Customize

James V. Crosby v. Florida, US Supreme Court No. 13-9943

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Florida Scandal, May 24, 2014.

?

Should law enforcement use bait and switch tactics on adult hookup sites, setting up random men?

Yes 8 vote(s) 66.7%
No 4 vote(s) 33.3%
  1. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    I am debating whether to turn off the lights, do a vanishing act with this thread, or leave it alone and let it get worse... Won't make a snap decision yet.

    Florida Scandal: You have had this discussion before (Repeatedly, if my memory serves me right) and it didn't end well for you. I understand what you are trying to get at. However at the heart of the issue is whether a person should be held accountable for their own actions and whether or not law enforcement forces them along the wrong path. In those cases the LE get caught red handed and thus compromise their rep and cases and not just the single case either.

    However, a person must be held accountable for their own actions as well. If a guy finds out a person they are talking to is under the age of consent, then they alone must take steps to avoid any legal entanglement by either saying "Sorry, I am no longer interested" or hitting the red X button on their Right Top window. (Mac Fags: Sorry, I don't know if you all have a X for a close window. Care to tell me what it is?)

    If they chose to go down further on their path, then it is their own fault for doing so.They did so knowingly and fully aware of what they were doing.

    It doesn't matter what website or what the intents of the site are. Accountability is Accountability on both sides. Law and User alike.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. No, this organization obviously needs brains and people that can think outside of the box that the government puts you in. These men, THESE FAMILIES need our help damn it! This is the most evil and sinister plan in all of history because the government knows that the general public will not concern themselves with these cases because of the subject matter. Stop being assholes and think about what we are telling you!
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  3. Random guy Member

    I didn't even need to lay out the trap, did I? Most men you say? Getting so worked up over the chance to score that the girl telling them she's under-age doesn't send up a red flag? Oh deary me. mate, you have laid yourself open to an amount of trolling of epic proportions!

    How old was this Crosby chap anyway? I bet he wasn't anywhere near 18 or 20. My initial statement that under-age girls aren't gagging for sex with old farts still stands.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. All yall are doing is twisting my words and making them mean whatever you want them to mean. So fuck it! This was an attempt to give out information so that people would understand. This was an attempt to make people aware of the fact that the constitution protects "sick fucks" too and they should not be manipulated by law enforcement.
    Speaking of, HOW IN THE FUCK WOULD YOU FIND SOMETHING LIKE THAT UNLESS YOU WERE LOOKING FOR IT! DAMN YOU'RE SICK!
    • Like Like x 2
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. Ex Parte John Christopher Lo vs. Texas, NO. PD-1560-12, (Court of Appeals, October 30, 2013)

    “The Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse.” This rule reflects the judgment that “[t]he possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that protected speech of others may be muted[.]”...
    Because the preponderance of the evidence, as set out in the e-mail messages, showed the law enforcement officer’s methods of persuasion induced or encouraged, and as a direct result caused Appellant’s unlawful communications, the legal definition of entrapment set out in section 777.201, Florida Statues was met and the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The law does not tolerate government action to provoke a law-abiding citizen to commit a crime in order to prosecute him or her with that crime.
    An `inducement' consists of an `opportunity' plus something else—typically, excessive pressure by the government upon the defendant or the government's taking advantage of an alternative, non-criminal type of motive." United States v. Gendron,18 F.3d 955, 961 (1st Cir.1994) (quoting Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550, 112 S.Ct. 1535)… Cases like Jacobson, Sherman and Sorrells demonstrate that even very subtle governmental pressure, if skillfully applied, can amount to inducement… In Hollingsworth, the inducement was nothing more than giving the defendant the idea of committing the crime, coupled with the means to do it. See Hollingsworth, 27 F.3d at 1200-02.

    Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
    Moreover, the Government's claim that the work must be considered patently offensive "in context" was itself vague because the relevant context might refer to, among other things, the nature of the communication as a whole, the time of day it was conveyed, the medium used, the identity of the speaker, or whether or not it is accompanied by appropriate warnings… The District Court specifically found that "[c]ommunications over the Internet do not ‘invade' an individual's home or appear on one's computer screen unbidden. Users seldom encounter content ‘by accident.' " 929 F. Supp., at 844 (finding 88). It also found that "[a]lmost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the content," and cited testimony that " ‘odds are slim' that a user would come across a sexually explicit sight by accident." Ibid… The Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow protects the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement of § 223(d) cannot save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech who might simply log on and inform the would be discoursers that his 17 year old child--a "specific person . . . under 18 years of age," 47 U. S. C. A. § 223(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 1997)--would be present… The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship… (internal quotations omitted)

    People v. Aguirre, No. G045009 (CA 4th DCA, April 5, 2012)
    Our analysis suggests the government should not be in the business of testing the will of law-abiding citizens with elaborate (if improbable) fantasies of sensuous teenagers desperate to engage in sexual acts with random middle-aged men...
    The pertinent question in this case is whether an individual seeking consensual casual sex on the Internet who would normally confine the search and pursuit to adults, would nonetheless be induced by the police conduct at issue in this case to pursue lewd conduct with a minor. (See Barraza, supra, 23 Cal.3d at p. 690 [police conduct cannot "be viewed in a vacuum" but instead "should . . . be judged by the effect it would have on a normally law-abiding person situated in the circumstances of the case at hand"].)
  6. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 1
  7. I am not Homer Simpson! I will not google something when you tell me not to. Anyway, I am scared to after the shit that I saw!
  8. No but the topic at hand and all name calling aside, you guys are good people. With the exception of the person that found that damn site! Jesus Christ! This is just way too sensitive for most people. Protecting the young is admirable and what we all should do but not at the expense of someone else's life and certainly not when there is nobody in need of protecting.
  9. Random guy Member

    Let me get this straight: Consensual adults doing sexual stuff to each other is scary shit, while dirty old men crossing the legal line and not reeling in their dicks when they realize their potential score is a minor is not? O-ookayyyyy ...
    • Like Like x 4
  10. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  11. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    http://www.thesexoffenderdefender.com/Sex-Crimes-Defense/Sexual-Assault-Sexual-Battery-Rape.shtml
    Yeah I see
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    I understand that you have come here to drum up advertising copy for your masters.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Peter Aiken and his team are very good men that know how to leave their personal issues and beliefs out of a situation to get to the legal truth. That truth being that despite the disgusting conversations that some of these men have, the stings are illegal.
  14. READ THIS CAREFULLY: This is not advertising! We do not endorse or promote any attorneys nor are we attorneys or attorney spokesmen. There are numerous attorneys working on this and all attorneys are equally qualified. Do you guys have attorneys working on anything? No? Oh well then I rest my case.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  15. Random guy Member

    So what the heck are you doing here?
    • Like Like x 3
  16. To get the truth out so hopefully one of you that have some marbles rolling around in your head will get it.
  17. I mean get real! Why would I come to a place full of people that want to protect children to advertise for attorneys that represent people arrested in these stings? Are any of you in need of legal counsel because of being arrested in a sting? No? Well I rest my case again. I just figured that this topic is right up you guys alley and that there were intelligent people here that would search for the legal truth and help these FAMILIES. These guys are not child predators, if they were then they would certainly get arrested more than once because there is no cure for pedophelia.
  18. DeathHamster Member

    Wrong in so many ways, including the creepy ones.
    • Like Like x 4
  19. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Florida:

    I am trying to be nice here and not come at you with guns a blazing. So bear that in mind should you chose to respond.

    Most of what you are saying is assumptions, speculation, and in some cases just a handful of incidents that you are hyperbole into a more serious problem with more hyperbole about actions being taken. Now, I'd be doing the same if I said that there are no cases of LE getting overzealous and doing things to entrap. That too isn't true.

