entrapment or not

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman the next time you are in a Wal-Mart go to the wall need the entrance that have pictures of missing “children”.

You will find by reading under the pictures most of them are 15 or 16 year old girls who had ran away with their 19 or 20 year old boyfriends.

As I said we are as hung up on norm sexual developments as any Muslin Country just not in the same ways and we are just as willing to “stone” people over sex as they are also even to our own young people.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Mysteryman the next time you are in a Wal-Mart go to the wall need the entrance that have pictures of missing “children”.

You will find by reading under the pictures most of them are 15 or 16 year old girls who had ran away with their 19 or 20 year old boyfriends

Not so fast there buddy.....a lot of these girls "run away" because they are unloved, unwanted and or abused at home. They are latter found hooking, and resist all calls by to do-gooders to go home. It is not uncommon for a young girl to be homeless, and doign the most dangerous and low paying of the jobs in the sex industry, but she would rather do that then go home.

I would argue that these youth have not run away, rather they have been discarded.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:

A normal person would say to a young girl who approached him or her in this way,
'Excuse me young lady, but do your parents know you are suggesting meetings with strangers?
This is not a safe thing to do and I'd advise you to stop doing this right now and never do it again.'

As a general rule, I address other people
as I myself woud prefer to be addressed.
When I was a kid, if anyone, any adult had impugned my autonomy
by raising questions qua what my parents knew, I 'd defensively
question what his mother knows about HIM,
in an effort to get him off his hi horse and equalize our social levels.
I 'd have accepted such a question as an offense to my dignity, to be vindicated.

If I were to address a youngster in the fashion that u suggested,
I 'd deem that to be an offense to his or her ego: not courteous,
but I woud politely raise the question of personal safety
in such contemplated circumstances, pointing out some of the dangers,
but then again, I just remembered an incident that causes me
to question whether I 've been a hypocrit in saying that I 'd warn
of the dangers, to wit:
maybe 3 years ago, give or take, I 'd parked in the lot of a Red Lobster
in Hicksville, Long Island on Rt. 107. As I approached its front door,
I saw a boy about the age in question, walking along the same way.
I had never seen him before.

I saw that he held up his hand and looked at his palm n fingers.
Thay were very, very black, as tho he touched soot.
Tho I don't claim to be a mind reader, I had a hunch somehow
that he was considering licking his hand. I felt shocked.
I felt like calling out something negative like: "don 't do it"
but I was ambivalently reluctant to interfere with anyone else,
as if I had a right to tell him what to do.

I saw him lick the black dirt on his hand. It was shocking.
I kept my mouth shut, thinking that I have no right to tell him what to do.

Therefore, since I kept quiet,
perhaps I am speaking falsely as to telling young people what not to do.

David

1 Reply

@aidan,

First off, @misteryman - I'd certainly say it's grounds for a sentence reduction, at least. However, if such grounds are reason for dismissing the charges, chances are people will start to 'hide' their behavior behind a flimsy 'fake Id' wall.
If you decide to meet with someone you met over an internet chatroom, and rather then talk vis-a-vis just have some sex with that person, and that person turns out to be underage, no matter if (s)he showed fake ID and looks older, that person has commited a crime.
The minor in that case should also be prosecuted at least for lying about age and falsifying legal documents. The adult should certainly not be labelled as a pedophile or sex offender, but a note should be made on their criminal record. If this happens more then once, the adult should be prosecuted to the full extent of the charges. Because the adult should know better then to 'fall' for the same trick twice.

Aidan - Sorry, I disagree. Your motives are pure and certainly it's never wrong to be protective of the children, but there is a decided slant in the judiciary system about these cases, and people who have your attitude only make it worse.
Quoting my signature is fine, but if you DO believe there are two sides to any story in these cases, you should be fair and partial towards each side. That is, to ALSO be critical about the child's story.

