it isn't. I just touched on several posts from others that laid it all out much more thoroughly dude.

In my view it is your argument that is flawed, no need for you to go rehashing all the crap you've already typed ad nauseum. But, you're obviously hell-bent on doing so anyway, so have at it....

But just know that I don't see you changing anyone's mind, so how pointless is it?


You really do come off like you are speaking up for the rights of the pedos.

You sure wouldn't want to live in MY town. We show pictures, addresses and names of repeat DUI offenders. Child sex predators would certainly make the front page as well as the local TV cable station.

I guess we need to get rid of all those mug shots shown on the TV, in newspapers, magazines, etc. as well as all the reports on these arrests :helpme

Those people have been proved guilty in a court of law, I think thats his point.

Your argument is flawd on so many levels, but I won't bother making a "next" post for you. Everything you just said has already been debunked and dismissed elsewhere in this thread.

And if they did such a show and set up a sting on my street I would be thrilled. It's not like after it's over the pedos are going to be buying real estate here. More likely they'll never want to come around this neighborhood ever again, lol.

Only people with small narrow minds don't realize the benefits far outweigh any of the concerns you've raised.

Do you ever watch the news? See when they arrest people and they show their mug shot? You're in ATL - how many times has the guy who shot up the courthouse been on TV? How many news articles have been written about it? Hell, the chick who turned him in has written a book. Has he been proven guilty in a court of law?

Please people. These are CHILD SEXUAL PREDATORS and you're trying to give them more rights than the guy who robbed the local bank for $2K. :disgust

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT


If you are concerned about your "rights" --- there is a very easy method to make sure you are not on "to catch a predator"

Just follow these simple steps:

1) don't go to chat rooms looking for underage girls
2) don't strike up sexually explicit conversations with underage girls
3) don't ask for nude pictures of her and send nude pictures of yourself
4) don't try to get her to agree to meet for sex
5) don't show up at her house with booze and condoms

These 5 simple steps are proven to work just fine for 99.99% of society and keeps them out of trouble, off TV, out of jail and off of registered sex offender lists.

I dont understand that one everyone knows he did it but its going to cost 1.2 mil for his defense.

its important to point out that "being found guilty in a court of law" is also irrelevant in the context of the show. once a person is ARRESTED for the offense... they are fair game, its a matter of public record and everyone is free to report on it.

its absolutely NO DIFFERENT than some serial rapist being arrested or anyone else... you see them on TV, you see them being arrested, you see them in orange jump suits being transported to court appearances, their identity is made known the moment they are charged. "being proven guilty in a court of law" plays no role whatsoever in the news.

cha-ching.

Jeepers, dude. You just contradicted yourself. So it's OK to show coverage on a shooter, but not a child predator. In fact, the shooter shouldn't even have a trial, and you're screaming for rights for sex predators, lol. Brilliant.

:thumbsup

You must not know how to read being in the woods ,I didnt defend anyone I said I think thats what he meant. Your becoming very corrosive your old age, you should look at that.

Yeah, I sure hope I am. I'd hate to think I was fighting for the constitutional rights of sexual predators in the same thread where I say "everyone knows he did it" about someone who is currently on trial. :helpme

Once again do you not know how to read I said I think thats what he meant.Tunnel vision is a terrible thing. My actual words where:
Those people have been proved guilty in a court of law, I think thats his point.
tell me how Im defending predators with that statement?????

Ok, since I made the 'unconstitutional' remark, I assume you directed that comment at me. Now, I never said it was unconstitutional; I said that it is arguably unconstitutional. This means that there is no case law, but it could possibly be changed in the future.

(THIS IS ALL MY OPINION)

What I would argue is that something like this has never been done in the United States - with the mass media (NBC), a vigilante group, and government agents all working together to pubically humilate American citizens.

I'll begin with the possible Fifth Amendment problems surrounding this show.

In 1966, there was a landmark United States case called Miranda v. Arizona, which states that a person must be read his or her rights before any possible self-incriminating comments could be made by that person.

Now, on that show - the police DO read the person his rights -BUT- NBCs cameras are STILL ROLLING while the person is being interrogated. So, basically this guy is sitting there knowing the entire nation (+friends/family) will be watching him get drilled about solicitating minors online for sex.

Ok, so you'll say, "Well, he should demand a lawyer and get his day in court."

Well, I'd have to argue that the mental anguish of his family, friends, and the entire nation seeing this will make him start to try to defend himself (any human in a situation like this would). At this point, he is in a "mass media panic" and disregards his rights, so he will futilely try to save face by making up a story about not going for sex, or whatever the story.

At that moment when he is trying to save face, he is also giving the state evidence against him for the trial. Basically, he is taken to be interrogated right after Chris Hansen tells him he is on national television, and the guy is rightfully still upset and panicking, so he is just blabbing anything that can possibly make him look good (he doesn't realize he is already sooooo fucked).

So, the state gets all of this information against him while he is in this unique position of being interrogated in front of his friends, family, and the nation. There hasn't been anything like this before that I know of, so it still needs to be addressed in the courts.

To sum up what I just said, it may be arguable that the confessions are achieved through coercion, coercion by the international audience watching. I'll coin it "insaniae via populi". (Madness by means of the people.)

(This probably won't be ever be addressed.)

I'd rather have tunnel vision than be ignorant. You've given your views on this subject, I've given mine.