    However, the problem you are describing is far less occurring and more random than you are letting on. You don't, or haven't demonstrated yet, that LE is doing anything invalid or not following protocols designed for stings. You haven't demonstrated the knowledge of being aware that LE does follow strict guidelines when doing this. It appears you are assuming they don't, from what I have gathered. You seem fixated on these cases that may, or may not, have been a case of entrapment.

    Your argument that LE setting up stings in one night stand sites being wrong is a fallacious argument. I have yet to hear from you why you think that minors or sexual abusers somehow treat these sites differently and/or avoid them. My response is: They do use those sites more than you think or care to admit.

    Now, I have been rather fair to you and have kept this thread upstairs for a while. However, it seems like you want to argue and bicker about why your right and anybody who points out the faults of your ideas is wrong. You attack and insult because people here are objecting to you. If you want to be taken seriously: Take a deep breath, realize what you are saying works better without ad hom attacks and try reasoning in a clear, collective manner.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Why bother when even the almighy Skynet can't find a single image of the original?

    I swear, I have to hunt all over Hell's Internet Tubes Service to find even one good shot of Goatse...

    Oh boy, how fucking wrong you are!

    If there was clear evidence that they were wrongfully busted, then maybe there would have been interest had you not gone full retard.

    However, you seem to ignore the entire point of your ass beating here: People who continue to exploint sexual encounters from undercover cops posing as minors and were informed that the cop is a pretend minor. In that case: All the suprise butt sex they get in prison is more laughs to be had at their expense. Doesn't mean shit that they are embarrassed or lose their families. They should have got the fuck away the nanosecond they heard "Im 14 lol" after asking the question "How old are you?"

    Fuck them. They get what they deserve for being stupid. Fuck you for being their White Knight. Faggot.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. You guys have got to give me a break. I gave you all of the proof. I gave you the court cases which are on the "case law links" page of "Florida Scandal. I gave you the news articles which are on the homepage of "Florida Scandal". I uploaded a copy of that guys petition. The fact is, you guys just won't read it because you think that we are full of crap.
  22. There is PLENTY of clear cut evidence if you guys would just take the time to find it and read and look at the things that I asked you guys to. We have won a ton of cases and we even have proof from lost cases that the guys were "ham stringed" into taking a plea even though the record proved their innocence. As far as this "nano second business", the constitution DOES NOT support the claim that just because someone states that they are a minor on the internet then they really are a minor. In fact, the Supreme Court stated that this is nothing more than a hecklers veto. (Stated in the case law that I posted.) In my opinion, if a guy were to suddenly just run away then he would be more guilty than the guy that continues the conversation because why run away? Are you doing anything illegal? No. The only ones doing something illegal are the cops and carrying on a conversation with a stranger on the internet is protected speech particularly when you are among your peers. I.e. Everyone on those sites are looking for hookups and none of the men arrested have ever seen a minor on them until running into a sting. One guy had been on Craigslist for four years before seeing anything to do with a minor. There are no kids to protect in there!
  23. Well I am glad that you have let this continue because this is very important. Maybe not to all of you but it should be because while this nation suffers over Obama Care, the money that could go for free health care is being spent on these REGULARLY OCCURRING ILLEGAL STINGS. Just about every sting that happens we are there gathering evidence of entrapment and every time it is obvious that these are not good faith efforts to catch child predators. Furthermore, entrapment is about the actions of law enforcement and not the guilt of innocence of the suspect.

    You speak of ad hominem attacks but what are you guys doing to me? Every time I try to give you guys the proof you are asking for you don't read it and start calling me a faggot, pedophile lover, and all kinds of "ad hom attacks". But you see you guys are just proving my point as to how good of a conspiracy this is. The government knows how the public feels about child predators. The public are so adamant about their hatred for them, once someone is accused of it there is no talking sense into the people. I can give you 10 times more evidence than I already have and you probably still will attack me and treat me like shit. Here is the entrapment evidence that was put in the news (that resulted in numerous cases being thrown out):

