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. That's right! NOW WHERE ARE MY DOX to prove this is a REGULARLY OCCURRING CRIMINAL EPISODE!?
  2. DOX, DOX, DOX!
  3. Ogsonofgroo Member

    A better question would be, where are the men who are soliciting random shit from kids..... oh wait....
    Why you ask? Looking?

    Good lord you are such a twit.

    Meanwhile, over 400 people a year are murdered by cops, thousands of children in america go to bed hungry, the US has polluted so much of their own water that whole states are losing their agriculture, some stupid cult is raping minds, and China are haxors your systems, war is waged for control of heroin, oil, and cheap labour, on-and-on, and you expect our humble little community to give a shit about a couple of fools who wants to talk sex with kids???
    Use yer farking IQ and try to imagine how much near everyone here does. not. give. a fuck. about some stupid fucking chicken-hawks down in the anus of america getting caught being stupid.
    Cheer yourself in the notion you distracted a couple of good people for a few minutes trying to speak some sense to you, but hang your head you are too dumb to realise you're in the wrong fucking place for stupid like this.

    I am thinking moar an' moar, you are sounding like someone who either got caught with hands in the kiddy-jar, or you have a relative humidity.
    Here to fuck with a cult of misery and grief, fuckitybyeeee>>>>>>>>
  4. Ogsonofgroo Member

    WTF dude?
    I don't give a shit about your butt-hurt cause at all, why the hell are you asking for dox? Really, are you that dumb?

    Gah!
  5. Ogsonofgroo Member

    My analogy of this entire thread is.... someone looking for a 1936 tractor piston on a Thai cooking channel. Get it yet?
  6. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Now, back to our regularly espoused cause~
    asb.jpg
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. My "IQ" tells me that there is NOTHING you can do about those problems that you have mentioned UNLESS of course you have someone on the inside. Do you? Who is on the inside to give you the "books"? Who is on the inside to not just give you the "fall guy" but the people responsible?
  9. You have nobody and those "books" are far from your grasp. This, however, is NOT far from your grasp and while it may not be nothing but a trivial task, it is a small step in getting to the root of your other concerns. I can assure you that the people behind the illegal stings have a strong connection with the more severe problems that you and I both agree exist!

  10. No, no, no! I am required to prove my points with dox and I have done that! Therefore, you guys should provide dox to me that your "weak assumptions" are true!

  11. Ok, you don't care but what about everyone else that has so adamantly objected to my truths with unsupported opinions.
  12. Ogsonofgroo Member

    They likely all think you're an idiot too, go read the whole thread, your own derp, in one sitting. You are a troll in the wrong place, with a stupid agenda, deal with it.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. LMAO! All I see when I read it is a bunch of know it all assholes that think they have the world figured out!
  14. Random guy Member


    No, and the policewoman on the street with her fishnet isn't a real prostitute either. The point that the sting is not performed by an actual 14 year old girl is entirely besides the point. I think we should put that bit to rest and discuss more dubious points like money incentives.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Random guy Member

    The same way a drug dealer go down when he tries to buy drugs/sell drugs to a policeman posing a dealer. The crime is entirely fabricated, but the law is equally entirely clear.

    Sting are artificial situations to lure criminals into doing crimes in a setting so that evidence is easy to collect. It is legal, not only for drugs. but also for sexual exploitations of children, oeconomic crimes, smuggling, fauna crime etc. You may not like it, but that does not make it illegal.


    If someone sex up what they believe is an under-age person on-line and proceed to to travel to met this someone, the law says he has committed a crime. Whether the person is an actual under-age girl/boy is not relevant. Whether the channel is not the normal channel for soliciting those kinds of deals is not relevant. That really is the long and short of it.

    No-one demand you agree with the law, only that you comply. As a free citizen of a democracy, you are at liberty to try to win support to change that law if you don't like it. If you do not succeed, it means the majority of your compatriots (or at least those who bother to have an opinion) want that to be the law, no matter how unjust you think it is. If you can't live with it, you are free to move to a place with laws more to your liking.

    (I can't believe Johnny Foreigner me has to lecture a native on their own democratic system!)
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Random guy Member


    Well, the only cases we have seen dox posted on also included travelling there, which I believe is still illegal in Texas.