If people consistently fail to follow the tenets of what is supposedly a fair and impartial court system, by labelling a person guilty by default and branding him/her for the rest of their life (and don't tell me this isn't the case, because in these situations, it is!), you are not being a good parent at all.
What you are going to create is a society that is paralysed by fear of children. Simply because anything you say and do can (and eventually will) be explained as predatory behavior.
Consequences?
- It's going to be hard to find teachers, and they will in all likely hood be aloof and distant.
- It's going to be even harder to find people willing to do volunteer work with/for children. Such as soccer coaches, boy/girlscout leaders, etc.
- Children will inadvertently pick up on these undercurrents and develop paranoia and distrust themselves. I doubt that can be an ingredient for a happy and carefree childhood.

I have no doubt that you feel I am ridiculous, but I have seen the consequences of these accusations myself.

After what happened to my friend, I decided to stop my volunteer work as well, part out of sympathy for the way he was treated, partly because I feared that whoever spread those rumors would now latch on to me.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Read the words under the postings my freind and come to your own conclusions.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

As a general rule, I address other people
as I myself woud prefer to be addressed.
When I was a kid, if anyone, any adult had impugned my autonomy
by raising questions qua what my parents knew, I 'd defensively
question what his mother knows about HIM,
in an effort to get him off his hi horse and equalize our social levels.

.
Yes, so do I. Even children! But David - sometimes you have to be forceful in your language so that the child doesn't continue to endanger him or herself. If a child were running out in front of a car would you say, 'Please reconsider your actions right now - you may get hurt if you continue what you're doing,' or would you say, 'Stop! Watch out! Get out of the middle of the street..!'?

Quote:

I 'd have accepted such a question as an offense to my dignity, to be vindicated

Vindicated? Even if you eventually realized the person had your safety and best interests at heart?

I don't know David - as a parent and a teacher I've been put in the role of telling children what they're supposed to do at any moment of the day for years. You know, 'It's time to wake up - please get dressed, eat your dinner, do your homework, take out the trash, walk the dog, bathtime, time for bed....you get the idea.
Most kids don't find it at all offensive.

In fact yesterday I was walking my dog and she did her duty if you know what I mean and this woman on the street said to me, 'I hope you intend to clean that up.' I was her adult contemporary, she was maybe ten or twelve years older than I am, but still, and I looked at her and said, 'I certainly will.' And I did. I did not get offended or feel that I needed to vindicate my dignity in any way. I just kept walking my dog.

1 Reply

@najmelliw,

Quote:

Aidan - Sorry, I disagree. Your motives are pure and certainly it's never wrong to be protective of the children, but there is a decided slant in the judiciary system about these cases, and people who have your attitude only make it worse.
Quoting my signature is fine, but if you DO believe there are two sides to any story in these cases, you should be fair and partial towards each side. That is, to ALSO be critical about the child's story.

The only 'story' or scenario I'm responding to is this one: A man admittedly talks in a sexual way on the internet to children he knows (or is hoping) are underage. He gets caught, because unbeknownst to him, the person on the other end pretending to be a child is an adult police officer, and he has asked who he believed was the young child for his/her address in an attempt to meet this child. He is then charged with a crime, even though he never touched the child.
That's the person I think is a danger to children.
I'm not referring to any situation where there is any question but that the adult actually did what is outlined above.

I am not on a witchhunt. I have been working with children for twenty-five years now, and in all that time, although I've known numerous children who were victims of abuse (due to the nature of the children I worked with) I have only personally been aware or hav known of one pedophile.
And that turned out to be my son's eighth grade science teacher - actually a colleague of mine (we worked in the same school system). He was caught in a scenario identical to the one I outlined above. This was about three years after my son had had him for 8th grade science. The community was shocked. I was shocked. My son was shocked. None of us could believe that this man that we all knew, loved and respected was capable of this...but it became clear that there was no doubt but that he was intending to molest a young thirteen year old boy. The police met him at the house as he pulled up in his car to keep his 'date'- the boy had wisely told his father about it and the father had called the police.

