On-line predators ....how disturbed are you?- Page 3

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:47pm

I'm sure the contact was initiated by the adult

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:48pm

There's a difference between sending nude photos to underage people KelRel and meeting up with an adult who posed as an underage person online.

I realize people want to paint it with a very broad brush, but all things are not equal in these instances.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:48pm

Thank you. My temples are relaxing now.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:49pm

Yes, let's NOT pretend that the news people are being altruistic angels. They want ratings, which equals money.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:51pm

Under the law Namo, I am not sure there is much difference.

Again, if all of the facts were the same, except that a 13 year old was being supervised be an adult, and the 13 year old was in the house - you still have the same issue - the intent of the person who wanted to have sex with the minor.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:51pm

OH MY GOD. did i just really see someone (not in the exact words) claim media conspiracy?

[KelRel]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:53pm

Namo, but the fact that they went there with the intent to meet a child is what the fuss is about. If they went to meet a child who had represented themselves as older than they really were then that would be a completely different story with the adult being the victim because they would be going to meet with what they thought was a consenting adult. The difference lies in the fact that they think that they will be meeting a child. It is much safer in these situations if children are kept out of it and we should be lucky that the adult was met with another adult instead of some child becoming a statistic.

I agree with your "don't start none won't be none" philosophy, but this is catching someone who is the one starting stuff. The logic works the same. If they didn't contact the "child" then there wouldn't be "none" of the legal consiquences.(sp?)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:53pm

Who claimed that, zone?

[Elphaba]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 7:53pm

and, if this stops a predator BEFORE the abuse children, so much the better!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:01pm

Zone doesn't appear to be what could be called a close reader, JRB.

Personally, I find sting operations of all sorts to be reprehensible.

I can't imagine that the number of people who are lured into responding to a cop is that large compared to the people out there who really ARE predators who are acting on their impulses. But it makes people feel like something is being done, I guess.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:05pm

Now that is a good point. I bet most repeat offenders don't fall for these sting operations. And, most kids are abused by someone they know. Therefore, this news story/program doesn't even touch the tip of the ice berg, but everyone feels better because they think something substantial is being accomplished.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:07pm

Actually Jerby, on the first installment, before the police were coordinating with the news source, there was one guy who got caught on day one, and then came back again on day two to a different location.

He may just be a wee bit dense.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:08pm

And of course, the slippery slope is what if somebody who is innocent really IS caught in the sting? Ostensibly nobody is going to come along and say "Child predators are a GOOD thing," so the decks are completely stacked against people who are entraped.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:09pm

KelRel, I feel the same way. I've been online since I was 11-ish. I always answered the "asl" question honestly and I can't tell you how many times I was IMed and PMed by 18+ year old guys. As soon as I signed online, I would get "Wanna cyber?" messages popping up. I didn't lure them in. Myspace didn't exist yet, so I clearly wasn't posting pictures of myself and personal information. I was trying to talk to friends from school, but ended up spending more time dealing with people insisting they knew someone from my school and asking for me to post a picture and my class schedule so they could show their cousin.

These people existed long before police thought of ways to catch them before serious damage could be done.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 08:09 PM

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:10pm

13 Going On 30 is on Starz right now. Within the context of this thread this movie is truly gross!

Just kidding.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337563/ Updated On: 2/4/06 at 08:10 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:11pm

Right. And how many of them were actually caught? Are you laboring under the illusion that because there are sensationalist reports during sweeps months on TV that that phenomenon has been eliminated?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:12pm

Entrap?

Maybe there is a guy out there who really was intent on helping the kid - who did not intend to have sex.

But you know what, call the friggin cops then. You don't go to his/her house to convince him/her of the error of their ways.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:13pm

How is the problem of unattended 13 year olds chatting with adults being addressed in this report?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:15pm

I see your point. I just think entrapment in general is immoral and I've never been one to look at it on a gradient, like it's okay to do an immoral thing to stop somebody from doing an even MORE immoral thing. Because, really, who's watching the watchmen?

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:17pm

I think there was a discussion of parental controls and/or filters that could be used to track what words kids are using on their computer - to warn parents if this is happening.

There have been some school presentations to make kids aware of the risks.

I think all of the publicity now will at least help.

Some of my friends will not let their younger kids have computers in their bedrooms or in any room that is not frequented by the parent. It gets harder to implement as kids gets older.

The parents just have to actually be parents and try and make sure they have some idea what their kids are doing. It is not fun, but it is their job.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:18pm

chita, you obviously don't remember what it was like to be 13. Did your mother know about the magazines you kept under your mattress?

Namo, I'm not saying the problem has disappeared. I just said that this is the first proactive step they've taken to addressing the problem of adults soliciting sex from minors over the internet. It's better than sitting around waiting for the next Amber Alert.

Updated On: 2/4/06 at 08:18 PM

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:26pm

jerking off to an old issue of After Dark or...

chatting with adults and exchanging pornographic images with said adults.


hmmmmm. looks like the same thing to me.
Updated On: 2/4/06 at 08:26 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:31pm

It was an example. Your parents didn't know everything that you did when you were 13; neither did mine.

Parents not watching their children online isn't the problem- the problem is that there ARE predators out there that solicit sex from minors over the internet, regardless of how many "parental controls" AOL shills.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:33pm

"I just said that this is the first proactive step they've taken to addressing the problem of adults soliciting sex from minors over the internet."

It is absolutely not the "first proactive step," but it certainly is a morally dicey one.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/4/06 at 8:35pm

Well, since you don't like their actions, what would you suggest be done differently to bring about change?