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

I'm sure the contact was initiated by the adult

Thank you. My temples are relaxing now.

---

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.

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?)

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

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.

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?

---

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

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.

---

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

---