    Please also note that the law vary from state to state. What's legals in Texas may not be legal in Florida and vice versa. See for example: http://www.tampaflsexcrimesdefenselawyers.com/Sex-Crimes/Online-Solicitation-of-a-Minor.aspx (Florida) and http://www.state.tn.us/tccy/tnchild/39/39-13-529.htm (Tennessee)
  17. Random guy Member



    So, you ask for dox, wait one minute and conclude that there are non?

    Here's an example from Craiglist (took me all of 2 minutes with google):

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...boy-found-craigslist-police-article-1.1774619
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Random guy Member


    Because they are adults they are required by law to believe it. It is as simple as that.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. In law the stings are supposed to model the actual crime. These stings don't when they violate the standardized procedures. The financial incentive is causing them to break the law and model the stings after rarely (if ever) occurring crimes. The men targeted are not child predators but are engaged in a legal activity that is easy to manipulate to make it appear to be illegal. Stings, like drug stings are supposed to target the people already engaged in the crime and not just anyone who simply might take the bait should the opportunity cross their path. Drug cases are thrown out all the time where it cannot be proven that the person is either an addict or a dealer. These stings should be no different and use the same criteria particularly since most of the men would never even come across a real minor soliciting them for sex.
  20. No, no, no now! I said record numbers. You can't just find one. I have another dox where police say it is rare. We are talking about it being so prevalent that 36 teens can be found doing it in four days every month for ten years since those are the outrageous arrest numbers due to this financial incentive.
  21. No they are not and LE are certainly not allowed to try to make them believe it. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he believed it and it can't be done under these procedural violations.
  22. No! It does not matter what the people say if the constitution does not support it! Literally EVERYONE can support a law (or gov action in this case) but if the constitution does not protect it, the law is shut down! Where do you get your info? Might I suggest not trying to "lecture" me with stupidity and bring some truth to the table that is not easily disputed with constitutional law.
  23. No she is not a real prostitute but represents a real prostitute that had stood on the same corner during some recent period of time!
  24. nightfire Member

    400px-Sea_otters.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  25. Random guy Member

    That is debatable, which is why there is a court and a judge to look over things. Innocent until proven guilty means the burden of proof is on the law enforcement agency. If the case is a clear-cut as you say, why are we even debating this? These stings would be thrown right out of court, and the agencies would stop doing them because the were wasting everybody's money and time.

    The fact that they aren't indicate it far from as straight forward as you claim.

    If so, the same procedural arguments should hold equally well in court in regards to the paedophile stings. Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to argue the case successfully based on the case laws of the failed drug stings. Are you saying that lawyers either 1) will not argue these cases or 2) that they are unable to use case laws from other types of stings in their procedures?
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Random guy Member

    In an idealized world, I suppose you are right, but from the fight with the CoS we know all too well that the US legal system is far from ideal and juridical world can be a maze of laws and counter laws with no clear-cut answer. A juridical practice in breach of some aspects of the Constitution will stand unless someone has the juridical standing and is (oeconomically) able and willing to challenge it on constitutional grounds. Until that happens, or the law is changed, the juridical practice stands.

    We could for instance start with the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. Despite the Constitution very clearly saying the Congress shall pass no law regarding religion, laws exists giving special favours to religious institutions in the form of tax exemption. It is in blatant breach of the Constitution, but since such high number of USfags has a hard-on for invisible friends in the sky, the laws have stood for decades.
  27. Random guy Member

    Again the policewoman-dressed-as-a-hooker in the posh parts of town aspect. The guy who try to buy a blow-job from her, purely apart from being stupid, is he guilty of buying sex or not?
    • Like Like x 1
  28. nightfire Member

    Moar because moar!!!!!eleventy! September-07-2012-20-41-00-r1Aeh.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  29. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  30. anonysamvines Member


    Shoulda, woulda, coulda
    <rolls eyes>

    You SAY some men are just on the site for sexting
    Yet the cases you cite (note the spelling because I KNOW what the words mean) actually prove the opposite!
    THE CASES YOU CITE!
    The very cases you cite as proof of their innocence, the very reasons you give as reason for us to have compassion ...
    Are the ones I so easily use to display your bias and cognitive dissonance.
    That the men you so so vehemently claim as "your own" and whose word is beyond reproach are lying to you!
    Not only lying to you, but your belief in them is causing you to lie to yourself!
    Much much worse than any LE ever could!

