STINGS ARE ENTRAPMENT

Is there a Constitutional right to have sex with underage children I'm not aware of?

The way it works if the constitution is followed is that everyone is free to think and believe as they wish, only if a person acts wrong can the majority (state) take action. Encouraging a person to act wrong is an unfair use of majority (state) power against the minority.

There is nothing legally improper with law enforcement setting a trap to catch someone who is already disposed toward committing a particular crime. The law enforcement agency can properly use undercover officer, decoys, or employ false identities, in order to trap an unwary criminal. It is improper, however, for the police to entrap an unwary innocent person.

The critical question is whether the criminal intent originated with the defendant or with the police

Quote:

The burden is on the defendant to prove the entrapment

It appears to me that the first step in that proposal is to agree that the defendant was actually caught in a sex sting. The issue of guilt has been given a big shot for the prosecution by the defendant doing so. Cant the entire thing be bifurcated so that the issue of entrapment is handled without prejudice to the defendant??

So the supremes have said, but they are wrong.

Gotcha

Im under a slight personal conviction that there are many law enforcement and fire department members out there who are just a few brain cells separated from what they purport to protect the rest of us from.

Again, thats not the point of my Thread. Im questioning METHODS. Of course the guy is stupid and is a potential criminal (if he acts on his urges). However, how he got there by possibly unconstitutional means is the core of my question.

Nonetheless the role of adults is to support young people in the throes of their first major hormone surges, not to **** them.

Really, this stuff sounds just like what rapists/abusers say.

"Disposed towards" often means to have the fantasy of.

I don't think it does. I think it means "willing to do it if they think they can get away with it."

Or "wanting to do if they can find a consensual partner".

We (the majority) act as if there is a consensual partner,

Since kids under 18 can't legally consent, that's a non-issue.

The law in the US has drawn a nice bright line at the age of eighteen.

If you don't like it, feel free to move.

Quote:

Look...I am not sure if people can really comment on your point, because you keep saying that these cops are actively seeking sex from men

Im sorry, The danger of the printed word is one of nuance missed (or taken). I didnt mean men securing sex from men, but men (cops) portraying themselves as underaged teenage girls who are actively engaging in phishing for adult men to "hook up" with. I am questioning the legality and constitutionality of preemptive law enforcement where the accused is coerced by the sting agent to take part in a tryst with the supposed teenager.
On top of that, once the "guilty" party is arrested, he is required by law (cf Ticos clips from PA ) to prove (civil statute burden of proof) that the cops were engaged in an entrapment. Hown the hell does one do that with the charges pending. HEs screwed from both sides of the case.
I think the courst should be required to tell the cops that the burden of proof is first on them to prove conclusively that they were not running an entrapment scam.

I KNOW what you are saying.


What I am pleading for is some EVIDENCE that the cops are posing as kids actively seeking sex

The law in the US has drawn a nice bright line at the age of eighteen.

You are kinda obsessed with statutory rape laws aren't you.

I know what you're thinking. You only do massage therapy, domination, act in porn movies, work for a licensed escort service or do nude dancing. How could they arrest you for prostitution? Isn't a prostitute that poor ignorant drug addict who stands on the streets and sells her body for a few bucks to anyone who comes along? What you were doing was not illegal, was it? And besides, the cop who arrested you. . . he entrapped you, and that's illegal, isn't it?

If you live in California, entrapment for prostitution is legal (even though it should be unconstitutional, it has not been ruled against because no one has been able to get a case heard in a high court of appeals), thanks to liberal democrats who desire to protect us poor stupid women from being exploited. And, in California, prostitution is so vaguely defined that it probably includes behavior that you thought was acceptable and legal. You probably thought that if you didn't have sexual intercourse or give a "blow job" you were not committing prostitution. Or, you thought that if you were doing these things in front of a camera, you were protected - just exercising your first amendment rights. And if you thought that you weren't breaking the law because you didn't take money for the sex act, but you took other consideration instead, you are wrong.
.
.
..
IF NO MONEY CHANGES HANDS, I HAVE NOT BROKEN THE LAW. The law only requires that you "manifest an acceptance of the offer" and does not say that you take the money. All you have to do to get arrested is to agree (by smiling or nodding your head) to touch his buttocks or genitals (through massage or dominance) or to let him touch yours, and agree to take a fee for it - in cash, or other consideration.* The crime of prostitution is all a word game- based on getting a 'solicitation' rather than an actual act out of a suspect. Anything further, such as getting you to get undressed or taking the money they offer, is just 'icing' on their legal case against you.

* I ONLY DANCE NUDE AND MASTURBATE MYSELF. IS THAT PROSTITUTION? The law says prostitution is "a lewd act for money or other consideration," which is "the touching of breast, buttocks or genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal." (later on we will explain this further.) Notice that it doesn't say who touches whose breast, buttocks or genitals in order for it to be lewd conduct. The vagueness of the law allows the act of masturbation to be included in the definition of prostitution if the other person (who is paying) becomes aroused or achieves sexual gratification while watching you and that is what they are paying for. So, whether you masturbate yourself, or, if you have a girl-girl show where you touch the breasts, buttocks or genitals of a third party, if the individual who is paying you gets aroused, etc. you have broken the law.