Who is ignorant? its very sad, you attacked based on my second post and instead of being an adult and saying I made a mistake, you have to skate around it.

Miranda doesn't apply to laypeople, lol. It's a right given to suspects already in police custody. I can ask someone anything I want and they can answer me or not. But if they do, it's not protected under their Miranda rights.

I haven't made a mistake. I have stated my views. You and I have different opinions on this. Period. End of story. You were the one who started with ad hominem attacks (yeah, we folks in the woods who can't read use big words too).

Now, the issue of being a supporter of pedophilia.

To begin, just because I am supporting the rights of these people does not mean I that I support pedophilia. All it means is that I think this show should be looked at for possible violations of the rights of citizens.

You may think that some people deserve rights, and others don't deserve rights. That is where you and I differ; I believe everyone - a rapist, a murderer, a child molestor, a terrorist - everyone and anyone that is a citizen of the United States, deserves the rights granted to them.

I also believe that these rights should be respected, and attempts to beat them should be looked at closely. I feel that the entire mass media situation with this particular show needs to be looked at, but that does not make me a supporter of pedophilia.

What does that reply have to do with anything? J/w, made no sense.

Oh really let me begin:

Me: Those people have been proved guilty in a court of law, I think thats his point

You: Do you ever watch the news? See when they arrest people and they show their mug shot? You're in ATL - how many times has the guy who shot up the courthouse been on TV? How many news articles have been written about it? Hell, the chick who turned him in has written a book. Has he been proven guilty in a court of law?

Please people. These are CHILD SEXUAL PREDATORS and you're trying to give them more rights than the guy who robbed the local bank for $2K.

Then I say because I wasnt defending anyone constitutional rights: I dont understand that one everyone knows he did it but its going to cost 1.2 mil for his defense.

You: Jeepers, dude. You just contradicted yourself. So it's OK to show coverage on a shooter, but not a child predator. In fact, the shooter shouldn't even have a trial, and you're screaming for rights for sex predators, lol. Brilliant.

Tell me please where Im screaming for predator rights?

lets hope more follow suit

You've said all this in this thread already, and it has all been effectively destroyed point by point. Got anything new?

You may make a good defense lawyer one day, you certainly do think like one. Defense lawyers are great when the person they're defending is actually innocent or there are extenuating circumstances worth arguing for. But when the perp's guilt isn't even a question as it is here, when what they were attempting to do is so heinous it's unimagineable to most people, well... in this scenario you defense lawyer types are nearly as despicable as the predators themselves.

Try arguing that in an actual court, I guarantee you there would be a backlash against you and you would be labeled as defending the pedos. That's all I'm saying, and it's right. People are already saying it on this thread, think of what the whole of society would say if you took this to a courtroom.

Those poor pedos and their personal anquish. lol

You're arguing Miranda rights when it's not applicable in this situation. Miranda applies AFTER the suspect is in custody and it applies to questions the police are asking. AFTER. Not before. NBC is talking to these guys before they are arrested AND they aren't the police. Anything they say AFTER they have been arrested they are saying AFTER they've been read their Miranda rights.

I'm not even sure why you'd bring up Miranda in this situation.

Actually, everything I referred to was after they have been arrested. The confession comes before and after the reading of the rights. Them admitting to Chris is legal, but the confession also comes after the rights are read and they are still in a panic. It isn't illegal or anything as of now, but it is still abusive.

Sounds pretty fair (and as you stated, legal) to me.

How long has COPS been on TV? I didn't see everyone coming here whining about that show over the past, what, 10 years?

gotta throw my 2 cents in here.. I havent watched all of these , but early on they went over a bit of detail on how they actually catch these people.. chat names etc. In many of these cases it seemed plausible the suspects didnt know they were talking to children ( and werent ) the child model was an adult posing as a child. I want to get these creepo's off the street as much as the next guy , but im not sure if this is the right way.. It makes for great drama t.v. but i dont think it fights the root problem 1 iota

in one of the cases in particular they had the chat transcript and it was in an OPEN chatroom not in private. the suspect and fake child chatted for many many lines yet the fake child only mentions she is 14 once.. so if the guy went out of the room for 5 seconds when she said she was 14 , for all we know he thnks she is 21.

Im not trying to say all the cases were like this , some its obvious they are actively looking for children , some not so obvious.

Perhaps they will have a follow up show to let everyone know which ones were found innocent. Or maybe none HAVE been found innocent? Surely we would have heard of someone who was wrongly accused, videotaped and broadcast.

What makes you so sure?

Hey, I'm all for justice being served, be it finding them innocent or finding them guilty. But I know if *I* was wrongly on TV for being a sexual predator, i.e. I was found innocent, I'd certainly let the press know.

heh they never find people innocent , everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

But i understand what your getting at. problem is not everyone has been to chatroom especially jurors. Try explaining to a jury that you left the room for 5 seconds when she mentioned her age .. hard to prove.. try explaining some chat spammer flooded the room at the exact same time she once and only once mentioned her age..

The ones I've seenthe guys are saying "I knew I was doing something wrong", "I've seen this on TV, I don't know why I fell for it", "I've never done this before". I've not seen one where they said "I thought she was 21! I left the room for 5 minutes - that's must have been when she said she was 13". Nope, they all seem quite willing to admit they're guilty.