    And remember

    ANons are people who know the dangers of the "Party Van" and the "unfair and illegal" tactics they use when they are motivated by reasons other than justice!

    Do I drink the Kool Aid?
    No one who has followed my posting history would say so.
    Especially when I have called people out

    Are you drinking the Koop aid of your "own"?
    Yes
    Will you ever believe it
    Probably not
    (But my X chromosomes kick in here and I really, really hope you will some day.
    And that you learn from it and move on
    We ALL DO and HAVE DONE stupid stuff, stuff that makes us blush!
    Recognising it is what stops us repeating it again and again while expecting a different result)

    But I honestly hope you do
    I hate seeing people hurt themselves as you do
  31. anonysamvines Member

    Ah that is so funny coming from you
    Yet another attempt to deselect from the paucity of your argument and "evidence"

    Each time I respond to you, I bring in another YET another reason why the "evidence" you cite over and over and over (always with claims of knowledge, personal and professional, that states otherwise than agrees or appears to agree with you but that you never ever actually state) ACTUALLY PROVES THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES

    Each time you either ignore it totally, repeat what you have already said, or both.
    And/or you resort to insults

    This being a $cientology critic board in the main, we are well versed in "Always attack, never defend" and "keep throwing any irrelevant and/or unsubstantiated rhetoric" at any dissent to see through it!

    So I say to you

    IS THAT ALL YOU GOT?

    Respond to the questions and points put to you
    Honestly
    Even a "I don't know and I can see how that would seem suspect" would get you more respect!
  32. anonysamvines Member

    If not ALL of these men - of whom you have previously stated you have PERSONALLY SPOKEN TO (unlike us retard kool aid drinkers who need to be educated)
    WHY ARE YOU NOT CITING THEIR CASES AND EVIDENCE.
    Instead of citing cases that can so easily be disparaged?

    Why do you not respond to the many valid points put before you in those cases you do quote?

    Where are the many, many, many cases that would actually reinforce your position?
  33. anonysamvines Member

    We partially agree
    Indecency with a child SHOULD be as equal a consequence as a 2nd degree felony!

    We don't agree on anything else

    ESPECIALLY WITH THE CASES YOU CHOOSE TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL INJUSTICE
  34. nightfire Member

    They aren't doing that because they can't... it's that simple.
    Which is why I'm now posting otters.
    you otter do the same!
  35. anonysamvines Member

    IF?
    IF?
    They don't argue with their own socks lol
    not rocket science is it lmfao
  36. anonysamvines Member

    (Al Pacino voice)
    ARE YOU RANTING AT ME?
    • Like Like x 1
  37. anonysamvines Member


    About time you got real and grow up

    Do you REALLY THINK an ad on Craig's list would say COME FUCK MY UNDERAGE ASS/MY UNDERAGE DAUGHTER.

    if so then I have a both a bridge and some slightly moist land to sell you
    Just like the $cientology ads on Craig''s list have whatever they purport to be selling/giving for free
  38. anonysamvines Member

    Actually, personally speaking
    I HATE the social control thing.
    I see the need for it when it is beneficial to society - like with drunk driving, pollution, minimum wage, child sex etc
    But hate it when it stifles diversity and change

    I prefer people take responsibility for their own action
    But hey, ain't never gonna happen is it?
    Not only while people won't take responsibility for their own actions but also have CUNTS like Florida whatever and her socks making excuses for them!

    So until then I take the imperfect LE
    And pointing out when they fall short

    Which hasn't been shown in the cases put before us
    (Quite the opposite in fact)

    But then I am a liberal with a conscience!
  39. anonysamvines Member


    By the way
    Highest
    Does NOT mean ONLY
  40. anonysamvines Member

    IF that is true
    EVER THOUGHT OF USING IT?
    • Like Like x 1

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