    10 Investigates: law enforcement may have entrapped alleged sexual predators (01/30/2014)

    Here is an article about law enforcement hiding public information just to hide the conspiracy:

    Law enforcement still hiding public records on sex busts (04/15/2014)

    The standardized procedures that are codified in Title 42 17614 are at

    http://governingus.com

    Other case law is at

    http://floridascandal.blogspot.com/p/case-law-links.html

    I even give you a law firm to talk to and I still get called a faggot? Yet, I am attacking all of you with "ad hom attacks" meaning of course that I have no proof or credibility when all I have done is give you guys proof and backed up my claims.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Hearsay and speculation.
    More hearsay and speculation.
    That's because you have acted and are continuing to act like a faggot.

    Prancing around WWP expecting everyone to notice you and your noble cause, telling the membership what they should do (countless times!) That is what WWP calls "Faggotry."

    You took no time to examine this forum and deduce what kind of issues are of concern to the WWP membership and how the Membership concerns itself with issues. It's all about you and your noble cause. First time you showed up, you promoted illegal activities involving electronic equipment.

    Your behaviour has been rude, disrespectful and full of faggotry.

    My final words for you are:

    # of people that give a fuck@0.gif

    And...

    Fuck off 2@0.gif
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Yeah, that was poorly worded. I didn't write it so why would I give a damn because the general idea is there. Furthermore, there is another key word in that case and that is "knowingly". The Supreme Court puts a strong restriction on that word and the men are not "knowingly" soliciting a minor because they were not looking for a minor and the ad they answered did not even state that there was a minor. Furthermore, these "minors" are soliciting them just to try to create crime that does not exist to make an arrest and steal our money.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  26. My behaviour is rude? Well excuse the hell out of me since you were rude from the very beginning just because your head is up your ass. Furthermore, I never promoted illegal activities all I was trying to do was beat the cops are their own game. This "tyranny" and "treason" with law enforcement has to stop. To knowingly violate the constitutional rights of others just because you think you can is an act of tyranny and treason. Yes I said treason because the federal government tells the states what to do and the states give them the finger! "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me" is the states motto. Just like with the illegal tracking with stingrays and the illegal internet stings. The feds tell these fuckers what to do because it is mandated by the federal constitution and they do things the way they want to because they are money hungry and don't give a shit about due process. Finally, it is no secret that numerous states are trying to secede from the union which is another act of treason.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  27. Oh yeah, and it's not hearsay and speculation because there is proof in there IF YOU WOULD READ THE SHIT!
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  28. Also, as far as being concerned with the objectives of anonymous, we are very concerned which is why we started "Governing Us". That site is meant to be a forum for all acts of government corruption and constitutional issues hence the name. Just who the hell is "Governing Us"? Sic Semper Tyrannus! Also, it seems that a bunch of tyrants are in here as well. Sure pick on the new guy! Look, I'm not crazy. I'm just ahead of the curve. I don't give a damn what goes through anyone's mind about having sex with teens because it is their constitutional right and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. For law enforcement to go to an adult website, post an ad as an adult looking for sex, and then switch the age of the poster to that of a "minor" is a process called inducement and implantation. I.e. These fuckers weren't thinking about fucking kids until the cops put the idea in their heads by pretending to be criminals who want them to do it. Furthermore, engaging in a criminal enterprise from start to finish is entrapment and inducement. The fact that they are going to adult websites where people are already looking for sex is proof that they are approaching and soliciting random, unsuspecting, innocent men because they are using the legal activity they are engaged in to twist it into a "crime" which is also inducement. Sure what these guys are doing is morally wrong and they are already engaged in immoral activities in the first damn place. However, for law enforcement to exploit this and set them up as something they are not because of one act of "misjudgement" IS NOT tolerated by the constitution especially since the acts of "misjudgement" (or thinking with their dicks if you like) would have never happened had the government not been there to encourage them to do it.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  29. White Tara Global Moderator