I have never had any cause to suspect anyone else in my life or circle of acquaintances or colleagues of any sort of child endangerment except twice- neither time involved sex.
Once I witnessed a young woman I was working with throw her child on a bed so forcefully that the boy's head bounced off the wall, and once I found my three year old neighbor wandering alone by the Piscataquis river at dusk when I was taking my own children and my dog for a walk. Even in those situations, where those children were obviously being abused and/or neglected, I felt bad for having to call.
Because I would never take any allegation I was going to make lightly- but on the other hand, what if I hadn't called and the next time these children were abused and/or neglected they'd been killed? How would I feel then?

I'm sorry about what has happened to your friend - TRULY- I think it's horrible that he felt threatened by people who would tell lies about someone who was working to help children. But that is nothing like the scenario that I was responding to in this thread. The situations I was responding to involved people who had actually done or had planned to do what they were accused of doing.
I don't know what to tell you - my experience has been like Flynn's.
I've had kids of all ages sleeping over my house, going on vacation with my family- and my children have done the same with other families and I've never had occasion to be worried that something untoward was going on- and apparently no one ever worried about their child's safety while they were in my care, because it's never arisen as an issue.
I've hugged kids in school - to this day - I hug kids I work with- and my childrens' teachers hug them - no problem.

I don't feel you're ridiculous. I believe what you're saying. I'm just saying that my experience has been different.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

my experience has been like Flynn's.

I meant to say finn. (I have a friend named Flynn).

0 Replies

@aidan,

David wrote:

Quote:

As a general rule, I address other people
as I myself woud prefer to be addressed.
When I was a kid, if anyone, any adult had impugned my autonomy
by raising questions qua what my parents knew, I 'd defensively
question what his mother knows about HIM,
in an effort to get him off his hi horse and equalize our social levels.

.
aidan wrote:

Quote:

Yes, so do I. Even children! But David - sometimes you have to be forceful
in your language so that the child doesn't continue to endanger him or herself.
If a child were running out in front of a car would you say,
'Please reconsider your actions right now - you may get hurt if you
continue what you're doing,' or would you say,
'Stop! Watch out! Get out of the middle of the street..!'?

In an emergency, I have shouted (to an adult):
"look OUT."
Emergencies r ofen time-sensitive.
Its too long ago for me to remember my childhood
wherein any emergency befell a kid,
but in such situations, I 'd certainly say exactly the same thing.
A warning of danger is not an offense to the dignity;
i.e., giving the impending victim new factual information.

David wrote:

Quote:

I 'd have accepted such a question as an offense to my dignity, to be vindicated

aidan wrote:

Quote:

Vindicated?
Even if you eventually realized the person
had your safety and best interests at heart?

YES! Absolutely, yes !
Bear in mind that even the most ineffably abhorent despotisms
of the 20th Century were done in furtherance of the beliefs
of the commies and nazis that what thay were doing
was in the best interests of their people.

When Andrea Yates drowned her children in their bathtub,
against their will, she believed that she was saving them from devils.

To this day, my 80 year old cousin Norma resents
her mother dressing her in a manner that evoked the scorn of her classmates.

Quote:

I don't know David - as a parent and a teacher I've been put in the role
of telling children what they're supposed to do at any moment of the day for years.
You know, 'It's time to wake up - please get dressed, eat your dinner,
do your homework, take out the trash, walk the dog, bathtime,
time for bed....you get the idea.
Most kids don't find it at all offensive.

That 's fine, as long as it remains UNchallenged
but when he asserts his sovereignty as a human being,
independent of the opinions of society, then THAT is a different matter.
The legitimacy of governance rests in CONSENT.
Without that, its only naked extortion by intimidation.

Quote:

In fact yesterday I was walking my dog and she did her duty if you know what I mean and this woman on the street said to me, 'I hope you intend to clean that up.' I was her adult contemporary, she was maybe ten or twelve years older than I am, but still, and I looked at her and said, 'I certainly will.' And I did. I did not get offended or feel that I needed to vindicate my dignity in any way. I just kept walking my dog.

That was DEFENSIVE.
She saw u & the pooch as threatening her sanitary environment.
Defense = justification.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

In an emergency, I have shouted (to an adult):
"look OUT."
Emergencies r ofen time-sensitive.
Its too long ago for me to remember my childhood
wherein any emergency befell a kid,
but in such situations, I 'd certainly say exactly the same thing.
A warning of danger is not an offense to the dignity;
i.e., giving the impending victim new factual information

.
Exactly! And in my opinion, any child arranging meetings with strange adult males on internet chatrooms is in danger and forceful emergency action is required to inform that child of the dangerous material s/he is playing with and to tell them to stop before they get hurt (or even as Bill as pointed out - before they contribute to the situation in which others will get hurt- if you want to look at it that way).

It's a bad and dangerous situation all the way around David. No good will come out of it.

1 Reply

@aidan,

David wrote:

Quote:

In an emergency, I have shouted (to an adult):
"look OUT."
Emergencies r ofen time-sensitive.
Its too long ago for me to remember my childhood
wherein any emergency befell a kid,
but in such situations, I 'd certainly say exactly the same thing.
A warning of danger is not an offense to the dignity;
i.e., giving the impending victim new factual information

.
aidan wrote:

Quote:

Exactly! And in my opinion, any child arranging meetings
with strange adult males on internet chatrooms is in danger
and forceful emergency action is required to inform that child
of the dangerous material s/he is playing with and to tell them
to stop before they get hurt (or even as Bill as pointed out -
before they contribute to the situation in which others
will get hurt- if you want to look at it that way).

It's a bad and dangerous situation all the way around David.
No good will come out of it.

I must respectfully dissent qua the benefits of being "forceful"
in your dissuasive argument, in terms of potential success.
Upon the basis of my observation: THAT technique is counterproductive.

I believe that if u wish to be taken seriously -- if u wish to have credibility--
that u not address the child in a commanding voice.
Its better to apply Lyndon Johnson 's dictum:
"come, let us reason together."

I made a particular point of that in the 1980s, when I argued
with my girlfriend of the time, Marilyn, that
(having drunk over half a pint of 151 proof rum) she shoud not
put her 4 year old child next to her in her car and drive to a crack house,
whereupon said child piped up, in support of her mother,
that thay were going to drive to the crack house.

I thought that it was important to address her on as equal a level
as I was able to, informing her of the dangers of recreational narcotics.
I explained some of the possible consequences, in a non-menacing,
non-judgmental collegial manner, to the fullest extent of my ability.
It worked.

I think that when u wanna convince people of things,
its better if u don 't order them around.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Im gonna venture a guess that you werent ever a father Dave.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I made a particular point of that in the 1980s, when I argued
with my girlfriend of the time, Marilyn, that
(having drunk over half a pint of 151 proof rum) she shoud not
put her 4 year old child next to her in her car and drive to a crack house,
whereupon said child piped up, in support of her mother,
that thay were going to drive to the crack house.

I gotta hand it to you, you sure know how to pick them.......

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Im gonna venture a guess that you werent ever a father Dave.

U win, THANK GOODNESS!!!!!

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I made a particular point of that in the 1980s, when I argued
with my girlfriend of the time, Marilyn, that
(having drunk over half a pint of 151 proof rum) she shoud not
put her 4 year old child next to her in her car and drive to a crack house,
whereupon said child piped up, in support of her mother,
that thay were going to drive to the crack house.

I gotta hand it to you, you sure know how to pick them.......

In the 1990s, Marilyn attended 2 hospitals
thru whose ministrations she succeeded in liberating herself
from the use of any recreational drug, except tobacco.
Her daughter did not become involved with drugs (so far as I was informed)
and she has a son now who is probably around 10 or 12.

0 Replies

entrapment or not

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know