    Hey, dare I say, welcome to anonymous. :( I for one In spite of life experience choose to keep and open mind to situations such as discussed. I do believe for the. best of motives, people charged with protecting society can view 'the capture' as mpre valuable then the delivery of justice. on the other hand they tend to cast the net wider when it comes to sexual crimes regarding children, which I completely understand. If you wish to last here, and wish to get resonance for your cause, it would stand you in good stead to not bite at e every contrary opinion that crosses your thread. Good luck OP.
    • Like Like x 3
  30. THANK GOD FOR YOU! Thanks for finally giving me a warm welcome. Also, I do not mean to "bite" at every contrary opinion but that is exactly what they are: just opinions. What has been posted here by me have not been my opinions but just facts. The tactics used in these stings violate the constitution, period. I bite because nobody wants to read the facts. They are being hardheaded, deliberately obtuse, and very disrespectful to me because they refuse to interpret what I give them. My opinion is just like the rest of the people in here, if you continue to carry on a conversation with someone claiming to be minor that is encouraging you to have sex then you deserve to be arrested. However, opinions are like buttholes, everybody has them, and deserve has nothing to do with it. The constitution must be protected AT ALL COST no matter who the rights enumerated in it pertain to and that even includes accused "child predators".
  31. Oh I would also like to add that I respect each and everyone of you in here and that I understand your turmoil over this topic. The truth with issues such as these are never pretty. This is, in fact, a government conspiracy and it makes my guts turn every time I say that because of the topic. However, I can't ignore the facts that prove the men arrested are not arrested while trying to prey on innocent children. They were arrested because cops were preying on them and manipulating an already immoral and sexually deviant activity. Finally, because I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion is why I am still here and why I have not liked or disliked any comments made. I have to stay neutral and objectively approach the situation or I just might become part of the "lynch mob".
  32. Random guy Member

    You still really don't get it, do you?

    If you are in an adult chat of some sort where the topic is cruising for a sexual encounter, and one part claim to be a minor, there's really only one of three things going on:

    1) you are really talking to a minor
    2) you are being trolled
    3) you are walking into a police trap

    In non of these circumstances are you served by continuing. The only ones who who continue asking for it under those circumstances are people whose minds are so fired up by the remote chance they'll get under-age nookie that they are refusing to see they are walking into trouble. and (lo and behold) those are the ones the sting is set up to ferret out!

    Now, you are fully entitled to dislike this, and you are fully entitled to want the police stop using these methods to catch paedophiles. That however are legal and political questions, and it is what you use your vote for.

    Good luck starting a party whose aim is to curtail the police in their effort to ferret out paedophiles!
    • Like Like x 3
  33. Ok, I hear you BUT what about that guys petition before the Supreme Court? Considering his scenario (and a lot of others that I have read) your possibilities are incomplete. Here are the facts of his case:

    1) The guy was drunk on an adult website talking about sex with EVERYONE including the homosexuals even though the guy is not a homosexual (proving that anyone can talk about sex with anyone)
    2) he considered the encounter as a ruse (your number 2 above) so he felt as though he was calling this "person's" bluff when "she" stated numerous times she wanted to have sex with him
    3) "SHE" initiated all sexual talk
    4) "SHE" voluntarily sent pictures (that looked like a twenty year old woman)
    5) "SHE" voluntarily gave over a phone number and address so the guy calls
    6) while on the phone the "person" is still stating that they are a minor
    7) the guy politely tells "her" that he is drunk and needs to sleep it off and that he is not coming like she wants
    8) "she" calls numerous times to try to talk him into coming over and numerous times he makes excuses as to why he will not ultimately stating that he did not have any gas in which "she" responded with she would give him gas money if he came over JUST TO HANG OUT
    9) "she" stated that she liked him and just wanted to hang out (and that was it) in which he responded with things like how can you like me and you don't even know me and I don't know you
    10) He still does not decide to make the hour drive until hours later (in broad daylight) just because he was bored and curious and he knew that he did not have to do anything he did not want to do
    11) To make a long story short, the guy shows up, gets arrested and later finds out that the phone calls proving his lack of criminal intent were not recording thus setting him up to look like he showed up to actually have sex

    Here is another case that I will not mention because I do not have permission:

    1) The guy responds to an ad on Craigslist looking for a threesome with an adult man posted by an adult woman
    2) The guy agrees to the threesome and asks where to meet up to see if everything will work out
    3) The 35 year old "woman" states that the other person is actually her step daughter that is looking to get laid too (this is why they are able to arrest much older men because they pose as much older women
    4) The guy tells her he is not interested in the "minor" just her
    5) "She" states that if "her step daughter" is not involved then the deal is off
    6) He refuses again but changes the subject to continue the conversation in the hopes that he could get laid by the adult
    7) "She" ceases communication and finally agrees with her demand just to keep the possible sexual encounter with her open
    8) He shows up with the intentions of talking the adult into a sexaul encounter by herself but obviously gets arrested

    So you see, it is not cut and dry and there are many cases where the cops merely convince the guys to come over just to make it appear as though they were actually trying to have sex with the "minor" that begged and encouraged the men to have sex with them. Basically, the constitution permits you to talk about anything you chose and what really matters is your intent. Law enforcement however, do not care about your actual intent. If you make sexual references to an alleged minor on the internet (even though you were not looking for one on an adult site and they induced you to make those references) they will set you up and make it look like you actually had the intent to go through with it. This is the truth and reality of the child internet sex stings and why they arrest so many men and why there are arrests made from "all walks of life". It is not because pedophiles come from all walks of life. It is because they create the criminal scenario carefully chosing the "ages" of the actors, manufacture the crime, encourage the commission of the crime, and convince the men to show up for whatever reason to make it appear as though the intent was actually there.
  34. Oh and the possibility that you are really talking to a minor is slim to none. As we stated earlier, the reality of it is minors do not troll Craigslist looking for sex with random men. In fact, police officers have admitted that they have never heard of a minor placing an ad on Craigslist looking for sex before. Furthermore, Frank Williams states that the top place for internet predators to find their prey is on multiplayer gaming sites.
  35. P.S. ALL of these tactics shown here are in direct violation of the Standardized Procedures created by the Department of Justice. Namely because you can't tell beyond a reasonable doubt if the guys were really going to have sex with the minor. These are clear infringements of the right to freedom of speech and clear violations of due process particularly when they falsify arrest reports and omit evidence to paint the picture that they want to paint.
  36. Oh, and I also have to add that even though these are the types of things that happen behind the scenes, those bastards get on tv and tell the public that these men are child predators and were caught red handed trying to prey on children. An obvious lie that not only violates the LE code of ethics and procedure but also due process. The truth is, they were just looking for their next "meal ticket" and pawn. We have tons of these stories and we have the discoveries and evidence to prove it. If you guys would like you all can come join our group and we will let you see some of it. Since seeing is believing. In fact, most of the men arrested in these stings have either seen "To Catch a Predator" or seen a news release about a sting and all stated the same things that most people state. I.e. Cut their balls off. Then, after they are arrested they know that the public are being lied to and are caught in the middle of hell. They continue to arrest people because law enforcement are lying and the average person will not pick up on it even when they are right in the middle of a sting. Unless of course they are already aware of the lies.
  37. I'm so glad you said this!
    Police conducting illegal stings which are easy to set up likely are just trying to meet some arbitrary quota or workplace KPIs, like in Arizona:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...says-craigslist-facilitates-bestiality/print/

    I trust you'll follow this up with the same constitutional vigor you've shown so far in this thread. The Sherrif, Joe Arpaio, has already been involved in numerous controversies, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff's_Office_controversies#Joe_Arpaio and http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/12/maricopa-county-to-pay-3-75-million-for-false-arrests/
  38. Basically the motives behind the stings are:

    1) get them to say something sexual (which is not hard to do because they are soliciting them sexually and because of the environment)
    2) get them to come to the undercover location to arrest them for those sexual statements

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins